March 31, 2014

       gun point
A Georgia radio talk show host told his listeners Tuesday that he would like nothing better than to shoot a National Rifle Association board member. He didn’t mention names, so I assume he’s an equal opportunity NRA board member shooter.
Liberal radio host Mike Malloy was all fired up about the Safe Carry Protection Act that the Georgia House had recently approved. The bill would extend the places in which licensed concealed carry holders could possess weapons.
He began his diatribe with an outright lie: “This organization founded by Gabrielle Giffords, you remember her, the former Arizona congresswoman that Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck suggested should be murdered….”
Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. Immediately after the Giffords shooting, Palin emailed Beck that she hated violence. This was in response to Beck’s email that “peace is always the answer.”
So much for honest liberal radio commentary. I get the feeling this guy moonlights as a speechwriter for Harry Reid, the U.S. Senate majority leader.
He continued his rant:
The NRA, which they’re behind this of course, they want guns everywhere. Jesus Christ! I would like to invite one of the NRA board members, and I’ll be armed, let’s just get this over with, OK? Come on down to Georgia and I’ll be packing heat and you be packing heat or whether you want to or not, I don’t give a damn, it’s up to you. And you come, meet me someplace, and all of a sudden, see, we have stand your ground here, and all of a sudden I’m going to feel real goddamned threatened by you! And I will shoot you! If I feel threatened. The law says I can!
He closed the segment with a flourish — a maniacal laugh that should have brought the men in white coats rushing to the station with sirens howling to take him away to his own padded cell. “Ha ha ha ha ha, ha ha ha ha ha!” You can listen to it here via Newsbusters.
On the one hand, progressives seem to always want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens, on the other it generally turns out that they’re the violent ones.
Case in point: Also this week, a California lawmaker, who was a huge proponent of strict gun control legislation, was arrested by the FBI for trafficking weapons, including rocket launchers. It all kinda makes a person wonder — just what did he have in mind for all those rocket launchers?
Finally someone put the idea of the Second Amendment being outdated to rest.


The news report in the video below focuses only on the "bad" protesters and nothing about how the police used military tactics to disperse the people who the police are servants to. Frankly, America needs to wake up.

 We control our government, not the other way around.  Molon Labe!

March 30, 2014

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — Hundreds of protesters marched past riot police in downtown Albuquerque on Sunday, days after a YouTube video emerged threatening retaliation for a recent deadly police shooting.

The video, which bore the logo of the computer hacking collective Anonymous, warned of a cyberattack on city websites and called for the protest march.

Albuquerque police said their site had been breached early Sunday afternoon and remained down hours later.

Investigators had not uncovered the source of the hack, police spokesman Simon Drobik said.

"We can confirm that the website disruption is due to a cyberattack," he said. The site was not "connected to any critical services" and IT personnel are working on the problem, Drobik said.

The demonstrators, meanwhile, arrived at Civic Plaza holding signs protesting recent police shootings, and activists called on various city officials to resign. They marched about 2 miles toward the University of New Mexico.

Albuquerque police have been involved in 37 shootings, 23 of them fatal since 2010. Critics say that's far too many for a department serving a city of about 555,000.

The U.S. Justice Department has been investigating the department for more than a year, looking into complaints of civil rights violations and allegations of excessive use of force.

Last week, Albuquerque police fatally shot a man at a public housing complex. Authorities said he shot at officers before they returned fire.

In the shooting on March 16 that led to the YouTube posting Tuesday, a homeless man was killed in the foothills of the Sandia Mountains on the east side of Albuquerque. The shooting was captured on video and followed a long standoff.

Anonymous, a loosely organized worldwide hacking group, has been blamed for breaking into confidential information and defacing websites.

The FBI has opened an investigation into the shooting.

March 28, 2014

Spokane Police Department officers shoot and kill 30-year-old Steven C. Corkery* in a recent armed robbery investigation after staking out a North Spokane home most of the day. Investigators have not identified the suspect or officers involved. They say a handgun was located nearby. The Washington State Patrol is leading the investigation.

Video taken from a witness to an officer-involved shooting in northwest Spokane on March 26, 2014, shows a man leaving a single-story house who is then fired upon several times. This video was posted to Facebook .

This is the 4th officer involved shooting this year alone in Spokane, the other 3 are below:

• March 4, 2014: Spokane County Sheriff’s deputies shoot and injure 37-year-old Bonnie Ulrick during a standoff at a Motel 6 in Spokane Valley. Ulrick suffered a gunshot wound to her hand after allegedly making a threatening motion with a firearm. Deputy Mike McNees, a member of Spokane County SWAT, was named as the deputy who fired. The WSP continues the investigation.

• Feb. 11, 2014: Spokane County Sheriff’s deputies shoot and kill 23-year-old Jedadiah Zillmer in a confrontation near the Spokane Valley Mall after Zillmer allegedly made a threatening move with a firearm. Zillmer, a former Army soldier, had led authorities on a lengthy highway pursuit. Investigators say he was armed with multiple weapons and made statements he wanted to die. Investigators say aspects of this shooting were captured by the body camera of a Liberty Lake police officer on scene. Six deputies, including Brian Hirzel, Brett Hubbell, Dale Moyer, Jeff Thurman, Ryan Walter and Randy Watts were listed as firing their weapons. The Spokane Police Department continues investigation.

• Jan. 16, 2014: Spokane Police Department officers shoot and wound 29-year-old Aaron D. Johnson outside the Truth Ministries shelter on East Sprague. Johnson, who has a history of minor crimes and schizophrenia, allegedly threatened staff at the shelter before police confronted him behind the building. Officers Christopher Conrath, Holton Widhalm, Michael Schneider and Sgt. Terry Preuninger were named in the incident. Schneider attempted to taser Johnson. Conrath and Widhalm then fired their pistols. The WSP continues the investigation.

                                mayors against illegal guns

These are the types trying to disarm us. They are fueled by emotion, not logic and are emotionally unstable it seems.



Andy Johnson’s land is drenched in his blood, sweat, and tears—and he’s willing to go bankrupt to keep it that way.

In fact, he just might have to: The Environmental Protection Agency is threatening to extract $75,000 a day from him for building, on his own land, an unauthorized duck pond.
farm pond

According to Fox News, Johnson’s ambitions were modest: He and his wife Katie wanted to build a stock pond on their Wyoming farm, a place where their horses could drink and graze, and their three children could play.

But an EPA order on January 30 cast Andy and Katie’s dream in a very different light. Specifically, it stated that Johnson’s pond is, in fact, a “dam,” and that Johnson violated section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act by building the dam without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. The order commands Johnson to develop a plan to restore his property or be subject to two separate fines of $37,500: one for failing to obtain a permit, and the other for failing to comply with the order—a total of $75,000 per day.

Johnson argues that he does not need a permit because his pond qualifies for an exemption as a “stock pond.” Three Republican senators—John Barrasso and Mike Enzi, who represent Wyoming, and David Vitter from Louisiana—have taken up his cause. In a March 12 letter to the EPA, the lawmakers condemned the agency’s order as “a draconian edict of a heavy-handed bureaucracy” and protested that the agency had, in effect, assumed guilt:  “Instead of treating Mr. Johnson as guilty until he proves his innocence by demonstrating his entitlement to the Clean Water Act . . . stock pond exemption, EPA should make its case that a dam was built and that the . . . exemption does not apply.”

But the eye-popping aspect of this story is the severity of the penalties threatened. It’s absurd to threaten someone with tens of thousands of dollars in fines because he or she lacks a permit. And it might also be unconstitutional.

The Framers of our Constitution recognized that, at a certain point, penalties become unconstitutionally disproportionate. The Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause reflects that understanding. In Austin v. U.S. (1993), and again in U.S. v. Bajakajian (1998), the U.S. Supreme Court explained that “[t]he Excessive Fines Clause limits the government’s power to extract payments, whether in cash or in kind, as punishment for some offense,” and held that civil sanctions that do not serve solely remedial purposes are subject to the Excessive Fines Clause. It is impossible to understand the threatened fines as serving a purely remedial purpose—surely, repairing any damage that Johnson inflicted would cost less than $75,000 a day. But, under the terms of the CWA, he is potentially subject to such penalties as a consequence of his failure to obtain a permit.

The Framers knew better than to leave bureaucrats free to impose penalties on this scale for conduct of this kind. Such penalties can destroy lives—a fact that should scare us more than any unauthorized pond. The Johnsons’ pond may or may not qualify for an exemption from the Clean Water Act, but the Constitution does not allow the EPA to mulct the Johnsons of the fruits of their labor over a permit.
After Rhode Island state Senator Josh Miller told an Infowars reporter to "Go fuck yourself!", MSNBC defended the senators comments as being "justifiable". This is why mainstream media is dying. The American people are waking up.

March 27, 2014

In a stunning criminal complaint, State Sen. Leland Yee has been charged with conspiring to traffic in firearms and public corruption as part of a major FBI operation spanning the Bay Area, casting yet another cloud of corruption over the Democratic establishment in the Legislature and torpedoing Yee’s aspirations for statewide office.

ssjm0327yeearrest30Yee and an intermediary allegedly met repeatedly with an undercover FBI agent, soliciting campaign contributions in exchange for setting up a deal with international arms dealers.

At their first face-to-face meeting in January, “Senator Yee explained he has known the arms dealer for a number of years and has developed a close relationship with him,” an FBI affidavit says, noting Yee told the agent the arms dealer “has things that you guys want.”

Let this percolate in your noggin for a little bit.

Like so many gun-grabbing politicians that have been arrested in recent years, Yee seems to have been intent on disarming the law-abiding, Yee was merely making life safer for his criminal allies.

The next time you see a citizen control cultist, take a long, hard look at them, and ask yourself why they are so intent on passing laws that only disarm those who are not criminals.


March 26, 2014

proudly display your willingness to stand up against tyranny and fight ...

A video has surfaced depicting masked gunmen shooting from cars, full automatic weapons, while the addresses of those who voted for the Weapons Ban and confiscation in Connecticut flash on the screen. This fellow Patriots is Government baiting us into committing violence against the government, thus giving the public the perception Patriots are terrorists or just plain scary people with guns. I Say to you all, do not fall for this Nazi-style propaganda, The CIA, FBI and NSA have used similar tactics in other countries to bait the people into a rebellion to justify the American governments use of force to achieve the elitist's goals.

For far to long, the American Patriot has been used to further the 1%'s goals abroad, while sacrificing our young men and women at their benefit. Let those who abuse the system make the first aggression against the law abiding Patriot, let them be cast into the history books as the ones who betrayed their people and left no another option for the Patriot to take. Let them awaken the sleeping giant, let them realize the folly of their greed, lust for power and disregard for the Constitution.

Lastly, use your best judgement. A video like the one posted here, would be flagged in a matter of minutes and taken down if it was a real 3% video. Those who monitor, have made it and intend for it to remain available to the masses.


A second grader’s answers to a Common Core-aligned math worksheet were marked as incorrect because they weren’t “friendly” enough… even though they were the right answers.

A screenshot of the worksheet was posted to Twitter. The teacher wrote that even though the questions — addition and subtraction problems — were solved correctly, the student used the wrong technique to arrive at the answers.

“Correct answers, but let’s find the ‘friendly’ numbers,” wrote the teacher.
View image on Twitter

The teacher wanted the student to solve “530 – 270 = ?” in the following manner: First, add 30 to both numbers, changing the problem to “560 – 300 = ?”. These numbers are the “friendly” numbers, because they are supposedly easier to work with.

The student, however, simply subtracted 270 from 530 the good old-fashioned way, arriving at the same answer. Unfortunately, this is not a Common Core-approved technique.

Though friendly numbers can be useful, the worksheet illustrates the weird priorities of Common Core, according to Twitchy:

In Common Core math, it often is not good enough to get the correct answer. Instead, students are required to show “higher order” thinking skills — in this case, use of the associative property. Yes, the associative property is important and should be taught at some point. Unfortunately, we suspect that many 7-year olds will not be able to understand this particular assignment.  With limited days in the school year, wouldn’t second graders — second graders! — be better off spending their time attempting to master the traditional subtraction algorithm?

The Daily Caller readers know that this is not the first Common Core worksheet to baffle young children and infuriate adults.

Why is the U.S. Military training in our cities? Martial Law, preparation for foreign invasion or something much worse?

 Remember the military have dozens of mock towns and cities to train in, I have personally seen a couple of them.

March 25, 2014

by Gina Cassini | Top Right News
New York’s extreme, unconstitutional actions against gun owners have emboldened gun-grabbers across the state — even in the classroom. A high school student in upstate New York was suspended for wearing an NRA T-shirt that touted the 2nd Amendment after he refused to turn it inside out or cover the words with duct tape.

Shane Kinney, a 16-year-old sophomore from Grand Island, located between Niagara Falls and Buffalo, said he served a one-day, in-school suspension Monday after he refused last Friday to turn his T-shirt inside out at the request of the vice principal at Grand Island High School. The shirt was emblazoned with the NRA logo and the words, “2nd Amendment Shall not be Infringed” across the back.

“Mr. Lauria [the vice principal] told me I had to either turn the shirt inside out or put duct tape over the words,” Shane Kinney told “I told them that I wasn’t going to do it. I had to sit in the suspension room and eat lunch alone until my father brought me a new shirt to school.”
“There was pretty much nothing in the policy about guns.”
– Shane’s father Wayne Kinney
Officials at the school cited the dress code which prohibits any clothing that might incite or encourage “violent activities.”

In a copy of the letter sent to the Kinney home that was provided to, Grand Island High School Vice Principal Michael Lauria stated:

“On Friday March 7th, 2014 prior to the start of school, Shane was seen wearing a sweatshirt with the logo of a firearm. Shane was asked to remove the shirt and turn it inside out, or place tape over the logo. Shane was also previously asked not to wear the shirt to school.

“Shane did not listen to the administrator and was later seen wearing a T-shirt with rifles displayed on the back,” the statement continues. “Shane’s actions are insubordinate and in violation of the GICSD Code of Conduct.”

On Thursday, Schools Superintendent Teresa Lawrence released a statement denying that Shane was disciplined “for wearing a shirt expressing a position on the NRA or gun control.” Although she did not elaborate, she said the incident presented an opportunity to review policy.

“The Grand Island School District recognizes this matter as an opportunity to review its policies, procedures and actions to ensure that they are consistent with our commitment to provide a safe learning environment and protect students’ Constitutional rights,” Lawrence said.

Kinney’s father maintains that there is actually nothing in the student code that bans clothing with the imagery of guns.

While Kinney took his punishment like a good student, he says he’s still not happy with how everything went down.

“I don’t agree with it,” he said. “The NRA does great things and there was nothing wrong with that shirt.
Kinney, who is an avid hunter with a part-time job at the local gun club, says that he believes that he was asked to remove the shirt more for political beliefs than for inappropriateness.

“I’ve worn other shirts before with guns on them,” he said. “I was never asked to cover up. I think this happened because it was an NRA shirt.”

“That’s what I’m leaning towards.”


Video shows a news reporter telling State Senator from Rhode Island Josh Miller that the second amendment shall not be infringed, his reply "Go Fuck Yourself."

March 24, 2014

         keith ellison
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) when asked by Bill Mahr why doesn't the Democratic Party push to abolish the 2nd Amendment, Mr. Ellison replies "he wishes they would."

March 22, 2014

Are they serious?! Just lay there and take it?!!
Sarah Brady founder of the Brady Campaign has relentlessly attacked the people's right to bear arms and has been on the record of saying things that Mao, Hitler and Stalin would get behind.


"We must get rid of all the guns!"
 "The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I'm just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough."

So the most prominent leader in gun control doesn't think we have the right to have firearms; shouldn't our president be outright denouncing the Brady Campaign for promoting unconstitutional principles publicly, after all he did take an oath to defend the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic.

Let's see what our dear President has to say about the Brady Campaign...
 “I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Barack Obama reportedly told Sarah Brady regarding gun control. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

Wait a minute....Our Dear President is working with Sarah Brady under the radar? He has broken his Oath and is working to disarm the American people! Wait a second, maybe I am missing something, let's dig deeper into our Dear President's past, I mean it must be a mistake...

When President Obama was in college he ran into John Lott and after a few words, our Dear President said "Americans shouldn't be allowed to have guns."


Seriously, I know most who are reading this already know this stuff, but those who really think gun control is about making us safe and keeping guns out of criminal hands, really need to reevaluate their stance on the subject because the gun grabbers truly hope you remain ignorant about their true intentions and become defenseless.

 How many firearms protect the powerful?

Why can't we have the same right to defend our families in the same way?

Because they view us as being the potential threat because they know the laws they are passing are against the Constitution and they know we all will awaken some day and demand our rights back with force!

For the Patriots out there:

Do not lose hope, there are millions of Americans ready and willing to defend this country and our Constitution from all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC.

Be prepared, be vigilant and God bless.

Man that was illegally camping is shot dead "because he had a knife" from 20 feet away?

The "Mainstream Spin" Story can be seen here

A Fresh voice on why we need the 2nd amendment.

Powerful speech by Ren Bodecker and Stewart Rhodes at the Alamo.

A must watch for all patriots.

Mike Vanderboegh, Former militia leader, Founder of the Three Percenters and the blog Sipsey Street Irregulars. 

Mike Vanderboegh together with David Codrea broke the Fast & Furious story about Obama, Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano selling military weapons to Mexican drug cartels. Mike is a staunch defender of liberty and the Founder's Republic. He is a true American Hero as denounced by Bill Clinton and the SPLC.

Check out Mike's Blog here!

March 21, 2014

Last week a sixth grade student in Virginia Beach, V.A. named Adrionna Harris saw her classmate cutting themselves on the arm with a razor, she stepped in and took the razor from the classmate. Instead of being patted on the back for stopping the student, she is now suspended for 10 days, because she was honest about taking the razor away from the classmate.

Has the zero tolerance policy gone awry? Yes!

 A few months ago a student was suspended because he did not remove a NRA t-shirt, another student had been suspended because they had turned a pop-tart into a "gun" and the classic: a student made a gun gesture at another student with their hand.


They want our children to be scared of guns and make even the slightest mention or symbol of our right to self-defense with firearms seem criminal. This is the outcome of a liberal public school system. It is quite possible that when these children are adults, they may vote away our right to bear arms.

There is a glimmer of hope-

In Plueblo County, Colorado- middle school students went on a field trip to the shooting range to learn about firearm safety.
"Often firearms and schools don't mix. There's a big fear there. So we are pushing the safety aspect and hopefully ease some people’s fears," said Timothy Baird, with the Craver Middle School
The field trip was sponsored by Appleseed, a non-profit organisation who's mission is to teach American history and Marksmanship.

For the first time, the national organization brought guns into a classroom, right in Pueblo County.
"We've never been allowed to bring actual real firearms into a school. Until this week. This is a very big deal. We had them touching fire arms, holding them and learning about how to handle them safely,” said Elizabeth Blackwood with Appleseed.
We should be teaching all children firearm safety and marksmanship, so at the very least when these children grow up to be voters, they will have real world experience with firearms, unlike most anti-self defense pushers in Washington.

In a decision released Thursday by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in the case of Baker v. Kealoha, the court followed the lead of the recent Peruta case to declare Hawaii’s restrictions on firearms carry unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

The case was heard by the same trio of judges who sat on the earlier Peruta and Richards cases in California, which challenged the state’s restrictive ‘may issue’ policies that required concealed carry permit applicants to show “good cause” to warrant a permit. The judges, O’Scannlain, Thomas, and Callahan, heard Baker in December 2013 and issued their findings Thursday.

“In Peruta, we concluded that the Second Amendment provides a responsible, law-abiding citizen with the right to carry an operable handgun outside the home for the purpose of self-defense,” wrote the Judge O’Scannlain for the two-judge majority decision in a memorandum.

“In light of our holding in Peruta, the district court made an error of law when it concluded that the Hawaii statutes did not implicate protected Second Amendment activity.”

Judge Sidney Thomas, who also dissented on the Peruta case, chose to do so on the Baker decision as well, citing that the Hawaii case came to the Ninth Circuit via a different procedural process than its predecessor. He also noted that, “there is simply no justification for a broadside interference with state law enforcement” by the court.

Hawaii has some of the strictest concealed carry laws in the country. In 2012, just four private citizens applied for a concealed carry license in the City & County of Honolulu, while one applied in Maui County, and all five were denied at the discretion of the respective county police chief.

This case is one of plaintiff Christopher Baker, a resident of Honolulu County who applied for and was denied a concealed carry permit by the Honolulu Police Chief without reason or explanation.

Baker then filed suit against Chief of Police Louis Kealoha for denial of his Second Amendment rights. The case was denied by a district court and then appealed to the Ninth U.S. Circuit, who issued its findings Thursday. Baker was represented by Hawaii based attorneys Richard Holcomb and Alan Beck.

“I think it’s promising. Everything is dependent now upon making Peruta a filed decision,” said Chuck Michel, senior partner and CEO of Michel and Associates, the firm responsible for the win in the Peruta case earlier this year, to Thursday.

Following that decision in February, county sheriffs across California started to reevaluate how they issue firearms permits and qualify “good cause.”

The decision in that case was used in a precedent in the later suit of Richards v. Prieto earlier this month.

“If Peruta stays in there, Hawaii will have to change its program,” explained Michel.

Even though Baker was an unpublished decision closed by memo, similar to how the Richards case was concluded, and cannot be cited in other cases, it is something of a validation of Peruta that improves the chances that California and now Hawaii could move to a ‘shall issue’ concealed carry standard for good.

“The most interesting part is that the Yolo County Sheriff, Prieto, has asked for en banc review in the Richards case,” advised Michel. “I expect that the defendant in the Hawaii case, the Honolulu Police Chief [Kealoha], that they are going to ask for en banc review too. At this point en banc review is inevitable because there is so many ways for it to happen.”

“There is still politics in this, so people need to be pushing their issuing authorities to adopt the Peruta decision and start issuing permits and people should go on down and apply,” explained Michel.

Nearly 50 years after his plane was shot down by enemy fire in Vietnam, the remains of a United States soldier have been identified and he will finally be laid to rest this weekend at Arlington National Cemetery.

Army Staff Sgt. Lawrence Woods of Clarksville, Tennessee, was aboard a Fairchild C-123 “Provider” on Oct. 24, 1964 as part of a resupply mission for a U.S. Special Forces camp at Bu Prang, Vietnam when it fell in a fiery crash near the South Vietnam/Cambodian border.

When Lawrence Woods was just 15-years-old, he lied about his age to join the Army. Once his true age was discovered, he was kicked out of the military, only to sign up once again when he turned 18. (Photo credit: The Leaf Chronicle)The aircraft which carried Woods and seven other servicemen was completely destroyed except for the tail section and no parachutes were seen leaving the plane.

Following the crash, the remains of seven Air Force members were found – Capt. Valmore W. Bourque, 1st Lt. Edward J. Krukowiski, 1st Lt. Robert G. Armstrong, Staff Sgt. Ernest J. Halvorson, Staff Sgt. Theodore B. Phillips, Airman 1st Class Eugene Richardson and Army Pfc. Charles P. Sparks. However, Woods’ remains were never discovered among the wreckage.

The seven servicemen who were found, were laid to rest at that time, but Woods’ family didn’t receive such closure. Instead, Woods’ wife received a telegram informing her that her husband was missing and the following year received another telegram stating that he was presumed dead.

However, his remains were yet to be found and the family held on to the hope that one day his whereabouts would be discovered. The family even clung to the idea that maybe he had survived the crash, become a prisoner of war, and remained alive somewhere in the country.

And then, 48 years later, on Sept. 17, 2013, Lisa Szymanski of Fort Myers, Florida, received a phone call informing her that her father’s remains had been found.

“I still can’t comprehend that this is really happening,” Szymanski told The Leaf Chronicle after receiving the news. “God, I really thought I would die not knowing.”

“We always held onto hope that he’d come back,” said Woods’ other daughter, Deborah Secriskey, who was just 3-years-old when her father left for Vietnam. “The years went by, and we just never heard anything.”

“It was like, it wasn’t real,” she added. “After all these years, how could they possibly have found something?”

Steve Woods was overcome with emotion when he learned that his father’s remains had finally been recovered from Vietnam after 48 long years. (Photo credit: The Leaf Chronicle)
Steve Woods was overcome with emotion when he learned that his father’s remains had finally been recovered from Vietnam after 48 long years. (Photo credit: The Leaf Chronicle)

Yet between 2009 and 2010, U.S. and Vietnamese teams excavated the crash site. Their efforts yielded human remains as well as additional evidence, including a metal identification tag from the aircraft’s commander. Scientists from the Joint POW/MIS Accounting Command then used forensic and circumstantial evidence to identify those remains and thereby account for Woods.

Although the remains were officially identified back in September, the ceremony to honor Woods was postponed until spring so that he could be buried with full military honors along with the other seven crew members who were aboard the plane with him when it went down, a plan which the family agrees is best.

The family, who has fond memories of Woods, feel that they can finally close a chapter in their lives which, for so long, had remained incomplete.

“Never, never give up,” said Woods’ son, Steve. “Put it in the Lord’s hands and one day, the Lord will answer your prayers.”

Steve calls the closure nothing short of a miracle.

He vividly remembers the day his father left for Vietnam, even though he was only 8-years-old. He was playing on the porch when his father walked by, dressed in full uniform.

“He told me, ‘I gotta go,’” Steve recalled. “That was the last I had seen of him.”

“The book of my dad’s life will finally be closed,” he added.

And although overwhelmed with joy, his heart still goes out to those families who do not have such closure.

More than 1,600 U.S. service members from the Vietnam War still remain unaccounted for, as well as 7,000 from the Korean War and, nearly 70 years later, 73,000 are still missing from World War II.


March 20, 2014


NORRIDGEWOCK, Maine - Police armed with assault rifles descended on a Maine man's home after members of a tree removal crew he'd told to leave his property reported that he had a gun.

Turns out the "gun" the tree crew had seen on Michael Smith of Norridgewock was just a life-sized tattoo of a handgun on his stomach.

Smith, who works nights, was asleep when the tree crew, contracted by a utility to trim branches near power lines, woke him up at about 10 a.m. Tuesday.

He went outside shirtless and yelled at the workers to leave before going back to bed. As the workers were leaving, one thought he saw a pistol in Smith's waistband, according to the Morning Sentinel.

Smith told the paper that the tattoo has never been a problem before. Police didn't charge him.

Senator Rand Paul: "Concerned about who is really in charge of the government". A must watch for all liberty minded Americans.

Could the United Nations ban gun websites? That’s the fear being expressed by some second amendment advocates after the announcement that control over key aspects of the Internet would be transferred over to the “global community”.

Last week it was announced that the Los Angeles-based nonprofit the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, would relinquish control over domain names and other aspects of Internet architecture in favor of a new “global” governing structure that would involve multiple “stakeholders.”

The United Nations subsequently welcomed this “transition” of key aspects of the web over to the “global community” as a “major step towards the multilateral Internet governance that the UN has been advocating for many years.”

But could such a transition herald a new era of Internet censorship?
“Things like the First Amendment aren’t going ton be applicable anymore, that’s going to be out the window, warns Urban Survival blogger Dave Acton.

Acton makes the point that the United Nations considers many firearms legally owned by U.S. citizens to be “weapons of mass destruction”. The UN has vigorously campaigned against civilian ownership of “small arms” such as hand guns and pistols, blaming them for 90% of civilian casualties worldwide.

Although not put into action, the Obama administration signed a United Nations treaty in 2012 which effectively banned civilian ownership of firearms, which the UN has previously characterized as a threat to the “power monopoly” of the state.

“So under that global governance program, websites that promote ‘weapons of mass destruction’ like firearms, ammo – those domain names aren’t going to be renewed,” warns Acton, adding that gun-related domain names will be restricted after the transition.

Concerns that the United States’ relinquishing control over the Internet to the United Nations could lead to censorship have been expressed by several prominent individuals over the past two years.
In May 2012, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Philip Verveer warned lawmakers that proposals to give the UN more control over the Internet could, “potentially lead to an era of unprecedented control over what people can say and do online.”

In February 2013, Robert McDowell, a member of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, warned that the UN was slowly moving to seize control of the world wide web, characterizing adherents of such a move as “patient and persistent incrementalists who will never relent until their ends are achieved.”

Texas Republican Ted Poe went further, asserting, “The idea that the UN ought to be controlling the Internet to me is like putting the Taliban in charge of women’s rights.”
Others have warned that UN member states would abuse such powers to crush dissent and disrupt anti-government protests. Indian Parliament member Rajeev Chandrasekhar cautioned that putting the Internet into the hands of the global community, “promotes a dangerous idea which has the UN and control stamped all over it.”


Idaho may soon become the latest state to stand up to the Obama administration’s attempt to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

Earlier this week, the state House of Representatives approved a pro-gun-rights bill already passed by the state Senate. The measure now awaits action by Governor Butch Otter.
The published purpose of SB 1332, the Idaho Federal Firearm, Magazine and Register Ban

Minute_ManEnforcement Act, makes clear the intent of state lawmakers:

This legislation is to protect Idaho law enforcement officers from being directed, through federal orders, laws, rules, or regulations enacted or promulgated on or after January 1, 2014, to violate their oath of office and Idaho citizens’ rights under the Idaho Constitution, Article 1, Section 11.

This Constitutional provision disallows confiscation of firearms except those actually used in commission of a felony, and disallows other restrictions on a lawful citizen’s right to own firearms and ammunition.

The State Affairs Committee,the listed author of the bill, was right to point out the state’s right to refuse to executive unconstitutional demands of the federal government. The authors understood that states are constitutionally, legally, and historically on solid ground when they hold these usurpations as null, void, and of no legal effect. That state governments have the power to take this tack with regard to unconstitutional acts of the federal government, the Founders were universally agreed, as I have explained in earlier articles.

In The Federalist, No. 33, Alexander Hamilton wrote:

But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.

He restated that principle in a later letter, No. 78:

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

James Madison, also writing in The Federalist Papers, recommended that state legislators, in order to prevent federal abridgment of fundamental liberties, should refuse “to co-operate with the officers of the Union.”

Speaking during the War of 1812, Daniel Webster said:

The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist.
In the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.

Finally, founding era jurist Joseph Story described the Second Amendment’s critical check on tyranny:

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Recently, three states have recently passed Second Amendment-protecting bills: Arizona, Missouri, and Idaho. Last year, Kansas passed a bill nullifying the federal assault on gun ownership and the action drew the ire of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed the bill in April 2013 and Holder immediately called him to the carpet, or at least tried to.

Holder sent a letter to Brownback informing him that the Obama administration would ignore a new Kansas law nullifying federal gun control laws. Furthermore, Holder warned the governor that federal agents would “take all appropriate actions” to enforce federal gun control laws, calling the Kansas statute “unconstitutional.”

In a response to Holder’s letter sent on May 2 of last year, Brownback defended his state’s right to protect its citizens’ right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
“The right to keep and bear arms is a right that Kansans hold dear. It is a right enshrined not only in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, but also protected by the Kansas Bill of Rights,” Brownback wrote. “The people of Kansas have repeatedly and overwhelmingly reaffirmed their commitment to protecting this fundamental right. The people of Kansas are likewise committed to defending the sovereignty of the State of Kansas as guaranteed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”

In spite of Holder’s tough talk and threats of federal invasion, Judge Andrew Napolitano reckons federal gun control laws and regulations would be “nearly impossible to enforce” if states would stand their ground.

Idaho is trying and activists are noticing. The Tenth Amendment Center’s national communication director Mike Maherry praised the Gem State legislature in a blog post:

This is an important first step for Idaho. Getting this law passed will ensure that any new plans or executive orders that might be coming our way will not be enforced in Idaho. Then, once this method is established and shown to be effective, legislators can circle back and start doing the same for federal gun control already on the books. SB1332 is an important building block for protecting the 2nd Amendment in Idaho.

To Idaho’s credit, on April 11, 2013, Governor Otter signed into law the “Preserving Freedom From Unwanted Surveillance Act,” an act reinforcing the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee of “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

The law amended the Idaho code, placing new restrictions on the use of drones by government or law enforcement, particularly when it comes to the gathering of evidence and surveillance of private property.

Such laudable legislative acts are critical and urgent, particularly in the case of the fundamental liberties protected by the Second and Fourth Amendments.

March 19, 2014

                                   reed exhibitions is in the middle of a learning experience and an ...

America's First Freedom -Totally free and informative new Magazine from the NRA . CLICK HERE for direct access.

If Lawrence Torcello, an assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology, had his way, people who disagree with him about global warming would be thrown in jail, the Daily Caller reported Monday.

"When it comes to global warming, much of the public remains in denial about a set of facts that the majority of scientists clearly agree on. With such high stakes, an organised (sic) campaign funding misinformation ought to be considered criminally negligent," he wrote last week at The Conversation.

According to Torcello, there are times when criminal negligence and what he calls “science misinformation” must be linked.

Global warming -- or "climate change" as it is referred to now -- is one of those times, he argues.

He cited a case in Italy where six scientists and a local defense minister were accused of providing “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information" and imprisoned for six years each because they failed to “clearly communicate risks to the public” about living in an earthquake zone.

The 2009 earthquake in L'Aquila, Torcello said, left 300 people dead and nearly 66,000 people homeless.

"I don’t believe poor scientific communication should be criminalised (sic) because doing so will likely discourage scientists from engaging with the public at all," he wrote, but added that "scientists have the corollary obligation to correct public misinformation as visibly and unequivocally as possible."

He then goes on to argue that those who do not believe in the dogma of man-made climate change are part of a well-funded campaign.

"Indeed, public uncertainty regarding climate science, and the resulting failure to respond to climate change, is the intentional aim of politically and financially motivated denialists," he wrote.

He also claimed that concerns regarding free speech are "misguided" and essentially argues that those who seek to provide another point of view on the subject should not be allowed to voice their opinions, since doing so "stretches the definition of free speech to a degree that undermines the very concept."

"We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and morally negligent. The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus," he said, concluding with a call for societies to "interpret and update their legal systems accordingly."

Translation: Think as I tell you or go to jail.

Eric Owens noted that on the day Torcello's article was published, the high temperature in Rochester, N.Y., the city where his college is located, was 18 degrees Fahrenheit.


Footage of the incident shows squabbles breaking out before a female officer grabs a male student and hauls him to the ground, aided by Officer Steve Rivers.

As the female officer presses the student’s face to the ground, Rivers grabs his left arm and violently bends it backwards in what appears to be a deliberate attempt to snap the bone. A sickening crunch is audible as the student screams out in agony. Although the kid is clearly in severe trauma, Rivers continues to push his head to the floor.

Following an investigation of the incident, which occurred on March 7, Officer Rivers was placed on administrative leave without pay.

Despite the fact that the incident clearly represents one of the most sickening examples of police brutality in recent years, numerous respondents to a 12NewsNow story said that the student deserved to have his arm broken because he did not immediately comply with the officer’s demands.

“The young man was refusing to comply with the officer, and once again we don’t see what happened to cause the officer to subdue him. Officer says “don’t move”, you don’t move. Don’t condemn unless you know the whole story,” wrote Martin Scott.
Other commenters responded by pointing out that the student was already subdued on the floor before the cop broke his arm.

“That kid made a choice not to obey a police officer. Which means he will never obey in the “real” world. He got punished,” remarked Cody Wilson.

Joel Scott, a professional MMA fighter, said that the cop’s actions suggest he intentionally tried to break the student’s arm.

“I am a professional cage fighter. I have trained in Jiu Jitsu for 3yrs with is a form of martial arts that specializes in submissions and breaking bones. It takes a lot of force to break a human bone.

You can clearly see that was intentional. He used his weight as leverage. The average person knows the rage of motion of the human arm and he knew what he was doing,” wrote Scott.

March 17, 2014

A must watch. Documentary covers the history of the 2nd amendment and the Militia.

                               open carry 1

A black man was arrested in P.A. because he was open carrying, which is a legal. They charged him with disorderly conduct and the judge dismissed the case. I salute this man for standing up for his rights. If it wasn't for Americans like him our rights would be no more.

TSA confusingly present at non-transportation related event. / Photo: WCSH

A St. Patrick’s Day celebration and parade this past weekend in Portland, Maine, boasted a high turnout, and one notable attendee was the Department of Homeland Security.

The Transportation Security Administration, having long ago shed the “transportation” part of its resumé, was “visibly guarding the parade route,” according to WCSH.

The report doesn’t include explanation as to why TSA officers were policing the event, nor does it say how many officers there were or whether the agents were conducting checkpoints or airport-style patdowns, but their presence again highlights a marked departure from transportation-related endeavors – as their title would imply – and into the everyday mundane lives of normal citizens.
For years, the TSA has been slithering its way out from behind airport wait lines and on to the streets of America, using manufactured crisis and the threat of terrorism as pretext to gradually invade the lives of innocent people and wither away any remaining vestiges of a free society.
The TSA has already rolled out on to highways, train stations, and public buses around the country, but they have also made the audacious jump out of transportation and on to things like conducting security for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan campaign speaking events, despite these events having nothing to do with “transportation” whatsoever.

In an equally puzzling move, the TSA also made its way out of the U.S. entirely, flying overseas to conduct security at London’s Heathrow airport in anticipation of the 2012 Olympic Games.
The TSA’s stated goal is to keep terrorists at bay, but with the push to police parades and even the Super Bowl, not to mention a fleet of agents still eager to stick their hands down people’s pants, the menacing agency pushes us ever-closer to a full-fledged military occupation and police state, and begins to resemble the very terrorists it purports to defend us from.

A constant TSA police presence serves not only to overwhelm citizens, but provides the muscle to maintain faux control over situations. It also indoctrinates us as a society to accept this form of overboard policing as normal and conditions citizens to expect guilty until proven innocent treatment wherever traveled.

Unfortunately, if you thought you could avoid the blue rubber glove grasp of the TSA by avoiding airports altogether, you’ve got another thing coming.


At a March 13th town hall meeting at John Barry Elemetary School in Meriden, Connecticut, Governor Dannel P. Malloy (D) told a gun owner that he had lost and control advocates had won.

Malloy made this statement in response to questions about the constitutionality of the gun laws he signed into law in 2013.

Malloy said: "We have courts in this country. We have a legislative branch, we have an executive branch, and we have courts. Courts are where the constitutionality of things are decided."

He looked at the gun owner and added: "You've thrown that term, [constitutionality], around a little bit, [but the laws] have gone to the court and guess what? You lost."
Malloy added: "So what the legislature did has been ruled to be appropriate."

Last time I checked "appropriate" does not mean constitutional or legal. Also, Governor you have won nothing but the spite and anger of your constituents. Unconstitutional laws are not legal and the people will disregard them, like the many hundreds of thousands who have already.
U.S. Navy SEALs have taken control of a commercial tanker that had been seized by three armed Libyans this month.
No one was hurt in the Sunday night operation, the Pentagon said.

The tanker, Morning Glory, is carrying oil owned by Libya's National Oil Company.
The ship was returning to Libya, according to a written statement from the interim prime minister, which said Tripoli asked for help from countries in the area.

The statement thanked the United States and Cyprus.

The Morning Glory sailed last week from the rebel-held port of As-Sidra in eastern Libya
Libyan forces fired on the vessel but were called off by the U.S. Navy, fearing an environmental disaster. The SEALs boarded the ship in international waters southeast of Cyprus, the Pentagon said.

The situation remains unsettled in the North African nation, which the government is struggling to control more than two years after the ouster of longtime Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.
Meet the militiaman holding Libya's oil

In this case, the issue centers around the oil-rich eastern part of the country and one man in particular, Ibrahim Jadran. The militia leader was entrusted by the government to safeguard crucial oil ports. But in July, Jadran and his men seized them, blocking oil exports, and demanded more autonomy and shared revenues for his eastern region.

He said he acted because the government is corrupt.

The conflict over oil wealth is stoking fears that Libya may slide deeper into chaos as the fragile government fails to rein in the armed brigades that helped oust Gadhafi in 2011 but now do as they please.
The Real Consequences Of Gun ControlOver the last few years many in Washington, D.C. and across the country have relentlessly pushed for Gun Control and in some instances total confiscation.

Why the push? Why the dire need to disarm the American people?

First, the everyday person who pushes gun control are nothing more than sheep, low information voters, that allow emotional pleas to over ride their commonsense, if any. The people who have power like President Obama, Bloomberg and Senator Dianne Feinstein want gun confiscation because it threatens their world view and goals to achieve them. When I say goals I mean their goal of a Socialist Utopia, where power comes from the top down, because in their minds the masses cannot be trusted to have real freedom, I mean think about the children!

Former New York City Mayor Bloomberg pushed a ban on sugary drinks because the peasants after all, have no right to choose what they consume and cannot be trusted, not to mention the unconstitutional stop and frisk and extreme gun control agenda that would make Hitler cream his panties. Many in New York City have complained that the former Mayor has made New York City too expensive for the everyday person and transformed the city into a mecca for the rich and elite.
Notice her trigger finger?

Dianne Feinstein has been the anti-self defense leader since the 1980's. She was the author of the original "Assault" weapons ban in 1994. She has also been on the record of saying "If I could take guns away from every American, I would."

President Obama, or as some call "our dear leader" as been anti-gun since his early college days. He threatened presidential power to further disarm the American people, which to many law scholars is unconstitutional.  He hopes to strengthen background checks by breaching Health Information Laws to allow doctors to rat out those who they think are not mentally stable, which is heavily based on the bias of the doctor in charge.

Frankly, these three that I have mentioned are the key players or better yet, Soro's soldiers if you will. They want us disarmed because they hate the patriot, they hate red blooded Americans, they hate Veterans. Why? Because we the Patriots, see through their B.S. and their agenda.

Firearms in the hands of constitutionally minded patriots is the greatest threat to their world view, in which we are nothing but cogs in a big wheel to further their socialist agenda.  They know if they control the monopoly on violence they can push us into whatever scheme they want,with little resistance.

Some who are reading this are probably in strong disagreement with my statements above, but if you will, let me pose a hypothetical situation to you:

Say in a hundred years, your great, great grandchildren are disarmed in our lifetime and a president who takes the powers that have been delegated to him because of the erosion of restrictions on government by the people and decides to switch our government into a top down power structure which lets say only 20% agree with, how will you stop it without firearms, if the political process no longer works?


Lets say you and your family are all sleeping in your home and an armed burglar is trying to open your front door and you wake up to the noise and notice he has a gun, yet a few years before the government decided to take your second amendment away so now the .45 you kept in your draw has been turned in. How will you defend your family against the armed burglar? Call police? They are ten minutes away and now he has the door open, what will you do?

 I already hear some saying "well  its rare to have a armed burglar enter your home." OK, yes it is rare but there are two points to consider:

First if guns are banned crime rates will rise, based on crime stats from other countries who have banned firearms. Second, house fires are rare too, so does that mean we shouldn't worry about  having fire extinguishers and smoke detectors? After all, isn't it better to have one and not need it, than need one and not have one?

When the threat is criminals with firearms, the good law abiding citizen must have the equal ability to defend themselves with the same equal force. Do not be fooled into thinking if we ban legal firearms, the illegal ones will magically disappear, they will not and I will bet you everything that those illegal guns in the hands of criminals will destroy more lives  after a ban than ever before, because criminals do not care what the law says.

We were trusted with a great gift by the founders, Freedom. Unlike most gifts, freedom requires a great amount of sacrifice, respect and stewardship. Remember our rights once taken will NEVER be given back.

Don't believe me?

 look at the Patriot Act and how our dear leader promised to repeal it but did not and actually build upon it and now he can kill Americans without trial, just by his own order.

So I humbly plea to those who love this country, stand your ground against all enemies foreign or domestic, it is our responsibility to do so. After all, think about the children!

March 16, 2014


SEOUL, South Korea  — North Korea fired 18 short-range rockets into the sea off its east coast Sunday, South Korean officials said, in an apparent continuation of protests against ongoing U.S.-South Korean military drills.

Such short-range rocket tests are usually considered routine, as opposed to North Korean long-range rocket or nuclear tests, which are internationally condemned as provocations. North Korea has conducted a string of similar short-range launches in recent weeks that have coincided with the annual military drills by allies Washington and Seoul.

North Korea says the drills are preparation for an invasion. The allies say the exercises, which last year prompted North Korean threats of nuclear war against the South and the United States, are routine and defensive in nature.

Outside analysts say the North is taking a softer stance toward the U.S.-South Korean military drills this year because it wants better ties with the outside world to revive its struggling economy. North Korea's weeks-long tirade of war rhetoric against Washington and Seoul last spring followed international condemnation of its third nuclear test, in February 2013.

South Korean Defense Ministry spokesman Kim Min-seok said the type of rockets North Korea launched Sunday wasn't yet clear.

Earlier this month, Seoul said a North Korean artillery launch happened minutes before a Chinese commercial plane reportedly carrying 202 people flew in the same area.

Pyongyang has said that its recent rocket drills are part of regular training and are mindful of international navigation.

The Korean Peninsula remains officially at war because the Korean War ended with an armistice, not a peace treaty.

The most shocking display of out of control government I have since in a long time!

According to the Mainstream media: 

Central Connecticut State University locked down its campus for more than three hours Monday after reports that a person carrying a sword and gun had been spotted at the school. But by midafternoon, an “all clear” was given, three people were in custody, and police said they were investigating the possibility it was a Halloween hoax.

CCSU Police Chief Chris Cervoni said three "persons of interest," including at least one student, had been taken into custody. Surveillance video showed one entering a residence hall with what appeared to be something "looking like a sword" and a "possible handgun," Cervoni said. No charges have been filed and the investigation is ongoing.

The three were taken into custody on the fourth floor of James Hall without incident, he said. No weapons were recovered, and authorities were looking into the possibly it "could've been a Halloween costume."

"We determined there was no real threat to the students, faculty and staff here," Cervoni said.

"It wasn't a prank because there was concern and alarm," he said, adding that the men in custody were "being cooperative."

No one was injured.

"In this situation, our prayers were answered," CCSU president Jack Miller said. "Certainly there have been many situations that didn't conclude this way."

A tense afternoon for the school's 11,000 students began shortly after noon, when New Britain, Conn., police said they received 911 calls reporting that a suspicious man, believed to be a student, was carrying "a weapon or weapons" near campus.

"Campus emergency," CCSU wrote on its Twitter feed around 12:15 p.m. "Seek shelter. Lock doors, close windows. We will communicate when we have more info. This is not a drill. #ccsu"

CCSU officials also issued similar alerts over the campus loudspeakers.

Police and SWAT team members swarmed the 55-acre New Britain, Conn., campus, but quickly focused on James Hall, a dormitory on the campus' southwestern side. Police dogs could be seen entering the building.

About 400 students live in the residence hall.

According to the school, officials were treating it as an "active shooter" situation as police searched for "a suspicious person carrying a gun."

A spokesman for the school stressed that there were no shots fired, but at the time would not elaborate on the nature of the threat.

According to one student who was interviewed by WFSB, police told him they were looking for a black male wearing camouflage pants and possibly a mask. The person was said to be armed, the student said police told him.

Another CCSU student said he saw a person matching that description get off a city bus and head in the direction of the campus carrying what appeared to be a samurai sword on his back. "I figured he was wearing a Halloween costume," the student said. "I just went and parked my car and went to class."

After the latest ATF raid on a totally legal gun store for the purpose of getting their customer lists, I thought I would post some stories on how the state and federal government has attacked gun owners and separatists in the past.

The Story of Donald Scott

Five police agencies staged bogus drug raid on rich eccentric to acquire 200-acre spread

Early on the morning of Oct. 2, 1992, 31 officers from the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Drug Enforcement Administration, Border Patrol, National Guard and Park Service came roaring down the narrow dirt road to Scott's rustic 200-acre ranch. They planned to arrest Scott, the wealthy, eccentric, hard-drinking heir to a Europe-based chemicals fortune, for allegedly running a 4,000-plant marijuana plantation. When deputies broke down the door to Scott's house, Scott's wife would later tell reporters, she screamed, "Don't shoot me. Don't kill me." That brought Scott staggering out of the bedroom, hung-over and bleary-eyed -- he'd just had a cataract operation -- holding a .38 caliber Colt snub-nosed revolver over his head. When he pointed it in the direction of the deputies, they killed him.

Later, the lead agent in the case, sheriff's deputy Gary Spencer and his partner John Cater posed for photographs arm-in-am outside Scott's cabin, smiling and triumphant, says Larry Longo, a former Los Angeles deputy district attorney who now represents Scott's daughter, Susan.

"It was as if they were white hunters who had just shot the buffalo," he said.

Despite a subsequent search of Scott's ranch using helicopters, dogs, searchers on foot, and a high-tech Jet Propulsion Laboratory device for detecting trace amounts of sinsemilla, no marijuana --or any other illegal drug -- was ever found.

Scott's widow, the former Frances Plante, along with four of Scott's children from prior marriages, subsequently filed a $100 million wrongful death suit against the county and federal government. For eight years the case dragged on, requiring the services of 15 attorneys and some 30 volume binders to hold all the court documents. Last week, attorneys for Los Angeles County and the federal government agreed to settle with Scott's heirs and estate, even though the sheriff's department still maintained its deputies had done nothing wrong.

"I do not believe it was an illegal raid in any way, shape or form," Captain Larry Waldie, head of the Sheriff's Department's narcotics bureau, told the Los Angeles Times after the shooting. When Scott came out of the bedroom, the deputies identified themselves and shouted at him to put the gun down. As Scott began to lower his arm, one deputy later said, he "kinda" pointed his gun -- which he initially was holding by the cylinder, not the handle grip -- at deputy Spencer who, in fear for his life, killed him.

Although attorneys for Los Angeles County believed Scott's shooting was fully justified, they weren't eager to see the case go to trial. Recent widespread revelations of illegal shootings, planted evidence and perjured testimony at the Los Angeles Police Department's Rampart Division were making the public mistrust the police.

"I've tried four cases (since the Rampart revelations)," said Dennis Gonzales, a deputy Los Angeles County counsel. And in each case, he said, jurors have told him that the possibility that police officers were lying was a factor in their vote.

"You have to be realistic as to public perceptions," he said.

Nick Gutsue, Scott's former attorney and currently special administrator for his estate, put it more bluntly: "(Gonzales) saw he had a loser and he took the easy way out."

Ironically enough, the county might have had a better chance of winning a court battle if it had allowed the case to go to trial when Scott's widow and four children first filed their lawsuit back in 1993. The county blew it, says Gutsue. It adopted a "divide and conquer strategy." It prolonged the lawsuit's resolution with a successful motion to throw legendarily aggressive anti-police attorney Stephen Yagman off the case. Then it filed a time-consuming motion to dismiss the estate from the lawsuit.

In the process, says Gutsue, new revelations of police misconduct began appearing so frequently that the public's attitude toward law enforcement began to change. "It was one scandal after another," says Gutsue. "(County attorneys) stalled so long that the (Rampart scandal) came along and their stalling tactics backfired."

Although county officials still maintain that Scott was a major marijuana grower who was just clever enough not to get caught, his friends and widow maintain that his drug of choice was alcohol, not marijuana. As a young man, Scott lived a privileged life, growing up in Switzerland and attending prep schools in New York. Later he lived the life of a dashing international jet setter who was married three times, once to a French movie star, and who had gone through two bitter and messy divorces by the time he moved to his Malibu ranch, called Trail's End, in 1966.

Although well-liked and generous to friends, Scott drank heavily, could be cantankerous and deeply mistrusted the government, which he suspected of having designs on this ranch, a remote and nearly inaccessible parcel with high rocky bluffs on three sides and a 75-foot spring-fed waterfall out back.

"You know what he used to say," his third wife, Frances Plante, told writer Michael Fessier Jr. in a 1993 article for the Los Angeles Times magazine, "He'd say, 'Frances, every day they pass a new law and the day after that they pass 40 more.'"

To Los Angeles County officials, the fact that Don Scott got killed in his own house during a futile raid to seize a non-existent 4,000-plant marijuana farm is just one of the unfortunate facts of life in the narcotics enforcement business. It doesn't mean that sheriff's deputies did anything wrong.

"Sometimes people get warned and we don't find anything," Gary Spencer, the lead deputy on the raid and the one who shot Scott, told an L.A. Times reporter in 1997, "so I don't consider it botched. I wouldn't call it botched because that would say that it was a mistake to have gone there in the first place, and I don't believe that."

Someone who did believe that was Ventura County District Attorney Michael Bradbury. Although Scott's ranch was in Ventura County, none of the 31 people participating in the massive early morning raid, which included officers from the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, the DEA, the National Park Service, the California National Guard and the Border Patrol bothered to invite any Ventura County officers to come along. Furthermore, once Scott was shot, Los Angeles County tried to claim jurisdiction over the investigation of Scott's death, even though the shooting occured in Ventura County.

To Bradbury, it was easy to see why. L.A. County wanted jurisdiction. In a 64-page report issued by Bradbury's office in March of 1993, Bradbury concluded that the search warrant contained numerous misstatements, evasions and omissions. The purpose of the raid, he wrote, was never to find some evanescent marijuana plantation. It was to seize Scott's ranch under asset forfeiture laws and then divide the proceeds with participating agencies, such as the National Park Service, which had put Scott's ranch on a list of property it would one day like to acquire, and the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, which heavily relied on assets seized in drug raids to supplement its otherwise inadequate budget.

For something written by a government agency, the Bradbury report was surprisingly blunt. It dismissed Spencer's supposed reasons for believing that the Scott ranch was a marijuana plantation and accused Spencer of having lost his "moral compass" in his eagerness to seize Scott's multi-million dollar ranch. As proof of its assertions, the report pointed to a parcel map in possession of the raiding party that contained the handwritten notation that an adjacent 80-acre property had recently sold for $800,000. In addition, the day of the raid, participants were told during the briefing that Scott's ranch could be seized if as few as 14 plants were found.

In order to verify that the marijuana really existed, at first Spencer simply hiked to a site overlooking Scott's ranch. Discovering nothing, he subsequently sent an Air National Guard jet over the area to take photographs of the ranch. When this also failed to reveal anything, he dispatched a Drug Enforcement Administration agent in a light plane to make a low level flight.

The DEA agent, whose name was Charles Stowell, said he saw flashes of green hidden in trees which he believed were 50 marijuana plants. At the same time, Stowell was uncertain enough about his observations -- which he had made with the naked eye from an altitude of 1,000 feet -- to warn Spencer not to use them as the basis for a search warrant without further corroboration.

In an effort to confirm the marijuana sighting -- Spencer by this time had decided that Scott was growing marijuana in pots suspended under the trees -- Spencer asked members of the Border Patrol's "C-Rat" team to make a night-time foray into the ranch. Despite two separate incursions, they failed to find anything except barking dogs. The following day a Fish and Game warden and Coastal Commission worker went to the ranch to investigate alleged stream pollution and do a "trout survey" on the dry stream bed. They too failed to see any marijuana. Two days after that, a sheriff's deputy and National Park ranger visited the ranch again, this time ostensibly to buy a rottweiler puppy from Scott. The Scotts were friendly and gave them a tour of the ranch. Once again no one saw any marijuana.

This lack of confirmation notwithstanding, four days later Spencer filed an affidavit for a search warrant saying that DEA Special Agent Charles Stowell, "while conducting cannabis eradication and suppression reconnaissance ... over the Santa Monica Mountains in a single engine fixed wing aircraft ... noticed that marijuana was being cultivated at the Trails End Ranch 35247 Mulholland Highway in Malibu. Specifically Agent Stowell saw approximately 50 plants that he recognized to be marijuana plants growing around some large trees that were in a grove near a house on the property."

To attorneys with a lot of experience with warrants, Spencer's affidavit didn't look like much. "On a scale of one to ten," says former district attorney Longo, "I would give it a one."

Despite the affidavit's deficiencies -- among other things, Spencer didn't mention that none of the people participating in any of the previous week's incursions had reported any marijuana -- Ventura Municipal Court Judge Herbert Curtis III issued a search warrant which, in the words of the Bradbury report, became Scott's "death warrant." After Scott's death, a helicopter hovered over the area in which the marijuana plants were believed to have been growing. There were no pots, no water supply, no marijuana. There was only ivy and even that wasn't in the location where the marijuana was supposed to be.

Larry Longo, a friend of Scott whose children used to play with Scott's children, says it's absurd to think that Scott had marijuana plants hanging from the trees.

"I went up there right after the shooting. The trees were 200- or 300-year-old oak trees. The leaves under them hadn't been raked in a hundred years." If Scott had been growing marijuana under the trees, the leaves would have been disturbed and the tree bark broken. "There wasn't a single mark on the trees. There was no water supply."

Besides, says Longo, "Donald might have been a lot of things, but he would never be so dumb as to cultivate marijuana on his property." If for no other reason, he didn't need the money. Any time he needed cash, all he had to do was call New York and they'd withdraw whatever was necessary out of his trust fund. At the time of Scott's death, there was $1.6 million in his primary trust account.

The Bradbury report caused a huge ruckus in Los Angeles County. Sherman Block, the sheriff at the time, denounced it and issued a report of his own which completely cleared everyone, and California Attorney General Dan Lungren criticized Bradbury for "inappropriate and gratuitous comments."

Cheered by his apparent exoneration by Sheriff Block and Attorney General Lungren, sheriff's deputy Spencer subsequently sued Bradbury for libel, slander and defamation. After a long and bitter fight, including allegations that Bradbury suppressed an earlier report which concluded that Spencer was innocent after all, a state appeals court declared that Bradbury was within his 1st Amendment rights of free speech when he criticized Spencer. The court also ordered Spencer to pay Bradbury's $50,000 legal fees, a development that caused Spencer to declare bankruptcy. According to press reports, the stress from all this caused Spencer to develop a "twitch."

Spencer wasn't the only one affected by Scott's killing. Scott's wife, Frances, was so strapped for cash, she subsequently told a judge, she considering eating a dead coyote she found on the side of the road. According to her attorney, Johnnie Cochran, as quoted in the Los Angeles Times, she is currently living on the property while she holds off government claims to seize it for unpaid taxes. In 1996, the massive Malibu firestorm destroyed Scott's ranch house and the outlying buildings. As a result, Frances Scott currently lives in a teepee erected over the badminton court, albeit a teepee with expensive rugs and a color TV.

Scott's old friend and attorney Nick Gutsue recently said he had mixed feelings about the settlement. While he was glad that Scott's widow and children didn't have to go through the horror of reliving Scott's death in a jury trial, at the same time was disappointed that he never got a chance to clear Scott's name.

"I asked for an apology and exoneration of Scott," said Gutsue. "I never got one. I was told it was against their policy." That's one reason, said Gutsue, he always wanted a jury trial. In a settlement, no one has to admit any guilt.

"Of course," said Gutsue, "$5 million is a pretty good sized admission."
Subscribe to RSS Feed Follow me on Twitter!