--- On Thu, 7/9/09, Stopxx SPP <stopxxspp@...> wrote:













 

Here It Comes


 Bet you thought this was dead in the water!

Believe it or not, this was on CNN-Lou Dobbs. Shows the extent to which

Obama and the Democrats will go to any extent to eliminate the Second Amendment,
and this

by using a foreign treaty as the process .... you need to watch this.,
You have to see this to believe it!!

  http://wearechangecoloradosprings.org/blog/?p=594





















--




--
STOP SPP is a non-partisan group of citizens concerned over ...
the creation of the NORTH AMERICAN UNION.
This will dismantle USA as we know it today.
Website: StopNAUStopSPP.org
http://stopnaustopspp.org/




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

<about:/>
Originally published 04:45 a.m., July 13, 2009, updated 05:15 a.m., July 13,
2009
Sotomayor faces easy route to confirmation
Kara Rowland<about:/staff/kara-rowland/>
(Contact<about:/staff/kara-rowland/contact>)

The Supreme Court confirmation prospects of Judge Sonia Sotomayor appeared good
Sunday as one Democratic senator said he expects her to receive more votes than
the hefty majority for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Republicans
indicated they don't expect a filibuster.

The Senate Judiciary Committee starts at 10 a.m. Monday the confirmation hearing
of Judge Sotomayor to replace outgoing Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter.
Judge Sotomayor, a member of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has met with
89 senators.

"She has wowed people," Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, said on
NBC's "Meet the Press." "She is going to be approved by a large margin."

Mr. Schumer predicted that Judge Sotomayor, who would become the first Hispanic
member of the nation's high court, likely would garner more support than Chief
Justice Roberts, who received 78 votes in 2005.

Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, said he doubts Judge Sotomayor will have a
fate similar to another Hispanic nominee to the federal bench, Miguel Estrada,
whose confirmation was filibustered by Democrats seven times.

"We're not going to filibuster Judge Sotomayor like the Democrats did Miguel
Estrada, who would have been on the Supreme Court, I would have predicted, if he
had not been filibustered and denied an up-or-down vote," Mr. Cornyn said on
"Fox News Sunday." "I think she'll have an up-or-down vote."

A filibuster would be a tough sell anyway because it would require at least 41
votes, which is increasingly difficult now that Senate Democrats have a caucus
of 60 with the seating of Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said President Obama called Judge Sotomayor
on Sunday morning to wish her good luck.

"The president expressed his confidence that Judge Sotomayor would be confirmed
to serve as a justice on the Supreme Court for many years to come," the White
House said.

Judge Sotomayor is expected to face questions from Republicans on several
comments that suggest her racial background influences her interpretation of the
law. One remark she made in a 2001 speech has been a lightning rod for
controversy.

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences,"
Judge Sotomayor said then, "would more often than not reach a better conclusion
than a white male, who hasn't lived that life."

"She has advocated a view that suggests that your personal experiences, even
prejudices - she uses that word - it's expected that they would influence a
decision you make, which is a blow, I think, at the very ideal of American
justice," Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the Judiciary Committee's ranking
Republican, said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "I am really flabbergasted by the
depth and consistency of her philosophical critique of the ideal of impartial
justice."

Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, shrugged off Mr.
Sessions' concerns as "grasping at straws."

"I've asked her about her speeches," he said alongside Mr. Sessions on "Face the
Nation." "And she said ultimately and completely, the law controls. And as a
judge, she's shown over and over again that ultimately and completely, the law
controls. Anything else is nitpicking."

Mr. Leahy stressed that Judge Sotomayor "has been a judge longer than anybody
who's gone on the Supreme Court in almost 100 years."

Republicans also raised concerns about Judge Sotomayor's decision in the case of
a group of white firefighters who said they were improperly denied a promotion
because of race. The Supreme Court recently overturned her order, siding with
the New Haven, Conn., firefighters.

More than 30 witnesses, including Judge Sotomayor, are expected to testify.
Republicans have given one of their 14 slots to one of the white firefighters in
the case.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Group.  I recently attended a Midwest Training Group course on Mastering
the Revolver.  Aside from tips on working the trigger on a revolver as
apposed to a semi-auto, I learned that wadcutters don't work well with a
speedloader.  I did great with RNL and SHP on loading from a speedloader,
but I dropped two loads during qualification.  Lesson learned.

Remington1858


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- On Mon, 7/13/09, Gun Owners of America
<Gun_Owners_of_America@...> wrote:


Should We be Surprised by Sotomayor's Radical Views?
-- Time to put the heat on your Senators as hearings begin

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org


"I
will be talking [to Judge Sotomayor] about the question of foreign law
and the question of [her] commitment to the Second Amendment, the right
to keep and bear arms....  President Obama, who nominated Judge
Sotomayor, has a rather limited view of what the Second Amendment
guarantees." -- Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), June 2009

Monday, July 13, 2009

Today,
the U.S. Senate commences hearings on Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was
nominated by President Obama to replace the retiring Judge David Souter
on the U.S. Supreme Court.

