Google Custom Search

Saturday, December 23, 2006

The Roll Call of Anti-Gun Bigots

My friends, it's time for the calling of the roll. Here are the anti-gun bigots who are intent on robbing the citizens of the Constitutional right to own and use firearms.

According to the GOA (Gun Owners of America), which rates every single Senator and Congressman on gun rights issues, the following are some of the most dangerous rights-robbers in the country today. F- is the lowest rating possible.

John McCain--F-
Hillary Clinton--F-
Little Chucky Schumer--F-
Barack Hussein Obama--F-
Nancy Pelosi--F-
Barbara Boxer--F-
Diane Feinstein--F-
Chris Dodd--F
Joe Lieberman--F
Ted Kennedy--F-
John Kerry--F-
Harry Reid--F
Carl Levin--F
John Conyers--F-
Patrick Leahy--F
Charles Rangel--F-
Joe Biden--F
Bill Nelson--F

I was shocked, absolutely SHOCKED, to find that Rick Santorum received an anemic rating of 'C.' But it's better than the those on the list above.

You will note that Rudy Giuliani is not rated. This is because he was neither in the House or the Senate. But he has stated publicly that he is in favor of more gun control, which entitles him to a rating of 'F' in my book.

There are many more ratings you can find at the website for the GOA:

We are facing dire consequences in the 2008 presidential election. Unless a different candidate comes forward, NONE of those in EITHER party who have stated they are candidates have a favorable rating on 2nd Amendment rights.

This is a dangerous omen for the country.

Bush Administration Joins Anti-Gun Bigots!

My friends, I hate to deliver bad news so close to Christmas, but apparently the Bush Administration has reversed its previous interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and has sided with the anti-gun bigots in referring to the ownership of firearms as a 'collective right' rather than an individual right.

As I have told you before on The Liberty Sphere, such a notion of Constitutional interpretation can be easily discredited in less than five minutes. Yet, David Codrea over at has proof that the Bush administration has hitched its wagon to the gun-grabbers who wish to strip the citizens of our Constitutional rights.

Read this from Codrea's blog:

Bush Administration Reverses Ashcroft Interpretation of Second Amendment

I received an email reply to my inquiry about the FAA declaring the Second Amendment a "collective right" in their recently issued spaceflight security regulations.

Dear Mr. Codrea:

Thank you for your comments on the human space flight requirements. This rule, including its security requirements, underwent coordination and review within the executive branch. It was reviewed and approved by the Executive Office of the President.

Your comments will be placed in the docket.


Laura Montgomery

Laura Montgomery
Senior Attorney
Office of the Chief Counsel
Federal Aviation Administration
(202) 267-3150
This is what I sent back:

Dear Ms. Montgomery,

Thank you for your reply. You did not say who in the executive branch signed off on the security requirements, but I must assume they would not authorize policy that conflicts with the chief executive's direction and approval. Just so I don't misconstrue the position you appear to have articulated, am I to understand that the president of the United States considers the Second Amendment to be a "collective right," and the "individual rights" opinion AG Ashcroft stated during his tenure is not the official position of the Bush administration? And who in the executive branch approved the requirements on behalf of the president?

David Codrea
When John Ashcroft penned his "individual rights" opinion, it made headlines around the world. Terms like "sea change" were thrown about, and we were told how significant the opinion was for gun rights. The Bradys went nuts. 18 state attorneys general followed suit and drafted their own letter of concurrence. And this was used to tremendous advantage to convince gun owners to throw their support behind the Bush administration.

But now we have it from one of the top attorneys in that administration that the "collective rights" language "was reviewed and approved by the Executive Office of the President."

Ladies and gentlemen, most will not realize this, but this is news, and it is significant. But chances are, this insignificant blog is the only place where you will learn of it, which means most gun owners will not.

posted by David Codrea | 7:28 AM

Many thanks to Mr. Codrea for informing us of this shocking new development.

But never despair, my friends. GOA (Gun Owners of America) is hard at work to protect our INDIVIDUAL rights. The organization rates each and every Senator and Congressman on 2nd Amendment issues. It WILL do the same on the President if they even as much as HINT a backing away from viewing the 2nd Amendment as an individual right.

My only hunch is that the Bush Administration is playing this so as to take the steam out of potential criticism of McCain, Giuliani, and Romney, all of whom have questionable records on firearms rights. The sad fact is that not a single Republican candidate thus far is solidly in favor of the 2nd Amendment.

Of course, the Democrats are much, much worse on the issue.

These are not good times for those of us who believe in individual Constitutional rights. So, get ready to fight.

We need a candidate who will do the following at the very least:
*State an unequivocal support for gun rights as an individual Constitutional right
*Promise to make the Bush tax cuts permanent
*Call for a complete overhaul of the U.S. system of taxation
*Articulate a policy in Iraq that calls for nothing less than a U.S. VICTORY
*Continue with the War on Terror
*Support sensible immigration reform, including a temporary moratorium on immigration
*Demand a complete clean-up and shake-down of the United Nations
*Support Israel as one of our nation's most trusted allies
*Launch military action against Iran to take out its nuclear capability

So far, NO CANDIDATE on the scene in ANY party espouses these patriotic American values. We need to look deep within the political system to find someone who fits the bill. I know that person is out there.

Running Out of Time

There are precisely one and a half shopping days until Christmas. Do you have all your shopping done?

As I have stated previously it is good to be home back in the North Carolina Mountains for Christmas. Saluda comes alive with decorations, shoppers, friendly exchanges between townspeople, and the joy of knowing shop owners personally.

Here you can find just about anything you need for your Christmas gifts, including some items you may not be able to find anywhere else.

The North Carolina mountains are dotted with small towns that are similar to Saluda. Some of my favorites are Franklin, Brevard, Tryon, Highlands, Bryson City, Maggie Valley, Blowing Rock, Boone, and Banner Elk. Christmas is very special in these hills, giving one a feeling like one can find nowhere else in the world.

I have often said that one is closer to God in the mountains. This is much more than the simple fact that one feels like they are on top of the world. But when one goes to the top of Grandfather Mountain at Boone, or Mount Mitchell (the highest elevation in the Appalachian Mountains), or Sugar Mountain, the majestic view is enough to lift one's spirit to the heavens as if one can catch a glimpse of the great God Himself.

Have a fun day shopping. But don't forget to stop and take in the wonder of this season as embodied in the message of God's love that makes it all possible.


U.S. House Representative Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, has shut the door on open government by declaring the opening session of the new Congress in January as a 'closed door session.' C-Span will not be allowed to telecast the proceedings.

This is the same Nancy Pelosi who, during the campaign a mere seven weeks ago, stated that it is time for 'open and honest government,' an obvious slap at House Republicans who, by the way, never shut down C-Spans' coverage of the House.

By closing the door to open government, Pelosi has taken a step backwards to the days of smoke filled rooms where sleazy politicians decided on candidates and policy without the scrutiny of the public. This is not a surprise at all to those of us who have been watching Pelosi and her ilk for years.

I hate to break it to you, but Pelosi and the Democrats never intended more honest and open government.

In district after district, state after state, race by race during the campaign this year, countless candidates of the Democrat party, particularly the incumbents, made statements to the public that were obviously lacking in integrity since we have their record for all to see. The modus operandi of the Democrat leadership was to provide the public with smoke and mirrors...hide the true record and promise the world...anything to get elected.

After all, isn't that what it's all about? As long as one gets elected that makes the means to the ends honorable. Right?

Perhaps it was the best thing for the country that these collectivist, rights-robbing socialists are back in power. Over the past seven weeks we have seen Democrat after Democrat unleash on the public their shameful plans to weaken this nation in the face of terrorism, cut and run in Iraq, bring back the draft, engage in treasonous activity by going overseas to negotiate with terrorist states (ala Kerry, Dodd, and Nelson) without the expressed approval of the Executive Branch during wartime, roll back the Bush tax cuts and raise taxes, not to mention their underhanded, undercover operation to rid the citizens of their firearms.

And this is all before they take office!

Heaven knows what these charlatans plan to roll out once they actually take office.

And this begs the question: what does Pelosi have to hide? Why close the door on the opening session of Congress? Is it that she doesn't wish for the public to see her as she really is? What power grabs does she intend to make? Are she and her Democrat colleagues planning a covert action to reverse the progress this nation has made since 9/11?

These are over-the-top allegations, I realize. Yet, when a new, incoming Speaker of the House decides to hold a closed-door meeting at the very outset of her tenure, an ominous cloud of suspicion is cast over the entire proceeding.

My only hope is that there will be enough Democrats to vote AGAINST Pelosi for Speaker that her big plans go up in smoke. And perhaps this is precisely the rub. She is afraid to be embarrassed by the number of votes against her in her own party.

Friday, December 22, 2006

More Controversy at College of William and Mary

Several weeks ago I wrote an article concerning the decision of the President of the College of William and Mary to remove a Cross from the college chapel. The latest news is that there is even more controversy in the wake of the President's attempt to squelch the discontent.

Originally the college President had removed the Cross to make the chapel more 'friendly to students who may not be Christian,' in spite of the fact that in the 300-year history of the school only one complaint has been received about the Cross.

William and Mary was originally a Christian college, and the Cross is significant not only as a religious symbol but as an important part of the school's history. Under the rules implemented by the college President, the Cross would be removed from the Chapel and displayed only by special request.

The result was a furor of discontent among students and alums, one of whom circulated a petition demanding that the Cross be returned to its rightful place. Thousands of signatures were gathered and presented to college officials.

Unwilling to backtrack totally from his original intent to remove the Cross, the college President decided on a different plan. The Cross would be displayed on Sundays only.

Reports indicate that this move has only stirred the furor of controversy even more, as those who signed the petition are demanding that William and Mary honor its tradition and religious heritage by putting the Cross back on the altar in the chapel permanently.

This would seem to be the only prudent course to take. Yet students and alums face an uphill battle as this society is further eroded by political correctness run amok.

We can only hope they succeed in turning the tide against opponents of Christianity and our country's traditional values.

In my earlier post, I called for the dismissal of the college President by the Board of Trustees. I renew that call. He should be dismissed for his blatant attempt at neutralizing an important part of William and Mary's identity and for his obvious bent toward revisionism.

Nifong Cuts Deal to Save His Own Carcass

Durham County prosecuting attorney Mike Nifong has cut a deal to save his own carcass. But is it enough?

Facing a chorus of growing criticism, including calls for his removal from the case and even the possibility of being removed from office and worse, Nifong announced today that he was dropping the rape charges against the three Duke students charged in a case of highly questionable integrity. Nifong has let stand the charges of kidnapping and sexual offense, however.

It is clear that in the mind of Nifong, this in some way should be viewed as a compromise--a compromise that he hopes will save his own carcass both personally and professionally. However, Nifong's handling of this case thus far raises serious issues concerning competence and integrity. No amount of attempting to wiggle out of his past gross errors in judgment and honesty will obliterate the stark prosecutorial misconduct that he has exhibited.

Further, Nifong's attempt to save his case against the three Duke students appears to be more of a face saving effort than a true desire for justice. Kidnapping? One of the accusers is quoted by friends and associates as stating she had work to do in order to get money owed to her by some students at Duke.

This has 'set-up' written all over it. And Nifong is a willing accomplice.

The sexual offense charge is yet another ludicrous example of a prosecutor out of control. When the name of the game for a prostitute is S-E-X, and when that prostitute has already stated she had plans to set up the students in question over some money owed to her, how can there be any credible charge of sexual misconduct of any kind on the part of the accused?

And this, once again, is the root of the problem. Nifong has no case. But because he is the District Attorney in an area that is overwhelmingly Democrat, with a large Black population to boot, Nifong is attempting to make a case where this is no case in order to appease his constituency. The Democrat Party in Durham and North Carolina as a whole has a stain on its hands by its refusal to reign in a renegade, out-of-control prosecutor. The North Carolina Democrats will share in Nifong's disgrace.

Most thinking, rational persons will see this move by Nifong for what it is--an attempt to save his own neck and proceed with a case against three innocent persons in order to placate a district that wants the three in prison whether they belong there or not.

CNN-Blitzer Smear of Rep. Virgil Goode

CNN has reached a new low in yellow journalism, smear tactics, and bias. On today's 'Situation Room' hosted by Wolf Blitzer, CNN launched an attack on U.S. Representative Virgil Goode of Virginia over his remarks about Muslim Keith Ellison's election to Congress.

During a prolonged segment on the controversy, the word 'bigot' was used several times in describing Goode. Interestingly, this is the very same terminology used by the representative for CAIR--the Council on American-Islamic Relations--who was interviewed on the program. CAIR joined Blitzer and CNN in calling Goode a bigot.

In presenting the segment, Blitzer and CNN rolled out Goode's detractors, complete with the expected condemnations by Muslim groups, while choosing to ignore a chorus of voices that support the Virginia Congressman. In fact, CNN chose to interview Ellison himself, in addition to the representative from CAIR.

The nature of Blitzer's questions to Ellison clearly indicates a pro-Muslim stance and was obviously designed to attempt to squelch any fears concerning Ellison's background. In fact, Blitzer went to great lengths to allow Ellison to peddle his pedigree, i.e., 'I can trace my family history all the way back to the late 1700s in this country. I am as American as you can get.'

Blitzer also seemed to make a big deal of the fact that Ellison converted to Islam as a college student, supposedly proving that since Ellison was born and raised here and only became Muslim later in college, this is further 'proof' that Americans have nothing to fear.

First of all, proof of an American pedigree is no indication that a person is not dangerous. Most black Muslims were born in this country and converted later to Islam. That proves nothing other than an extremist religion succeeded in appealing to the baser instincts of susceptible persons, causing them to renounce the faith and culture of their upbringing and convert to the religion of Mohammad.

Secondly, CAIR is a very dangerous organization. As I have reported to you before on The Liberty Sphere, CAIR was the group that forced the city of Los Angeles to remove a billboard referring to Osama bin Laden as a terrorist because it 'put Muslims in a negative light.'

The truth of the matter is that CAIR is nothing more than a terrorist front organization in this country, promoting the spread of Islam and giving cover to despicable human beings such as terrorist Osama bin Laden.

Interestingly, the Democrats who have won control of Congress have been consulting with CAIR about American-Muslim relations. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that CNN would interview a representative from CAIR.

Apparently, people and organizations on the forefront of 'multiculturalism' are now viewing defending Muslim extremists as the new civil rights front. This is what Europe has been doing for 20 years or so, and now France is involved in a civil war because of Islam, and all of western Europe is facing its worst threat since the second World War. If we listen to the apologists for 'multiculturalism' this is where America will be in short order.

Congressman Goode is to be heartily commended for his courage to state his views and his refusal to back down. The Congressman has told the truth. Ellison is a threat to this nation, and so is his religion. If we do not curb the flow of Muslim immigrants into the country, then they will also target this nation as a potential Islamic state, just as they are presently doing with France.

Keith Ellison says he supports the U.S. Constitution. Yet the very Koran he claims to believe in forbids Muslims from swearing allegiance to any government that is not under the control of Allah.

Do you not see the inconsistency?

Something isn't right here. Either Ellison is NOT really a faithful Muslim, or else he is lying.

By the way, the extremist groups within Islam state without equivocation that it is acceptable for a Muslim to lie in order to promote the cause of Allah.

The question is, how can we believe anything Ellison has to say as long as he swears allegiance to Allah and the Koran?

CNN and Wolf Blitzer have smeared the reputation of a good man by slanting this story today on Rep. Virgil Goode. As a true American patriot, Goode is merely looking out for the interests of his constituents and the United States of America.

America owes Congressman Goode a big THANK YOU for his courageous stand against the march of Islam.

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Home for Christmas

Saluda, NC (TLS). Perry Como said it best in his 1954 hit, 'Home for the Holidays.'

'O there's no place like home for the holidays,
For no matter how far away you roam,
If you want to be happy in a million ways,
For the holidays you can't beat home sweet home.

'I met a man who lives in Tennessee,
And he was headed for
Pennsylvania and some homemade pumpkin pie,
From Pennsylvania folks have traveled down
To Dixie's sunny shores
From Atlantic to Pacific,
Gee, the traffic is terrific.

'O there's no place like home for the holidays,
For no matter how far away you roam,
If you want to be happy in a million ways,
For the holidays you can't beat home sweet home.'

It is good to be home for Christmas. To my thinking, nothing in this world can compare to a Blue Ridge Mountain Christmas celebrated with family. However, it was not always so. I have spent many a Christmas far from home in various places, primarily due to career.

Today there are many here in the States and around the world who are not afforded the joy of returning home for Christmas. Another Como song, recorded by countless singers, describes the melancholic feeling:

'I'll be home for Christmas
You can count on me
Please have snow
And mistletoe
And presents on the tree

'Christmas Eve will find me
Where the love light beams
I'll be home for Christmas
If only in my dreams.'

So many during this time of the year contemplate Christmas with a misty-eyed longing for better times or a melancholic remembrance of what once was. Many churches this year have recognized this and have planned services especially for those who grieve or who are otherwise unhappy during this season.

This is a good thing, and it's about time. Many persons feel an enormous amount of pressure from society, friends, and family to appear 'happy' during this time of year, whether they actually feel that way or not. This only adds to their pain.

Let's face it, life is not always a barrel of laughs. Death, loss, divorce, lay-offs, illness, and backruptcy do not take a break for Christmas. It is unrealistic to expect persons who suffer to suddenly pop into a state of euphoria simply because of the holidays.

So, my friends, be kind this year to someone who is down. Don't expect them to act a certain way. Let them be where they are emotionally. But let them know they are cared for.

We may not all be able to go home for Christmas, but perhaps through the kindness of others we can find a bit of home deep within our own hearts.


The woman who is slated to become the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who represents the People's Republic of California, voted last year to allow law enforcement officers to break into your home and steal your guns!

Pelosi is an avowed opponent to the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

But not only does Pelosi oppose gun rights, but she is an advocate for confiscation. She voted against HR 5013 which would have forbidden law enforcement from breaking into homes and taking guns from citizens in the wake of the Katrina Hurricane disaster in New Orleans.

Let me ask you, my friends, would you have wanted to be in that war zone without a weapon?

Apparently Nancy Pelosi things you should. Law abiding citizens should be forced to be sitting ducks to gangs of thugs who ARE armed, regardless of any laws. This is the Pelosi philosophy, and she is slated to be your Speaker of the House.

The overwhelming majority of Congressman voted in favor of the bill that stopped such confiscation. Pelosi was one of 99 Democrats who obviously believe that law abiding gun owners should be stripped of their Constitutional right to self-protection.

As Speaker of the House, Pelosi will be able to stop bills from coming to the floor of the House, particularly those bills that add protection to our Constitutional right to firearms.

Pelosi has earned an 'F' rating from Gun Owners of America. The GOA is sending around a letter to Congressmen stating that a vote in favor of Pelosi as Speaker will be viewed as a ratings vote by the organization.

In short, a vote for Pelosi will earn a Congressman a grade of 'F' on gun rights.

I heartily applaud this effort of the GOA. Many of the conservative Democrats who were elected in November stated during the campaign that they favor gun rights. Let's see if they put their money where their mouth is! If these new 'blue-dog Democrats' truly believe in gun rights, then let them vote AGAINST Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

If they cast their votes in favor of Pelosi, be assured they will pay the price when GOA releases their ratings of Congressmen!


GOA has issued an urgent pre-Christmas alert. It is vital that citizens who value their Constitutional rights contact your Congressmen BEFORE Christmas.

Here is the urgent appeal from GOA. Note that a sample letter is provided for your convenience.

Hold Your Horses... It's Not Christmas Yet!
-- There's one VERY IMPORTANT action item before the holidays begin

Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Imagine this scenario. It's June of 2007, and the House of Representatives is getting ready to vote on renewing the semi-auto gun ban which sunset three years before.

You've called your Congressman and asked him to oppose the gun ban. He assures you that he is with you, and in fact, he carries through with his promise and votes "no." But the ban still passes narrowly.

The reason this scenario could occur during the next two years -- whether it's the semi-auto ban or the Brady expansion act or a gun show ban -- is because the REAL VOTE for killing gun control will occur on January 4, 2007.

On that day, the House of Representatives will vote for Speaker of the House. On that day, your Congressman will help determine which bills get pushed to the floor for a vote and, likewise, which bills will die in committee. That is the power of the House Speaker. That is the power that Nancy Pelosi will have, should she be elected to the top post in the House.

