by Lance Thompson

–Michael Douglas as President Andrew Shepherd in The American President, 1995

written by Aaron Sorkin, directed by Rob Reiner

Next year, the Supreme Court will hear a case that bears directly on the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, for the first time since 1939. With the decision expected in the summer of 2008, at the height of the Presidential campaign, it is widely anticipated that the issue will compel candidates to clearly state their views on gun laws.

In Parker versus D. C., the District of Columbia Court of Appeals struck down as unconstitutional a District of Columbia law that bans handguns and requires owners of rifles and shotguns to keep them unloaded and disassembled, or have their triggers locked. The Court of Appeals followed the lead of a 2004 Justice Department memorandum that found that the right to keep and bear arms is as absolute as the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. This reversed the Department’s previous position, which maintained that the right only applied to "militias" or their modern equivalent, national guard troops.

However the Supremes decide, the views of liberals and conservatives on gun issues have always been clear and diametrically opposed. Conservatives believe in individual gun rights; liberals believe in restricting those rights.

In all other Constitutional freedoms, liberals favor expansive and ever-widening interpretations. Liberals believe that freedom of speech protects treasonous oratory, internet pornography, flag burning, scatological art, and obscenity-emblazoned t-shirts.

Liberals fight for the rights of criminals, from free legal counsel for the accused to endless appeals for the convicted. Incarcerated convicted criminals, liberals believe, have "rights" to cable television, state-of-the-art fitness equipment, tasty and nutritional meals, and intimate contact with their non-incarcerated spouses, girlfriends, boyfriends, or chosen purveyors of commercial sex. Liberals will plead for the life of condemned murderers and mourn the lawful execution of a killer with the blood of dozens of victims on his hands.

Liberals also favor extending the rights of the American Constitution to those who have no allegiance to the Constitution–people who are not American citizens, people who have crossed our borders illegally, enemies who would sacrifice their lives to damage our country and harm its people. Liberals have legislated financial aid, educational services and medical care to illegal aliens and their families. They have fought the practice of profiling to screen potential terrorists at airports, fought against electronic eavesdropping that could expose and prevent another terrorist attack, demanded legal counsel for terrorists and enemy combatants, and welcomed dictators who threaten war and covet nuclear weapons to speak at American universities.

There is no limit to the "rights" that liberals will confer on lawbreakers and our nation’s enemies. When it comes to the Second Amendment, however, liberals have a different view. "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," is the entire test of the amendment. But rather than expand that right, as they do with freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, and freedom of religion, liberals work tirelessly to limit, restrict and expunge the right to keep and bear arms.

The liberal predilection for conferring, demanding and expanding the rights of criminals is evidently not a principle they can apply to law-abiding citizens who choose to own firearms. A drug dealer who shoots an innocent victim is guaranteed a lawyer, an interrogation in which one mistake by the interrogator can shield him from prosectuion, and endless appeals if a judge and jury find him guilty. But a citizen who wants to arm himself to protect his family and his home against that same drug dealer must navigate an obstacle course of municipal, state and federal laws before he can buy a gun, and risks prosecution and civil liability if he actually uses that gun to defend himself.

Liberal Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, in 1965's Griswold versus Connecticut, wrote that "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance." Douglas thus discovered a "right to privacy" unexpressed but inferred in the Constitution. He used this third cousin of a Constitutional right to justify striking down laws against contraceptives, and set the stage for legalizing abortion in the subsequent Roe versus Wade decision.

Yet liberals are unable to recognize any such penumbras and emanations from the Second Amendment. They view the right to keep and bear arms as a relic of a bygone age of savagery and violence, far removed from modern civilization. They press for legislation that makes guns more difficult to obtain for law abiding citizens. With each new restriction on legal gun ownership, criminals (for whom laws are inconsequential) are reassured that their victims will be unarmed and unable to fight back.

The Supreme Court is expected to render a decision on Parker next summer, probably with a narrow 5-4 majority, which brings us back to the election of 2008. Every Democrat running for President wants to further restrict legal access to guns. Most of the Republican candidates support individual gun rights (although at least one front-runner has a spotty record on this). The next President will most likely appoint at least one justice to the Supreme Court.

A liberal President will appoint liberal justices who will help restrict this right that the founding fathers thought so important, it was the second of the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights. A true conservative President will appoint judges who understand the value of this right, and will protect it. If you value your Second Amendment rights, choose carefully in your primary and in November. The gun you save could be your own.

