Monday, December 31, 2007

Our Growing Islamic Congress

Some of our representative’s have voted for Ramadan but against Christmas; these representatives, obviously represent the theocracy of Islam at the expense of the Judeo Christian values that comprise the foundation of America.

By de Andréa

Would you knowingly allow termites or carpenter ants to infest and destroy your home? No??? Then why are you knowingly allowing the enemy of this world to infest your government? Just as these destructive insects, Islams purpose is to infiltrate, convert Americans, and destroy us from the inside.

For those that have had issue with me about the infiltration of Islam into the highest offices in the Federal Government, this is for you. It is clear that at least two California Congressmen have recently converted to Islam. If one supports our enemy the Nation of Islam, then one is a Muslim, is our enemy and a traitor. We now have three Muslims in our Congress, one a self-identified practicing Muslim, and at least two in California who have sided and supported Islam at the expense of our own Christians traditions. I call this evidence of the Incremental Infiltration into our government by the enemy of the United States and of the world. What would You call it???

Only weeks after voting for a resolution that "recognizes the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world," seventeen Democrats in the U.S. House refused to vote for a Christmas resolution that condemns the worldwide persecution of Christmas as well as Christians. In an act of intolerance toward Christianity (and Christmas).
California Reps. Fortney Stark and Lynn Woolsey have decided that Christian discrimination should be the rule of law. By their vote, Christmas is not worthy of recognition by the United States government and should be shunned at all costs.

Congress passed House Resolution 847 this week by a vote of 372 to 9 (Ten others voted "present" and 40 refused to vote at all.) to recognize the importance of Christmas and Christianity in America. The Christmas resolution acknowledged "the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world," expressed "continued support for Christians," noted the historical importance of Christmas, the role "played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States," and rejected "bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide."

Amazingly, Reps. Stark and Woolsey voted FOR a resolution in support of the Muslim Ramadan holiday just weeks ago! But when it comes to Christianity and Christmas, they have clearly demonstrated disdain and division for American culture and traditions.
They voted for H.R. 635 which acknowledged "the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world," expressed "friendship and support for Muslims," noted "the onset of Ramadan. It recognized the "commencement of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and commended Muslims in the United States and throughout the world for their faith."

If we continue to do nothing, the Quran (pictured) is what will replace our Constitution.

If you feel offended at this, then burn down a mosque. No, no, no, no, that’s what Muslims do, try the following, it is what Christians do.
To Take Action!

Representatives Fortney Stark (D-California) and Lynn Woolsey (D-California) voted "no" on H.R. 847 (for Christmas) and "yes" on H.R. 635 (for Ramadan).

Please e-mail and call to express your concerns over how they can possibly promote Islam in the same breath that they attack Christianity, the very faith that our nation was founded on. In addition to sending the email, I suggest that you call Reps. Stark (510) 494-1388 and Woolsey (707) 542-7182 and politely but firmly point out the embarrassment that the hypocrisy of their vote has brought upon your state.

Please forward this to your family and friends.

de Andréa

Saturday, December 29, 2007

Where is Homeland Security?

One cannot deny that if we had a real secure border with real border security we would not need this controversial and invasive department of Home Land Security. It is because our borders resemble a sieve that we believe we need to bail the boat. But are we even keeping up with the sinking ship?

By de Andréa

There is growing evidence Arab terrorists were continuing to use the Mexican border as an entry point into the U.S. over two years after 9/11 and in the midst of efforts by the Bush administration to effect broad-based amnesty for millions of illegal aliens including Muslim terrorists.

An Arab-smuggling ring was broken up in November 2003, it included a former Mexican diplomat who worked in Lebanon's consular ministry office and gave out passports this was amoung some of the most-recent evidence of terrorists infiltration. .

An Arabic journal found on the Mexican route to U.S., the legalization as a seasonal agricultural worker under the 1986 amnesty plan by the leader of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, growing ties between radical reconquista Hispanics and Muslim terrorists already pointed to a growing vulnerability on the southern border.

As I reported in August U.S. Counterterrorist Authorities fear that open borders provide a safe entry for Muslim terrorists. But the Band-Aid for bailing out this country is the Homeland Security Agency which has obviously done a remarkable job, but nevertheless the ship is still sinking.

Even though there is no real evidence of abuse of power, no other federal department since the beginning of this country has this much power with the ability to step all over the Constitution. Moreover, like any other power the government has, when the threat of Islam has passed, if it ever does, the Agency will turn to less threatening issues such as those annoying Christians and Jews with their religious holidays etc.

de Andréa

Thursday, December 27, 2007

Pakistan’s Nukes

As the chaos and riots rage on in the streets of Pakistan, one must wonder just who is in control of the nukes.

By de Andréa

There are nearly 10 million armed and well-supplied jihadists terrorists in Pakistan. The only thing keeping them from taking control of the fragile so-called Democratic government, is that they are not well organized. An Imam, Cleric or Mullah with enough power and notoriety could be standing between Peace and nuclear war.

The assassination of Pakistan’s opposition leader Benazir Bhutto is creating great concern around the world over the country’s sizeable nuclear arsenal.

Pakistan is the only Muslim nation with nuclear weapons, and the fear is that with the country falling into political disarray following Bhutto’s death, Islamic terrorists will seek to take advantage of the situation and attempt get their hands on some of the country’s nuclear weapons. Pakistan reportedly has as many as 30 nuclear weapons.

Bhutto was assassinated Thursday in a suicide attack that also killed at least 20 others at the end of a campaign rally, aides said. Even before her death, tensions were high in Pakistan, with many calling for the ouster of President Pervez Musharraf, who recently imposed emergency martial rule on the nation.

In November, Bhutto had said discontent was rising and the country resembled a “pressure cooker.”

Pakistan has already been implicated in the spread of nuclear technology. In 2004 Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, described as an “Islamic extremist” and “the father of Pakistan’s nuclear program,” admitted that he had sold nuclear technology to a number of foreign countries, including North Korea and Libya. Former FBI consultant Paul L. Williams wrote that evidence found in Afghanistan in 2001 indicated a link between Khan and al-Qaida as well.

The U.S. recently admitted that since the attacks of September 11, 2001, it has been helping Pakistan secure its nuclear weapons and the materials used to make them. Pakistan has welcomed this assistance.

The New York Times reported in November that over the past six years, the Bush administration has spent almost $100 million on a highly classified program to help Musharraf secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

There has been a growing armed terrorist insurgency in the areas bordering Afghanistan that has been spreading into Pakistan’s major cities. Moreover, with Bhutto’s death, turmoil in Pakistan is bound to increase.

While the U.S. has been watching Iran’s growing nuclear program, the threat of an Islamic Jihad in Pakistan has surreptitiously been an escalating reality.

The burning question is, will we have to abandon Iraq in order to head off a jihadists takeover of the Pakistani government and protect Pakistan’s nukes from falling into the hands of Al Qaida or Taliban. This may just be something like trying to juggle seven glass balls, a marginal feat at best.

One just might want to pray…a lot…

de Andréa


Either Arnold does not recognize what he did by recently signing two crucial bills into law, or, he gave in to the liberal agenda and political pressure of disarming America. I hate to say that he may have also taken a political bribe, but that is always a possibility.

Ninth and final in a series
By de Andréa

The British are coming, the British are coming. This is what Paul Revere shouted all over the countryside just before the revolutionary war. What do you think the British were coming to do, collect taxes? No, they were coming to collect the guns, to disarm the American colonists, so they could continue with their oppressive tyranny---unchallenged.

This by the way, is the primary (forgotten) reason for the Second Amendment …”being necessary to the security of a free State,”…

On October 13, 2007 Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, signed Assembly bills 1471 and 821 into law. A.B. 1471 will effectively lay the groundwork for a total ban on at least all semi auto guns, possibly all new guns period. [The oppressors are coming, the oppressors are coming] Moreover, A.B. 821 does the same for the banning, or the control of ammunition. California may just be the first State to be disarmed. The question is, will the other States follow suite. Remember, as California goes, so goes the Nation.

I cannot tell you how disappointed I am in Governor Schwarzenegger; who, while he was running for governor said he was an advocate of, and supported the Second Amendment. As far as I am concerned, he should go back to Austria, where he can live under the oppression of socialism that he obviously supports. He who does not support the Second Amendment, which is the last line of defence against tyranny, does not support the freedom of this Republic. In case one wants to know who said that, I did…

I cannot say exactly why the Governor flip-flopped on supporting this most basic American inalienable right, because I do not know, but there are at least three possible motives. One, he lied and is really a liberal socialist. Two, he crumbled under the political pressure of the leftist’s elites such as Diane Feinstein and the Brady Bunch, as well as the ecocreeps. Or three, he took a political bribe from the only corporation with the registered patent to carry out the micro-stamping demanded by one of the new laws. Now there maybe a forth, which is all of the above.

In the past, I have always received a reply from the “Terminator” regarding bills, but regarding these two bills there was a notable silence…

To cut to the chase of these two bills I will explain: A.B. 1471 is the stamping of the guns serial number on the rim or primer of the expended and ejected shell by the firing pin or the bolt. If the purpose is not obvious then I will explain. The misguided theory is that when a crime is committed with a gun, it is always committed with a semi-auto handgun, which is of course properly registered to the criminal who is using the gun in the commission of the crime. Now I said semi-auto because that is the only type of gun that ejects its shells after each single shot, one at a time. This is because it has only one chamber. A revolver on the other hand usually has from six to eight chambers and it retains the shells to be ejected all at once, at a later time. Even though the micro-stamping could be applied to both a revolver and a semi-auto, the chances of finding ejected shells from a revolver is about 1 in 1000. This is because one can fire all the rounds of ammunition before one needs to manually eject and then only in order to reload, consequently shells from a revolver are not generally found at a crime scene.

Some statistics
82 percent of all crimes committed with a gun, are committed with a revolver, leaving only an 18 percent chance of even finding any ejected shells, that is, if the crime was even committed with a gun.

75 percent of all violent crimes, and 34 percent of all murders and 65 percent of all robberies are committed without any kind of a gun at all, as well as 55 percent of crimes committed with a gun the gun is never fired, leaving an infinitesimal chance of even finding an ejected shell at any crime scene.

Then if that is not enough, only guns manufactured after January 1, 2010 will be subject to the new law. What are we going to do then, pass another law that says one can only commit a crime with a new gun??? If that isn’t enough, during the test firing of the prototypes only 23 percent left a readable series of charters imprinted on the shell, and as I said, if that is not enough the imprint stamped on the firing pin or the bolt can easily be removed with a piece of common household sand paper rendering the whole project useless. Not to mention the fact that criminals cannot be forced to register their firearms under the self-incrimination clause of Fifth Amendment. So if there were even a .01 percent chance of finding an imprinted shell at a crime scene it would likely not be traceable to the perpetrator of the crime. Not to mention that a smart criminal could easily procure some spent cartridges from a shooting range, sprinkle them at a crime scene, and really create a big problem causing the arrest of innocent people for registering their micro-stamped guns and shooting at a gun range.

Oh, that is not even the good part, since California is the only state with the micro-stamping law there is no manufacturer in the world that is going to spend the money on retooling their entire production for just the sales in California. Sales of new guns will thus be illegal in California, in a de-facto gun ban on all new guns in the state...

Remember this all in the name of stopping crime, if Schwarzenegger was so concerned about catching criminals, why then is he letting them go in this recent biggest convict early release in history?.

The only thing this law does do with regard to crime, is to possibly make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens, as is the potential of all illegal gun control laws.

Moreover, if the manufacturers ever do retool to accommodate this perverted idea of fighting crime, it will add an average of 150 to 175 dollars to the cost of a gun, a good windfall for the micro-stampers. So you see it does serve a purpose. I wonder if Arnold is getting a piece of that action???

Ban on lead
Then we have A.B. 821 prompted by the eco-freaks that outlaws all lead ammunition. Guess what, all ammunition by law is lead except shot pellets, and they are mostly steel now, which is what is used on birds. A steel bullet on the other hand would be an armor-piercing bullet and therefore illegal, so I guess this is another de-facto ban, this time on ammunition.

The liberal America hating anti-Constitutional socialists used the tree hugging ecocreeps to push this one. The turkey vulture called the California Condor, has lead in its blood. Well we all have lead in our blood, as well as a plethora of other metals good and bad. The issue should be, which it is not, are there toxic levels of lead in the birds blood, and does it come from bullets?

According to ecologist Molly Church of the University of California at Santa Cruse, lead imbedded in the carcasses that Condors feed on is the principal source of lead in the bird’s blood. You no, I did not know that Condors used shotguns to bring down their prey; well one learns something new everyday, doesn’t one. Nevertheless, the study failed not only to find toxic levels of lead, but also failed to prove that since the birds have normal levels of lead that it did not come from the normal static background source, the same source from which we all ingest lead. Lead used in bullets is an alloy, the normal levels of lead found in the blood of these birds is pure lead oxide found in trace amounts in the soil and in most foods as well as water.

Don Saba, a research scientist in biochemistry and medicine, reviewed Church’s study and found the study purposely omitted the critical data that showed the lead in the birds’ blood was not the type used in ammunition. But as usual, don’t confuse us with the scientific facts, it is all about airhead ecology and politics and power and control and… well anything but the truth.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Again, laws that are made to take away the rights of law-abiding citizens instead of punishing criminals that violate citizen’s rights, are not laws, but tyranny. The purpose of law, according to Frederic Bastiat, is to protect our inalienable rights of freedom. The whole idea of gun control to fight crime is an illegal bad joke, played on the American law abiding citizen. If for no other reason, but that it is illegal under the Fifth Amendment to force anyone to incriminate themselves such as being forced to register a gun that one intends to use in the commission of a crime, it would be forced self-incrimination and therefore a Constitutional violation.. Gun control laws are also illegal under the Second and the Tenth Amendment as well as half dozen places in the main body of the U.S. Constitution. But then who pays any attention to the Constitution these days? Certainly not the lawmakers or the courts: The purpose of gun control is not crime control but people control. It has no place in a free sociality. Gun control does not prevent crime it enables it.

Hopefully in this coming year the U.S. Supreme Court will do its job for a change, which is to uphold the Constitution, and restore the rights (which have been reduced to restricted privileges) documented in the bill passed by the first and only State Constitutional Convention in our history. The First Ten Amendments, known as the Bill of our God given basic inalienable rights.

de Andréa

"I have a right to nothing which another has a right to take away.” -- Thomas Jefferson to Uriah Forrest, 1787. Papers, 12:477.

Saturday, December 22, 2007


Thank God, Jean Assam directly or indirectly, stopped the violent attack at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs. The former police officer and volunteer security guard who made the suggestion to beef up security at the church without question saved the lives of perhaps fifty or more people.

Eighth in a series
By de Andréa

This is a real conundrum for the anti-gun liberal elites. Normally, a gun-waving psychopath is a poster child for their counterintuitive argument that firearms cause crime. This is related to the entire liberal philosophy that individuals are in some way not responsible for their actions but must be goaded into bad behavior by either society or some evil talisman that creates within them the desire to do harm others. What actually disturbs them is the symbolic nature of the firearm and its association with the individualism of the “wild, wild west” where there was actually less crime per capita than now, because the “good-guys” were armed.