And that's why Gun Owners of America is telling every Representative in Congress that GOA will be rating the vote for Speaker on January 4. A vote in favor of Nancy Pelosi will be counted as an ANTI-GUN vote. A vote for Pelosi will be considered as a vote for gun control.

The democratic congresswoman from California is rabidly anti-gun. She is an avowed socialist who is F- rated by Gun Owners of America.

Consider that Pelosi was one of only 99 Representatives who voted IN FAVOR of gun confiscation in July. That vote saw more than 300 congressmen cast their ballots to prohibit federal agents from stealing firearms from law-abiding citizens. It was truly an overwhelming majority who supported the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

But in that July vote, Nancy Pelosi joined the hard core left in Congress to SUPPORT gun confiscation. She actually voted to let government agents burst into your home and steal your firearms!

That's the woman who will be determining which bills will be voted on next year in the House of Representatives. Yes, there still may be a majority of congressmen who oppose the outright gun confiscation of gun owners' guns.

But in Nancy Pelosi's new Congress, a bill to prohibit such gun confiscation will never see the light of day! She will decide what gun bills come to the floor.

And that's why we need your help. Gun Owners will be telling each Congressman that the vote for the Speaker of the House is a "ratings vote." A vote for a gun grabber like Pelosi will be considered an anti-Second Amendment vote.

But we need you to back us up on this. Tell them that you agree with this strategy. We're not asking that Democrats vote for a Republican for Speaker. To quote a common proverb, "Hell will freeze over before that happens."

All we're asking is that the House does not elevate a committed supporter of gun confiscation to the top leadership spot in that chamber.

This vote will be especially tough for some of the newly elected, so-called Blue Dog Democrats who campaigned as pro-gun before the recent election. But that's okay. Let's find out how pro-gun these new congressmen really are.

ACTION: Please ask your Representative to vote NO on choosing Nancy Pelosi for the Speaker of the House. You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your Representatives a pre-written e-mail message. And, you can call your Representatives toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.

-----Pre-written letter-----
Dear Representative:

As a supporter of the Second Amendment, I am asking you to vote for a gun rights supporter in early January, when you cast your ballot for the Speaker of the House.

And just to be clear... Rep. Nancy Pelosi is not a supporter of the Second Amendment.

Thus, I will consider a vote for Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker to be an anti-gun vote. Gun Owners of America has told me that they will be rating this vote, and I agree with them.

Pelosi is a supporter of gun confiscation, as evidenced by her vote against HR 5013 last year, when she voted to let government agents burst into my home and steal my firearms in the wake of a natural disaster. More than 300 Congressmen -- an overwhelming majority -- voted right on this bill. But Pelosi was part of the small minority that actually voted in favor of gun confiscation.

She has truly earned her F- rating with the Gun Owners of America. She will prevent constitutional bills from coming to the floor and will do her best to push the most extreme versions of gun control.

Given all of the above, I urge you to vote AGAINST Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House in early January.

(Your Name)

No Liberty in a Democracy

There is no liberty in a democracy. Democracy by its very nature makes liberty subservient to any majority vote of the people. In a pure democracy, voters could decide, for example, that no driver's licenses would be issued to blue-eyed, blond females. If such a proposal got a majority vote, then the driving privileges of those fitting this description would be revoked in a pure democracy.

This simple yet profound fact has been lost on much of the American public today. The United States was NEVER a pure democracy, and rightfully so! Our form of government is what is known as a 'constitutional republic.' The Constitution that was approved by our Founders guaranteed the protection of certain individual rights, regardless of any 'majority vote.'

Even the term 'representative democracy' is a misnomer due to the fact that it gives the impression that our representatives can do anything they want as long as they get a 'majority vote.' But even Congress cannot pass laws that violate the liberties protected by the Constitution.

This is the essence of a Constitutional Republic. When a Republic approves a Constitution that contains provisions that guard the rights of, say, blue-eyed, blond females to drive, then no matter what the majority says, those particular females can be issued licenses.

The core principle behind this form of government is that there are some things that should not and MUST not be subject to 'majority rule.' This notion was articulated by the Founders when they said we had been endowed by our Creator with 'certain unalienable rights.'

In other words, those rights, which are inherently ours as human beings, cannot be negated by ANY majority vote.

The Founders believed that some things are so sacred, so basic to human dignity, so inherent to life itself, that they should not be endangered by the shifting tides of public opinion. Thus, we cannot negate freedom of the press, of religion, or of assembly, or of speech by the votes of the people. The Constitutional guarantees of those rights in our Republic always trump public opinion or majority votes.

A perfect example of this is the San Francisco law that banned handguns within the city. By a majority vote, the citizens of San Francisco outlawed guns within the city limits.

Gun Owners of America went to work on the case and got the law overturned, based upon California law. However, an even higher law actually forbids such attempts to rob citizens of their rights. It is the U.S. Constitution.

The City of San Francisco can no more legally outlaw guns than it can outlaw freedom of the press. Both are protected by the U.S. Constitution.

A dark, sinister force is at work in America today, however. It is the notion that somehow the only thing a city, state, or even federal government has to do to obliterate liberties guaranteed in the Constitution is to get a majority vote either by the citizens or by their representatives. This is the tactic used in cases with regard to the 2nd Amendment. City by city, state by state, local governments have decided that they can simply vote rights away, a phenomenon Thomas Jefferson referred to as 'elective despotism.'

Jefferson also warned that the creeping crawl of 'elective despotism' is so tempting and enticing that periodically liberty must be preserved with the blood of tyrants and patriots.

Have we reached the tipping point today? Are we nearing a precipice where, if we fall off the edge, bloodshed will follow in our streets as patriotic Americans seek to recapture liberty from the hands of tyrants who wish to limit freedom?

San Francisco certainly pushed the limits of Constitutional protection. They lost this round. But what about next time?

What about stringent gun control laws in New York State?

The fact of the matter is that if the freedom to own and bear firearms is taken away by elective despotism, the next thing will be your freedom of religion, then your freedom to assemble, then freedom of the press, and of course, your freedom of speech will not be far behind.

Can they actually do that, you ask? They sure can if they continue to dupe the public into believing that we actually live in a pure democracy (or a society ruled by judicial fiat rather than a strict adherence to Constitutional law).

We are already hearing rumblings about the McCain plan to shut down independent bloggers by removing their right to free speech. Freedom of religion is certainly endangered in America today, unless you are a Muslim. And with the collectivist tyrants who are set to take control of Congress in January, you can be assured of a renewed attack on your right to firearms. Under the guise of 'making our streets safer' they systematically remove the freedom to own and use firearms unhindered by government intrusion.

The 99% of gun owners who are law abiding citizens do not deserve such an assault on their liberties!

This is why the Constitution is so vital. The Constitution protects citizens from power-hungry politicians and misguided voters who think they somehow are doing all of us a favor by taking away our rights.

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

New Controversy Swirls Around First Muslim Congressman

U.S. House Representative Virgil Goode, R-VA, has stated that the election of Muslim Keith Ellison to Congress threatens the values and beliefs traditional to the United States. Goode has warned that unless Americans wake up to the march of Islam into this country and the rest of the free world, there will be many more Muslims elected to positions that will endanger our liberties as protected by the U.S. Constitution.

The terrorist front-group, CAIR, has demanded an apology.

Here is the full article:

Congressman says Muslim lawmaker's election threatens US values

A US lawmaker stirred up controversy when he expressed uneasiness over the election of a Muslim to serve with him in the House of Representatives, which he said endangered "the values and beliefs traditional" to the United States.

"The Muslim representative from Minnesota (Keith Ellison) was elected by the voters of that district, and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration, there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran" in their swearing-in ceremonies, Goode said in a letter to one of his associates, sent to AFP Wednesday.

The powerful Muslim rights group CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, demanded an apology from Goode in response to the letter.

"Representative Goode's Islamophobic remarks send a message of intolerance that is unworthy of anyone elected to public office," said CAIR National Legislative Director Corey Saylor. "There can be no reasonable defense for such bigotry."

Goode's spokesman said the lawmaker stood by his letter and would not offer any apology.

Ellison was also ordered by a conservative radio commentator, Dennis Prager, to take his oath of office using the Bible rather than the Koran.

"Mr. Ellison: America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath," argued Prager, adding that taking the oath using the Muslim holy book would disqualify Ellison from serving in Congress.

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.

In Support of Racial, Ethnic, and Religious Profiling

Walter Williams has written a brilliant piece in today's concerning racial, ethnic, and religious profiling. Mr. Williams, himself a Black American, is one of the most powerful voices for liberty in the free world today. The following article perfectly expresses my views on the subject of profiling.

Racial profiling
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Charges of racial, religious and ethnic profiling swirl in the wake of US Airways' removal of six imams. According to police reports, the men made anti-American statements, were praying and chanting "Allah," refused the pilot's requests to disembark for additional screening and asked for seat-belt extensions for no obvious reason. Three of the men had no checked baggage and only one-way tickets.

According to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), five of the men have retained lawyers and are probably going to bring a discrimination lawsuit against US Airways.

Racial profiling controversy is nothing new. For a number of years, black Americans have made charges of racial profiling by police and store personnel who might give them extra scrutiny. Clever phrases have emerged, such as "driving while black" and now "flying while Muslim," but they don't help much in terms of understanding. Let's apply some economic analysis to the issue.

God, or some other omniscient being, would never racially profile. Why? Since He is all-knowing, He'd know who is and is not a terrorist or a criminal. We humans are not all-knowing. While a god would have perfect and complete information about everything, we humans have less than perfect and incomplete information. That means we must use substitutes such as guesses and hunches for certain kinds of information. It turns out that some physical attributes are highly correlated with other attributes that are less easily, or more costly, observed.

Let's look at a few, and the associated "profiling," that cause little or no controversy. Mortality rates for cardiovascular diseases were approximately 30 percent higher among black adults than among white adults. The Pima Indians of Arizona have the world's highest known diabetes rates. Prostate cancer is nearly twice as common among black men as white men. Would anyone bring racial profiling charges against a doctor who routinely ordered more frequent blood tests and prostate screening among his black patients and more glucose tolerance tests for his Pima Indian patients? Of course, God wouldn't have to do that because He'd know for sure which patient was more prone to cardiovascular disease, prostate cancer and diabetes.

It is clear, whether we like it or not, or want to say it or not, that there is a strong correlation between terrorist acts and being a Muslim, and being black and high rates of crime. That means if one is trying to deter terrorism and in some cases capture a criminal, he would expend greater investigatory resources on Muslims and blacks. A law-abiding Muslim who's given extra airport screening or a black who's stopped by the police is perfectly justified in being angry, but with whom should he be angry? I think a Muslim should be angry with those who've made terrorism and Muslim synonymous and blacks angry with those who've made blacks and crime synonymous. The latter is my response to the insulting sounds of car doors locking sometimes when I'm crossing a street in downtown Washington, D.C., or when taxi drivers pass me by.

It would be a serious misallocation of resources if airport security intensively screened everyone. After all, intensively screening someone who had a near zero probability of being a terrorist, such as an 80-year-old woman using a walker, would not only be a waste but it would take resources away from screening a person with a much higher probability of being a terrorist.

You say, "Williams, are you justifying religious and racial profiling?" No. I'm not justifying anything any more than I'd try to justify Einstein's special law of relativity. I'm trying to explain a phenomenon. By the way, I think some of the airport screening is grossly stupid, but I'm at peace with the Transportation Security Administration. They have their rules, and I have mine. One of mine is to minimize my association with idiocy. Thus, I no longer fly commercial.

Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.

Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Time for U.S. First Strike Against Iran

Dear President Bush,

On behalf of the many U.S. citizens who admire your courage in fighting the War on Terror in the face of hugely unfair criticism at home and abroad, I thank you for your bravery. Doing the right thing is not always popular. The right thing is not subject to a majority vote. Even if polls found your policies to be 100% wrong, that does not make it wrong.

The issues of right and wrong were never dependent on consensus.

Thus, it is with heaviness of heart that I urge you today to do what will surely be viewed as a horrible deed, even though it is quite honorable and a course of action that may save the world from yet another Holocaust. I urge you to attack Iran now. It is time for the United States to move to take out all known nuclear facilities in Iran.

As you well know, news reports today from the Arab Republic World News quotes Iranian President Mahmoud Ahamdinejad as proclaiming Iran as the world's latest nuclear power. With that proclamation he once again stated that his ultimate goal was the complete destruction of Israel, Great Britain, and the United States.

There is no doubt that he will start with Israel.

Ahamdinejad is no doubt the greatest threat the world has seen to Jewish people since the second World War. However, his ability to wreak havoc in the world may well surpass the strength of the Nazi army, given the fact that the network of terrorists connected to Iran and other nations in the region is world-wide. In addition, the fact that these terrorists now have access to nuclear weapons poses a risk that perhaps the free world has never before least not since the days of the Cold War.

It is my firm belief that one of the reasons for the stalemate in Iraq is the terrorist insurgency perpetrated by Iran and Al Qaida. In order to stabilize the region, not only should we send more troops to Iraq, but our naval and air forces should launch attacks on Iran, targeting the nuclear sites as well as the central offices of the Iranian government.

This will send a clear signal to the region, to terrorists, and to the world, that as the world's only remaining super-power, the United States will not tolerate threats aimed at the annihilation of entire societies by rogue nations with nuclear bombs.

Mr. President, in January you will face a major hurdle in accomplishing any progress on the War on Terror. With Democrats slated to control Congress very shortly, you have a very narrow window of opportunity to set in motion a chain of events that will free the world from the scourge of Mahmoud Ahamdinejad. Your opponents in Congress, unfortunately, are eerily similar to Parliament in Great Britain prior to WWII, choosing the cowardly response of sticking its head in the sand and pretending Hitler was not there, or choosing yet another course of action that only emboldened Hitler--negotiation and appeasement. Winston Churchill was a very unpopular solitary voice in Parliament at that time. The majority viewed him as a 'war-monger,' yet it was precisely he to whom Britain turned at their critical hour of need.

These dastardly cowards that will control Congress will put this nation at great risk. You must move before they get a chance.

I recognize that a course of action of this magnitude will require much deliberation and soul-searching...and courage. Please be assured, Mr. President, that I will stand with you in this endeavor. And I am not the only patriotic American who feels this way. There are millions of us out here who will stand with you, even as far as offering our services where needed, if necessary.

Be assured of my continued prayers as you make difficult decisions concerning the future of the United States and the rest of the free world.

D. Martyn Lloyd-Morgan

LIBERTY ALERT! Gun Owners of America's Annual Report

Gun Owners of America is THE 2nd Amendment rights' organization that is on the front lines of the battle to protect our Constitutional rights. GOA has just released its annual, end-of-the-year report. This report is a MUST-READ as we face January with a Congress that is controlled by a Party that wishes to rob the citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights.
Dec 2006

GOA's Gun Rights Report for 2006
-- Taking the fight to the front lines

Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151

"GOA's help in pushing my amendment to prohibit gun confiscation... was a huge help, and it was very effective. I look forward to working on many other issues with GOA." --
U.S. Senator David Vitter (R-LA), July 13, 2006

Thursday, December 14, 2006

There's a lot of danger looming on the horizon. When the next Congress is sworn in January, a committed gun hater and supporter of gun confiscation, Nancy Pelosi, will take the reins in the House.

The democratic congresswoman from California is rabidly anti-gun. She holds an F- rating from Gun Owners of America and has consistently championed socialist "values." The new Majority Leader in the Senate, Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada, also holds an F- rating from GOA.

Both Pelosi and Reid have worked hard to earn their failing grades, and now, they will be setting the agenda on gun control issues. Gun owners will have to remain vigilant in a way that we have not had to for more than a decade. But lest we forget, there was much that we were able to accomplish this year. Just consider some of the victories that we achieved together.

*** January -- March
Gun Owners lobbied on all kinds of issues at the state level this year. But, perhaps, the most gratifying victories centered on the Emergency Protection bills that protect the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms in the wake of a natural disaster.

Gun owners will remember that a little over a year ago -- in the wake of Hurricane Katrina -- police began stealing the guns of law-abiding residents in New Orleans. This travesty exposed the fact that, similar to Louisiana, several states had laws which gave enormous (although unconstitutional) powers to Governors to regulate or ban firearms during an emergency.

GOA sprung into action, first, by posting videos of the gun confiscation on our website. GOA then began working in several state legislatures, as GOA-supported bills were introduced all across the nation to repeal these pernicious state codes.

GOA spent a lot of time in Louisiana, getting gun owners in the state to lobby their own legislators in favor of a change in the law. The results were astounding, as the state sponsor of the "Emergency Protection" act credited GOA with helping him get 80% of the House of Representatives to cosponsor his bill.

Rep. Steve Scalise, told GOA that, "I've had a number of [Representatives] come up to me asking to co-author my bill because they heard from members of Gun Owners of America in their districts in support of my bill."

Not only that, Scalise said that the GOA-produced videos which contained media footage of the gun thefts were instrumental in helping him convince lawmakers that gun confiscation had actually occurred. (Yes, it's true. Many of his legislative colleagues had no idea gun confiscation had occurred in New Orleans.)

In the end, Louisiana was one of ten states that GOA spent time in, working to enact their Emergency Protection bills into law.

*** April -- June
With most of the state legislatures ending, GOA turned its sights on pro-gun bills at the national level. GOA used the Internet and the mail to mobilize gun owners in support of the Vitter-Jindal bills, which were federal versions of Emergency Protection legislation that passed in almost a dozen states.

GOA also spent time defending gun owners' rights in the courts. After San Francisco voters decided to ban handguns within their city limits, Gun Owners' founder and chairman, Sen. H.L. Richardson, submitted an amicus brief contesting the new edict.

While serving as a California state senator for more than two decades, Richardson had drafted (and passed) preemption legislation which bans localities from doing what the Bay City did.

In June, Superior Court Judge James Warren agreed with the Gun Owners Foundation-funded amicus brief and overturned the voter-approved measure, citing Richardson's law as prohibiting the city from banning guns.

At the same time, GOA started alerting people to the upcoming UN gun control conference, which would take place over the July 4 holiday.

In the days leading up to the conference, Gun Owners of America activated its grassroots network, generating thousands of messages into Senate and State Department offices.

GOA used the mail, radio, and Internet for several months, urging gun owner support for legislation to instantly cut off US funds to the United Nations. In addition to contacting the Congress, GOA also urged gun owners to contact the State Department delegation which attended the UN conference.

*** July
GOA members were on hand to protest the UN and give interviews to the New York Times on the opening day of its gun control summit. Fox News reported that "Groups like Gun Owners of America... [are] heavily lobbying against the symposium here at the U.N."

Despite high expectations in the gun-grabbing community, the conference would not end favorably for Brady-types all around the globe. As indicated above, GOA was very active in the weeks and months leading up to the July 4 gun control conference. And with the conclusion of the conference, press reports indicated that our active participation was well worth the effort.

According to Reuters, the conference ended in a "total meltdown" and "chaos." No formal paper was adopted, and no plan for future action was agreed to.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), in a column appearing on the day before the conference was to begin, praised gun owners for having responded to the call to action with "an avalanche of letters" to the American delegation, asking that none of our tax dollars be used to further UN anti-gun proposals.

July was also an important month because both the House and Senate passed their respective versions of the Emergency Protection Act. The bill was signed into law by President Bush in October.

*** August
Most lobby groups in Washington get to take a vacation in August, as Congress goes out of town for its summer recess. But Gun Owners went to work, lobbying hard against the expansion of the Brady Act -- a bill introduced by F- rated Carolyn McCarthy. Her bill (HR 1415) is designed to suck in even more innocent, unsuspecting gun owners into the web of gun owner disarmament.

GOA members and activists overwhelmingly responded to our internet and postal alerts over the August recess, resulting in untold thousands of postcards and emails being dumped on legislators' desks in opposition to HR 1415.

The results were astounding, as indicated by the following quote from a congressional office: "Oh s--t! We got a lot of postcards and e-mails from GOA members."

It's a good thing those postcards and e-mails were sent by our members, too, because GOA was the only Second Amendment group in Washington opposing McCarthy's attack.

*** September
Part of the confusion over the McCarthy gun grab was that pro-gun lobbyists in the nation's capital were encouraging House members to support her anti-gun bill. For this reason, when the House Judiciary Committee was scheduled to vote on HR 1415 in early September, the McCarthy gun bill was expected to easily pass.

But that was before thousands upon thousands of postcards and emails from GOA members began flooding legislative offices. When the Judiciary Committee met in September, they reported two firearms-related bills to the floor of the House -- but they specifically passed over the McCarthy bill (even though it was scheduled to come up for a vote).

Thanks to the active support of GOA members, legislators decided they didn't want to touch this "hot potato." The tidal wave of grassroots opposition buried the gun control bill as legislative offices on Capitol Hill told GOA, "We've heard your postcards and e-mails loud and clear!"

*** October -- November
Gun Owners were very involved in the recent elections, as our political victory fund helped elect several, new, outstanding pro-gun legislators to Congress. GOA-PVF directly assisted several of these new congressmen, while GOA helped expose the anti-gun records of those who were selling out gun owners' rights.

GOA is famous for its extensive Candidate Rating which is posted every two years on our website, and has been published in many pro-gun magazines over the years. But the Brady Campaign hates this fact, and they have asked the Federal Election Commission to investigate GOA's practice of posting its candidate ratings on the Internet.

Millions of gun owners rely on these ratings, but obviously, that is something the Brady Bunch would like to end. They want to keep you in the dark! They don't want you to know the truth. The more they can hide what anti-gun legislators are doing, the greater their ability to take away your guns.

A decision by the FEC is currently pending. While this could become a costly battle for Gun Owners of America, we still plan to fight it in the courts. But this won't be the only court battle that is carrying-over to the next year. As the year comes to an end, there are three very-high profile cases in which Gun Owners Foundation is involved.

First, GOA's foundation stood alongside the Attorney General of Wyoming in defiance of the BATFE. The agency wants to overturn a Wyoming law, introduced by Senator Cale Case, which essentially allows state residents (who are disqualified to own firearms because of the federal Lautenberg gun ban) to find a legal way of getting around the federal ban. While the BATFE is opposing this law in court, GOA is in the state, helping to protect the rights of gun owners.

This case is extremely important, because if GOF can win in Wyoming, then Case's law can be used as a model in other states, thus allowing innocent gun owners -- who were unsuspectingly disarmed for life -- to own guns once again.

Another one of GOF’s high-profile cases is in Montana, where we are helping to defend Rick Celata, the owner of KT Ordinance. KTO makes parts kits for individuals who want to make their own firearms, which is legal as long as the owner does not sell the firearm to another person. The BATFE has raided Celata and confiscated all of his part kits, although the agency has yet to charge him with any criminal wrongdoing. Nevertheless, Celata's firearms have been put up for forfeiture.

Finally, GOF is assisting Bob Arwady, a gun dealer in Texas. The BATFE vendetta against gun stores in general -- and Bob Arwady in particular -- has dragged on for years. The BATFE lost their effort to jail Arwady when he showed in federal court that their three witnesses were liars. The jury acquitted him. But that has not stopped the BATFE from their current effort to pull Arwady's dealer’s license -- an effort which amounts to nothing more than the agency's attempt to punish and harass someone for having continuously beaten them in court.

As you can see, both Gun Owners of America and its foundation have been working to defend your rights all over the country. And we certainly look forward to working together with you again next year.

PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO YOUR PRO-GUN FRIENDS AND FAMILY. We are going to be fighting a lot of battles in the next Congress, and it's good for gun owners all across the country to go into these skirmishes with a reminder that we can accomplish much together (and that we have done so in the past).

Thanks for standing with us. You can go to to make sure that your support remains current.

The Lieberman Equation

New Haven, CT (TLS). Senator Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, has indicated he will support the upcoming Bush plan to send more troops to Iraq. The Senator has been a steady, reliable, and consistent supporter for the War on Terror and its tributary in Iraq and Afghanistan. This has placed the Senator in a precarious position among other Democrats, who punished him for his views by denying him the Democrat nomination.

Of course, as we all know, Lieberman then ran as an Independent and trounced his opponents, including Democrat nominee Ned Lamont.

Since the election Lieberman has indicated he will take his seat in the Senate as a Democrat, which will put him in line for a committee chair. However, it is a big mistake to view this move as a victory for the Democrat party. Lieberman does not hesitate to break with the Democrats in order to vote his conscience.

One of the issues that rises to the forefront of 'conscience issues' is the Iraq War. From the start Lieberman believed it was the right thing to do. And now, as our progress in the country is being thwarted by insurgents, Lieberman will throw the weight of his support behind the President's upcoming plan to funnel more troops into the region.

This is not a plan without merit. A case can be made that from the outset there were not enough troops to do the job, in spite of assurances from Donald Rumsfeld and commanders on the ground. To be sure, Rumsfeld's philosophy was one of streamlining military operations to be more in line with 21st century technology. A central feature of this philosophy is that we can do more with less manpower.

Indeed, that may well be the case in the near future, and it is an honorable and worthy plan to pursue. However, we are not there quite yet.

More troops are needed in Iraq to stabilize the area, train Iraqi soldiers, and provide backup for Iraqis as they gradually increase their involvement in policing and securing the country. This short-terms solution will enable us to reach our longterm objectives more quickly.

The plan has broad support. Not only has Lieberman expressed support for more troops, but Democrats as well as Republicans have gone on record as supporting the idea, among them being Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and even Harry Reid.

The Lieberman equation in the new Congress will yield mixed results. On the one hand he is strong on defense and the war on terror. On the other hand he supports some of the standard liberal policies of environmentalism, among others. His approval percentage from the American Conservative Union is only 17%. Yet he has received high marks in the 90s, and sometimes a perfect 100% approval rating from liberal groups.

There is no doubt that this needs to be carefully watched.

However, one cannot with any credibility question the personal integrity of Lieberman. His conscience is his guide, and he will vote the way he sees it on the issues, no matter what his Democrat colleagues think about it.

Mr. Lieberman will be an important ally in our nation's continuing War on Terror, as well as the War in Iraq, as we fight the march of Islamic Jihad.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Estrich Calls for Nifong's Removal in Duke Rape Case

Durham, NC (TLS). In a late breaking story from Fox News, USC Law Professor and Fox News consultant Susan Estrich unleashed a bombshell by calling for the removal of District Attorney Mike Nifong from the rape case involving three Duke University students.

This shocking news comes only weeks after Estrich had initially expressed support for the beleaguered Nifong. The days that followed after her initial expression of support would only convince Estrich of the murky, sleazy manner in which this case has been handled by the District Attorney's office. The more Estrich delved into the case, the more she began to turn against Nifong.

Estrich blasted Nifong and the DA office's handling of the case in a scathing report published on the Fox News website. She maintains that the mishandling of the case is so pronounced and so shockingly bereft of any adherence to criminal law that the only recourse is the removal of Nifong from the case.

I am willing to go several steps further. Nifong should be removed from office. The possibility of criminal and civil charges should be thoroughly reviewed. The fact that the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating Nifong's behavior is a refreshing breath of fresh air in what has been a rank stench of prosecutorial misconduct.

The following is an excerpt from Estrich's article on the Fox News website:

'But withholding exculpatory evidence moves the impropriety to a whole new level. This is not simply best practices, but basic constitutional criminal law.

'According to testimony given under oath this week, the head of a private DNA lab said he and the District Attorney together agreed not to release evidence that there was DNA from other men, but not from any of the defendants, in the woman's underwear and on her person the night of the alleged incident.

'Together, they decided not to release it. Imagine. One of those people is supposed to be an officer of the court and the representative of the people, not head gladiator.

'How could the District Attorney keep that information to himself, or try to?

'What is he out to do here?

'Enough is enough.

'What will it take for Mike Nifong to be replaced on this case?

'If ever a prosecutor had shown himself to be no longer capable of exercising the sort of judgment required of him to be fair, it would be this prosecutor in this case.'

Estrich is 100% correct. Imagine if you were on trial for murder. A murder weapon had been found. The prosecuting attorney gathers evidence from the weapon that is then tested in the lab. Your fingerprints are not on the weapon, but other fingerprints are found.

Does the DA then have the moral, ethical, and legal responsibility to inform your attorney and the court about the lab findings? That your fingerprints were not on the weapon?

Of course he does.

Yet when DNA evidence taken from the accusers show that none of the DNA match ANY of the three suspects, the DA agreed with the lab to 'just keep it between ourselves.' That is the very same thing as a DA failing to notify the court that your fingerprints were not on a murder weapon.

At the very least, Nifong should be disbarred. My hope, however, is that much more will follow in the aftermath of this shocking debacle. Nifong should be made an example of what can happen to a prosecuting attorney gone bad. Since he was intent on sending innocent young men to jail, perhaps jail time is in order for Nifong.

A Conspiracy to Humiliate Gun Owners

A newspaper in New York state is the latest to join a conspiracy to humiliate gun owners. It seems the anti-gun bigots have taken their fight to ban handguns to the public sector, publishing the names of gun owners.

How do they get the names? They obtain the names from government gun registration information, which is a matter of 'public record.'

Many things are a matter of public record in a free society. But does this mandate that they be published? For example, it is also a matter of public record if you own real property for your full address, legal description of your property, and plot and parcel to be recorded in courthouse records in the county of your residence. Should this be published as well?

No rational person actually believes that all information that is kept on private citizens by the government should be made public, in spite of the fact that it is known as 'part of the public record.' Yet this is precisely the argument that some left-leaning newspapers and websites make when defending their practice of publishing the names of gun owners.

Such an act is supposedly designed to humiliate and shame citizens regarding the private ownership of firearms. New York state's stringent gun control laws are well-known throughout the nation. Apparently those laws are not enough. Stung by the failure of such laws to rob the citizens of their Constitutional right to own and carry firearms, the social engineers of the rights-robbing collectivists now seek to use the force of public, communal shame and humiliation to place a guilt-trip on citizens who are registered gun owners.

If such media entities persist in this clear attempt to thwart individual Constitutional rights by publishing the names, then those of us on the other side of the issue can follow suit. In fact, we can declare open season on ANY matter of public record, including publishing the complete information on the legal descriptions and locations of the addresses of editors of newspapers who insist on this dastardly practice.

How does that grab you?

Don't mess with us. There are 100 million or more gun owners in the United States. We have no intention of letting leftists and their advocates such as Democrats John Conyers, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, and BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA take away our second amendment rights!

Not only are we poised to fight, but we can also go underground if we must. In fact, there is a move among some gun owners not only to refuse registration but to purchase only those weapons that cannot be traced, that is, weapons without serial numbers.

Is this what the leftists want?

Let me be very blunt and very clear. Adolf Hitler was ELECTED by the people of Germany. The Nazi regime was not forced on them but was an example of what Thomas Jefferson referred to as 'elective despotism.' Free people sometimes vote their rights away. This is what happened in Germany.

This is a lesson to us all. Germany had implemented a program of gun registration before the Nazis were elected. When the Nazis came to power they merely used the information that was already gathered previously to confiscate weapons from the citizens.

In other words, registration was only a precursor to confiscation.

Only Nazis and a few others deemed to be 'safe' were allowed to have firearms.

One can only wonder what would have happened if the Jews had been armed. Suppose the Gestapo had been met with a hoard of Jewish gun owners who opened fire on the jackbooted thugs when they came to haul them off to death camps. Suppose every other private citizen who had been deemed 'sub-human' had been armed. Perhaps WWII would have never happened. At the very least the world would have been spared the Holocaust.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that those who are part of the gun control movement are the modern political and social descendents of the Nazis.

Under the guise of 'making the streets safer' these opponents of personal liberties wish to rob the citizens of weapons so that they can then implement whatever program of government expansion and intrusion they wish. This is not about making the streets safer. 99% of gun owners DO NOT COMMIT CRIMES.

The notion that the majority of free citizens must be punished for the actions of a tiny minority is nothing less than tyranny and despotism.

We who value our Constitutional rights MUST let our voices be heard and stop this mad march toward totalitarianism. When an editor decides to publish the names of gun owners, complain to high heaven. Make phone calls to the newspaper and protest. Write letters to the editor. If that doesn't make a difference, then we should take steps to publish information on these editors that are also 'part of the public record.'

And then, of course, we MUST elect persons to office who are on record as supporting ALL of our rights in the BILL OF RIGHTS...including 2nd AMENDMENT rights. Anything less is totally unacceptable.

As for those who have already been elected who support gun control, we need to watch every single move they make in Congress. For us to go to sleep at the wheel will only give them opportunity to do their dirty work while we are not looking. And each time they even as much as HINT that they wish to continue to dismantle our rights, we need so scream bloody murder until they are stopped.

The following is a MUST READ (also part of the PUBLIC RECORD):

'Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they 'lawfully' took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not "reliable." Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them.

'The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb "gang activity," violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? "Gun control" did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.

'In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other "reliable" people.

'This law gave Hitler's Nazi party a stranglehold on the German people, many of whom did not support the Nazis. The Nazis did not invent "gun control" in Germany. The Nazis inherited gun control and then perfected it: they invented handgun control.

'Given the parallels between the Nazi Weapons Law and the US Gun Control Act of 1968 (the Democrats controlled Congress and the Presidency), it is concluded that the framers of the GCA '68 -- lacking any basis in American law to sharply cut back the civil rights of law abiding Americans -- drew on the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938.'

My fellow citizens who value liberty, what are you going to do about this trashing of the U.S. Constitution?

Monday, December 18, 2006

Hypocrisy and Bias: The Old CBS News Yet Lives

Realistically there has never been any doubt that Katie Couric is a political and social liberal. Her years at NBC's 'Today Show' are a living record of her point of view. That much is not up for debate.

What WAS up for debate was whether or not CBS News would continue with its long-standing policy of slanting news in favor of Democrats and liberal politicians. Walter Cronkite single-handedly changed public opinion on the War in Viet Nam by declaring we had lost. This prompted President Johnson to lament, 'If I have lost Cronkite, I have lost the country.' Then came Dan Rather who publicly humiliated President Nixon unnecessarily in a news conference during Watergate. His waning years at CBS solidified the notion that Rather is an ultra-liberal purveyor of yellow journalism. He supports Democrat politicians in Texas. And then,there was the attempt to ruin President Bush's re-election by fabricating false documents, a shameful display that led to Dan's banishment from the network, in addition to one of his subordinates being fired.

Some of us actually had the faint hope that CBS would see the changing of the guard as an opportunity to change direction. The fact that they chose Katie Couric notwithstanding, it appeared for a season that CBS and Couric were attempting to forge a new trail in network news by going out into the heartland and talking to the people to get their opinions as to focus and direction.

The result has been less than flattering. CBS News has steadily LOST viewer share in the ratings since the Couric ascendancy, and in one large market she now ranks 7th in her time-slot among viewers, which is a new low in news viewership.

Tonight's broadcast dispelled any doubt that CBS ever seriously attempted to amend its tendency to slant the news. One of the lead stories was a piece about Pentagon plans to build a 100-million-dollar courthouse at Gitmo, a facility that would not only provide courtrooms to try those being detained but would provide much more comfortable and humane detention cells for prisoners, as well as a large area to house military vehicles.

The plan has sent liberals in Congress howling. CBS chose to interview Senator Diane Feinstein of the People's Republic of California, who bemoaned the plan as misguided and a 'waste of taxpayers' money.'

Since when has ANY leftist been concerned with 'taxpayers' money?'

Yet this was the theme of the CBS News report. At least four times during the segment, the statement was made by Couric, the reporter on the field, and Feinstein, 'This is YOUR MONEY.'

It is interesting that CBS News never uses those words to describe any other government program designed to rob me of my money to give to someone else.

Senator Feinstein certainly never uses that term, never in her entire tenure in the Senate, when proposing legislation that will result in higher taxes and more government power. The pricetag of government programs, when proposed by liberals, is never an issue. The issue always becomes, 'compassion,' or the program being 'for the good of the American people.'

Excuse me, but does the mere fact that something is 'compassionate' and 'for the good of the American people' automatically trumps the cost to the taxpayers? No matter what program the government sets up, there IS a huge cost to American citizens in the form of taxes. The money doesn't come from thin air.

So, why is the term, 'It is YOUR MONEY,' conspicuously missing from CBS News reports about OTHER government programs? How is it that Feinstein has suddenly seen the light and gotten religion over the 'cost to the taxpayers?' What a hypocrite.

Feinstein's hypocrisy is not surprising. This is her modus operandi. For CBS News, however, to be a willing co-conspirator in using phrasing that slants the news is the height of tabloid journalism at best.

CBS News hasn't changed a bit. It's the same old song and dance. Dan Rather's legacy lives on, obviously. This is just one more reason why I never watch it anymore. I'm sorry I did so this evening, except for the fact that Ms. Couric played right into my hands with her biased reports.

But be assured, Ms. Couric, I won't be watching again. Apparently millions of Americans agree with me.


U.S. Senator and potential Republican Presidential candidate John McCain has taken aim at independent bloggers. The Senator has introduced legislation that will make bloggers legally responsible for comments and copyrighted material posted on their websites, including fines up to $300,000.

In an obvious attempt to silence the voices of individual, private citizens on the Internet, McCain has once again thrown his weight behind legislation that enhances the power and influence of the wealthiest among us while robbing individuals of their right to free speech. The Senator has been down this road once before. As a co-sponsor of McCain-Feingold, which was passed into law, McCain became a champion of robbing citizens of free speech, creating a 'zone of protection' for political candidates in the days leading up to an election.

This has prevented groups such as the NRA from running ads prior to elections that inform the citizens of the voting records of incumbents with regard to 2nd Amendment rights. Yet a handful of organizations with deep pockets, underwritten by billionaires such as George Soros, have found a loophole in the law allowing them to funnel millions of dollars to organizations that run campaign ads through what is known as '527 groups.'

In short, McCain-Feingold has done nothing but silence the voices of citizens while giving more power and influence to the wealthiest among us who can do their damage through 527s.

And now, McCain is at it yet again. Perhaps the Senator fears the voice of the people. Why else would he wish to make vulnerable individual bloggers, the majority of whom are not paid? To threaten an individual citizen who makes no money from blogging with the possibility of a $300,000 fine will do nothing but silence the voices of Americans who exercise their free speech on the Internet.

Yet groups that are bankrolled by the likes of George Soros will not blink an eye at the new legislation due to the fact that, one, a fine of $300,000 is chump change, and two, they have the means to adequately protect themselves legally from any charge of false accusations, character assassination, or any other infraction.

An individual, independent blogger usually has neither the time, money, nor the resources to provide themselves with such protection. The net effect of this legislation will be individual bloggers being hauled to court by frivolous lawsuits, potentially bankrupting us.

The fact that John McCain has now 'outed' himself as the enemy of free speech is quite disturbing. Many believe that he is one of the most viable candidates to face Hillary Clinton in 2008. But his stance on this issue, plus the McCain-Feingold debacle, raises serious doubts about the Senator as a Presidential candidate.

My fellow independent bloggers, if you value your right to free speech and your freedom to share your viewpoints on the Internet unhindered by stupid legislation, the time is NOW to contact Congress. In fact, contact John McCain's office and tell them how despicable this legislation is.

If you were considering supporting John McCain for President, the time is NOW to let his office know that as a blogger who values liberty and free speech, you cannot in good conscience support his Presidential bid UNLESS he withdraws support from this asinine legislation that is in clear violation of every known Constitutional principle.

Even if you are not a blogger, this attack on our First Amendment rights should send chills up the spine of any red-blooded American.

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Danish Jews Suffer From the March of Islam Through Europe

In yet another indication that Europe is falling into the hands of the extremist Jihadists, reports from Denmark indicate that Jewish citizens are finding it increasingly difficult to live in a society that is increasingly dominated by oppressive Muslims. According to Pamela Geller Oshry over at Atlas Shrugs, one Jewish citizen was even told to change their name so that they would not be so conspicuous.

This, my friends, is absolutely ghastly.

The last time the world faced such a scenario was during the Nazi march through Europe. It is ironic that just as the extensive records of Holocaust victims are now being released, Europe would be once again falling into the hands of perpetrators that are every bit as dangerous as Hitler and his Nazi army.

During the years of the Nazi invasions, the Danish people from every sector of society, from royalty to paupers, helped in protecting countless Jewish lives from the Nazi scourge. One industrialist plead with officials of the Third Reicht to allow slave prisoners to remain with him rather than being shipped off to the death camps. The only way he was allowed to keep these persecuted persons who were slated for death was to convince the Nazis that he needed their labor.

61 years after the end of WWII, Denmark now faces a growing crisis similar to the Nazi years.

Oshry posts the following gut-wrenching facts:

'So it is with great sadness that I post this piece, courtesy of Peter von Schlichtningen, former humanist and current Atlas reader, from his blog hmmh here;


The Danish newspaper, Jyllandsposten, the originator of the cartoons, today has an article with this title:

Danish Jews are met with harassment (article in Danish)

It takes time to translate, so let me just summarize:

*Danish Jews feel intimidated and are afraid to show their identity while being in the public.