-=-=-=-

Lance Thompson lives in Idaho, a state which respects individual gun ownership.

Once again we must give thanks for a MULTITUDE of worthy contestants.

#9

"Be Thankful These Turkeys Don’t Run YOUR Town"

L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and S.F. Mayor Gavin Newsom for finding the time to conduct high-profile affairs during their hectic schedules.

#8

"License to Waffle"

Hillary Clinton, for her multitude of positions on the war and illegal immigration.

#7

"My Crony, Right or Wrong"

Rudy Giuliani for his unwavering support of Bernard Kerik, indicted for several felonies, including tax evasion and conspiracy to commit wiretapping.

#6

"The Speaker’s Recipe for Putting Turkey on the Boil"

Nancy Pelosi committed her biggest congressional blunder when she pressed the Armenian genocide resolution and then had to back down when her support vanished.

#5

"Kucinich on the Alien Problem"

Dennis Kucinich for acknowledging, during the Democratic Presidential Debate, that he had a UFO sighting.

#4

"The United Nations Distinguished Speakers Program"

Hugo Chavez for calling President Bush “El Diablo” on the floor of the U.N. Assembly.

#3

"Why Iranian Camels Always Look Nervous"

Mahmoud Admadinejad for saying there are no homosexuals in Iran.

#2

"Marching Behind the White Flag"

Harry Reid for announcing: "I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything….”

LowDownCentral's "Turkey of the Year"

                    "Stark Raving Mad"

Congressman Pete Stark: for saying on the House floor: “…if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President’s amusement.”

By Lance Thompson

We all remember the two Border Patrol agents who were prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced for shooting an illegal alien drug dealer. While those two agents are serving prison sentences, the real villain in the case is suddenly back in the news. The drug smuggler who was shot while evading Border Patrol agents was recently arrested in Texas for–you’ll never guess–smuggling drugs. His carelessness is understandable, however. The immunity granted him when he testified against the Border Patrol agents allowed him to continue to smuggle drugs with the endorsement of the Justice Department.

To reveiw, on 17 February 2005 , Border Patrol agents Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos observed a van illegally crossing the Rio Grande from Mexico into Texas , near the town of Fabens , 40 miles east of El Paso . The agents attempted to halt the van, but the driver failed to yield, and fled at high speed. They pursued and the chase ended when the van crashed.

The van’s driver, Osvaldo Aldrete Davila , then fled on foot, ignoring orders by the officers to stop. Compean finally caught Davila and attempted to apprehend him. Davila forcefully resisted and, Compean testified, brandished a handgun. Compean attempted to disarm the law breaker. A struggle ensued, Davila broke free, and Compean fired at the fleeing felon. Compean’s partner Ramos fired and wounded the suspect, who nevertheless escaped back into Mexico .

The agents subsequently discovered the van contained 742 pounds of marijuana, making Davila a drug-smuggling illegal alien. However, Davila was not brought up on charges. Rather, the two Border Patrol agents were charged with firearms and civil rights violations as well as assault and falsifying reports pertaining to the incident. Compean and Ramos admitted to firing their weapons at a suspect they believed to be armed and a threat to their lives. They also admitted that they did not file a report on the incident, but Border Patrol policy does not require them to do so if the incident is orally reported. Compean and Ramos complied with this regulation.

U. S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, for the Western District of Texas, didn’t believe the officers were in danger, nor that they believed they were in danger. Sutton believed that the suspect was unarmed. His source for this key piece of information was the person most likely to know, and least likely to tell the truth about it–the drug smuggling, arrest-resisting, illegal alien. Davila had already admitted he had been smuggling drugs across the U. S. border. But under immunity from prosecution offered by Sutton , Davila insisted that he had been unarmed. Evidently, the jury was convinced that a man who blatantly violated our nation’s immigration, vehicular, drug and other criminal laws nonetheless scrupulously observed our firearms regulations.

Under the terms of his immunity, which lasted several months, Davila was allowed to cross the border at will, in both directions. During this time, he continued to smuggle drugs, and even made one delivery while waiting to testify at trial. He was not prosecuted for any of these crimes.

Agents Compean and Ramos were found guilty and are serving eleven and twelve year prison terms, respectively. They have been the targets of brutal beatings by other inmates, and have been placed in solitary confinement for their own protection. Congressmen Dana Rohrabacker and Duncan Hunter , as well as Senator Diane Feinstein , protested the sentences. Davila the drug-smuggling illegal alien went free, with the thanks of a grateful Texas prosecutor, who also picked up the expenses for his trip,

Davila can be forgiven for believing that the look-the-other-way policy of American authorities, provided by U. S. Attorney Sutton’s generous, criminally-enabling immunity would continue to protect him. However, that immunity expired with the conviction of the officers, so Davila has been working without a net since late 2005. Last Thursday, he took a hard fall.

Regarding Compean and Ramos , it is now clear that they intercepted an intruder on American soil, attempted to arrest and disarm him, fired at him in self-defense, and even scored a hit on a moving target. If nothing else, the agents are demonstrably good judges of character. The man they stopped, fought with and risked their lives to apprehend is a career drug smuggler undeterred by his painful, fleeting and, by all indications, profitable brush with American justice.

If either Compean or Ramos had been a better marksman, Davila would be dead, several further drug shipments would have been prevented, the costs of a controversial kangaroo court trial would have been saved, and two Border Patrol agents who demonstrated courage, initiative and good judgment would still be on the job. One could argue that any person entering this country illegally and intending to commit further serious crimes while here would have more than earned the lead fusillade that Davila received.

If Davila had been justifiably killed or successfully apprehended, and had the dutiful actions of the Border Patrol agents been commended rather than prosecuted, further benefits would have accrued.

To the extent that Davila’s associates in the cross-border drug trade had learned of his fate, the incident might have had a deterrent effect on their activities. Certainly the reverse is true when Davila returns from an unsuccessful drug incursion and is compensated by the United States with immunity from prosecution for his crimes and a Get-Out-Of-Mexico-Free card that enabled him to continue his drug smuggling unmolested by the law.

If Davila were incarcerated or killed in the line of felony, then young Americans might still be interested in serving on the Border Patrol, rather than being discouraged by the outrageous treatment of agents Compean and Ramos . Now actor Chuck Norris appears in broadcast enlistment appeals, encouraging those who wish to serve their country to consider the Border Patrol. Norris is a sincere, popular celebrity with a sturdy law and order image from his show " Walker–Texas Ranger ." But not even Chuck Norris can convince our young people to risk their lives when the Justice Department takes the word of criminals over our own agents.

New Attorney General Michael Mukasey was grilled by Senate Democrats on whether or not he would be free of White House influence. Here’s his chance to show his independent streak. Let Mukasy give Compean and Ramos front-row seats at Davila’s trial, let them testify to Davila’s criminal past, and then suspend their sentences. Let these law enforcement agents go home to their families and send Davila to jail for a decade or two.

Then maybe we can go back to calling it the "Justice" Department.

-=-=-

Lance Thompson lives in Idaho , and remains a Chuck Norris fan.

by Walter Moore (Candidate for Mayor of Los Angeles)

Here are three more especially disturbing signs that collaborators in state, local and federal government are aiding and abetting Mexico 's conquest of our country:

1. Speaking English Only Is "Illegal" At School District Advisory Meetings When American parents objected to the fact that meetings were conducted in Spanish, and wanted to adopt an English-only bylaw, the school district's lawyer concluded, according to the L.A. Times, that the rule would be "ILLEGAL and impractical."

Repeat: the school district's lawyer concluded it would be ILLEGAL to require meetings be conducted in English. I wonder if he's as concerned about the fact that half the parents in the district are also illegal? Of course not. Only American citizens have to obey laws, right?

If your blood isn't boiling enough, I urge you to read the entire article. Here's the link: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-parents10nov10,1,3272273.story?coll=la-headlines-california.

I think my "favorite" line was this one, about one of the parents at a meeting named Guadalupe Aguilar : "She added that she considers it racist when parents are told that, in America , they have to speak English."

Well, of course she said she considers it racist! Illegal aliens and those who aid and abet them know that's the "secret weapon:" you can intimidate many Americans into silence simply by calling them "racist."

Please note, by the way, how the headline for the story makes no mention whatsoever of the language or illegal immigration issue at all, and is instead so blase that most people interested in the issue would overlook the story. It's "Discord roils L.A. Unifed parent panel." This is typical of the L.A. Times: a reporter writes a terrific story, and whoever writes the headline tries to divert attention or make it misleading (e.g., by calling the Mayor's proposed tax HIKE a tax CUT).

2. Yo Soy El Army !

Yesterday I saw a bumper sticker on a car that read, "Yo Soy El Army," and had a U.S. Army logo on it. Today I went to the U.S. Army's website and, sure enough, they have a Spanish-language version of the site, along with a giant Hummer that looks like it was on the "Pimp My Ride" show, emblazoned with the words "Yo Soy El Army."

