My longtime, best friend of over 14 years, has finally became a published poet! I'm so very happy for him, and would love to share his success here for all of you to see! His poem, that he wrote for me, is the very first entry of the e-book below. Please take time and read it. Just click on the title to go download it! I have a big feeling that this is just the first of much more wonderful, beautiful writings that we will see from him! CONGRATS my dearest friend and WTG!!!
Following a NY newspaper's lead (The Journal News), the Bangor Daily News asked, through a FOAA (Freedom of Access Act) request to police agencies throughout the state (of Maine), for their lists of concealed weapon holders. This request caused outrage throughout the Maine legislature and caused a bill to address the public ease of acquiring these lists to be drawn up and be brought to the legislature as an emergency bill.
Now, I have several questions. The first being, why would anyone at the BDN think it'd be good to follow the lead of that NY newspaper to request this list after all the outrage direct to that paper for putting people's lives at risk from the nutjobs and criminal elements out there and really think that this would be a good idea? If they believe so, then maybe we Mainers should really consider boycotting BDN and tell them in no uncertain terms that we believe their job is to report the news, not create it!
And the next set of questions are...after all the outrage shown by Mainers about this request by the BDN and they reported to the AP that "it never intended to publish the names"....do they really think we Mainers are that dumb and gullible to believe that outrageous lie? If they weren't going to publish the names, then what WERE they going to do with it? Why would a NEWSPAPER, who gathers information to report on, gather the names of concealed weapon holders and just sit on that info? What would they want that kind of information for if not to report it? The obvious reason is the simple and logical one, because they fully planned on publishing the names, just as The Journal News did. They just didn't count on the fierce, independent nature of us Mainers to come out as fast and furious as it did!
Well BDN, NOW you know! Even though it seems that Maine prefers to be vastly a liberal voting state, it doesn't mean that we also believe in the fascist belief of gun ownership, which is ...that there shouldn't be any for us common folk! You have shown your true colors BDN....and it sure isn't red, white & blue!!!!
Well, isn't this interesting? When can you tell a politician is lying? When his/her lips are moving!!
Every liberal politician up to and including the president, has said...we're not trying to take away your guns, just trying to solve gun violence and save our children! What BULLCHIPS!!! Look at what the state of Missouri democrats are trying to pass! Think the liberals elsewhere aren't thinking or trying the same thing? Then you truly do have your butt up your rearend!
HOUSE BILL NO. 545 - 97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY (of Missouri) In part this states: 4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution: (1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri; (2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or (3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations. 5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.
In the high school in Arlington, Tennessee, students were given a questionnaire in which they were asked if their parents owned guns; it also asked for the student’s opinion on the legalization of marijuana, abortion and what their religion was. Now, if it's illegal for a potential employer to ask about your religion or political affiliations, then why is it legal for school administrators to ask students theirs? And how is it the school's business whether the students' family owns guns? The answer is....it isn't legal nor any of their business! And the lame excuse the school administrators gave for doing this and spying on the privacy rights of their students and their families? The questionnaire was drawn up by advance placement psychology students and they conducted the surveys in several classes. Hmmmm....seems to me that the adults should know that this was NOT a legal or right thing to do and not let the students conduct the survey! Exactly who are supposed to be the knowledgeable TEACHERS in this system anyways??? Apparently, not the school administrators in Arlington, Tennessee!!
And NOW everybody sees exactly what I pointed out in my post "WANTED FOR STATE SANCTIONED MURDER" on 10/08/11 and the experts say it's a severe reason for the impeachment of Obama!
Read what WND reporter Chelsea Shilling wrote about this:
Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’
In 2010, Obama ordered the assassination of a radical American-born Muslim cleric who became an avowed member of al-Qaida’s affiliate in Yemen. Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in a drone strike in September 2011, along with naturalized U.S. citizen and al-Qaida propagandist Samir Khan. Awlaki’s 16-year-old American-born son, Abdulrahman, was killed in a similar strike two weeks earlier.
While there is little argument that Awlaki was involved in terrorist activity, the Obama administration failed to provide due process to the U.S. citizens targeted for the use of deadly force. Awlaki had reportedly communicated by email with Maj. Nadal Hasan, the U.S. Army psychiatrist who murdered 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas. He had also been tied to the so-called “underwear bomber” who attempted to blow up a Detroit-bound plane with plastic explosives sewn into his undergarments on Dec. 25, 2009. The FBI suspected Awlaki had purchased airplane tickets for three of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers before the terrorist attacks.
Awlaki spent years in the U.S. as an imam and a Muslim chaplain at George Washington University before moving to Yemen. He had been in U.S. custody twice and released before he was killed by the drone strike. Awlaki was detained in 2002 at the John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City for passport fraud. A Judicial Watch investigation revealed that he had been released by the FBI. He was also held for at least eight months in 2006 and 2007 and subsequently released.
In 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights sued the U.S. government on behalf of Awlaki’s father, challenging the federal government’s authority to conduct “targeted killings” of U.S. citizens who are not in an armed conflict zone. A federal district court dismissed the case in 2011.
So how does the Obama administration determine who’s a terrorist for the purpose of compiling its hit list?
A confidential Justice Department “white paper,” which is not an official legal memo, was released just last week to NBC News. It states that the U.S. government can order targeted killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force.”
In response to the memo, a bipartisan letter from 11 top-ranking senators to President Obama stated, “It’s vitally important for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how the executive interprets the limits and boundaries of this particular authority.” The senators asked Obama for “any and all legal opinions” that clarify the basis of his perceived power to “deliberately kill American citizens.”
Judge Andrew Napolitano warned, “This 16-page white paper was written so vaguely that the logic from it could actually be extrapolated to permit the president to kill Americans here in the United States.”
Napolitano noted that Obama also violated another federal statute: “When the president ramps up the war on terror or decides to move into another area or use the CIA to engage people, whether to arrest them or to kill them, he’s required to tell the Senate and House intelligence committees ahead of time and get their consent. He apparently didn’t do that, and so [Congress is] burned by this.”
What the experts say …
“Some people argue, ‘Well, he’s only killing terrorists,’” Fein told WND. “Oh really? How do you know? There’s no accountability. Was Mr. al-Alwaki’s son, a 16-year-old teenager having dinner, a terrorist? So whenever the president says someone’s a terrorist, are they convicted? If the president says conservatives are terrorists, is he going to kill them?
Fein argued that the killings were “tantamount to murder.”
“We know at a minimum there have been three, but perhaps many more. We’re just guessing. You can’t have democracy and the rule of law if you never get to know what the facts are and you just have to accept what the government says they are. If you don’t have a trial, that’s the definition of tyranny.”
Because there was so much evidence against Alwaki, critics argue a conviction could have been easily obtained by the Obama administration.
“It isn’t like they didn’t have evidence,” Fein said. “They had confession, admission against interest. Any of them might plead guilty. Only an uncivilized, savage people convict people without trial and sentence them to the gulag. That’s what we read about in the Soviet Union under Stalin and Khrushchev and Brezhnev. That’s what we read about in China under Mao. Is that what we want to be?”
Fein also blasted the fact that the Obama administration’s justification for the killing remained confidential until now.
“There’s a huge, strong legal case here, absolutely,” he said. “I worked in the Office of Legal Counsel. I worked on impeachment of Nixon. The idea that I would write a secret memo on something that’s an impeachable offense would be insane. A legal rationale now becomes classified because it would tell the enemy what constitutional theory you’re using justify this killing? You’ve got to be kidding!”
Fisher agreed with Fein: “There are no possible grounds for ever keeping legal reasoning secret. If a legal memo has sources and methods, just strike it out and the reasoning must be made public. If you’re not willing to give your reasoning, I’d ask, what’s going on? It’s probably that your reasons are not very good.”
Titus told WND, “It’s quite remarkable that Congress has basically abandoned this issue to the president, primarily by not addressing the issue in the National Defense Authorization Act not only in 2012 but also in 2013, where it basically gives the president carte blanche to detain any person that he suspects to be guilty of aiding people involved in terrorism. The fact that Congress won’t take a stand on that indicates that it wouldn’t intervene in the president’s use of drones to assassinate people he suspects are actively engaged in acts of terrorism even inside the United States.
“Basically, Obama is claiming the right to be the prosecutor on the grounds that the whole world is a war zone. I think it’s an impeachable offense because he’s neither using the civilian courts nor is he bringing them before our military courts. What the president has done is simply defined the whole world as a battleground.”
Upon reviewing the recently released “white paper,” Titus and attorney William J. Olson wrote, “Now, we can see why the Department of Justice has been so reluctant to share the basis for its legal analysis. It is deeply flawed – based on a perverse view of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
“Additionally, the white paper completely ignores the procedural protections expressly provided in the Constitution’s Third Article that were specifically designed to prohibit the president from taking the law into his own hands, serving as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.”
I watched the interview between Piers Morgan and Ted Nugent and just wanted to strangle Morgan! First, what in the blue blazers is Morgan doing sticking his friggin blimey British nose into us Americans' second amendment right to bear arms? What does HE know about it? Except for the fact that a very well armed American citizenry beat his country's a$$ in 1776? Ahhhh... there might be the answer! Couldn't beat us then, but help take away our guns now, there might be a way to possibly take it back? Well Mr. Morgan, once again, a British citizen under estimates us Americans and our love for freedom! (Note: It has come to my attention and it seems that a few Brits have missed the satire in my title and text above about the British trying to come back and take over America! I do NOT actually believe this, as I know that the Brits learned their lesson well the FIRST time they tried and are not stupid enough to try again!!!! So RELAX Brits, it's just SATIRE! Read the rest of this article below for the meat of the subject!!!!) And I would love to debate this with you! As knowledgeable as Mr. Nugent is, he just didn't have some facts to answer back some of your so called, figures. Well, I do! Here goes. Your point about America having the highest gun ownership rate per capita (88 per 100) with Yemen being second (55 per 100) and that Mr. Nugent couldn't possibly say that it's safer having lots of guns due to the unstableness and crime happening in Yemen, is not giving the full picture because of the following reasons: 1) The following countries who are 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th in high gun ownership per capita do NOT have the same troubles as Yemen...they are Switzerland (46 per 100), Finland (45 per 100), Cyprus (36 per 100), Saudi Arabia (35 per 100) and Iraq (34 per 100) according to a small arms survey compiled in 2007. 2) You managed to leave out a very important piece of information regarding to the fact that even though there is a high rate of gun ownership here in America, when it comes to the firearm homicide rate, the United States doesn’t even make the top 25. According to figures collected by the United Nations’ Office on Drugs and Crime through its annual crime survey, 9,146 Americans were victims of a firearm homicide in the most recent year. That translates to a rate of 2.97 firearm homicides per 100,000 population, only the 27th highest rate in the world. 3) It is interesting to note that not only does the United States have a relatively low homicide rate compared to its gun ownership rate, but Switzerland, which ranks third in the civilian gun ownership rate, has only the 46th highest homicide rate, and Finland, with the fourth highest ownership rate, is 63rd on the list. “The most obnoxious liberal talking points on guns involve the idea that guns, in and of themselves, cause gun violence,” writes CNS News commentator Stephen Gutowski. “In other words, more guns must mean more gun violence.” But in light of the ownership and homicide figures, he observes: “More guns do not, in fact, mean more gun violence. Guns can be, and commonly are, used in a responsible manner, especially here in the United States.” And therein lies your problem and lack of validity to your argument Mr. Morgan. The vast majority of gun owners here in America are law abiding and responsible owners with their firearms! And yes, it's very important to us to have our citizens armed, cause it keeps other countries from invading us because they know it's impossible to fight a whole country of armed citizens (as Britain found out!!)! But you will NEVER get this, EVER! Because after all, you're British, and have absolutely NO bloody clue as to how important it is to remain armed to keep from having a tyrannical government from abusing its citizens! You can keep saying... God save the Queen.... we'll keep our guns and say... God save America (which means its PEOPLE) ...TYVM!!! ******************************** UPDATE: I put the link to this post on Piers Morgan Tonight FB page, and even though Mr. Morgan has of yet responded (I really never thought he would anyways cause we all know it's not HIM who is smart enough to know any of this info, but members of his staff who do!), there were a couple of unknowledgeable Brits who decided to put their tuppence worth in, which I now include here:
Pete BromleyParanoia - Paranoia is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs, or beliefs of conspiracy concerning a perceived threat towards oneself. (e.g. "Everyone is out to get me.").
Debby ReaganLOL...you seem to miss the SATIRE!!! I don't really believe that the British are coming Andy & Pete...it was a 'tongue in cheek' comment to show that Piers has no business sticking his nose into whether or not us Americans should have our right to have our firearms not being infringed upon! And you seem to miss the point that Piers argument about gun control being an effective way to curb crimes committed with guns is totally wrong! Get past the satire of my post's title (which it seems neither of you understood!) and read the facts within the article that proves Pier's assertion wrong! GEESH!
Debby ReaganApparently not, as figures don't lie! And these are facts stated by others other than Americans! And if Piers can state part of these facts and be right...then the other facts of the same report that he conveniently left out must, by logic, be correct too!
Terrylewis SherryDebby , they don't get it. THey chime in on everything, saying we are paranoid yet they are here every single day in another countries business because they are scared. They have to know whats going on, every moment.
Debby ReaganOk Pete, let me state what Terrylewis was meaning in plain ENGLISH for you to understand! You say I'm wrong, but don't point out WHERE I'm wrong. There is no meaningful, knowledgeable response to my statement. Am I wrong in the facts I stated? Am I wrong about us Americans' second amendment right? Am I wrong that Piers only took one wee bit of fact from a report that shored up his skewed viewpoint and conveniently left out the rest that destroyed it? Am I wrong that some of you Brits have absolutely no clue as to the importance of our gun ownership to us and how we take it very seriously and guard it very jealously? Am I wrong in saying that more guns do not, in most cases (especially here in America), necessarily equate to more gun violence? If so to any of the forementioned questions, then explain how I am wrong, and give actual facts to back up your reasoning, not just by saying I'm wrong, or spouting out insults or psychological babble which has nothing to do with my facts (and everything to do with the missed satire on your end!). Then maybe we here in America will think that just maybe, there might be some intelligent life there in Brittain after all!!