*Jews fear verbal and physical aggressions by Muslims

*At the synagogue the guards warn Jews leaving the synagogue to remove head dress and the star of David.

*Jews no longer feel safe putting their children in Danish schools because of the Muslim children

*A Danish teacher of Jewish ancestry applying for a position was told by the headmaster of a Danish public school it would be better to change his name to something innocuous. He did not take the job.

Let me tell you something about the Jews in Denmark. They have been in Denmark for generations. Some for hundreds of years. They are as Danish as any Dane. You can not distinguish them by sight or language. The only major distinction may actually by the many accomplishments of Danish Jews. They are a part of Danish culture and I count many as friends.'

Many thanks to Pamela for providing information on this alarming scenario.

Falsely Accused of Rape

Durham, NC (TLS). Let me state at the outset that rape is a most heinous crime that should be punished to the fullest extend of the law. For too many years women were afraid to report such crimes due to the ensuing character assassinations, innuendo, and shame and humiliation, that would surely follow.

Every effort should be taken to insure that any human being who has been thusly violated is afforded the protection and dignity due to the victims of crime and the assurance that their attackers are brought to justice.

Unfortunately, there is a growing phenomenon in American society that views any accusation of rape to be sacrosanct and thus is not be questioned. A small minority of women have used the system to their advantage in this regard. Such accusations can be hurled at innocent persons in retaliation for various and sundry infractions, such as unfaithfulness, infidelity, child custody, divorce, or even to cover up the accuser's own guilt.

When such a person unleashes a false accusation, not only are innocent lives permanently ruined but a great disservice is done to women in the process. The real perpetrators are given a cover. The more innocent people flood the criminal justice system the more the truly guilty get lost in the shuffle, making it even less likely that justice will be done.

Every time an innocent person is forced to defend himself against such a hideous charge, the result is wasted time, resources, attention, and resolve that could have gone toward the worthy pursuit of bringing the real rapists to justice. Taxpayers' money is flushed down the toilet, leaving fewer resources with which to adequately investigate and prosecute the dirtbags that actually commit the crime.

The following article was found at the LieStoppers website at

LieStoppers published a manual made available by the National Center for Women and Policing, a division of the Feminist Majority Foundation. Within that manual is an important section on 'unfounded cases and false accusations.' The Foundation believes it is vitally important that those who falsely accuse others of rape be identified and isolated as a crucial adjunct in prosecuting the truly guilty.

False accusers in actuality do nothing but make a mockery of the victims of crime. Such victims deserve better.

In that section of the manual, which you will find below, you will note that the Foundation has identified 29 signs that an accuser is making a false accusation.

These 29 red flags speaks volumes about the accusations hurled against the three Duke students accused of rape and the District Attorney prosecuting them. As you will see, not only is DA Mike Nifong obviously guilty of prosecutorial misconduct, but his investigation of the case is woefully inadequate. The result is three young lives in the process of being tainted for life.

Here is the section of the manual, along with commentary on the Duke Hoax provided by LieStoppers:

Indicators of False Accusations
The National Center for Women and Policing, a division of the Feminist Majority Foundation, provides training, and training materials, to law enforcement agencies with the intention of improving the ability of these agencies to response effectively to sexual assault crimes. Among their many informative and instructive publications, is a training manual entitled, Unfounded Cases and False Accusations. Examination of this training manual casts further aspersions on both the validity of the Duke Hoax accuser's claims and the failure of investigators under the direction of District Attorney Mike Nifong to critically inspect those frail accusations.
This training manual is designed, primarily, to discourage law enforcement agencies and officers from viewing allegations of sexual assault from a perspective of suspicion that accusations are often unfounded or false. The first eighteen pages of this law enforcement training manual provides a compelling and persuasive argument for why all accusations of sexual assault require acceptance on face value, initially. To help these agencies identify potentially false accusations, the manual concludes with a six page appendix, Indicators and Investigation of False Allegations, which outlines the common characteristics of false accusations. The concluding appendix suggests that an allegation should only be considered skeptically when many of the common characteristics of false allegations are found.

In total, the National Center for Women and Policing training manual suggests twenty nine common characteristics of false allegations. Rightfully, the manual cautions:
An allegation should only be considered suspect when many of the indicators are present, and it should only be determined to be false when the investigative facts directly contradict the victim's account of events.

Comparison of these indicators to the circumstances surrounding the Hoax reveal clearly that investigators had overwhelming reason to suspect the accusation were likely false. By our count, as many as twenty-four of the twenty-nine indicators noted by the training manual appear to be present within the hoax initiators accusations and the surrounding circumstances. Further, it has been demonstrated on multiple occasions, here and elsewhere, that nearly all of the investigative facts directly contradict the victim's account of events. By following the suggestion offered above, not only should the allegations have been considered suspect but further they should have been determined to be false in the course of an honest investigation.
While many of the items presented in the comparison that follows have only recently been made known to the public, all of the demonstrable commonalities between the Hoax and the indicators were either known to investigators immediately or could easily have been discovered in the course of a thorough investigation. One would think that with 24 of 29 red flags going up, the accuser's story would be approached with a bit of skepticism. Instead, DA Nifong ignored the cautions that one would expect even the greenest of investigators to pick up on while relying on the following departure from logic to justify his dismissal of the possibility that the accusations were false:

"Nifong dismissed that theory, saying a hoax would have to include faking injuries to the woman's body..."If this is all a hoax that was ... designed to get the lacrosse team ... what other major lacrosse program is behind that hoax? The presumed motivation would be to end the season of the Duke lacrosse team, and that's obviously been accomplished," Nifong said. "Seriously, when you think about it, who would be motivated to do a hoax like that? What possible reason would somebody have to do that?" N&O

Perhaps, he is simply waiting for the final five indicators to present themselves before deciding the investigation has reached the stage where an accusation that screams "Hoax!" demands to be questioned as such.

"I've had conversations with (the accuser) about how she's doing. I've had conversations with (the accuser) about her seeing her kids," Nifong said. "I haven't talked with her about the facts of that night. ... We're not at that stage yet." BayNews9

Some Nifong apologists and agenda motivated opportunists have argued that the accusations deserve their day in court, to be decided upon by a jury of twelve citizens, yet in reality what was dictated by the situation, as evidenced by the comparison to follow, was that these allegation be viewed from a perspective of doubt and suspicion. Quite clearly, either the investigators directed by District Attorney Nifong were duped by a transparently false accusation or were willfully led astray. It is entirely inexcusable that accusations which present themselves as nearly perfect textbook models of what is defined by this training manual as accusations deserving of suspicion were never evaluated as potentially false.

Comparison of the Twenty Nine Indicators of False Accusations to the Hoax

1. The falsely accused will often be a stranger, a slight acquaintance, [or] a friend of a friend.

A woman hired to dance at a Duke University lacrosse team party claimed that members of the team raped her. NYT

2. The false accuser will often claim to have fought with all their ability. They typically report punching, kicking, and scratching their assailants until they are themselves finally overpowered.

The woman has said that she effectively tried to fight them off, that she broke off some of her nails in the process. MSNBC

According to the application for a search warrant, the woman recalls being "hit, kicked and strangled. She tried to defend herself, but was overpowered."

She was allegedly dragged into a bathroom, beaten, choked and sodomized by three assailants as she fought back. Final Call

3. The false accuser will likely bolster an inability to resist by claiming they were attacked and raped by more than one person.

She ended up in the bathroom with five guys who forced her to have intercourse and perform sexual acts...She later stated that she was penetrated by all five of the guys. Durham Police officer Gwendolyn Sutton

The female was picked up at the Kroger on Hillsborough Rd., and she was claiming
that she was raped by approximately 20 white males at 610 N. Buchanan Street."

This police report dated March 14, 2006 lists the number of suspects as two: BlueLineRadio

The woman identified four players as her assailants. N&O

"In the police statement she describes the rape in this way. 'Three guys, three guys
grabbed Nicky,' that's you. 'Brett, Adam, and Matt grabbed me. They separated us
at the master bedroom door while we tried to hold on to each other. CBS

"The woman who says she was raped by three members of Duke's lacrosse team also told police 10 years ago she was raped by three men, filing a 1996 complaint claiming
she had been assaulted three years earlier when she was 14." NBC17

4. The pseudo-victim claims the assailant was exceptionally large or powerful and able to overcome her resistance with relative ease.

In Officer Himan's handwritten notes, the woman described all three as chubby or heavy. Adam: white male, short, red cheeks fluffy hair chubby face, brn. Matt: Heavy set short haircut 260-270. Bret: Chubby. NYT

5. A false accusation will include the face-saving element of either having resisted or having been confronted with a situation that made resistance impossible.

The victim stated that she tried to leave, but the three males (Adam, Bret, and Matt) forcefully held her legs arms and raped and sexually assaulted her anally, vaginally and orally. The victim stated she was hit, kicked, and strangled during the assault. As she attempted to defend herself, she was overpowered. TJN

6. The report of rape is not seen by false claimants as requiring collateral reports of oral or anal sex, unless such acts are included in the person's sexual repertoire.

7. Under-describing of the attack may be another manifestation of the false claimant's naivete' as to what actually occurs in these crimes.

8. "Women who make false allegations seem to more frequently report that they had their eyes closed at the time, that they passed out and do not recall the penetration, or that they cannot recall the specifics of the actual sex act itself."

Well, if you are being forced to have sex against your will, you may not necessarily notice whether or not somebody behind you is using a condom. This was not a consensual sex situation. This was a struggle, wherein she was struggling just to be able to breathe. So I'm not sure that she would really have much way of knowing whether a condom was being used. Mike Nifong

9. "The accuser may also provide an emotionless, but exquisitely detailed, description of the event. She must either invent the acts she alleges, or she must convert a consensual sexual experience into a rape. Unable to recount objectively something that was done to her, she tends either to become vague and evasive or to cross the cultural barrier and become overly descriptive."

In a motion filed on September 20, District Attorney Mike Nifong states that the Duke Hoax accuser has the ability to recall in great detail the events prior to and during her alleged assault. LS

10. "False complainants do not usually present serious physical injuries."

