The Sheep Dog Rag - 4th ed. 08-22-09

The Sheep Dog Rag
Inspired by Dave Grossman
4th edition AUGUST 22-09

Slim@outdrs.net

Our Men in Iraq - Honorable Sheep Dogs All - Make it home brother warriors

Hello my friends. Now we are into the 4th edition of this rag. We continue to find items of interest that you will not see or hear in the mainstream (corrupt) media. It is important to hear and see the truth now and then or you will be totally misinformed. Our first article is about close associates of our pseudo-president. Again you will not hear about this on TV or read about it in the newspaper. I am sure you want to get on with it, so here goes! WHEEEEEEEEE!
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
ACORN
ACORN engaged in a scheme to use taxpayer money to support a partisan political agenda, according to a new report from Republicans on a House oversight committee. The report, released Thursday, accuses ACORN of fraudulent activities and widespread corruption and calls for a criminal investigation into the advocacy group. It offers the first detailed account of the allegations that have dogged the organization in recent months.
ACORN, or the Association of Community Organizations for Reform, has been under constant fire from conservatives since last year for its support of Barack Obama's presidential candidacy and its planned participation in next year's 2010 census. The report was released by Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Issa's GOP colleagues.
This report is about getting to the truth and when there are significant accusations and questions outstanding regarding an organization that has benefited from millions of taxpayer dollars, those questions should be answered and the truth should be brought to light," Issa said in a statement.
The executive summary of the report says ACORN provided contributions of financial and personnel resources to indicted former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown and candidate Obama, among others, in what the report calls a scheme to use taxpayer money to support a partisan political agenda, which would be a clear violation of numerous tax and election laws."Both structurally and operationally, ACORN hides behind a paper wall of nonprofit corporate protections to conceal a criminal conspiracy on the part of its directors, to launder federal money in order to pursue a "partisan attack job. We are busy fighting to stop the foreclosure crisis, to win quality affordable health carpartisan agenda and to manipulate the American electorate," an executive summary of the report reads. ACORN, which was sent a copy of the executive summary by FOXNews.com, dismissed the report as a e for all Americans and to build a stronger economy for working families, so we haven't had the opportunity to read Rep. Issa's screed at length," Bertha Lewis, CEO of ACORN, said in a written statement to FOXNews.com. "But an initial review indicates that the document is a recycled and repackaged partisan attack job on ACORN's good work," she added.
The report accuses ACORN, after receiving more than $53 million in federal funds since 1994, of blurring the legal distinctions among 361 tax-exempt and non-exempt entities to divert that money into partisan political activities.Evidence found in the report relies in part on documents provided by former ACORN employees.
“Operationally, ACORN is a shell game played in 120 cities, 43 states and the District of Columbia through a complex structure designed to conceal illegal activities, to use taxpayer and tax-exempt dollars for partisan political purposes, and to distract investigators," the report read.
“Structurally, ACORN is a chess game in which senior management is shielded from accountability by multiple layers of volunteers and compensated employees who serve as pawns to take the fall for every bad act. “Kurt Bardella, a spokesman for Issa, said ACORN's response suggests the report "hit a nerve."
“We stand by the findings of the report," he told FOXNews.com. "There are a lot of legitimate questions raised about the political activities and organizational structure of ACORN. We'd certainly like to have a venue and platform for ACORN to respond to our report."
In his statement, Issa said, "It is outrageous that ACORN will be rewarded for its criminal acts by taxpayer money in the stimulus and is being asked to help with the U.S. census. This report shines a light on clear criminal conduct and it is abundantly clear that they cannot and should not be trusted with taxpayer dollars."
It would be up to the chairman of the oversight panel to hold hearings on the ACORN report and
up to the Justice Department to pursue a criminal investigation. Likewise, the census director will determine whether ACORN remains a partner with the U.S. Census Bureau to assist with the recruitment of the 1.4 million temporary workers needed to go door-to-door to count every person in the United States.
2
A spokeswoman for Rep. Edolphus Towns, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, did not respond to e-mails seeking comment.
Another "green shoot" of recovery in the Second Amendment rights for America has been found! H.R. 3045, a housing voucher tweak, is currently working its way through the House Financial Services Committee, chaired by Barney Frank, D-Ma. Representative Tom Price, R-Ga. put forth an amendment to stop federally subsidized housing projects from imposing restrictions beyond the legal bounds of the state on gun ownership or use.
The text of the proposed addition is:
"Neither the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, nor any public housing agency, nor any owner of federally assisted housing may establish any prohibition or restriction on the otherwise lawful possession or use of firearms in federally assisted housing."
Most amendments are passed or failed on a voice vote, but the chairman called for a recorded vote on this one. He wanted to apply pressure on the members of the committee by getting them on the record. When the vote was done, it passed 38 to 31, including 13 Democrats. Peter King of New York and Michael Castle of Delaware were the only Republicans voting against the amendment.
It is hard to argue that residents of large housing projects should be stripped of all defensive weapons. Nowhere is it written that if you live in communities where the police cannot protect you, you must not interfere with the activities of thieves and muggers. I think it is finally sinking in to some of our legislators minds that adding guns to the mix on the side of law-abiding civilians actually helps the equation. They might be understanding that criminals don't obey gun laws anyway.
Each time congressmen are asked whether they are going to bring up the assault weapons (scary regular gun) ban, they frequently say that we should enforce the laws we already have. This is very good.
Senator John Thune's R-SD amendment to a defense authorization bill calling for all states that allow concealed carry to honor the permits of the other states won a majority of votes, 58-40, but failed to pass because the senate leadership stipulated a 60 vote threshold to pass. Right now there is a patchwork of reciprocity among the states and a person must obtain two or three different state permits to carry in all the 40 states that currently allow it. The Brady Campaign To Prevent Handgun Violence is apoplectic. The title of their press release said: Vote Looms In Senate On Amendment Allowing Dangerous People To Carry Hidden Handguns Virtually Anywhere In The United States
This may come as a shock, but the Dangerous People already do! This amendment was about the legal people, the good guys. They baldly assert: "Multiple studies have shown that laws allowing the carrying of concealed firearms have not reduced crime and, if anything, have increased violent crime, including murder and robbery." but cite no studies. John Lott's study for "More Guns, Less Crime" stands as a benchmark of scholarship that has not been successfully challenged. His evidence proves exactly the opposite, that violent crime falls as gun ownership in a population increases.
Let us not forget the amendment to the credit card reform bill allowing concealed carry in the federal parks. That was successfully added to the bill and passed with the bill. The choice was made by the current administration not to fight it.
After the last several multiple murders by gun wielding criminals, the outcry for more gun control laws was relatively muted. The momentum of gun control might truly by shifting. Several writers have said that more attention is being paid to the second amendment in law books than in the past, which means law schools will be spending more than 10 minutes on that amendment in their classes in the future.
The experiment was tried: Let citizens carry weapons, subject to all the laws about legal use, and see what happens. What happened? No blood in the streets! In fact, violent crime went down and gun accidents and child deaths were miniscule as a percent of gun owners. The evidence is in and counted. Now we just have to keep the information flowing and hold our legislators to carry out the will of the people
Author: Dan Bidstrup Dan Bidstrup is an Examiner from Denver. You can see Dan's articles on Dan's Home Page.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- FOX NEWS
Facing criticism from both sides of the aisle that he's pushing too hard and fast on health care reform, President Obama on Wednesday defended his "rush" to get it done and said Congress must take advantage of this rare opportunity. "The stars are aligned," Obama said in prime-time news conference, and
3
the American people are depending on Congress to reach a compromise promptly. He wants a deal by Congress' August recess. “f you don't set deadlines in this town, things don't happen. The default position is inertia," the president said, singling out his critics for playing political "games" with health care reform.
refom is critical for rebuilding the economy and controlling the deficit, Obama argued. But with momentum slowing considerably in the effort to reach a deal on time, the president conceded that he wants to "do this right" and said he wouldn't sign a bill that doesn't achieve key objectives like reducing costs.
t the news conference, called to rally support for health care reform, Obama acknowledged that Americans are "understandably queasy" about debt and deficits -- and the impact health care reform would have on both. Obama used the news conference to try to put skeptics at ease, both inside and outside the Beltway. He said health care reform would not only improve the quality of care they receive at reduced cost but in the long run actually rein in spiraling deficits and debt. "If we do not control these (health care) costs, we will not be able to control our deficit," he said. He rejected the notion that his administration only wants to "spend and spend." In an odd boast, the president said his administration has already reduced the 10-year deficit projection from $9.3 trillion to $7.1 trillion. "Now, that's not good, but it's $2.2 trillion less than it would have been if we had the same policies in place when we came in," Obama said, blaming the Bush administration for the scope of the deficit.
Moderate Democrats known as Blue Dogs, though, are joining Republicans in raising concerns that the plans on the table will burden the federal government -- and, in turn, the taxpayers -- with unwieldy financial obligations.
In response, Obama insisted he would not tolerate a plan that adds to the deficit over the next decade. He also said he wouldn't sign a bill funded primarily through taxes on the middle class. And he took on his most vocal Republican critics, accusing them of spreading misinformation and trying to make the debate about him. "This isn't about me," Obama said, once again calling out Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., though not by name, for saying a loss on health care reform would "break" the president. "This debate is not a game for these Americans, and they can't afford to wait for any longer for reform," Obama said. "They are counting on us to get this done. They are looking to us for leadership. And we can't let them down. We will pass reform that lowers cost, promotes choice and provides coverage that every American can count on. And we will do it this year."
Recent polls have shown that the public is losing confidence in his ability to guide the health care reform process. And Republicans and moderate Democrats have serious concerns that he and his congressional allies are moving too quickly, and that in the rush to hammer out a deal they could produce an overhaul that leads to persistent and burdensome deficits while compromising the quality of care patients receive. With the August recess looming, the status of the bills is unclear.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday that there's "no question" Democrats have the votes to pass a bill out of the chamber. But the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats, who are responsible for having put the brakes on negotiations, disagreed. And they questioned whether the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which postponed its health care sessions Tuesday, was ready to resume work on the bill -- Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said he wants to forge ahead with a markup Thursday afternoon. The committee is the only House panel with health care jurisdiction that has not approved the bill, and the decision to delay was considered a setback for efforts to win a final package before recess.
The bill is also still stuck before the Senate Finance Committee.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
WASHINGTON -- A white police sergeant who arrested renowned black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. said Thursday he's disappointed President Obama said officers acted "stupidly" without knowing all the facts. Sgt. James Crowley responded to Gates' home near Harvard University last week to

investigate a report of a burglary and demanded Gates show him identification. Police say Gates at first refused and accused the officer of racism. Gates was charged with disorderly conduct. The charge was dropped Tuesday, and Gates has since demanded an apology from Crowley.
Obama was asked about the arrest of Gates, who is his friend, at the end of a nationally televised news conference on health care Wednesday night.
(SDR Ed. Comment: As anyone can see, nobomma shows just what he is in this statement which in itself is racist and not true.)
“I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry," Obama said. "Number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home. And number three -- what I think we know separate and apart from this incident -- is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately, and that's just a fact." In radio interviews Thursday morning, Crowley maintained he had done nothing wrong in arresting Gates. “I support the president to a point, yes, I think it's disappointing that he waded into what should be a local issue and something that plays out here," Crowley told WEEI. "As he himself said ... he doesn't know all the facts."Crowley did not immediately respond to messages left by The Associated Press on Thursday.
Gates has said he was "outraged" by the arrest. He said the white officer walked into his home without his permission and only arrested him as the professor followed him to the porch, repeatedly demanding the sergeant's name and badge number because he was unhappy over his treatment. “This isn't about me; this is about the vulnerability of black men in America," Gates said. “He said the incident made him realize how vulnerable poor people and minorities are "to capricious forces like a rogue policeman, and this man clearly was a rogue policeman."
Crowley, 42, said he won't apologize. And his union has expressed "full and unqualified" support for him. Fellow officers, black and white, say he is well-liked and respected on the force. Crowley was a campus police officer at Brandeis University in July 1993 when he administered CPR trying to save the life of former Boston Celtics player Reggie Lewis. Lewis, who was black, collapsed and died during an off-season workout.
Gates' supporters maintain his arrest was a case of racial profiling. Officers were called to the home by a woman who said she saw "two black males with backpacks" trying to break in the front door. Gates has said he arrived home from an overseas trip and the door was jammed.
The president said federal officials need to continue working with local law enforcement "to improve policing techniques so that we're eliminating potential bias.""What I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately," Obama said. "That's just a fact."
Gov. Deval Patrick, who is black, said he was troubled and upset over the incident. Cambridge Mayor Denise Simmons, who also is black, has said she spoke with Gates and apologized on behalf of the city, and a statement from the city called the July 16 incident "regrettable and unfortunate.” The mayor refused Thursday to comment on the president's remarks.
Police supporters charge that Gates, director of Harvard's W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research, was responsible for his own arrest by overreacting.
Black students and professors at Harvard have complained for years about racial profiling by Cambridge and campus police. Harvard commissioned an independent committee last year to examine the university's race relations after campus police confronted a young black man who was using tools to remove
a bike lock. The man worked at Harvard and owned the bike.
Richard Weinblatt, director of the Institute for Public Safety at Central Ohio Technical College, said the police sergeant was responsible for defusing the situation once he realized Gates was the lawful occupant. It is not against the law to yell at police, especially in a home, as long as that behavior does not affect an investigation, he said. “That is part of being a police officer in a democratic society," Weinblatt said. "The point is that the police sergeant needs to be the bigger person, take the higher road, be more professional."
Richard Weinblatt, director of the Institute for Public Safety at Central Ohio Technical College,