Terrific. Why, after all, should we care if our soldiers speak English, or owe any allegiance to Mexico ? After all, it's not like we'll ever need to defend our border, is it? And it's not like the members of a platoon need to communicate with one another in order to coordinate an attack or sweep through a building during a fire-fight, right? Carumba!

Here are the links to the Spanish language Army website and the low- rider Hummer: http://www.goarmy.com/SpanishChat.do?redirect=true

http://www.goarmy.com/events/h2/h2_event_schedules.jsp

3. California Labor Department Forms In Spanish

Want the State of California to pressure your boss to pay you disputed wages? Hey, there's no need for you to learn English, or hire a translator of your own. Instead, let us, the taxpayers of California , make life easy for you by taxing ourselves to pay for interpreters for you. Heck, we'll even provide bilingual forms, and hire the staff to process them. Here's the link for that: http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/Form1.pdf

So what's the point of all this? The same one as usual: if you want change, if you want to replace the career politicians who aid and abet the conquest of our nation, then contribute to my campaign so we can take back America's second-biggest city.

Advertisements cost money, and advertisements are the only way we can reach our fellow citizens. The L.A. Times is not going to cover my campaign unless it absolutely has to do so, and even then you can bet the coverage will be unfavorable since I want to deport the illegal aliens who buy "Hoy," which is published by the same people.

Please contribute today at www.WalterMooreForMayor.com.  It's way easier than learning Spanish or moving away.

Dreaming of a new GI bill and a place in history

by Lance Thompson

Now that the United States is clearly winning the war against terror in Iraq, the long time critics of the war are scurrying to find refuge from their records. Two of the latest to slink over to the winning team are Senators Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel.

In July of this year, Democrat Senator Jim Webb of Virginia told Tim Russert in regard to Iraq, "I don’t think there is a war, to start off with. I think this has been a botched occupation." In January, in his Democrat response to the President’s State of the Union speech, Webb predicted that "there will never be political stability in Iraq as long as American combat troops are on the streets of Iraq." Not only has the increased stability brought about by American troops proven him wrong, but his statement actually blames the presence of American troops for political instability.

Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel has been a consistent critic of the war, calling the President’s increase of troops in January 2008 "the worst blunder since Vietnam." He has said that America "cannot impose democracy on Iraq," as if the millions of Iraqis who risked their lives to vote in free elections were the unwilling recipients of liberty. He has said "there is no victory or defeat in Iraq," as if the situation were insoluble and the war unwinnable.

Like all critics of the war, Webb and Hagel are now becoming desperate. It is obvious even to the liberal media that the US is gaining the upper hand, that the war in Iraq has badly damaged al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, that we have gained tremendous intelligence about the way the enemy fights and organizes, that the United States is actually bringing freedom and democracy to a part of the world that has never known it. These are all victories, each demonstrating that the critics and second guessers who so rejoiced in our setbacks are now on the wrong side of history.

It is also evident that politicians at home criticizing the war abroad, calling it a failure, a blunder, a mistake, an illegal war of convenience, gave hope, support and encouragement to our enemies. The terrorists know they can’t defeat our troops on the ground, so they go after the soft targets–the soft-headed political posers who believe they can gain support by criticizing the war. As long as the enemy sees a strong anti-war movement in the Congress, he knows he has a chance to prevail–if he can hold out. In fact, anti-war movements have never contributed to victory in any war in history. They have only prolonged the struggle or contributed to defeat.

Both Webb and Hagel are decorated veterans of the Vietnam War, which makes their positions even more incomprehensible. They have both experienced the toll on the troops when their own politicians at home failed to back them up, yet now they are undermining our current service personnel in exactly the same way.

In a 9 November op ed piece in the New York Times (a paper known for supporting any enterprise that makes the war harder to win), Webb and Hagel proposed a new GI Bill for Iraq veterans. They will be able to point to this legislation as proof that they "support the troops." They can claim that their willingness to devote funds to returning veterans shows that they are not the carping, defeatist surrender monkeys that we all know they are. This is a prime example of seeking political cover and sticking the tax payers with the bill.

Returning veterans deserve all the appreciation, aid, and support that this nation can give them, including legislation that would partially compensate them for their sacrifices. But for two Senators who spent the last few years denigrating their mission and encouraging their enemies to suddenly pretend solidarity with the troops is the height of audacity. We know whose side of the fight Webb and Hagel are on, and it’s not the side of our GI’s.