Have nothing to do with the [evil] things that people do, things that belong to the darkness. Instead, bring them out to the light... [For] when all things are brought out into the light, then their true nature is clearly revealed...

-Ephesians 5:11-13

Category Archives: Constitution

Obama Could Bypass the Senate to Ratify the UN Arms Trade Treaty

Indoor Shooting Range at Sarasota, Florida, US...

A week ago both Mississippi Republican senators, Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker, announced their support of S.B. 2205—the Second Amendment Sovereignty Act of 2012—that would allegedly protect American citizens from any abrogation of their Second Amendment rights if the UN Arms Trade Treaty was signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in July. That makes a total of 17 senators who are supporting the bill.

The bill, identical to one offered in the House, would “prohibit funding to negotiate a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty that restricts the Second Amendment rights of United States citizens.” The bill notes the threat being imposed by the Obama Department of State and its secretary, Hillary Clinton:

Congress makes the following findings:

  1. In October 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced the United States support and participation in negotiating the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, to be finalized in 2012, signaling a shift in United States policy.
  2. An Arms Trade Treaty that regulates the domestic manufacture, possession, or purchase of civilian firearms and ammunition would infringe on the rights of United States citizens protected under the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

It is the sense of Congress that the sovereignty of the United States and the constitutionally protected freedoms of American gun owners must be upheld and not be undermined by the Arms Trade Treaty.

No funds may be obligated or expended to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States, in connection with negotiations for a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, to restrict in any way the rights of United States citizens under the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or to otherwise regulate domestic manufacture, assembly, possession, use, transfer, or purchase of firearms, ammunition, or related items, including small arms, light weapons, or related materials.

Senator Cochran said, “This legislation sends the Obama administration a very clear signal that

Keep reading…

Ron Paul’s Freedom Movement is Just Getting Started

Ron Paul's Rally for the Republic.

Ron Paul's Rally for the Republic. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In his latest statement to his supporters, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul answered a number of questions but left open many more. After announcing in May that he would no longer participate in any other presidential primaries but would concentrate instead on states where primaries had already been held in the hopes of generating additional support, his supporters now know two things: First, he has no chance of winning the Republican nomination in Tampa, Florida, over the weekend of August 27, with just 200 bound delegates. Second, he expects there will be more than 500 delegates there supporting his position, which is far more than anyone anticipated.

He wrote:

We stand to send nearly 200 bound delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa. This number shatters the predictions of the pundits and talking heads and shows the seriousness of our movement.

What’s more, we will send several hundred additional supporters to Tampa who, while bound to Romney, believe in our ideas of liberty, constitutional government, and a common-sense foreign policy.

When it is all said and done, we will likely have as many as 500 supporters as delegates on the Convention floor…and while this is not enough to win the nomination, it puts us in a tremendous position to grow our movement and shape the future of the GOP!

This clarifies the purpose of his efforts during the presidential campaign. He likely never expected to win the nomination. What he hoped would happen is exactly what did happen:

Keep reading…

STARS Act, GOP’s Dream Act, Introduced

English: David Rivera during his time in the F...

On Wednesday Rep. David Rivera (R-Fla.) introduced his bill, “Studying Towards Adjusted Status Act” or the STARS Act, in an effort to break the logjam over immigration reform and provide a path to U.S. citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.

By his side was the “poster child” for immigration reform, a student at North Miami Senior High School and valedictorian of her class, Daniela Pelaez. She received national attention back in March when a judge ordered her to be deported as an illegal immigrant back to Colombia. Following the order, more than 1,000 of her classmates protested and the issue made headlines across the country. The Obama administration intervened, granting her a two-year temporary stay.

Pelaez represents one of the consequences of a porous, ill-defined and only casually enforced immigration policy. She was born in Colombia but moved to America with her parents when she was four. When the family’s temporary visas expired they simply stayed in the country. Her father eventually became a permanent resident but her mother, who returned to Colombia for medical reasons, is unable to return. Daniela went on to perform brilliantly in her studies and currently boasts a remarkable 6.7 grade point average. She graduates next week and has been accepted at Dartmouth College with a career goal of becoming a heart surgeon.

The STARS Act would allow illegal immigrants like Pelaez to

Keep reading…

Privacy-Eliminating CISPA Awaits Fate in the Senate

Stop CISPA

Despite an increasingly noisy chorus of resistance to many of its provisions, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) passed the House, 248-168, on April 26. Passage in the House was assured with more than 70 percent of those supported by the Tea Party voting for it. It moved to an uncertain future in the Senate.

That opposition noted that the bill’s many flaws included precious little “protection” for rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, especially those guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In the zeal to “protect” the country against “cybersecurity threats,” Internet providers and other communications companies would be allowed to share their customers’ private information with agencies of the federal government, and vice versa. As Techdirt’s Leigh Breadon explained,

[The] government would be able to search information it collects under CISPA for the purposes of investigating American citizens with complete immunity from all privacy protections as long as they can claim someone committed a “cybersecurity crime.”

Basically it says the 4th Amendment does not apply online, at all.

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said virtually the same thing in his opposition to CISPA:

CISPA permits both the federal government and private companies to view your private online communications without judicial oversight [as required by the Fourth Amendment] provided that they do so of course in the name of cybersecurity.

The bill is another heavy-handed effort to expand government’s surveillance of private citizens’ communications without restraint. By using words such as “may” instead of “must” and “cybersecurity” without defining the term, the bill creates just the sort of opening through the Fourth Amendment that has, until now, largely

Keep reading…

Arizona Keeps Obama on Ballot

President-elect Barack Obama shakes a Marine's...

Upon receipt of verification from Hawaii that President Obama was born there, Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett said that it satisfies his state’s requirement for placing the President’s name on the ballot for the November election.

After a delay of eight weeks, Bennett finally received verification that allowed him to get out from under national attention he received when he first made the request to Hawaii’s Department of Health. Bennett had responded to a constituent’s request that he verify Obama’s place of birth before allowing his name to be placed on the ballot. When the pressure from an ongoing investigation into Obama’s origins continued to build and Hawaii delayed in responding, Bennett was apparently looking for a way out.

Bennett agreed to see Mike Zullo, Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s lead investigator in the matter, to review the evidence already uncovered that appeared to question the President’s place of birth. Following that interview, Zullo said that Bennett was clearly uncomfortable, remained unconvinced, but was troubled by

Keep reading…

Attacks on Local Police Could Lead to National Police Force

Photo of a police officer, Boston, USA

The conservative think tank Cato Institute has announced its latest effort to hold local police accountable by establishing its National Police Misconduct Reporting Project. Its purpose is to “determine the extent of police misconduct in the United States, identify trends affecting police misconduct, and report on issues about police misconduct in order to enhance public awareness on issues regarding police misconduct in the U.S.”

Its website, www.policemisconduct.net, currently lists an increasing number of incidents involving police officers who have stepped outside the bounds of their duty. One after another, incidents such as “Lanagan, MO police chief, officer indicted, suspended for forgery“; “Denver police officer allegedly sexually assaulted a woman during a traffic stop”; and “Dallas City Council approves $500,000 for settlement for motorcyclist whose beating was caught on police dash-cam” are presented on its website in its attempt to educate citizens about such illegal behavior by the men in blue.

Cato says its purposes are honorable: “Only a small fraction of the 17,000 law enforcement agencies [in the country] actually track their own misconduct…and even when they do, the data…is generic and does not specify what misconduct occurred, who did it, and what the end result was.”

The institute obtains its data from all media sources, and the facts are verified by its staff before being posted on the website. Further, the staff working on the project want

Keep reading…

New Evidence that Obama Was Born in Kenya is Explained Away

Stanley Armour Dunham, Ann Dunham, Maya Soetor...

