I’m not sure which is more pathetic — the news folks and their wall-to-wall coverage before they knew any facts, homeland security because these things were in place in 10 cities for two weeks before being discovered in Boston, or the marketing firm that dreamed up this miracle of modern marketing.

Read all about it here at Yahoo news

Turner Broadcasting, a division of Time Warner Inc. and parent of Cartoon Network, said the devices were part of a promotion for the TV show “Aqua Teen Hunger Force,” a surreal series about a talking milkshake, a box of fries and a meatball.

“The packages in question are magnetic lights that pose no danger,” Turner said in a statement. It said the devices have been in place for two to three weeks in 10 cities: Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle, Portland, Ore., Austin, Texas, San Francisco and Philadelphia.

According to this report from The Hill, police were ordered to fall back and allow anti-war protesters to spray paint slogans on the steps of the US Capitol building.

According to the sources, police officers were livid when they were told to fall back by U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) Chief Phillip Morse and Deputy Chief Daniel Nichols. “They were the commanders on the scene,” one source said, who requested anonymity. “It was disgusting.”

Approximately 300 protesters were allowed to take the steps and began to spray paint “anarchist symbols” and phrase such as “Our capitol building” and “you can’t stop us” around the area, the source said.

Digging for pictures of this one…

Citizens’ Self-Defense Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)

HR 73 IH

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 73

To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in
defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such
right.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 4, 2007

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland introduced the following bill; which was referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in
defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such
right.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Citizens’ Self-Defense Act of 2007′.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to
protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:
Read the rest of this entry »

I previously wrote about the case where the US Attorney went out of his way to build a case against 2 US Border Patrol guards in this article here. Now there is a report from World Net Daily that the ballistics data in the case don’t match the facts.

Despite the conclusion of a laboratory criminalist that he could not conclusively link the bullet removed from Aldrete-Davila with Ramos’ service weapon, a Department of Homeland Security agent swore, in an affidavit of complaint filed against Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, that Aldrete-Davila was hit by a round fired by Ramos.

On the flip side the description of the drug smuggler’s wounds are consistent with the description of the incident by the two officers:

The Army doctor’s description of the wound directly contradicts U.S. Attorney Sutton’s repeated claim that agents Ramos and Compean shot Aldrete-Davila in the back.

The doctor clearly stated that the wound he observed was consistent with Aldrete-Davila turning to assume a “bladed position” with his left arm extended back toward the officers. This corroborates agent Ramos and Compean’s claim they observed Aldrete-Davila turning back toward them while fleeing, extending his arm and holding an object in his hand that they took to be a weapon.

Aldrete-Davila is left-handed, consistent with the bullet entering his left buttock laterally as he fled and turned back toward the officers, possibly pointing a weapon at them.

It may seem hypocritical to simultaneously claim that Officer Ramos did not shoot him, and that he did shoot him. What is does show is that the evidence in the case is inconclusive, and that two good Officers are being unfairly treated by the system that they swore to protect. They have never denied that the shooting happened, but the chain of evidence (you watch CSI, right? They do get some things right) is not secure, and they cannot prove that the bullet removed from the drug dealer is from Ramos’ gun.

And even if it did match, the description of the wound is consistent with someone turning and preparing to fire a gun. In which case their actions are completely justified. It is becoming increasingly evident that this case was motivated by something other than a sense of justice. I won’t speculate as to why they have been made an example of, but I find this administrations attitude towards border security to be puzzling and disturbing.

From the latest NRA-ILA Alert:

H.R. 226, introduced by U.S. Representatives Cliff Stearns’ (R-Fla.) and Rich Boucher (D-Va.), would allow any person with a valid concealed firearm carrying permit or license, issued by a state, to carry a concealed firearm in any state, as follows: In states that issue concealed firearm permits, a state’s laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders. In states that do not issue carry permits, a federal “bright-line” standard would permit carrying in places other than police stations; courthouses; public polling places; meetings of state, county, or municipal governing bodies; schools; passenger areas of airports; and certain other locations. The bill applies to D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. territories. It would not create a federal licensing system; it would require the states to recognize each others’ carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995.

• Today, 48 states have laws permitting concealed carry, in some circumstances. Forty states, accounting for two-thirds of the U.S. population, have RTC laws. Thirty-six have “shall issue” permit laws (including Alaska, which also allows carrying without a permit), three have fairly administered “discretionary issue” permit laws, and Vermont (and Alaska) allow carrying without a permit. (Eight states have restrictive discretionary issue laws.) Most RTC states have adopted their laws in the last decade.

• Citizens with carry permits are more law-abiding than the general public. Only 0.01% of nearly 1.2 million permits issued by Florida have been revoked because of firearm crimes by permit holders. Similarly low percentages of permits have been revoked in Texas, Virginia, and other RTC states that keep such statistics. RTC is widely supported by law enforcement officials and groups.

• States with RTC laws have lower violent crime rates. On average, 22% lower total violent crime, 30% lower murder, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault, compared to the rest of the country. The seven states with the lowest violent crime rates are RTC states. (Data: FBI.)

• Crime declines in states with RTC laws. Since adopting RTC in 1987, Florida’s total violent crime and murder rates have dropped 32% and 58%, respectively. Texas’ violent crime and murder rates have dropped 20% and 31%, respectively, since its 1996 RTC law. (Data: FBI.)

• The right of self-defense is fundamental, and has been recognized in law for centuries. The Declaration of Independence asserts that “life” is among the unalienable rights of all people. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms for “security.”

• The laws of all states and constitutions of most states recognize the right to use force in self-defense. The Supreme Court has stated that a person “may repel force by force” in self-defense, and is “entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force” as needed to prevent “great bodily injury or death.” (Beard v. U.S., 1895)

• Congress affirmed the right to guns for “protective purposes” in the Gun Control Act (1968) and Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (1986). In 1982, the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution described the right to arms as “a right of the individual citizen to privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms.”

Posted: 1/8/2007 12:00:00 AM

After reading the articles on Blackfive, Michelle Malkin, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and watching the video on Hot Air I’m wondering what all the noise is about?

So the folks at discount-mats don’t like the war. So what? Don’t do business with them. But turn it into a big media event? Send threatening emails and phone calls? Don’t you think we are being a bit overly sensitive here?

The email exchange, what there is of it, looks like this (courtesy of Blackfive):

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On Tue Jan 16 3:25, contact@discount-mats.com sent:

To Whom it may concern:

Do you ship to APO addresses?
I’m in the 1st Cavalry Division stationed in Iraq and we are trying to order some mats but we are looking for who ships to APO first.

SGT Hess

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: contact@discount-mats.com [mailto: contact@discount-mats.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:44 PM

Subject: Re: Feedback: from discount-mats.com

SGT Hess,

We do not ship to APO addresses, and even if we did, we would NEVER ship to Iraq. If you were sensible, you and your troops would pull out of Iraq.

Bargain Suppliers
Discount-Mats.com

Big deal. They didn’t tell Sgt. Hess that they hoped he got blown to bits by an IED, did they? They expressed their opinion and left it at that. Unlike some public anti-war zealots that we can all think of, they didn’t call the troops war criminals, etc. It seems to me that a big deal is being made out of something insignificant. I’m sure there are lots of mat companies that would be happy to ship to an APO. They might even donate some mats to the troops. So move on and find someone who wants to do business with you.

And by the way, why is a Sgt. buying mats anyway? Isn’t is the job of our military to keep these guys properly equipped? Say, at least a Korean war era cot maybe? They’re out there in harms way every day, the least we could do to support them is give them some place other than the ground to sleep.

A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2007, AND THEREAFTER

In the wake of New York City’s ban on restaurant use of trans fat, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the ban is “not going to take away anybody’s ability to go out and have the kind of food they want, in the quantities they want. . . . We are just trying to make food safer.”

That, my friends, is tyrannical double-talk. Let’s look at it. Trans fats are derived from partially hydrogenated vegetable oils. They can raise blood levels of LDL, the “bad cholesterol.” According to Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, president of American Council on Science and Health, trans fats are about two percent of our daily caloric intake, while saturated fats, which also raise LDL blood levels, make up 10 to 15 percent.