Sigmund Freud, in his “General Introduction to Psychoanalysis wrote, “A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” Fear of firearms is, in most cases, not related to a fear of crime but likely is associated with disagreement over the idea of singular liberties attached to citizens, which conflicts with the centralizing nature of government.

The simplicity of rule by fiat is always hampered by the stubborn speed-bump of individual rights. The right to own a firearm, and by implication the ability to protect one’s environment without the constant need of organizational interference implies the ability to function at a basic and important level without total surrender of one’s individual rights to the socialists contract.

This unique aspect of American culture was given birth by British confiscation of colonists’ property [which through liberal legislation has now returned to this country]. This symbolic period was the romanticized Wild West, where it was said, “God did not make men equal, Colonel Colt did.”

Firearms by themselves may not have made men free or keep them so in today’s world. Nevertheless, their ownership at least demonstrates the citizens alliance with, and not the dominance by, ones own government.

As is often the case, this unique aspect of American culture is most recognized by those off our shores. British author George Orwell recognized this symbolic and important feature by noting, “That rifle on the wall of the laborer’s cottage or working class flat, is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”

This bit of obvious Americana however, seems to be difficult to grasp and is totally ignored by some of our own politicians: “If I could have banned them all — (and said) ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ — I would have!” declared U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-California, on the TV program “60 Minutes” on Feb. 5, 1995. Typical of the hypocritical elitists attitude of the Diane Feinstein’s of her generation, is the fact that she carries a 38 snub-nosed revolver in her purse, after all, she considers herself as one of the collective elites who has the right, we are simply the subjects with the privileges.

However, this fear of firearms and desire to eliminate them is relatively new, even for the left wing liberals.

“The right of citizens to keep and bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which may deceivingly appear remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible,” Democrat Hubert Humphrey, vice president and presidential candidate in 1968.

Humphrey’s remarks were significant because it was during this period that the swelling demographic of the liberal socialists’ generation and its coddled attitudes fostered by parents, and survivors of the Depression and World War II, began to make itself apparent. As is often the case with heirs to self-made fortunes, parent’s desire that their children have an easier time than they did, often not recognizing that it was just such difficulties that properly molded their future.

THE BOTTOM LINE: The liberal minded desire not to be held accountable or to be forced to take responsibility for ones actions has led to a never-ending stream of misguided theories that seek to distance people from reality. It is from this witches brew of self-indulgence and externalization of wrongdoing that modern gun control was born.

Moreover, at the root of the “law verses crime” issue is the misconception that the purpose of law is to prevent crime. As a result, we just continue making new laws hoping that we will someday hit on just the right law, and crime will just go away.

This ignorance of the purpose of law sets up a vicious cycle of more laws, more crime. It is time that we revisit the experience of our founders as they wrote the Second Amendment, which was not to make a law, but to document a right. …”the right of the people to keep and bear arms shell not be infringed.” John Lott an American economist proved in his book by the same name, that MORE GUNS LESS CRIME. The answer to crime prevention is personal responsibility, not more laws. Nevertheless, we will just continue making more laws and creating more crime, until we are all criminals…

Think about it.

de Andréa .

Friday, December 21, 2007


The court must take very careful aim at Second Amendment

The following article, is in response to the recent District of Columbia ruling on the D.C. gun ban of 1976, and subsequent resent appeal to the U.S. Supreme court. It is written by former congressman and U.S. Attorney Bob Barr, who practices law in Atlanta and is a board member of the National Rifle Association; See if you agree with “Mr. Barr” or “de Andréa of The Bottom Line”…
The seventh in a series

By BOB BARRPublished on: 11/28/07

— Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States…
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.“

“In announcing last week that the U.S. Supreme Court would decide whether a lower-court decision last spring invalidating the District of Columbia's 31-year-old handgun ban should stand, the high court teed up a modern-day "shot heard 'round the world" that may very well define whether freedom retains any life breath in this country.

Since its adoption as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791, the Second Amendment has generated controversy far beyond its short, 27-word length. Yet, surprisingly, in all those 216 years, the Supreme Court has never ruled definitely on the amendment's reach. Does it, as the District of Columbia and a number of federal courts have decided, simply codify a collective right of an organized "militia" to arm itself? Or, as other courts and judges have concluded — including Senior Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman of the federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, who wrote the decision in the case the Supreme Court will hear in its current term — does the Second Amendment guarantee the right of an individual to possess firearms for self-defense?

While many modern-era opinions issued by federal courts, including the Supreme Court, are distressingly complex and convoluted, Silberman's published decision is not. His 58-page majority decision is remarkably lucid; legally sound and historically based. It is written for the layperson as well as the law school honors graduate; and, most important, it is written to appeal to the moderate among the Supreme Court's nine.

Clearly with an eye toward his superiors on the high court, Silberman did not in his decision claim the Second Amendment serves to ban any government restriction of the individual right to keep and bear arms. Drawing analogy to the First Amendment's language (the amendment most often cited by more liberal jurists as the embodiment of individual rights against the restrictive power of the government), Silberman noted that both amendments may be held subject to "reasonable restrictions.” The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, but it does not shield the irresponsible shouting of "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Similarly, the Second Amendment's language guaranteeing the fundamental, pre-existing right to "keep and bear arms" for self-defense is subject to reasonable limitations by government.

As noted by Silberman, drawing also on the historical notion of the "militia" as a citizen-based — not a government-based — self-defense entity, the Second Amendment must be held to guarantee to the individual citizen the right to possess those sorts of "arms" commonly and reasonably employed by a "citizen army"; namely, rifles and pistols. Importantly, however, the judge recognized in his opinion that the same reasoning underlying the conclusion that the amendment in fact guarantees an individual right to possess firearms, may — indeed should — be read to allow government to prohibit possession or restrict use of weapons not commonly or reasonably employed for self-defense. Thus, weapons employed collectively, as by a government armed service, such as cannon or other weapons of mass destruction, might properly be restricted.

Likewise, and also cognizant of the desire by many Supreme Court justices to find solid middle ground, Silberman's opinion recognized that government may also limit the manner in which an individual might exercise his or her inherent right to possess a firearm. Thus, for example, the "state" (that is, the "government") might restrict concealed carry of a firearm, as many states and the District of Columbia have done. However, if the government entity places such onerous restrictions on the exercise of the right as to render it meaningless — as the District of Columbia did with its draconian 1976 gun-control ordinance — then it has impermissibly deprived the citizenry of a right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

Whether one owns firearms or not — or ever intends to — the Silberman opinion in the D.C. gun-ban case should be a must-read for anyone wishing to understand what the Bill of Rights was, is and was intended to be. All who support the fast-disappearing freedoms guaranteed within its four corners should hope fervently that the Supreme Court of the United States will, before it adjourns next summer, render a similarly sound and supportive opinion in the case Silberman has so masterfully served up”.
THE BOTTOM LINE: I recognize that I am considered an extremist especially in this area, however that being said, I would like to ask you to think outside the box and challenge this common line of thought concerning a “Living Constitution” by asking the question: don’t you think that the framers thought about yelling fire in a crowded theater? I mean there certainly was fire in those days as well as theaters. Moreover, if that were an issue of law, wouldn’t they have made an exception in the first Amendment to cover such a case?

My challenge is that they did think of it as a non-Issue, because of common responsibility. In other words because we have the right of unfettered speech documented by the First Amendment, I can only assume that the framers recognized that if one would yell fire in a crowded theater and as a result someone was injured or killed that there would be a responsibility for the action of the false alarm. Put another way, one is already responsible for a deliberate act that would bring about harm or death to an individual or individuals. We should not make a law against the act itself of yelling fire, even if there is no fire. One would simply be responsible for the consequences if any, for exercising, or in this case, abusing ones right of free speech. This should be true in the act of exercising any inalienable right.

