In Britain it’s against the law to preach against the immorality of homosexuality and the same in Canada. Now because the liberals are infuriated and worried about opposing views influencing the public they’re squealing like stuck pigs. They are now petitoning the Federal Communications Commission to clamp down on “hate speech.” The danger is that conservative pro-American and pro-Judeo Christian values are deemed hateful. See more:Click full Story.

Our inexperienced president is certainly in over his head and even regarding his temperament one can say that he is also pyschologically unprepared. He doesn’t take too kindly to criticism does he? I made a mental note when shortly after his election he addressed Congress who disagreed with his policy pronuncements and his eyebrow raising remark to the Republicans was, “I won!” My visceral response was, “So!?” In his immaturity he thought that everything he sought was going to be handed to him on a platter and when faced with the harsh reality that it doesn’t work that way in the halls of Congress he pouted. For more on his immaturity see article below:

Obama, the Thin-Skinned President
Peter Wehner
Columnist
Author Bio »
Contact Author »
Subscribe :
In their book “The Battle for America 2008,” Haynes Johnson and Dan Balz wrote this:
[Chief political aide David] Axelrod also warned that Obama’s confessions of youthful drug use, described in his memoir, Dreams From My Father, would be used against him. “This is more than an unpleasant inconvenience,” he wrote. “It goes to your willingness and ability to put up with something you have never experienced on a sustained basis: criticism. At the risk of triggering the very reaction that concerns me, I don’t know if you are Muhammad Ali or Floyd Patterson when it comes to taking a punch. You care far too much what is written and said about you. You don’t relish combat when it becomes personal and nasty. When the largely irrelevant Alan Keyes attacked you, you flinched,” he said of Obama’s 2004 U.S. Senate opponent.
I thought of this memo after reading the comment by Sen. Pat Roberts after he and other Senate Republicans had a contentious 80-minute meeting with the president on Tuesday. “He needs to take a Valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans,” Roberts said. “He’s pretty thin-skinned.”
Sen. Roberts is being too generous. Obama is among the most thin-skinned presidents we have had, and we see evidence of it in every possible venue imaginable, from one-on-one interviews to press conferences, from extemporaneous remarks to set speeches.
The president is constantly complaining about what others are saying about him. He is upset at Fox News, and conservative talk radio, and Republicans, and people carrying unflattering posters of him. He gets upset when his avalanche of faulty facts are challenged, like on health care. He gets upset when he is called on his hypocrisy, on everything from breaking his promise not to hire lobbyists in the White House to broadcasting health care meetings on C-SPAN to not curtailing earmarks to failing in his promises of transparency and bipartisanship.
In Obama’s eyes, he is always the aggrieved, always the violated, always the victim of some injustice. He is America’s virtuous and valorous hero, a man of unusually pure motives and uncommon wisdom, under assault by the forces of darkness.
It is all so darn unfair.
Not surprisingly, Obama’s thin skin leads to self pity. As Daniel Halper of The Weekly Standard pointed out, in a fundraising event for Sen. Barbara Boxer, Obama said,
Let’s face it: this has been the toughest year and a half since any year and a half since the 1930s.
Really, now? Worse than the period surrounding December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001? Worse than what Gerald Ford faced after the resignation of Richard Nixon and Watergate, which constituted the worse constitutional scandal in our history and tore the country apart? Worse than what Ronald Reagan faced after Jimmy Carter (when interest rates were 22 percent, inflation was more than 13 percent, and Reagan faced something entirely new under the sun, “stagflation”)? Worse than 1968, when Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. were assassinated and there was rioting in our streets? Worse than what LBJ faced during Vietnam — a war which eventually claimed more than 58,000 lives? Worse than what John Kennedy faced in the Bay of Pigs and in the Cuban Missile Crisis, when we and the Soviet Union edged up to the brink of nuclear war? Worse than what Franklin Roosevelt faced on the eve of the Normandy invasion? Worse than what Bush faced in Iraq in 2006, when that nation was on the edge of civil war, or when the financial system collapsed in the last months of his presidency? Worse than what Truman faced in defeating imperial Japan, in reconstructing post-war Europe, and in responding to North Korea’s invasion of South Korea?