said the police sergeant was responsible for defusing the situation once he realized Gates was the lawful occupant. It is not against the law to yell at police, especially in a home, as long as that behavior does not affect an investigation, he said. “That is part of being a police officer in a democratic society," Weinblatt said. "The point is that the police sergeant needs to be the bigger person, take the higher road, be more professional."
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Democratic Leader Laughs at Idea That House Members Would Actually Read Health-Care Bill Before Voting On It
Washington (CNSNews.com) - House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Tuesday that the health-care reform bill now pending in Congress would garner very few votes if lawmakers actually had to read the entire bill before voting on it. Hoyer laughed as he responded to a question from CNSNews.com about whether he supported a pledge that asks members of the Congress to read the entire bill before voting on it.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Little Johnny meets Barrack Obama
Barack Obama was visiting a primary school and he visited one of the classes. They were in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings. The teacher asked the president if he would like to lead the discussion on the word 'tragedy. So our illustrious president asked the class for an example of a 'tragedy.' One little boy stood up and offered: "If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a tractor runs over him and kills him, that would be a tragedy." "No," said Obama, "that would be an accident." A little girl raised her hand: 'If a school bus carrying 50 children drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy.' "I'm afraid not," explained Obama. "That's what we would call great loss.." The room went silent. No other children volunteered. Obama searched the room. "Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?" Finally at the back of the room, Little Johnny raised his hand. In a quiet voice he said: "If the plane carrying you and Mrs. Obama was struck by a friendly fire missile and blown to smithereens that would be a tragedy." "Fantastic!" exclaimed Obama. "That's right. And can you tell me why that would be tragedy?" "Well," says the boy, "It has to be a tragedy, because it certainly wouldn't be a great loss...and it probably wouldn't be an accident either."
(Maaan! He hit that one on the head! Gess whome)
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
It Can't Happen Here
by Patrick J. Buchanan 07/10/2009
So grave was the crisis in western China that President Hu Jintao canceled a meeting with President Obama, broke off from the G8 summit and flew home.
By official count, 158 are dead, 1,080 injured and a thousand arrested in ethnic violence between Han Chinese and the Muslim, Turkic-speaking Uighurs of Xinjiang. That is the huge oil-rich province that borders Pakistan, Afghanistan and several Central Asian countries that seceded from the Soviet Union. Uighur sources put the death toll much higher. The Communist Party chief in Xinjiang has promised to execute those responsible for the killings.
In 1989, fear that what was happening in Eastern Europe might happen in Beijing produced Tiananmen Square. The flooding of Chinese troops into Xinjiang bespeaks a fear that what happened to the Soviet Union could happen to China. Unlike Mikhail Gorbachev, the Chinese, as they showed in Tibet, will wage civil war to crush secession. Already, Beijing has struggled to ensure perpetual possession of Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang and Tibet -- half of the national territory -- by moving in millions of Han Chinese, swamping the indigenous peoples, as they did in Manchuria.
The larger issue here is the enduring power of ethnonationalism -- the drive of ethnic minorities, embryonic nations, to break free and create their own countries, where their faith, culture and language are predominant. The Uighurs are such a people. Ethnonationalism caused the Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913, triggered World War I in Sarajevo, and tore apart the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires. Ethnonationalism birthed Ireland, Turkey and Israel. Ethnonationalism in the 1990s tore apart the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, and broke up Czechoslovakia, creating two-dozen nations out of three. Last August, ethnonationalism, with an assist from the Russian Army, relieved Georgia of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Russia has its own ethnic worries in Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia, whose Moscow-installed president was nearly blown to pieces two weeks ago and where a Chechen convoy was ambushed last week with 10 soldiers killed.
The ethnonationalism that pulled Ireland out of the United Kingdom in 1921 is pulling Scotland out. It split the Asian subcontinent up into Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. Iran, Iraq and Pakistan are all threatened. Persians are a bare majority against the combined numbers of Azeris, Kurds, Arabs and Baluch. Each of those minorities shares a border with kinfolk -- in Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, Iraq and Pakistan. Turkey has fought for decades against Kurd ethnonationalism. If one were to wager on new nations, Kurdistan and Baluchistan would be among the favorites. And Pashtun in Pakistan outnumber Pashtun in Afghanistan, though in the latter they are the majority.
In Africa, the savage attacks on the Kikiyu by Luo manifest a resurgent tribalism, as did the horrors of Rwanda, where Tutsi in the hundreds of thousands were massacred by Hutu. President Clinton may have apologized to the Africans for not sending troops to stop the genocide in Rwanda, but if the America of Obama is into interventionism to protect human rights, Africa in the 21st century should provide us plenty of opportunity.
Evo Morales in Bolivia, Ollanta Humala in Peru and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez are stoking the
embers, goading the Indian populations, the indigenous peoples, to take back what the white man took 500 years ago. They have met with no small success.
The contrast between insouciant America and serious China today is instructive. China is protectionist; America free trade. China is nationalist; America globalist. China's economy is export-driven; America's base is consumption. China saves; America spends. China uses its foreign exchange to lock up overseas resources; America uses foreign aid for humanitarian assistance to failed states. Behaving like ruthlessly purposeful 19th-century Americans, China grows as America shrinks. Where Beijing floods its borderlands with Han to reduce indigenous populations to minorities, and stifles religious, ethnic and linguistic diversity, America, declaring, "Diversity is our strength!" invites the whole world to come to America and swamp her own native-born.
Observing the lightning breakup of the Soviet Union, the Chinese take ethnonationalism with deadly seriousness. American's elite regard it an irrelevancy, an obsession only of the politically retarded. After all, they tell us, we were never blood-and-soil people, always a propositional nation, a nation of ideas. Our belief in democracy, diversity, and equality define us and make us different from all other nations. Indeed, we now happily predict the year, 2042, when Americans of European ancestry become a minority in a country whose Founding Fathers declared it set aside for "ourselves and our posterity."
Without the assent of her people, America is being converted from a Christian country, nine in 10 of whose people traced their roots to Europe as late as the time of JFK, into a multiracial, multiethnic, multilingual, multicultural Tower of Babel not seen since the late Roman Empire. The city farthest along the path is Los Angeles, famous worldwide for the number, variety, and size of its ethnic and racial street gangs.
Not to worry. It can't happen here.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
I think you are off the mark, Mr. Buchanan. The ethnic group that is wreaking havoc has a different name, and I don't toss this idea out lightly. Socialists/progressives are the new ethnicity in America. They have all of the earmarks (no pun intended) of any other culture. They have a common spiritual 'north:' a distain for 'West.'They have a common language: They marginalize and disparage those who dissent with labeling words like kooks, ne-cons, Nazis, et al.They have little use for God, but are Godly in their anthropocentric belief that it s they who control nature. They have no common motherland, but as they ignore Mother Nature, they seek to replace her. Socialists, facists, and progressives--all peas in a pod who want to force social liberty on us as a means of taking ours away.
It is happening here even as you wrote this article. Islam is invading the culture and rule of law in America. For the truth of Islam go to: www.godofmoralperfection.net The issues raised by the recent revivalism of Islam are of life and death to the democratic world. Islam is one of the most serious threats freedom loving people have ever faced. It is the greatest threat that western women have faced to their hard won freedoms and legal protection of their basic rights. You must understand what Islam truly represents and participate in the fight against this ideology. Ignorance is not an option. Islam demands the

cold-hard reality for the hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, do-nothing-about-evil naive kafirs. Iran’s present will be our future if we do not stand against this evil.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
On the other hand, just yesterday, Ralph Peters wrote in the NY Post about the differences in performance between American and Afghanistani police and army units.On the one hand, the Afghan army is ineffective because it cannot work together, because it is composed of various tribes which don't trust each other and don't share information and cooperate with each other. Ditto for the police.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
On the other hands, whatever differences separate the Americans, when it comes time to share information and to issue and follow orders, all the Americans are on the same page -- because America has placed tribalism behind it. By the way, speaking of "Uighers," which is pronounced like "Wiggers," I wish Obama Osama would ship the 17 Wiggers whom America has held on Guantanamo back to China. Especially given the current disturbances there, I think China would know how to deal wisely with them.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Jake's posting above is interesting. MOST of the struggles that Pat mentions above have an Islamic component to them.
Now, Pat mentioned Israel in passing. I find that interesting because the arguments that Pat raises above closely parallel the arguments of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane.(Kahane was assassinated in 1990 by an Egyptian who was a member of the Blind Sheik's gang that went on to bomb the WTC in 1993.)
Both Kahane and Pat (in his Decline of the West) noted the many dozens of sectarian conflicts going along in all parts of the world. As early as 1980, when Yugoslavia was so peaceful and stable that the Winter Olympics were held in Sarajevo, Kahane predicted in writing that both the USSR and Yugoslovia were destined to break up. At the time, it seemed like an insane prediction, but history proved Kahane right.
I mention all of this because, using the same logic that compels Pat as in today's writing, Kahane argued that ultimately, Israel's only real option for national security would be to forcibly expel all of its Arabs before they outbreed and swamp the Israel ship of state via demographics. But, "That Can't Happen Here," right? Not in Israel. And not in the USA either. Right?
Wikipedia had a headline a week ago about Hispanics who served in the US Armed Forces in World War Two. Then they came home, and decent people accepted them as Americans.
Pat might note that the Irish were seen in a negative light as being different then Americans. One reason was that Irish are Catholic, and many Protestants had a lower view of the Catholic Church than people do of Islam. Martin Luther was great at inventing things such as calling the Pope the AntiChrist. The only people who really have a right to complain about outsiders are the Indians and the Natives of Alaska and Hawaii. When is Pat going to Ireland? Maybe Ireland has too strict an immigration policy.
-- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Nine Myths About Gun Control www.2asisters.org
4-20-7
* Myth #1 "Guns are only used for killing"
Compared to about 35,000 gun deaths every year, 2.5 million good Americans use guns to protect themselves, their families, and their livelihoods - there are 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun - five lives are protected per minute - and, of those 2.5 million protective uses of guns, about 1/2 million are believed to have saved lives.
* Myth #2 "Guns are dangerous when used for protection"
US Bureau of Justice Statistics show that guns are the safest and most effective means of defense. Using a gun for protection results in fewer injuries to the defender than using any other means of defense and is safer than not resisting at all. The myth that "guns are only used for killing and the myth that "guns are dangerous when used for protection melt when exposed to scientific examination and data. The myths persist because they are repeated so frequently and dogmatically that few think to question the myths by examining the mountains of data available. Let us examine the other common myths.
* Myth #3 "There is an epidemic of gun violence"

Even their claim of an "epidemic of violence is false. That claim, like so many other of their claims, has been so often dogmatically repeated that few think to question the claim by checking the FBI and other data. Homicide rates have been stable to slightly declining for decades except for inner city teens and young adults involved with illicit drug trafficking. We have noticed that, if one subtracts the inner city
contribution to violence, American homicide rates are lower than in Britain and the other paragons of gun control.
The actual causes of inner city violence are family disruption, media violence, and abject poverty, not gun ownership. In the inner city, poverty is so severe that crime has become a rational career choice for those with no hope of decent job opportunities.
* Myth #4 "Guns cause violence" Homicide
For over twenty years it has been illegal for teens to buy guns and, despite such gun control, the African American teenage male homicide rate in Washington, DC is 227 per 100,000 - 20 times the US average! The US group for whom legal gun ownership has the highest prevalence, middle-aged white men, has a homicide rate of less than 7 per 100,000 - about half of the US average.
If the "guns-cause-violence theory is correct why does Virginia, the alleged "easy purchase source of all those illegal Washington, DC guns, have a murder rate of 9.3 per 100,000, one- ninth of DC's overall homicide rate of 80.6? Why are homicide rates lowest in states with loose gun control (North Dakota 1.1, Maine 1.2, South Dakota 1.7, Idaho 1.8, Iowa 2.0, Montana 2.6) and highest in states and the district with draconian gun controls and bans (District of Columbia 80.6, New York 14.2, California 12.7, Illinois 11.3,
Maryland 11.7)? The "guns- cause-violence and "guns exacerbate violence theories founder. Again, the causes of inner city violence are family disruption, media violence, and abject poverty, not gun ownership.
Accidents
National Safety Council data show that accidental gun deaths have been falling steadily since the beginning of this century and now hover at an all time low. This means that about 200 tragic accidental gun deaths occur annually, a far cry from the familiar false imagery of "thousands of innocent children.
Suicide
Gun bans result in lower gun suicide rates, but a compensatory increase in suicide from other accessible and lethal means of suicide (hanging, leaping, auto exhaust, etc.). The net result of gun bans? No reduction in total suicide rates. People who are intent in killing themselves find the means to do so. Are other means of suicide so much more politically correct that we should focus on measures that decrease gun
suicide, but do nothing to reduce total suicide deaths?
* Myth #5 The "Friends and Family fallacy"
It is common for the public health advocates of gun bans to claim that most murders are of "friends and family". The medical literature includes many such false claims, that "most [murderers] would be considered law abiding citizens prior to their pulling the trigger" and "most shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for protection."
Not only does the data show that acquaintance and domestic homicide are a minority of homicides, but the FBI's definition of acquaintance and domestic homicide requires only that the murderer knew or was related to the decedent. That dueling drug dealers are acquainted does not make them "friends". Over three- quarters of murderers have long histories of violence against not only their enemies and other "acquaintances," but also against their relatives. Oddly, medical authors have no difficulty recognizing the violent histories of murderers when the topic is not gun control - "A history of violence is the best predictor of violence." The perpetrators of acquaintance and domestic homicide are overwhelmingly vicious aberrant with long histories of violence inflicted upon those close to them. This reality belies the imagery of "friends and family" murdering each other in fits of passion simply because a gun was present "in the home."
* Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"
To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times

more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." This fallacy, fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.
The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count. Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold. Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of
guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun.
Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.
Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse . From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes. Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection. Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.
* Myth #7 "The costs of gun violence are high"
The actual economic cost of medical care for gun violence is approximately $1.5-billion per year.less than 0.2% of America's $800-billion annual health care costs. To exaggerate the costs of gun violence, the advocates of gun prohibition routinely include estimates of "lost lifetime earnings" or "years of productive life lost" - assuming that gangsters, drug dealers, and rapists would be as socially productive as teachers, factory workers, and other good Americans - to generate inflated claims of $20-billion or more in "costs." One recent study went so far as to claim the "costs" of work lost because workers might gossip about gun violence.
What fraction of homicide victims are actually "innocent children" who strayed into gunfire? Far from being pillars of society, it has been noted that more than two-thirds of gun homicide "victims" are drug traffickers or their customers. In one study, 67% of 1990 homicide "victims" had a criminal record, averaging 4 arrests for 11 offenses. These active criminals cost society not only untold human suffering, but also an average economic toll of $400,000 per criminal per year before apprehension and $25,000 per criminal per year while in prison. Because the anti-self-defense lobby repeatedly forces us to examine the issue of "costs," we are forced to notice that, in cutting their violent "careers" short, the gun deaths of those predators and criminals may actually represent an economic savings to society on the order of $4.5 billion annually - three times the declared "costs" of guns. Those annual cost savings are only a small fraction of the total economic savings from guns, because the $4.5 billion does not include the additional savings from innocent lives saved, injuries prevented, medical costs averted, and property protected by guns.
Whether by human or economic measure, we conclude that guns offer a substantial net benefit to our society. Other benefits, such as the feeling of security and self-determination that accompany protective gun ownership, are less easily quantified. There is no competent research that suggests making good citizens' access to guns more difficult (whether by bureaucratic "red tape," taxation, or outright bans) will reduce violence. It is only good citizens who comply with gun laws, so it is only good citizens who are disarmed by gun laws. As evidenced by jurisdictions with the most draconian gun laws (e.g. New York City, Washington, DC, etc.), disarming these good citizens before violence is reduced causes more harm than good. Disarming these good citizens costs more - not fewer - lives.
* Myth #8 "Gun control will keep guns off the street"
Vicious predators who ignore laws against murder, mayhem, and drug trafficking routinely ignore those existent American gun laws. No amount of well-meaning, wishful thinking will cause these


criminals to honor additional gun laws. Advocates of gun control rarely discuss the enforceability of their proposals, an understandable lapse, since even police state tactics cannot effectively enforce gun bans. As evidence, in Communist China, a country whose human rights record we dare not emulate, 120,000 banned civilian guns were confiscated in one month in 1994.
Existent gun laws impact only those willing to comply with such laws, good people who already honor the laws of common decency. Placing further impediments in the path of good citizens will further disproportionately disarm those good people - especially disarming good, poor people, the people who live in the areas of highest risk. If "better" data are forthcoming, we are ready to reassess the public policy
in the areas of highest risk. If "better" data are forthcoming, we are ready to reassess the public policy implications. Until such time, the data suggest that victim disarmament is not a policy that saves lives. What does save lives is allowing adult, mentally competent, law- abiding citizen access to the safest and most effective means of protection - guns.
Brady I and Brady II
The extremists at Handgun Control Inc. boast that "23,000 potential felons" emphasis added] were prevented from retail gun purchases in the first month of the Brady Law. Several jurisdictions have reviewed the preliminary Brady Law data which resulted in the initial Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) overestimated appraisal of the "success" of the Brady Law.
The Virginia State Police, Phoenix Police Department, and other jurisdictions have shown that almost every one of those "potential" felons were not felons or otherwise disqualified from gun ownership. Many were innocents whose names were similar to felons. Misdemeanor traffic convictions, citations for fishing without a license, and failure to license dogs were the types of trivial crimes that resulted in a computer tag that labeled the others as "potential" felons. In transparent "governmentese," BATF Spokesperson Susan McCarron avers, "we feel [the Brady Law has] been a success, even though we don't have a whole lot of numbers. Anecdotally, we can find some effect."
Even if the preliminary data had been accurate, that data only showed about 6.3% of retail sales were "possible" felons - consistent with repeated studies showing how few crime guns are obtained in retail transactions. A minuscule number of actual felons has been identified by Brady Law background checks, but the US Department of Justice is unable to identify even one prosecution of those felons. In such circumstance, the minimal expected benefit of the Brady Law diminishes to no benefit at all. The National Institute of Justice has shown that very few crime guns are purchased from gun dealers. 93% of crime guns are obtained as black market, stolen guns, or from similar non retail sources. Since none of Handgun Control Inc.'s Brady I or Brady II suggestions impact on the source of 93% of crime guns, their symbolic nostrums cannot be expected to do anything to reduce crime or violence.
Residential gun dealers
The press and broadcast media have vilified low-volume gun dealers, pejoratively named "kitchen table" dealers, yet the claim that such dealers are the source of a "proliferation of guns on our streets" is contradicted by data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). Those data show that 43% of gun dealers had no inventory and sold no guns at all. [33 ]In fact, Congressional testimony before enactment of the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) documented that the large number of low-volume gun dealers is a direct result of BATF policy. Prior to FOPA the BATF prosecuted gun collectors who sold as few as three guns per year at gun shows, claiming that they were unlicensed, and therefore illegal, gun dealers. To avoid such harassment and prosecution, thousands of American gun collectors became, at least on paper, licensed gun dealers. Now the BATF and the anti-self-defense lobby claim BATF does not have the resources to audit the paperwork monster it created. Reducing the number of gun dealers will only ensure that guns are more expensive - unaffordable to the poor who are at greatest risk from violence, ensuring that gun ownership becomes a privilege of only the politically connected and the affluent.
Instead of heaping more onerous restrictions upon good citizens or law-abiding gun dealers who are not the source of crime guns, is it not more reasonable - though admittedly more difficult - to target the real source of crime guns? It is time to admit the futility of attacking the supply of legal guns to interdict the less than 1% of the American gun stock that is used criminally. Instead, we believe effort should focus on targeting the actual "black market" in stolen guns. It is equally important to reduce the demand for illicit guns and drugs, most particularly by presenting attractive life opportunities and career alternatives to the

inner-city youth that are overwhelmingly and disproportionately the perpetrators and victims of violence in our society.
* Myth #9 "Citizens are too incompetent to use guns for protection"
Nationally good citizens use guns about seven to ten times as frequently as the police to repel crime and apprehend criminals and they do it with a better safety record than the police. About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are loss than 1 in 26,000. Citizens intervening in crime are less likely to be wounded than the police.
We can explain why the civilian record is better than the police, but the simple truth remains - citizens have an excellent record of protecting themselves and their communities and NOT ONE of the fear mongering fantasies of the gun control lobby has come true.
"Treat cars like guns"
Advocates of increased gun restrictions have promoted the automobile model of gun ownership
however, the analogy is selectively and incompletely applied. It is routinely overlooked that no license or registration is needed to "own and operate" any kind of automobile on private property. No proof of "need" is required for automobile registration or drivers' licensure. Once licensed and registered, automobiles may be driven on any public road and every state's licenses are given "full faith and credit" by other states. There are no waiting periods, background checks, or age restrictions for the purchase of automobiles. It is only Their use - and misuse - that is regulated.
Although the toll of motor vehicle tragedies is many times that of guns, no "arsenal permit" equivalent is asked of automobile collectors or motorcycle racing enthusiasts. Neither has anyone suggested that automobile manufacturers be sued when automobiles are frequently misused by criminals in bank robberies, drive-by shootings, and all manner of crime and terrorism. No one has suggested banning motor vehicles because they "might" be used illegally or are capable of exceeding the 55 mph speed limit, even though we know "speed kills." Who needs a car capable of three times the national speed limit? "But cars have good uses" is the usual response. So too do guns have good uses, the protection of as many as 2.5-million good Americans every year.
Progressive reform
Complete, consistent, and constitutional application of the automobile model of gun ownership could provide a rational solution to the debate and enhance public safety. Reasonable compromise on licensing and training is possible. Where state laws have been reformed to license and train good citizens to carry concealed handguns for protection, violence and homicide have fallen. Even unarmed citizens who abhor guns benefit from such policies because predators cannot determine in advance who is carrying a concealed weapon.
Fear mongering and the gun control lobby
In opposing progressive reforms that restore our rights to self- protection, the anti-self-defense lobby has claimed that reform would cause blood to run in the streets, that inconsequential family arguments would turn into murderous incidents, that the economic base of communities would collapse, and that many innocent people would be killed In Florida, the anti- self-defense lobby claimed that blood would run in the
streets of "Dodge City East," the "Gunshine State" --- but we do not have to rely on irrational propaganda, imaginative imagery, or political histrionics. We can examine the data.
Data, not histrionics
One-third of Americans live in the 22 progressive states that have reformed laws to allow good citizens to readily protect themselves outside their homes. In those states crime rates are lower for every category of crime indexed by the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. Homicide, assault, and overall violent crime are each 40% lower, armed robbery is 50% lower, rape is 30% lower, and property crimes are 10% lower. The reasonable reform of concealed weapon laws resulted in none of the mayhem prophesied by the anti-self-defense lobby. In fact, the data suggest that, providing they are in the hands of good citizens, more guns "on the street" offer a considerable benefit to society - saving lives, a deterrent to crime, and an adjunct to the concept of community policing.
As of 12/31/94, Florida had issued 188,106 licenses and not one innocent person had been killed


or injured by a licensed gun owner in the 6 years post-reform. Of the 188,106 licenses, 17 (0.0001%) were revoked for misuse of the firearm. Not one of those revocations were associated with any injury whatsoever. In opposing reform, fear is often expressed that "everyone would be packing guns," but, after reform, most states have licensed fewer than 2% (and in no state more than 4%) of qualified citizens.
Notwithstanding gun control extremists' unprophetic histrionics , the observed reality was that crime fell, in part, because vicious predators fear an unpredictable encounter with an armed citizen even more than they fear apprehension by police or fear our timid and porous criminal justice system. It is no mystery why Florida's tourists are targeted by predators - predators are guaranteed that, unlike Florida's citizens, tourists are unarmed.
Those who advocate restricting gun rights often justify their proposals "if it saves only one life." There have been matched state pair analyses, crime trend studies, and California county- by-county research demonstrating that licensing law-abiding, mentally-competent adults to carry concealed weapons for protection outside their homes saves many lives, so gun prohibitionists should support such reforms, if saving lives is truly their motivation.
The right
Importantly, the proponents of the automobile model of gun ownership fail to note that controls appropriate to a privilege (driving) are inappropriate to a constitutional right (gun ownership and use). Let there be no doubt. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged an individual right to keep and bear arms. It is specifically the "weapons of war" - militia weapons - that are protected. The intent of the Second Amendment was to ensure that, by guaranteeing the individual right to arms, a citizen militia could always oppose a tyrannical federal government. That the Supreme Court has acknowledged the right, but done little to protect that right, is reminiscent of the sluggishness of the Supreme Court in protecting other civil rights before those rights became politically fashionable. Need we be reminded that it has taken over a century for the Supreme Court to meaningfully protect civil rights guaranteed to African Americans in the Fourteenth Amendment? Besides Second Amendment guarantees of the pre-existent right to keep and bear arms, there are Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendment, as well as "natural right" guarantees to self-protection.
Since 1980, of thirty-nine law review articles addressing the Supreme Court case law and history of the right to keep and bear arms, thirty-five support the individual right view and only four support the "collective right only" view (and three of these four are authored or co-authored by employees of the anti-self defense lobby). One would never guess such a legal and scholarly mismatch from the casual misinterpretations of the right in the medical literature and popular press. The error of the gun prohibitionist view is also evident from the fact that their "collective right only" theory is exclusively an invention of the twentieth century "gun control" debate - a concept of which neither the Founding Fathers nor any pre-1900 case or commentary seems to have had any inkling.
California and Concealed Weapons
California has been studied and we discover that the counties that have the lowest rates of concealed weapon licensees have the highest rates of murder and the counties with the highest rates of concealed license issuance have the lowest rates of murder. It has also been noted that current California law gives considerable discretion to police chiefs and county sheriffs regarding the issuance of Concealed Weapon Licenses. Particularly in urban jurisdictions, abuse of that discretion is common. The result? In many jurisdictions only the affluent and politically connected are issued such licenses. In California few women and virtually no minorities are so licensed, even though poor minorities are the Californians at greatest risk from violence.
Conclusion
The police do not have a crystal ball. Murderers, rapists, and robbers do not schedule their crimes or notify the police in advance, so the police cannot be where they are needed in time to prevent death and injury. They can only arrive later to count the bodies and, hopefully, apprehend the predators.
There have been state-by-state analyses, county-by-county research, and crime trend studies. All the research shows that allowing good citizens to protect themselves outside their homes is a policy that saves lives. The anti-self defense lobby advances many proposals in hopes that it will "save only one life." Reform of concealed carry laws is a policy that saves many lives, so it is a policy that should be supported by the gun control lobby, if saving lives is really their interest.


Will Stockton base its policy on experience and sound data? or will Stockton fall prey to misinformation, fear, prejudice, and imaginative false imagery? We beg you. Let Stockton's good citizens protect themselves, their loved ones, and their livelihoods. The ordinance before you costs no money and it will save many lives.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
This article is very informative. For this reason it is beneficial to everyone. And it makes real sense. Google Gun facts. Find Gun Facts 5.0. It is a PDF file and it is well documented with facts and figures. Editor?
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Australian Shooter Magazine
An interesting letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine this week, which I quote: "If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.
The firearm death rate in Washington, DC is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period. That means you are about 25 per cent more likely to be shot and killed in the US capital, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US, than you are in Iraq.
Conclusion: The US should pull out of Washington
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
OPINION: POTOMAC WATCHJUNE 26, 2009.
The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.By KIMBERLEY A STRASSEL.
Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.
If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.
Associated Press
Steve Fielding
. Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.
In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled.(Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)
The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions,

rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them
The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them their economieto hamstring s to rein in carbon.
Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.
The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.
Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.
This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.
Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.
Write to kim@wsj.com
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Feral Government Was Culprit in Housing and Economic Crisis, Says Congressional Report
(CNSNews.com)
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the chief culprits in the housing crisis because they encouraged people who could not afford payments to borrow money, according to a congressional report released Tuesday. The report explains in detail how Fannie and Freddie -- which were not subject to the same oversight as other publicly traded firms -- ?privatized their profits but socialized their risks.?
(here we go again! Congress ordered such loans to be made. SDR chief editor.)
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
CNSNEWS.COM
Obama Wants to Repeal Defense of Marriage Act, Says General Counsel for Office of Personnel Management President Barack Obama wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and abolish the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? policy that applies to homosexuals in the military, according to Elaine Kaplan, general counsel of the White House Office of Personnel Management. Kaplan, an open lesbian, spoke with CNSNews.com at the Library of Congress on Tuesday, where she was the keynote speaker at a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month event to celebrate the social contributions of LGBT Americans.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Only the United States Senate stands in the way of what the Wall Street Journal calls "the biggest tax in American history." That's because the Pelosi-led House of Representatives just strong-armed the so-called American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (also known as "Cap-and-Trade") through the House of Representatives.
According to the Heritage Foundation, this massive "national energy tax" could cost the average family "nearly 3,000 per household per year." House Minority Leader John Boehner points out that it will "put millions of Americans out of work" as American jobs are shipped overseas or lost outright. Even President Obama admitted that under "Cap-and-Trade" legislation, "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."
But that's not all. Apparently, few if any Members of the House of Representatives even bothered to read this massive "national energy tax" before voting on it. Does this sound familiar?
According to Pioneer Press:
Last week, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (the 'Cap and Trade Energy Bill'), or H.R. 2454, was 946 pages long. Over the weekend, it ballooned to 1,201 pages with no explanation for how or why." Then, to add insult to injury, on the day of the vote, the Pelosi-led Congress added another 255 pages to the bill (which no one had read to begin with) at 3:00 AM (EST) and limited debate to three hours before passing this massive "national energy tax" at 7:16 PM (EST). And when Boehner tried to read some of the provisions of this bill aloud on the floor of the House, liberals in Congress tried to shut him down. “Democrats tried to shut me down as I read parts of Speaker Pelosi's national energy tax (also known as 'cap and trade') out loud on the House floor. For more than an hour I cited provisions that will destroy American jobs, raise prices for gasoline and electricity, and devastate middle-class families and small businesses," said Minority Leader Boehner. If we are going to beat this horrifying reality... if we are going to defeat "Cap and Trade," the time to act is now.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
HATE CRIMES LAWS ARE UNAMERICAN
A new video by Rev. Ted Pike of TruthTellers.org is exposing the truth about hate crimes legislation currently pending in Congress, namely that they create a federally protected special class. Pike's provocative work is gaining ground with reports that opponents of hate crimes are using it to flood the offices of senators. Pike has been a strong supporter of American Free Press over the years, and we feel it is important to lend a hand in promoting his expose that shows that hate crimes laws are not only unnecessary, they're un-American.
American Free Press has reported on the fundamental problem of hate crimes laws They elevate groups of people above others and undercut Americans' right to free speech. You can read our articles here, here, here and here. Please feel free to circulate these. It helps to get word out about hate crimes laws and promote AFP at the same time.
You can watch Pike’s video by clicking on his homepage. It's critical that this information get out. And don’t forget to contact your representative in Washington and ask that they oppose this rights grab. If you do not know who your senators and representative are, you can find their contact information by clicking here.
Source: http://www.americanfreepress.net/newsletter/newissue.htm
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
"Change" is with us”
Get Set America , the "Change" is with us!!...This won't be the last "Sight Seeing" trip for this bunch!!! Michelle Obama Takes Girls to London for Fish and Chips Truly change we can believe in --- or as was said during the campaign, "We are the change we have been waiting for."
Imagine this --- and when do we get totally fed up?
Boeing 757 and a fleet of armored cars for Michelle’s sight seeing tour! Michelle One On Sunday, President Obama flew back to the United States on Air Force One. His wife, two daughters and her mother did a bit of shopping in Paris before taking their own Boeing 757 (C-32) over to London to do some sight seeing.
We all remember Obama’s admonishment to corporate CEO’s in February: “You can’t get corporate jets, you can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers dime.”
Apparently that doesn’t apply to his wife.
The London Times opened it’s description of Michelle’s visit this way: Motorcycle outriders, armored Chevrolets and bullet-headed men in raincoats criss-crossed London yesterday as Michelle Obama and her daughters spent a second day on an unofficial visit to the capital..


The Times went on to describe that when Michelle and the girls arrived at Westminster Abbey, the building was closed to tourists with people already in told to “wait against the wall.” An American visiting the Abbey said “Right then I knew it was probably someone from our ‘royal family’.”
Michelle’s motorcade shut down the London street above as the First Lady of the World and her children go for Fish and Chips at a pub in Mayfair . The entourage inside the restaurant was 15 people while dozens more wait outside. Include the dozens of Air Force personnel to fly and service the plane, embassy personnel and other staff and we are talking about a serious expenditure of tax payer dollars. Meanwhile, millions of Americans have lost their jobs and won’t be able to take their family on a summer holiday. Despite their circumstances We’ll still be expected to fork over the tax dollars to pay for Michelle’s trip.
Can you imaging the GALL of this our First Family?
52% WANTED CHANGE. 100% GOT SCREWED!!
TELL YOUR FRIENDS ABOUT THE WAY THE OBAMA'S ARE SPENDING OUR TAX MONEY!!!
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Things we are entitled to.
By C. Cline
According to the Constitution of The United States of America, we are entitled to three things--Life--Liberty--The pursuit of happiness. It goes on with 10 amendments that back up this claim and more.
Life, we can expect to live until some natural event or accident happens to deprive us of that right. Life begins with God. He made all life and especially Human life. Our constitution used to mirror this sanctity. Our laws followed Judo-Christian beliefs. In fact natural law does the same. All religious beliefs, save one (Islam), tells us of the sanctity. There is one thing about life that God has told us. “An eye for an eye”, “He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword”. He tempers this by telling us “Vengeance is mine”. Is this protection of our first right not to include the helpless and the innocent? Even in our Constitution?
‘Liberty’, what is liberty? Freedom is another word for it. However, Liberty is the better word. It means ‘choice’. in other words, we can choose what we believe, what we do (with limits), and what we say (again with some limits) and can not be forbidden it. The limits are simply those implied by the golden rule, the 10 commandments and harm to others. Our laws used to follow The Ten Commandments pretty much to the letter. Outside of having no other God and the worship of him, the rest is what is simply called Morality, Honesty, and Integrity. Without these rules, and the enforcement of the same no society can survive.
The ‘pursuit’ of happiness involves ones dreams. Anything you can wish (dream)for is open to you if you are willing to go after it and nobody can stop you from doing so (liberty). However, one must remember the rules of Morality, Honesty, and Integrity in doing so. There are laws pertaining to this liberty. If you fail the Morality, Honesty, and Integrity test you can be put in prison or even die for it. Mans base nature is in play at all times. His base nature, greed and avarice take their toll.
Nowhere in the Constitution (mans law) or the Bible (Gods law) does it say that you are entitled to anything you have not worked for. You are not entitled even if you cannot work for it.
You are NOT entitled to food, clothing or shelter. If you need these things, people generally will furnish them to you gladly. But you are not entitled to them. People give because most people want to help the less fortunate.
Therefore, my Government, under the Constitution, has no right to take my earnings that I have worked for without my permission and give them to anyone. Yes, I will go along with some of it because it is easier than doing it myself. In my lifetime I have fed, on my own, many who were hungry. On the other hand I have also been fed when I was hungry. I have been sheltered by others and given clothing by others. It was a temporary thing. I have paid those acts of kindness back

many times over by doing the same for others. However, I will not feed someone who will not work for it. What little I have I worked for. The only thing I am entitled to is interest on my money, my retirement check, and my social security benefits. I worked many years for that.
What is Socialism? This is a system where men go into the fields and work every day they can. What they harvest goes into a common warehouse. Then what is harvested is doled out to each man according to his needs. That is so long as the caretakers and those who dole do not take too large a share and run you out of your stores. Now worker #1 has no wife or children. Worker #2 has a wife and 6 children. You both work the same hours and produce an equal amount to go into the common stores. Worker #1 withdraws enough to take care of one. Worker #2 withdraws enough for eight. That is the base of socialism. The body is that the government now has the power of life and death over nine people. It will try to control even the bowel movements of all nine. After all it is the benevolent big brother of all is it not? No government has a mind.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
THE AXIS OF IDIOTS
J.D. Pendry

J.D. Pendry is a retired Marine Sergeant who writes for Random House. He is eloquent, and he seldom beats around the bush.
Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You’re the runner-in-chief.
Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinski while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses to the USS Cole and the first Trade Center bombing and our Embassy bombings emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11/2001.
John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam. Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You’ve accused our military of terrorizing women and children in Iraq. You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, the same words you used to describe Vietnam. You’re a fake. You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam, is another war you were for, before you were against it.
John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can’t win militarily in Iraq. You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof and said we should redeploy to Okinawa. Okinawa, John? And the democrats call you their military expert! Are you sure you didn’t suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were of building your war hero resume? You’re a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician. You’re not a Marine , sir. You wouldn’t amount to a good pimple on a real Marines ass. You’re a phony and a disgrace. Run away, John.
Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders to Soviet style Gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot, who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned Southeast Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? Lord help us! See Dick run.
Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster sized pictures from Abu Ghraib in front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraqi’s torture chambers were opened under new management. Did you see the news, Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrated another beheading for you. If you truly supported our troops, you’d show the world poster sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of it. Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese led to the communist victory there. You’re a bloated, drunken fool bent on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs. To paraphrase John Murtha, all the while sitting on your wide, gin soaked rear end in Washington.
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, Barrack Obama, chuck Schumer, the Hollywood Leftist morons, et al, ad nauseam: every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our soldiers are torturers, that we should leave Iraq you give the Islamic butchers - the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we’ll run away again, and all they have to do is hang on a little longer. It is inevitable that we, the infidels, will have to defeat the Islamic Jihadists. Better to do it now on their turf, than later on ours after they have gained both strength and momentum.
American news media, the New York Times particularly: each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods you become one united with the sub-human pieces of camel

dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can’t strike up the courage to publish cartoon, but you can help Al Quaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Quaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer…
You are America’s “AXIS OF IDIOTS.” your collective stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing.
Yes, I’m questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I’m also questioning why you’re stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don’t deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war, this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to the people who are willing to defend it.
No, Mr. President, you don’t get off the hook either. Our country has two enemies: those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within. Your soldiers are dealing with the outside force. It’s your obligation to support them by confronting the AXIS OF IDIOTS. America must hear it from you that these self -centered people are harming our country, abetting the enemy and endangering our safety. Well up a little anger, please, and channel it toward the appropriate target. You must prosecute those who leak national security secrets to the media. You must prosecute those in the media who knowingly publish those secrets. Our soldiers need you to confront the enemy that they cannot. They need you to do it now.
-- -- -- -- - -- -- -- --
This was written and published about the time that the last presidential campaign began if not before. Our studies show that it is factual. There is many more facts not expressed in this article however, or at least partially. All of the people described as “THE AXIS OF IDIOTS” were in fact screaming FOR war in Iraq long before it became a fact. When President Bush entered us into that war, it suddenly became a no-no. I personally know this for a fact because I was very interested in what was going on and had been for some time. I fully agree with the portrayal of the character of each and every one of the people portrayed in this article. If I had my way every one of you traitorous scheming idiots would be in front of a firing squad where you belong. Get out of dodge, you are not wanted!!!! You are traitors and the enemy of my beloved country!
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman
By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, author of "On Killing."
Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always,even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997.
One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.
Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.
I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.
"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.
"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf." If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a

warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed
Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.
But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.
The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.
Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa." Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.
The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.
Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?
Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.
Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warrior-hood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.
There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.
Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.
Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.
There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke
Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a

conscious, moral decision. If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.
For example, many officers carry their weapons in church. They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.
I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"
Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.
Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?" It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up. Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.
Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling." Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.
And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself...
"Baa."
This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress. -- John Adams
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Those who make their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don’t.