We must recognize that any encroachment or infringement on a right nullifies or impugns the right completely and transforms what is left of it into a privilege. Moreover, it then becomes a slippery slope for the destruction of even the privilege. I.e. do you believe that the Framers meant to have an exception for hate speech, which is also now illegal? Again if there were meant to be any exceptions to the right of free speech it would have been duly noted. Surely, they knew about hate 200 years ago. What kind of speech next, will be illegal, until even the privilege is gone? Remember a second, third and subsequent steps are just a repeat of the first. Some politicians already believe that your rights are instead privileges, watch a video by John Edwards where he says that the second amendment is a privilege. This is the result of this first step of illegal infringement upon any of our rights. .

As for the Second Amendment, again the same should apply. The act of making it illegal for anyone to carry a gun is a violation of ones inalienable right as documented by the Amendment to Constitutional Law. For the same reason the framers specifically made it clear that under no circumstances can the right to keep and bear arms be infringed. They knew that if a crime would result from the irresponsible abuse of exercising the right, the individual could, and should be prosecuted for the resulting crime. However, to make it a crime for the simple act of exercising ones right is a crime committed by the legislature, not the citizen.

The liberal left says that the Second Amendment refers only to the collective right and not the individual right. I ask you, how does one have a collective without individuals? You see the liberal socialist mind destroys independence for the sake of the collective. In socialism, there are but a few elites and the central dictator everyone else is a subject to the dictator. The collective protects the dictator and the dictator rules the dependent subjects, there are no independent individuals, therefore no individual rights.

The confusion really lies in the purpose of law. The legislation of law is not and should not be used for the prevention of crime, but instead for punishment of the commission of crime. Passing laws against exercising ones rights is quite simply a de-facto abolishment of liberty. Even one, who has in the past committed a crime, has the basic natural inalienable right to defend his or her own life. And should the occasion arise; the ex-convict should not be prosecuted of a crime unless he or she has in fact abused the right to keep and bear arms by using, or rather abusing the right in the commission of yet another crime. After all, if the individual is still a criminal he or she will obtain a weapon anyway regardless of the law. It is just the nature of the criminal.

By making laws to prevent crime, we are assuming that the purpose of law is the prevention of crime, when a law has never prevented a crime. There are those that believe that we have crime because we do not have enough laws, so we just keep passing more and more laws. However, instead of extinguishing crime, we are extinguishing our freedom and our God given rights.

By passing laws against the exercising of ones rights, we just make criminals out of those that have-not committed a crime.

Remember, criminals do not obey laws; this is incidentally, why we call them criminals…
de Andréa

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” -- Thomas Jefferson

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Criminals go free

More important than the following story is the one that preceded it On Dec. 31, 2004, David Geppert the owner of a recycling center was shot during a robbery. The gunman was charged and acquitted after a jury trial. Since opening his business in 1992, Geppert said he has been robbed about a dozen times.

Sixth in a series
By de Andréa

Recently a robber was killed in a shootout with employees at a recycling center. After many holdups, Geppert, the Germantown Pennsylvania centers owner said, he allowed his workers to carry guns.

Robberies have made the recycling business so dangerous for David Geppert, shot two years ago during a holdup that he gave his blessing to employees who said they wanted to carry guns to work.

After the recent robbery, Geppert said he felt blessed that none of his employees at his Germantown facility were injured during a gun battle between a robber and two employees. Only the robber was shot and killed

"We're like a little family here," Geppert said of the seven people employed at David Geppert Recycling in the 4500 block of Wayne Avenue, a busy commercial byway.
The drama started shortly after 9 a.m., when a man entered the facility and approached four employees sorting materials in a garage. He posed as a customer and said he had a large number of old radiators he wanted to sell as scrap metal.

Employees noticed he was acting oddly. They also noticed a bulge at his side.
Then, police and Geppert said, the man pulled out a 380-caliber automatic and demanded cash.

Two employees were armed - and all three began firing just like at the O.K. corral. Homicide Lt. Philip Riehl said the robber fired at least three shots at the workers - both of whom declined to comment. Police said that they do not expect to file charges in the case.

The only one that was hit by gunfire in this case was the robber, he ran about 100 yards and collapsed, Lt. Riehl said. One of the employees was shaken up and taken to a nearby hospital for observation.

"Enough is enough," said Carl Cooper, who works at the Mom & Pop Deli at Wayne and Roberts Avenue and heard the morning gunshots. Cooper raised his sweater and displayed the gun he keeps on his hip and the permit he keeps in his wallet. "If we let the criminals do what they want to do, it's no good," Cooper said. "You have to have a gun to protect yourself." Cooper's friend, Ray Young, agreed. "Right now," Young said, "we have to watch each other's backs."

THE BOTTOM LINE: If you will remember in the opening paragraph I said, what was more important than even the story of the employees shooting the criminal, was the owner David Geppert who was shot nearly two years earlier by a thug trying to rob him. The thing that caught my attention was that the gun-toting criminal who attempted to murder Geppert was set free.

Of course, it use to be, that if you even had a gun on your person in the commission of a crime, you would go to jail for possession with intent to kill. Now, even if you try to murder someone it is apparently not a punishable crime any more. I also liked the part where the police said that they would not be filing charges against the two employees for defending their own lives; I thought that was very benevolent of them. I cannot help but wonder though, if the outcome had been reversed and the employees would have been shot or killed instead of the criminal, would he, the criminal have gone free---again…

The gun crime problem appears obvious to me, it isn’t that law abiding citizens possess or carry guns, the problem is, that the law and the courts, as in this case, generally condemn the innocent while the criminals go free. It just seems to me that if we would throw the book at the criminals carrying guns instead of the people just trying to defend themselves, criminals may stop carrying guns. Moreover, because only cops and law-abiding citizens would then be carrying guns, we would all be safer.

What do you think???

de Andréa

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Empty Holsters

College students across the country have been strapping on empty holsters to protest laws that prohibit concealed weapons on many campuses, citing their right of self-defense in light of recent campus and church murders.

Fifth in a series
By de Andréa

The problem with a“Gun Free Zone" is, they are not a “Death Free Zone.” Gun free zones provide a safe place, not for our children, but for the murdering maniacs in our society…

Hey! If the Brady Bunch can say, “Guns kill people”, then I can say that “GUN FREE ZONES’ kill people.

"People who could otherwise defend themselves against the crazy’s are left defenseless when on campus," said Ethan Bratt, a graduate student wearing an empty holster on the campus of Seattle Pacific University.

Apparently, ones right to live free and pursue happiness, ends at the boundary of most of our school campuses, or maybe as Senator John Edwards, (watch video) you believe it to be a privilege, rather than a right as the Constitution documents.

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, a national group of college students, parents and citizens who organized after the deadly shootings at Virginia Tech University in April, launched the protest. A national debate over gun laws on campus began in the wake of those shootings, in which a mentally deranged student killed 32 people in a classroom building before committing suicide. Not only was it the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, but it happened in a “Gun Free Zone”. Campuses are prime targets for people with guns intent on killing others, because schools are ‘Gun Free Zones, Bratt said. Isn’t it ironic that the best place for a deranged person with a gun to shoot fish in a barrel, is a place where there are no guns allowed.

Others believe college is no place for firearms.
"If you don't like the fact that you can't have a gun on your college campus then drop out of school," said Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the anti-American elite group who call themselves the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

When someone pulls out a gun and starts firing in a crowded environment, it is more likely that additional victims will be harmed. Let's be grateful that those holsters are empty,” said Hamm.