When Joel Pollak, a columnist for Brietbart.com, exposed his findings that a biographical sketch of Barack Obama in 1991 stated that he “was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii,” senior management deemed it prudent to distance itself from the “Birther” issue with this disclaimer:

Andrew Breitbart was never a “Birther,” and Breitbart News is a site that has never advocated the narrative of “Birtherism.” In fact, Andrew believed, as we do, that President Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961…

[The biographical sketch that we discovered] is evidence—not of the President’s foreign origin, but that Barack Obama’s public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times.

The sketch, contained in a 36-page promotional booklet along with those of 89 other authors, was designed to target interested persons in the publishing industry about upcoming books by the authors. Obama at the time was promoting a book entitled Journeys in Black and White that he failed to complete. But the booklet remained in the public domain from 1991 until April 2007 when it was “corrected.” In another release by Brieitbart, the original language of Obama’s bio read: 

Keep reading…

Policing for Profit in Tennessee

Asset ForfeitureWhen George Reby was pulled over for speeding in Putnam County, Tennessee, little did he know it was going to cost him $22,000 despite never being charged with a crime.

An insurance investigator from New Jersey, Reby was driving down Interstate 40 on his way to a convention. He had $22,000 in cash with him, rolled up in 22 $1000 packages in a bag, which he intended to use to purchase a car that he had found on eBay. From the video provided by NewsChannel 5 in Nashville, Reby was stopped for speeding and the following conversation between Reby and Office Larry Bates took place:

Bates: Are you carrying any cash?

Reby: Around $20,000.

Bates: Do you mind if I search your vehicle?

Reby: No, I don’t mind.

From there it all went downhill. Bates seized the money under the suspicion that Reby might be planning to use the money to purchase illegal drugs. When interviewed by NewsChannel 5, Bates was asked why he was suspicious: 

Keep reading…

The DoJ Wants to Track Your Smartphone Without a Warrant

Artist's impression of a GPS-IIRM satellite in...

In its relentless never-ending quest for more power to track and follow American citizens through their smartphones, the Department of Justice (DoJ) requested last week that Congress give them easier access to location data stored by cellphone service providers.

Jason Weinstein, a deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice’s criminal division, argued that requiring a search warrant to gain such access would “cripple” his department’s efforts to investigate crime and criminals. Said Weinstein,

There is really no fairness and no justice when the law applies differently to different people depending on which courthouse you’re sitting in.

For that reason alone, we think Congress should clarify the legal standard.

In other words, because the laws protecting privacy vary somewhat depending upon where an individual citizen lives, Congress should come along and override them all and provide a federal, looser standard, all in the name of security.

The increasing sophistication of cellphone and communications technology in general allows service providers to track virtually every movement of an individual, day or night, at home or work, in a bar or on a golf course. Malte Spitz, a German politician and privacy advocate, obtained his own

Keep reading…

Three Recent Carjackings: Variations on a Theme

Carjacking suspect crash on I5

When two elderly sisters were attacked by a thug with a knife in an attempted carjacking in Madison, New Jersey, on Monday, they were lucky things didn’t go awry.

The ladies, who wished to remain anonymous, aged 93 and 94, had parked in the lot outside of a CVS Pharmacy and went inside to pick up some prescriptions. They left their car unlocked, which allowed a local thug, Sergio Fernando Solorzano-Vasquez, to climb into the back and wait for the sisters to return. When they returned he attacked them with a knife.

The thug got a surprise when the older sister, in the driver’s seat, reached around and struck the assailant with her right arm while the younger sister jumped out of the car and started screaming. The thug made the right decision and ran from the car and the scene but not before three surveillance cameras got him on film. He was quickly arrested and taken into custody.

The sisters were lucky, and plucky. They were in what Jeff Cooper taught was “condition white,” oblivious to any dangers that might be nearby and therefore unprepared for the attack. For years Cooper trained thousands to avoid condition white as potential miscreants, like Vasquez, are trained to look for people existing “in their own world” and therefore vulnerable to a surprise attack.

But the sisters had something going for them which, in this case, protected them from serious or even fatal injury: the determination not to

Keep reading…

Ammunition Shortage Coming?

5.56x45mm ammo on M249 belt

It wasn’t until April 18 that Mike Adams, the “Health Ranger” writing for his NaturalNews.com blog, noticed that Alliant Techsystems, or ATK, had announced in March that they had been awarded a huge contract to produce up to 450 million rounds of .40 S&W caliber jacketed hollow point ammunition for the Departments of Homeland Security (HSA) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). And then he got nervous.

ATK is one of the largest suppliers to the Defense Department with more than 18,000 employees in 22 states including the largest small caliber manufacturing facility in the western world located in Lake City, Missouri. With ATK’s 500 buildings located on 4,000 acres, all Adams could see was trouble behind the contract. He asked: “What does DHS intend to do with 450 million rounds of barrier-piercing hollow point ammunition?”

First of all, such ammunition isn’t used for practice—it’s too expensive. Secondly, hollow point ammunition is “the kind of ammo used by police officers who want to shatter the bad guy’s sternum as quickly as possible and thereby bring him to the ground…” Thirdly, DHS is a domestic agency and therefore, according to Adams:

That the DHS is contracting to buy 450 million rounds of hollow point ammo can only mean DHS plans to need this this ammo to be used against the American people.

Adams looked into the matter further and uncovered a presentation that Maj. General Buford C. Blount III made before the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee of the House Committee on Armed Services back in 2004. After a careful reading of that testimony, Adams concluded that 450 million rounds is enough ammunition to wage war on the American people for ten years.

Adams’ riffing on the HSA’s purposes might be ignored except that ammunition shortages are beginning to show up in gun stores. In Killeen, Texas, for example, David Cheadle, manager for local gun shop Guns Galore, said that “in the last month, I’ve noticed that when I call [my] distributors, there’s really nothing available.” It could just be driven by people receiving their

Keep reading…

CISPA Assumes Too Much Trust in Government

iPad tablet

In a surprise move the White House issued a statement on Wednesday threatening to veto CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Actbecause of privacy concerns. Parts of the statement sounded as if they had been drafted by Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul:

The sharing of information [between private agencies and the federal government] must be conducted in a manner that preserves American’s privacy, data confidentiality, and civil liberties and recognizes the civilian nature of cyberspace. Cybersecurity and privacy are not mutually exclusive…

[CISPA]…repeal[s] important provisions of electronic surveillance law without instituting corresponding privacy, confidentiality, and civil liberties safeguards…

The bill also lacks sufficient limitation on the sharing of personally identifiable information…and does not contain adequate oversight or accountability measures…to ensure that the data is used only for appropriate purposes…

The bill effectively treats domestic cybersecurity as an intelligence activity and thus, significantly departs from longstanding efforts to treat the Internet and cyberspace as civilian spheres.

This is the first time in recent memory that the White House has expressed any such concerns. When signing into law the controversial National Defense Authorization Act [NDAA] the White House blithely ignored its trampling of those same civil liberties through its “indefinite detention” provisions. Nor did the White House raise any similar concerns when it issued its executive order commandeering all resources from American citizens in the event of an emergency to be declared by the president.

So the following from the White House’s statement on CISPA makes perfect sense: the White House favors government regulation of the internet and invasion of privacy without following the Fourth Amendment. It just doesn’t want

Keep reading…

CISPA is Big Brother’s Friend

CISPA - The solution is the problem

This is “cybersecurity week,” according to Brock Meeks at Wired.com when CISPA (the Orwellian-named Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act) is scheduled to move to the House floor for a vote. Offered originally before SOPA (the Stop Online Piracy Act) and its sister PIPA (Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act) were blown up in January, Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) have offered some amendments to the bill (H.R. 3523) to soften some of its critics and to avoid the same result.

The primary problem, according to Meeks, is that it tries to kill a flea with a baseball bat: Any alleged security the bill offers against potential hackers “comes at the expense of unfettered government access to our personal information, which is then likely to be sucked into the secretive black hole of the spying complex known as the National Security Agency.”

Despite some window dressing by Mssrs. Rogers and Ruppersberger, the bill still has major problems. First it has “an overly broad, almost unlimited definition of the information [that] can be shared [by private Internet companies] with government agencies.” It overrides existing federal or state privacy laws with its language that says information between private and public agencies is shared “notwithstanding any other provision of law.”

In addition, the bill would create a “backdoor wiretap program” because the information being shared isn’t limited specifically to issues of cybersecurity but could be used for any other purpose as well. The language is unclear about what would trigger a CISPA investigation: “efforts to degrade, disrupt or destroy” a network. Would that apply to someone innocently downloading a

Keep reading…

New Fast and Furious Book Could Take Obama Down

President Barack Obama meet with Cabinet offic...

The reviews of Townhall.com’s contributing editor Katie Pavlich’s book Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and Its Shameless Coverup have been unremittingly positive. Critics of it have been strangely silent, perhaps hoping that the potential tsunami of indignation and anger from Pavlich’s revelations will somehow fail to materialize and the whole disagreeable matter will just disappear down history’s memory hole.

David Limbaugh made clear what her book reveals:

Of all the Obama administration scandals, Fast and Furious is the one the mainstream media would most like us to ignore because it’s the most dangerous for Obama and his cronies. Katie Pavlich draws back the curtain on a radical administration that put Mexican and American lives at risk for no discernible reason other than to advance an ideological agenda. Katie is a terrific reporter and whistleblower….

Pavlich exposes how extreme gun control measures have been a top political goal for President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and other important leaders within the administration—and she draws the lines that link this goal directly to the implementation of Fast and Furious. Just as importantly, she shows how the administration has shamelessly tried to obscure those links.

Michelle Malkin pulls no punches either, writing that Pavlich’s book “targets the corruption, incompetence, obstructionism, lawlessness, and anti-gun radicalism of the Obama White House…and [is] a must-have guide to the biggest stain on the Obama administration.”

The evidence so painstakingly collected by Pavlich ever since the murder of ATF agent Brian Terry on December 15, 2010 is so convincing that Pavlich herself

NBC Manipulating the Facts Again?

The News with Brian Williams

Journalist Scott Cohn’s piece on Remington Arms Company‘s allegedly faulty trigger mechanism that aired on NBC News’ Rock Center With Brian Williams on Wednesday night, April 11, made it sound as if Remington not only has known it produces a faulty trigger but has steadfastly refused to do anything about it, for 60 years.

Opening with a heart-rending interview of Justen Yerger, who was shot when his Remington Sportsman 12 shotgun allegedly went off by itself, Cohn made clear the primary purpose of the interview: to promote government control of guns:

No government agency can order a manufacturer to recall a defective gun. In fact, Congress specifically barred the Consumer Product Safety Commission from regulating firearms and ammunition, in keeping with the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. That means gun manufacturers police themselves.

Piling on the emotional appeal, an expert interviewed by NBC—Tom Butters—claimed that Remington “put profits over human lives.” And, according to NBC, Yerger isn’t the only one to suffer at the hands of one of Remington’s shotguns either. There’s also Russell Chaney, who suffered the loss of two of his fingers when his Remington shotgun

Keep reading…

Romney Expected to “Reassure” NRA on Second Amendment

Summer's End. Lexington Green, 11 September 20...

On Friday, April 13, apparent Republican front-runner Mitt Romney will address the national convention of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in St. Louis where a nervous audience will seek “reassurance” on his stand on the Second Amendment. Said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam, “I think what the members are looking for is reassurance. I think they are looking for a statement of support for the Second Amendment from Gov. Romney and we are confident that is what we will get.” Words of such support from Romney may be enough to persuade doubters to vote from him if he gets the Republican Party’s nomination.

