When Facts Don't Matter

The same people who warn about "global warming," also support nationalized health care and oppose gun rights. These people tend to grativate toward academia, the media, and far-left political organizations. Ultimately, their goal is not to improve the quality of life, but rather to control peoples' actions. Consistent with the fascist movement of the 1940's, theses phoney do-gooders use propaganda to dupe unsuspecting Americans out of their money and their freedoms.

The "global warming" scam began to unfold when historical weather records proved that temperatures have been cooling over the past few years. It has also been shown that global temperatures have been known to rise and fall throughout the earth's history. These facts did nothing to discourage the "global warming" movement, however. More recently, it was discovered that prominent American and British climate researchers deliberately withheld data disputing "global warming." Despite all of this, the "global warming" agenda continues including new regulations introduced by the EPA.

The health care bill is another example. Nationalized health care around the world consistently demonstrates high taxes, rationing of care, old technology, and long waiting periods. In some countries, like Cuba, the experience is quite literally horrific and should be condemned by human rights advocates. (Reference Hannity & Colmes video part 1, H&C video part 2, and The Real Cuba.com). The American health care bill, currently in deliberation, will cut Medicare spending by an estimated $43 billion. The savings will not go back to the American people, but will be diverted to other government projects unless Congress specifically prohibits that from happening. As of today, there has been no effort to prevent the diversion of Medicare cuts. Despite all of this and despite objections by the American people, Congress and President Obama appear ready to pass the bill.

The propaganda continues when it comes to gun rights. Over 2.5 million times per year (approximately 6,849 times per day) a firearm is used to ward off an attack. Many times, the criminal flees upon merely seeing the firearm, in effect preventing crime. There are approximately 80 million gun owners in the United States. That's a little over 25% of the total population. Forty-eight of fifty states allows some form of concealed carry. Contrary to anti-gun propaganda, we are not living in the wild west, nor do we shoot each other over parking spaces. In fact, cities and states with the highest crime are the same geographic areas with the most restrictive gun laws.

To illustrate this point, educators continue to ban guns on college campuses despite the fact that criminals ignore the ban. The gun free zone concept jeopardizes the safety of law-abiding students nationwide by rendering them helpless in the event of a self-defense emergency.

One need look no further than local police and the military. They all carry firearms because of the indisputable proof that guns save lives. Firearms may well be the best form of personal defense across the board.

Ultimately, if the far-left political machine is successful with their phoney "global warming" legislation and nationalized health care, it will only be a matter of time before the war on guns kicks into high gear again. Be vigilant. Be ready to act. Educate those who don't yet understand. We can win if we act accordingly.

Jennifer Freeman is Executive Director and co-founder of Liberty Belles, a grass-roots organization dedicated to restoring and preserving the Second Amendment.
http://www.libertybelles.org
jennifer@libertybelles.org

Guns Save Lives

As reported on Andrew Breibart's Big Government.com, Chicago Mayor Daley has blamed the Ft. Hood massacre on America's love of guns.

Exploiting the raw emotions of victims' families and the nation as a whole is nothing new for the gun-ban community. The idea of strict gun control on a military base is new, however. It shows just how far the gun-ban community is willing to go with their anti-gun insanity.

A responsible government operating from the basis of reason would call for more firearms in society. Why? Because the Ft. Hood massacre, like all others of its kind, was stopped by an armed person. As soon as the killer was stopped, lives were saved. Had more people been armed, the killer would have been stopped sooner. In fact, Mayor Daley's anti-gun position puts people at greater risk.

The anti-gun government and media wants you to suspend logic and believe that more laws is what we need to reduce crime. The problems with this argument are obvious. For one, criminals don't obey the law. Second, we already have over 10,000 firearm-related laws, none of which prevented the Ft. Hood massacre.

In the case of the Ft. Hood, Columbine, and Virginia Tech massacres, there were numerous warning signs that were not acted upon by the community. Prevention, in these cases, may have been possible with community intervention. Since the community did not act on the numerous warning signs of these and other killers, our only option was for an armed person to stop the attack.

Still, anti-gunners will use this criminal act as a call for, "sensible gun laws." The problem, of course, is that "sensible" is a subjective word that cannot be clearly defined. The word, "sensible" is as subjective as words like, "hope" and "change."

Jennifer Freeman is Executive Director and co-founder of Liberty Belles, a grass-roots organization dedicated to restoring and preserving the Second Amendment.
http://www.libertybelles.org
jennifer@libertybelles.org

Health Insurance and Guns

While the Democrats are holding closed-door negotiations on merging the two Senate health care bills, the National Institute of Health has quietly begun studying the health effects of gun ownership. These two, seemingly separate activities are, in fact, closely related.

The NIH has a pre-existing position that owning a gun is a public health risk. They intend to "prove" this theory by investigating "whether adolescents who consume alcohol and/or carry firearms, and/or whose daily activities occur in surroundings rich in alcohol and/or firearms, face a differential risk of being shot with a firearm or injured in a non-gun assault." In other words, the NIH is going to study the behavior of gang members and use that information to support their position that firearm ownership is a public health risk.

Private studies, as well as casual observation, tells us that cities with a higher level of gun ownership consistently have lower levels of crime than comparably-sized cities with strict gun control laws. We know that firearms prevent crime an estimated 2.5 million times per year often resulting in no bloodshed whatsoever. Based on these facts, one could argue that firearm ownership is a health benefit in that it saves lives. The NIH has no interest in this angle, however.

The NIH, with public support from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, will likely pursue the activities of gang members and apply their findings to gun owners across the board. Once this begins, people applying for health insurance may be required to disclose whether or not they own firearms. (It is also possible, that by sharing data between agencies, the government will already know whether or not you own a firearm). Firearm owners could be forced to pay significantly higher insurance rates.

Of course, firearm ownership is only one aspect of how nationalized health care provides the government with a welcome invitation to control almost every aspect of your life. What you eat, how much you exercise, whether you smoke or drink is only the beginning. Health insurance will likely be mandatory by law and your adherence to government "health" standards will be mandatory in order to afford and/or receive benefits.

The 2000 elections taught Democrats the painful lesson that Americans overwhelmingly support gun ownership as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Rather than accept the will of the American people, the Democrats have resorted to sneaky, anti-gun bigotry. From registering ammunition to denying that the Second Amendment applies outside of Washington DC, the Democrats are doing everything they can to make it too expensive or too much of a hassle to own a gun while simultaneously claiming that they "don't want to take your guns away." Nationalized health care will likely be another example of such bigotry.

Jennifer Freeman is Executive Director and co-founder of Liberty Belles, a grass-roots organization dedicated to restoring and preserving the Second Amendment.
http://www.libertybelles.org
jennifer@libertybelles.org

SCOTUS to Hear Another 2A Case

On June 26, 2008, the United States Supreme Court handed down a narrow (5-4) decision confirming that the Second Amendment applies as an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms.

Despite the Supreme Court upholding what everyone already knew and understood about the Second Amendment, people in Chicago are still barred from owning handguns. Further, people who own rifles and shotguns must go through a cumbersome registration process every year. Failure to register a firearm on time makes that firearm incapable of ever being registered again. Clearly, this is a violation not only of the Second Amendment, but of the Supreme Court's ruling last summer.

Incredibly, the City of Chicago is claiming that the Second Amendment is a federal law and therefore does not apply in Chicago. If that were true (and it isn't) then the entire Bill of Rights could be called into question across the nation. Freedom of speech, religion, and the press; the right to privacy, the right to a fair and speedy trial could all be deemed irrelevant if the Bill of Rights was ruled as a federal law and therefore applicable only in the federal terrority of Washington D.C.

It is absurd to think that the Founding Fathers and Revolutionary War heroes fought the crown of England and won to ensure freedom in Washington D.C., but not in the surrounding territories of which the Founders represented. And yet, that is precisely the position that the City of Chicago has taken.

Further weakening Chicago's case, is the fact that this issue was addressed in 1868 with the addition of the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition to other issues, the 14th Amendment states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This has been consistently and repeatedly interpreted, by both the courts and the general populace, to mean that the Bill of Rights is the Supreme Law of the Land and cannot be overruled by local governments.

The same legal team who represented the DC Gun Case filed suit and today, September 30, 2009, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The case is known as McDonald v. Chicago.

Of additional interest is the fact that newly Obama-appointed Supreme Court justice, Sonia Sotomayor, ruled in January 2009 that the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments. It's probably not unreasonable to expect Sotomayor to rule against the Bill of Rights and against the freedom of the American people in this case as well.

Jennifer Freeman is Executive Director and co-founder of Liberty Belles, a grass-roots organization dedicated to restoring and preserving the Second Amendment.
http://www.libertybelles.org
jennifer@libertybelles.org

California Democrats Still Anti-Gun

Trading rights for benefits has been the hallmark of the Democrat Party for at least the last ten years, perhaps longer. The California Democrat Party website clearly states its support for all kinds of non-essential programs like government sponsored pre-natal care, employee unions on demand, government provided health insurance for all, multi-lingual and culturally sensitive education, and an open U.S.-Mexico border policy including full protection, assistance, and amnesty to people who enter the country illegally. Not surprisingly, these are the same values shared by the Communist Party USA, as noted on their website.

While the California Democrats are busy trying to be all things to all people, at your expense, they also want to release countless prisoners into the general population and they want stricter controls on your guns. Unfortunately for California and the nation, unnecessary programs that make voters feel good often come at the expense of our inalienable rights. This is consistent with the Democrat Party agenda.

In spite of being one of the most anti-gun states in the country, California continues to push for more anti-gun laws. And yet the crime rate never goes down as a result. The reason being, of course, that criminals don't obey the law. Politicians keep making laws; criminals keep ignoring them. Only the law-abiding citizen is affected, usually for the worse.

There are three offending bills. Two have passed the legislature and are awaiting the Governor's signature. You can read about them here.

By offering benefits in exchange for rights, California politicians continue to exploit voters and further their socialist agenda. But that's not all. We've seen the comparison of agendas between the California Democrat Party and the Communist Party USA at the top of this article. The CPUSA also calls for, "Unity Against the Ultra-Right." It defines the, "ultra right" as: "The ultra-right includes the so-called “neo-conservatives,” social and fiscal conservatives, religious fundamentalists, nativists, libertarians, and other right-wing trends. The ultra-right also includes sections of the urban and rural middle strata: farmers, large and small business people, as well as small sections of most class and social forces. The mass aspect of the ultra-right movement tends to be located more in the suburbs and exurbs, and in small cities and towns especially in the West, Midwest, and South. The ultra-right incorporates various social and political tendencies, and has achieved a mass base among sections of different class and social forces which, often against their own interests, currently support ultra-right candidates."

It's time for Californians to reclaim the Golden State. Voters need to dictate the terms of office to politicians and demand adherence or boot them out. The worst thing you can do to a politician is force them to get a regular job. Put politicians on notice today and start looking around for their replacements. It's time for a cultural revolution in California.

Jennifer Freeman is Executive Director and co-founder of Liberty Belles, a grass-roots organization dedicated to restoring and preserving the Second Amendment.
http://www.libertybelles.org
jennifer@libertybelles.org

Language of the Gun Debate

by Jennifer Freeman, Liberty Belles
Vocabulary provided by Randall Herrst, Center for the Study of Crime

The current debate on personal firearms ownership has been skillfully orchestrated through the inappropriate use of customized jargon. By creating and perpetuating catch phrases including ballistic fingerprinting, assault weapons, safety license, and high-capacity magazines, anti-self defense advocates have created the illusion of a legitimate firearms debate. If gun-ban groups were to take an honest approach and say what they mean, the firearms debate would be a non-issue because the overwhelming majority of Americans would find the aims of gun-banners to be contrary to the U.S. Constitution and our innate right to life and self defense.

Sadly, many well meaning Americans have found themselves in a defensive position by adopting the deceitful catch phrases introduced by organizations whose intent is not to keep people safe, but to remove or greatly impair Americans' ability to defend themselves. Adopting these catch phrases creates an air of legitimacy and allows anti-self defense advocates to vocalize their rhetoric to the masses.

It is imperative, therefore, to point out the inadequacies of the catch phrases invented by gun-ban groups and to use appropriate language that conveys the actual meaning of the words used.

A few examples are:

Anti-Self Defense Catch Phrase	Accurate Terminology
Assault Weapon - Suggests that the only use for this type of weapon is to conduct an assault. Certain weapons are dubbed "assault weapons" at the discretion of those who want to ban them.	Traditional Semi-Automatic Firearm of the type that has been commercially available since 1896 - These firearms fire one round of ammunition for every single pull of the trigger.
Ballistic Fingerprint - Suggests that the barrel of a firearm is unique and cannot be changed.	Ballistic Snapshot - Accounts for the fact that the barrel of a firearm can be altered in seconds with minimal effort. Costs millions in taxpayer dollars with no tangible benefit other than to create a database of firearms owners.
Child Safety	Real child safety is the knowledge that they carry in their minds (analog: no rational parent would try to keep their children away from all bodies of water forever-they teach their children to swim as soon as they are old enough); Eddie Eagle safety training
Gun Control - Suggests that firearms are out of control.	Anti-Self Defense, Helpless victim disarmament by government mandate; Mafia approved criminal empowerment; laws to ensure a safe working environment for criminals - Accounts for the fact that there are countless thousands of firearms laws and regulations currently in force and that additional restrictions would likely inhibit a reasonable person's ability to defend oneself with a firearm.
High Capacity Magazine - Provides a mental image of a firearm with a very large magazine hanging out of the bottom.	Standard Capacity Magazine - Standard 15 round magazine routinely included with the semi-automatic firearm at the time of purchase. These magazines were not dubbed "high capacity" until gun-ban organizations decided they should be banned.
Pocket Rocket - Suggests that small handguns are routinely carried in one's pocket, usually by a gang member.	See "Saturday Night Special"
Police Protection ("You don't need guns because you can depend upon...")	The principle of Sovereign immunity prevents citizens from winning "failure to protect" lawsuits against government.
Pro-Gun	Pro-self-defense; self-defense advocate; Constitutionalist
Reasonable Gun Control	Inherently unreasonable gun control laws that attack/ punish/ burden/ handicap law-abiding citizens rather than violent criminals (note that any truly reasonable law would actually reduce crime, and none of these have that effect)
Regulate Guns	Restrict; prohibit; ban; confiscate; melt down; seize; target/ punish/ handicap/ burden/delay/harass firearms owners
Safety License - Suggests that firearms owners do not voluntarily accept responsibility for safe firearms handling and therefore safety training is mandated.	Firearm-Owner Registration - Mandates personal registration with the local Sheriff or Police Department. Sets up additional costs and barriers to firearms ownership.
Saturday Night Special	Small Handgun, Pocket Policeman, Safe and affordable self-defense firearm; affordable life insurance; working class defensive firearm; (in some jurisdictions only) Glock or Beretta or other Police issue sidearm; defensive firearm for the elderly and others on fixed incomes - Generally preferred by women with small hands, handicapped persons, the elderly, and those with a concealed weapons permit.
Saving the Children	Gun control endangers children because gun control increases violent crime by shifting the balance of power to favor the criminals and disarming helpless victims.
Second Amendment gives us the right...	Second Amendment recognizes a pre-existing natural right (of self-defense against individuals, gangs, and tyrannical governments) and protects it from government infringement
Trigger Locks	Mafia approved Anti-self-defense blocks; self-defense prevention devices; artificial handicaps; crime facilitation devices; inefficient locks that still allow most firearms to be loaded and fired or stolen

Gun-ban groups have succeeded in confusing a number of Americans by conjuring up misleading and deceitful terminology. Confusion is a form of victory as it renders many Americans to inaction thereby increasing the power of the anti-self defense minority. Clearly, any individual or organization that uses such dishonest tactics to further its agenda cannot be trusted to exercise influence over the American people.

Gun Buy Back

The term, "gun buy back" is puzzling. The government never owned the firearms in the first place so they can't possibly be buying them back.

The City of Dallas, Texas is hosting a "gun buy back" event on August 15th. Such events occur in many cities around the country every year. Residents turn in their firearms in exchange for money or something of monetary value. At the Dallas event, residents who turn in their unloaded, operational firearm will be compensated with a $50 grocery card.

Anti-gun cities claim that such programs, "get guns off the street." In fact, these programs exploit poor people by offering money or food cards in exchange for a device that could very well save their lives or the lives of their children. Let's face it. Known criminals are not lining up at City Hall, showing their identification and turning in their weapons exchange for $50 worth of groceries.

The very city that cannot protect its people from criminals seeks to disarm its citizens in exchange for fifty bucks. Only a government bureaucrat could come up with such an idea.

What's to stop any criminal from purchasing a firearm for cheap at the so-called "gun buy back?" A criminal might be able to pick something up for $100 -- that's double what the city wants to pay. As is always the case with any government program, "gun buy backs" has no chance of achieving its intended goal. Just like Social Security and Medicare, when you put your trust in the government to take care of you, you wind up short-changed.

Jennifer Freeman is Executive Director and co-founder of Liberty Belles, a grass-roots organization dedicated to restoring and preserving the Second Amendment.
http://www.libertybelles.org
jennifer@libertybelles.org