In other words, if you don’t want to risk your life to get an education then forget about college…

One cannot help but wonder what the Brady Bunch has done to prevent gun violence, what ever it is, I don’t think it’s working

Click here to visit the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus Web site.

Click here to visit the Brady Center's Web site.

A group of 12 students chose to wear empty holsters to class this week at the University of Idaho as part of the nationwide protest. Aled Baker, a junior, said he loses his constitutional right to protect himself and others when he goes to school to learn about the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. "It's null and void when you go on campus," the mechanical engineering student said. Baker, a sportsman and hunter, has a license to carry a concealed handgun and hopes the protest will get people talking about the issue.

I should explain the cartoon for the sake of the liberal left crazy’s like the college academics and Dianne Feinstein, but I won’t.

Many universities, like George Washington University, prohibit carrying concealed handguns on campuses. "We do not allow weapons on campus for the safety and security of our student body and faculty," said Tracy Schario, spokeswoman for G W U in Washington, D.C. The truth is that one cannot even legally possess an assembled firearm in the District of Columbia, and as a result, D.C. has among the highest rates of gun violence in the country.

Justin Turner, a senior in criminology and history at Florida State University also wants the ability to carry a concealed handgun on campus. I'm hoping that people actually realize that this is something that college students are serious about moving forward and realize that it's not about taking the law into our own hands; it's about taking personal responsibility for oneself because no one else will," said Turner, chairman of the Florida State chapter of Students for the Second Amendment.

More on the anti-carry revolt

THE BOTTOM LINE: Did anyone recognize the logic and reason or rather the lack thereof by the spoooksman, I am sorry, spokesman Pete Hamm or ham for the anti-American and freedom hating Brady Bunch as well as the spokeswoman for George Washington University. Hamm says, students should drop out of school, because if one shoots a gun in a crowded environment someone might get hurt, daaa, isn’t that the Idea, to stop the shooter??? Moreover, Tracy Schario of G W U says they don’t allow guns on campus for the safety of the students and faculty. Isn’t that the same failed policy that Virginia Tech had??? And, guess what---the shooter just kept right on shooting. Their were 32 students and faculty and that no matter how safe they felt in a “GUN FREE ZONE” they all are still nevertheless--- dead…

If the philosophy of “Gun Free Zones” works so well, why then, don’t we just make Iraq a “GUN and a BOMB FREE ZONE”??? Then according to the philosophy of the death worshipping Brady Bunk, again, I am so sorry, I mean Bunch; the war would be over.

Isn’t it about time we turn back to our roots of personal responsibility, instead of continuing to be dependant on someone or something like these failed rules of engagement, which cannot or will not defend the lives of our kids???

If for some unknown reason one is incapable of understanding reason or logic in this issue, (maybe the Brady Bunch Followers have been smoking too many funny cigarettes. I don’t know) but maybe a true-life example will work. Now listen closely, I will write this, ever so slowly, because I know that some of you may coming down off of something and may not be able to read fast. There are very few “GUN FREE ZONES” in Utah. Moreover, in all of recorded history to date; there has been one violent gun incident in a Utah school, and that my death worshipping friends was in 1872 and the only one killed was the perpetrator. Moreover, if that is not enough… since the rule of gun free zones was enacted in schools across the country, where there has never been a shooting before, there have been hundreds of violent gun incidents, as well as death and serious injury.

Let these people fill their holsters with the same weapon that has and will be used against them. The only purpose of denying people the ability to defend themselves against certain death is if one wants them dead.

Just in case one is curious, legally, to carry a gun one must get a state permit, called a CCW, one must jump though a plethora of legal hoops. One must first be investigated by local law enforcement, State police, the FBI, CIA, Interpol, MI5, Mickey Mouse…well you get the idea. Moreover, if one has ever so much as looked mean at someone or committed any crime beyond a traffic ticket; your permit may be denied. In addition, if that is not enough, one must take a gun safety class, a self-defence class, and after all that, a gun proficiency test, and learn all the laws and rules both State and Federal regarding the legal use of guns much as the police do. So it is not just a matter of anyone strapping on a gun and becoming a wild west vigilante as the Brady Bunch will lead you to believe. Besides, it is your right, listen to a presidential candidate tell you it is a privilege, not a right.

Anyplace where there is a guarantee that no one is armed is a powerful magnet for the crazy’s driven by voices in their heads or from sniffing too much funny stuff, to commit mass murder using our children as objects of their angry hallucinations. “Gun Free Schools” my friend, are just one of those powerful magnets…

de Andréa

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Police State

Is it coming???
Boston police may soon be knocking on doors asking to allow searches of citizen’s homes and children’s bedrooms for firearms—without notice or warrants.
Fourth in a series
By de Andréa

Under the controversial “Home Safe” program, teams of police officers will be assigned to the city’s public schools and will interrogate students believed to have firearms in the home.

Officers would then show up at the student’s home and ask to immediately search the premises, confiscating any firearms they find. Officers are empowered to exercise their personal discretion should they encounter drugs or signs of other illegal activity. In other words they could go on a witch hunt.

While parents still have the right to refuse the search, concerns of constitutionality, intimidation, and civil liberties have rightly been raised.

According to a November 17, article, Thomas Nolan, a former Boston police lieutenant who teaches criminology at Boston University, deemed the program “an end run around the Constitution.” Nolan further said, “The police have restrictions on their authority and ability to conduct searches. The Constitution was written with a very specific intent, and that was to keep the law out of private homes unless there is a written document again with specific intent signed by a judge and based on probable cause. Here, you don’t have that.” Therefore, if the Boston PD should receive permission to search the premises then anything becomes fair game, because there is no warrant and therefore no rules.

There is the probability that people may be too intimidated to deny police access to their homes, or may not understand the legal implications of their compliance with the search, which could include arrest and prosecution for anything they find.

A November 27, article reported that Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner has called for hearings to further review the program. “We should not encourage our police department to engage in clever strategies that undercut the constitutional rights of every citizen,” Turner said in a statement.

Turner’s main concern is that police may not tell residents that they can refuse admittance. He also suggests that a visit by three uniformed police officers could be a “subtle coercion of permission.”

A November 21, article reports that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as well as the NRA has “serious concerns about this threat to ones civil liberties”.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Some may call this progress; I guess it depends on weather one values freedom or tyranny.

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government.” -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

"The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.” Thomas Paine

”In conclusion, one can only say that if one gives the government anything it will take everything”… de Andréa

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Church shootings

Shootings on rise, Leaders must become responsible to defend their congregations...
Finely the fallacy of “Gun Free Zones” which are actually “Free kill Zones, gets some attention from the mainstream media.
Third in a series
By de Andréa

As the story of these latest mass shootings on Sunday the 9th of December unfold in the State of Colorado, the danger of these ludicrous gun free zones become blatantly apparent.

Even though there has never been the reality of a gun free zone, the liberal elitists continue their psychobabble as it seems, to legislate a utopia where there are no bad guys, no crazes, no criminals, and no guns. I vaguely remember an elitist back somewhere in my childhood who tried the same thing; I think his name was Adolph Hitler or something like that… how soon we forget.

The church shootings, that have been in the headlines because of the attacks by Matthew Murray, 24, of Englewood, Colo., on two Christian groups, are on the rise across the United States.

The picture is that of Philip Crouse, 24, from Alaska, who was killed by Murray at the Arvada, Colo., base of Youth With A Mission

Murray killed two people at a Youth With A Mission missionary training center in Arvada, Colo., early Sunday morning, then apparently posted some rantings on the Internet, and then drove to the New Life Church in Colorado Springs where he killed two teen age girls. He also wounded half a dozen others before he was confronted by a church member volunteering as a security guard, and was shot. [This was apparently not a gun free zone]

A tabulation of church shootings, or those closely related to a church setting, was done by Gary Cass, chairman of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, and include 10 such attacks over the last four years, including Murray's two attacks.