I know I just posted another essay from the Professor, but I just love how he writes. “tyrannical double-talk” is the perfect way to describe this. I’d apply the same description to the explosion of smoking bans as well.

Read the rest here at Professor Williams’ website.

A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 3, 2007, AND THEREAFTER

Not that many complimentary things are said about politicians. When a problem arises, people say, “Government ought to do something.” They seem to have forgotten that it’s the politicians who are running the government. Many think things can be changed by electing different politicians, but I ask: Given the incentives politicians face, why should we expect one politician to differ significantly from another? We should focus less on personalities and more on rules.

The kind of rules we should have are the kind that we’d make if our worst enemy were in charge. My mother created a mini-version of such a rule. Sometimes she would ask either me or my sister to evenly divide the last piece of cake or pie to share between us. More times than not, an argument ensued about the fairness of the division. Those arguments ended with Mom’s rule: Whoever cuts the cake lets the other take the first piece. As if by magic or divine intervention, fairness emerged and arguments ended. No matter who did the cutting, there was an even division.

Read the rest of Professor Williams’ essy here at his website.

From the Concord Monitor comes this story of a couple who are standing up to the IRS -

The trial of a Plainfield couple who refused to pay income taxes for nearly 10 years began yesterday in federal court with Ed and Elaine Brown each arguing that they do not believe the income tax applies to them.

The couple, who are representing themselves, said they did not dispute the prosecutor’s contention that they had opted out of the tax system, but they said they believe they have not broken the law by doing so.

“My husband and I challenged the application of the tax law to us,” Elaine Brown said in her opening statement. “We cannot find any statute that requires us to pay.”

According to Bill Morse, the assistant United States attorney who is prosecuting the case, the Browns stopped paying income taxes in 1996 and stopped filing tax returns in 1998. Both Browns are accused of conspiring to commit tax fraud, conspiring to disguise large financial transactions and disguising large financial transactions. Elaine Brown, a dentist who practices in Lebanon, has also been charged with evading income taxes and failing to withhold taxes from her employees. Each of the Browns face decades in prison if convicted.

Read the rest of this entry »

This comes in from CNSNews.com

By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
January 17, 2007

(CNSNews.com) – As two U.S. Border Patrol agents surrendered to federal marshals Wednesday afternoon to begin serving more than a decade in jail for shooting an illegal drug smuggler, a federal lawmaker and conservative advocacy group expressed outrage at President Bush for not pardoning the men.

“This is the worst betrayal of American defenders I have ever seen,” Rep. Dana Rohrabacher said of the president.

“It’s shameful this was done by someone who is in the Republican Party,” the California Republican added in comments coinciding with the jailing of agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.

Rohrabacher said Bush “obviously thinks more about his agreements with Mexico than the lives of American people and backing up his defenders.”

Why?

As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Ramos and Compean encountered Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila while on duty on Feb. 17, 2005. When they tried to stop him, he fled and was shot and wounded. Aldrete-Davila was treated at a hospital in El Paso and then returned to Mexico.

After learning of the shooting, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton sought out Aldrete-Davila in Mexico and offered him immunity from prosecution if he would return to the United States to testify against Ramos and Compean.

Sutton later defended the decision, arguing that the agents did not have knowledge of any criminal activity involving Aldrete-Davila at the time they shot him.

The U.S. Attorney went out of his way to prosecute two Border Guards doing their job? Just wonderful.

A country without borders is not a country. It looks like that’s where we’re still headed.

This surprising op-ed made it into the New York Times. Written by Instapundit blogger and author Glenn Reynolds. It is nice to see the Times publishing something that makes sense on occasion. We while could hope for a tide of these kinds of laws to sweep the nation, as Concealed Carry has, I don’t see the big liberal cities getting on board.

Last month, Greenleaf, Idaho, adopted Ordinance 208, calling for its citizens to own guns and keep them ready in their homes in case of emergency. It’s not a response to high crime rates. As The Associated Press reported, “Greenleaf doesn’t really have crime … the most violent offense reported in the past two years was a fist fight.” Rather, it’s a statement about preparedness in the event of an emergency, and an effort to promote a culture of self-reliance.

