Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Training Seminar For Radical Extremists Coming In June

A Liberal organization that you may have never heard of before,, is preparing to have their seventh annual training session for radicals in Providence, Rhode Island, June 7th through 10th.  500 people have already put their money down to reserve a seat. Their goal is to amplify progressive voices on the internet by providing online and in person training to teach radicals, from environmental extremists  to Occupy Wall Street, how to influence the public with their plans for us. Maybe they can also have a seminar on personal hygiene at OWS events. 

One of their goals apparently is to provide a job for the unemployed, at least as far as Keith Olberman is concerned. He has been hired to be one of their keynote speakers. 

This 5 day training sessions are meant to be a training ground designed to mold the next generation of radicals. They plan to have 30 “hands on” training sessions” and 70 other panels for discussions of subjects from promoting gun control in, “Gun Politics 2.0: Bringing Life to a Deadly Issue,” to how to write effective socialist propaganda in a session called , “Words that worked…Crafting effective and “truthful” memes,” to “Tweeting the revolution…Twitter training for campaigning.” 
There’s also the ever popular seminar, “Building the movement to ban fracking and regulate climate,” the “War on voting,” and “That will never work…What progressives learned from OWS.” 
They claim that thousands of “activists” and newsmakers, and the “brightest progressive minds will be there. Barack Obama once attended when he was a senator. Hillary, Pelosi, and Harry Reid, and Bill Clinton have dropped in. And, the organization is especially proud of a “surprise” visit by Al Gore.

Registration fees are from $95.00 for youth, to $295.00 for the off the street radical, to $450.00 for organization members. Of course, there’s an $800.00 “benefactor” rate that they call their unsubsidized rate. 

See all of the seminar program topics and more info on this group at

Friday, April 6, 2012

Obama Campaign Twists The Truth In Latest Campaign Video...And Is Busted

Here are the latest Campaign distortions in a video made against Mitt Romney by the Obama campaign that is hitting email in boxes now. 

The video is very deceptive. For example, when Romney accuses Obama of Apologizing for America in the video, Obama is immediately seen in the video in response saying, "We will not apologize for our way of life..." But this was said in January 20, 2009, before Obama ever set one foot into the Oval Office and began his Apology Tour. This video was released yesterday. What a misleading outrage. Just one of many you will see. How stupid do they think people are? I guess the question answers itself. We will see in November.  

Ironically, the email that solicits three dollar donations states, "You'll help the Truth Team -- a grassroots-driven operation that that's setting the record straight door-to-door, on the phones, and online...

Maybe they should have run this video through their "Truth team, before posting the video.  

Here's the email.


"Friend --

You need to see for yourself the baseless attacks we'll be facing from here on out.

In his mission to defeat President Obama, Mitt Romney will stop at nothing -- certainly not the truth.

Watch this video, then fight back with a donation of $3 or more.

Backed by his special-interest fundraising machine, and now helping raise money for the Republican National Committee, Romney will spare no expense to attack the President and tear down our progress.

This campaign is backed by you, and we need to hit back every single time they lie about the President's record.

Watch our new video and help make sure the facts -- not the smears -- win out in November:

Thanks, and as always, stay tuned.


Stephanie Cutter
Deputy Campaign Manager
Obama for America"

P.S. -- By pitching in what you can today, you'll help the Truth Team -- a grassroots-driven operation that that's setting the record straight door-to-door, on the phones, and online -- do its job, and make sure Romney is held accountable whenever he leaves the facts behind."


Video One

Video Two


All In Favor Of More Gun Control, Please Raise Both Hands

Thursday, April 5, 2012

Anti Gun Rights Groups Held At Bay In Court's "Assault Weapons" Decision

Illinois Supreme Court Justices

The lawsuit filed by Matthew D. Wilson, Troy Edhlund, and Joseph Messineo,
against the Cook County, Illinois “Assault weapons” ban, has survived a motion
for dismissal in the Illinois Supreme Court and was sent back to the trial Court
for further proceedings. It was filed to challenge the Blair Holt
“Assault weapons ban’s constitutionality. 

A spokesperson for the three men said that this was a victory for them
because the Illinois Court kept the case alive. It was a unanimous decision
by the seven Justices. The three men have won a battle; however, a war still lies 
ahead. But, there may be a proverbial light at the end of the tunnel
for "black"guns in Illinois. 

A reading of the opinion shows that the case was sent back to the lower
Court because the Illinois Supreme Court felt that it didn’t have enough
on the existing trial record of the lower Court proceedings to rule on the
argument in the case. This is hardly a victory for the anti gun rights groups 
hoping for an outright upholding of the ban.

The Ordinance is a typical Chicago style oppressive anti gun measure  
Here is the Ordinance and what the Court said about  it.

The ordinance prohibits "the sale, transfer, acquisition, ownership,
or possession of “assault weapons as "defined by a specific list of 60
rifles and pistols designated by model name or type, and “assault
ammunition,” including any ammunition magazine having a capacity
of  more  than  12  rounds  of  ammunition." 1  

"The Cook County Commissioners proposed and passed the ordinance in 1993
for 3 purported reasons:
1) easy access to firearms and ammunition had become a concern of
public health, safety and welfare for the citizens of Cook County;
(2) assault  weapons  were  20  times  more  likely to  be  used  in  the
commission of a crime than other kinds of weapons; and
(3) there was  “no legitimate sporting  purpose for the military style  assault
weapons being used on the streets.”The ordinance also contained a
Laundry list of dozens of “attributes” of an “assault weapon.” 1

It was shortly followed by the Clinton AWB that expired in 2004. "The
2006 revised County ordinance also prohibits the possession of
large capacity magazines with the capacity to accept more  than  10
rounds  of  ammunition." 2   

"Under its provisions, a person  who prior  to  the  enactment, lawfully
possessed  assault weapons or large capacity magazines, had 90 days
from the effective date to surrender the weapons to the sheriff, to
remove the weapons from the county, or to modify the weapons to
render them inoperable or  no  longer  defined  as  an  assault  weapon. 
Violation  of  the Ordinance  is  punishable  by imprisonment  for  not 
more  than six months  and by a fine between $500  and $1,000." 1

The trio challenged the law in several respects. The only challenge that the
Court accepted was a Second Amendment challenge based on McDonald
and Heller.

The Illinois high Court cited the 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller
where "a  five  justice  majority of  the  Supreme  Court  expressly
recognized,  in  its  first  “in-depth  examination,”  that  the  second
amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (id. at
592), and that the “central component of the right” is the right of
armed self-defense, most notably in the home." 2

These men argued that the County’s ban on assault weapons as
defined in the Ordinance violates the second amendment right to bear
arms. The second amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people
to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" 2
Based on this interpretation, the US Supreme Court "invalidated the District of
Columbia’s complete prohibition on handguns in the home by law abiding
 citizens, and invalidated its requirement that all firearms in the home be
kept inoperable." 1

"The US Supreme Court majority found that
“under any of  the standards  of scrutiny the Court  has  applied  to
enumerated constitutional rights” a prohibition on all handguns was
a ban on “an entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by
American society for [the] lawful purpose” of self-defense and that
a complete prohibition on their use was invalid. The Court
explained  that  “whatever else [the second  amendment]  leaves  to
future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right
of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth
and home.  1 

But the Illinois Court also said “Nevertheless, the Supreme
Court held that the scope of the right is not without limitations. The Court
made clear that “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited.” 1

"The US Supreme Court additionally attempted to sketch out a non
exhaustive list  of  “presumptively lawful  regulatory measures,”  including
“longstanding prohibitions  on  the  possession  of firearms  by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws
imposing conditions  and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms.” 1

"Thereafter, the US Supreme Court revisited the second amendment
in McDonald v. City of Chicago,where The US Supreme Court 
reiterated  its  central holding  in  Heller “that  the  Second Amendment
protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for
the purpose of self-defense. Additionally, that Court reiterated
that the second amendment right was far from absolute and noted that
the doctrine of incorporation “does not imperil every law regulating
firearms." 1

"Since  Heller and McDonald, courts have generally followed a two-pronged
approach.The threshold question we must consider is whether the
challengedlaw imposes  a  burden on  conduct falling within the
scope of thesecond amendment guarantee. That inquiry involves a textual and
historical inquiry to determine whether the conduct was understood
to be within the scope of the right at the time of ratification.
If the  government  can  establish  that  the  challenged  law  regulates
activity falling outside the scope of the second amendment right, then the
regulated activity is categorically unprotected." 1

"However, if the historical evidence is inconclusive or suggests
that the regulated activity is not categorically unprotected—then there
must  be  a  second  inquiry into  the  strength  of  the  government’s
justification  for  restricting  or  regulating  the  exercise  of  Second
Amendment  rights.” 1

"The second amendment categorically protects the right of
law-abiding  citizens  to  possess  a  handgun,  particularly for
self  defense in the home, because handguns are a class of arms that the
Supreme Court has found are “overwhelmingly” chosen by American
society for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Unlike the District of
Columbia handgun ban, the Illinois Court could not say
as a matter of law that the Ordinance  purports to prohibit  an  entire 
class  of  arms  that  is overwhelmingly chosen by American society
for self-defense in the home." 1

The Illinois Court said, The Ordinance is not an absolute ban on the
possession of all rifles, shotguns, or pistols for self-defense. Nor is
 it a complete ban on all semiautomatic firearms. Instead, it covers
a particular subset of these weapons with  particular  characteristics
that the County has determined make them capable of firing rapidly,
delivering a large number  of  shots  without  reloading,  and  creating
a  high  risk  of collateral damage." 1

"The Court in Heller had no reason to consider regulation of these particular
types of firearms with these particular attributes." 1

The State Court noted that, "It can’t be said  be said with any certainty,
unlike in Heller, that assault weapons, as defined  under the Ordinance, 
are the  “quintessential weapon of choice” for self-defense by Americans.
At least some of these types of weapons were banned for 10 years under
federal law and  have  been  banned  in  some  degree by numerous  states
andmunicipalities, albeit without any uniform definition." 1

"In 1994, the federal Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives characterized assault weapons as
“mass produced mayhem” and weapons of choice for gangs, drug
dealers, and mass killers to outgun police officers on the streets." 1

"The ATF, Congress, and the County have concluded that
assault weapons under varied definitions have no “sporting purpose.
The Illinois Court also couldn’t say conclusively at this early stage of the
litigation that assault weapons as defined in this Ordinance categorically fall 
outside  the scope  of the rights protected  by the second  amendment. 
Heller explicitly recognized  a  historical  and
long-standing tradition of firearms regulations prohibiting a category
of “dangerous and unusual weapons” that are “not typically possessed
by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Historically, weapons
like machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, grenade launchers, and other
high-powered weapons have fallen into this  category due to their
extreme nature." 1

"Both parties argue that the dangers of assault weapons as
defined by the reach of this Ordinance, and want to debate whether
these types of arms are appropriate for self-defense and whether these
types of prohibited weapons under the Ordinance are well suited to
the  core lawful  purpose  as  expressed  in  Heller." 1  

The three men "want to  present evidence to
support their allegation that this particular Ordinance
encompasses a myriad of weapons that are typically
possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes
and fall outside the scope of the dangers sought to be
protected under the Ordinance." 1

The Court concluded that, "Without a national uniform
definition of assault weapons from which to judge
these weapons, it cannot be ascertained at this
stage of the proceedings whether these arms with
these particular attributes as defined in this Ordinance
are well suited for self-defense or sport or would be
outweighed completely by the collateral damage
resulting from their use, making them “dangerous and
decided that this  question  requires them  to  engage  in  
an empirical inquiry beyond the scope
of the record  and  beyond the scope of judicial  notice 
about the  nature of the weapons that  are
banned  under  this  Ordinance  and  the  dangers  of  these
particular weapons." 1

Given the procedural posture of this case, the Court would "not choose
to make a second Amendment decision at this time. Unlike other cases,
the Court here had a minimal legislative record to review and didn’t
want to make assumptions without first attempting to ascertain relevant facts.
Their deference to a legislative finding is a balancing of competing interests." 

(Docket No. 112026)
MATTHEW D. WILSON et al., Appellants, v. THE COUNTY OF
COOK et al., Appellees.
Opinion filed April 5, 2012.


Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Jesse Jackson Urgently Calls For Another "Assault Weapons" Ban

Jesse Jackson is clamoring for another "Assault Weapons" Ban.  There's a certain sense of urgency from all anti gun rights organizations that something be done before the Zimmerman case fades from national prominence. In his latest news release, he cited problems in Chicago during the waning days of March, 2012. 

He said, "At least two people were killed and 11 others wounded in violence across Chicago overnight. And last weekend ten people were killed and at least 39 others were wounded in shootings across the city.1

That's a curious connection to "Assault Weapons," which are already illegal to possess in Chicago. Apparently, he wants to make possession of them even more illegal than they are now. The majority of those shootings were gang related. An estimated 70 to 75 gangs with more than 100,000 members reportedly operate within Chicago and have consistently been a concern for law enforcement. 
They are armed to the teeth.

The McDonald case allowed possession of handguns in Chicago, but an owner can't even legally carry his handgun into a detached garage on his property. In addition to the ultimate goal of no guns except those in the hands of criminals, he wants to make possession of handguns outside the home even more illegal too.  

One of his goals is to prohibit all violent criminals from possessing firearms. But, no one has come up with a way to do that when the criminal just considers jail time a cost of doing business when he is caught with a gun. Often, possession is one of many charges faced when a gun is used in a felony, and it can be plea bargained away by just pleading to other charges from the same crime. 

Its a frenzy for more gun control. Never mind the fact that the homicide rate before the "Assault Weapons" Ban nationally continuously decreased before the 1994 ban beginning in 1991 and through 2000 from 9.8 homicides per 100,000 persons to 5.5 per 100,000.  It remained at 5.4-5.7 until 2009, when it dipped down to 5.0, and continued to drop in 2010 to 4.8. 3

According to the most current FBI statistics, homicide fell nationally 5.7% from 2010 levels in the first 6 months of 
2011. 4

The year 2010 was overall the safest year in 5 years. That's 6 years after the "Assault Weapons" Ban  expired. 5

We will be at the greatest threat of gun bans if Obama is reelected in 2012 when he can do what he wants to without worrying about another term. His use of Executive Orders will be the greatest threat. 

2    National Drug Intelligence Center Attorney General's Report to Congress on the Growth of Violent Street Gangs in Suburban Areas
April 2008
3    FBI Uniform Crime Reports (1991- 2011)

Here's the press release:

" March 30, 2012

Rev. Jesse Jackson Continues the Call for Common Sense Gun Laws and the Ban on Assault Weapon

WHO: Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr., founder and president of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition


WHERE: Rainbow PUSH Coalition
             930 E. 50th Street, Chicago IL 60615
WHEN: Friday, March 30, 2012 at 11:00 AM

WHY: Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. founder and president of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, continues to make the appeal for stricter gun laws and for President Barack Obama to revive the ban on assault weapons.   

At least two people were killed and 11 others wounded in violence across Chicago overnight. And last weekend ten people were killed and at least 39 others were wounded in shootings across the city.

We appeal to President Barack Obama and the Congress to revive the ban on assault weapons”, said Rev. Jackson.  “Under a federal ban from 1994 to 2004 there was a 60% drop in assault weapons deaths.  We have the power to stop putting dangerous weapons in the hands of dangerous persons, if we create and implement concrete gun laws.  We need to enforce universal background checks on every gun transfer and prohibit all violent criminals from possessing firearms.” 

Nearly 30,000 people a year die as a result of gun violence in the United States.  One hundred thousand a year are injured, requiring medical treatment and hospitalization that contributes to our crisis in public health.  None of us are safe until all of us are safe.

Later this afternoon Rev. Jackson will board a flight heading back to Stanford, FL where 17-year-old Treyvon Martin was shot and killed while walking home from a 7-Eleven by neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman..."