The California Highway Patrol says they invited the Marines to tag along. "We had the DUI checkpoint and invited the Marine Corps in a show of good ...
Passing this along, without checking a thing 'cause it sure fits. On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 3:27 PM, mary patten wrote:
 Police and crime briefs, Dec. 18 Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, CA - A bell-ringing ceremony will be held today in Sacramento for a California Highway Patrol officer from Corona who was killed this week while investigating a ... | ||||
Pasadena Police Department Holiday DUI Checkpoint Pasadena Now, CA - Funding for this program was provide by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. SAN MATEO: POLICE DEPARTMENT RECEIVES GRANT FOR TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT |
TPD to head county drunk driving program The Turlock Journal, California - According to statistics gathered by the California Highway Patrol and the Department of Motor Vehicles, there were 1491 people killed and 30, ... |
San Jose police plan DUI checkpoint, but they aren't saying where San Jose Mercury News, USA - Meanwhile, more than 206000 DUI arrests were made in California in 2007, the most since 1994. Now, say San Jose police, it's time to take a tougher stance. ... CHP Sets Up DUI Checkpoint in Goleta as Part of Statewide Crackdown |
We're Fooling Ourselves: This Will Be WORSE Than the Great Depression OpEdNews, PA - The recent deployment of Marine MP's along with the California Highway Patrol along Highway 62 to "catch DUI drivers" is complete hokum. ... |
CHP, Police Kick Off Annual 'Avoid' DUI Campaign CBS 5, CA - The annual "Avoid" campaign increases the amount of California Highway Patrol and police officers on the streets and provides brochures and signs reminding ... "Avoid" Campaigns Begins Targeting Drunken Drivers Drunken drivers targeted tonight DUI flashlights help fight drunken driving -- but are they legal? |
Area agencies to beef up DUI-enforcement efforts Visalia Times-Delta, CA - The program involves all 11 Tulare County law enforcement agencies, including the two California Highway Patrol offices. ... Local agencies increase DUI enforcement, ask for everyone to help ... |
DUI enforcement increasing during holidays Tri Valley Herald, CA - The California Highway Patrol, as well as police departments in Fremont, Newark and Union City, are participating in the Avoid the 21 campaign, ... |
 KCBS | Lobbying Group: DUI Checkpoints Not Effective KQCA, My58.com, CA - The California Highway Patrol and local police agencies use checkpoints to prevent drunken driving. But according to the American Beverage Institute, ...  Video: DUI Checkpoints Serve Purpose, CHP Says Back-seat Driver: You, too, can help stop drunken drivers |
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
National Geographic Channel ran a show last night entitled, "Gun In
America." According to the program, there are millions of misguided
gun owners across the nation. Why? Because your guns are supposedly
more likely to harm you than to help you in an emergency.
"As a society, we're totally out of control with weapons," said one
Philadelphia cop who was interviewed during the show. "You need to
limit access that people have to these type of firearms."
That was the basic thrust of the program. National Geographic
recited the usual worn-out factoids that are peddled by the Brady
Campaign. It only cited anti-gun cops. And for every person who was
filmed stating he or she believed in a right to own firearms for
self-defense, the program would cite "facts" to prove that such a
hope was misplaced.
Gun owners should let the President and CEO of National Geographic
know that the channel should stick to showing pictures of kangaroos
and foliage -- images that we normally attribute to National
Geographic's magazine -- and keep his personal, anti-gun views to his
private conversations around the Christmas dinner table.
The National Geographic Channel presents itself as an educational,
unbiased alternative. But "Guns in America" was hardly unbiased, as
can be seen by the following agenda items that were pushed during the
program:
1. "Guns in America" would have you believe that the guns in your
home are 22 times more likely to kill a family member than to protect
you. This statistic can (surprise, surprise!) be found on the Brady
Campaign website, but its source has been highly discredited. The
factoid originates with Arthur Kellerman, who has generated multiple
studies claiming that guns are a net liability.(1) But Kellerman has
been found guilty of fudging his data, and even the National Academy
of Sciences has stated that his "conclusions do not seem to follow"
from his data.(2)
The truth of the matter is actually quite encouraging for gun owners.
Anti-gun researchers for the Clinton Justice Department found that
guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense, which
means that each year, firearms are used more than 50 times more often
to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.(3)
Isn't that strange? You would think anti-gunners wouldn't mind
citing a study that was commissioned by the Clinton Justice
Department! Apparently, the results of the study didn't fit their
agenda.
2. "Guns in America" overstates the number of children who die by
unintentional gunfire. The program would have viewers believe that a
child dies by accidental gunfire, once every two days. But you can
only reach that figure if you count violent-prone teens as
"children."
In fact, when you look at the statistics involving younger children
(ages 0-14), you see that kids have a greater chance of dying from
choking on things like the peanut butter and jelly sandwiches that
you feed them.(4) Hmm, why doesn't National Geographic want to
report on those killer peanuts?
3. "Guns in America" portrays twelve times as many negative uses of
guns as positive uses -- even though in the real world, the truth is
quite the opposite (as guns are used at least 50 times more often to
save life than take life). The program does start with a
dramatization of a legitimate self-defense story with an actual 911
call playing in the background. But after that, every dramatization
is about drive-by-shootings or cops being shot or gang-related
warfare.
The lesson for the viewer is: Guns are bad.
4. "Guns in America" only quotes anti-gun
"authorities," thus leaving
the impression that all law-enforcement support gun control. Never
mind the fact that when one looks at polls of the police community,
they overwhelmingly hold pro-gun attitudes:
* Should any law-abiding citizen be able to purchase a firearm for
sport or self defense? -- 93% of law-enforcement said yes.(5)
* Do you believe law-abiding citizens should be limited to the
purchase of no more than one firearm per month? -- 70.1% of
law-enforcement said no.(6)
* Do you agree that a national concealed handgun permit would reduce
rates of violent crime as recent studies in some states have already
reflected? -- 68.2% of law-enforcement said yes.(7)
It's bad enough that a liberal teacher's union controls the education
of our kids in the public schools, and that many of them are being
brainwashed with politically correct thinking. We don't need
supposedly neutral programs like National Geographic peddling the
Brady Campaign's favorite factoids to an unsuspecting public.
ACTION: Please contact Tim T. Kelly, the President and CEO of
National Geographic Ventures (which includes their television
division), and urge him to steer the NatGeo channel away from
politics. If the National Geographic Channel can't run a balanced
program -- where they use real statistics -- then they just need to
stick to filming those cute little animals that helped make their
magazine so famous.
You can go to http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/contact
to cut-and-paste the sample letter below into their webform. Since
you will need to select a Topic, please choose "I have a
complaint."
And for "Department," we would suggest selecting
"Factual Questions"
or "General."
---- Pre-written letter ----
Dear Mr. Kelly:
I will think twice before ordering the National Geographic magazine,
because I don't want to help you fund any more anti-gun propaganda.
Your Explorer show entitled "Guns In America" -- which has run
several times this month -- was heavily slanted to the gun control
position. The show used fallacious statistics without rebutting
them, all in an effort to demonize firearms.
For example, "Guns in America" falsely claimed that guns in
the home
are 22 times more likely to kill a family member than to serve as
protection. That is simply not true. The author of this study,
Arthur Kellerman, has been discredited many times (by groups such as
the National Academy of Sciences), so it's shameful that your channel
would even cite his work.
Second, "Guns in America" overstates the number of children who die
by unintentional gunfire. In fact, when you look at the statistics
involving younger children (ages 0-14), you see that kids have a
greater chance of dying from choking on things like the peanut butter
and jelly sandwiches that you feed them. Can I expect to see a show
in the near future highlighting the danger of feeding children?
Third, "Guns in America" portrays twelve times as many
negative uses
of guns as positive uses -- even though in the real world, the truth
is quite the opposite. According to statistics from the Clinton
Justice Department in 2007, guns are used at least 50 times more
often to save life than take life.
Finally, "Guns in America" only quotes anti-gun
"authorities," thus
leaving the impression that all law-enforcement support gun control.
Never mind the fact that when one looks at polls of the police
community, they overwhelmingly hold pro-gun attitudes. (Please see
the poll results on the website for the National Association of
Chiefs of Police.) Why were none of these authorities ever cited?
The National Geographic Society's purpose is "to increase and diffuse
geographic knowledge while promoting the conservation of the world's
cultural, historical, and natural resources." I would submit to you
that pushing gun control is far afield from your stated purpose.
Sincerely,
--------------------------------
ENDNOTES:
(1) Arthur Kellerman has generated multiple studies that claim gun
owners are more likely to be injured by their guns than to use those
guns in self-defense. His results range from 3 to 22 to 43 times
more likely to be injured by a gun in the home. His methodology has
been debunked, however, many times over. (See endnote 2.)
(2) See http://www.gunowners.org/sk0701.htm . Also, see Charles F.
Wellford, John Pepper, Carol Petrie, Firearms and Violence: A
Critical Review (National Research Council of the National Academies,
2004), p. 118.
(3) See http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm
(4) See "Children Accidental Death Rates (Ages 0-14)," Gun Control
Fact Sheet (2004) at http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
(5) National Association of Chiefs of Police, 20th Annual Survey
Results (Survey questions sent to Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs in
the United States: 2008).
(6) National Association of Chiefs of Police, 15th Annual Survey
Results (Survey questions sent to Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs in
the United States).
(7) Ibid.
Protect our Right to Self Protection
D.C. leaders say they are trying to be respectful of the Supreme Court
case while doing everything they can to enact strict gun control
measures in a city where gun violence is common. "No constitutional
right is absolute, nor is this right to possess a gun in the home for
self defense," said councilwoman Mary Cheh, a law professor at George
Washington University.
DC tightens gun rules after landmark court ruling
The Associated Press
freep.com
December 16, 2008
http://www.freep.com/article/20081216/NEWS07/81216089
The District of Columbia Council passed more regulations for gun owners
Tuesday, months after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the city's
32-year-old handgun ban.
Among other things, the bill requires gun owners to register their
weapons every three years and receive training by a certified firearms
instructor.
"This bill will be, I think, one of the most progressive registration
laws in the country," Council member Phil Mendelson said.
The National Rifle Association accused the city of forcing residents to
jump through unnecessary hurdles, thereby undermining the intent of the
Supreme Court's ruling in June that affirmed the right of Americans to
keep guns in the home for self defense.
"The D.C. Council continues to try to make it harder and harder for
law-abiding citizens to access this freedom," NRA Executive Vice
President Wayne LaPierre said.
In September, the House passed an NRA-backed bill that would have
essentially stripped the city of its ability to regulate firearms, but
the measure died in the Senate.
D.C. leaders say they are trying to be respectful of the Supreme Court
case while doing everything they can to enact strict gun control
measures in a city where gun violence is common.
"No constitutional right is absolute, nor is this right to possess a gun
in the home for self defense," said councilwoman Mary Cheh, a law
professor at George Washington University.
Since the handgun ban was overturned, the council has passed legislation
allowing residents to own most semiautomatic pistols while banning
magazines capable of firing more than 10 rounds. Registration also is
limited to one pistol a month, and gun owners face prosecution if they
fail to keep loaded weapons away from children.
Tuesday's bill builds on those regulations. It requires gun owners to
spend at least one hour at the firing range and four hours in the
classroom with an instructor before registration. The bill also requires
a criminal background check for gun owners every six years.
A Little Gun History Lesson
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about
20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------ --------- ---------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------ --------- ---------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------ --------- -------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------ --------- ---------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------ --------- ---------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------ --------- --------Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because
of gun control: 56 million.
------------ --------- ---------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new
law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own
government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 mill ion
dollars. The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300
percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed
robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12
months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the
ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety
has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in
successfully ridding Australia n society of guns. The Australian experience
and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of
this history lesson.
With Guns....... .. ....We Are 'Citizens'.
Without Them........ We Are 'Subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew
most Americans were ARMED!
Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended
Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our
Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared t o defend the country.
It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor
attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had
lived in the&nbs p; U. S. & knew that almost all households had guns.
If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to
all your friends!
AND NEVER, NEVER, NEVER SURRENDER YOUR GUNS!!!