"when she told police she had been raped, doctors at Duke Hospital noted that the woman had two scratches on her right knee and a short scratch on her right heel. None of the scratches were bleeding. Other than diffuse swelling in her vagina, the doctors documented no other injuries." N&O

The woman was seen in the Duke Hospital emergency room the morning of March 14...She reported that she was in excruciating pain, rating it a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10. Nurses and doctors, however, found no obvious discomfort and no associated symptoms of pain, such as grimacing, sweating, or changes in vital signs or posture. N&O

11. "However, as one moves along the continuum of personal pathology, the extent of self-inflicted harm can increase."

The second dancer in the Duke University lacrosse rape case told a television interviewer Monday that after she and the accuser left a team party, the accuser wanted to have marks on her body. N&O

12. "False victims who have injured themselves tend to exhibit an unusually wide array of wounds. In spite of this, extremely sensitive organs or tissues such as the eyes, nipples, lips, or genitalia are almost never injured."

TRAVIS: "Well, I could see the bruises on her face. She had a scratch on her arm. And then I didn`t know the whole -- you know, the whole detail what went on, because she was feeling bad at the time. And she also said her leg was hurting."

GRACE: Well, you know what? I can understand that. I can understand that. Sir, you said you saw bruises on her face. Where were they?

TRAVIS: Right up under her eyes, and her jaw was swollen.

GRACE: And where was the scratch on her arm?

TRAVIS: It was on her right arm, I believe it were.

GRACE: Where, above or below the elbow?

TRAVIS: It was between the wrist and her elbow. Grace

The S.A.N.E nurse's physical examination of the pelvic area of Crystal Mangum, which included the Vulva, Vagina, Cerix, Fundus and Rectal areas, noted only "diffuse edema of the vaginal walls." The S.A.N.E. nurse's report contains no opinion or conclusion that [the accuser] had signs, symptoms, and injuries consistent with beigh raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally." TJN

Well, here's the problem: Edema, diffuse or otherwise, is not an injury. It is the body's response to an injury, an infection, or a disease or inflammatory process of some sort. It can be caused by any number of things. Forensic Talk

13. "Characteristic of pseudo-victims who injure themselves is their tendency to be strangely indifferent to their wounds. They appear to accept their injuries with a degree of nonchalance not found in people who sustain similar injuries at the hands of others."

On March 17, the woman showed Thomas a hospital bracelet and paperwork. While she talked about being owed money, the accuser never gave any word or indication of being hurt, he said. N&O

14. The consistency or inconsistency of the evidence may suggest that a rape complaint has been exaggerated or is completely false. An absence of the kinds of evidence usually associated with rapes can sometimes be as revealing in identifying false allegations as its presence is in establishing that a rape has actually taken place.

"First of all, we're talking about 46 different people (who were tested). Most experts will say (condoms aren't) going to prevent an exchange of DNA. And, also, the nature of the alleged rape was more than just simple sex. There was violence involved, there was touching. And, if that was the case, there would be some DNA present." CBS

...the only evidence of physical trauma the S.A.N.E nurse in training could find on [the accuser] was a scratch on her knee and a small laceration to her heel, both of which were non-bleeding.

[the accuser] told the S.A.N.E. nurse in training that she was not choked; that no condoms, fingers or foreign objects were used during the alleged sexual assault; and that the S.A.N.E. nurse in training noted that [the accuser's] head, neck, throat, mouth, chest, breasts, addomen, and upper and lower extremities all were normal even though [the accuser] complained of "tenderness" over her body. TJN

15. Complainant cannot recall where the crime took place even though she does not report being blindfolded, under influence of drugs or alcohol, or moved from location to location.

'Her statements are inconsistent about which bathroom it occurred in. Gaynor

Her accounts diverged widely on details of sexual contact, physical assault, alcohol consumption and the behavior of Kim Roberts, the second dancer, whom the accuser called "Nikki." N&O

16. "Crime scene does not support story."

Defense attorney Bill Thomas said authorities found none of the alleged victim's DNA in the bathroom where she told police she was attacked. ABC

None of the woman's DNA was found on the floor, rugs or towels in the bathroom where the rape allegedly occurred. N&O

17. "Damage to her clothing is inconsistent with any injuries she reports (i.e., cuts or scratches inconsistent with tears or cuts in clothing)."

"A member of the defense team, who also spoke on condition of anonymity because the defense is working with players who could still be indicted, showed photos to the AP on Wednesday that show the accuser on the back porch of the off-campus house, with her clothing intact. She is smiling and looking through her purse. "

"The defense team member said the digital photos were taken at 12:30 a.m., citing an electronic time-stamp known as metadata." ABC

18. "Complainant presents cut-and-paste letters allegedly from the rapist in which death or rape threats are made."

19. "Note or letter is identifiable with pseudo-victim (via handwriting analysis, indented writing, typewriter comparison, paper stock, or fingerprint comparison)."

20. "Confirming laboratory findings are absent."

"No DNA that matched the players was found on or within or on the surface of the accuser's body or any of her belongings or clothing. Not even under her fingernails. You can listen to the defense attorneys' news conference here. They say the findings show there is no evidence that any sexual activity occurred in that house on that night. If you re-read what she said happened, it is an impossibility."(video)

Defense attorneys have insisted all the players are innocent, citing DNA tests they say found no match between any of the team's white players and the accuser. According to defense attorneys, second, more detailed DNA tests came back Friday and prove no player had sex with the dancer but that the accuser had sex with another man. Attorney Joseph Cheshire said the tests showed genetic material from a "single male source" was found on a vaginal swab taken from the accuser, but that material did not match any of the players. "In other words, it appears this woman had sex with a male," said Cheshire, who spoke at a news conference with other defense attorneys in the case. "It also appears with certainty it wasn't a Duke lacrosse player." CBS

21. "In false rape allegations, extensive and important information on the complainant is often available. In general, this information suggests that the pseudo-victim has experienced numerous personal problems and that her ability to cope is seriously impaired."

"This request is based on the fact that the complaining witness has a history of criminal activity and behavior, which includes alcohol abuse, drug abuse and dishonesty, all conduct which indicate mental, emotional and/or physical problems, which affect her credibility as a witness," the defense said in court papers. ABC

22. "In temporal sequence, the rape follows one or more escalating incidents revealing difficulties in her personal relationships."

On March 11, Haynes said, a couple came into the club and the accuser, who danced under the name "Precious," started pulling the female customer's hair. Someone complained, and Haynes said she told the accuser to go to the bathroom. When Haynes followed, she found the accuser naked and passed out cold, she said. Someone called the woman's boyfriend, and it took four people to get her outside
to the car. N&O

23."Complainant has history of mental or emotional problems."

Medical records in police files show that doctors had previously diagnosed depression and bipolar disorder. NYT

One physician wrote, "Due to the patient's long psychological history, she is at very high risk of narcotic abuse, and at clinic, we have recommended not to prescribe the patient any narcotics." N&O

Upon information and belief, the complaining witness has suffered from mental and
emotional problems for a portion of her life and based on the presently known facts of this case and the criminal history of the complaining witness, there is a good chance she may have been committed at least once to a hospital or drug treatment program. MSNBC

24. "Complainant has previous record of having been assaulted or raped under similar circumstances."

"The woman who claims she was raped by three Duke University lacrosse players last month also filed a complaint in 1996 saying she was raped by three other men." Fox

"The mother also told ESSENCE that when her daughter was 17 or 18, she was raped by several men, one of whom was someone she knew." Essence

25. "Allegation was made after a similar crime received publicity (suggesting modeling or copycat motive in which the similarity to the publicized crime offers credibility)."

26. "Complainant has extensive record of medical care for dramatic illnesses or injuries."

"The mother of the alleged victim told ESSENCE magazine that her daughter did go away to a hospital in Raleigh, North Carolina, for about a week last year, where she was treated for a 'nervous breakdown." Essence

27. Friends or associates report that the complainant's postassaultive behavior and activities were inconsistent with her allegation.

"She wasn't, she obviously wasn't hurt or, 'cause she was fine. She wouldn't have went back in the house if she was hurt. She's was fine," Roberts says

"In the days and weeks after the attack the accuser went back to the hospital complaining of neck, back and knee pain she claimed was caused by the rape. 60 Minutes obtained a video of her dancing at a strip club two weeks after the alleged attack. The club manager told 60 Minutes that she had consistently performed her routine normally." CBS

The video segment, about a minute long, shows the woman, introduced as Precious, as she approached a floor-to-ceiling pole on a stage, dressed in a thong and skimpy top. She grasped the pole and lowered herself into a squatting position, so that her buttocks almost touched the floor. With her hands on the floor, she stretched out her right leg vertically, as though she was kicking to the ceiling while squatting, and waved her leg several times to either side of the pole. N&O

"The trip in that car from the house went from happy to crazy," Roberts told Cuomo. ABC

"Four days after she said she was raped, the accuser in the Duke lacrosse case told co-workers at a Hillsborough strip club that she was going to get money from some boys at a Duke party who hadn't paid her, the club's former security manager said."

"The accuser never gave any indication that the party was a bad time, let alone that she was assaulted or raped, Thomas said."She was as regular as pie," Thomas said. "She didn't do anything different."

"The other girls would have known if something had happened," Thomas said. Thomas said dancers must sign in when they take guests into the club's VIP room. He said those sheets show that the woman had signed in March 17 and 18. The club's owner, Victor Olatoye, said the club's records show the woman was dancing at the club March 23, 24, 25 and into the early hours of March 26." N&O

"She was regular. She danced like she always danced, good old Precious." N&O

28. Complainant becomes outraged when asked to corroborate her victimization.

At one point, the woman threatened to drop the case if her family continued to talk to the media, he said. N&O

29. Complainant tries to steer the interview into safe topics or those that tend to engender sympathy.

"I've had conversations with (the accuser) about how she's doing. I've had conversations with (the accuser) about her seeing her kids," Nifong said. "I haven't talked with her about the facts of that night. ... We're not at that stage yet."

Nifong said he met with the accuser and an investigator on April 11, but didn't discuss details of the case because the woman was "too traumatized." Nifong said the woman didn't make eye contact with him and often seemed on the verge of crying. Their discussion centered around how the case would develop, he said.

"She probably did not speak 15 words during the meeting," Nifong said. SFGate

"The woman spoke for an hour. She talked about her life, joining the Navy and moving to California shortly after finishing high school, marrying a man 14 years her senior, becoming pregnant by a sailor, returning home to North Carolina and getting divorced" NYT

Labels: Hoax, Wood

posted by LieStoppers at 5:08 AM 15 comments links to this post