Read the rest of this entry »

This comes in from Mr. Completely:

For months Democrats said they wanted to take the country in a new direction.

If the stock market is at a new all-time high and America’s 401K’s are back, what’s the “new” direction?

* If unemployment is at 25-year lows, what’s the “new” direction?

* If oil prices are plummeting, what’s the “new” direction?

* If taxes for Americans are at 20-year lows, what’s the “new” direction?

* If federal tax revenues are at all-time highs, what’s the “new” direction?

* If the federal deficit is down almost 50 percent, what’s the “new” direction?

* If home valuations are up 200 percent over the past 3.5 years, what’s the “new” direction?

* If not a single terrorist attack has occurred on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001, what’s the “new” direction?

* If 75 percent of Al Qaeda’s leadership is either dead or in custody, and cooperating with U.S. Intelligence officers, what’s the “new” direction?

Just asking………..

From Bloomberg:

By Jason Kelly and Mary Jane Credeur

Jan. 11 (Bloomberg) — Fourteen advisers to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s center for human rights resigned today, citing his stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Former Presidential adviser S. Stephen Selig III and Caribou Coffee Co. Chief Executive Officer Michael Coles were among the resigning members of the Board of Councilors to the Carter Center.

They quit the Atlanta-based organization in reaction to Carter’s book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” as well as his statements since its publication last year. Carter portrays the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as a “purely one-sided affair,” with Israel holding all of the responsibility for resolving it, they say.

What is disappointing in this is that these are only 14 of the more than 200 members of the Board of Councilors. Others, such as Arthur Blank, founder of Home Depot Inc. are only saying this:

“The book and the tone of the interviews that I have seen since its publication distress me and many others whose views I respect,” Blank said in the statement, which was e-mailed to Bloomberg News. “I’m not prepared to discuss what, if any, actions I might take related to President Carter’s book or the public reactions to it.”

This comes from WMCTV, Memphis:

Syan Rhodes reports:
Jan 12, 2007 08:42 PM

Memphis police are investigating a home invasion that ended in a shooting.

Police say 84-year-old Willie Hancox called 911 around two Friday afternoon to say that he had shot an intruder.

Hancox says he fired two shots, hitting an intruder twice in the head.
Read the rest of this entry »

KVOA Tuscon reports that a man defended his family against 6 armed home invaders:

A South Tucson man took action when six men with guns raided his home. That man says he fired in self-defense when six men stormed into his home.

The home invasion happened Tuesday night just before 11 p.m. at a home on west Valencia Road.

A 23-year-old living inside heard the commotion and shot two of the men.

One died. The other is in critical condition. No one else was hurt.
Read the rest of this entry »

Arizona Central is reporting another border violation:

A U.S. Border Patrol entry Identification Team site was overrun Wednesday night along Arizona’s border with Mexico.

According to the Border Patrol, an unknown number of gunmen attacked the site in the state’s West Desert Region around 11 p.m. The site is manned by National Guardsmen. Those guardsmen were forced to retreat.

Maybe if we armed the Guardsmen they would have had a chance to defend themselves? Maybe if our President took border security seriously? I have said this repeatedly — if you cannot protect your borders you are not a country.

This comes from Joe Waldron of the Gun Owner’s Action League, WA:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/298561_guns05.html

DESPITE SHOOTINGS, GUN CONTROL UNLIKELY

Lawmakers reluctant to pass measures

“OLYMPIA — Heading into the 2007 Legislature, leading lawmakers are
reluctant to pass new gun-control measures despite last year’s mass
killing on Capitol Hill, a downtown office shooting and this week’s gun
slaying of a Tacoma high school student.

“Insiders and experts say the gun lobby’s influence may be too strong,
politicians’ courage too weak and the number of gun victims still too
low to prompt action.”

The lead-in to today’s Seattle P-I story about the future of proposed
gun control laws in Olympia sounds good for gun rights advocates. But is it?

The true intent of the P-I is to build pressure on legislators to pass
gun control legislation during the upcoming session DESPITE the fact
that none of the proposals would have prevents Wednesday’s shooting at
Foss High School or earlier high visibility shootings in King and Pierce
counties.
Read the rest of this entry »