Joe Tartaro, president of the Second Amendment Foundation, says the alternative would be a disaster: “If President Obama is re-elected as a lame duck there would be no political restraints on him.” He would be free, according to Tartaro, to push through a long list of anti-gun measures just waiting to be enacted, including reinstatement of the federal “assault-weapons” ban that expired in 2004.

Democrats defending Obama say he has no such agenda. Matt Bennett, an official in the Clinton administration and now head of the progressive think tank Third Way, said “There is zero appetite for new gun laws in Congress, and the president cannot act on his own.” Alan Gottlieb, the founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, disagreed, reminding Bennett that Obama’s expanded use of executive orders are likely to impinge on those gun rights regardless of lack of “appetite” for such measures in Congress. Obama could use executive orders to curb the import and export of guns and ammunition, for example. And, given the opportunity, Obama could try to pack the courts with judges favorable to further restrictions on the Second Amendment. Said Gottlieb:

With all the Second Amendment litigation going on right now, if Obama is able to stack the courts with his kind of judges, he basically will be slamming the courthouse doors in the face of gun owners.

Some observers are expressing doubt that Romney, if elected, will be any better. In 2007 David Kopelwriting for National Review, questioned Romney’s veracity about his claim to being “a hunter pretty much all my life” when it was learned later that he had

Keep reading…

President Obama Pokes the Supreme Court … Again

First Floor at the Statute of John Marshall in...

President Obama, commenting on the judicial review being undertaken by the Supreme Court on his premier signature legislation, ObamaCare, challenged the court to uphold his law or be considered “activists” legislating from the bench. Said the President:

Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. I guess I would remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. For an unelected group of people to somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law is a good example of that, and I’m pretty sure this court will recognize that and not take that step.

This isn’t the first time the President has directed barbs at the Supreme Court. During his State of the Union address two years ago he looked down on the Justices seated below him and said their recent decision on Citizens United opened the “floodgates” to unlimited independent election spending.

This time the President’s use of the words “unprecedented,” “extraordinary” and “unelected” elicited howls of protest from observers such as Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who responded that “It would be nice living in a fantasy world where every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don’t like is ‘activist.’ ” Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) joined in, saying he was “disappointed” by the President’s warning:

It is not unprecedented at all for the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional; they do that on a regular basis, so it’s not unprecedented at all.

What is unprecedented is…the president of the United States trying to intimidate the Supreme Court.

Even the Wall Street Journal excoriated the President over his remarks, chiding him that he “needs a remedial course in judicial review.” How could the President, allegedly a constitutional scholar and professor at the University of Chicago and president of the Harvard Law Review, not remember the pivotal case, Marbury v. Madison, decided 209 years ago and considered as perhaps the singular landmark case in the history of law? That case helped define the constitutional boundaries between the Executive and Judicial branches of the fledgling republic and was the first time in Western history that a court invalidated a law by declaring it to be unconstitutional. As noted by the Journal:

In Marbury in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall laid down the doctrine of judicial review. In the 209 years since, the Supreme Court has invalidated part or all of countless laws on grounds that they violated the Constitution. All of those laws were passed by a “democratically elected” legislature of some kind, either Congress or in one of the states. And no doubt many of them were passed by “strong” majorities.

The decision specifically ruled that “Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the Judicial system to interpret what the Constitution permits.” [Emphasis added.] In writing the unanimous decision, Chief Justice John Marshal said, “The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws and not of men…”

Judge Andrew Napolitano made much the same point in this Fox News commentary:

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul also weighed in on the matter by reminding his readers that not only should the Supreme Court

Keep reading…

Car Dealer Explains Gun Rights to CNN Anchor [VIDEO]

AK47 icon

Whenever the contrast between the media’s vision of the world conflicts with the world as it really is shows up on YouTube, it’s usually delightful to watch. This time, the leftie lady is shredded by the response to her loaded questions about gun rights.

She repeatedly asks: “Isn’t that somehow inappropriate, that you’re giving away vouchers for AK47 rifles to your buyers of new cars and trucks?”

He responds: “Why would that be inappropriate? I’m a businessman. I sell cars and trucks.”

She asks: “Is that just a tad irresponsible?”

He responds: “It might be a little grandstanding…but what about the guy and his wife with twelve children who killed by seven guys coming through the door. I’ll guarantee you he wishes he had an AK47 as those maggots busted through his door and slaughtered him and his wife in front of his twelve children.”

She asks: “But police officers are shot in the line of duty all the time and they carry guns every day so some might not think that’s a great argument.”

He responds: “Well, I personally would like to have a sporting chance instead of just becoming a victim…”

She asks: “Your motto is God, Guns, Guts and American pickup trucks. Why did you come up with that particular motto?”

He responds: “Because we sell cars.”

She asks: “Yes but include God in that. Some might wonder why God would be included in a motto that also includes guns.”

He responds: “You don’t have a problem with God, do you?”

She responds: “No I don’t, but the combination…some people might have a problem with that.”

He responds: “We’re a Christian nation. We’re a Christian people…”

She says: “I just think putting God into a motto that also includes guns might be upsetting to some people.”

See the rest of the interview. It’ll make your day!

NBC’s Altered Zimmerman Tape Exposes Agenda

Image representing NBC Universal as depicted i...

Following the exposure of NBC’s edited conversation between George Zimmerman and a police dispatcher prior to the shooting of Trayvon Martin, NBC announced its investigation into the matter. NBC told the Washington Post on Saturday, “We have launched an internal investigation into the editorial process surrounding this particular story.”

On March 17 NBC anchor Ron Allen ran a segment on the Today show that included an edited version of Zimmerman’s conversation just prior to the shooting of Martin:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good…. He looks black.

Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?

Zimmerman: Yeah, a dark hoodie.

On Thursday Sean Hannity interviewed Brent Bozell from the Media Research Center on his Fox News Media Mash and played the edited and the original unedited versions of the conversation. Here is the unedited version:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy—is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

After playing both segments, Hannity asked Bozell for his comments:

Hannity: What about NBC News?

Bozell: NBC News…they are despicable in this. I want to say it again. They outright advanced a falsehood on national television. They outright told a deliberate lie on national television.

Members of the mainstream media appeared to be caught in the middle, trying to justify the alteration but wanting to distance themselves from NBC. For instance, Erik Wemplewriting for the Washington Post, called NBC’s editing “ham-handed” instead of deliberate manipulation but admitted that

Keep reading…

Colorado Senator Bennet Refuses to Answer Questions About the NDAA

Michael Bennet, Colorado Politician

I have rarely been as concerned for the future of freedom and our Constitution as I have been since the passage last December of S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012.  I have rarely felt more frustrated with a politician than I am with Colorado Senator Michael Bennet (D) for responding to concerns about NDAA with nothing but disinformation and silence.

People with expertise in this area have voiced grave concerns about provisions of NDAA, particularly in Section 1031, which allow the government to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without charge or due process based on mere suspicions about their support for terrorism or terrorist organizations.

Concerns about provisions so antithetical to the Constitution would be warranted any time.  But, they’re even more ominous since the Department of Homeland Security told us in 2009 it considers ordinary citizens who exercise their rights to purchase guns or who serve in the military to be “right wing extremists” and potential terrorists.  This motivated me to look a little more deeply into what Colorado Senator Bennet, who voted in favor of S. 1867 had to say.

So, I contacted Senator Bennet’s office in mid-December, 2011 asking him to explain his support for S. 1867 and to clarify concerns about S. 1867 viz-a-viz the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens.

I received an email from Senator Bennet’s office saying

Keep reading…

Many of the articles on Light from the Right first appeared on either The New American or the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor.