Idaho Libertarian Times

Watch lists, guns and government

by Bob Barr
as published in The Atlanta Journal Constitution
Monday, June 29, 2009 at 9:00 AM

The secret government "Terrorist Watch List," reportedly already swelled to more than 1.1 million names, will have an addendum, if gun control advocates in Congress have their way. This new addendum — also to be cloaked in secrecy — would empower the U.S. Attorney General to deny a person the ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights to purchase a firearm.

While it is not surprising that some members of Congress are again using fear of terrorism to implement a gun-control agenda, the openly unconstitutional legislative language proponents are employing is troubling.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) is leading the effort in the Senate, while another well-known gun control advocate — Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) — is directing the House initiative. They have introduced identical bills — the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009." This proposal would give the attorney general the power to unilaterally and in secret develop a watch list of persons believed to be unworthy of possessing a firearm or any explosive.

This new "dangerous terrorist" watch list would include names based not on hard evidence of criminal activity, but on nothing more than the subjective conclusion by the attorney general that a person is "appropriately suspected" (whatever that means) of engaging in some manner of assisting or preparing for acts of domestic or international terrorism. The American people would never be privy to what criteria might be employed by the attorney general to determine whether someone is an "appropriate suspect," and they would have no way of knowing why they might be denied the ability to purchase a firearm.

If a person were to be refused "permission" to purchase a firearm or explosive, and if they subsequently filed a lawsuit in federal court to find out why, the government still could keep such information secret. In other words, the attorney general could deny a U.S. citizen the ability to own a firearm, and never have to give the reason.

For legislators like Lautenberg and King, who apparently have absolute faith in unelected government officials to make the right decisions for the right reasons at the right times (and never be required to explain those decisions), one has only to consider the checkered history of post-9/11 "terrorist" watch lists to see the folly of such perspective. Stories abound of persons denied the ability to board a commercial aircraft, or greatly delayed in being allowed on board, for no reason other than their name erroneously appeared on some "watch list." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), have been among this not-so-elite group.

A report earlier this year by the FBI's inspector general chronicled extensive internal problems with the terrorist watch list maintained by that agency. The IG found numerous examples of inaccuracies, incomplete entries, out-of-date information and inclusion of information "unrelated to terrorism." While the inconvenience of not being able to board an airliner for a business trip or a vacation can be a real headache, being refused the ability to purchase a firearm to protect one's life clearly raises the stakes.

The government already has remedies already at its disposal to keep firearms out of the hands of known or suspected terrorists. Under existing federal law, there are numerous categories of persons prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms; including persons in violation of immigration laws, convicted felons, illicit drug users and others. And if a person truly is a known or suspected terrorist, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — as the federal law enforcement agency primarily responsible for enforcing the nation's gun laws — certainly should be made aware of that information. We don't need a secret, anti-Second Amendment watch list to implement effective law enforcement in America.

Cap and Trade

In case you slept through it, Cap and Trade was introduced, amended, voted , passed,  all in a stunning new demonstration of just how Moronic our political system has become.
Send Washington a message!

Join Downsize DC'S "Read The Bills" Coalition

http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/27

Lets Ring THE PHONES:

Complete list of how each rep voted, with links to contact info (from opencongress)

Here's a quick list of "Yes" men to get you started:

Bono Mack (CA) 202-225-5330
Castle (DE) 202-225-4165
Kirk (IL) 202-225-4835
Lance (NJ) 202-225-5361
Lobiondo (NJ) 202-225-6572
McHugh (NY) 202-225-4611
Reichart (WA) 202-225-7761
Chris Smith (NJ) 202-225-3765

E-mails indicate EPA suppressed report skeptical of global warming

June 27, 2009 11:10 AM PDT

originally posted to CNET
by Declan McCullagh

The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message (PDF) to a staff researcher on March 17: "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward...and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."

The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be an independent review process inside a federal agency--and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.

Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, said in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself. "It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else," Carlin said. "That was obviously coming from higher levels."

E-mail messages released this week show that Carlin was ordered not to "have any direct communication" with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed that his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic.

"I was told for probably the first time in I don't know how many years exactly what I was to work on," said Carlin, a 38-year veteran of the EPA. "And it was not to work on climate change." One e-mail orders him to update a grants database instead.

For its part, the EPA sent an e-mailed statement saying: "Claims that this individual's opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency, and science-based decision making. These principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were heard and an inter-agency review was conducted." (The endangerment finding is the EPA's decision that carbon dioxide endangers the public health and welfare.)

Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD in economics from MIT. His Web site lists papers about the environment and public policy dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to environmentally-responsible energy pricing.

After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research. "My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."

Carlin's report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there's "little evidence" that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth's temperature.

If there is a need for the government to lower planetary temperatures, Carlin believes, other mechanisms would be cheaper and more effective than regulation of carbon dioxide. One paper he wrote says managing sea level rise or reducing solar radiation reaching the earth would be more cost-effective alternatives.

The EPA's possible suppression of Carlin's report, which lists the EPA's John Davidson as a co-author, could endanger any carbon dioxide regulations if they are eventually challenged in court.

"The big question is: there is this general rule that when an agency puts something out for public evidence and comment, it's supposed to have the evidence supporting it and the evidence the other way," said Sam Kazman, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, D.C., that has been skeptical of new laws or regulations relating to global warming.

Kazman's group obtained the documents--both CEI and Carlin say he was not the source--and released the e-mails on Tuesday and the report on Friday. As a result of the disclosure, CEI has asked the EPA to reopen the comment period on the greenhouse gas regulatory proceeding, which ended on Tuesday.

The EPA also said in its statement: "The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless, the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding."

That appears to conflict with an e-mail from McGartland in March, who said to Carlin: "I decided not to forward your comments... I can see only one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." He also wrote to Carlin: "Please do not have any direct communication with anyone outside of (our group) on endangerment. There should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc."

One reason why the process might have been highly charged politically is the unusual speed of the regulatory process. Lisa Jackson, the new EPA administrator, had said that she wanted her agency to reach a decision about regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act by April 2--the second anniversary of a related U.S. Supreme Court decision.

"All this goes back to a decision at a higher level that this was very urgent to get out, if possible, yesterday," Carlin said. "In the case of an ordinary regulation, these things normally take a year or two. In this case, it was a few weeks to get it out for public comment." (Carlin said that he and other EPA staff members who were asked to respond to a draft only had four and a half days to do so.)

In the last few days, Republicans have begun to raise questions about the report and e-mail messages, but it was insufficient to derail the so-called cap and trade bill from being approved by the U.S. House of Representatives.

Rep. Joe Barton, the senior Republican on the Energy and Commerce committee, invoked Carlin's report in a floor speech during the debate on Friday. "The science is not there to back it up," Barton said. "An EPA report that has been suppressed...raises grave doubts about the endangerment finding. If you don't have an endangerment finding, you don't need this bill. We don't need this bill. And for some reason, the EPA saw fit not to include that in its decision."

"I'm sure it was very inconvenient for the EPA to consider a study that contradicted the findings it wanted to reach," Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the senior Republican on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said in a statement. "But the EPA is supposed to reach its findings based on evidence, not on political goals. The repression of this important study casts doubts on the EPA's finding, and frankly, on other analysis the EPA has conducted on climate issues."

The revelations could prove embarrassing to Jackson, the EPA administrator, who said in January: "I will ensure the EPA's efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency." Similarly, President Barack Obama claimed that "the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over... To undermine scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy. It is contrary to our way of life."

"All this talk from the president and (EPA administrator) Lisa Jackson about integrity, transparency, and increased EPA protection for whistleblowers--you've got a bouquet of ironies here," said Kazman, the CEI attorney.

Declan McCullagh, CBSNews.com's chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan.

8 Scandalous Michael Jackson Moments

From: listverse.com - Published June 26, 2009 by JFrater - 270 Comments

Michael Jackson who has featured on this site in the past died on Thursday, June 25. Therefore, as an odd tribute to his talent as a musician, we have put together this list of the most bizarre and scandalous moments in his 50 years.

8# 

Crotch Grab

In the 18-minute music video for “Bad”—directed by Martin Scorsese—Jackson began using sexual imagery and choreography not previously seen in his work. He occasionally grabbed or touched his chest, torso and crotch. While he has described this as “choreography,” it garnered a mixed reception from both fans and critics; Time magazine described it as “infamous”. The racy “crotch grab” dance move became Jackson’s trademark. The move is commonly seen in today’s music videos but at the time, the crotch grabbing shocked the world.

7

Cosmetic Surgery

In 1979, Jackson broke his nose during a complex dance routine. His subsequent rhinoplasty surgery was not a complete success; he complained of breathing difficulties that would affect his career. He was referred to Dr. Steven Hoefflin, who performed Jackson’s second rhinoplasty and other subsequent operations. Many believe that he used this as an excuse to get a nose job. In 1993, the popstar stated that he had only had two cosmetic operations – on his nose and chin – done, for medical reasons. His extreme physical transformation suggests that he’s had more than just two, however.

6

Concert Cancellations

After Jackson reportedly cancelled numerous concerts in 1999, Munich event organiser and Jackson’s friend Marcel Avram lodged a complaint of ‘breach of contract’ against the singer. Jackson then threw the same charge at Avram. After a tug of war in the court room, the two friends managed to come to an agreement.

5

Hurricane Katrina

When Hurricane Katrina ripped through New Orleans, Jackson promised to record a song about the disaster to aid charity. He worked on the project with artists from London and Los Angeles, according to reports in the autumn of 2005 — but the single never eventuated.

4

Bad Debts

In a bizarre twist on the “rags to riches” genre, Michael returned to rags after pouring out enormous quantities of money in defending himself in the various lawsuits against him in recent years. Reports of financial problems for Jackson became frequent in 2006 after the closure of the main house on the Neverland Ranch as a cost-cutting measure. One prominent financial issue for him concerned a $270 million loan secured against his music publishing holdings. After delayed repayments on the loan, a refinancing package shifted the loans from Bank of America to debt specialists Fortress Investments. Jackson had been one of the world’s richest popstars, reportedly worth several hundred million dollars in the 1990s.

3

Neverland

Jackson’s home “Neverland” contained, among other things, a zoo and a theme park, with a Ferris wheel, merry-go-round, zipper, spider, sea dragon, wave swinger, super slide, dragon wagon kiddie roller coaster, and bumper cars. It is named after Neverland, the fantasy island in the story of Peter Pan, where children never grow up. On February 25, 2008, Jackson received word from Financial Title Company, the trustee, that unless he paid off $24,525,906.61 by March 19, a public auction would go forward of the land, buildings, and other items such as the rides, trains, and art. On May 12, 2008, a foreclosure auction for the ranch was canceled after an investment company, Colony Capital LLC, purchased the loan. Jackson was in default on the $24.5 million owed on the 2,500-acre (10 km2) property. In a press release, Jackson stated, “I am pleased with recent developments involving Neverland Ranch and I am in discussions with Colony and Tom Barrack with regard to the Ranch and other matters that would allow me to focus on the future.”

2

Balcony Baby

In 2002, Jackson brought his new born son (Prince Michael Jackson II – also known as Blanket) onto the balcony of his hotel room in Berlin, as fans stood below. Holding him in his right arm, with a cloth loosely draped over the baby’s face, Jackson briefly extended the baby over the railing of the balcony, four stories above ground level, causing widespread criticism in the media. Jackson later apologized for the incident, calling it “a terrible mistake”.

1

Child Abuse

This is undoubtedly the most controversial scandal that occurred in Michael Jackson’s life. In 2003, Jackson was charged with seven counts of child sexual abuse and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent in order to commit a child sexual abuse felony against Gavin Arvizo, who was under 14 at the time. Earlier that year, a Granada Television documentary, called Living with Michael Jackson, showed the pop star holding hands and discussing sleeping arrangements with Arvizo. Jackson denied these allegations, saying that the sleepovers were in no way sexual in nature. Jackson was found not guilty but this ultimately ended his music career.

This article is licensed under the GFDL because it contains quotations from Wikipedia. Some information courtesy of Bild with thanks.

Cap -N- Trade, an extension of the recession for the next decade

According to Steve Gordon" This is who Sold us out:

1. Mary Bono Mack (CA)
2. Michael Castle (DE)
3. Mark Kirk (IL)
4. Leonard Lance (NJ)
5. Frank LoBiondo (NJ)
6. John McHugh (NY)
7. Dave Reichert (WA)
8. Chris Smith (NJ)

According to DowniszeDC.org

"Cap and Trade" is not the way

"Cap and trade" proposals would . . .

• Place a limitation on the level of CO2 emissions
• Sell permits to businesses that would allow them to emit CO2 in amounts equal to the cap
• Allow businesses to trade and/or sell these permits to each other -- allegedly creating a market to encourage innovations that would reduce CO2 emissions
• Use the proceeds from the sale of these permits to create a vast new research bureaucracy designed to help corporations cope with the cap

As a practical matter, "cap and trade" proposals will result in. . .

• An increase in your electricity and gasoline bills
• New tools for politicians to control the economy, hand out favors, and punish enemies
• Greater levels of inefficient "research," just like the Energy Department has done
• Almost no improvement in reducing overall CO-2 emissions (if the example of Europe is a reliable guide)

Even if you accept that human CO2 emissions are causing problematic global warming, a government run "cap and trade" system is not the way to deal with this problem. There is a better way. Here are some points to consider . . .

• Fossil fuels create massive amounts of air pollution, quite apart from CO2.
• This pollution causes health problems, none of which are reflected in the price of fossil fuels.
• Fossil fuels enjoy a "free ride" in terms of pollution costs that make it hard for alternative sources of energy to compete.
• Air pollution is a form of trespass, and a case can certainly be made that dealing with such trespasses is a legitimate function of government.

The federal government could do this by . . .

• Taxing fossil fuels
• Cutting other taxes so that your overall financial burden would remain unchanged

Your energy costs would rise, but your taxes would fall by an equal amount. Doing this would . . .

• Eliminate the justification for a "cap and trade" boondoggle
• Make fossil fuels reflect more of their true costs
• Provide an incentive for everyone to reduce their use of fossil fuels
• Make other sources of energy cost competitive
• Limit the financial impact on you and the economy
• Help reduce air pollution, including CO2 emissions

We know that most Americans are concerned about pollution and the environment, and for those who feel this way, a carbon tax combined with tax cuts in other areas would be a better approach. But THIS CAMPAIGN is about stopping the "cap and trade" boondoggle, because if you really care about the environment, this proposal has only symbolic value."

Got to http://www.downsizedc.org/ & join now, use their automated email system to pepper the Senate with emails telling them to vote NO on cap-N-trade!

Remember!  "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", This bill is chock full of them. Let thhe Senate  know Cap-n-Trade is not how we need to proceed.

Announcement: NSA Continues Surveillance of Calls and Emails. Worse Than Before.

Darrell Bouldin posted an announcement to the cause

Anti-Real ID and US National ID Cards.

From: http://blog.aclu.org/category/government-spying/
June 19th, 2009

The New York Times did what they do best this week with a story on the National Security Agency’s once again overstepping its bounds with its surveillance of your phone calls and emails. The story goes that the NSA is continuing its sweeping collection of our communications and, contrary to previous reporting, it’s much more pervasive than we thought. That’s shocking!

Wait…no. IT TOTALLY ISN’T.

The Times wrote in April that the NSA was going outside even the sweeping powers granted to it in the FISA Amendments Act (FAA).

For those of you late to the game, the FAA was passed last July despite opposition from the ACLU and other privacy advocates. The law effectively legalized the unlawful warrantless surveillance program President Bush approved in late 2001. It also gave the government new spying powers, including the power to conduct dragnet surveillance of Americans’ international communications.

The FAA didn’t pass without controversy but clearly there wasn’t enough to stop members and President Obama from voting for it and in July of last year — as soon as the ink was dry from then-President Bush’s signature — the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the FAA. Oral arguments in that case are scheduled for July 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Also on that date? A report is due on the what some refer to as the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” but what I call illegal and unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping of Americans.

In July of last year — as soon as the ink was dry from then-President Bush’s signature — the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the FAA. Oral arguments in that case are scheduled for July 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Also on that date? A report is due on what some refer to as the “Terrorist Surveillance Program,” but what I call illegal and unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping of Americans.

The story of our government’s use of the NSA to spy on its own citizens is multifaceted and doesn’t seem to ever really die. And it won’t until we make sure there are rock-solid safeguards in place when it comes to our communications.

We’d like to think of our surveillance laws as a work in progress. Since the 111th Congress was gaveled in, we’ve been asking Congress to use this year and the upcoming expiring Patriot Act provisions to reevaluate the multitude of changes made to our surveillance laws over the last eight year — and frankly, before that.

Don’t forget that the FAA was intended to fix the absolute disaster that was the Protect America Act. Congress took nearly a year attempting to mop up that mistake and ended up not that far from where it started.

The reality is we need a thorough and holistic look at the laws that govern our privacy and our right to live our lives free from government intrusion. Here’s hoping the 111th Congress will do the right thing and make a commitment to restoring the chipped-away Fourth Amendment.

A solution to the Drudge, ABC News, and White House brouhaha over health care reportin

  Stephen Gordon
With an alreadly long list of online resources providing details and viewpoints on the topic, let's take a more sober look at the allegations that ABC News is turning over programming to the White House.
"The network plans a prime time special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate," reads the Drudge Report.
"Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented," responded Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay. "Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

Here's ABC's take:
    ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: With the Republican National Committee complaining to ABC News about plans to broadcast a health care “conversation” from the White House next week, ABC today has responded to the complaint.

    The letter -- to RNC Chief of Staff Ken McKay, from ABC News Senior Vice President Kerry Smith -- points out that ABC “will have complete editorial control” over the broadcasts, and says that “no one watching, listening to, or reading ABC News will lack for an understanding of all sides of these important questions.”

For starters, I agree with ABC's position that Republican Party leadership should not be engaged in the debate, albeit for a different reason. The Republican leadership recently lobbied for and supported the largest government intervention into the health care marketplace with Medicare Part D.  They aren't qualified to act as the spokepersons for the opposition.  Like a pack of hyenas battling over a dead carcass, one could easily argue that GOP leaders -- along with the AMA, pharmaceutical companies and the insurance industry  -- wish to engage in the debate to ensure they get their proper share of the spoils.

In their response to McKay, ABC News inadvertently provided a solution:
    Second, ABC News prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum.  ABC News is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.   ABC News alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president.

Since the Democrats will be battling the aforementioned groups over the spoils, perhaps some representative of those being pillaged should be involved. If ABC News plans to put their money where their mouth is, they've already got a built-in solution: John Stossel.

Not only does Stossel work with ABC News, he clearly doesn't reside in the same camp as the pillagers.  Here's some very recent footage of Stossel with Judge Andrew Napolitano (skip to 1:45 for my question to Stossel) discussing the big health care issues of the day.  ABC could dump either Diane Sawyer or Charles Gibson and add Stossel to the line up to provide a bit more balance.

The current Republican leadership has nothing to do with opposition to ObamaCare, save that they pick up a few bucks, media smears and donations along the way.  The folks who adamantly oppose White House health care schemes are the same ones challenging (with principle) GOP leaders for their hypocrisy: libertarians.

While I think that ABC's decision to broadcast from the White House certainly gives the appearance of taking a side on the issue, I'll hold them to their word for the moment.  As they claim to be "looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue," I'll expect to see a lot of libertarians represented on their programming.

HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009

Please send this to everybody on your list... this is Obama guncontrol by secrecy.

---

Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House. 
This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of 

Sale

 Act of 2009. 
We just learned yesterday about this on the Peter Boyles radio program. Even gun shop owners didn't know about this because it is flying under the radar. To find out about this - go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009. You will get all the information. 


Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless: 
   1. It is registered
   2. You are fingerprinted
   3. You supply a current Driver's License
   4. You supply your Social Security #
   5. You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing
   6. Each update - change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25
   7. Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.
   8. There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18.

• The Government would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison. 

If you think this is a joke - go to the website and take your pick of many options to read this.. 
http://www.opencong ress.org/ bill/111- h45/text

It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along.

FAILURE TO DO SO AT YOUR PERIL!
Any hunters in your family - pass this along.

Peter Boyles is on this and having guests. Listen to him on KHOW 630 a.m. in the morning. He suggests the best way to fight this is to tell all your friends about it and "spring into action". Also he suggests we all join a pro-gun group like the Colorado Rifle Association, hunting associations, gun clubs and especially the NRA.. 

This is just a "termite" approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense - chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it.

This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not. 

The Second Amendment... .

America

's original homeland security

 

Is Anyone Minding the Store at the Federal Reserve?

Rep. Alan Grayson asks the Federal Reserve Inspector General about the trillions of dollars lent or spent by the Federal Reserve and where it went, and the trillions of off balance sheet obligation...

"THIS IS AN INJUSTICE AND I THINK EVERYONE HAS GOTTEN THE MESSAGE."

Charlie Lynch is the medical marijuana dispensary owner whose business, fully legal under California state law, was raided by federal agents in 2007. Lynch was charged with five counts of violating federal drug laws. He faced as many as 100 years in prison, but on his June 11, 2009 sentencing date many expected the mandatory-minimum five-year sentence.

Although the fact that Lynch was prosecuted at all is an affront to anyone who believes in the 10th Amendment or the efficacy of medical marijuana, Lynch and his attorneys were relieved with the 366-day sentence delivered by U.S. District Court Judge George Wu. Lynch is free pending appeal, and his attorneys are hopeful he can avoid prison entirely. If he is imprisoned, the actual time he would spend behind bars would likely be about four months.

Defense attorney Reuven Cohen expects that his client will be among the last dispensary owners prosecuted in our nation’s failed war on drugs. "I really think," says Cohen, "you're looking at, if not the last, then the penultimate or third to last medical marijuana dispensary prosecution in the United States....This is an injustice, and I think everyone has gotten the message."

This video update is approximately three minutes. Produced by Ted Balaker; shot by Alex Manning and Paul Detrick.

The reason.tv documentary short, "Raiding California," which brought the Lynch case to a national audience, is here.

Reason’s coverage of the Lynch saga is here.