"The recent tragic events in Colorado underscore the fact that anti-Christian hostility is reaching a new, more violent level," Cass said. "Churches used to be sanctuaries that were regarded as sacred, now all church leaders must be prepared to effectively defend themselves and use deadly force if necessary to protect their congregations from violent acts."

He said a brief search found the following shootings, before the recent attacks in Colorado
August 12, 2007: A lone gunman, Eiken Elam Saimon, opened fire in a Missouri Micronesian church, killing a pastor and two other churchgoers.

May 20, 2007: A standoff between police and a suspect in the shootings of three people in a Moscow, Idaho, Presbyterian Church ended with three dead, including one police officer.

Although not at a church building, the Oct. 2, 2006, attack in Lancaster County, Pa., by a gunman who killed five girls and then himself at an Amish school targeted a religious site.

May 21, 2006: Louisiana. Four were killed by a man at Jesus Christ Church.

Feb. 26, 2006: Michigan. A man who reportedly went to the church looking for his girlfriend killed two people at Zion Hope Missionary Baptist Church. He later killed himself.

April 9, 2005: A 27-year-old airman died after being shot at a church in College Park, Ga., where he had once worked as a security guard.

March 12, 2005: A man walked into the services of the Living Church of God in Milwaukee and open fired immediately, killing seven people.

Oct. 5, 2003: A woman opened fire in Turner Monumental AME church in Kirkwood, east of Atlanta, killing the pastor and two others.

Sept. 16, 1999: Seven young people were killed when a man opened fire during a prayer service for teen-agers at the Wedgewood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas.

"Self-defense is not just a right, but a Christian duty. Jesus told his followers, 'if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one,'" said Cass. "Christians are not to be a soft target for the hateful and deranged. Church leaders have a duty not to allow a crazed gunman to come and shoot up their congregation. Thank God for Jeanne Assam and for New Life Church's security preparations."

Weeks before Murray armed himself with enough weaponry and ammunition to kill hundreds and staged the two attacks, he apparently boasted in an e-mail that he had discovered and practiced the teachings of controversial British occultist Aleister Crowley, called during his lifetime "the wickedest man in the world."

Murray is believed to have been the gunman who shot and killed Tiffany Johnson, 26, and Philip Crouse, 24, at the Youth With A Mission campus in Arvada, Colo., early last Sunday morning. Then, about 12 hours later, Murray died when confronted by armed security officer Jeanne Assam at New Life Church after he shot and killed sisters Stephanie Works, 18, and Rachael Works, 16, in the church parking lot. Half a dozen others were wounded in his attacks.

The picture is of Tiffany Johnson, 26, of Minnesota, was one of two Youth With A Mission staff members shot and killed by an attacker in Arvada, Colo.

Murray apparently wrote on several websites which said, "You Christians brought this on yourselves … All I want to do is kill and injure as many of you ... as I can especially Christians who are to blame for most of the problems in the world."

"It is a sad reality of our times, but Christians must take up arms to protect themselves at church," said Cass. He cited the postings by Murray, including the following:
"I'm coming for EVERYONE soon and I WILL be armed to the @#%$ teeth and I WILL shoot to kill. …," a statement also attributed to Murray's Internet postings.
"Mathew Murray was obviously a very troubled young man, but unfortunately he is not the only one," Cass said.

THE BOTTOM LINE: As I have said so many times before, one of the aspects of the philosophies of freedom given to us by our creator, is personal responsibility as opposed to the dependency that the godless politically correct elites in our so-called leadership want to establish. They would like us to believe that they are capable of rolling back the clock to the 14th century, before the invention of the hand held gun. This by the way is the only way one could possibly rid society of these dangerous weapons. However, since even the most powerful of the liberal elites do not have that capability, then the only thing left to do is to attempt to incarcerate anyone possessing a gun until all citizens recognize their proper place in society and that is to be subjected to, and dependent on, the liberal elites. But one must remember that this is not freedom; this is a “Police State”…

de Andréa
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 15:20:29 -0800From: Glory2Jesus@ArmyofGod.comTo: writedeandrea@hotmail.comSubject: [The Bottom Line]
New comment on Church shootings.Rev. Don Spitz has left a new comment on your post "Church shootings":
Jeanne Assam of New Life Church in Colorado Springs is currently hailed as a hero by most Christians because she shot the gunman that was on his way into the church to murder more people. This is correct, but consider, she is no different than Paul Hill who stopped a babykilling abortionist from murdering more people by shooting him. Paul Hill is condemned and was put to death for the same thing. Posted by Rev. Don Spitz to The Bottom Line at 3:20 PM
Response by de Andeae
It is good to hear from you Pastor Don.
Ms. Assam should not be hailed as a hero, but should be commended for risking her life for others. While I can agree that sometimes there can be a fine line between murdering someone and taking someone's life to save others as in the case of Paul Hill, to kill in the act of self-defense or the defense of other innocent people without premeditation is not murder. Paul Hill committed premeditated murder even though it could be said that it was certainly in defense of innocence.
As you must know the original Hebrew word in the commandment "thou shalt not kill", is actually murder, not kill, so there is a time that to kill can be justified.
Jesus, because of the perceived danger, told His disciples In the book of Luke Chapter 22 vs. 36b to arm themselves with the gun of the day, a sword, and if they did not have one to sell their garment an buy one. this was for their own responsibility of self-defense.
May I respectfully correct you:
To allow ones person or ones family to be vulnerable to death, in the face of danger is irresponsible. God does not intend for his children to be victims of the sin of others.
May God, our Father, bless you as we celebrate the birth of his Son Jesus Christ.
With love, de Andréa

Friday, December 14, 2007

Beth's gun

The following is a true story, it was first reported by the Charleston Post and Courier

By de Andréa
The second in a series...

It happened to a young woman named Beth Ferguson of Charleston North Carolina. However this terrifying experience is not as unique as one would suppose, it typifies an experience that happens all too often, and to too many women across this country every day.

This story is one woman’s way of dealing with the aftermath of her very real terror and brush with death:

Beth Ferguson gets instruction as she prepares to fire a .22 caliber hand gun under the supervision of firearms expert and instructor Frank DiNardo as she begins her training for her concealed weapons permit. Beth had a natural fear of guns; however what she needed now, was to be responsible for herself.

A man in a North Charleston flower shop attacked Beth, when she came to pick up an order. She was beaten, kicked in the face, gagged, tied to a chair and then locked in a closet to await whatever was to come next, she feared that she was going to die. She thought about her husband and the business they had together. She decided that she was not ready to die, not quite yet.

After escaping that nightmare, Beth Ferguson needed nearly two weeks to garner the courage to step out of her home. Her first trip was to church, her safe haven.

She went on a Saturday night, hoping fewer people would be there as opposed to the heavily attended Sunday morning service. Nevertheless, it was packed.

"It's odd, because when you're a victim of something like this, you almost begin to act like a victim. I was very overwhelmed and nervous. I was scared half to death, and I didn't know why," Beth said. "Have you ever seen a scary movie and been scared afterward? That's sort of what it's like."

She endured the glances from curious church members, who could not help but see the bruises and cuts on her face. After that night, Beth decided she needed to return to a normal life. But she still felt violated, and unsafe. She was living in fear.

Her second trip out of the house was to a gun shop on Cross County Road in North Charleston. ” I’m going back to work one day," Beth said. "And when I do, I will have a gun."

The attack; the recovery
Beth, 41, was the only customer in the Carolina Florist shop on Ashley Phosphate Road late in the afternoon on April 10. The man behind the counter advised her to look through a book so she could pick out a corsage for her son's prom. While she was distracted, he slipped behind her and suddenly, he was holding a knife to her throat.

Beth Ferguson attempts to get her concealed weapon permit in the wake of her being attacked Watch » Video

She fought, but he choked her until she was unconscious. She woke up to find him standing over her. When she fought again, he kicked her in the face until she agreed to cooperate.

In the locked closet, Beth sat tied to a chair, a tennis ball stuffed in her mouth. Then the man drove away, and Beth seized the moment to free herself, he was obviously planning to kill her when he had finished with her she thought. After she climbed through a false ceiling and dropped down into the bathroom next door, she smashed her way out through the front glass window to freedom.

Lemar "Tommy" Mack, the 45-year-old husband of the florist shop owner, was arrested two days later. He was charged with kidnapping, armed robbery and assault and battery with intent to kill.

Mack had previously been convicted and served jail time for abducting a woman at a Kmart on Rivers Avenue and raping her. He had also been convicted for attacking women in 1979 and 1984. One can only wonder if Mack will be released to do the same thing a fifth and a sixth time, moreover, if passing laws that would lock people like Mack up for good, would better than passing laws that enable criminals to commit murder, and prevent innocent citizens from defending themselves as gun control laws do.

Weeks after the attack, Beth walked into a gun shop for the first time, and talked with firearms instructor Frank DiNardo June 11 at Trader World Gun Shop and tries to decide which gun to buy.

A steady stream of customers flowed in and out of Trader World Gun & Indoor Range, where dozens of shotguns, rifles and assault weapons line the walls.

Shaking, Beth headed for the glass encasement filled with handguns. It runs the length of the shop. Boxes of ammunition sat on the counter. Behind it stood Frank DiNardo, a handgun in a holster on his side.

Frank, a firearms instructor for nearly 30 years, was expecting Beth. Her instruction began with their first handshake — firm, thumb straight forward, not to the side.

"That's how you hold a gun," Frank told her.

Beth asked Frank if she needed to buy a gun before her firearms lessons began.

"You're not ready," he said. He worried about her emotional state so soon after the attack.

"One minute I'm fine, and the next, I'm crying for no reason," she had told him. Counseling sessions were being arranged.

Frank scheduled her gun classes to start about 10 days after their first meeting. Four hours each class. Five classes, maybe then she would be ready, Frank said.

Frank recommends taking three courses before the purchase — a basic course in the handling, firing and storing of a handgun; a personal protection course; and a course on carrying concealed handguns.

On May 6, Beth started classes, and she found a new friend in her instructor. Frank listened as she told him her story and cried.

"We're going to go through this together," he said.

The bruises on her face had healed. Some redness in her left eye was the only visible trace of the assault.

"My outside has healed a lot, but my inside still needs healing," Beth said.

She cried less often, and she and her husband had resumed their weekly date nights. Still, she sometimes had panic attacks when she was alone, or if she saw someone who looked like the man who attacked her.

She found strength in the 100-plus cards and letters from friends and strangers. She resolved to arm herself with a gun. "What the Lord told me is, 'You're going to be the victor, not the victim.”
A gun in the hand
The three basic rules for handling a gun, were in large capital letters on a screen in the training room May 6:




Frank takes a slow and easy approach to teaching people how to use handguns. He starts with a toy gun, and then uses dummy cartridges to teach people how to load a real revolver.

In the firing range, the first gun Beth shot was an air pistol. The recoil is slight when the gun is fired, and it makes little noise. She fired at inflated balloons, which made a pop that helped prepare her for the sound of a gun blast.

Next, Beth brought in a .22- caliber pistol. It is a little louder, and the recoil made her hand jiggle slightly as she shot off 10 rounds at the target (a paper figure of a man). Tiny puffs of smoke wafted from the gun, and the metal casings pinged against the concrete floor beneath her.

Beth grinned. "It's not so bad."

June brought a different Beth to the Trader World gun shop for her second class.
A counselor had helped her deal with post-trauma stress. Panic attacks came less frequently, and she felt much stronger.

Frank now took off the kid gloves and put a 9 mm pistol in Beth's hands.
A startling blast and a bright red flash erupted from the gun, and Beth's hand jumped upward. She winced and then stood motionless in a cloud of gray smoke.

"Your whole body just jolts. It was so powerful. I felt like I couldn't control it," she said.

Beth learned that choosing a firearm is like buying a good pair of shoes. It has to fit.

The 9 mm proved to be too much. The .38-caliber revolver was easier to control, less recoil, but the trigger was more difficult to pull and it had no safety lock. She definitely wanted her gun to have a safety feature.

Something between those two, is a .380-caliber pistol, it seemed to be just right. Moderate recoil, good control and a safety lock. It was small to boot — the perfect concealable weapon.

Back to work
By mid-June, Beth felt a lot more like her old self, stronger, trusting and more confident.

She had vowed not to return to work without a firearm, but she was needed to help run the six mattress stores her and her husband own. Pepper spray would do while she finished her firearms classes and applied for her concealed weapons permit.

Her first day back overwhelmed and frightened her. Finding a full day too much at first, she eased herself back to work “Baby steps," Beth said.

With the basic gun course behind her, Beth started an eight-hour concealed weapons course that would teach her the laws about guns.

Although citizens with a permit can carry a weapon, the gun cannot be visible. Beth experimented with a variety of options, including keeping her gun in her purse, in her pocket or in a holster on her hip or ankle. She quickly ruled out keeping it in her purse, because one of the first things her attacker did was take her purse. “If there was a gun in my purse, he would have had it," Beth said.

The big day
On July 2, Beth was strong again, empowered even. She held a pistol with conviction as she stepped onto the range for the shooting test for her concealed weapons permit. She had to hit the target at least 35 times out of 50 shots, and she made it look easy.
"She shot a 46 out of a possible 50," Frank said. "She did extremely well."

Beth aced her written test as well, and the permit application was off in the mail.

In mid-October Beth's concealed weapons permit arrived. She met up with Frank and purchased the little .380-caliber pistol that she had used months earlier.

The attack earlier in the spring was behind her. Beth has her life back, however, now she is packing heat.

"If I'm in a situation that I consider life or death," she said. “I am prepared."

THE BOTTOM LINE: Hindsight of course is a most convincing teacher, however sometimes it can come too late. Fortunately for Beth, she was to get another chance. One might be well advised to learn from someone else’s near tragic experience, rather than to chance a more devastating experience of his or her own.

If you do not have a “Shall Issue” law in your state, then you need to contact your representative, soon…

de Andréa

Thursday, December 13, 2007


“GUN FREE ZONE EXTREMISTS” Are Equally Responsible for the Massacres at Omaha’s Westroads Mall and the Colorado Churches.

The first in a series of articles on gun laws...

By de Andréa

How many more innocent people have to be victims of, not only the crazes of our society but also the criminal elites of our society who illegally legislate the disarming of innocent law abiding American citizens, leaving helpless victims of their elitist totalitarian control to be murdered.

Are the liberal elitists, who believe that they know what is best for everyone else, cognoscente of the result of their illegal anti-American, anti-Constitutional laws? Of course, they are, I am through making excuses for these dictators, as if maybe they are just stupid. When the truth is they don’t care, the main purpose of these extreme liberal demagogs is their own power and control. Moreover, if they have to sacrifice the lives in the mass-murder of some innocent American citizens to bring about their agenda of socialistic power and control, well… it is a small price to pay. After all you and I are paying the price.

Eight more innocent Americans have been sacrificed on the altar of liberal political correctness at Omaha’s Westroads Mall this week Wednesday, the real outrage of this crime is that it happened in a “gun free zone” where law-abiding private citizens are disarmed by mall rules and state statutes.

In addition, isn’t it telling when at the second church in Colorado this week, the gunman was stopped from continuing his rampage by an armed security guard? The elitists will not admit that it made a difference. Moreover, when they are caught in the act of being reasonable and logical, they make fools of themselves by attempting to squirm and pass it by. View video clip here. The point is, an anti gun law did not stop the gunman, he was stopped… by a gun.

The gunman stopped by the Dirty Harriet Jeanne Assam an ex police officer now a private volunteer security officer at the Colorado Springs New life Church in Colorado. Read more about the angel with a handgun now a National Hero. This may just be enough to tip the scales a bit in the Colorado City Counsel for passing an ordinance allowing security guards at least to carry automatic handguns in their work…well it’s a start.
In the wake of these horrible crimes, gun control extremists are already demanding more
useless gun control legislation; this is of course, a medical diagnosis of insanity, more of the same and pretending to expect a different result. A prohibition on firearms at Westroads Mall did not stop Robert Hawkins, but it did give him a risk-free environment in which to unleash his rampage.
The common link between virtually every mass shooting in recent history in this country is that they all happened in the elitists so-called “gun-free zones” such as shopping malls and college campuses. As a matter of documented history, these mass school, mall and church shootings did not become a problem until the “Gun Free Zones”. Have you ever heard of this happening at a gun show, in a gun store, or in a police department? What happened at the Westroads Mall and the Colorado churches can happen anywhere that political hysteria results in victim disarmament.
Blaming firearms for this crime is like blaming cars for drunk driving. The argument does not wash. Published reports all suggest that Hawkins was troubled and had emotional problems, and he reportedly had a felony drug conviction on his record, which prohibited him from owning firearms. This proves that restrictive gun laws do not prevent determined perpetrators from getting their hands on guns, but they do however, prevent law-abiding citizens from having the tools to defend themselves.

Remember that a similar shooting at Salt Lake City’s Trolley Square earlier this year was not a gun free zone and was interrupted by an armed, off-duty police officer from another city, in essence, that man was an armed private citizen who stopped the massacre. Don’t you find it at least interesting that the State of Utah is for the most part, not a gun free zone, and as a result, there has rarely been a gun incident at a Utah school? I wonder if it could be because some teachers, principals and parents carry guns in Utah, naw…
In Tacoma, Washington two years ago, an armed citizen confronted a gunman at the Tacoma Mall and although he was seriously wounded, his intervention brought the shooting to a halt. Read about campus guns. Gun owners, the gun industry, nor our constitutionally-protected individual right to keep and bear arms are at fault for the Westroads outrage, and the gun control lobby knows it.
Restrictive laws that disarm honest citizens and provide risk-free environments for criminals and lunatics are at fault, and so are the people responsible for passing such laws and enforcing such prohibitions.

THE BOTTOM LINE: In the past, I have made excuses for these liberal dictators, indicating that they just do not know what they are doing for a plethora of possible reasons. However, I have come to the realization that no one could be this brain-dead and be a State or Federal legislator. NO MORE EXCUSES! These people know exactly what they are doing and they need to be taken to task for it. Anyone in their right mind knows that disarming America leaves it helpless and vulnerable to these criminals and crazes who will just ignore these laws. We need to recognize the self-perpetuating liberal America hating anti-self-defense gun control law makers for what really they are...”Criminal Murder enablers”, they promote and enable mass murder, what’s more they know that they are doing it. It is difficult to tell them apart from the murderers.

While disarming America will not stop crime as the lib’s want you to believe, it will accomplish exactly what they want, and that is a tyrannical police State. Their bottom line is ABSOLUTE POWER AND CONTROL…

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” -- Edmund Burke

"The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.” -- Thomas Paine

Would be murderers are always stopped with a gun and never with a law” --de Andréa

de Andréa

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Voter Fraud

In New Hampshire, one does not even need to be pre-registered to vote in elections.
In the past, it may not have been necessary…

By de Andréa

In the last election, New Hampshire’s Republican Party lost for the first time in 100 years because brought thousands of Democrat voters from Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine, to vote in New Hampshire’s election. This is also true in Ohio. In Dade County Florida, thousands of military voters were disenfranchised which led to the close election, and made things such as Hanging-Chads significant. Has the U.S. gone the way of third world countries with fixed elections? Of course it has, moreover the infiltration of multicultural third world countries has contributed to this manipulation of political leadership in America.

Because of our Christian heritage, and before Multiculturalism became a religion in the U.S., one would not have thought of committing voter fraud. Now, that America is losing its own culture and embracing cultures from all over the world where voter fraud is not voter fraud, we have lost our way by giving up our core values to accommodate the immorality of foreign cultures.

In most states, proof of citizenship or even I.D. is not necessary to vote in elections. So even if pre-registration is required, one could be a resident of Medina and a citizen of Saudi Arabia and still vote in U.S. elections.

This corruption now goes all the way to the top, as they say. The politicians, both Republican and Democrat have selfishly taken advantage of this windfall of new voters illegal or not. Hundreds of thousands of illegal foreign invaders vote in our elections all over the country. This has led to a shift from the American culture of capitalistic independence, to an infiltration of the Socialistic Philosophy of governmental dependence.

Federal law provides that one must be a citizen of the United States to vote in political elections in the United States. Moreover, one must have a command of the English language, to read write and speak English in order to become a citizen. Yet, our governments print ballots in five languages. Just who would need to have a ballot printed in a language other that English? You are right if you said only illegal foreign invaders.

Even though the purpose of this pandering by our congressional legislators as well as our state government isn’t to give foreign nationals control over our electorate process, this is nevertheless the result. As I have said, the purpose of the illegal pandering to illegal alien vote is to manipulate the voting process to gain an edge on being reelected.

If one side cheats at the political game, then the other side will cheat as well, in order to level the playing field. Then the only thing that has been accomplished is cheating and the dependence on cheating.

This dependence has affected the poetical candidates as they become more and more dependent on the illegal votes. Is it any wonder that they are reluctant to close the borders or worse yet send the illegals home. This selfish desire for reelection using illegal aliens and voter fraud is affecting National Security among other things.

One can bet that La Rasa and Islam are taking advantage of this newfound bonanza of political manipulation that can and will change the culture and future political climate in America forever.

Nancy Pelosi has been blackmailed by the Latino coalition: (An illegal alien lobby)
This is a current issue: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is holding up a $53 billion appropriations bill funding the FBI, NASA and Justice Department solely to block an attached amendment, passed by both the Senate and House, that protects the Salvation Army other charities and their employers from federal lawsuits over their English-only policies. (Click on the hyperlink to read the entire article in the Wall Street Journal)

One only needs to pay attention to the state proposals and bills in the legislatures or the endorsements by candidates in support of illegal aliens, to recognize the effect that voter fraud has had on this Country. There has been talk of giving the illegals the right to vote, giving illegals driver’s licenses. We support these illegal foreign invaders with free education in their own language; we give them free health care and social security. We have given them amnesty and a free pass on crime as well as prosecuting police that dare to arrest illegal alien criminals. We have replaced Christianity in Christian schools with Islam in the name of Multiculturalism. We have made the public exercise of Christianity illegal and the public exercise of Islam mandatory. We have never provided footbaths for Christians but footbaths are now provided for Muslims in schools and at airports.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Though some of these may be considered minor concessions, it is the beginning of a new script for the future of America. In a decade, one will not recognize this country because our historical foundation of Judeo Christian values will have been destroyed. As a result, the fabric of this last best hope of freedom for the world will have begun deteriorating. In another decade, one will likely not be able to tell the difference between Washington D.C., and that of Mexico City Mexico or worse yet Mecca Saudi Arabia.

de Andréa