In many ways, Sotomayor's views are
out-of-step with our American heritage and with the views of Americans
in general.  For example, Sotomayor believes that our fundamental law
is constantly evolving and that rights are constantly changing with the
times.

But should we be surprised?  The President who nominated
her holds some of the most radical views ever held by a resident of the
White House.  His take on the Constitution -- and the Second Amendment
in particular -- has stationed him to the far left on the political
spectrum.

Consider just a small snapshot of his record over the years:

*
As President, Obama has nationalized much of the car and banking
industry and is now looking to do the same with health care.  Even the
Marxist President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, joked on live television
last month that he and Fidel Castro need to be careful or else "we are
going to end up to [Obama's] right."

* As a U.S. Senator, Obama
was ranked by the National Journal in 2007 as the most liberal
legislator in that chamber.  Realize that such a ranking put Obama to
the left of 99 other Senators -- including an open, self-avowed
socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

* Like many
socialists, Obama has supported some of the most extreme positions on
gun control:  supporting a ban on handguns, opposing the repeal of the
draconian DC gun ban, opposing the right of self-defense for residents
in the Chicago suburbs, and much more.

Obama's
brand of far-left politics sees the Constitution as moldable as a ball
of wax.  In a 2001 interview, he criticized earlier Supreme Courts for
"never ventur[ing] into the issues of redistribution of wealth....  It
didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by
the Founding Fathers in the Constitution."

Sotomayor appears to
have the same view of our highest document, as she stated in 1996 that
law is not "static and predictable," but "constantly overhaul[ed] and
adapt[ed] [by lawyers and courts] to the realities of ever-changing
social, industrial and political conditions."

ACTION:  Please urge your two Senators to vote AGAINST the Sotomayor
nomination.  Tell them to cast a pro-gun vote on EVERY vote
  related to Judge Sonia Sotomayor (whether it's a vote on sustaining a
filibuster or a vote on final passage).

Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your legislators the pre-written
e-mail message below.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

Judge
Sonia Sotomayor's views are out-of-step with our American heritage and
with the views of Americans in general.  Not surprisingly, the
Rasmussen polling firm reported on July 1 that more Americans oppose
her nomination than support her.

Sotomayor believes that our
fundamental law is constantly evolving and that rights are constantly
changing with the times.  But a majority of Americans disagree. 
Multiple polls have found that almost three-fourths of all Americans
believe that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the
rights of "individuals" to own guns.  Not so for Judge Sotomayor:

* She ruled in United States v. Sanchez-Villar (2004) that "the right to possess
a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

*
And earlier this year, Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel which
ruled in Maloney v. Cuomo that the Second Amendment does not apply to
the states.  This makes her more liberal than the Ninth Circuit, which
stated in the Nordyke case in April that the Second Amendment does
apply to the states.

Please cast a pro-gun vote on EVERY vote
related to Judge Sonia Sotomayor (whether it's a vote on sustaining a
filibuster or a vote on final passage).

I would like to hear
back from you on this.  Although rest assured, Gun Owners of America
will keep me up to date on any further developments.

Sincerely,
---
If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please visit
http://capwiz.com/gunowners/lmx/u/?jobid=128769079&queueid=3634277681.
   




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- On Wed, 7/15/09, Gun Owners of America
<Gun_Owners_of_America@...> wrote:

Sotomayor Takes Axe to Second Amendment
-- Won't answer whether she believes there's a right to self-defense



Wednesday, July 15, 2009


In defending her decision that the states could enact any form of gun control
they wished -- with absolutely no regard to the Second Amendment -- Judge Sonya
Sotomayor has developed a new love for Nineteenth Century court opinions.

Demonstrating that she was programmed in her responses, Sotomayor defended one
of her earlier legal opinions by citing "footnote 23" of Justice Antonin
Scalia's opinion in the DC v. Heller case
  last year.

But, when pressed by questioner Orrin Hatch yesterday, Sotomayor could not
recite the contents of that footnote or the holdings of the cases which it
cited.  As it turns out, the footnote on which Sotomayor claims to rely, cited
-- without approval -- two Nineteenth Century cases which rejected the notion
that the Second Amendment was 'incorporated' to apply to the states.

But those were also the days when the Supreme Court held that the rights
protected in the First Amendment did not apply to the states.  Apparently,
Sotomayor wants to base her anti-gun philosophy on antiquated decisions from an
era when the U.S. Supreme Court was spitting out racist decisions.

Her answers got even worse today when Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma
asked her, point blank, "Is there a constitutional right to self-defense?" 
Sotomayor said that was an "abstract question" and that she couldn't think of a
Supreme Court
  case that addressed that issue.

Coburn said he didn't want a legal treatise on what Supreme Court holdings have
said, rather, he wanted her own personal opinion.  Sotomayor would not answer
the question, although when pressed, she equated self-defense with vigilantism!

Folks, do you see how important it is to stop this nomination?  GOA mailed its
members postcards opposing Sotomayor not too long ago.  Please make sure you
have mailed those in.  We need a multi-pronged offensive right now where our
Senators are receiving snail mail, email and phone calls.

And, we need ALL PRO-GUN ORGANIZATIONS to take a stance AGAINST this nominee.

Organizational spokesmen can talk a good game and say they have serious
"concerns" about Sotomayor.  That's all well and good.  But unless those
organizations (big and small) rate each Senator's vote on Sotomayor -- when
she's clearly anti-gun -- then those supposed
  "concerns" are just meaningless.

Senators have to hear from ALL the pro-gun organizations -- big and small --
that they are going to rate this vote during the 2010 election.  Otherwise,
those organizations are just Paper Tigers.

We can't let this anti-gun judge infiltrate U.S. Supreme Court!  She is
dangerous on so many levels -- but, especially, on Second Amendment rights.

GOA considers her nomination to be of the most important gun votes in the
HISTORY of the US Senate.  We can't think of any other nominee in recent history
who has taken such a horrid stand on the basic right of self-defense.

She says that she will follow the precedent in the DC v. Heller (2008) case. 
But even if she does, that only means that she will vote to apply the Second
Amendment in Washington, DC.  She has already ruled this year in Maloney v.
Cuomo that the amendment doesn't apply to where you live.

-- Tim Macy,
  Vice-Chairman of Gun Owners of America

ACTION:  We need to "pull out the stops" to defeat this nominee.  Please contact
your two U.S. Senators today and urge them to VOTE NO on Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-written
e-mail message below.

----- Pre-written letter -----


Dear Senator:

Even though President Obama is extremely anti-gun, I still started with an open
mind regarding his nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor.  But after her testimony
these past two days, there is no way that she should be confirmed to the U.S.
Supreme Court.

When asked by Senator Tom Coburn if there was a right to self-defense, Sotomayor
said that was an "abstract question."  Sotomayor would not answer directly,
although when pressed,
  she equated self-defense with vigilantism!

How can the Senate confirm a judge to the U.S. Supreme Court who does not
believe in the rights that are EXPLICITLY stated in the Bill of Rights?

I also want you to know that Gun Owners of America will heavily score any vote
related to the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor -- whether it's a vote on
cloture or final passage -- for its rating in 2010.

Moreover, GOA is going to publish its rating so that millions of Americans can
see how their Senators voted on this most important vote.

GOA has told me that it considers the Sotomayor nomination to be one of the most
significant gun votes in the HISTORY of the US Senate, as there has been no
other nominee in recent history who has taken such a horrid stand on the basic
right of self-defense.

Sincerely,
---
If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please visit
http://capwiz.com/gunowners/lmx/u/?jobid=128984887&queueid=3648914411.
   





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

May I post a question about rifle cleaning?  Thank you.

Remington1858

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Absolutely, yes.

We are a bunch of free thinkers, here, with full permissions to talk about any
subject of possible interest.

At least, that's the way I set it up originally.

Rick
Colorado
^^^^^^^^^^

----- Original Message -----
From: "Remington1858" <Remington1858@...>
To: Combat-Handgun@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 12:00:00 PM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
Subject: [Combat-Handgun] OT Question About Rife Cleaning


May I post a question about rifle cleaning? Thank you.

Remington1858

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

"...there is but one answer to be made to the dynamite bomb, and that can best
be made by the Winchester rifle." - Teddy Roosevelt, 1887Yahoo! Groups Links





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thank you Sir.  Here's my question;  What technique/procedure do the Members
suggest for cleaning the gas piston tube for SKS/WASR/MAK90's?  Thanks
Everybody!

Remington1858

1 August, 2009 -





We, as computer users seldom read the "user" agreement when we install a
program - or access a website.



Here is a user agreement for a website that begs to be read - and demands a
lot more from the user than you may want to give!



This agreement is the one you must click-through to access the government
website about the cash-for-clunkers auto buy-back program:
http://varight.com/?p=1034

NOTE: The Glenn Beck video listed at the link, above, may not be available.
It was removed from YouTube last night for several hours - with the error
page claiming some violation of content agreement. The video appeared again
this morning.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Text of the Privacy Act & Security Statement at cars.gov:

"This application provides access to the DoT CARS system. When logged on to
the CARS system, your computer is considered a Federal computer system and
is the property of the U.S. Government. Any or all uses of this system and
all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied,
audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS, Dot, and law
enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies,
both domestic and foreign."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Once you've read the agreement, you can make up your own mind about whether
or not you want to cede the people in Washington virtually unlimited power
over you and your computer.

Some consider the wording in this agreement to be simple legal boilerplate.
A better position might be to realize that this rudimentary program was
created by elected officials of the current administration, and career
Washington bureaucrats - people with seriously questionable motivations.

If you want to go to the source for the "Requirements and Procedures for
Consumer Assistance to recycle and Save Program," - all 136 pages, you can
go here:  http://www.cars.gov/files/TheRule.pdf

Remember, these same elected Washingtonians are currently asking you to
trust them with a health care bill that prints out at nearly ten times as
many pages. White House and Congressional leaders have pushed to have their
health care bills passed without having even been read by members of
Congress - let alone being seen by the public!

What will you have to give up, forever, if Congress passes the current bills
covering the 'overhaul' of our health care?



1 August, 2009 -



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.40/2276 - Release Date: 08/01/09
18:04:00




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks Rick. It is amazing how in five generations this country has gone to hell
in a hand basket with no end in sight.

--- In Combat-Handgun@yahoogroups.com, "Rick A. Shay" <rick.a.shay@...> wrote:
>
> 1 August, 2009 -
>
>
>
>
>
> We, as computer users seldom read the "user" agreement when we install a
> program - or access a website.
>
>
>
> Here is a user agreement for a website that begs to be read - and demands a
> lot more from the user than you may want to give!
>
>
>
> This agreement is the one you must click-through to access the government
> website about the cash-for-clunkers auto buy-back program:
> http://varight.com/?p=1034
>
> NOTE: The Glenn Beck video listed at the link, above, may not be available.
> It was removed from YouTube last night for several hours - with the error
> page claiming some violation of content agreement. The video appeared again
> this morning.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Text of the Privacy Act & Security Statement at cars.gov:
>
> "This application provides access to the DoT CARS system. When logged on to
> the CARS system, your computer is considered a Federal computer system and
> is the property of the U.S. Government. Any or all uses of this system and
> all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied,
> audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS, Dot, and law
> enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies,
> both domestic and foreign."
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Once you've read the agreement, you can make up your own mind about whether
> or not you want to cede the people in Washington virtually unlimited power
> over you and your computer.
>
> Some consider the wording in this agreement to be simple legal boilerplate.
> A better position might be to realize that this rudimentary program was
> created by elected officials of the current administration, and career
> Washington bureaucrats - people with seriously questionable motivations.
>
> If you want to go to the source for the "Requirements and Procedures for
> Consumer Assistance to recycle and Save Program," - all 136 pages, you can
> go here:  http://www.cars.gov/files/TheRule.pdf
>
> Remember, these same elected Washingtonians are currently asking you to
> trust them with a health care bill that prints out at nearly ten times as
> many pages. White House and Congressional leaders have pushed to have their
> health care bills passed without having even been read by members of
> Congress - let alone being seen by the public!
>
> What will you have to give up, forever, if Congress passes the current bills
> covering the 'overhaul' of our health care?
>
>
>
> 1 August, 2009 -
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.40/2276 - Release Date: 08/01/09
> 18:04:00
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I've been informed that other federal web sites have such insidious
boilerplate in their user agreements, too.

Rick
^^^^^

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----Original Message-----
From: Combat-Handgun@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of straitpipe8
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 3:15 AM
To: Combat-Handgun@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Combat-Handgun] Re: Cash-for-Clunkers site user's agreement -
don't go there

Thanks Rick. It is amazing how in five generations this country has gone to
hell in a hand basket with no end in sight.

From the Glenn Beck Show:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAOBlqUqUZ8





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

debunked go to this link

http://www.snopes.com/computer/internet/clunkers.asp



--- On Wed, 8/12/09, SD <darby700@...> wrote:

From: SDhttp://www.snopes.com/computer/internet/clunkers.asp
<darby700@...>
Subject: [Combat-Handgun] Don't go to cars.gov--Danger
To: "Chris Bentley" <bluewatersailing@...>, "Chris Brown Jr."
<chrisbrownjr@...>, "Colin Jr." <sailorhoyt_jr@...>, "Colin Sr."
<sailorhoyt@...>, "Kerwin Connor" <medical_freedom@...>
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 8:20 AM






 





                   From the Glenn Beck Show:



http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=RAOBlqUqUZ8



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]































[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

anyone else own a smith and wesson model 3914

EVENT: 3 GUN "COMBAT" MATCH
DATE: Saturday October 31st
LOCATION: Cedar Ridge Range
SIGN UP: **0900HRS - 0945HRS**
INFO: WWW.TEXASTACTICAL.NET

ROUND COUNT:
Handgun = 40
Rifle = 50
Shotgun = 30 (Birdshot only)


Texas Tactical will be putting on a
3 GUN "COMBAT" MATCH on Saturday October 31st at
the Cedar Ridge range between Austin and San
Antonio. It will be in an IDPA style format.

Any and All Safe Shooters are welcome to attend!
If you would like to attend but do not have all 3
guns, there are usually plenty of people willing
to share a rifle or shotgun. If you bring Ammo
for the gun you are short ie: 12 guage (Birdshot)
or .223 someone will be glad to let you shoot
their gun.

Sign up: 0900 - 0945hrs


From our website:

"Texas Tactical holds 3 Gun combat matches at
various times throughout the year. The objective
of these matches is to allow people to become
more familiar with and to improve and test their
skills in a simulated CQC (close quarters combat)
environment with their 3 main defensive tools:
Rifle, Pistol and Shotgun. It also provides a
venue where shooters can show how well rounded
their "combat" skills are in one match.


Our 3 Gun Matches generally consist of 2 Handgun
stages, 2 Rifle stages and 2 Shotgun stages. We
will be using IDPA targets for the Handgun and
Rifle stages and steel, balloons and other
reactive targets for the Shotgun stages. IDPA
rules and scoring will be utilized! Use of
available cover will be required. No "competition
only" equipment may be used. All equipment must
be of a practical nature. If you have any
questions please Email us at:

texastactical@....

Map and directions to the Range can be
found on our website: WWW.TEXASTACTICAL.NET


MATCH FEE: $25




DIVISIONS OF COMPETITION:


Handgun:


Custom Defensive Pistol


Stock Service Pistol


Enhanced Service Pistol


Stock Service Revolver.


Rifle:


Iron Sights


Optical Sights


Limited Division
Limited Division is for those wishing to compete
with CCUs, Camp Carbines, Lever Actions or
anything else that has a limited ammo capacity.
(This Division will be limited to 10 rounds
maximum in your rifle.)


Battle Rifle
(Battle Rifle Division is for large caliber
service rifles, such as Fals, Galils, M1s etc.)



Shotgun: To keep a level playing field shotguns
competeing in the Manual and Autoloader Divisions
will be loaded with 6 rounds maximum to start a
COF. Open Division may start fully loaded.
Speedloaders are not permitted for any division.
(birdshot only unless otherwise stated by the
COF)


Auto Loaders


Manual


(Manual Division will include any Manually
operated shotgun, ie: Pumps, Bolt Action, Lever
Actions)


Open
(Open division is for shotguns with optics or
compensators. Shotguns used in this division may
be loaded to full capacity.)"


If You have any questions feel free to Email or
call. Hope to see y'all there!


Michael "Iron Mike" Webb
Texas Tactical
WWW.TEXASTACTICAL.NET

Michael "Iron Mike" Webb
Texas Tactical
WWW.TEXASTACTICAL.NET

If you haven't heard this before, the White House is accusing Fox News of
not being a legitimate source of news, calling them biased, etc.  They have
tried to block Fox reporters from news conferences, etc., NPR has put a
survey online for us to voice our opinion.



To vote, go to:



http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/10/in_white_house_vs_fox_news_war.h
tml



If you think the results of this poll will be reported fairly in the
old-media (or not), pass this email on to your own contacts.



Rick
Colorado

^^^^^^^^^



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Of course Fox News is biased.  But they didn't event biased news.  All
news has been biased for quite some time.  They are all run as for
profit organizations paid for by special interest groups.  The
conservatives just got tired of all the biased news being for the left
so they went out and built their own biased news for the right.  What
the White House should have said is that Fox News is biased to the right
and we prefer the biased to the left news agencies.  When Bush was is
the White House they loved Fox News but did not overtly try to ban the
left biased news agencies and the Obama White House is definitely wrong
for trying to ban Fox News.  The White House should not be allowed to
ban a news agency for disagreeing with their position so they should not
be allowed to ban Fox News but lets not kid ourselves that Fox is
unbiased  because that is a crock.

Rick A. Shay wrote:
>
>
> If you haven't heard this before, the White House is accusing Fox News of
> not being a legitimate source of news, calling them biased, etc. They have
> tried to block Fox reporters from news conferences, etc., NPR has put a
> survey online for us to voice our opinion.
>
> To vote, go to:
>
> http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/10/in_white_house_vs_fox_news_war.h
> <http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/10/in_white_house_vs_fox_news_war.h>
> tml
>
> If you think the results of this poll will be reported fairly in the
> old-media (or not), pass this email on to your own contacts.
>
> Rick
> Colorado
>
> ^^^^^^^^^
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

You are correct on all points, Robert. Wow, I can't believe that this
administration would even consider saying those things publicly. What part
of "freedom of the press" do they not understand?

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Robert D. Plemons <rdplemons@...>wrote:

>
>
> Of course Fox News is biased. But they didn't event biased news. All
> news has been biased for quite some time. They are all run as for
> profit organizations paid for by special interest groups. The
> conservatives just got tired of all the biased news being for the left
> so they went out and built their own biased news for the right. What
> the White House should have said is that Fox News is biased to the right
> and we prefer the biased to the left news agencies. When Bush was is
> the White House they loved Fox News but did not overtly try to ban the
> left biased news agencies and the Obama White House is definitely wrong
> for trying to ban Fox News. The White House should not be allowed to
> ban a news agency for disagreeing with their position so they should not
> be allowed to ban Fox News but lets not kid ourselves that Fox is
> unbiased because that is a crock.
>
> Rick A. Shay wrote:
> >
> >
> > If you haven't heard this before, the White House is accusing Fox News of
> > not being a legitimate source of news, calling them biased, etc. They
> have
> > tried to block Fox reporters from news conferences, etc., NPR has put a
> > survey online for us to voice our opinion.
> >
> > To vote, go to:
> >
> >
> http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/10/in_white_house_vs_fox_news_war.h
> > <
> http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/10/in_white_house_vs_fox_news_war.h
> >
> > tml
> >
> > If you think the results of this poll will be reported fairly in the
> > old-media (or not), pass this email on to your own contacts.
> >
> > Rick
> > Colorado
> >
> > ^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Original Message -----
From: Howard Potash<mailto:hpotash@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 5:23 AM
Subject: THE TRANSFORMING OF CIVILIAN POLICE AGENCIES INTO PARAMILITARY
ORGANIZATIONS


This is from my saved emails and after there have been a few members talking
about this I thought that I would send this out...
Sorry for the cross sending to the different groups...
Howard J.




       <http://eldoradogold.net/>





--------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Additional Titles<http://www.newswithviews.com/Schwiesow/jimA.htm>























       Other
       Schwiesow
       Articles:

       Sheriffs Need to Take The
Lead<http://www.newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest98.htm>

       More
       Schwiesow
       Articles:<http://www.newswithviews.com/Schwiesow/jimAhtm>



       <http://www.devvy.com/cdrom_sales.html>



       <http://www.newswithviews.com/HNB/Hot_New_Books33.htm>



       <http://www.newswithviews.com/HNV/Hot_New_Videos6.htm>



       <http://www.newswithviews.com/HNB/Hot_New_Books30.htm>



       <http://www.newswithviews.com/HNV/Hot_New_Videos12.htm>




      THE TRANSFORMING OF CIVILIAN POLICE AGENCIES INTO PARAMILITARY
ORGANIZATIONS








       By Jim R. Schwiesow

       May 8, 2007
       NewsWithViews.com

       I truly value the mail that I receive from the old timers of law
enforcement; they are a unique group of individuals. I used to love the
profession and the people in it. When I entered into the profession 48 years ago
it was a long suffering and put upon fraternity. The pay was rotten, the
benefits nil, and appreciation seemed to be non-existent. Yet the people who
filled the ranks were more dedicated and professional at that time than any
other group of people in this nation.

       Unfortunately I was a witness to a steady and progressive decline in the
profession during the years that I was active in the law enforcement community.
Ironically as the pay, benefits and other perks increased the professionalism
seemed to decrease proportionally. And it seemed that every individual overblown
local politician wanted a piece of the control over the internal affairs of the
law enforcement agencies within their districts. And, as if that wasn't bad
enough, civilian review boards and civil service boards came into being, and
somewhat later there were unions to contend with. Then the government with its
LEAA grants came upon the scene and law enforcement administrators gave away
what little remained of their control of their agencies to the feds in exchange
for the funds that tight fisted local politicos had, through the years,
consistently and steadfastly refused to adequately provide.

       Next, police professionals with law enforcement savvy who had progressed
through the ranks were being passed over for administrative jobs, and agency or
department heads were being selected by search committees, city councils and
city administrators from college graduates with business or administration
degrees. These over-educated and experience deficient administrators had no feel
for the profession and not an ounce of the common sense and wisdom that police
regulars acquire through long-time service. They were simply bean counters that
ingratiated themselves with the local politicians by kissing their behinds.
These new honchos hired grant writers and other civilians to go after more
federal money, and thereby assured that their agencies would be forever bound to
a dictatorial federal control. What they could and could not do in regard to
hiring and firing, setting internal policies, and a host of other
heretofore-autonomous prerogatives was now regulated by the fine print in the
federal contracts that had been accepted in order to receive federal funding.
The contracts were long term and binding, there was no backing out unless local
governments were willing to pay back huge sums of money, and they were not so
disposed or inclined.

       Whereas a job well done by competent professionals used to be the best
public relations tool that the law enforcement fraternity possessed, the new
yuppie commanders now felt the need to implement public relations programs to
sell their agencies to the public. Soon we had Officer Friendlys, McGruffs and
Crime Pups everywhere. Community relation's officers met with various civic and
social groups to establish a warm and fuzzy feeling between law enforcement and
the community. There were also programs to stroke the media. News conferences
were regularly scheduled to share sensitive information on departmental
activities. Soon it was necessary to satiate a newfound public desire for a
blow-by-blow account of agency investigations and other activities. Ingratiating
the agency with the media seemed to be more important than acquiring public
backing by dedicated professional work. It used to be that actions spoke louder
than words, but that seems to be no longer the case. And of course this was also
another way to tap into federal money, and get back some of the taxes that had
been forcibly extracted from local taxpayers. The feds were more than willing to
pony up more of the taxpayers' own money to support these public relations
programs and to firm up their takeover of the heretofore exclusive rights of
local law enforcement agencies.

       The local politicians, who had control over law enforcement agency
budgets, were becoming aware of these so called new found revenues and began
salivating like Pavlov's dogs at the thought of tapping into the federal
largesse of taxpayer monies. Soon law enforcement agencies, large and small,
were crowding around the federal trough like hogs on a feeding frenzy. Local
politicians made the acquisition of law enforcement grant monies a quest.
Sheriff's and chiefs were pressured to bring in more and more federal dollars.
If they were reluctant the politicians put the pressure on them by campaigning
against them in local elections by suggesting that they were responsible for
heavy local taxation by not bellying up to the federal trough. The people who
are always, it seems, gullible when it come to taxes, ate it up. I doubt that
they ever gave a thought to the fact that the money came from their own pockets
whether it was funneled through the feds or through the local government. The
prevalent thought was hallelujah; we're getting free money!

       Since true police professionals were in many cases no longer in charge of
law enforcement agencies, and given the fact that police administrators had been
frozen out of the hiring and firing process by restrictive civil service
statutes, civilian boards, union grievance policies, and the continual meddling
of county boards, city councils, and city administrators there began to be a
noticeable decline in the quality of many of the rank and file. Professionalism
slipped perceptively. To many it was now simply a job and little thought was
given to the principles that had been so important to the officers of the past.
Officers punched in and punched out of their shifts like factory workers. Many
others were disgusted with the change in the profession and simply left the
ranks and found their way to other vocations. The pursuit of benefits, wages and
early retirement programs occupied the minds of those who stayed. They were
being converted to a blue-collar worker's mentality, and they saw the old ethics
and the dedication of their predecessors as being tantamount to slavery to the
profession. To be absolutely fair I have to concede that some of the slippage
was tied to the general deterioration of society itself and to the newfound
commitment to moral relevancy in the nation. Whatever the case, law enforcement
officers were now ripe for an indoctrination that would transform them into
tools of the federal bureaucracy.

       The truth is that peace officers in the old days did not need fancy public
relations programs to gain the confidence of the people who they served. The
people understood that they were there to help them and to stand for them
against those who would do them harm. They instinctively knew by the demeanor of
their peace officers that their sole desire was to ensure that others would not
violate the person, the property or the families of those for whom they were
responsible. Peace officers in those days wanted the people of their communities
to be free from tyranny. The last thing on their mind was to enforce tyranny
upon the people whose interests they represented. They were of the people and
for the people. We have come a million miles from those days and all of it in
the wrong direction.

       Rather than acting as servants of the people too many law enforcement
officers in this day and age have become willing tools of a system that
despotically oppresses freedom, and forces upon the people thousands of
dictatorial decrees. The government bureaucracy that has seized absolute power
in the country has also seized control of the law enforcement agencies of the
land. And the rank and file thereof is used as soldier enforcers much in the way
that the mafia used its soldiers to enforce the tyrannies of that order, coldly,
cruelly, without conscience and with an iron fist. Law enforcement agencies all
too often now employ brutal tactics in their service to the state. Please notice
that I said service to the state, law enforcement officers no longer serve the
people. Read on for an example of the corruption of a once fine fraternity.

       In November a medically discharged United States Marine, Sergeant Derek
Hale, was cold bloodedly murdered by a police undercover squad in Wilmington
Delaware. The decorated veteran had traveled to Wilmington to participate in a
Toys For Tots event, and while in the city he was also doing a favor for a
friend by house sitting. He was thus involved and sitting on the front stoop
minding his own business when a police death squad screeched up and in proper
Gestapo fashion first tortured him mercilessly with multiple hits from a taser
gun as he tried desperately to comply with shouted commands to put up his hands,
and then executed him by pumping three .40 caliber bullets point blank into his
chest. In a matter of minutes an unarmed man, who had committed no crime and who
had served his country honorably in wartime, lay dead. Killed not by an enemy
combatant but by a domestic death squad comprised of law enforcement officers
who were carrying out the dictates of a totally depraved system. In order to
understand the absolute viciousness and inhumanity of these police agents I urge
readers to use the link provided for the full story. Death Squad in
Delaware<http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w10.html>.

       <http://www.newswithviews.com/DonateNWV.htm>

       Recently, Greg Evensen, a NewsWithViews.com columnist has written an
article Will you Stand, Fight, Hide or
Surrender?<http://www.newswithviews.com/Evensen/greg10.htm> In which, he
candidly and accurately describes the utterly putrid state of the nation and the
lateness of the hour. Greg is offering solutions. Something that we see very
little of in our wanders through the many written articles in regard to the
present corruptness of the nation.

       <mailto:newsforyou-list-subscribe@...>

       We have a situation from which extrication is difficult. It will take
courage, and Greg has courage. I have not met Greg personally, but I have
corresponded with him a number of times. He is a former peace officer, and one
of the old timers that I wrote about at the beginning of this article. He is a
believing Christian, and we are friends and fellow travelers. And he is right in
all that he has written.

       © 2007 - Jim R. Schwiesow - All Rights Reserved

       Sign Up For Free E-Mail
Alerts<mailto:newsforyou-list-subscribe@...>

       E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale





--------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Jim Schwiesow is a retired sheriff with 46 years of law enforcement
service. He served with the Unites States Army with the occupation forces in
post war Berlin, Germany, and has a total of nine years of military service,
which includes six years in the U.S. Army Reserve.

       His law enforcement service includes: three years in the military police,
fifteen years as an Iowa municipal police officer, and twenty-eight years as the
duly elected sheriff of Sioux County, Iowa.

       Jim has written a number of articles, which have been published in various
professional law enforcement journals.

       E-Mail: jimr@...<mailto:jimr@...>

       Web-Site: www.sheriffjimonline.com<http://www.sheriffjimonline.com/>





--------------------------------------------------------------------------



       Home<http://www.newswithviews.com/>






















       In a matter of minutes an unarmed man, who had committed no crime and who
had served his country honorably in wartime, lay dead. Killed not by an enemy
combatant but by a domestic death squad comprised of law enforcement officers
who were carrying out the dictates of a totally depraved system.



       <http://www.newswithviews.com/HNB/Hot_New_Books5.htm>




       <http://www.newswithviewscom/HNB/Hot_New_Books31.htm>



       <http://www.newswithviews.com/HNB/Hot_New_Books14.htm>



       <http://www.newswithviews.com/HNV/Hot_New_Videos1.htm>



       <http://www.newswithviews.com/HNB/Hot_New_Books24.htm>





       <http://www.1shoppingcart.com/app/aftrack.asp?AFID=182916>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

EVENT: Carbine Match
DATE: Saturday November 7th
LOCATION: **Cedar Ridge Range**
SIGN UP: **0900HRS - 0945HRS**
INFO: WWW.TEXASTACTICAL.NET

Texas Tactical will be putting on a Carbine Match
this Saturday November 7th, 2009 at the *Cedar
Ridge Range* between Austin and San Antonio,
Texas. Come one, come all...and bring a friend.

More info on the match can be found on our
webpage:
www.texastactical.net/matches/carbine.asp

The match is open to all SAFE shooters of any
age or skill level!!

Sign up is between 0900 - 0945hrs
(Please don't wait until the last minute)
Please make every effort to be ontime for signup.

For map and directions and more info on Texas
Tactical please visit our website:

WWW.TEXASTACTICAL.NET

If you have any questions or comments feel free
to email us at texastactical@...
Hope to see Y'all there!!

Thanks

Michael "Iron Mike" Webb
Texas Tactical
WWW.TEXASTACTICAL.NET
Michael "Iron Mike" Webb
Texas Tactical
WWW.TEXASTACTICAL.NET

Hello


I am looking for a firearm list year by year.
I would like to know what firearm existed at the year 1929 for example...

http://world.guns.ru/ is a gone one but they are listed by nation not by year :(

Thanks


Shadowi