Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Shotgun....


 You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.

Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.

At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. 
With your heart pumping, you reach down 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 something that looks like a crowbar.
 

When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.
 

The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.
 

One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door
 and lurches outside. 

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

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

Yours was never registered.
 

Police arrive and inform you
 that the second burglar has died. 

They arrest you for First Degree Murder
 and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. 

When you talk to your attorney, he tells
 you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. 

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.
 

"Only ten-to-twelve years,"
 he replies, as if that's nothing. 

"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."
 

The next day, the shooting is the lead
 story in the local newspaper. 

Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.
 

Their friends and relatives can't find
 an unkind word to say about them.. 

Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.
 

But the next day's headline says it all:
 

"Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."
 

The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters..
 

As the days wear on, the story takes wings.
 

The national media picks it up,
 then the international media. 

The surviving burglar
 has become a folk hero. 

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

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack
 of effort in apprehending the suspects. 

After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.
 

The District Attorney uses this to allege
 that you were lying in wait for the burglars. 

A few months later, you go to trial.
 

The charges haven't been reduced,
 as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. 

When you take the stand, your anger at
 the injustice of it all works against you.. 

Prosecutors paint a picture of you
 as a mean, vengeful man. 

It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.
 

The judge sentences you to life in prison.
 

This case really happened.
 

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

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

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

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.
 

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

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


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

When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Police later bragged that they'd taken
nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns?
The guns had been registered and licensed.
Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?


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 
If you think this is important,
 please forward to everyone you know.

You had better wake up, because Obama is
 doing this very same thing, over here,
if he can get it done
. 

And there are stupid people
in congress and on the street
that will go right along with him
.


 submitted by the Gman

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Three handsome male dogs are walking down the street when they see a beautiful, enticing, female Poodle.

The three male dogs fall all over themselves in an effort to be the one to reach her first, but end up arriving in front of her at the same time.

The males are speechless before her beauty, slobbering on themselves and hoping for just a glance from her in return.

Aware of her charms and her obvious effect on the three suitors, she decides to be kind and tells them, 'The first one who can use the words 'liver' and 'cheese' together in an imaginative, intelligent sentence can go out with me.'

The sturdy, muscular black Lab speaks up quickly and says, 'I love liver and cheese.'

'Oh, how childish,' said the Poodle. 'That shows no imagination or intelligence whatsoever.'

She turns to the tall, shiny Golden Retriever and says 'How well can you do?'

'Um. I HATE liver and cheese,' blurts the Golden Retriever.

'My, my,' said the Poodle. 'I guess it's hopeless. That's just as dumb as the Lab's sentence.'

She then turns to the last of the three dogs and says, 'How about you, little guy?'

The last of the three, tiny in stature but big in fame and finesse, is the Taco Bell Chihuahua.

He gives her a smile, a sly wink, turns to the Golden Retriever and the Lab and says...




(ok this is good now scroll down)




































Liver alone. Cheese mine

Sunday, July 15, 2012

Dead Lines...

7/15/12 Campaign Update
We are providing one last reminder before tomorrow’s deadline. Monday is the last day for entering the St. Anthony parade this year and we currently do not have the funds for the fee. The fee charged for political campaigns is $150.00. We are asking for folks to make donations to cover the parade admission fee.

Because of the short time period folks willing to make donations toward this campaign expense need to stop by our home, personally dropping off a donation before noon Monday, thus allowing time to make a bank deposit and drive to St. Anthony delivering the application and admission fee before 4:00PM Monday.

After noon Monday we are skipping this years St. Anthony parade and moving onto raising support for other upcoming events.

In the next couple weeks we have 8-9 event application deadlines covering a series of campaign events through August having related expenses like the St. Anthony parade with an aggregate cost of $1,500.00; all considered critical to successful marketing of Tim Utz for House 41-B and a victory on Election Day. You know others who support our campaign let them know how they can help secure an Election Day victory.

Hope to see you before noon Monday, and stay cool the next 48 hours.


Timothy David Utz
Candidate, Constitution Party Minnesota
Minnesota House 41-B in 2012
Constitutional Advocate
Preserving the Republic
This communication is private and not for consumption
by any third party or governmental authority. The 4th
amendment privacy rights under our Federal
Constitution are fully invoked with this communication
as specified in the original context and meaning of
December 15, 1791.

Monday, July 2, 2012

The Mess (You need to read this slowly and REMEMBER WHAT YOU READ)

 
The Mess
(You need to read this slowly and REMEMBER WHAT YOU READ)
 
 
This tells the whole story, why Bush was so bad at the end of
 his term. Don't just skim over this, it's not long, 
but read it slowly and let it sink in.  If in doubt, check it out!
The day the democrats took over was not January 22, 2009, 
it was actually January 3, 2007, the day democrats 
took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the 
very start of the 110th Congress.  The Democrat 
Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time, 
since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy 
that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:
January 3, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the 
Senate and the Congress.  At the time:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
 
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD 
of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH
Remember the day...
 
January 3, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took 
over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris 
Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
 
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months 
later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
 
Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) 
dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on 
the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie 
Mac FIASCOES!
 
Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - 
starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for 
the U.S. economy.
 
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae 
AND Freddie Mac? 
OBAMA
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?  
OBAMA  and the  Democrat Congress
So when someone tries to blame Bush - REMEMBER 
JANUARY 3, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS 
TOOK OVER!"
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from 
Congress and the party that controlled Congress since 
January, 2007 is the Democratic Party.
 
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process
for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 &2011.  In that first year, 
they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them 
to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat 
belatedly got tough on spending increases.
 
For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed 
George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep 
government running until Barack Obama could take office. 
At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to 
complete the 2009 budgets.
 
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a 
member of that very Congress that passed all of these 
massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as 
President to complete 2009.
 
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit,
the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the 
lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit 
spending. After that,Democrats in Congress took control 
of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted
for the budgets.
 
If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.  
In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is he inherited a deficit that 
he voted for, and then he voted to expand that deficit four-fold 
since January 20.
 
There is no way this will be widely 
publicized, unless each of us sends it on!
 
 sent to me by the gman.