Terrorism should be defeated with love...and superior firepower...- Terry Ingle
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." --Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

"Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity. … In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches and the media by transforming the consciousness of society." Antonio Gramsci - Marxist - teacher of Saul Alinsky

29 June, 2011

28 June, 2011

No Weapons Allowed?? Don't even try it....


This was sent in by a friend of mine who thinks, as do I, that this very well could play out here. One of my best friends is a Brit, and he and I have spoken many times about how he has seen the freedoms of his countrymen deteriorate over the years. That's why he moved here to the US. I can't understand how this could happen to a country and a people that have stood strong in the face of danger so many times in their history. How could they allow themselves to become subjects instead of free people? Why did they not see this coming and head it off?

This underscores to me that we as American Patriots can NEVER let our guard down. ti


You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.

In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless.

Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask. "Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.

Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.

But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters..

As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened. On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second.

In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term..

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.

This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle..)

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.

Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.


Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.
How did the authorities know who had handguns?

The guns had been registered and licensed.

Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

27 June, 2011

Love those Texans!


Sent to me by a friend today. I cannot confirm that it actually was in the paper, but it doesn't matter if it's a hoax. If it is, just pretend I wrote it because I agree with every word. Pay special attention to the last paragraph, if that actually happened the Dems would loose their primary voting base! How do you think they get all those votes that WE pay for?? ti

This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco ,TX May 10, 2011

Put me in charge . . .

Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercing's. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get tats and piercing's, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your "home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good.”

Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

AND While you are on Gov’t subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov’t welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job!

26 June, 2011

McCarthy, you're just clueless...


Chicago Police Supt. Garry McCarthy was speaking to a congregation recently at St. Sabina’s Church in Chicago and said that federal gun laws are the same as “government-sponsored racism.” Here is part of what he said: “I want you to connect one more dot on that chain of African-American history in this country, and tell me if I’m crazy: Federal gun laws that facilitate the flow of illegal firearms into our urban centers, across this country, that are killing black and brown children,”

He also said: “Strong gun laws against illegal firearms are critical in order to maintain public safety and private rights.” As well as: “The NRA does not like me, and I’m OK with that.”

Let's analyze what he said using logic and common sense, two elements that are unknown to the liberal mind.

First and foremost as per his request, I will say, "YES, you are crazy." Not only crazy, but irresponsible, out of touch, elitist, and stupid as well.

Second, What's with the "racism" crap. It's amazing how liberals can tie this word in with virtually ANYTHING they want to attack conservatives about. Basically, anytime we have a different viewpoint than the libs it is not because we are using common sense and facts, it's because we hate minorities and want to go back to Jim Crow as was stated by the new DNC Chairbabe in the blog below.

Is it racist because the inner-city of Chicago is primarily black and Hispanic and they are the ones shooting each other mostly over drugs and gangs? Is it racist because they are the only ones that are able to beg, borrow, buy, or steal a gun? That can't be it because no one in Chicago is supposed to be able to have one. Is it racist because the gun dealers are infiltrating the city and selling guns only to minorities? That can't be it either. The gun dealers were driven out of the city a while back. Sooo...How can you tie racism in with the mess that they have created? You can't.

Third, how do the Federal gun laws "facilitate" the flow of illegal firearms into Chicago? The only thing I can figure out is that because they are legal in other places, and are brought into the city illegally, the mean old gun manufacturers should not be selling them ANYWHERE. Too bad McCart, we here in Indiana live free. Deal with it.

Fourth, Please explain to me how these illegal firearms that "flow" into the urban centers of the city kill just black and brown children? Again with the demagoguery that the libs are so free with bandying about. I have never heard of a gun killing anyone without someone operating it. Notice how the inanimate object is taking the blame for the low-life scumbag that is employing it. As a civic leader, it is far more convenient to blame an object than to blame the person, because ultimately HE has to take the blame for the high crime rate that is committed by the bad guys. Deflecting the blame to an inanimate object is cowardly and dishonest. If the guns are the problem, then logically the police should not have them either. If those things are just aiming themselves at minority kids and going off by themselves then no one should have them. Using that reasoning, they are also useless for defending one's self against someone who is trying to do you harm.

Fifth,“Strong gun laws against illegal firearms are critical in order to maintain public safety and private rights" is just more liberal horse crap. Since I cannot have a personal police officer (most of whom I don't trust either, sadly.) follow me around all day to keep me safe, I must take responsibility for that myself. I should use common sense in where I go, who I hang with, the activities I involve myself in, and the weapons I choose to use when trouble is unavoidable. As far as maintaining my "private rights", those rights are given to me by God, and preserved by the Constitution. Stronger gun laws are counter to those rights and will not be recognized by me or any other Constitutional Patriot. In fact McCart, I do not recognize your unconstitutional ban, and when I'm in Chicago I have my 9mm holstered under my shirt. I refuse to be a helpless, unarmed victim when I visit your city, and will not be killed by one of your scumbags just because you can't control them. I understand that my Indiana permit is not recognized by your liberal state, but just as I would do if my state ever takes it away, my permission will be granted by the Constitution's second amendment. Should the need arise that I am ever forced to use it, I'll deal with it then, but at least I'll still be alive.

You can argue that he used the words "illegal firearms" but I'm not buying that. These fools think that ALL firearms should be illegal except for the ones that THEY carry, so that's just another talking point. Mac and those like him think their answer to crime control is to turn us into a police state. This has been tried many times before throughout history, and it only works for a time. Eventually the people rebel and demand their freedoms back. Patriots in this country, like me, will not let you have them to begin with. At least not without one hell of a fight.
He and "dead fish" Rahm make quite the couple don't you think?

Sixth, He stated that, “The NRA does not like me, and I’m OK with that.” Well moron, I don't like you either, and I'm OK with THAT. ti