Posts Tagged ‘FBI’

BATFE To Issue “Demand Letter” To Dealers This Week

July 26, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

BATFE To Issue “Demand Letter” To Dealers This Week

Multiple Rifle Sales Reports to Begin on August 14

Prior Belief That Executive Order Would “Enact” This Was In Error

FBI May Be Implicated in BATFE Gun Smuggling Program

NICS System Allowed Prohibited Sales

PHOENIX — July 25, 2011
by Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman
Full contact info at end

According to four BATFE agents familiar with the planned Fast and Furious gun-smuggling “fix,” the bureau plans to release a “demand letter” by the end of this week, insisting that gun dealers in the four Mexico-border states begin reporting multiple rifle sales to the bureau.

All multiple rifle sales made to the same buyer within a five-day period will have to be reported beginning on August 14, on a form to be announced, according to the agents. The order will exclude rifles in .22 caliber, and rifles without detachable magazines. The agents acknowledged that congressional action, lawsuits, an injunction or other court orders might forestall the implementation of the hastily concocted scheme. Such preventive measures are already underway.

The rumored executive order to require gun dealers in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to begin reporting multiple rifle sales to BATFE will not be issued. A previous Page Nine report that referred to the expected EO now appears incorrect. It is possible that the uproar over the program caused the administration to change its approach, and put all the heat on BATFE to “enact” law without Congress. The EO was widely reported and anticipated.

An exhaustive examination of statutory authority under which BATFE is required to operate revealed no legitimate power to demand these records, though the agents claimed they do have authority (two younger ones said they have no control over the process, and were simply following along). When questioned if they would consider resigning if asked to implement an illegally introduced rule, the agents all either declined to answer or said no, they would not resign.

Because a buyer will have to be identified to show that the sales reflect purchase by one person, the record collections will be a gun registry tied to gun ownership, which is strictly forbidden under federal law. No requirement to destroy these records exists, since no authority to collect the records exists. The BATFE agents said they would not be keeping the records, because they “lack authority,” but could not identify a time frame in which the registry information would be destroyed, or any audit trail.

When pressed, the senior official identified a statute that supposedly conveyed authority for the daring plan. The citation is to 18 USC §923(g)(5)(A) which states:

“Each licensee shall, when required by letter issued by the Attorney General, and until notified to the contrary in writing by the Attorney General, submit on a form specified by the Attorney General, for periods and at the times specified in such letter, all record information required to be kept by this chapter or such lesser record information as the Attorney General in such letter may specify.”

This does not confer the needed authority, because “all record information required to be kept by this chapter” does not include multiple sales of long guns to the same person in a five-day period. The agent disagreed. In fact, Congress specifically excluded such information when it enacted, by due process, a statute requiring similar information for handguns in the same law, in 18 USC §923(g)(3)(A):

“Each licensee shall prepare a report of multiple sales or other dispositions whenever the licensee sells or otherwise disposes of, at one time or during any five consecutive business days, two or more pistols, or revolvers, or any combination of pistols and revolvers totaling two or more, to an unlicensed person.”

In addition to the creation of this illegal reporting requirement, illegal gun-owner registry, with unknown details and no public control over the rule-making process, it amounts to record keeping specifically banned under the Firearm Owners Protection Act, 18 USC §926(a)(2):

“No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act [5/19/86] may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established.”

Like so many laws the federal government writes, this one declares that these acts cannot legally be done, but provides no specific punishment for perpetrators, such as those running this scheme inside BATFE. Laws could be written with teeth, to control bureaucrats. Instead of saying, “No one may collect this information,” the law could say, “Anyone who collects this information shall go to prison and pay a fine.” Given the common abuses now prevalent in government, such laws have been needed for a long time, on a state and local level as well as federally, some legislators say. Any legislator unwilling to draft laws that way, allowing “officials” to do whatever they please without consequence, deserves to be removed from office, according to leading experts.

FBI Implicated in Gun-Smuggling Operation

In other news, an insider source investigating BATFE’s gun smuggling to vicious Mexican drug cartels, reveals that several of the so-called “straw purchasers” were prohibited possessors, or had suspended drivers’ licenses and other problems that should have prevented them from passing the NICS background check.

Three of the straw purchasers, now indicted, had criminal histories, including a pending class 3 felony charge for burglary, an order of protection, a domestic-violence conviction, and a felony for resisting
arrest, later reduced (and criminal damage charge dropped). Any of these should have prevented, or at least delayed purchases when they hit the FBI NICS computer. One defendant even had a CCW permit, under circumstances that seem suspicious but remain unclear.

Whistleblower BATFE agent John Dodson apparently indicated that the NICS system had these buyers flagged for special treatment, and that when a sale request came through, it was routed to a special FBI office that approved the purchases, according to William La Jeunesse at FOX News. Dodson’s prior statements are absolutely incriminating, and riveting: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/03/eveningnews/main20039031.shtml

This implies that the FBI may have been complicit in the scheme, allowing BATFE’s mules to get possession of guns when they should have been blocked. How people with disqualifying criminal records or a suspended driver’s license could have repeatedly gotten through the tightly run NICS system is difficult to otherwise explain.

Some of the buyers were young adults living at home with parents, and with no visible means of support. How they got the tens of thousands of dollars in cash they repeatedly spent has not yet been investigated, but is sure to come out. The tax and IRS angles are also missing from all reports, so far.

IRS is often vigorous on tracking down unreported income and huge cash transactions, but is not involved as far as published reports go. BATFE installed video cameras at some of the gun shops and have the straw-purchase smugglers’ transactions recorded.

No information is available on how the data BATFE hopes to collect will be used to prevent gun smuggling. Since the information will be gathered by the very bureau responsible for smuggling guns into Mexico, confidence in the scheme is very low. BATFE claims the scheme will generate 18,000 records per year, but how they could possibly know that is unclear, since this is illegal and has never been done before.

Congressional hearings on the BATFE gun-smuggling program continue tomorrow, Tuesday, July 26, 2011, 10 a.m. East coast time, 7 a.m. here in Arizona. The effect on the gun reporting and registration scheme, if any, is impossible to determine ahead of time.

Tangential but important —

According to Wikipedia, BATFE has digitized out-of-business records from gun dealers, with several hundred million records in its hands:

4. Out of Business Records. Data is manually collected from paper Out-of-Business records (or input from computer records) and entered into the trace system by ATF. These are registration records which include name and address, make, model, serial and caliber of the firearm(s), as well as data from the 4473 form — in digital or image format. In March, 2010, ATF reported receiving several hundred million records since 1968. [9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

::::

One final note —

BATFE began circulating a flier at the Crossroads of the West gun show in Phoenix this past weekend, the state’s biggest gun show, threatening gun owners with arrest if they bear arms within 1,000 feet of a school.

Virtually all populated areas are within 1,000 feet of a school.

The gun-free-school-zones act, a feel-good do-nothing law passed by President Clinton, has languished basically unused for two decades, but essentially criminalizes almost all gun owners, creating tens of millions of unenforceable felonies daily. If Mr. Obama wants an under-the-radar gun ban, here it is on a platter, already on the books. This law MUST be dealt with by our legislators, and right quick.

The Crossroads gun show takes place within 1,000 feet of a school zone.

See the maps, and the simple amendment that would correct this travesty. http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones.htm

This is a special report from The Uninvited Ombudsman, Alan Korwin, author of the Page Nine news media watchblog. http://www.gunlaws.com/PageNineIndex.htm

Sign up for direct email reports yourself http://www.gunlaws.com

Permission to circulate this report granted.

Alan Korwin
Bloomfield Press
“We publish the gun laws.”
4848 E. Cactus, #505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
602-996-4020 Phone
602-494-0679 Fax
1-800-707-4020 Orders
http://www.gunlaws.com
alan@gunlaws.com
Call, write, fax or click for free full-color catalog
(This is our address and info as of Jan. 1, 2007)

“Don’t be a spectator in the struggle to preserve freedom.”

“No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing
because he could do only a little.”
–Edmund Burke

Public sentiment is everything.
With public sentiment, nothing can fail.
Without it, nothing can succeed. –Abraham Lincoln

Advertisements

THE SHARIAH THREAT TO AMERICA

July 16, 2011

THE SHARIAH THREAT
by Kathy Jessup

A judge refuses a protection order for a woman raped by her Muslim husband, ruling the man’s abuse is allowed under Shariah law.

A cartoonist is in hiding after a tongue-in-cheek “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” promotion earned her a fatwa death order for violating a Shariah edict banning drawing the Muslim prophet’s image.

A Shariah-compliant investment fund is camouflaged as a charity and funnels more than $12 million to finance Hamas suicide bombers.

Not exactly shocking in some Muslim countries where strict adherence to centuries-old rules, based on Islamic teachings, shines a spotlight on stonings and beheadings.

But these occurred recently in the United States.

