Why I carry a gun

My old grandpa said to me son,’ there comes a time in every man’s life when he stops bustin’ knuckles and starts bustin’ caps and usually it’s when he becomes too old to take a whoopin’.

I don’t carry a gun to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don’t carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil. I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry. I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m a cowboy. I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don’t carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

— Author unknown

Note: Police Protection is an oxymoron. Police do not protect you from crime, they usually are only able to investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess. Cops don't carry guns to protect you and me -- they carry guns to protect themselves! The US Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no obligation to protect individuals. (Do we really want so many police that they can?) If you want protection, do like all the big-name anti-gun folks do: get a gun and/or hire a bodyguard.

Free citizens must protect themselves.

Gun-Free Zones Kill Again!

Once again, a bad guy has proven the absolute folly of "gun-free" zones such as schools, churches, federal buildings, and court houses. Today, the "gun-free" zone was an LDS (Mormon) chapel near Fresno, California.

Like far too many churches, the LDS Church bans firearms in its chapels (I assume that President Monson's bodyguards comply with that ban). The State of California, where this shooting occurred, is well-known for being excessively restrictive on firearms in the hands of responsible people. Unfortunately, like all restrictions on law-abiding people, this ban does not affect criminal behavior -- it only leaves responsible people defenseless. I cannot understand why creators of "gun-free" zones don't understand that simple concept. Both churches and governments need to prayerfully and rationally reconsider their restrictions on the right of good people to defend themselves.

A while back, I asked the greeters in my congregation what they'd do if there were a security problem such as somebody coming into the building with a gun. (It seemed natural to assume that they'd be the first line of defense.) They responded only with a deer-in-the-headlights look. It seems nobody in the congregation (possibly the Church in general) has thought about security other than locking the doors at night and depriving the good people of the right to self-defense.

The courts, including the US Supreme Court, have repeatedly ruled that the police have no obligation to protect individuals or even groups. In fact, it is not reasonable or wise to expect them to do so. Violent crimes are typically over long before police have a chance to respond as was the case in today's tragedy. All the cops can do is collect evidence and maybe find the attacker. Additionally, we don't want a nation where police are so prevalent that they can stop all crime before it happens.

One of our most basic human rights is our right to protect ourselves and our families from harm. "Gun-free" zones (ie military installations, most schools, most churches, federal buildings, many businesses, and even court houses) by definition deprive law-abiding citizens of the most effective means of self-protection -- a gun. These disarmed potential victims are left completely vulnerable to attack by those who, by definition, disobey laws such as gun bans.

Experience and reason clearly indicate that "gun-free" zones do nothing but assure criminals and terrorists that they will find unarmed victims defenseless against a homicidal rampage. The only people who have guns in "gun-free" zones are criminals, members of the elite (who create special rules for themselves so they can carry a gun or have armed bodyguards) and maybe a cop or two.

I can't quite decide whether "gun-free" zones are an illusion or an hallucination. But I do know they are evil. I hold the authorities who establish "gun-free" zones just as accountable for the deaths and injuries as the shooter himself. It is reckless and foolish to assume that disarming good people causes bad people to behave as they should. It is my firm opinion that any person, government, agency, business, school, church, or any other entity that creates a "gun-free" zone must also provide absolute security and safety for all who enter therein.

Utah's legislature is one of countless government entities that have established "gun-free" zones and/or have provided for businesses, churches, and government agencies to establish "gun-free" zones. I believe every State legislature and Congress must promptly pass legislation requiring all entities that establish "gun-free" zones also provide absolute security to include armed guards and full screening for weapons.

We must no longer tolerate any attempts to disarm law abiding citizens with silly schemes that criminals will never obey. Tragically, there will be shootings in "gun-free" zones again, but they will happen with, or without any gun laws anyone can think of. Disarming victims is not the solution! Fortunately, enlightened people understand that simple fact.

Notes:
1 - My comments on the LDS-owned Deseret News website in opposition to "gun-free" zones were censored. My comments were not censored on the non-LDS Salt Lake Tribune website.
2 - I am LDS.

Related reading:

Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self-Defence


More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition


Armed-Citizen Solution To Crime In The Streets: So Many Criminals, So Few Bullets


Shots in the Dark: The Policy, Politics and Symbolism of Gun Control

Good vs Evil

Where do you compromise between food and poison? — Ayn Rand

The following few paragraphs begin an article about our nation's stealth enemy come from The American Legion Magazine. Your task is to guess who that enemy is:

For the first time in its history, the United States is trying to wage and win a war without accurately identifying the enemy or its motivations for seeking to destroy us. That oversight defies both common sense and past military experience, and it disarms us in what may be the most decisive theater of this conflict: the battle of ideas.

Such a breakdown may seem incredible to veterans of past military conflicts. Imagine fighting World War II without clarity about Nazism and fascism, or the Cold War without an appreciation of Soviet communism and the threat it posed.

Yet today, the civilian leaders of this country and their senior subordinates – responsible for the U.S. military, the intelligence community, homeland security and federal law enforcement – have systematically failed to fully realize that we once again face a totalitarian ideology bent on our destruction.

That failure is the more worrisome since the current ideological menace is arguably more dangerous than any we have faced in the past, for two reasons. First, its adherents believe their mission of global conquest is divinely inspired. Second, they are here in the United States in significant numbers, not just a threat elsewhere around the world.

What, then, is this ideology?

The title of the article is Stealth Jihad and discusses the extreme threat that Islam's Sharia poses to our freedom and our way of life. It's a good article and I recommend following the above link to read it. I firmly believe that a major factor in the march of radical Islam against liberty is because we truly have become the "Great Satan" they despise. We have become morally bankrupt. We both consciously and ignorantly elect destructive politicians who cleverly take us steadily away from that which is good.

As I read those introductory paragraphs, I was struck my how much those words describe an even more urgent threat to our liberty. That threat is us as much (if not more so) as it is "Stealth Jihad!"

Government and politics today is not a fight between Republicans and Democrats. It is not a battle between Conservatives and Liberals. It is not a conflict between Left and Right. Politics, for several years, now, has simply been a war between good and evil. It has been a struggle between individual liberty and big government.

Here are just a few of the areas where we have lost our moral compass:

▪ The Constitution is virtually never considered in making legislative, executive, or judicial decisions.
▪ Our education system is controlled by unions and social engineers whose agenda is to indoctrinate, not educate.
▪ Our religious leaders are guided by revenue, not God.
▪ Church attendees seek entertainment, not truth.
▪ The first-amendment rights (and responsibilities) of our righteous religious leaders have been crushed by legislation and judicial fiat.
▪ Our military servicemen must tolerate, even accept, deviant behavior.
▪ Military chaplains are restricted from praying in the name of Jesus and have been forced to confiscate Bibles.
▪ There is virtually no concern in the Whitehouse, in Congress, or in the Courts to enforce immigration laws.
▪ Our nation's politicians don't even care whether we have a common language.
▪ Taxation and other government intrusion into the financial market is so capricious, counterintuitive, and anti-liberty that one cannot make viable medium- to long-term plans including retirement, for one's estate, to start or run a business, or to create new jobs.
▪ Government's so-called social programs (ie Social Security, Medicare, etc.) are so morally and financially bankrupt that only a fool would make future plans based on their solvency or effectiveness.
▪ We have drifted away from the concept of charity (selflessness) and toward the concept of social justice (let the government make everything "fair" at somebody else's expense).

I am disappointed in the Republican Party's obviously weak opposition to the evil agendas in national and global politics. The Party elite are far too willing to compromise with, or submit to, evil. Prominent, seemingly good people, but compromisers include (alphabetical order) Bob Bennett, George HW Bush, George W Bush, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Lindsey Graham, Orin Hatch, Mike Huckabee, Joe Lieberman, John McCain, Lisa Murkowsky, Colin Powell, Mitt Romney, Michael Steele, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and far too many more. Sure, they often talk the talk, telling us what we want to hear. But they cannot be trusted with our liberty.

Anyone who pays attention, knows that the loudest protest against Republican recklessness is from the fiscal and social conservatives. This protest has always been on every conservative radio talk show. You see, one of the many differences between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives don't necessarily stand behind the politicians they get stuck voting for, they stand on principle. Even when Republicans are in power, the harshest critics of free-spending Republicans are conservative Republicans -- not Democrats.

There are only a tiny handful in politics with the courage and integrity to consistently stand up to fight against, not compromise with, evil. It is for this reason that there is little difference between the two major political parties. The only meaningful difference between the two major parties is the rate at which they take us in the wrong direction -- away from liberty and toward a tyrannical government. Compromise with evil always moves us away from the good and toward evil.

What is the real cause of this trend toward the welfare state, toward more socialism? In the last analysis, in my judgment, it is personal unrighteousness. When people do not use their freedoms responsibly and righteously, they will gradually lose these freedoms....If man will not recognize the inequalities around him and voluntarily, through the gospel plan, come to the aid of his brother, he will find that through "a democratic process" he will be forced to come to the aid of his brother. The government will take from the "haves" and give to the "have nots." Both have lost their freedom. Those who "have," lost their freedom to give voluntarily of their own free will and in the way they desire. Those who "have not," lost their freedom because they did not earn what they received. They got "something for nothing," and they will neither appreciate the gift nor the giver of the gift. Under this climate, people gradually become blind to what has happened and to the vital freedoms which they have lost. — Howard W. Hunter on Socialism and Freedom (Devotional Address, Brigham Young University, 8 Mar 1966)

The safest road to hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. — CS Lewis

Light and darkness cannot occupy the same space at the same time. — Robert D. Hales

Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. — James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the US Constitution, 4th US President

In his Second Epistle to Timothy, the Apostle Paul wrote:

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. - 2 Timothy 4:3-4

Paul was addressing churchgoers who seek pastors whose teachings match their own and not necessarily the whole truth as taught by Jesus and his Prophets and Apostles.