In his autobiography “Present at the Creation,” Dean Acheson wrote about the immensity of the task the Truman administration faced after war ended in 1945, which “only slowly revealed itself. As it did so, it began to appear as just a bit less formidable than that described in the first chapter of Genesis. That was to create a world out of chaos; ours, to create half a world, a free half, out of the same material without blowing the whole to pieces in the process.”
For Obama to complain that the problems he faces are so much worse than any other president in the last 80 years is stunningly self-indulgent, to say nothing of ahistorical.
With Obama there is also the compulsive need to admonish others, to point fingers, to say that the problems he faces are not of his doing. Oh, sure; on occasions there are the grudging concessions, like in Thursday’s press conference devoted to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, where Obama says, “In case you’re wondering who’s responsible, I take responsibility” to ensure that “everything is done to shut this down.” But those words are always pro forma, done reluctantly and for tactical political reasons, a rhetorical trick that is meant to get him off the hook. As recently as last week, Obama, in the Rose Garden, was implicitly blaming the previous occupant of the White House for the explosion of the offshore rig Deepwater Horizon [Obama remarks linked here].
The president’s instincts are by now obvious to all: deflect blame, point fingers, and lash out at others, most especially his predecessor. We know from press reports (see here and here) that the strategy for the Democrats in 2010, two years after Obama was elected president, is to – you guessed it – blame George W. Bush.
What explains all this is hard to know. But it’s clear he has adopted an image of himself as something rare and remarkable, a historic figure of almost super-human abilities. “I am absolutely certain that generations from now,” Obama said during the summer of his presidential run, “we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.”
“We are the ones we have been waiting for,” Obama and his aides said constantly during the campaign.
President Obama’s more unattractive personal qualities probably won’t wear well with the electorate. Americans tend to tire of those who are look back rather than ahead and are always blaming others for the problems they face.
Barack Obama — a man who was as unprepared to be president as any man in our lifetime — has over the last 16 months shown that he is overmatched by events. His poll numbers continue to drop, his health care proposal is becoming less rather than more popular, the oil spill in the Gulf is badly eroding his image for leadership and competence, and his party has been battered in election after election since November. We have now reached the point where Democrats are running against Obama and his agenda in order to survive (witness Mark Critz in Pennsylvania).
We can hope that Obama, an intelligent man, learns from the errors of his ways. But the great danger in all of this is that in the face of his troubles Obama and his aides become increasingly defensive, display a greater sense of entitlement and even a touch of paranoia. When arrogant men lose control of events it can easily lead to feelings of isolation, to striking out at critics, to bullying opponents, and to straying across lines that should not be crossed.
And so the president needs to surround himself with people who can tamp down on the uglier impulses within his administration, who are willing to tell Obama that the lore created by him, Axelrod, Plouffe, and Gibbs during the campaign has given way to reality, that cockiness is not the same as wisdom, and that spin is no substitute for substantive achievements. And Obama needs someone who has standing in his life to tell him that the presidency is a revered institution that should not be treated as if it were a ward in Chicago.
The ingredients are in place for some serious problems down the road. Those who care for the president need to recognize the warning signs now, sooner rather later, before it becomes too late, for him and for the nation.

We all believe that if you’re innocent you have nothing to lose by cooperating with the police. However, defense attorneys and law schools will tell you otherwise. Exercisng the right to remain silent is always the best tactic to use even if you are innocent. One man found that out the hard way. Read article below by Michelle Ruiz from AOL News:

(May 28) — Six years after 3-year-old Riley Fox was abducted, sexually assaulted and drowned in a creek near her Illinois home, prosecutors who once blamed Fox’s father for her death have filed first-degree murder charges against an imprisoned sex offender.

Scott Wayne Eby, 38, confessed to killing Riley in a crime that began as a burglary at her family’s home in Wilmington, Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow said. Eby was charged Thursday with first-degree murder and predatory criminal sexual assault of a child. A year after Riley’s slaying in 2004, Eby was convicted and sent to state prison on a 14-year sentence for the sexual assault of a female relative who is now 27.

Riley’s parents, Kevin and Melissa, are “tremendously relieved” but have “mixed feelings,” family attorney Kathleen Zellner told AOL News today.

“For Kevin, it’s great thing to have his name finally cleared by having someone else linked to the crime,” Zellner said. “At the same time, it was very difficult for them, because they learned details of what really happened to their daughter.”

Glasgow tapped the FBI to assist in the investigation last year. He said a tipster to the federal agency led authorities to Eby, who was not an original suspect. He was living with his mother less than a mile from the Fox home at the time of the slaying, but authorities said Eby had no relationship with the Foxes.

After Riley’s naked body was found facedown in the creek near her home, prosecutors focused on her father, ultimately charging him with his daughter’s killing. He spent eight months in jail after giving a videotaped confession he later said was coerced by investigators. The charges against Fox were dismissed in June 2005, after Glasgow’s election to the state attorney’s office. He ordered DNA testing of the masking tape on Riley’s mouth and found it did not match that of her father. The parents were awarded $8 million in a wrongful-arrest lawsuit.

“I have never dealt with a case this heart-wrenching,” Glasgow told reporters. “While nothing can bring back Riley Fox, we hope that the events that led to today can bring some closure to the family.”

The Foxes praised the FBI agents who assisted Will County officials in finding “the true killer,” saying in a statement that “finally, there can be justice for Riley.”

Glasgow addressed the legal missteps that led officials to target Fox, saying, “The FBI and my office feel comfortable in announcing Kevin Fox is innocent.” He added that the charges filed against Eby prove “the system works.”

“When everybody does their jobs, innocent people will not be convicted,” Glasgow said.

Glasgow declined to say whether a DNA match was made between Eby and Riley. But he suggested the evidence against Eby was strong, saying his office had learned a valuable lesson after wrongfully charging Fox without DNA evidence, according the Chicago Sun-Times.

“We’re not going to be in the situation we were in before with the DNA,” he said.

Glasgow said he hoped Kevin Fox would work with his office to help it understand the circumstances of false confessions in an effort to avoid them in the future. Zellner said she found that statement “highly annoying.”

“The statement that Kevin gave was not the product of anything about his personality. He is totally emotionally healthy and normal,” Zellner told AOL News. “That was a law enforcement problem of people abusing their power in interrogations. They need to start by cleaning their own house.”

At Thursday’s news conference, Glasgow said he hoped the charges against Eby would bring peace to a community long haunted by the slaying of a young girl. Glasgow has four months to decide whether to seek the death penalty against Eby.

The case has “torn at the very fabric of Will County since 2004,” he said. “It has torn at the hearts of everyone in law enforcement.”
Filed under: Nation, Money, Crime
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

2010 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Print EmailAimFacebookDiggFark ItTwitterMoreHot Leads

Dateline: Chicago

If Brack Obama had his way [as state senator] an old man would have to chose between the grave or jail in a life threatening situation. See comment below:

OBAMA WOULD HAVE PROSECUTED CHICAGO MAN FOR DEFENDING HIMSELF WITH HANDGUN

BELLEVUE, WA – An 80-year-old Chicago man who defended himself and his family from a neighborhood thug this week could be criminally prosecuted, if Barack Obama had prevailed in a 2004 Illinois State Legislature vote on a measure to protect citizens who use handguns in self-defense even when their communities ban handguns.

“As an Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama voted not once, but twice in opposition to Senate Bill 2165,” recalled Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The so-called “Hale DeMar Act” – named for a Wilmette, IL resident who shot a burglar with a handgun, a violation of Wilmette’s handgun ban – was passed in March 2004 on a 38-20 vote. Obama was one of the senators voting against the measure. After disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich vetoed the bill, the Senate voted to override the veto on Nov. 9 by a vote of 40-18. Again, Obama was one of the opponents.

“That measure is now law,” Gottlieb noted, “and it should protect a courageous Chicago resident from being victimized twice, once by the man who tried to kill him and then by the Daley administration, that wants to keep him and other law-abiding citizens disarmed. If Obama had had his way in 2004, Wednesday morning’s hero would be today’s criminal.

“The elderly gentleman used his handgun only after Anthony ‘Big Ant’ Nelson fired at him and his wife through their bedroom window,” he continued. “Being a convicted felon, Mr. Nelson had no business carrying a handgun, especially in the commission of an attempted home invasion. But of course, the Chicago handgun ban didn’t stop him. An armed citizen did that.

“President Obama may claim to support the Second Amendment, but his actions tell a different tale,” Gottlieb stated. “In March 2008, he told a Pittsburgh newspaper that he opposes concealed carry. In addition to his anti-gun-rights voting record, as a state senate candidate, he supported banning handguns. These are not the actions of someone who believes in the right to keep and bear arms.

“A Chicago resident is alive today,” he concluded, “not because of Obama’s 2004 vote, but in spite of it. His story is a text book example for striking down Chicago’s ban and restoring to its residents the ability to fight back.”

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at www.ccrkba.org or by email to InformationRequest@ccrkba.org.

Copyright © 2010 Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, All Rights Reserved.

Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005 Voice: 425-454-4911
Toll Free: 800-426-4302
FAX: 425-451-3959
Email: InformationRequest@ccrkba.org

To stop receiving these alerts, send an email to subscriptions@liberty.seanet.com with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line.
To ensure your alerts are delivered to your inbox (and not inadvertently diverted to a bulk or junk email folder by spam filters), be sure to add cc_alerts@liberty.seanet.com to your email address book or contact list.

Using trickery and sleight of hand the Obama regime really thinks that it’s fooling people about the unemployment rate’s so called improvement. I never believed it for a moment. Here’s more evidence to expose the story behind the story:

From the NY Post

Updated: Tue., May. 25, 2010, 1:23 AM
Two more Census workers blow the whistle
By JOHN CRUDELE

Last Updated: 1:23 AM, May 25, 2010

Posted: 12:42 AM, May 25, 2010

You know the old saying: “Everyone loves a charade.” Well, it seems that the Census Bureau may be playing games.

Last week, one of the millions of workers hired by Census 2010 to parade around the country counting Americans blew the whistle on some statistical tricks.

The worker, Naomi Cohn, told The Post that she was hired and fired a number of times by Census. Each time she was hired back, it seems, Census was able to report the creation of a new job to the Labor Department.

Below, I have a couple more readers who worked for Census 2010 and have tales to tell.

But first, this much we know.

Each month Census gives Labor a figure on the number of workers it has hired. That figure goes into the closely followed monthly employment report Labor provides. For the past two months the hiring by Census has made up a good portion of the new jobs.

Labor doesn’t check the Census hiring figure or whether the jobs are actually new or recycled. It considers a new job to have been created if someone is hired to work at least one hour a month.

One hour! A month! So, if a worker is terminated after only one hour and another is hired in her place, then a second new job can apparently be reported to Labor . (I’ve been unable to get Census to explain this to me.)

Here’s a note from a Census worker — this one from Manhattan:

“John: I am on my fourth rehire with the 2010 Census.

“I have been hired, trained for a week, given a few hours of work, then laid off. So my unemployed self now counts for four new jobs.

“I have been paid more to train all four times than I have been paid to actually produce results. These are my tax dollars and your tax dollars at work.

“A few months ago I was trained for three days and offered five hours of work counting the homeless. Now, I am knocking (on) doors trying to find the people that have not returned their Census forms. I worked the 2000 Census. It was a far more organized venture.

“Have to run and meet my crew leader, even though with this rain I did not work today. So I can put in a pay sheet for the hour or hour and a half this meeting will take. Sincerely, C.M.”

And here’s another:

“John: I worked for (Census) and I was paid $18.75 (an hour) just like Ms. Naomi Cohn from your article.

“I worked for about six weeks or so and I picked the hours I wanted to work. I was checking the work of others. While I was classifying addresses, another junior supervisor was checking my work.

“In short, we had a “checkers checking checkers” quality control. I was eventually let go and was told all the work was finished when, in fact, other people were being trained for the same assignment(s).

“I was re-hired about eight months later and was informed that I would have to go through one week of additional training.

“On the third day of training, I got sick and visited my doctor. I called my supervisor and asked how I can make up the class. She informed me that I was ‘terminated.’ She elaborated that she had to terminate three other people for being five minutes late to class.

“I did get two days’ pay and I am sure the ‘late people’ got paid also. I think you would concur that this is an expensive way to attempt to control sickness plus lateness. I am totally convinced that the Census work could be very easily done by the US Postal Service.

“When I was trying to look for an address or had a question about a building, I would ask the postman on the beat. They knew the history of the route and can expand in detail who moved in or out etc. I have found it interesting that if someone works one hour, they are included in the labor statistics as a new job being full.

“I am not surprised that you can’t get any answers from Census staff; I found there were very few people who knew the big picture. M.G.”

When I received my Census form in the mail, I filled it out. Nobody had to knock on my door.

I answered truthfully about the number of people living in my household. But I could have just as easily dou bled the number. Why not? Didn’t Census ad vertisements imply that my community would get more federal money if the popula tion were larger?

I’m glad people are finding work with the Census. For some it’s the only work they have had this year and the chump change they are making for a few hours’ work is a godsend.

But wasting taxpayers’ money on busywork isn’t going to do much for the economy. john.crudele@nypost.com

NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc.

nypost.com , nypostonline.com , and newyorkpost.com are trademarks of NYP Holdings, Inc.

Copyright 2010 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy | Terms of Use

Since 1980 I was involved in this epic battle to defend the Second Amendment. It didn’t take long to discover the gun prohibitionists not only didn’t know what they were talking about but would outright lie to further their false cause. The evidence kept mounting that an armed population caused a decline in the crime rate and not vice versa. Several studies have also confirmed this and the seminal book “More Guns, Less Crime” [by Professor John Lott] sent shockwaves throughout America resulting in more citizens applying for carry licenses and more states adopting Right-to-Carry laws. See additional proof below from the Second Amendment Foundation.

LATEST FBI CRIME DATA CONTINUES TO REFUTE ANTI-GUN RHETORIC, SAYS CCRKBA

BELLEVUE, WA – For the third year in a row, violent crime has declined in the United States while increasing numbers of American citizens own firearms and are licensed to carry, a trend that belies predictions of anti-gunners that more guns will result in more crime, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

Preliminary data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report shows that the violent crime rate went down 5.5 percent in 2009, compared to statistics from 2008. This covers all four categories of violent crime: murder, robbery, aggravated assault and forcible rape. Violent crime went down 4 percent in metropolitan counties and 3 percent elsewhere, according to the FBI.

At the same time, the agency’s National Instant Check System reports continued increases in the number of background check requests and the National Shooting Sports Foundation has reported increased federal firearms excise tax allocations to state wildlife agencies, an indication that more guns and ammunition are being purchased.

“This translates to one irrefutable fact,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “There are more guns in private hands than ever before, yet crime rates have declined. In plain English, this means that gun prohibitionists have been consistently wrong. Higher rates of gun ownership have not resulted in more bloodshed, as the gun ban lobby has repeatedly forecast with its ‘sky-is-falling’ rhetoric.

“According to the FBI,” he continued, “the murder rate fell last year 7.2 percent in larger cities. Robbery declined more than 8 percent and forcible rape was down 3.1 percent. It might just be that criminals are less likely to attack someone out of fear their intended victim is armed. Robbers might be discouraged by the growing potential that the clerk behind the counter is willing to fight back. Maybe would-be rapists are deterred by the possibility that they might get shot.

“For many years,” Gottlieb observed, “anti-gunners made all kinds of wild predictions that higher rates of gun ownership and the expansion of shall-issue carry permits would leave neighborhoods awash in blood. The data proves otherwise. America should turn its back on the gun prohibition lobby and their insidious policy of victim disarmament.”

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at www.ccrkba.org or by email to InformationRequest@ccrkba.org.

Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family>

Copyright © 2010 Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, All Rights Reserved.

Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005 Voice: 425-454-4911
Toll Free: 800-426-4302
FAX: 425-451-3959
Email: InformationRequest@ccrkba.org

Suddenly the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s chief has telegraphed his agency might not process illegal aliens caught by certain states. Is this a unilateral decision or was he instructed to say so from Obama et al? I’ll lay you odds that this outrageous display of government intransigence and arrogance came from the White House? Click Full Story.