Now “honor killings,” publicly funded accommodations for Islamic prayer and billions in Wall Street investments linked to potentially dangerous terror activities are raising political and constitutional questions in America.

Can or should Shariah law co-exist with the Judeo-Christian foundations of U.S. jurisprudence and the Constitution? Will imposition of Islamic-based edicts, enabled by so-called religious tolerance and political correctness, open the door to radical forms of the religion in Western democracies?

A growing number of states are drafting constitutional amendments to prohibit state judges from applying Islamic or international law in deciding cases. But even the 70 percent of voters who passed Oklahoma’s measure in November hasn’t settled the issue for Sooners.

When the director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) challenged the amendment in court, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction, ruling the amendment could be interpreted to single out Shariah law and discredit Islam, violating the First Amendment.

WHAT IS SHARIAH LAW?

Shariah (meaning “path” in Arabic) codifies the words, practices and teaching of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed, serving as a guide/law for everything from Muslims’ family and religious practices to financial transactions.

Several hundred years after the death of Mohammed, the prophet’s model living practices were assembled into the hadith, initially melding Islam and local customs. Various hadiths eventually developed into four schools of Sunni thought and one that guides Shiites. Each differs in the degree they draw from the Koran, Islamic thought and community practices.

Shariah identifies five hadd offenses, serious charges resolved by an Islamic judge. They are unlawful sexual intercourse (adultery or sex outside marriage), falsely accusing unlawful sexual intercourse, consuming wine (sometimes all alcohol), theft and highway robbery.

Punishments ordered for hadd crimes by conservative Shariah schools — stonings, executions, amputations and beatings — shock Western sensibilities. However, Ali Mazrui, of the Institute for Global Cultural Studies, says less severe penalties are more typically imposed.

Still, Islam has not uniformly banned so-called “honor killings,” genital mutilation, pre-teen marriages, polygamy, and divorce and inheritance rules that undercut the standing of women. Testimony from non-Muslims and even Muslim women is given less weight than that of Muslim men.

The size of a country’s Islamic population and its level of religious orthodoxy typically influence the degree to which Shariah law is inculcated in national legal codes.

Conservative Muslim countries including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen and Iran declare Islam the official religion and Shariah the source of law. In more secular Muslim countries where Islamists are the minority, Shariah has gradually gained legal legitimacy through local customs. Other countries, including Turkey and Azerbaijan, enforce separation of state and religion, sometimes resulting in political clashes.

Some countries operate a dual system where Shariah is applied to family law, while secular statutes govern criminal cases. For example, Britain introduced Shariah tribunals in 2008 that apply Islamic law to inheritance, marriage and divorce disputes where the parties all agree to the jurisdiction.

SHARIAH AND THE UNITED STATES

In 2009, Dalia Mogahed, an Obama administration adviser on Muslim affairs, told a British television audience that the West misunderstands Shariah law, calling its perceptions of Islamic tenants “oversimplified.”

But deaths, abuse and threats involving Muslim women in the United States and Canada have put a Western face on facets of Shariah that had been cloaked in long-standing Middle East practices.

Pakistani-born Muzzammil Hassan was convicted in February for beheading his wife inside the Buffalo, N.Y., television studio the couple had created to promote Islamic cultural understanding. Jurors didn’t buy Hassan’s story that he suffered spousal abuse and killed his wife in self-defense. Hassan had been served with divorce papers the week before, and his children testified he had been the abuser in the couple’s relationship.

In 2008, a New Jersey judge ruled Shariah permitted a Moroccan man to rape his Muslim wife, despite state law making it a crime. The New Jersey Appeals Court overturned that decision and remanded the case, finally allowing the woman to get a restraining order against her husband while she sought a divorce. The appeals court decision said neither Shariah law, giving a husband physical authority over his wife, nor Muslim beliefs on the role of women provided the man an exemption from criminal intent under U.S. statutes.

“[T]he [trial] judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State’s statutes as a result of his religious beliefs,” the appeals judges wrote. “In doing so, the judge was mistaken.”
Irfan Aleem went to a Pakistani embassy and performed talaq in 2007, exercising Shariah provisions that he said allowed him to divorce his wife Farah by proclaiming his intention three times. Although married several decades earlier in Pakistan, the couple had lived in Maryland for 20 years. Irfan said Shariah allowed Farah no claim on a lucrative pension he would receive from his job with the World Bank.

Maryland judges didn’t agree, ruling the Shariah practices were “contrary to public policy of this state.” The decision set aside the divorce Irfan had quickly proclaimed and afforded Farah a right to claim marital property in a Maryland divorce.

The deaths of at least 10 women in the United States and Canada have been linked to so-called Islamic “honor killings” in the last seven years.

In 2004, a 14-year-old girl who had been raped in Newfoundland was strangled by her father and brother to “restore the family honor.” A 20-year-old daughter of Afghan parents was shot dead in 2006, allegedly because she had moved in with her fiancé before their wedding. The killer was her brother.

In Ontario, a 16-year-old was stabbed to death in 2007 by her father while her mother held her down. The teenager had reportedly fought with her parents over wearing a hijib, a Muslim head covering. In another Canadian case, three teenage girls were drowned in their father’s car in 2009. Also found dead was their father’s first wife, who relatives say he never divorced. The father, his current wife and the girls’ 18-year-old brother were all charged with first-degree murder. Relatives told the media the killings were precipitated by one daughter’s dating decisions.

A Muslim father in Texas shot his two teenage daughters, Amina and Sarah Said, to death in January 2008. The murders allegedly were prompted by the girls having “unsanctioned boyfriends.” Later that year, a Pakistani man beat his 25-year-old daughter to death in Atlanta, reportedly because she opposed her arranged marriage.

Rifqa Bary, an Ohio teenager, made headlines in 2009 when she fled to Florida and foster care, saying she feared she would be the victim of a Muslim “honor killing” for her decision to convert to Christianity. She continued her religious choice a year later when she turned 18.

In a situation much like the 2008 Muslim assassination order against Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris went into hiding at the FBI’s recommendation last spring after her “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” hit Facebook. A Seattle newspaper said Norris is “essentially wiping away her identity” in reaction to a fatwa urging her killing issued by Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical Muslim cleric connected to the Fort Hood killings, the attempted Christmas Day airline bombing over Detroit and the failed Times Square bombing.

And in February, radical Muslims announced plans to take their demand for American Shariah to the White House, calling for thousands of Islamists to rally on Pennsylvania Avenue March 3. But just hours before the rally was scheduled to begin, its organizer, British Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary, called it off, alleging the cause had been “distorted by the media.”

Choudary said the demonstration was merely “postponed until we gather even more Muslims;” no new rally date was announced.

In an online video statement, Choudary said Muslims are obligated to implement Shariah law “immediately, wherever we are in the world,” and he said America can reverse “poverty, child abuse, rape, robberies, theft, crime and anarchy-type scenarios” only after the United States embraces the Islamic code for living. In the meantime, Choudary predicted “the dollar will soon lose its status.”

“We believe the whole of the world must be under Shariah,” Choudary said. “America is not blessed by God. The American dream has become a nightmare.”

Other elements of America’s Shariah debate are more nuanced. Some, like CBSNews.com’s political reporter Brian Montopoli, believe Shariah fears are “overblown at best,” and Jeffry Goldberg, The Atlantic’s national correspondent, said, “A Martian takeover of New Jersey is more likely than the imposition of a caliphate, or of Muslim law, on America.”

Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for CAIR, says the enjoined Oklahoma amendment is “an indication of growing anti-Muslim sentiment.” Hooper said CAIR has “not found any conflict between what a Muslim needs to do to practice their faith and the Constitution or any other American laws. We are, in fact, relying on the Constitution as our last line of defense.”

But conservative Jewish blogger Pamela Geller delivers an aggressive “creeping Shariah” warning: “It’s a drip, drip, drip, drip, drip. [In] the mosqueing of the workplace where you’re imposing prayer times on union contracts, non-Muslim workers have to lengthen their day. It’s wrong.”

Consider the political reaction Americans would have seen if these Muslim accommodations had instead been made for Christians:

* The Christian Science Monitor reported a California elementary school made accommodations when it absorbed Muslim students from a shuttered charter school, including revising its instructional schedule to add a 15-minute “recess” after lunch to allow Muslim students to pray in a separate room. The school district’s attorney defended it, saying “the Muslim faith requires specificity of prayer obligations … that most other religions do not,” a claim questioned by even some Muslims. Pork also was removed from school-lunch menus, according to media reports.

* In Massachusetts, where a firehouse was ordered to take down a “Merry Christmas” greeting, public middle school students took a “cultural diversity” field trip to a local mosque, where the boys participated in Islamic prayers while girls were excluded.

These public school incidents are not isolated instances.

Try getting Christian prayer in any school and have the ACLU all over you….but nothing is said re; Muslim special privilege.

* Starting about two years ago, school attorneys have been asking more and more questions about accommodations for Muslim students,” said Lisa Soronen, senior staff attorney for the National School Boards Association.

* Four Christian evangelists attending a July Muslim cultural festival in Dearborn, Mich., were arrested for “disorderly conduct to ensure they did not provoke violence from others attending,” according to a Detroit media report. The four said they were attempting to engage in a dialogue about faith. Shariah law prohibits Christians from engaging Muslims about Christianity.

* The University of Michigan-Dearborn, where about 10 percent of students are Muslim, spent $25,000 to install two foot-washing stations on campus to accommodate ablutions before Islamic daily prayers. The university said it is one of about 18 U.S. higher education institutions providing the unusual facilities, calling its decision “a reflection of our values of respect, tolerance, and safe accommodation of student needs.”

The Michigan Civil Liberties Union mounted no challenge, saying the foot baths have “no [religious] symbolic value.”

“They’re in a regular restroom and could be just as useful to a janitor filling up buckets, or someone coming off the basketball court as to Muslim students,” said Kary Moss, MCLU director.

* Thomas More Law Center, a conservative, public-interest law firm headquartered in Michigan, is challenging the constitutionality of federal bailout money to investment firm AIG, claiming AIG’s involvement in Shariah-compliant financing violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. A federal district judge in Michigan ruled that despite the fact the bailout gave the federal government an 80 percent ownership in AIG, there was no evidence the government’s money had funded “religious indoctrination.” And if there were evidence, the court said the $153 million of federal bailout money used to support Shariah compliance was an insignificant portion of the total $47.5 billion the government provided AIG.

That ruling is being appealed.

THE POWER OF MONEY

Conservative author Dick Morris says airplanes may have taken down the Twin Towers, but he predicts Shariah-compliant investing of billions in Western financial markets has the potential to “hijack our institutions, our social policies and ultimately our values in the name of Islamic rule.”

Huge oil profits and unease with their own Middle Eastern financial institutions brought Islamic investors to Wall Street in the 1990s in search of special funds that would meet Shariah restrictions. But it was complicated turf for bankers who knew investing but not Shariah.

Enter Sheikh Muhammad Taqi Usmani, a former Pakistani Shariah Appellate Court justice, hired by Dow Jones in 1999 to help establish a process that could attract trillions of investment dollars, generating handsome commissions and agency earnings.

In just a decade, most major U.S. and European investment firms have retained Shariah advisors and paid them millions. Those advisors assure Muslim investors their gains are not connected to interest charges, pork farming, alcohol, pornography or Western defense industries — all activities prohibited by Shariah.

But are those adviser fees — paid to highly placed Muslims — or the billions of dollars in “donations” financial institutions must contribute to specified Islamic “charities” in exchange for an investment’s Shariah stamp of approval actually bankrolling deadly extremist activities? Morris followed the money in his 2009 book “Catastrophe,” reporting that the U.S. government shut down at least three of the largest charities for financing terrorism.

In a 2008 article titled “Jihad Comes to Wall Street,” Alex Alexiev, vice president for research at the Center for Security Policy, called Shariah-compliant investing “an essential part of radical Islam’s efforts to insinuate itself into Western societies in order to destroy them from within.”

It’s also been a bumpy road for some of those hired consultants. Dow Jones severed ties with Usmani after the Center for Security Policy detailed some of Usmani’s writings, including one that urged Muslims living in the West to “conduct violent Jihad against the infidels at every opportunity.”

The CSP identified another paid Shariah investment advisor, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

According to Morris, Shariah-compliant funds must donate a small percentage of annual earnings to Islamic charities designated by the advisory boards. Those amounts are not inconsequential. For example, a typical 2.5 percent contribution can amount to billions of dollars.

And if a Shariah-compliant fund is found to have earnings from an outlawed investment activity, the advisors can “purify” those gains by donating more to the approved charities. Morris calls some of the charities “thinly veiled fronts for terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.”

Is the lure of trillions of dollars from Muslim portfolios strong enough to open civil law to expanding Shariah influences?

Consider Great Britain where, just a few years ago, then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he wanted London to become the world’s Islamic-finance capital. Britain’s most senior judge subsequently proclaimed the country’s Muslims can use “Islamic legal principles” as long as the punishments and divorce rulings comply with English law.

According to Morris, that’s already made U.K. Muslims eligible for extra benefits if they have more than one wife, even though polygamy — allowed under Shariah law — is illegal in Britain.

TOLERANCE: AN ASSET OR A WEDGE?

Janet Levy, a prolific writer on Islam and national security, asks why Islam “is sacred, supreme and beyond reproach” in the United States, while other religions are “freely criticized, lampooned in cartoons and denigrated in artwork?” She concludes America is already embracing de facto Shariah law.

“Our uniquely American virtues of tolerance and freedom have worked against us to produce intolerance and oppression,” Levy says. “This has led to the stealthy introduction of Shariah law and a climate in which criticisms of Mohammed and Islam are no longer possible without serious repercussions.”

Are political correctness and moves to cool the osmosis of the American melting pot fundamentally changing us? Is the arena of ideas — where Americans have historically tested competing beliefs — being shut down so as not to offend?

Recall 1960 when Americans considered it fair game to question Democrat John F. Kennedy about whether he would look first to his Catholicism or to the Constitution in making presidential decisions. Former Massachusetts Republican Gov. Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith has come under scrutiny during his political campaigns, sans shouts of profiling.

European nations that have led the West’s embrace of Shariah law have recently begun to retreat from their policies of “multiculturalism,” suggesting failure to maintain a single national identity has actually cultivated Islamic extremism in countries like Britain.

In a February speech at the Munich Security Conference, British Prime Minister David Cameron argued European “multiculturalism has been a failure” that’s fostered Islamic extremism, adding that the West has been “cautious, frankly even fearful” of standing up to it.

“We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values,” Cameron said. “This hands-off tolerance has only served to reinforce the sense that not enough is shared. … What we see — and what we see in so many European countries — is a process of radicalization.”

Something also gets jumbled in the translation when East/West cultures talk about democracy and its relationship with religion.

In 2008 polling conducted by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes, 82 percent of Egyptians said a democratic political system should govern their nation. At the same time, 73 percent said they supported stronger application of Islamic law in Egypt.

Of those, 68 percent said Egypt’s government should apply Shariah law to regulate moral behavior; 64 percent supported using traditional punishments like stoning for adulterers; 62 percent want the government to police women’s dress; and 59 percent said Shariah rules should be used to provide for Egypt’s poor.

So what does this all mean for Shariah in America?

The U.S. Constitution does not assign superiority to a particular religion. However, the idea that liberty is man’s God-given — not government-granted — right is a Judeo-Christian principle. America is exceptional because the people — regardless of how or whether they embrace God — allow government limited power.

America does not vest all authority in a theocratic government, where law and even daily life is dictated by a single religious code. But that does not mean the United States is Islamophobic, says New Jersey blogger George Berkin.

“[S]upporting the [Oklahoma amendment] does not make one anti-Islamic. But not being anti-Islamic does not mean that we should not insist that American legal principles — not foreign ones — apply here.”

Kathy Jessup is an award-winning, veteran journalist in Michigan whose writing career has focused on government, politics and criminal justice.

This article appeared March 24th, 2011 in Townhall Magazine,
http://www.israelunitycoalition.org/news/?p=6533

The Truth About Illegal Immigration

June 6, 2010

The following information is compiled from Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Homeland Security reports:

* 83 percent of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens.

* 86 percent of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens.

* 75 percent of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.

* 24.9 percent of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals

* 40.1 percent of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican nationals

* 48.2 percent of all inmates in New Mexico detention centers are Mexican nationals

* 29 percent (630,000) of convicted illegal alien felons fill Arizona and federal prisons at a cost of $1.6 billion annually

* 53 percent plus of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens.

* 50 percent plus of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens

* 71 percent plus of all apprehended cars stolen in 2005 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California were stolen by Illegal aliens or “transport coyotes.”

* 47 percent of cited/stopped drivers in California have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 47 percent, 92 percent are illegal aliens.

* 63 percent of cited/stopped drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 63 percent, 97 percent are illegal aliens

* 66 percent of cited/stopped drivers in New Mexico have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 66 percent, 98 percent are illegal aliens.

* 380,000 plus “anchor babies” were born in the United States to illegal alien parents in just one year, making 380,000 babies automatically US citizens.

* 97.2 percent of all costs incurred from those births were paid by the American taxpayers.

Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians

June 3, 2010

Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2009

Contact Information:
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305
Washington, DC Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2009 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The list, in alphabetical order, includes:

  1. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT): This marks two years in a row for Senator Dodd, who made the 2008 “Ten Most Corrupt” list for his corrupt relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and for accepting preferential treatment and loan terms from Countrywide Financial, a scandal which still dogs him. In 2009, the scandals kept coming for the Connecticut Democrat. In 2009, Judicial Watch filed a Senate ethics complaint against Dodd for undervaluing a property he owns in Ireland on his Senate Financial Disclosure forms. Judicial Watch’s complaint forced Dodd to amend the forms. However, press reports suggest the property to this day remains undervalued. Judicial Watch also alleges in the complaint that Dodd obtained a sweetheart deal for the property in exchange for his assistance in obtaining a presidential pardon (during the Clinton administration) and other favors for a long-time friend and business associate. The false financial disclosure forms were part of the cover-up. Dodd remains the head the Senate Banking Committee.
  2. Senator John Ensign (R-NV): A number of scandals popped up in 2009 involving public officials who conducted illicit affairs, and then attempted to cover them up with hush payments and favors, an obvious abuse of power. The year’s worst offender might just be Nevada Republican Senator John Ensign. Ensign admitted in June to an extramarital affair with the wife of one of his staff members, who then allegedly obtained special favors from the Nevada Republican in exchange for his silence. According to The New York Times: “The Justice Department and the Senate Ethics Committee are expected to conduct preliminary inquiries into whether Senator John Ensign violated federal law or ethics rules as part of an effort to conceal an affair with the wife of an aide…” The former staffer, Douglas Hampton, began to lobby Mr. Ensign’s office immediately upon leaving his congressional job, despite the fact that he was subject to a one-year lobbying ban. Ensign seems to have ignored the law and allowed Hampton lobbying access to his office as a payment for his silence about the affair. (These are potentially criminal offenses.) It looks as if Ensign misused his public office (and taxpayer resources) to cover up his sexual shenanigans.
  3. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): Judicial Watch is investigating a $12 million TARP cash injection provided to the Boston-based OneUnited Bank at the urging of Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank. As reported in the January 22, 2009, edition of the Wall Street Journal, the Treasury Department indicated it would only provide funds to healthy banks to jump-start lending. Not only was OneUnited Bank in massive financial turmoil, but it was also “under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives’ use.” Rep. Frank admitted he spoke to a “federal regulator,” and Treasury granted the funds. (The bank continues to flounder despite Frank’s intervention for federal dollars.) Moreover, Judicial Watch uncovered documents in 2009 that showed that members of Congress for years were aware that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were playing fast and loose with accounting issues, risk assessment issues and executive compensation issues, even as liberals led by Rep. Frank continued to block attempts to rein in the two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). For example, during a hearing on September 10, 2003, before the House Committee on Financial Services considering a Bush administration proposal to further regulate Fannie and Freddie, Rep. Frank stated: “I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two Government Sponsored Enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury.” Frank received $42,350 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between 1989 and 2008. Frank also engaged in a relationship with a Fannie Mae Executive while serving on the House Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
  4. Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner: In 2009, Obama Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner admitted that he failed to pay $34,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes from 2001-2004 on his lucrative salary at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), an organization with 185 member countries that oversees the global financial system. (Did we mention Geithner now runs the IRS?) It wasn’t until President Obama tapped Geithner to head the Treasury Department that he paid back most of the money, although the IRS kindly waived the hefty penalties. In March 2009, Geithner also came under fire for his handling of the AIG bonus scandal, where the company used $165 million of its bailout funds to pay out executive bonuses, resulting in a massive public backlash. Of course as head of the New York Federal Reserve, Geithner helped craft the AIG deal in September 2008. However, when the AIG scandal broke, Geithner claimed he knew nothing of the bonuses until March 10, 2009. The timing is important. According to CNN: “Although Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told congressional leaders on Tuesday that he learned of AIG’s impending $160 million bonus payments to members of its troubled financial-products unit on March 10, sources tell TIME that the New York Federal Reserve informed Treasury staff that the payments were imminent on Feb. 28. That is ten days before Treasury staffers say they first learned ‘full details’ of the bonus plan, and three days before the [Obama] Administration launched a new $30 billion infusion of cash for AIG.” Throw in another embarrassing disclosure in 2009 that Geithner employed “household help” ineligible to work in the United States, and it becomes clear why the Treasury Secretary has earned a spot on the “Ten Most Corrupt Politicians in Washington” list.
  5. Attorney General Eric Holder: Tim Geithner can be sure he won’t be hounded about his tax-dodging by his colleague Eric Holder, US Attorney General. Judicial Watch strongly opposed Holder because of his terrible ethics record, which includes: obstructing an FBI investigation of the theft of nuclear secrets from Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory; rejecting multiple requests for an independent counsel to investigate alleged fundraising abuses by then-Vice President Al Gore in the Clinton White House; undermining the criminal investigation of President Clinton by Kenneth Starr in the midst of the Lewinsky investigation; and planning the violent raid to seize then-six-year-old Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint in order to return him to Castro’s Cuba. Moreover, there is his soft record on terrorism. Holder bypassed Justice Department procedures to push through Bill Clinton’s scandalous presidential pardons and commutations, including for 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group that orchestrated approximately 120 bombings in the United States, killing at least six people and permanently maiming dozens of others, including law enforcement officers. His record in the current administration is no better. As he did during the Clinton administration, Holder continues to ignore serious incidents of corruption that could impact his political bosses at the White House. For example, Holder has refused to investigate charges that the Obama political machine traded VIP access to the White House in exchange for campaign contributions – a scheme eerily similar to one hatched by Holder’s former boss, Bill Clinton in the 1990s. The Holder Justice Department also came under fire for dropping a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party. On Election Day 2008, Black Panthers dressed in paramilitary garb threatened voters as they approached polling stations. Holder has also failed to initiate a comprehensive Justice investigation of the notorious organization ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), which is closely tied to President Obama. There were allegedly more than 400,000 fraudulent ACORN voter registrations in the 2008 campaign. And then there were the journalist videos catching ACORN Housing workers advising undercover reporters on how to evade tax, immigration, and child prostitution laws. Holder’s controversial decisions on new rights for terrorists and his attacks on previous efforts to combat terrorism remind many of the fact that his former law firm has provided and continues to provide pro bono representation to terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Holder’s politicization of the Justice Department makes one long for the days of Alberto Gonzales.
  6. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)/ Senator Roland Burris (D-IL): One of the most serious scandals of 2009 involved a scheme by former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to sell President Obama’s then-vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder. Two men caught smack dab in the middle of the scandal: Senator Roland Burris, who ultimately got the job, and Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, emissaries for Jesse Jackson Jr., named “Senate Candidate A” in the Blagojevich indictment, reportedly offered $1.5 million to Blagojevich during a fundraiser if he named Jackson Jr. to Obama’s seat. Three days later federal authorities arrested Blagojevich. Burris, for his part, apparently lied about his contacts with Blagojevich, who was arrested in December 2008 for trying to sell Obama’s Senate seat. According to Reuters: “Roland Burris came under fresh scrutiny…after disclosing he tried to raise money for the disgraced former Illinois governor who named him to the U.S. Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama…In the latest of those admissions, Burris said he looked into mounting a fundraiser for Rod Blagojevich — later charged with trying to sell Obama’s Senate seat — at the same time he was expressing interest to the then-governor’s aides about his desire to be appointed.” Burris changed his story five times regarding his contacts with Blagojevich prior to the Illinois governor appointing him to the U.S. Senate. Three of those changing explanations came under oath.
  7. President Barack Obama: During his presidential campaign, President Obama promised to run an ethical and transparent administration. However, in his first year in office, the President has delivered corruption and secrecy, bringing Chicago-style political corruption to the White House. Consider just a few Obama administration “lowlights” from year one: Even before President Obama was sworn into office, he was interviewed by the FBI for a criminal investigation of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s scheme to sell the President’s former Senate seat to the highest bidder. (Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and slumlord Valerie Jarrett, both from Chicago, are also tangled up in the Blagojevich scandal.) Moreover, the Obama administration made the startling claim that the Privacy Act does not apply to the White House. The Obama White House believes it can violate the privacy rights of American citizens without any legal consequences or accountability. President Obama boldly proclaimed that “transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency,” but his administration is addicted to secrecy, stonewalling far too many of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act requests and is refusing to make public White House visitor logs as federal law requires. The Obama administration turned the National Endowment of the Arts (as well as the agency that runs the AmeriCorps program) into propaganda machines, using tax dollars to persuade “artists” to promote the Obama agenda. According to documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, the idea emerged as a direct result of the Obama campaign and enjoyed White House approval and participation. President Obama has installed a record number of “czars” in positions of power. Too many of these individuals are leftist radicals who answer to no one but the president. And too many of the czars are not subject to Senate confirmation (which raises serious constitutional questions). Under the President’s bailout schemes, the federal government continues to appropriate or control — through fiat and threats — large sectors of the private economy, prompting conservative columnist George Will to write: “The administration’s central activity — the political allocation of wealth and opportunity — is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption.” Government-run healthcare and car companies, White House coercion, uninvestigated ACORN corruption, debasing his office to help Chicago cronies, attacks on conservative media and the private sector, unprecedented and dangerous new rights for terrorists, perks for campaign donors — this is Obama’s “ethics” record — and we haven’t even gotten through the first year of his presidency.
  8. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): At the heart of the corruption problem in Washington is a sense of entitlement. Politicians believe laws and rules (even the U.S. Constitution) apply to the rest of us but not to them. Case in point: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her excessive and boorish demands for military travel. Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Pentagon in 2009 that suggest Pelosi has been treating the Air Force like her own personal airline. These documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, include internal Pentagon email correspondence detailing attempts by Pentagon staff to accommodate Pelosi’s numerous requests for military escorts and military aircraft as well as the speaker’s 11th hour cancellations and changes. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also came under fire in April 2009, when she claimed she was never briefed about the CIA’s use of the waterboarding technique during terrorism investigations. The CIA produced a report documenting a briefing with Pelosi on September 4, 2002, that suggests otherwise. Judicial Watch also obtained documents, including a CIA Inspector General report, which further confirmed that Congress was fully briefed on the enhanced interrogation techniques. Aside from her own personal transgressions, Nancy Pelosi has ignored serious incidents of corruption within her own party, including many of the individuals on this list. (See Rangel, Murtha, Jesse Jackson, Jr., etc.)
  9. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and the rest of the PMA Seven: Rep. John Murtha made headlines in 2009 for all the wrong reasons. The Pennsylvania congressman is under federal investigation for his corrupt relationship with the now-defunct defense lobbyist PMA Group. PMA, founded by a former Murtha associate, has been the congressman’s largest campaign contributor. Since 2002, Murtha has raised $1.7 million from PMA and its clients. And what did PMA and its clients receive from Murtha in return for their generosity? Earmarks — tens of millions of dollars in earmarks. In fact, even with all of the attention surrounding his alleged influence peddling, Murtha kept at it. Following an FBI raid of PMA’s offices earlier in 2009, Murtha continued to seek congressional earmarks for PMA clients, while also hitting them up for campaign contributions. According to The Hill, in April, “Murtha reported receiving contributions from three former PMA clients for whom he requested earmarks in the pending appropriations bills.” When it comes to the PMA scandal, Murtha is not alone. As many as six other Members of Congress are currently under scrutiny according to The Washington Post. They include: Peter J. Visclosky (D-IN.), James P. Moran Jr. (D-VA), Norm Dicks (D-WA.), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), C.W. Bill Young (R-FL.) and Todd Tiahrt (R-KS.). Of course rather than investigate this serious scandal, according to Roll Call House Democrats circled the wagons, “cobbling together a defense to offer political cover to their rank and file.” The Washington Post also reported in 2009 that Murtha’s nephew received $4 million in Defense Department no-bid contracts: “Newly obtained documents…show Robert Murtha mentioning his influential family connection as leverage in his business dealings and holding unusual power with the military.”
  10. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY): Rangel, the man in charge of writing tax policy for the entire country, has yet to adequately explain how he could possibly “forget” to pay taxes on $75,000 in rental income he earned from his off-shore rental property. He also faces allegations that he improperly used his influence to maintain ownership of highly coveted rent-controlled apartments in Harlem, and misused his congressional office to fundraise for his private Rangel Center by preserving a tax loophole for an oil drilling company in exchange for funding. On top of all that, Rangel recently amended his financial disclosure reports, which doubled his reported wealth. (He somehow “forgot” about $1 million in assets.) And what did he do when the House Ethics Committee started looking into all of this? He apparently resorted to making “campaign contributions” to dig his way out of trouble. According to WCBS TV, a New York CBS affiliate: “The reigning member of Congress’ top tax committee is apparently ‘wrangling’ other politicos to get him out of his own financial and tax troubles… Since ethics probes began last year the 79-year-old congressman has given campaign donations to 119 members of Congress, including three of the five Democrats on the House Ethics Committee who are charged with investigating him.” Charlie Rangel should not be allowed to remain in Congress, let alone serve as Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, and he knows it. That’s why he felt the need to disburse campaign contributions to Ethics Committee members and other congressional colleagues.

JUDICIAL WATCH ANNOUNCES LIST OF WASHINGTON ‘S “TEN MOST CORRUPT POLITICIANS” FOR 2009.- GUESS WHO MADE THE LIST?
THE WHITE HOUSE IS NOT PLEASED.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/dec/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2009

There is a big stink coming from Washington, DC, and it’s time to flush America! Remember this in November and get ridof the corruption that is killing our country.

Arizona Enacts “Constitutional Carry” for Firearms

April 17, 2010



PAGE NINE — No. 84 — SPECIAL

Arizona Enacts “Constitutional Carry” for Firearms

by Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America

Get yours:

http://www.gunlaws.com/books.htm

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Full contact info at end
April 16, 2010

Arizona Enacts “Constitutional Carry” For Firearms

“Freedom To Carry” may replace so-called “Right To Carry” nationally

by Alan Korwin, Publisher
Bloomfield Press
http://www.bloomfieldpress.com

PHOENIX With governor Jan Brewer’s signature on the new “Constitutional Carry” firearm law today, Arizona becomes a beacon state for the nation on the gun-rights issue.

Arizonans, who have been free to carry firearms openly since statehood in 1912, will now be free to carry discreetly as well, without permits or red tape. Low-crime Vermont has had this freedom intact since Colonial days. The permit system remains in place but will no longer be required for discreet carry.

Alaska enacted a Constitutional Carry law in 2003, and Texas passed a limited version for traveling in 2007. Montana has enjoyed this freedom since 1991 on 99.4% of its land (outside city limits). These states experienced no increase in crime or accidents from the expanded freedom to discreetly bear arms in public. However, numerous dire warnings of “blood in the streets” preceded those new laws, but proved false. A list of circulating myths about the law, also known as “Freedom To Carry,” appears at the end of this article.

Arizona’s extremely strict laws on criminal misuse of firearms are unaffected by the new public freedoms, although a penalty for criminals got tougher. New language now makes concealed carry in the commission of a serious crime a felony. This led to support of the bill from police around the state. Formerly, that offense was a misdemeanor.

The intrusive government “permit” system in Arizona, introduced in 1994 with paperwork, approvals, fingerprinting, criminal-database listings, required classes, two mandatory tests, taxation and expiration dates to exercise “rights” is still available, but is now optional. Enormous police resources that could be going directly toward reducing crime have instead been diverted by the program into registering, regulating and tracking the innocent. About 3% of the public have signed up for the plastic-coated permission slips, though an estimated 50% of the state’s population keeps and bears arms. Official sources acknowledge they get millions of dollars per year from the permit taxes called “fees.”

“This new law brings rights restoration for the public, and an increase in freedom for law-abiding people,” said Dave Kopp, a lobbyist for the Arizona Citizens Defense League that requested and promoted the new law. “The people have the same right to bear arms discreetly that they have to bear arms openly, we are simply correcting statute to reflect that. If your jacket accidentally covers your sidearm, that no longer exposes you to criminal penalties.” A woman will be able to put a handgun in her handbag, go about her business, and not be subject to arrest.

The key changes in the law were made by repealing the infringing language in A.R.S. §13-3102, not by enacting new rules. A number of other changes were made in SB 1108, the bill that carried the Constitutional Carry law, and these will be described in plain English and posted by gunlaws.com next week. The new law will become effective 90 days after the legislature closes, or approximately in July.

“Opportunities for firearms training and gun safety can increase tremendously with this new law”, said Alan Korwin, author of The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide, the book that describes the state’s gun laws in plain English. “Instead of focusing on a tiny percentage of the market willing to submit to the permit system, smart trainers can now offer Freedom To Carry classes to the general public. We’re anticipating Family Days At The Range and Constitutional Carry classes to spring up statewide,” he said. Removal of the $60 tax for the permit represents a significant discount, he notes.

“We sold The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide by the truckload for five years before there was any CCW law, and expect to do the same now, though permit holders did become and will remain a segment of our business,” Korwin said. The Guide is now in its 24th edition, and a free update will be released shortly. The book’s publisher, Scottsdale-based Bloomfield Press, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. http://www.gunlaws.com

The permission-slip system is unaffected and offers some advantages to citizens. Other states recognize the Arizona permit under “reciprocity,” which allows permit holders to carry firearms when in those states (currently 23 according to the Dept. of Public Safety).

In addition, since permittees are constantly monitored through the criminal databases DPS registers them in, they can shop at retail for firearms without undergoing separate FBI background checks each time they make a purchase. Also, some people just get a sense of security by having a plastic government “authorization” card in their wallets, and they enjoy showing it to friends.

Another CCW-permit benefit is the ability to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol, as long as the restaurant itself doesn’t ban possession and the person doesn’t drink while there. Whether those various denials of rights will be eliminated in future legislation, making the general public equal to permission-slip holders, was unknown at press time.

Previously only people with government-permission cards in their possession could bear arms in certain parks. That ban was eliminated by a separate bill this year, which now makes permit holders and the general public equal.

According to MSNBC, some six million Americans have permits and carry discreetly. The fears of shootouts at stop lights, bullets for slow waiters and Wild West-style belligerence have been repeatedly proven false and dispelled as hoplophobic fantasies. Statistics have shown that crime uniformly drops when states reduce infringements on the right of law-abiding people to keep and bear arms. “Society is safer when criminals don’t know who’s armed,” according to the California-based civil rights group, crpa.org.

Sales of small easily carried sidearms and accessories are expected to increase with passage of the new law.

COMMON MYTHS ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY

Q: Why is the CCW permit being eliminated?

A: The CCW permit is not being eliminated — that appears to have been misinformation designed to scuttle the bill. The permit system remains completely unaffected by Freedom To Carry. The permit, its advantages, the training, reciprocity schemes, the classes, fees and taxes are unchanged. That all remains voluntary as it always has been. Anyone who meets that law’s requirements can apply. Shame on the “news” media that has repeatedly said otherwise.

Q: What’s the difference between Constitutional Carry and Freedom To Carry?

A: There’s no difference, they’re just two names for the same thing. Constitutional Carry, the more formal term, comes from following the Arizona Constitution’s provision that “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired…”. Freedom To Carry (no government interference with the right to arms) refers to the next step after so-called Right To Carry (massive government interference with the right to arms).

Q: If people can just carry guns, won’t crime and gun problems skyrocket?

A: Half of Arizonans keep and bear arms now, without any of the CCW red tape and government supervision, and without any “skyrocketing” problems. Removing the requirement to only carry openly doesn’t change who people are or how they act, it just restores their rights. Restoration of rights and becoming mentally unhinged are not related — but the same arguments have been made everywhere CCW programs passed.

It’s commonly recognized that some folks, especially people who lean left politically, do seem to equate discreetly bearing arms and becoming unglued. Decades of experience however provide no evidence of any such behavior. Those concerns have been repeatedly proven false and often turn out to be irrational fear mongering. Government permission slips for the exercise of rights have not turned people into homicidal maniacs. Restoring the right to discreetly bear arms will not change people into something they are not, and brings the state into proper compliance with its Constitution.

Q: Can anyone carry a gun?

A: Anyone who could legally carry a gun previously can legally carry under this law, no more, no less. “Prohibited possessors” — criminals, illegal aliens and others forbidden to carry arms remain banned as always. The main change is that now a woman can put a handgun in her handbag without being subject to arrest for carrying discreetly without a government permission slip (and a man has equal right to carry a gun in any discreet manner — under a sport coat or shirt, in a pocket or pants holster, fanny pack, attaché case, etc.)

Q: Training is a good thing, why was it eliminated?

A: Training is indeed a good thing and it is not eliminated. Anyone can and should take as much training as they want, which is voluntary. What has changed is that you are no longer forced to take government-mandated classes, registration and taxes before you can exercise your right to carry discreetly. This is the same formula working in Arizona since statehood for open carry (which includes concealed carry in your home, business, land, vehicle (with some minor conditions), and in a visible scabbard or case designed for carrying weapons, or in luggage. Now that the half of the public that bears arms can do so discreetly, many experts expect statewide gun training to flourish.

Q: Won’t people shoot each other if they’re not required to take the training?

A: Twelve states currently issue CCW permits without a training requirement and they’re doing just fine. Half of Arizonans exercise their right to arms without government-demanded training and they’re doing just fine. The idea that you’re only safe if government requires training is statist, foolish and incorrect. That said, responsible people should get education and training for firearms—and swimming, machine tools, medical care, raising children, being married, owning a home, preparing food, writing articles, etc., without government mandates.

If government could require training for everything that has risk, your freedom would be evaporated and your government would be out of line. Government has no legitimate delegated authority in this country to be your nanny like that, or to require anything beyond the specific, limited delegated powers given to it in the Constitution and subsequent valid legislation. The fact that government has in many cases abandoned those constraints is part of why the Tea Party movement has gained such ground and, in some cases, driven the public out into the streets with pitchforks (figuratively).

Currently, 11 states issue carry permits without training and they’re fine (AL, DE, GA, ID, IN, MD, MS, NH, PA, SD, WA). Because Arizona recognizes all other permits, many of our snowbirds have been carrying under those permits, without problems.

Q: Why are children of any age going to be allowed to carry guns to school?

A: That is total nonsense. No such thing occurs. The bill has no effect on children. That appears to be part of a misinformation campaign designed to scuttle the bill. There is no change as to who has the right to keep and bear arms. School grounds are unaffected by the law. That question is typical of similar lies and disinformation used to defeat and mislead the public about many good bills that seek to restore our civil rights. It’s almost as bad as the lies told about blacks during the civil rights era of the 1960s. Almost.

Q: Will other states imitate Arizona and enact Constitutional Carry?

A: Many people hope so, and it has the backing of the gun-rights groups.

AFTERWORD: INSIDER INFORMATION:

There is one reason and one reason only why this got done —
The Arizona Citizens Defense League.

That small handful of guys running this group, the two full-time volunteer lobbyists Dave Kopp and John Wentling, and the thousands of members who supported the effort with their tiny membership dues are exactly and precisely why our rights have expanded.

It was a deliberate, conscientious, focused and tireless effort from what must be a candidate for the best pro-rights organization in the nation. Get your friends to join, send a donation or buy a t-shirt or hat, attend the meetings, and in your little way, make a difference and preserve our rights. http://www.azcdl.org

One other tidbit — the NRA was rightfully nervous about this whole Freedom To Carry, permitless, no training, no red tape expansion of our rights. They dragged their feet at first, that’s putting it mildly, and I can’t say I blame them. An awful lot was on the line.

They wanted to be prudent. Limit exposure and risk. They have all their trainers to think about and that revenue stream. The chance of falling flat on your face in total embarrassment is a serious concern. The ease with which the antis might cast us as dangerous gun-toting (their media’s favorite slur) nuts is a real issue.

I personally debated hard with some of the top brass, and to their credit, they finally agreed not to fight the effort in Arizona, and eventually saw the light and got on board. Some gun owners like to pick on the NRA, but the NRA is going to be at the forefront of this battle. The Constitutional Carry issue does make sense, for them and for us. It will be a winner in some states, maybe yours, and does advance everything for which NRA members stand.

Yes, some of those members, steeped in darkness, or hooked on the government-permit feed trough, believe that red-tapeless carry is a bad idea. They crave government supervision. They want that permission slip in their wallet. They’ll learn, and come around. And continue to get fine training from NRA certified and other trainers because it’s the right thing to do, not because the government commands it. Appleseed is doing a phenomenal job in the training arena too, check them out while you’re at it. http://www.appleseedinfo.org

P.S. ORAL ARGUMENT ANALYZED

I have finally completed the long-awaited analysis of the oral arguments in the McDonald v. Chicago gun-ban case. Both attorneys took a whupping, but I think our rights came out on top. Justices showed their true colors (like Breyer comparing free speech to death by gun). It’s fascinating if you’re into this sort of thing, and way easier than plodding through the transcripts. Sorry it took so long.
http://www.gunlaws.com/McDonald_v_Chicago_Orals.htm

NOTE: On my website at last — The Woman’s Page
http://www.gunlaws.com/books15Women.htm

All our books, DVDs and other goods are listed here by category and alphabetically
http://www.gunlaws.com/books.htm

Contact Felicity Bower or
Alan Korwin
Bloomfield Press
“We publish the gun laws.”
4848 E. Cactus, #505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
602-996-4020 Phone
602-494-0679 Fax
1-800-707-4020 Orders
http://www.gunlaws.com
alan@gunlaws.com
Call, write, fax or click for free full-color catalog
(This is our address and info as of Jan. 1, 2007)

If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you’re reading this in English, thank a veteran.

“No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing
because he could do only a little.”
–Edmund Burke

Note to my regular readers:

It’s pretty typical to frame news like this by saying: “Arizonans are now allowed to carry firearms discreetly without a permit” but that’s just not right. That implies someone or something has legitimate authority to “allow” you to exercise your rights. You should start watching that deceptive word “allow” very carefully.

This press release is carefully framed to say: “Arizonans are now free to carry firearms discreetly without a permit,” because this is the American truth of the matter. Also note the use of “discreetly,” which is a civilized norm, instead of the media’s preferred “concealed,” which implies you’re doing something wrong and have something to hide. For more on good word usage in the protection of freedom, see my Politically Corrected Glossary, http://www.gunlaws.com/politicallycorrect.htm.]

Arizonans have posted valuable observations on the bill; unfortunately I didn’t preserve attribution in all cases:

And, on that note, I will chime in.  12 states have no training requirements for CCW permits [he includes NY, which is true in some counties].  Two of those are Indiana and Pennsylvania which have issued about 1,000,000 permits, compared to Arizona’s miniscule 150,000.  A few years back, NRA supplied me with their permit holder misuse statistics and they were lower (yes, lower) than Arizona’s.  Imagine that.  Since Arizona recognizes all permits from all states, that means that many of our yearly snowbirds are legally carrying concealed weapons from states that don’t require training.

Very well said. If anyone thinks the minimum training received during a CCW class sends the student out prepared to deal with the responsibility associated with carrying or for that matter owning a firearm. They are sadly mistaken. There are some CCW holders who have never fired their firearm since the class. Yet there are non-permittees that shoot weekly. You can’t legislate common sense or morals. It’s all about the freedom to choose to do the right thing. Don’t get me wrong — all gun owners should train and practice regularly. But not because the state says they have to. -Michael B Wixom Sent from my Blackberry

You ask why we would not make training mandatory? My answer is that it is a choice between liberty and some (mis)perceived concept of ‘safety’ — and we all know Benjamin Franklin’s opinion on that.

‘Training’ — to whatever level or extent — should be a matter of individual accountability, not government coercion. If an individual fails to ‘understand’ his firearm, or the conditions and situations in which to deploy it, and winds up a statistic, I consider it another splash of chlorine in the shallow end of the gene pool — no matter how noble the act might have been, the lack of personal responsibility is separate from the context.

On a more ‘practical’ note, what the state giveth, the state may easily taketh away — with interest. Once ‘government’ is satisfied it can mandate ‘training requirements’, what may they mandate next? Caliber? Number? Days on which one may carry? Arbitrary and capricious ‘conditions’ that must be met?

Note that I strongly advocate the individual do all in his power to obtain the best instruction and ‘training’ possible, and practice to whatever extent practical — ‘the heaviest thing about carrying a firearm is the responsibility’ — not because there is any government ‘mandate’ beyond the barely adequate 8 hours, but because I have accepted the responsibility that comes with the choice to go armed. Tangentially, the willingness of more citizens to accept the philosophy of ‘personal accountability’ is the key to restoring the republic, another of my ‘personal interests’. -Duke Schecter

Alan Korwin
Bloomfield Press
“We publish the gun laws.”
4848 E. Cactus, #505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
602-996-4020 Phone
602-494-0679 Fax
1-800-707-4020 Orders
http://www.gunlaws.com
alan@gunlaws.com
Call, write, fax or click for our  f r e e full-color catalog

If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you’re reading this in English, thank a veteran.

“No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.” –Edmund Burke

Guns Save Lives
Guns Stop Crime
Guns Are Why America Is Still F r e e

Wyoming Sheriffs Put Feds in Their Place

February 28, 2010

County Sheriff Can Bust Big Brother:

Wyoming Sheriffs Put Feds in Their Place

Keene Free Press


The duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county. He has law enforcement powers that exceed that of any other state or federal official.

This is settled law that most people are not aware of.

County sheriffs in Wyoming have scored a big one for the 10th Amendment and states rights. The sheriffs slapped a federal intrusion upside the head and are insisting that all federal law enforcement officers and personnel from federal regulatory agencies must clear all their activity in a Wyoming County with the Sheriff’s Office. Déjà vu for those who remember big Richard Mack in Arizona.

Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis spoke at a press conference following a recent U.S. District Court decision (Case No. 2:96-cv-099-J (2006)) and announced that all federal officials are forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval ……

“If a sheriff doesn’t want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional right and power to keep them out, or ask them to leave, or retain them in custody.”

The court decision was the result of a suit against both the BATF and the IRS by Mattis and other members of the Wyoming Sheriff’s Association. The suit in the Wyoming federal court district sought restoration of the protections enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution.

Guess what? The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs. In fact, they stated, Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official.” Go back and re-read this quote.

The court confirms and asserts that “the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official.” And you thought the 10th Amendment was dead and buried – not in Wyoming, not yet.

But it gets even better. Since the judge stated that the sheriff “has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official,” the Wyoming sheriffs are flexing their muscles. They are demanding access to all BATF files. Why? So as to verify that the agency is not violating provisions of Wyoming law that prohibits the registration of firearms or the keeping of a registry of firearm owners. This would be wrong.

The sheriffs are also demanding that federal agencies immediately cease the seizure of private property and the impoundment of private bank accounts without regard to due process in Wyoming state courts.

Gosh, it makes one wish that the sheriffs of the counties relative to Waco, Texas and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma regarding their jurisdictions were drinking the same water these Wyoming sheriffs are.

Sheriff Mattis said, “I am reacting in response to the actions of federal employees who have attempted to deprive citizens of my county of their privacy, their liberty, and their property without regard to constitutional safeguards. I hope that more sheriffs all across America will join us in protecting their citizens from the illegal activities of the IRS, EPA, BATF, FBI, or any other federal agency that is operating outside the confines of constitutional law. Employees of the IRS and the EPA are no longer welcome in Bighorn County unless they intend to operate in conformance to constitutional law.” [Amen].

However, the sad reality is that sheriffs are elected, and that means they are required to be both law enforcement officials and politicians as well. Unfortunately, Wyoming sheriffs are the exception rather than the rule . . . but they shouldn’t be. Sheriffs have enormous power, if or when they choose to use it. I share the hope of Sheriff Mattis that “more sheriffs all across America will join us in protecting their citizens.”

If Wyoming Sheriffs can follow in the steps of former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack and recognize both their power and authority, they could become champions for the memory of Thomas Jefferson who died thinking that he had won those “states’ rights” debates with Alexander Hamilton.

This case is not just some amusing mountain melodrama. This is a BIG deal. This case is yet further evidence that the 10th Amendment is not yet totally dead, or in a complete decay in the United States. It is also significant in that it can, may, and hopefully will be interpreted to mean that “political subdivisions of a State are included within the meaning of the amendment, or that the powers exercised by a sheriff are an extension of those common law powers which the 10th Amendment explicitly reserves to the People, if they are not granted to the federal government or specifically prohibited to the States.”

Winston Churchill observed, “If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fights with all the odds against you with only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is not hope of victory at all, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

10th Amendment:   Limits the powers of the Federal Government to only those specifically granted to it by the constitution.

What if there was no justice in Arizona?

November 7, 2009

What if there was no justice in Arizona?

By John Donnelly

What would you do if you were a successful dentist and had been falsely arrested and held for several months under charges that were made up by your scheming wife (long-term drug addict and alcoholic) who was trying to get a divorce, obtain a strategic position for custody of your two children, gain control of all your money and property by lying to police in order to have you kept in jail so she could loot your bank accounts (corporate and joint accounts), steal drugs (DEA controlled narcotics), patient dental records, personal firearms collection (99 guns, ammo & accessories)?

What if your wife and her lawyer, accompanied by the lawyer’s paralegal, the paralegal’s husband (a Phoenix firefighter) 2 Sheriff’s detectives and another un-named person came into your house at midnight while you were in the hospital, opened your gun safes and removed your ninety-nine (99) guns and accessories, supposedly under a court order, for placement at a gun shop for consignment? What if there has NEVER been any court order produced to show the need to remove your firearms? What if the detectives were supposedly there for a civil standby, but have no official documents requesting their presence? What if they never made an accurate accounting (make, model and serial number) of the items removed? (Chain of custody) What if between the house and the gun shop, thirty-three (33) of the firearms disappeared? What if the lawyer denied the existence of these firearms for several months, and in several certified letters requesting information, the truth finally came out that he and the detectives had bought some of these guns and ammo? (Grand Theft) What if the gun shop where the other guns were taken refused to give you a list of firearms that they received and subsequently sold? (ATF form 4473 – Federal requirement for firearms transfer) What if, under a court-ordered subpoena, they still refused to provide this information? (Contempt of court) What if the gun shop owners sent a letter to the judge on your divorce trial telling him that they sold a large number of your guns for about $3,000? (Way under market value)

What if your wife had been seeing at least 18 different doctors (doctor shopping) in order to get prescriptions for narcotics? What if she had been taking these drugs behind your back for several years? What if she was writing prescriptions in other peoples’ names, and calling them in to pharmacies for herself (using your DEA license) and getting more drugs in that manner? What if, in addition to the illegal narcotics that she was taking, she also was taking prescription drugs for depression and schizophrenia? What if you found out that your wife had been stealing drugs from your office as early as one year after you had been married? What if she met an attorney at the gun range whom she kept in contact with for several years, and used this attorney later when your guns were stolen? What if she obtained a confidential list of judges (and their home addresses) from this attorney, and this list was found in your vehicle when you were arrested? What if it is not illegal or unlawful to have a copy of this list?

What would you do if the attorney that represented your wife, had you allegedly sign papers (with her attorney acting as the Notary) while you are in the hospital due to a head injury and under heavy medication (vulnerable adult), giving her access to your corporate bank account, and then she promptly cleaned out the account of about $22,000? (NOTARY FRAUD by the Attorney, and conflict of interest, assisting another in commission of a Felony)

What if she (the wife) stole vehicles and property that belonged to the corporate trust and concealed their whereabouts? What if she stole your computers, over 2,000 patient records [HIPAA violation (Federal) Identity theft] gold, DEA controlled narcotics (drugs), DEA controlled substance logs, and prescription pads from your office.

What if your wife filed a restraining order against you in order to keep you away from your house in order to conceal the fact that she had cleaned out the house, safes and office, of all your money, property ($663,000) and possessions? What if she sold some of that property (that was not hers) in order to buy drugs, go on uncontrolled spending sprees, and take trips to Mexico and California?

What if the local police department assisted her in removing your property from your house, locked safes and office, and when you tried to report the theft of property, the police failed and refused to respond or act on the report or any other reports that you attempted to make and treated you in a hostile manner?

What if the wife was found passed out in the gravel in front of Walgreens, with an open bottle of rum? (PUBLIC DRUNKENESS) What if her employer drove her home from work, (the school where she teaches) because she was drunk on the job? What if she was drunk and running through her apartment complex late at night, banging on doors and screaming that she was sexually assaulted, and when the police came, denied it? What if the wife was charged with 3 DUI’s within 2 years, one involving an accident where she INJURED a young man, who was required to be in the hospital for several weeks for treatment and recovery, destroying his semester at ASU? What if she didn’t get any REAL punishment or jail time for these 3 DUI’s, and what she did get, amounted to a slap on the wrist?

What if during one of the DUI’s she was involved in an accident, WHILE your child was in the vehicle? (FELONY CHILD ENDANGERMENT) What if the detectives and county prosecutor were covering up all these crimes by the wife (a known drug addict and alcoholic), because she was the only witness that they had against you? What if the wife had tried to commit suicide on at least 2 occasions, while your children were in her care (drugs and/or alcohol) and CPS refused to remove your children from her home? What if her own daughter expressed to police deep concern for her mother’s behavior? What if the police came and made a report, called CPS and they did NOTHING about removing the children from this home? What if you weren’t allowed to see, or have any contact with, your own children for over 3 years?

What if her attorney, and the detectives who were present when her lawyer cleaned out your gun safes, (99 guns, ammo, and accessories) purchased some of these guns for much less than fair market value, and lied about it to you and the State Bar, for several months before being caught in a lie? What if this attorney “gave” one of the guns to his brother out of state? (Federal firearms violation – interstate transportation of a stolen firearm)

What if the Arizona State Bar ADMITTED that this attorney was guilty of lying and theft, but failed to file sanctions against him (censure) or recommend disbarment for his crimes?

What if the attorney that you hired to defend you, pretended to act in your interests and failed to provide a reasonable defense, (ineffective counsel) failed to file objections and motions needed in a timely manner, and all the while charging you exorbitant amounts and when you ask for an itemized billing, made excuse after excuse and never provided the requested information? What if this attorney also had possession of 12 of your firearms, (that were given to him by the wife’s attorney) and sold those firearms for his personal gain? (Grand Theft) What if this attorney knew of the firearms theft by the wife’s attorney and (by state law) FAILED to report him to the state bar for punishment?

What if the Sheriff made inflammatory public statements (SLANDER) to the media about you regarding the false charges? What if the Sheriff also put you in jail among the general population, endangering your life?

What would you do, if, while you are being held in jail illegally, the detectives who were working on your case, lied to the grand jury (PERJURY) about evidence that they had in their possession, that POSITIVELY cleared you of the charges that you were being held for?  What if they held you in jail for several more weeks, AFTER they KNEW of the evidence EXCLUDING you from the alleged crime? What if they made you pay a ridiculously high bond, ($360,000.00) that didn’t fit the crime, in order for you to get out of jail?

What if the county prosecutor called herself the “ANGEL OF DEATH” (and was so proud of this name she used it for her email name) and had previously worked with these lying detectives and was now trying to put you away for several felony counts? (CONSPIRACY) What if her motives were to keep you quiet, so the REAL TRUTH about the trumped-up charges, and her involvement with the lying, thieving detectives were never known?

What if the judges assigned to your case kept making delay after delay (usually 30-60 days) WITHOUT making any rulings, and then recusing themselves when things started getting hot, and judge after judge refused to hear the case, because it was a political hot potato? What if the judge kept making delays that pushed your trial date PAST the legally allowed time (over 3 years since your initial arrest) to deny your constitutional right to a speedy trial? What if the judge failed to follow both Arizona Constitution and the U.S. Constitution laws guaranteeing your rights? What if the judge got sick and never recused himself?  The Supreme Court acted to intervene, without obtaining his recusal! (More delays)

What if they finally got a judge from an adjoining county, (who continued making 60-day delays) that held a hearing in the next county, that you were unable to attend, (and judge refused to allow you to appear telephonically) because it would violate your bond release agreement?

What if the wife’s lawyers pushed this judge to revoke your bond to restrict your movements and hamper your efforts to get the truth, work on your defense and in order for your wife to try and claim your house to get money? What if you were put back in jail because of this supposed bond revocation?

What if a good friend worked all night to file a Writ of Habeas Corpus with the Supreme Court and they refused to order your release? What if the judge failed to follow both Arizona Constitution and the U.S. Constitution laws guaranteeing your rights? What if all the law enforcement officers, attorneys, prosecutors, and judges involved in your case were totally ignored the rule of law, violating both STATE and FEDERAL statutes and DENYING YOUR CIVIL and HUMAN RIGHTS?

What if, because of these problems, you were not able to practice in your profession, and have lost out on over $300,000.00 in income? What if your mother (retired) had been paying your bills and helping in your legal defense for the past three years, expending all of her retirement savings?

What if your attorney at your divorce trial was inexperienced and didn’t get any help in defending you after being asked to? (Ineffective counsel) What if he failed to file motions in a timely manner or even to object to the nonsense that the wife’s attorneys were pulling and just kept billing you $300 an hour for doing nothing? What if the police pulled your mother over on the freeway, removed her from the car at gunpoint, and took away the car she was driving, even though she had a legal right to possess the car? What if your attorney didn’t even check on the status of the car for several days, to try and recover it for your mother, until after the wife had picked up the car from impound?

What if, during your criminal trial, you were taken from your cell at about 5:30 AM to be transported to the courthouse, without having anything to eat? What if you were put in a holding room until court started at 9:00 AM, sat in court until they recessed for lunch, were put back in the holding room (without getting any lunch) until court resumed at about 1:30 PM, and were taken back to your cell after court adjourned at 5:00 PM and didn’t get any dinner? What if this went on for 4 days a week for the entire time of your 3-week trial?

What if, during your trial, the prosecutor submitted circumstantial evidence that was never positively linked to you by DNA or fingerprints? What if the judge denied every motion from your defense attorneys to present evidence that disproved the prosecutions allegations? What if the judge had been talking to other judges and had a preconceived notion of your guilt, even before the trial commenced?

What if this judge denied your defense, in violation of your Constitutional rights guaranteed by the Arizona and U.S. Constitutions? What if, the judge prohibited the defense attorneys from giving the sentencing guidelines to the jury. What if the jury, after listening to the lies fabricated by your wife and the prosecutors, failed to understand the true legal definitions of the charges against you because of the interpretation given to them by the prosecutor, and found you guilty on all charges?

What if the judge sentenced you to 17-year (123.5 years total) consecutive terms on each charge? What if the sentence was excessive for a non-violent charge and this was your first offense? What if your defense attorneys ask the court to grant them an executive clemency hearing and were flat out denied? What if they explained to the judge that his sentence was extremely excessive for a non-violent charge, and that if you had committed something like a rape or murder, you would have received less time, and would be eligible for parole and the judge denied them again?

What if, 2 days after your sentencing, while you were in county jail, supposedly in protective custody, you were put in a cell with a convicted murderer, (ex-Mexican Mafia) who knew several of the judges, attorneys, etc. involved in your case? What if he came up behind you at 4:00 AM and severely beat you and knocked your 8 front teeth loose? What if, when you were taken to county hospital for treatment, and when you were taken back to jail, you were denied ANY pain medication? What if you were taken a few days later to a state facility for classification, while you were supposed to be in protective custody, where 2 inmates beat you again while the detention officers turned their heads? What if you heard that there was a contract out on you, because the (guilty) people involved in your case didn’t want you to talk about the case or ever see the light of day again?

What if, a month after your trial, a copy of the sheriff’s detective’s report turned up, showing that they were at your house the night that your guns were stolen?  [and the report was concealed from evidence]

What would you do if all these things were TRUE? And you were not guilty of anything.

Would you finally believe there is no justice in Arizona?

IF you still have doubts, ask me – I have PROOF!

www.justicefordrkennedy.info


%d bloggers like this: