The Crime of the Zero Tolerence Policy

After reading this latest shameful act by a school I had to say something and I hope you will agree. A fourth-grader, Bradley Geslak, was suspended from Toy Town Elementary School for bringing a Memorial Day souvenir to school. A soldier had given young Bradley an empty brass shell casing that was used in the Memorial Day celebration as souvenir and the young boy was suspended for five days after taking it too school. The school is refusing to return his private property, and are considering assigning the boy a probation officer. He is only 10 years old for crying out loud! We will stand up and protect the rights of fanatics who want to kill us, but we won't stand up for our own children and their rights? Where is the equality in that?

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3975 - Link to the article.


Because of this asinine Zero Tolerance Policy our children are being expelled from schools around the nation for simple innocent things such as pointing fingers, drawing pictures, reading magazines, playing with harmless toys, and so on. Why is there no out cry of support for our children when they are being catastrophically punished because of a one size fits all arcane school policy that does little more than punish kids for being kids. Yet when some fanatic gets mad because some unbeliever touched his holly book, the out crying of support for him is deafening.

I don't understand why it is that we will stand up for everyone else's rights but when it comes to our own and those of our children, we are a no show. Instead we criminalize our children for being children. This is just utterly demoralizing to say the least. This zero tolerance policy that has been universally adopted by schools around this nation has been hijacked and horribly misused by totalitarianistic school officials to enforce an ever harmfully increasing far left liberal anti-American doctrine.

Our children are being punished for ridiculous and utterly outrageous reasons all in the name of Zero Tolerance. Tell me how can it be called protecting the young when you humiliate, expel, and then assign a probation officer to a 10 year old boy who's only crime was playing with a harmless peace of brass? Or worse, playing with a GI Joe figure, or drawing a gun on a peace of paper? Since when is it a criminal offense to read the American Rifleman during library time?

People are upset because a teacher in Florida had the class vote a disrupted child from the room, yet when an innocent 10 year old is kicked out of school for doing NOTHING wrong, no one gets angry. Why, why is that?

If Not Bush, Then Who

If Not Bush, Then Who?
Written 5/5/07

After September 11th 2001, what choices did we really have as a nation? Had Al Gore been elected to the highest office in the land our response to the terrorist attacks would have more likely than not, been to do nothing except retaliate with a few cruise missile attacks. History has shown us that Clinton's edict of appeasing terrorism and the very terrorist who have attacked us had only served to emboldened them into picking newer more high profile targets. Thankfully for our nations sake Al Gore did not win the 2000 presidential election and our response to 9/11 was proportionate to the crime.

After Afghanistan had been liberated, the Taliban routed in a most humiliating defeat, and a new government established by the Afghan people for the Afghan people our leaders turned our great nations eye toward that little infected pimple nation on the ass of the world known as Iraq.

If not for Bush then who I ask you? Sooner or later someone would have to deal with Saddam and his openly anti-cooperative stance against good and decent behavior. We all know that Clinton just passed the buck, something that he was very well known for, onto the next president, that being George Bush. Clinton was not a stupid man, in fact he could be classified as brilliant in that he skillfully navigated the politically land mine infested international stage of the Middle East and dispassionately dumped this Iraq turd squarely onto the plate of his successor. And what was his successor to do? Was he to just leave the turd sitting there for the next person to hold the office to deal with, or was he to do something about it? Well after September 11th that turd's stench became more than any one man could bare, so it was decided that it would once and for all be flushed away. So for right or wrong, the buck passing would have to stop in the hands of George W. Bush.

In the wake of history we all know now that what we thought we new then was not the truth. Many feel that we were led astray and in fact openly lied to by the President and the whole Iraq war was nothing more than a vendetta against a man who had tried to kill the Presidents father, the first President Bush. Some even felt that it was all about oil and power, that this whole war was nothing more than a manufactured excuse to steal the riches of Iraq and enslave its population. None of these have baked hippy wet dreams are true, the war wasn't about revenge or oil; it was about making the war on terror a real war. You see after the Taliban had been defeated there was really no front line for the war on Terror. So the administration decided to deal with two problems at the same time. One, the Iraq issue and the belief that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was trying to acquire more, and two, give the bloodthirsty anti-American jihad terrorists a place to come and fight the evil vile Americans. A central point were these cave dwelling religious fanatics could come and be killed.

In the greater scheme of things, there really was no choice. The evidence had mounted that Iraq had indeed gathered WMD's and Saddam had grown even more belligerent with time. Under the terms of the first Gulf War ceasefire we had the right to resume military action if Saddam failed to comply with any of the terms of the ceasefire. The fact that he attempted to have former President Bush assassinated was all the justification the US needed to go to war, however then President Clinton, in his tried and true way, only sent in a limited cruise missile strike. This lack of a response only served to make Saddam more aggressive in his maneuverings with the UN. When the US decided to finally end this stand off with Saddam our leaders went to the UN seeking help. What we did not know, could not have known, was that many of the nations who ultimately denounced the Iraq war had in fact been dealing with Saddam and growing fat off the hidden and illegal deals they had with him. The food for oil scam proves this point without question. Even the highest-ranking UN official had his hands in this cookie jar of shame. These nations did not want to end the gravy train that was Iraq because they wanted to keep the blood money flowing and to prevent their deals from ever seeing the light of day. Their decisions about the war were not guided by moral values; they were guided by greed pure and simple. And when they were discovered, did they apologize, no, they launched an anti-American propaganda war that even to this day clouds the truth of their actions in that they willfully violated international law, endangered American lives, and flat out lied to the member nations of the UN about their illegal back door dealings with Iraq. It was not moral fortitude as they claim that led them, our supposed allies, to leave America virtually standing by herself in the face of terrorism, it was selfishness.

In the end the war happened and the mistakes that led to it became known. However, again, I must ask you, if not Bush then who? At some point Saddam would have had to been dealt with one way or another. Clinton had passed the buck onward and for the most part I believe Bush would have ultimately done the same had it not been for 9/11.

They say that Bush lied, well we know that that is simply not true because the same Intel used by Bush and company, as justification for the war was the same Intel that Bill Clinton had been given. Clinton believed it, in fact so did most nations who were privy to the information. It wasn't until after the war that we all discovered, much to the embarrassment of our nations leaders, that the information was wrong. Even though we still had justification for taking action:

1. Saddam violated the terms of the ceasefire.
a. He would not allow weapons inspectors to do their jobs.
b. He masterminded the assassination attempt on Former President Bush.
c. He failed to comply with UN resolutions.
d. It was believed that he had stocked piled WMD's
e. It was believed that he was seeking more WMD's
f. He was a destabilizing figure in the middle east
g. It was believed that he was supporting terrorism and paying terrorist bombers to kill themselves in Israel.
h. He was openly defiant in the face of good will and used the money from oil for food deals to beef up his military and to build new palaces all the while his people were starving in the streets.

2. Virtually every intelligence agency in the world believed that Saddam had WMD's and the will to use them.

Following the victory over Saddam and his government several mistakes were made by Bush's administration. Many believe that this is the point when things began to spin out of control in Iraq.

1. The people who were charged with establishing a new government in Iraq were replaced by Administration lackeys who followed a self destructive anti-baath debaathification plan and set in motion events that would lead to years of blood shed by insurgents and terrorists.
2. The Vice Presidents former company, Halliburton was given a no bid contract deal worth billions to assist in US government operations and help rebuild Iraq.
3. Greed became the word of the day as the feeding frenzy began and the noble goals that were outlined as the secondary excuse for going to war were thrown aside.

The violence that followed these early mistakes still haunts us today. Each day that passes only serves to increase the body count of US service personnel. Who is to blame for this? Many far left liberals choose to lay the blame for US dead squarely in the lap of President Bush. However he really is not at fault for this, the Democrats are.
First and foremost, no one could have predicted, nor did they predict, the events that would follow the defeat of Saddam and his minions.

The Democrats saw an opportunity to gain some political traction at the expense of our troops. They began to test the waters of anti-war sentiment as early as 2003 and heavily during the 2004 Presidential election. They called for withdrawals, redeployments, and pullouts. To the insurgents, the terrorist, and the religious leaders in Iraq, and indeed within the entire Muslim world, these terms and the anti war sentiment of the far left liberal Democrats only served to give them hope. Hope that if they killed enough of our soldiers we would loose our will to fight and run home crying to momma. So they stepped up their campaign of terror and drove the US soldier body count up. They made no qualms about this, and in fact bragged openly about it. They captured and beheaded American personnel, blew up troops with IED's, manufactured worldwide outrage with propaganda, false accusations of war crimes, and staged acts of atrocities that they then blamed US troops for. They did this all the while pointing at US mistakes and citing them as excuses to behead and kill even more. During this time the anti-Bush far left liberal anti-war Democrats cheered and pushed harder and more frequently for withdrawal. The more the US troops the terrorists killed the more the Democrats called for pullout, the more the terrorists killed. It became a self-feeding circle jerk between the far left liberal Democrats and the fanatical fascist Islamic terrorists. They were feeding off of each other like cannibals at an all you can eat human buffet. In one instance Osama Bin Laden himself even offered his support to John Kerry during his bid for the Presidency, stating that he wanted Kerry to win. Ask yourselves why would a terrorist bent upon killing as many Americans as he could, one of the master minds of 9/11 want to support a Democratic candidate for President? Simple, Kerry was firmly entrenched in the "pull out" of Iraq camp by this time and Bin Laden saw him, and the Democratic Party as his savior.

The more the Democrats called for withdrawal the more troops in Iraq died. The media had long since jumped onto the anti-Bush, anti-War, anti-Truth band wagon and were doing their best to promote a negative view of the war despite the fact that the war was going well. Many politicians, including Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Jimmy Cater all went to other nations and denounced both President Bush and the war on terror. Treasonous actions to say the least perpetrated by men seeking nothing more than political attention and 250k on the lecture circuit. These men, through their actions, gave the terrorists exactly what they needed, a means to turn the world against their enemy, and play themselves off as the victims. Here in the US people began calling these terrorist, the very people who were killing our troops in Iraq, freedom fighters. They started to call Bush a war criminal and elements of our own government began to leak vital top-secret information to the ever-growing anti-Bush media. Osama Bin Laden said it best when he said that we would loose because we are afraid to die and they, meaning him and his followers, are not. He knew that the Democrats would ultimately start to use the war as a political propaganda machine to help them regain power in Washington. So he played to their wishes and they lapped it up like starving dogs at dinnertime.

The Democrats used our troops as pawns in their political scheming to regain power. How many of our men and women in uniform died because they failed to support our nations in time of war? They knew that if they took a public anti-war position that it would embolden the fanatics in the middle east to kill even more of our servicemen and women. They knowingly and willfully sacrificed our troops so that they could return to power in Washington. And once they got that power what did they do but hold up funding for our troops in an arm-twisting maneuver to force a full on retreat out of Iraq.

The Democrats believe that they know what is best for everyone and that no one should have the right to freedom of choice. They believe that we all need to be told how to think, and what to think via politically correctness coupled with anti-freedom legislation. They prove day in and day out with their petty anti-Bush, anti-Military, anti-Constitutional acts of legislation that they are shameless opportunistic hypocrites. They have deliberately used our troops, cost the lives of thousands of them, just to get back into power. And once there they continue to put the lives of our troops secondary to their own political agenda's.

Iraq was a mistake in hindsight, but as stated, if not Bush then who? How long would the Democrats have passed on that buck before finally realizing that we all stand together in this fight against terrorism or we all stand apart as we watch the mushroom clouds rise up over our cities? There is absolutely no doubt that eventually millions of Americans are going to pay the ultimate price for the actions of the current Democratic party as their lives are snuffed out in the flash of nuclear bombs set off by the very terrorist they helped to escape justice. When that day comes, who will they blame? Surely they won't accept responsibility for their own actions, actions that paved the way for the terrorist to acquire then use such weapons of mass destruction. No they will pass the buck yet once again onto the very people who tried to prevent these kinds of acts by saying that they failed to put an end to terrorism therefore they are to blame. They will blame Bush for not doing enough to end terrorism, forgetting that they themselves tied his hands through their actions. Oh the Democrats will stand up and play the victims as they pass the blame of their own legacy, a legacy of anti-military, anti-war on terrorism, and anti-American sentiment onto the very people who tried, and were prevented, from protecting this nation. These far left liberal Democrats will call for senate hearings, criminal charges, and investigations but in the end, when the truth is know, that it was they who opened the door that allowed the terrorists to eviscerate our cities, will pass the buck once again and put the blame for this great American tragedy on someone else. And when the time once again comes to stand up and fight for freedom, they will loose their will, become weak at the knees and fall back on their tried and true gravy train; they will take an anti-war stance and cost even more American deaths as they maneuver for even more political power.

If not Bush, then who? Our children that is who.

Bias In The Media

Bias In The Media

written 1/10/07

Media biased has become so visually apparent that to deny it exists is a kin to saying that there is no moon. Here are some examples of new biased.

Trent Lott was basically fired from his position within the Senate because he made the statement, "You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today," at Strom Thurman's 100th birthday party celebration. (Unknowing to Trent, Strom was a member of a party in the late 40's whose centerpiece was opposition to integration, and that Strom himself made the statement that he was proud to be a member of that party when he made a bid for the white house in the 70's.) Trent was basically ruined for this comment.

Senator John Kerry openly makes what he later refers to as a bad joke, "You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." Many people, especially those men and women in uniform to whom many believe the comment was, by association, directed, did not openly view this "joke" comment as humorous. Kerry's comments, while embarrassing for a week or so, had no seemingly lasting affect on the man or his career.

The Mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin, told a crowd gathered at City Hall last year for a march honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. that New Orleans will be "chocolate" again.

Many believe that his comments were innocent and bared no racist views at all. Thus this story simply went away with no lasting affects on the Mayor; say for his overwhelming re-election victory.

No I ask you if a Republican had made the Kerry comments, or if a Republican Mayor had stood on the steps to City Hall of some city and said that this city would be a "Vanilla city" again, what would the fall out have been?

Simple answer, they would have both lost their jobs in the ensuing media frenzy. That being said, the view that there is a media bias, a double standard if you will, that unfairly targets certain individuals over their comments, yet openly ignores equally derogatory comments made by others, does exist. This bias is far from being equally applied to all who make inappropriate comments.

It appears that your political affiliation might in some way insolate or target you for retribution over your comments. I ask you is this fair? Shouldn't they all be held to the same standard of bad comment equals bad press on an even and equal basis?

While innocent comment at a 100th birthday party results in the termination of one mans career, the comments by a mayor that are openly racist serve to get him re-elected. Only in America.

Additionally when the news media reports on ethics in both the Senate an Congress, they crucify the republicans for any ethics violation no matter how small, yet they say virtually nothing about Democrats who have violated ethics and are still in office and in at least one case, put in charge of the oversight committee to the very agency that is investigating them.

I ask that they stop making mountains out of molehills, but if they must continue, that they do it equally across the spectrum.

Googles Hypocrisy

Any one who uses Google, and well that is pretty much everyone at this point in time, knows, or at least has suspected that Google has gone out of their way to support left wing liberal points of view at the expense of being equal and balanced to all points of view.

A very good friend was fired from Google a year or so ago from her Google job because she had put up a picture of Elder George Bush in her cubicle as a joke response to a few employees who had started putting up dozens of pictures of Bill Clinton throughout the office. She was fired, and they were not fired.

"CEO Eric Schmidt gave the maximum legal limit of donations to Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry and to primary candidate Howard Dean." - http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44717

Google claims that it is their way not to do evil yet they won't knowingly hire people who subscribe to the views of or who are Republicans. In fact once an employee is or has been identified as or is suspected of being a republican, they are pretty much on the way out if not out right terminated. Tell me that this is doing no evil. Since all employees must sign non disclosure agreements when they are hired, when they are fired they keep their mouths shut out of fear of loosing what little benefits they have left or out of fear of being sued.

Any one who chooses to look at the facts can easily unearth the truth about how hypocritical Google really is. Do no evil doesn't apply when the evil is being done to people who are or support Republican ideals. Those are morality, self responsibility, live and let live philosophy, and freedom of choice.

Morality is the right of person to make moral and ethical decisions for themselves and their loved ones. A parent is a good example of a moral person. They are the builders of their child's point of view on the world. If you teach your child good, then in most cases your child will do good. But if you accept the anti-family liberal way of raising your young, chances are your children will grow up with no moral fiber what so ever. A good way to zero in on what kind of parent you are is how you would respond to your child's school having sponsored an all student assembly when the guest speakers promote gay sex, open drug use, and anti-family values. If your response to this is one of out rage, then chances are your a person with high moral standard, if you response to this is that you support the school and want more assemblies like this, well then your more likely than not a liberal left wing democrat. (Bolder High School in Colorado held just such an assembly only a month ago.)

Self responsibility is taking responsibility for your own actions regardless of the consequences. Lets be honest, most of use will do our damnedest not to get caught at making a bad mistake. We will plead not guilty even if they catch us red handed. Have you ever wondered why that is? Well its because the belief that we are all responsible for our own actions has been driven into the ground by our corrupted legal system that frees the rich while overly punishing the poor. There is an old saying, how much justice can you afford. Honesty doesn't pay in our legal system because our legal system is a system of manipulation. So stepping up and taking responsibility for ones own actions has become an act of suicide.

However many people who do subscribe to moral and ethical behavior more often than not, do take responsibly for what they have done. While this is a dying trait among the masses, it still survives in a few.

Live and let live philosophy and the belief in freedom of choice are very closely related when it comes to the Republican point of view. Most left wing Democrats don't want you to have any freedoms, in fact they themselves what to protect you from your freedoms and in doing so tell you how to live your life. Need an example of this, well where do you think the term and now daily philosophy of "politically correct" came from? Left wing democrats believe that people don't need freedom, they need to be told what to do, how to think, and how to live. This is why they support big government, more laws, and genuinely work against the constitution unless it favors their point of view. They denounce the second amendment, you all know that one, its the one that guarantees the people the right to keep and bare arms. Without that right we have no rights. With out that right the will of the few, those in charge, crush the will of the many, us.

Most Republicans, and many Democrats believe that freedom of choice is fundamental to a live and let live philosophy. When you start telling people how to live and what to do you take away their freedom. When you eradicate a constitutional right because of the point of view of the few because it is the politically correct thing to do, you turn a nation based upon freedom into a nation of slaves.

Ben Franklin once said "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing whats for dinner."

Our nation is a Republic for a reason. It gives every American the "RIGHT" to the articles of freedom contained within our constitution. The Constitution gives guaranteed freedoms for all that cannot be voted away by a democracy vote of 2 to 1.

Freedom of choice promotes a live and let live philosophy. If you believe that we have enough laws on the books already, that it is the responsibility of the people to lead the government and not the governments role to lead the people, then you can understand the true value of what it means to be an American.

Companies like Google are in the business of control. They don't want you to have any freedom, oh they say they do but in all reality when they control the flow of information, they can bend it in whatever way they want. And that is precisely what Google does. They tell you what the left wing liberals want you to hear while dramatically pushing aside the counter balance of any other points of view. Tell me that is promoting freedom and I will be silent.

Google isn't about being open and fair to all points of view. Google Video, and their youtube network, are inundated by anti-Bush pro left wing liberal propaganda. Look for pro Republican information all you generally are going to get are anti-Republican pro left wing liberal materials.

The first step to controlling a population is to control and manipulate all information. The liberal left wing view is being prominently pushed upon our children in school at the expense of traditional values of moral and ethical behavior. They control virtually all sources of information and denounce any alternative source of differing points of view. (Look at how the left wing liberals attack Fox News and any conservative news paper.)

Look at how the mass media has degenerated into tabloid tv. Look at how the media has responded to political events over the last few years. How they have been caught time and again forsaken the truth in order to actively promoting the lies of the uber left wing liberal point of view. It's not ok that Valerie Plane was identified as a CIA employee, but it is ok when someone at the CIA leaks top secret information about the ongoing anti-terror operation being undertaken at the CIA. They manufacture false outrage at AG Alberto Gonzales over the firing of a few attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the President, yet they say NOTHING about the fact that Bill Clinton had fired every last one of them when he was elected to office. Why do they hide the truth to promote the lie? Because the lie is what the left wing liberals want you to believe. Lets face it folks, if you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the new truth.

By the time most TV fed Americans wise up and realize that they have been led away from their moral and ethically driven life styles of a live and let live philosophy in the belief of freedom of choice strait into the chains of totalitarianism, it will be too late for them to effect any change short of an out right revolution. But these sheep won't fight, they will just accept their fate like all good animals bound for the slaughter house.

On on the slaughter house you will see a big huge Google sign. Do no evil my ass.

The Fight For The Right

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bare arms, shall not be infringed.

As we all know that this amendment, a constitutional freedom for all Americans, has been under heavy attack for decades. Recently with the court case of the District of Columbia vs. Heller, the issue of an individuals right to self-defense has been brought before the Supreme Court.

The anti-freedom gun grabbers argue that the second amendment does not give any rights to individuals, that the terms "militia" and "peoples" disqualifies the individuals right to bear arms. That the soul purpose of the second amendment is to give government, in this case the state, the right to form militias and does not extend the right to individuals to keep and bare arms.

I would offer up a dispute to this contention in that the framers knew that unified defense of state begins with an individuals right to self-defense. The core issue is the concept of the meaning "individual." Is it an individuals right or a "peoples" right? If you believe the argument of the anti-freedom gun grabbers, then the term "peoples" means a collective group, a militia. If you are of the mind of freedom first, you then most likely interpret the word "peoples" to mean an individuals rights.

I take this to mean that individuals, as in we the people, have the right to keep and bear arms in that we as individuals have a right to self defense. Our families have the right to defend our homes against aggression. The people of our hometowns have the right to stand in common defense in order to defend our towns. Our states, a collection of towns, families, and individuals, have the right to defend its boarders and unite with other states to defend our nation. The core of our national defense starts with the individual. To deny the individual, we the people, our collective individual right to keep and bear arms for any reason is to deny our fundamental freedoms. Our Republic is after all, a nation of the people for the people.

"United we stand or divided we shall fall." Those are not just words they have meaning. If we were to subscribe the ideology of the far left liberals, then we as a nation shall fall. What happens if a nation’s military is devastated? We all know that the far left liberals despise our military and have openly called for its disbandment. So it isn't too far of a reach to consider that if they gain absolute power, they will down size the military, suspend military technology research, and open up dialog with our former enemies as if we all lived in a great worldwide utopia of United Nations.

Consider if you will, that without a military how will we defend our nation. Shall we be relying upon the charity of the United Nations for our protections? Looking back at the United Nations track record in Bosnia, the Sudan, and else where and we can see that they are not a very effective force when it comes to defending people.

So without a military to defend out nation who then shall we find to defend us? Certainly we the people of the United States are not unable to defend ourselves. Not yet any ways. If our military should happened to be overwhelmed, and our nation sieged, it will be we the people, a collection of individuals, who will stand up and take the fight to the enemy. Take away our right to self-defense by taking the freedom we have to choose whether or not to own a firearm, and we stand before our enemies naked, like sheep before a pack of hungry wolves. History has proven time and time again that the weak and defenseless shall and have always fallen prey to those aggressors who have happened along.

Being made defenseless does not make we the people safer. That is the crux of the District of Columbia vs. Heller. While the Mayor of DC walks away with his taxpayer paid for armed police escort, he is protected, what about us?

A police force is not a militia, and we all know from humble experience that in a situation where only the police are the ones who are armed, it is no longer a free state, it is a police state.

The Hollywood Message

I ask you at what point in our collective history did we American gun owners become a second class citizens? I watch television these days and all I seem to see are strong and deliberate anti-gun messages. It is as if the anti-gun agenda has some how become the marketing ploy of Hollywood and the elite social left wing liberals of America.

I mean who are these people that we should listen to what they are saying as if they ordered God himself to carve it into stone for all to worship? These people are just actors and actresses playing parts on television shows or working behind news desks. All because someone might play the President on TV doesn't make him the moral icon of the universe. These people are no more or less special than the rest of us except that they think, and willingly promote the misconception that legal and law abiding American gun owners are some how second class citizen.

They push their views down our throats like a poison without concern for the truth or establish fact. They perpetuate the anti-gun agenda that its ok to discriminate against gun owners because we are, in their view, nothing more than frustrated, God worshiping, murder crazed, illiterate, red neck lunatics.

Ask yourself why are they doing this? Why would Sen. (D) Charles Schumer be so alarmed that forty, 40, out of fifty thousand American citizens were able to legally buy a firearm while being on the governments terrorist watch list. A list that they don't even know they are on since most of them have never committed a crime. Charles Schumer refused to accept the established fact that anti-gun laws and gun bans do not make us safer, they make us victims? He of all people should know about secret Government watch list and what usually happens to the people, who through no fault of their own, find themselves on one.

Ask yourself, why is it that the anti-gun folks want to eliminate our gun rights? What possible reason could they have? Is it that they want America to be gun free and safe like Great Britain and Australia? Both of those great nations passed sweeping gun ban laws and their crime rates sored and have yet to come down. Do they want all America cities to be like those with the nations highest crime rates? Washington DC, New York, LA, and Chicago have the strictest anti-gun laws in the nation and also have the highest crime rates.

Why are the anti-freedom gun grabbers so willing to lie to the American people in the face of overwhelming evidence? The only answer that fits is that they want to perpetuate the lie that gun bans make us safer in order to further their agenda. So what is their real agenda if a safer Utopian America is not really what they are after? Well lets take a good look at what has happened and how Hollywood, the newly self appointed moral center of America, has used the media and television to turn what was once considered a noble American act of patriotism, gun ownership, into a dirty, nasty, evil, and corrupt thing. How shows like the West Wing routinely portray gun owners as nothing more than frustrated, crack pot, red neck, psychopaths bent on forming militias and wrecking the American way of life.

Simply put the anti-gun advocates of America are using the power of visual communication, television, in an attempt to brain wash American views into believing that we should just give up our rights because to own a gun makes you a dirty, nasty, and evil person. They are trying, and succeeding in convincing everyday Americans that supporting gun ownership and gun rights is no longer "socially acceptable" and therefore they should look down upon the second amendment and those who support it as second class citizens. That the right to keep and bare arms is an obsolete amendment and should be expunged from the Constitution.

Hey if it worked for Hitler why not try it here? The anti-gun folks are not stupid, they know how Hitler used his popularity along with a slick propaganda program to get the German people to hand over their guns, and we all know what happened after that. Six million plus people on a government watch lists paid the ultimate price as a result of a gun free police state.

I should point out that the anti-gun folks love lists and would love nothing more than to see every American gun owner on one call as gun owner registration. This way, when their political party rises to power, most likely in 2008, they can launch their campaign of anti-gun terror to humiliation, chastise, embarrass, and destroy gun owners, their credibility, and their constitutional right to keep and bare arms. Oh wait, they are already doing this, right now, through television, print, and ten second sound bites. They have already eroded public opinion, not by telling us the truth, but by lying to us about what it is they want.

They have in a very short time managed to turn what was once a noble and honorable thing into something that most people are now ashamed to admit, that they are gun owners. Now I don't care if you are a democrat or a republican, you have a choice, you can either support your right to keep and bare arms, or you can give it up and with it the very thing that makes America so great, our freedom; and with it, our very ability to defend it. If they can take away our right to keep and bare arms, what will they want to take from us next? And when the day comes that they want to take something that we don't want to give up, how can we say no? Simple, say NO to the anti-gun advocates and the politicians they support now.