Quotes - Thomas Jefferson
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago."The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves
--Thomas Jefferson
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson
that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom
of the press." Thomas Jefferson
I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.-Thomas Jefferson
Power is not alluring to pure minds.-Thomas Jefferson
Most bad government has grown out of too much government.-Thomas Jefferson
What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?-Thomas Jefferson
Army ‘Strategic Shock’ Report Says Troops May Be Needed To Quell U.S. Civil Unrest
A recent report produced by the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Institute warns that the United States may experience massive civil unrest in the wake of a series of crises which it has termed “strategic shock.”
The report, titled Known Unknowns: Unconventional Strategic Shocks in Defense Strategy Development, also suggests that the military may have to be used to quell domestic disorder.
“Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security,” the report, authored by [Ret.] Lt. Col. Nathan Freir, reads.
“Deliberate employment of weapons of mass destruction or other catastrophic capabilities, unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters are all paths to disruptive domestic shock.” it continues.
“An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by a long-secure domestic order would be forced to rapidly divest some or most external security commitments in order to address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home…”
“Already predisposed to defer to the primacy of civilian authorities in instances of domestic security and divest all but the most extreme demands in areas like civil support and consequence management, DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States.” Lt. Col. Freir concludes.
See Pages 31-32 (PDF) for quoted sections.
Freir is a Senior Fellow in the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). He joined the think tank in April 2008 after retiring from the U.S. Army after 20 years as a lieutenant colonel. In his role at CSIS he rubs shoulders with a whole host of globalist luminaries including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and Richard Armitage.
Echoing recent comments made by Pentagon advisors, along with other notable figures such as Colin Powell and Joe Biden, Freir also warns that the incoming Obama administration should prepare for a “first term crisis” that could act as a catalyst for such unrest.
“The current administration confronted a game-changing ’strategic shock’ inside its first eight months in office,” the report reads. “The next administration would be well-advised to expect the same during the course of its first term. Indeed, the odds are very high against any of the challenges routinely at the top of the traditional defense agenda triggering the next watershed inside DoD [Department of Defense].”
“The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials,” reported the Washington Post last month.
In a September 8 Army Times article, Northcom announced that the first wave of the troop deployment, which was put in place on October 1st at Fort Stewart and at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, would be aimed at tackling “civil unrest and crowd control”.
Franks outlined the scenario by which martial law would be put in place, saying, “It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America –
that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”
In the short term, the domestic deployment of troops is likely aimed at combating likely civil unrest that will ensue after a complete economic collapse followed by a devastating period of hyperinflation.
This warning was again echoed a few days ago in a leaked internal memo from Citibank.
“The world is not going back to normal after the magnitude of what they have done. When the dust settles this will either work, and the money they have pushed into the system will feed through into an inflation shock,” wrote Tom Fitzpatrick, Citibank’s chief technical strategist.
The memo predicts “depression, civil disorder and possibly wars” as a fallout from an economic collapse that many say is on the horizon.
Naturally, the claim that such troop deployments are merely to aid in disaster relief efforts is a thin veil aimed at distracting from the real goal. Should a real tragedy occur, volunteers and already existing civil aid organizations are fully capable of dealing with such events, as we witnessed on 9/11.
Holy fascist police state, Batman! US military mobilizes troops for inauguration --7,500 active duty troops and 4,000 national guard troops will take part in operations 17 Dec 2008 The US military plans to mobilize thousands of troops to protect Washington against potential terrorist attack during the inauguration of president-elect Barack Obama, a senior US military commander said Wednesday. They will fly combat air patrols and man air defenses, organize large scale medical support, and help local law enforcement provide security in the capital, said General Gene Renuart, head of the US Northern Command. [Bye-bye, Posse Comitatus!]
Military to be on high alert for inauguration --About 11,500 troops, including chemical attack experts, will join the security detail as Obama takes the oath of office. 18 Dec 2008 The U.S. military will be on high alert during Barack Obama's inauguration, increasing air defenses and deploying chemical attack experts and medical units, a general said Wednesday. Air Force Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr., who heads the military command that oversees security for North America, said the Defense Department had not been told of specific Inauguration Day threats. Nonetheless, he said, the armed services must be ready.
No comments:
Post a Comment