MEXICO IS ANGRY !

Three cheers for Arizona!
The shoe is on the other foot and the Mexicans from the State of Sonora, Mexico doesn't like it. Can you believe the nerve of these people? It's almost funny. The State of Sonora is angry at the influx of Mexicans into Mexico. Nine state legislators from the Mexican State of Sonora traveled to Tucson to complain about Arizona 's new employer crackdown on illegals from Mexico.
It seems that many Mexican illegals are returning to their hometowns and the officials in the Sonora state government are ticked off.
A delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora was in Tucson on Tuesday to state that Arizona 's new Employer Sanctions Law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state.
At a news conference, the legislators said that Sonora, - Arizona's southern neighbor, - made up of mostly small towns, - cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools that it will face as Mexican workers return to their hometowns from the USA without jobs or money.
The Arizona law, which took effect Jan. 1, punishes Arizona employers who knowingly hire individuals without valid legal documents to work in the United States. Penalties include suspension of, or loss of, their business license.
The Mexican legislators are angry because their own citizens are returning to their hometowns, placing a burden on THEIR state government. 'How can Arizona pass a law like this?' asked Mexican Rep Leticia Amparano-Gamez, who represents Nogales.
'There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona,' she said, speaking in Spanish. 'Mexico is not prepared for this, for the tremendous problems it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and who were sending money to their families return to their home-towns in Sonora without jobs,' she said. 'We are one family, socially and economically,' she said of the people of Sonora and Arizona.
Wrong!
The United States is a sovereign nation, not a subsidiary of Mexico, and its taxpayers are not responsible for the welfare of Mexico's citizens.
It's time for the Mexican government, and its citizens, to stop feeding parasitically off the United States and to start taking care of its/their own needs.

Too bad that other states within the USA don't pass a law just like that passed by Arizona.
Maybe that's the answer, since our own Congress will do nothing!

How public land grazing puts money back into the economy.

Many ranchers are from families who have lived here for over 100 years. They, with the miners who have been chased off, built this state and this country. They spend their money here. They employ people who spend their money here. They pay property taxes here. They keep food prices reasonable here. They donate time and money to their community, here. They own private land that is used as winter habitat for game animals, so hunters spend their money here. They pay grazing fees that help keep access to the national forests open for tourists here.
Think about it. If you kick the cattle off the range, as Western Watersheds wishes to do, the beef market will bottom out as ranchers sell off the animals they can no longer feed. The reduced beef value will cause all beef growers to cut back production. The cut back in beef production will cause a surplus of feed grains (corn, oats, barley etc.) Everyone knows a surplus of supply causes prices to drop. Grain farmers who go year to year just getting by will go out of business and only large, company run operations will remain. Once the surplus of beef has been exhausted the prices for the remaining beef will skyrocket as the demand will stay but the supply will be limited to beef produced in feedlots. The increase in beef prices will in turn cause an increase in the price of feed grains as beef growers attempt to keep up with demand using the depleted grain market. The increase in feed grain prices will cause a similar hardship to poultry and dairy production. How much can you afford to feed your family?
Grain fed beef is high in omega six while lacking the proper balance of omega 3, thus the cancer rate in humans will go up, Range fed beef is high in omega 3 with the proper balance of omega 6. The objective of the "environmental" groups is the destruction of all industrialism including those resources which support Industrialism.
If we fail, foreign corporations will come in and take over our public lands. They want to take our resources, gold, oil, timber, water, etc. etc. while we helplessly watch them do it. Every thing you have been led to believe in is straight out of UNICEP… a foreign think tank. Funny how connecting the dots places the world bank behind this scheme. Your lands, your resources, are their collateral for this National Debt, and, just like a mortgage, repossession or takeover is slowly occurring. Time to wake up. While we fight over our Public Land, and how to run it, or protect it, they are stealing it.
Do not support the U.N.'s agenda to abolish the Declaration of Independence as well as private property rights. Every thing Western Water Sheds supports is counter productive to a free society. The abolishing of Private Property Rights is the number one objective behind sustainable development agendas. By removing the most powerful users of our lands, "public" which is a legal term and does not refer to you or I, paves the way to removing casual use, as in hunting, fishing, hiking, skiing, wild life viewing, all of those activities are not sustainable. Once again, get educated. Start with the Earth Summit-Agenda 21- The United Nations Progamme Of Action From Rio… ISBN-92-1-100509-4.
Bill Clinton signed the executive order implementing this program, or as some so intelligently label it "Conspiracy Theory." It is a conspiracy and it is being implemented by your leaders.

Light of the Messiah?

Here come the scare words: Communist, Marxist, Socialist. Still can't see what "rights" he's trampled on?
Well... how about government takeover of banks, financial institutions, auto companies and the health care industry?
How about forcing people to buy health insurance and fining them if they don't, and putting them in jail if they don't pay the fine? How about a "health care reform" law that will tell you how much health care you can have, and portion it out according to if you're worthy of care?
How about massive taxes on energy, and trying to force people to stop using energy?
How about trying to force coal companies out of business?
How about an energy "smart grid" that will monitor your energy usage and cut you off if you use too much?
How about giving up our national sovereignty to control by the UN and third world countries to redistribute U.S. wealth by the proposed global cap and trade scheme?
How about bringing the mastermind of 9/11 to New York federal court for civilian criminal trial? How about refusal to recognize the Fort Hood massacre as Islamic jihad?
How about the Declaration of Independence declared God-given natural rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" that are being trampled on daily by a "communist, marxist, socialist" oligarchy headed by Obama?
Is that enough light, or are you still blinded by the light of your messiah?

If you participate in a system
that oppresses and destroys,
sometimes people hit back,
and when they do
its considered a tragedy.

Veteran's Day

This year, Armistice Day is marred by the recent jihad attack upon those who had dedicated their lives to protecting us. It was a reminder, as was its hyper-politically correct aftermath, that the jihad against the U.S. is far from over, and we have hardly even begun to fight it.
For many in the U.S. today, Constitutional law, including the non-establishment of religion, is as certain as the air we breathe, and we cannot conceive of the possibility that anything could weaken the principles upon which this nation was founded. The freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law -- all these things are unassailable, aren't they?
No, they are being assailed today by increasingly assertive global forces, both non-violent and violent. The mainstream media, government, and law enforcement, deathly afraid of charges of "bigotry," lie about what led Nidal Hasan to commit mass murder. And hardly anyone today is even aware of, much less interested in, the Muslim Brotherhood's "grand jihad" to eliminate and destroy Western civilization "from within, sabotaging its miserable house."
That unawareness and indifference allow this endeavor to proceed.
Today, then, we should remember and be grateful to those who gave their lives to secure and protect these freedoms for us -- as if our gratitude could ever be sufficient or adequate. We should ponder the fact that they had to give their lives in order to secure these freedoms. We should remember that if we are not willing to give our own lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor to protect the unalienable rights given at the founding of this Republic, we will most assuredly lose both them and the Republic itself -- lose them for ourselves and for our children.
Let us never shrink from the task before us: the great struggle to defend human rights, human dignity, and freedom from oppression and injustice -- particularly the oppression and injustice, and assaults to human dignity that are enshrined in the Sharia that is coming, step-by-step, steadily and apparently inexorably, to a willfully ignorant and indifferent West.
Happy Veterans' Day.

The future is in our hands

Our country's future now lies within our own hands -- yours, mine, all of us who comprise what the Washington insiders sneeringly call the grass roots. Good, because unless I'm very much mistaken the liberals have over-estimated their strength. There still are more of us than there are of them. I mean ordinary, decent Americans from across the political spectrum who may disagree about specific issues, but who understand who we are and how we became who we are; who love our country, have a genius for self-organizing, and won't let the United States go down without a fight.
We need to launch a counter-offensive, so to speak, and the place to start is at the local level. Working with our county and state political parties when we can -- or working around them when we must -- our objective will be to elect as many people as we can to public office who understand what a democracy is and how the free market works. This will include city council members, county commissioners, school board members, judges, sheriffs and even members of the local parks commission. With the strength and political momentum their elections will provide, we can surge to the state level and then -- before it's too late -- take back the power in Washington DC.
I know this isn't the kind of battle most of us want to fight; we would rather watch the talking heads slug it out on Fox News than stand on a street corner handing out campaign flyers. And given our country's history, for a while it will be uncomfortable to find ourselves fighting against the revolution and for the status quo. But we'll get used to this as we make our case over and over again -- to our friends, our neighbors, at barbeques and PTA meetings and at public rallies like those marvelous April tea parties that drove the liberals insane. And we'll draw strength as our ranks swell with new recruits.
The alternative to launching this kind of peaceful and political counter-attack is horrific. Right now sales of guns and ammunition are rising sharply. This reflects an intuitive grasp by grass-roots Americans of what history teaches may lie ahead. It was only after the Nazis had secured their grip on power in Germany, and only after the Bolsheviks had seized control of Russia, that they set out to disarm and destroy the vast numbers of ordinary citizens who - to the astonishment and fury of the revolutionaries -- just wouldn't go along.
That's when the real shooting started, and when blood began flowing in the streets.

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

'Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.' ~ Thomas Jefferson

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.

11. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety.

No guns, no peace, no safety.

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.

24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

IF YOU AGREE, PASS THIS 'REFRESHER' ON TO TEN FREE CITIZENS.

Failure of Gun Control Laws

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. Two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.One holds what looks like a crowbar. When the intruder raises it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and gets outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few privately owned are so regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and tell you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter."What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask."Only ten or twelve years," he replies. "Behave, and you'll be out in seven."The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as a vigilante, while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story grows. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero. Your attorney says the thief is going to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to claim you were lying in wait for the burglars. A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened. On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term. How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire? After the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."
All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars. It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns. Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns. Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead. The British public, de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.) Nine years later, at Dubliner, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school. For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry sealed the fate of any still owned by private citizens. During the years in which the British government took away most gun rights, the idea that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released. When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens. How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?
WAKE UP AMERICA; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

"..It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."--Samuel Adams

Most readers of this are aware that gun control mainly keeps guns out of the hands of people that aren’t a problem. What about the people gun control should disarm?
America is faced with an ever-growing problem of violence.
Our streets have become a battleground where the elderly are beaten for their social security checks, where terrified women are viciously attacked and raped, where teen-age gangsters shoot it out for a patch of turf to sell their illegal drugs, and where innocent children are caught daily in the crossfire of drive-by Shootings. We cannot ignore the damage that these criminals are doing to our society, and we must take action to stop these horrors. However, the effort by some misguided individuals to eliminate the legal ownership of firearms does not address the real problem at hand, and simply disarms the innocent law-abiding
Citizens who are most in need of a form of self-defense.
To fully understand the reasons behind the gun control efforts, we must look at the history of our country, and the role Firearms have played in it. The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States makes firearm ownership legal in this country.
There were good reasons for this freedom, reasons which persist today.
Firearms in the new world were used initially for hunting, and occasionally for self-defense. However, when the colonists felt that the burden of British oppression was too much for them to bear, they picked up their personal firearms and went to war. Standing against the British armies, these rebels found themselves opposed by the greatest military force in the world at that time. The 18th century witnessed the height of the British Empire, but the rough band of colonial freedom fighters discovered the power of the Minuteman, the average American gun owner. These Minutemen, so named because they would pick up their personal guns and jump to the defense of their country on a minute's notice, served a major part in winning the
American Revolution. The founding fathers of this country understood that an armed populace was instrumental in fighting off oppression, and they made the right to keep and bear arms a constitutionally guaranteed right.
Over the years, some of the reasons for owning firearms have changed. As we grew into a strong nation, we expanded westward, exploring the wilderness, and building new towns on the Frontier. Typically, these new towns were far away from the centers of Civilization, and the only law they had was dispensed by townsfolk through the barrel of a gun. Crime existed, but could be minimized when the townspeople fought back against the criminals. Eventually, these organized townspeople developed police forces as their towns grew in size. Fewer people carried their firearms on the street, but the firearms were always there, ready to be used in self-defense.
After the Civil War the first gun-control advocates came into existence. These were southern leaders who were afraid that the newly freed black slaves would assert their newfound political rights, and these leaders wanted to make it easier to oppress the free blacks. This oppression was accomplished by passing laws making it illegal in many places for black people to own firearms. With that effort, they assured themselves that the black population would be subject to their control, and would not have the ability to fight back. At the same time, the people who were most intent on denying black people their basic rights walked around with their firearms, making it impossible to resist their efforts. An unarmed man stands little chance against an armed one, and these armed men saw their plans work completely. It was a full century before the civil rights activists of the 1960s were able to restore the
Constitutional freedoms that blacks in this country were granted in the 1860s.
Today's gun control activists are a slightly different breed. They claim that gun violence in this country has gotten to a point where something must be done to stop it. They would like to see criminals disarmed, and they want the random violence to stop. I agree with their sentiments. However, they are going about it in the wrong way. While claiming that they want to take guns out of the hands of criminals, they work to pass legislation that would take the guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens instead. For this reason the efforts at gun control do not address the real problem of crime.
The simple definition of a criminal is someone who does not obey the law. The simple definition of a law-abiding citizen is someone who does obey the law. Therefore, if we pass laws restricting ownership of firearms, which category of people does it affect? The answer is that gun control laws affect law-abiding citizens only. By their very nature, the criminals will continue to violate these new laws, they will continue to carry their firearms, and they will find their efforts at crime much easier when they know that their victims will be unarmed. The situation is similar to that of the disarmed blacks a century ago. Innocent people are turned into victims when new laws make it impossible for them to fight back. An unarmed man stands little chance against an armed one.
An interesting recent development has been the backlash against the gun-control advocates. In many states, including Florida and Texas, citizens have stated that they want to preserve their right to carry firearms for self-defense. Since the late 1980s, Florida has been issuing concealed weapons permits to law-abiding citizens, and these citizens have been carrying their firearms to defend themselves from rampant crime. The result is that the incidence of violent crime has actually dropped in contrast to the national average. Previously, Florida had been leading the nation in this category, and the citizens of that state have welcomed the change. Gun control advocates tried to claim that there would be bloodshed in the streets when these citizens were given the right to carry. They tried to claim that the cities of Florida would become like Dodge City with shootouts on every street corner. These gun control advocates were wrong. Over 200,000 concealed carry permits have been issued so far, with only 36 of these permits revoked for improper use of a firearm. This statistic is easy to understand. It is the law-abiding citizens who are going through the process of getting concealed carry permits so that they may legally carry a firearm. The people who go through this legal process do not want to break the law, and they do not intend to break the law. The people who do intend to break the law will carry their guns whether or not the law allows them to do so.
Criminals will always find ways to get guns. We have criminalized the use, possession, sale, and transportation of many kinds of narcotics, but it's still easy for someone to take a ride and purchase the drugs of their choice at street corner vendors.
Firearms and ammunition would be just as easy for these black-market entrepreneurs to deliver to their customers. Today, criminals often carry illegal weapons, including sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, and homemade zip-guns, clearly showing their disregard for the current laws which make these items illegal. And when they are caught, the courts regularly dismiss these lesser weapons charges when prosecuting for the more serious charges that are being committed with the weapons.
Gun control advocates have argued their case by demonizing the gun itself, rather than the people who commit violent crimes. This is the main fallacy in their argument. They slyly attempt to claim that possession of a gun turns average citizens into bloodthirsty lunatics. This theory falls apart under close scrutiny.
If legal possession of a firearm caused this sort of attitude, then why are crime rates highest in areas such as Washington, D.C. and New York City which have strict gun control laws? And why are crime rates dropping in states such as Florida where private ownership of firearms is encouraged? Simply stated, legal ownership of a gun does not cause crime.
The most recent efforts of the gun control lobby have been to claim that certain types of guns and ammunition are inherently evil.
They assign emotional catch phrases such as "assault weapons" and "cop killer bullets" to broad categories of firearms and ammunition in the hopes that people will believe that some guns have an evil nature.
Most people who are unfamiliar with firearms do not fully understand what these phrases mean, and they accept the terms being used without question. What people do not often understand is that the term "assault weapon" has been defined to include all semi-automatic rifles, and "cop killer" has been defined to include any bullet that can penetrate type two body armor. It comes as a surprise to most people that a large number of simple hunting rifles can do both. Does ownership of one of these weapons cause people to become mass murderers? It does not, and we must not fall into the trap of blaming the sword for the hand that wields it.
The act of making it illegal to own firearms does little to prevent criminals from getting guns. These laws only restrict people who respect the law, the people who would only use firearms for legal purposes anyway. And when we give people the right to defend themselves, we find that criminals start looking for other victims out of fear that they will become the victims. We must work to reduce crime in America, but we should look at the problem realistically, and develop plans that would be effective. It is obvious that gun control laws are neither realistic, nor effective in reducing crime. Therefore, we must direct our efforts toward controlling crime, not controlling legal ownership of firearms.