I am pleased to announce that the pro-gun movement has won the intellectual war with gun prohibitionists. From 1980 as a new federal correctional officer until recently I participated [with the NRA and other pro-gun groups] in providing US citizens with accurate information about the Second Amendment and it has paid dividends. Gun control is now toxic to mostly Democratic politicians. The gun prohibitionists are finding it more and more difficult to attract crowds to support them. Again, the reason is because they were simply not telling the truth but spouting bald faced lies to manipulate people’s emotions. Ah! Thank God for the Internet. May I turn on my gloatometer?

Brady Campaign’s slipping relevancy underscored by NRA convention

Op-Ed By Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman

Adhering to a pattern of behavior that has developed over the years, a tiny contingent of gun prohibitionists paraded outside of the Charlotte Convention Center while the National Rifle Association was hosting its record-breaking members’ meeting, but they remained only long enough to get some camera time with local news crews.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, came to that North Carolina city in order to grab some face time and get his name in the local newspapers. Where the NRA can pull more than 70,000 members, the Brady bunch could barely muster two dozen protesters to parade around for perhaps an hour, probably less, and then leave satisfied that the 5 o’clock news would carry their images.

For several years, right up to the devastating 1994 mid-term elections that turned dozens of Congressional anti-gunners out of office, the Brady Campaign and other gun control groups enjoyed media and public support. But when gun rights organizations began fighting back with facts, and developed a strategy of education through legal journals, their influence began to wane. That influence continued to erode as time tested their rhetoric and found it not simply wanting, but totally preposterous.

Their dire predictions in state after state that concealed carry reform and state preemption statutes would spawn Wild West gunfights at fender benders, bloody shootouts in restaurants and cocktail lounges, and skyrocketing murder rates in which perpetrators would be citizens who were licensed to carry all were false. Influential people, including prosecutors and county sheriffs, recognized this and went on the record to say so.

These days, Brady’s Helmke is reduced to spouting platitudes on the steps of the Supreme Court, verbally bashing important civil rights cases like District of Columbia v. Heller and the Second Amendment Foundation’s pending McDonald v. City of Chicago.

His organization has desperately resorted to attacking Starbucks Coffee to gin up support while pandering paranoia; an effort that anti-gunners have developed into an art form, albeit a lousy one.

They have attacked the most anti-gun president in the nation’s history, giving Barack Obama an “F” grade because he is not anti-gun enough to suit their extremist philosophy.

The Brady Campaign has not managed to push through a single piece of federal legislation in more than 15 years. Their attempt to sue the gun industry into bankruptcy using anti-gun mayors as their puppet proxies failed on legal merit and in the court of public opinion.

If it weren’t for the fact that pro-gun rights groups are so active, the Brady bunch would not even have events to attend. In short, gun prohibitionists have become irrelevant, and in their desperation for attention, they appear to be in a state of denial, reaching out to a shrinking audience that still believes in public safety through demagoguery and surrender to the criminal element.

Just like some politicians, Helmke and the Brady Campaign do not know when it is time to retire.

Alan Gottlieb is the Founder of Second Amendment Foundation. Dave Workman is senior editor of Gun Week. They are co-authors of Assault on Weapons: The Campaign to Eliminate Your Guns.

The Reverend Jim Wallis is one of President Obama’s “advisors” that I happened to meet as a seminary student in the late 1970s. They say that you tend to mellow with age and during my seminary years I was quite liberal, politically speaking but conservative theologically. Now I am a religious and social conservative.

Jim Wallis visited the seminary with his social justice crusade against the evil USA and how multi-national corporations were wreaking havoc on tiny developng nations, etc. At this time of my life the anti-American mantra resonated with me and I even saw the merits of liberation theology that became popular in third world nations. It never dawned on me that I was being mesmerized by warmed over Marxism. I was blind but now I see. Beware of any professing “Christians” who preach about social justice.Click Full Story.

I wonder if Obama’s supporters realize that the unemployment rate is actually higher than reported. When you have an anti-business pro-tax president in power it can and does affect the economy. Click Full Story.