However, I find that Paul's prediction applies to politics as surely as it does to religion. Far to many voters seek political representatives who tell them only what their "itching ears" want to hear. Far too few voters truly study the issues and the candidates. They care only about their selfish and ignorant wishes.

God's are the laws of freedom. Man's laws, except where they agree with those of God, are laws of bondage.

The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted. — Bible (Psalm 12:8)

We have the government we deserve. We need smarter and wiser voters.

Related reading:


The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised As Freedom


How Evil Works: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America


Freedom in Chains: The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen


The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values

The mosque near the World Trade Center site

Another LDS (Mormon) blogger wrote an article entitled "Of Mosques, Mormons, and Mob Mentality." He points out the religious bigotry and persecution -- even death -- imposed on Mormons by our fellow Christians during our short history. That bigotry continues today.

In his blog, Mr. Boyack urges acceptance of the proposed mosque. After all, we would also like to enjoy our own First Amendment right of freedom of religion.

As Mormons, our 11th Article of Faith says, "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

I am torn on this mosque issue.

Do I want to see Sharia law accommodated in the US? No!

Do I want to see mosques built wherein terrorist recruiting may be done? No!

Do I want to see a mosque built as a symbol of victory for tragic terrorist attacks of 2001 as well as attacks dating to the early 1800s? No!

Do I support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic? Yes!

I must, therefore, support Islam’s right to build a mosque anywhere anywhere any other religion should be permitted to build a religious edifice. Does the fact that they have that right mean that they should?

I also expect every Moslem to respect my spiritual beliefs and liberty as much as they would want me to respect theirs.

I also support the right of people to voice opposition to the construction of a mosque near the site where Moslems killed nearly 3,000 innocent people.

One must also consider that Islam is not simply a religion in the conventional sense. I also is a political system which is extremely hostile to human rights. In the interest of religious freedom, we Christians are allowing the introduction Islamic law in or nation.

Islam, the ball is in your court. How are you going to play it? Will you respect the principles of the First Amendment? Or, will you exploit them?








The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)

Stop the unfounded pending ban on lead-based ammunition

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Lisa Jackson (who was responsible for unnecessarily and unwisely banning bear hunting in New Jersey) is considering a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) -- a radical anti-hunting organization -- to ban all traditional ammunition under the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976, a law in which Congress expressly exempted ammunition.

The cowards behind this petition know they cannot accomplish their goal of banning hunting and other activities protected by the Second Amendment though the legislative process because legislators are accountable to, and known by, the people. Consquently, they are attacking shooters through the bureaucratic process so that a ban can be imposed by unknown and unaccountable bureaucrats.

If the EPA approves the petition, the result will be a total ban on all ammunition containing lead-core components, including hunting and target-shooting rounds. This would make ammunition prohibitively expensive for most shooters (perhaps the true intent of the petitioners).

• Wildlife management is the proper jurisdiction of the US Fish and Wildlife Services and the 50 state wildlife agencies -- not the EPA.

• There is no scientific evidence that the use of traditional ammunition has an adverse impact on wildlife populations.

• While certain lead compounds have been demonstrated to be extremely toxic, metallic lead, as used in bullets and shot has not been scientifically shown to be toxic.

• A 2008 study by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on blood lead levels of North Dakota hunters confirmed that consuming game harvested with traditional ammunition does not pose a human health risk.

• Lead is a naturally occurring element mined from the Earth. In virtually all cases, lead which is returned to the soil from whence it came by shooters remains in its non-toxic metallic form since it does not result in the formation of meaningful levels of toxic lead compounds.

• A ban on traditional ammunition would have a negative impact on wildlife conservation. The federal excise tax that manufacturers pay on the sale of the ammunition (11 percent) is a primary source of wildlife conservation funding. The bald eagle's recovery, considered to be a great conservation success story, was made possible and funded by hunters using traditional ammunition - the very ammunition organizations like the CBD are now demonizing.

• Many firearms, primarily muzzleloaders, are designed to shoot only lead projectiles and using non-lead ammunition is unsafe in these firearms.

• Many shooters enjoy making their own bullets using scrap lead and lead alloys which otherwise would find it's way to landfills. This ban would infringe on their hobby as well as end this productive use of scrap lead.

• Recent statistics from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service show that from 1981 to 2006 the number of breeding pairs of bald eagles in the United States increased 724 percent. And much like the bald eagle, raptor populations throughout the United States are soaring.

California, hardly a good example of sound regulatory action, has already put in place an unreasonable and unfounded ban on lead ammunition. The remaining States, as well as the federal government, must avoid following California's path.

A ban on lead-based ammunition ins nothing more than a thinly disguised infringement on hunting and on the free exercise of a God-given, Constitutionally-guaranteed right. The prohibitive cost of lead substitutes will drive many shooters away from exercising their Second-Amendment rights.

Every congressman must do whatever he can to stop the EPA (which has no jurisdiction over this matter) from banning our ammunition. We citizens must let both Congress and the EPA know that any ban on lead-based ammunition is unacceptable.

Today, the EPA opened the CBD petition to public comment. The comment period ends on October 31, 2010. The EPA has published the petition and relevant supplemental information as Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0681. If you would like to read the original petition and see the contents of this docket folder, please click here. In order to go directly to the 'submit a comment' page for this docket number, please click here.

Senate candidate Mike Lee won't answer questions!

I was surprised and disappointed to learn that Republican Senate candidate Mike Lee declined to respond to a questionnaire by blogger Connor Boyack.

Lee claims to be running on a Constitutionalist platform to represent Utah in the US Senate. If that is true, he has no need to hide from Boyak's questions. (Scott Bradley certainly did not hide.)

I listened to Scott Bradley speak during the last senate campaign. He doesn't campaign for votes -- he teaches. If elected, Bradley would be something truly rare: a statesman rather than a politician. We need 99 more like Bradley in the Senate and 435 in the House.

Related reading:


To Preserve The Nation


Our Fathers Weep: It's the Constitution, Stupid!


The Original Constitution

Take your money back

These voices don't speak for the rest of us

Online voter registration?

Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual -- or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country. — Samuel Adams

My state, Utah, has become the third state with online voter registration.

I acknowledge that voting is a right. But it also is a heavy responsibility. I agree that far too few exercise this right. Worse, far too few who do vote live up to the responsibility. It is my observation that two-thirds of voters are uninformed or misinformed -- from both major parties. The consequence is the horrid government we have -- especially at the federal level.

I find it troubling that politicians, bureaucrats, and news reporters see a need to make voting and voter registration easier and more convenient. There have even been calls for making election day a holiday and for financial compensation for voters!

Because their target is people who are too lazy to vote on their own, let alone study issues and candidates, such get-out-the-vote efforts are generally hostile to individual liberty and generally benefit only the growth of a bloated and tyrannical government and advocates thereof.

If a person hasn't sufficiently studied the issues and candidates to make an informed decision as a voter, he has a moral responsibility to not vote. He has no business canceling the vote of those who take it seriously! And we all have a moral responsibility to not encourage that person to vote.

In his Second Epistle to Timothy, the Apostle Paul wrote:

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. - 2 Timothy 4:3-4

Paul was addressing churchgoers who seek pastors whose teachings match their own and not necessarily the whole truth as taught by Jesus and his Prophets and Apostles.

However, I find that Paul's prediction applies to politics as surely as it does to religion. Far to many voters seek political representatives who tell them only what their "itching ears" want to hear. Far too few voters truly study the issues and the candidates. The care only about their selfish and ignorant wishes.

We have made it far to easy to vote. It is my opinion that we need to make it harder -- not easier -- for the lazy, selfish, uninformed and misinformed to register to vote and to vote. I think a basic civics test similar to the test taken by new naturalized citizens as well as a simple current events test would be appropriate.

Steve Wynn talks about the Fall of America

Below is a short interview with Steve Wynn, a multi-billionaire, hotelier, and real estate investor in Las Vegas, Asia and Macau. He's been a guest from time to time on all the network financial news programs.



Recommended books:


The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised As Freedom


How Evil Works: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America


Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don't


Can America Survive?: The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do about It


Do-Gooders: How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help (and the Rest of Us)

Three things you probably don't know about Islam

The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)

Oppose federal taxation and funding for local governments

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, not longer susceptible of any definition." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1791.

Clearly, Thomas Jefferson supported the 10th-Amendment concept of a strictly limited federal government with most governmental powers retained by the States and the people.

The Constitution gives the central government no authority or responsibility in the areas of education, most police functions, recreation, health care, and many other activities now affected by the arrogant central planners in Congress and the Whitehouse. This is interesting because the nation's founders valued all these issues highly -- perhaps more than we do today. The fact that they chose to keep these issues out of the reach of the central government should speak volumes to all who consider these subjects.

Local and state governments, including school boards, city councils, and county commissions are in deep financial crisis. Why? Because they've grown accustomed to boundless "free" federal money with only a "few" strings attached. Consequently, local and State governments have grown to a size that is unsustainable and have taken on projects that they cannot afford to maintain. These unsustainable projects include "alternative" energy projects, local parks and aquatics centers that would nearly make Disney envious, military armored vehicles for local police forces, and public buildings designed not for utility, but for commemorating government largess and to accommodate runaway government bloat.

I was outraged to learn yesterday that Congress passed, and the president signed an "emergency" $26 billion jobs bill that claims to protect 300,000 teachers, police and others from election-year layoffs -- union jobs -- at a cost of nearly $87,000 per job while the rest of us are struggling to pay our own bills and taxes. By doing so, Congress and the President overruled the elected officials closest to, and most accountable to, the people -- our local school boards, city councils, and county commissions. And, Congress and the President did this with absolutely no Constitutional power whatsoever!

All this bill really does is continue to buy the union vote at taxpayer expense. For example, one estimate is that the NEA (National Education Association) and AFT (American Federation of Teachers) have at least $24 million in dues at stake -- $24 million in union dues revenue. This bailout bill is not about our children's education -- it is about keeping money flowing into the union! The same applies to the other unionized government jobs this bill "saves." (BTW, I am an active union member myself.)

I suppose that the minority of congressmen who voted against this bill feel they are blameless since they voted "no." However, because most did not fight this bill with all the political capital they could muster, I hold them just as culpable as those who voted for it. You see, every congressman has a sworn duty to "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same...." Once again, virtually every congressman failed to live up to his oath of office!

This unconstitutional federal interference with, and usurpation of, local government authority and responsibility is inexcusable and must stop!

A Ban on Lead Ammunition is Unjustified

I oppose a petition filed August 3 by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) to ban traditional ammunition containing lead. This unjustified ban would apply to all ammunition including ammunition used by target shooters.

The petition erroneously claims that the use of traditional ammunition poses a danger to wildlife (in particular raptors such as bald eagles, that may feed on entrails or unrecovered game left in the field) and that there is a human health risk from consuming game harvested using traditional ammunition. Also falsely alleged in the petition is that the use of traditional ammunition by hunters is inconsistent with the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976 -- Congress expressly exempted ammunition from being regulated as a "toxic substance."

There is no scientific evidence that the use of traditional ammunition has an adverse impact on wildlife populations that would require restricting or banning the use of traditional ammunition beyond current limitations, such as the scientifically based restriction on waterfowl hunting.

Recent statistics from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service showing that from 1981 to 2006 the number of breeding pairs of bald eagles in the United States increased 724 percent. And much like the bald eagle, raptor populations throughout the United States are soaring. Clearly, lead which is being returned to the soil by shooters is not adversely affecting these birds.

In fact, metallic lead as used in bullets and shot has not been shown to be toxic since it is not readily absorbed by living organisms. Only certain lead compounds (such as those used in the past in paint) have been shown to be toxic. In virtually all cases, lead which is returned to the soil from whence it came by shooters remains in its non-toxic metallic form since it does not result in the formation of meaningful levels of toxic lead compounds.

A ban on traditional ammunition would have a serious negative impact on wildlife conservation. The federal excise tax that manufacturers pay on the sale of the ammunition (11 percent) is a primary source of wildlife conservation funding. The bald eagle's recovery, considered to be a great conservation success story, was made possible and funded by hunters using traditional ammunition - the very ammunition organizations like the CBD are now demonizing.

In reality, the effort to ban lead ammunition is nothing more than another step in the long-term effort to eliminate the shooting sports altogether. I urge the rejection of any effort to ban traditional ammunition containing lead components. All such efforts are based on hysteria and on the distortion and misapplication of scientific evidence.

The Great Deceiver

Only half of all Christians are registered to vote. When those non-voting Americans allow others to decide the nation's future, and when they fail to hold politicians accountable, they allow evil to dominate.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." — Edmund Burke, 1871

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." — Plato

"To sit home, read one's favorite newspaper, and scoff at the misdeeds of the men who do things is easy, but it is markedly ineffective. It is what evil men count upon the good men's doing." — Theodore Roosevelt



Ummm. Mr. obama, your father was born in 1936 and was age 5 when WWII started and was age 9 when it ended. That would very likely make him the youngest US military veteran in history. Have you no understanding of what truth is? Do you really believe we are so stupid as to believe you?

More importantly, knowing that it is not uncommon for politicians to lie, why isn't the news media doing the math on this lie? It really isn't that hard!

Abolish the income tax, the IRS, and all unconstitutional government programs

The United States government, by way of the federal income tax and other seemingly endless federal taxes, has stifled American prosperity. It has destroyed the ability of most Americans to save for their futures and their children's futures. It has forced the American people into ongoing and almost insurmountable debt. It has otherwise crushed the American Dream and American Spirit for millions of honest, hard-working citizens.

What do we have to show for this heavy tax burden? Countless failed social engineering scams that reward dependency and slothfulness and punish industriousness and independence.

I challenge Congress to introduce and support legislation to repeal all federal income taxes, including individual, corporate, alternative minimum income tax, self-employment and employment taxes.

In the place of these taxes, there must be no new taxes! No alternative national income tax. No flat tax. No consumption tax. No sales tax. No VAT tax. No sin tax. No excise tax. No other general national tax whatsoever.

This can easily be done without creating, or adding to, federal budget deficits by simply ending the abuse of the Constitution's commerce clause and by phasing out and defunding all federal agencies, programs, and activities that are not authorized by the US Constitution.

Every member of Congress has sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic (including party leaders) -- not (theoretically) to the party nor to party leaders. It's way past time for politicians to vote based on the limits on government described in the Constitution and on the principles of liberty rather than by the party line. Only when they do so -- or we voters come to our senses and elect new politicians who will do so -- will the soaring tax burden on the rapidly dwindling base of taxpayers be eased.

Visit Defeat The Debt and US Debt Clock to learn more!

"Nothing was sacrosanct"

Sacrosanct: Regarded as sacred and inviolable. Immune from criticism and violation.

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s aunt, Joyce Kagan Charmatz, said of the family’s dinner table that the family was intellectually engaged: “There was thinking, always thinking. Nothing was sacrosanct.”

There, you have the fundamental problem with liberals and secular humanists such as Elena Kagan.

While they tend to believe that mankind must subjugate itself to all things living and non-living and even to Earth itself, nothing is above mankind. Not God. Not the Constitution. Not truth and knowledge. Not law. Not ethics. Not justice. Not morality. Not reason or logic. Nothing is sacrosanct.

Because they reject the notion that anything is sacrosanct, the philosophical thought of liberals cannot and will not be guided by anything other than their own selfish designs. That is why they have a substantially lower rate of
• unpaid charitable volunteerism
• church attendance
• charitable giving
• patriotism

To compensate for these personal moral deficiencies, liberals and secular humanists tend favor, through government force and taxation, the centralization of, and control over, the natural charitable tendencies of mankind. After all, while they tend to be less patriotic, they do value big government and its ability to centralize power unto liberal elitists.

This "nothing is sacrosanct" philosophy is where liberal activists such as Elena Kagan are most comfortable. This is why they must be kept out of unelected positions such as the judiciary and other appointed positions of government.

Coming to a state near you: California-style gun control

While I have concerns about the NRA's occasional support for anti-liberty politicians and for its past compromises on gun laws, I still ardently support the NRA's efforts to protect gun rights as well as it's gun safety programs. The NRA is far more critical to gun rights than GOA (Gun Owners of America) or any other gun-rights organization. I urge all gun owners to join the NRA immediately. Those who don't join are riding in the wagon while the rest of us pull -- and they have no standing to complain about NRA's warts.

There are an estimated 70 to 100 million gun owners in the US. How in the world does that overwhelmingly powerful block of voters allow any anti-gun politician to get into office? Only 20 to 25 million of those gun owners are even registered to vote! Another answer to that question can be found in my commentary on the judgement of the average voter. Gun owners must become fully informed on the issues of freedom -- including gun rights. One way to become and to stay informed is to follow this issue through NRA-ILA's Grassroots Alerts. Then, vote as if your gun rights depend on your vote.

Related books:

Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control


The Global War on Guns: Inside the UN Plan To Destroy the Bill of Rights


Tyranny of Gun Control

Do criminals obey signs?

I was disappointed to see a sign in a local theater here in Cedar City indicating that firearms are prohibited in the theater. This Westates theater is the only business I know of in Southern Utah that posts signs indicating firearms are not welcome. Not all businesses are so myopic.

Persons bent on criminal behavior, by definition, disobey the law. Naturally, criminals will also ignore or disobey this theater's no-firearms signs just as Sulejman Talović did when he shot 9 people in Salt Lake's "gun-free" Trolley Square Mall in just one minute on February 12, 2007 -- before any law enforcement officer could intervene.

The only customers who will obey no-firearms signs in Westates theaters are law-abiding people. All innocent persons -- including employees -- who chose to enter this theater are left vulnerable to, and defenseless against, criminal attack due to its no-guns policy. The rest of those who obey the theater's sign are like me -- we respect their policy and get our entertainment elsewhere.

I am a Utah Concealed Firearm Permit holder and instructor. Utah Concealed Firearm Permit holders:
• Have been trained in safe gun handling.
• Have been trained in the laws of deadly force.
• Have been fingerprinted and have passed an FBI background check.
◦ No felony convictions.
◦ No drug or alcohol convictions.
◦ No domestic violence convictions.
◦ No mental impairments.
• Have a significantly lower crime rate than the general public.
• Have a significantly lower crime rate than law enforcement officers.

What does Westates know about the rest of their customers?

Westates theaters do not provide security screening comparable to that found in true gun-free areas (ie airports and court rooms). I must therefore conclude that their sign is intended only to keep law-abiding persons from bringing self-defense guns into their theaters. Because their policy does not allow their customers the means to protect themselves, and because their theaters fail to provide alternative protection, I must conclude that safety is not their true motive for posting no-guns signs. I will not expose myself, my family, my friends, and my neighbors to the inherent dangers of a business that provides a safe workplace for violent criminals.

In order to help my fellow law-abiding gun owners avoid violating Westates' no-guns policy, I will pass the word to my fellow permit holders that their guns are not welcome in their theaters.

The NRA and Anti-Gun Politicians

Compared to some, I don't give much to the NRA-ILA (National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action) or the NRA-PVF (National Rifle Association's Political Victory Fund), but I give what I can. In the past, I have considered it to be a much better way of supporting candidates who support my freedom than contributing to any political party or to most other PACs.

Senator Harry Reid consistently supports and votes for the confirmation of all of Obama's anti-gun nominees both for the federal judiciary and for the Obama adminsitration. He has voted for many anti-gun bills. He voted for the Clinton "Assault-Weapon" Ban of 1994. He voted to leave law-abiding citizens and even students defenseless while in school zones. He voted for the Brady bill. I therefore view any support for Senator Reid as an attack on my gun rights (not to mention most other rights as well). However, Reid’s re-election means we won’t get Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin as Senate Majority Leader.

The NRA-ILA endorses and supports Senator Harry Reid of Nevada in his current fight to save his job -- even though there is a far better alternative -- Sharron Angle. I therefore must assume that the NRA-ILA considers the fellowship of Harry Reid to be more important than my gun rights.

Also, the NRA-ILA endorses and supports my own representative, Jim Matheson of Utah, in his fight to keep his seat in the House -- even though there is a far better alternative -- Morgan Philpot. I warned Representative Matheson that I would consider a vote for anti-gun Nancy Pelosi to be Speaker of the House as a vote against my gun rights (and, she's hostile to most other individual rights, too). Nevertheless, he chose to vote for her -- and against my gun rights. Therefore, in spite of his rhetoric and generally good record on specifically gun-related votes, I must consider him no reliable friend of gun rights. I therefore view any support for Representative Matheson as support for abolishing my gun rights.

I know that the NRA and NRA-ILA have a responsibility to their members and donors to focus on defending our Second Amendment rights. But that is no excuse to ignore other factors which adversely gun rights or even which affect other rights. Harry Reid doesn't care about my freedom nor the Constitution. He is only a superficial, conditional friend of gun rights.

Consequently, I now terminate my financial support for the NRA-ILA. Instead, my money will go directly to Sharron Angle, Morgan Philpot, and other gun-rights organizations that I consider to be more faithful to the cause. I will immediately resume and increase my contributions to the NRA-ILA when it switches its full support to true patriots.

Until the NRA, NRA-ILA, and NRA-PVF correct their criteria for political endorsements, I must consider those endorsements to be invalid unless confirmed by other research.

Among others, I support:
• Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
• Gun Owners of America
• Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership
• National Association for Gun Rights
• Second Amendment Foundation

You see, as the NRA-ILA recommends, I "Vote Freedom First."

While have concerns about the NRA's support for anti-liberty politicians, I still ardently support the NRA's efforts to protect gun rights as well as it's gun safety programs. In many respects, the NRA is far more critical to gun rights than GOA or any of the other gun-rights organizations listed above. I urge all gun owners to join the NRA. Those who don't join are riding in the wagon while the rest of us pull -- and they have no standing to complain about NRA's warts.

Reject Elena Kagan as US Supreme Court Justice!

As was the case in the confirmation process for Justice Sonya Sotomayor, I watch the confirmation process for Elena Kagan with disgust, horror, and deep concern about the future of liberty and human rights in the United States. Kagan came to the Senate Judiciary Committee with one of the thinnest records of any Supreme Court nominee in history. What little has been learned about her views so far has been highly disturbing. Nothing in her testimony has demonstrated she has either the respect for our nation’s founding documents or the independence from the current administration to correctly apply the law or dispense justice without regard to the parties before her.

In an ugly contrast to the necessary openness of a worthy confirmation process, the Obama Administration has carefully limited public access to Elena Kagan, her family, former teaching associates and anyone else who might be able to shine appropriate and essential light on just who she is. (Obama is a master at this, having carefully hidden all pertinent events of his own past.) It is Obama's goal to reduce Kagan's confirmation process to an inconsequential formality, after which she can govern from the bench according to their shared philosophy.

Nevertheless, sufficient evidence has surfaced to alarm any who might be concerned with the fate of the Constitution in her hands. Like Obama, she thoroughly disdains the Constitution and the great nation it once fostered. More dangerous still, she believes that upon donning the judicial robe, one may thereafter issue edicts from which no recourse exists. On this basis alone, she has proven herself to be wholly unfit and is extremely dangerous to take a place as a Supreme Court Justice.

Some, on the Republican side, are merely deriding her for a lack of sufficient judicial credentials. Others have questioned the depth of her thinking. What those politicians seem to fail to understand is that she was carefully selected because little is known about her -- outside Obama's circle of co-conspirators. But while concerns about her lack of "paper trail" may be valid, they by no means pose any threat to the nation comparable to that of an extremist activist judge, no matter how well credentialed she may be. It matters little how high of a pedigree can be claimed by a jurist who willingly invokes that background as an avenue to undermine the integrity of the Constitution.

Nothing valuable be expected to come from Republican grilling of Kagan, even eliciting "promises" of restraint (Sotomayor's promises have already been violated), if the end result is her confirmation.

It is disturbing that she has displayed considerable skill at dodging and evading direct answers to basic questions regarding her judicial philosophy. Such duplicity does not exemplify laudable jurisprudence and is in fact a reflection of dubious leanings and a willingness to publicly falsify them. Surely, she would never tolerate such behavior in her courtroom were she a judge. And, the entire Senate Judiciary Committee lets her get away with it!

One of the more interesting and disturbing aspects of this week's McDonald decision was that the Supreme Court's newest Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, voted against the concept of a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms after repeatedly stating during last year's confirmation hearings that the Supreme Court's historic Heller decision was "settled law." She also stated, "I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller."

Despite Sotomayor's assurances to the Senate that she understood and supported the Court's majority decision in Heller, she showed her true colors when she joined this week's dissenting opinion in McDonald which stated "I can find nothing in the Second Amendment's text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as 'fundamental' insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes." So much for the concept of candid and forthright testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Now, Kagan is following the same tactic! Kagan is responding to the Senat Judiciary Committee's softball questions in a manner that might make one believe that she would honor Supreme Court precedents in Second Amendment cases. But Justice Sotomayor's actions in McDonald stand as stark evidence that we can't trust what they tell the Senate, we can only trust what their actions have shown in the past.

Much of Kagan's career has been as a left-wing political activist. A leftist, by definition, cannot be a constitutional originalist. Even a cursory examination of Kagan's past clearly identifies her as an extreme leftist. Therefore, the question of her fitness for a seat on the nation's highest court was answered in absolute finality before she ever uttered a single word in the Senate hearing.

Evidence has surfaced indicating that, while on President Clinton's staff, she manipulated expert testimony in order to overturn laws banning partial-birth abortion.

The President has the responsibility and opportunity to nominate persons to fill vacancies in the federal courts as well as in his own administration. In doing so, he must abide by his oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The Senate also has the sworn responsibility to ensure that each nominee has a solid history of decisions that are consistently congruent with the original intent of the US Constitution -- the Supreme Law of the land.

While Kagan was employed as Dean of the Harvard Law School, she did not require students to study the US Constitution! While failure for requiring future lawyers to study the Consitution is hardly unusual in modern law schools, Kagan instead required that they study foreign and international law! The implications of such a mindset for a Supreme Court nominee are frightening.

It is obvious to me that Mr. Obama has carefully selected Elena Kagan because her judgement is largely undocumented -- although there are several hints from her past indicate that she may be very dangerous to the Constitution and hostile to traditional American ideals. You will remember that there was a huge uproar (most notably from the then-president's own party) over Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers because, like Kagan, there was no "paper trail" to indicate whether she would use the Constitution as her guide in making decisions. Ironically, what made Miers deficient apparently makes Kagan eminently qualified! Surely, someone in DC beleives the people and the nation deserve better!

Judicial confirmations are not about party loyalty. They are about each senator's sworn duty to support and defend the Constitution! No senator from either party can vote for Kagan's confirmation while credibly claiming to uphold the U.S. Constitution. In order to live up to your oath of office, you must soundly reject Kagan's confirmation. Instead, demand that the president nominate only persons who know, understand, honor, support and defend the Constitution.

The President and each Senator have a sworn duty to ensure that every judicial nominee understands and strictly follows the original intent of every aspect of the US Constitution as amended. That includes fully protecting all rights of the States and of the people by strictly limiting the power and size of the federal government to the limits established by the Constitution. There is absolutely no indication that Elena Kagan meets that standard. She therefor must be rejected.

While conservatives see the Constitution as a check on the government in order to defend the rights of the people, liberals -- like Kagan and Obama -- see the Constitution as something that gets in their way, if not a tool to be manipulated to control the people.

I am a single-issue voter: When I cast my votes, my primary concern is that candidates understand and have a solid history of living up to their sworn obligation to support and defend the US Constitution. I expect the President and each Senator to do likewise in all their decisions -- especially in the case of judicial nominees.