Monday, March 31, 2008

AEI - Events - The Obama Challenge - What Is the Right Change to Help All Americans Pursue Happiness and Create Prosperity?

Here's a video worth watching:,filter.all,type.past/event_detail.asp (click on "Video" on the upper right hand side of the page).

Newt Gingrich talks about the right changes required to turn around this country and best equip Americans to pursue happiness and create prosperity.

This is probably the best quote in the whole speech:

"You don't have a community that creates wealth that ends up prosperous and safe and gives kids a better future if everyone is taught to stand around demanding that somebody else pay for everything. And this is a core challenge. Should this be a country in which every person learns to work, every person learns to save, every person learns to have a better future, and, by the way, is therefore responsible for working, saving, and creating a better future? Or is this a country where you shouldn't have to do all those things because it's too hard, and someone should take care of you? In which case, the question becomes: who's the someone, and why do you think they'll stay here? It's a fundamental question..."


Saturday, March 29, 2008

Privacy gone bad - Librarian fired for reporting child porn

Here is what happens when you take "privacy" too far:

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel


Brenda Biesterfeld needs your help.

Brenda did something I hope all of us would have the courage to do...

She blew the whistle on a man at her local library who was viewing child porn on the public library computers. The police caught him in the act and arrested him. The authorities then searched his home and found more child pornography.

Two days after she reported the man, Brenda was fired! In fact, within hours of when she reported the man to the police, she was reprimanded by her boss for invading his "privacy." And then, without warning, she was fired.
I am asking you to sign a Petition calling for Brenda’s immediate reinstatement -- along with a formal apology from Lindsay, California library officials. Go here:

Liberty Counsel has taken up Brenda's case and we have already sent a Demand Letter to Lindsay library officials. But now I need your help to show those officials and the national media that we will not tolerate this outrageous firing -- and we will not sit by quietly when local officials take the side of child pornographers!

Please sign the petition today. I have posted more information on the petition site. The more you learn about this case, the more outraged you will be.

Thank you for your immediate action.
Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel

P.S. It took great courage for Brenda to take such a strong stand against child porn in her library. We need more citizens like Brenda! That’s why we cannot allow this library to get away with punishing her. Thank you for standing with Brenda:

It appears that the keys words here are "public library". Notice that "public library" starts with "public"? Since when is what you do in a public place an issue of privacy? It must be that viewing child porn is only legal in a public library, as we all know, it's illegal everywhere else.

Roger Hedgecock ( had this to say:
"Let's be clear. Child porn is not protected free speech, not protected by either the federal Constitution or the California Constitution and violates California criminal law. When librarians witness this crime, they are right to call the police."

I'm with Roger on this one! Have you signed the petition yet? How about we get rid of the ACLU?


Friday, March 28, 2008

DHS's bogus border fence claims

Isn't it great when a government agency who's explicit purpose is to
protect our country, is working hard to be prevent it? Here is an
e-mail I receive to today about the border fence issue:

From the Desk of:
Steve Elliott, President, Alliance


Dear Robert,

Thank you so much for signing Grassfire's petition to
Restore the Secure Fence Act.

Our research staff just uncovered another reason why your petition
is so vital. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is once
again inflating its numbers of the amount of border fence that
has been built. They claim over 300 miles. Reality check:
less than 10 miles of double-layer fencing has been built
since the Secure Fence Act was passed 18 months ago.

It's basically another border fence hoax. See our full report here
of how DHS inflates its numbers to claim over 300 miles of fencing:

And progress has slowed to a crawl. Since last September, DHS
has only built 6 miles of pedestrian fence and 35 miles of vehicle
barriers. And their "virtual" fence test was a total failure.

So with the "sunset" clause set to go into effect in just nine
months, it is clear that DHS is doing nothing more than playing
games and juggling numbers. Even worse, DHS is counting so-called
"vehicle barriers" for half of its claimed progress. Just one
problem -- illegal aliens can walk right through the vehicle barriers!

The clock is ticking and you and I must do all we can to restore
the Secure Fence Act.

++ Please forward this message to your friends

We still are far short of our goal to rally 250,000 signers of
our "Restore The Fence Act" petition before next month's delivery
on Capitol Hill.

We need your help.

Please forward this message to your friends
and ask them to sign the petition to restore the
Secure Fence Act:

Again, please read our special report on the games DHS is playing
with the border fence, and with our nation's security! Go here:

And thanks in advance for taking action with us to spread the word

Steve Elliott, President

Exactly how is the DHS providing "Homeland Security" by lying to US?


Thursday, March 20, 2008

Capitol Commentary on DC v Heller - a light at the end of the tunnel?

Here's the lastest from the ISRA:

Capitol Commentary
By Todd Vandermyde

This edition will focus on the oral arguments in the DC gun ban.

Headlines across the country are screaming that a majority of the court appears to back the individual right to bear arms. This revelation came on page 13 in reading the transcripts of the hearing. There Justice Kennedy often a swing vote on the Court referenced Article 1 Section 8 in dealing with militias and said this:

“And my question is, the question before us, is how and to what extent did it supplement it (Article 1 Section 8). And in my view it supplemented it by saying there's a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way.”

Reports from the hearing say no gasp was heard by those in attendance, but after reading those words in light of the peppering the DC lawyer was taking, you have to imaging the hearts of anti-gunners just sank like the Titanic.

That would explain the shift in comments made by anti-gunners where they discarded the militia reading and now attempt to salvage their cause by hoping the Court will allow local communities and states to make their own laws, based upon their own political leanings.

For months we have been hearing and reading on blogs arguments within the anti-gun community about letting the DC case go and taking the hit from the appellate court. The damage would be limited to DC and other laws around the country would be left intact and unchallenged. They saw the chance to lose and lose big. IF the questions and tone of the hearing are any indication they were right in their fears.

Reading further in to the 90 pages other issues come up. At the very end limits on the number of guns comes up. On page 88 Justice Scalia shows his understanding of guns by rattling off what one might consider those in his collection of wish list. Going to the question of if the government could limit the number firearms a person could own. Kennedy again jumps in and presses the DC lawyer for an answer on that hypothetical question.

Again DC tries to cast aspersions on the notion that of a standard test for which gun laws would be measured would be fair. Attempting to play on regional and political lines down playing a one size fits all ruling from the Court. This line of questions from Justice Scalia and Kennedy would appear to cast doubt on the validity of one-gun per month laws and other rationing schemes.

There also was a fair amount of time in parsing the amendment, with several of the Justices looking at the wording as providing two or maybe even three rights. First that of States’ having a militia. Second, pun intended, that of the individual to possess and “keep” arms. Then with debate and discussion turning towards the word “bear”. As you read the transcripts it hints at carry laws, but never quite gets there. Could they find a third right in the carrying of firearms for self defense? Dunno but on two occasions they dance around the issue with the talk of bearing a gun for hunting on page 36. You can almost hear the concern in Justice Souter’s voice over the interpretation and parsing of the words.

This strikes me as poetic justice. For years the anti-gun crowd have argued no right existed and parse commas and demand the militia be all controlling. Yet what took place at the Court was anything but. With justices saying that the militia was one of at least two parts of the Amendment, and parsing out the individual words of keep and bear. Framing it in distinct individual rights for each. The antis’ hearts had to sink lower as the debate wore on.

An almost comical exchange takes place with Chief Justice Roberts attempting to describe the process of awakening to a burglar breaking into ones’ home and trying to get a trigger lock off of a firearm.

If Justice Roberts’ line of thinking and questioning would prevail, then laws that prevent people from having firearms available for self defense in their homes would be struck down. Laws that hold a gun owner civilly liable for kids that get a hold of firearms and injure someone could be legal.

But the overriding thought of the day is probably best summed up by Justice Roberts question “What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?” With that, it appears that whole sale gun bans will not stand the scrutiny of the court.

The court also dove into the issue of machine guns and licensing. My layman’s view is that the court may well say that the regulation of certain specific guns, like full autos is permissible. This may have been an attempt to keep Justice Kennedy on the side of the individual rights interpretation and not push him over to the other side. It would also appear that the court is leaning towards a ruling, or at least hinting that laws aimed and discouraging citizens from exercising their rights may find a dim view with the court. An example might be that the FOID card at $10 is acceptable to the court, but the $500 FOID card is not.

One thing is certain, that with a ruling due out in June, more litigation is sure to follow. But that sound you hear isn’t just Spring, it sounds like freedom.

Maybe a light at the end of the tunnel?


Saturday, March 15, 2008

ISRA Alert - Cook County Gun Ban


Larry Suffredin and his cohorts on the Cook County Board are up to their old tricks again.

In order to justify passage of gun control ordinances designed to close all gun shops and ban and confiscate most guns owned by citizens of the county, the Cook County Board is conducting a telephone poll where callers can vote for or against the gun control ordinances.

Like everything else in Cook County, this poll is probably rigged. So, it’s very important that you do the following:

  1. Call 1-312 -603-6400 and select Option #1 when prompted. At the next prompt, select Option #1 again. Then, when prompted to vote on the gun control ordinance, press #2.
  2. You should also forward this alert on to all your gun owning friends and have them vote too.
  3. You should also post this alert to any and all Internet bulletin boards or blogs to which you belong.


Let’s beat Suffredin at his own game! And, save your guns.

I've expressed my opinion to oppose this from all of my phones.  Now, it's your turn to do your part!


Tax breaks for terrorists

To make matters worse, the house just passed H.R. 5351 which would give tax breaks to the Venezuela President (Dictator, more accurately) Hugo Chavez. Exactly how does that make sense?


Chavez Dares US on Terror List Proposal

Here's a good one:

President Hugo Chavez dared the U.S. on Friday to put Venezuela on a list of countries accused of supporting terrorism

Since the supporter of terrorism has offered, then why not? I'm surprised that they're not already on the list.


Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Democrats Pre-Iraq War View on WMD's and Terrorism


The most despicable acts of deceit ongoing in this country are the lies and hypocrisy perpetrated by the democrats seen in this short video.

They are so blinded by their hate for our President and the necessities of their party they have betrayed their own consciences.

This should be seen by everyone in America! Please pass it on.

Here's a video compilation you definitely won't see on main stream media.

The next time you hear the expression 'Bush's war' remember this note that there's no 'opinion', just direct video which deserves wide distribution.


Thursday, March 06, 2008

Everyone Shouldn't Go To College

Michael Robertson asks the question, " Is college really a good financial choice for everyone regardless of sex or race?". College Board thinks so, but, there's always more to it...

Read the full story: