Will the Ground Zero mosque have a memorial wall dedicated to the Sept. 11th Muslim hijackers?

  

Buffalo businessman Carl P. Paladino, a candidate for governor in the forthcoming New York Republican primary made a startling revelation about the Ground Zero mosque in a interview (reprinted below) with NY1 reporter Elizabeth Kaledin. Paladino says there are plans for the new mosque to contain a memorial wall dedicated to the 19 Muslim hijackers who crashed the airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

Capitol Confidential, a web site with a behind-the-scenes look at New York politics, has a story about Paladino's campaign written by Jimmy Vielkind, published on July 29th, which releases a transcript of the interview with NY1.

Capitol Confidential reporter Jimmy Vielkind writes: 

Carl Paladino, the Buffalo developer hoping to win a Republican gubernatorial primary, is doubling down his opposition to a mosque in Lower Manhattan, saying it’s an “affront to the American people” and “it’s about the Islamists wanting to illustrate that they have conquered America by taking down the World Trade Center.”

In an interview last night with NY1 (partially obscured by Paladino’s statement that he will not run for governor on just a third-party line) and speaking this morning with Susan Arbetter on The Capitol Pressroom, Paladino equated those building or using the proposed Cordoba Mosque with Muslim terrorists who attacked the United States on September 11 and are waging war on American troops abroad.
“The governor doesn’t really have a clue what this issue is about,” Paladino told Arbetter. “It’s not about religion, it’s not about the First Amendment. It’s about ideology. It’s about the Islamists wanting to illustrate that they have conquered America by taking down the World Trade Center. It’s a claim of triumph.”
“I will fight and use any means. Right now, the means that I’m suggesting is to do an eminent domain easement over the entire area,” he continued. “I will protect the American people from such an arrogant intrusion.”

"NOTE: The current transcript is updated slightly from an earlier version of the post, which was based off of a rough transcript. I later got the recording and tweaked the post to be in agreement with the audio. There were no major changes — just some misplaced this-that and some verb tenses. The above version, now, is correct."

According to a transcript, on NY1, Paladino was asked by Elizabeth Kaledin about his opposition to the mosque.

Q: You’re saying the siting of the mosque is being evidence of plans of conquest.
A: Not plans of conquest, that act of those Jihadists.

Q: These people are unrelated to the terrorists?
A: How are they unrelated? They telling us they’re related.

Q: There are millions of Muslims in the world.
A: There are millions of them, but these people who are advocating this mosque, we don’t know who they are, do we.

Q: Should we not find out? Calmer minds have prevailed and said let’s find out the trail of the money.
A: Calmer minds would say build your mosque anywhere else, don’t build it in the footprint of the dust storm following 9/11. That dust contains the remains of many, many people. It’s not 600 feet away. It is part of the area that the dust covered. OK? That’s a very solemn place for the American people. I met this afternoon with a mother of a fireman who died there. It’s a terrible feeling she has. Did you know they’re going to put on a wall in this whatever they’re building, they’re going to put on the wall the faces of the men who flew those aircraft into that building. They’re going to put their faces on the wall. Why are we memorializing those men?

Q: We’re off the topic, here, of the mosque. I want to be clear — your opposition to the mosque is bigger than an issue of sensitivity.
A: It absolutely is.

Q: You sound like you’re opposed to, you know, sort of the growth of an Islamic or Muslim practice of religion in Lower Manhattan.
A: Not the practice of religion. The growth of a Muslim, Islamic idea of conquering the world. Okay. They have said it. They have said the world will eventually come under their rule rule. And this was a part of it. The attack on the World Trade Center was a part of it. This is no different than putting up a symbol to Hirohito next to Hickam Field in Pearl Harbor.

Q: Do you think that is a positive message to express to young New Yorkers, especially young New Yorkers?
A: Absolutely.

Q: That we should be looking over our shoulders thinking that Muslims are trying to take over.
A: We better start.

Q: You want to teach that to our children?
A: Yes, because that’s the real world out there, and that’s what our troops are fighting for and dying for in those two wars.

I can only wonder why there are not more Republican candidates speaking the truth about the real motives behind the Muslim push for the building of so many mosques in America. The lead for this story came from Bare Naked Islam which is one of a growing number of diligent web sites reporting the truth about the Islamization of America.

Muslim Mosques across America, raising their flag of victory

When the United States government expanded its territory west of the Mississippi in the 19th century, the Army built forts along the way to house barracks of soldiers needed to fight the Indian tribes who claimed much of the land. The construction and use of those forts is the underlying theme of this article, not as a commentary on the past but as a modern comparison to our present times as the strategy being used today against our country by our sworn enemy.

From our 21st century perspective, we won the Indian wars, conquered the natives and claimed the territory, and we wrote the history books to tell about it.  But as a benevolent nation, we gave the conquered people full rights to citizenship, the protection of our Constitution and the right to self-government in their tribal lands. Those are not the stated principles of our modern-day enemy, which is Islam.

The American people are basically a peace loving, God fearing people who cherish freedom. We have shed our blood on countless foreign soils to ensure that others could also enjoy the same freedoms as we do. We are also a nation of people who’s way of life easily causes political systems diametrically opposite to ours to hate us with a passion. Islam is such a political system and the Koran is its constitution.

In his eloquently written and fully researched article entitled THE MUSLIM MOSQUE: A STATE WITHIN A STATE, Vijay Kumar who happens to be a candidate in the forthcoming Republican Primary in Tennessee’s 5th  Congressional District, writes:

Mosques and the Political Documents of Islam

    The Quran is the supreme political document of Islam—its political manifesto and political constitution. It is the only constitution of the nation-state Saudi Arabia, which is the home of Mecca and the Kaaba, where all mosques point, and is the birthplace of Islam.

    The Quran is a totalitarian constitution. It demands submission by anyone within its jurisdiction. The Quran governs all mosques everywhere in the world.

    As a political document, the Quran asserts that everyone in the world is within its jurisdiction. So far, Islam has not been able to enforce that totalitarian claim on the entire world, but has managed to do so through threat, infiltration, violence, terrorism, and coercion on roughly 20% of the world. It is engaged in a 1400-year-long Universal Jihad to dominate the rest of the world. All mosques are its outpost headquarters.

In other words, mosques are the modern day equivalent to the forts we constructed during our western expansion. They have become the enlistment ground and training facilities for an entire army of terrorists within our own borders. And the proliferation of mosques in America has reached the point of alarming proportions. Today there are more than 1200 mosques spread across America. They are almost entirely financed by the royal family who rule Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is the nation that gave America 15 of the 19 Muslim terrorists who hijacked four airliners on September 11, 2001 and flew them into the World Trade Center towers in New York City and the Pentagon building in Washington, D.C. Almost 3,000 Americans were killed as a result of that terrorist attack. An attack that many Americans refuse to forget.

Click pictures for larger view.

Now, as a symbol of their greatest victory, aided by a click of anti-American politicians and Liberal media, Muslims are planning to build yet another mosque on the holy ground they attacked in New York City. In the shadow of the World Trade Center on the site of a building that was damaged when one of the jet liner’s landing gear crashed through the roof and 5 floors of a building at 45 Park Place. The mosque was originally to be called Cordoba House, named after the city in Spain captured during the Moor invasion of Europe almost 1300 years ago in April of 711, but the group behind the mosque has renamed itself Park51. And, as reported by Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs, “the Islamic Supremacist mega mosque” effort which was initially led by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf who has ties with numerous terrorist organizations in the Middle East has been handed over to Sharif El-Gamal, the developer of Soho Properties. “The new face is the businessman and pragmatist, Sharif El-Gamal. But on preliminary analysis, Sharif El-Gamal may be worse than Rauf. Suleyman Schwartz in this week's Weekly Standard exposes and debunks all the Muslim lies. He got the goods on Rauf, Daisy Con and SOHO (the developer). Sharif El-Gamal is CEO of Soho Properties, Inc., a commercial real estate investment firm he founded in 2003. His partner is Nour Mousa, another guiding figure in the Ground Zero mosque effort and the nephew of Amr Moussa, head of the Arab League. Amr Moussa was the first major Arab leader to go to Gaza and affirm support for Hamas.”

Another web site called Pajamas Media  has an exclusive interview with Walid Shoebat about the Mega Mosque in NYC Ground Zero. Walid reveals disturbing contradictions between Ground Zero mosque founder Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf's Daily News article and comments in Arabic. The video of this interview follows:

History always seems to repeat itself especially when we refuse to learn from it. Now the news today in a nearby town in Northern Kentucky, which has less than a few dozen Arab names in the phone book, yet another mosque is in the planning stages. More on this later. These things seems to propagate faster than a pair of mice and they spread disease just as much.

NRA-PVF Chairman Chris W. Cox tries to soothe anti-Reid complaints

 

Chris W. Cox has been getting a lot of nasty emails lately. He said so in the August issue of American Rifleman. The July issue of American Rifleman magazine had a glowing two-page spread about how much the NRA appreciates the hard work that Nevada Senator Harry Reid has done for gun owners. My response to this bull crap was to say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, and to resign my 42-year long, Benefactor level Life Membership. Consider the time lag in printed publications that is almost 3-months long, those letters and emails from NRA members complaining about some of the questionable endorsements had to have been written well before the July issue that praised the Democrat from Nevada. I can only guess what the mail room at NRA headquarters at 11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, Virginia must look like today. 

So now I have read the latest posting from Chris W. Cox on his web site dated July 7, 2010, NRA-PVF ENDORSEMENTS NOT YET ANNOUNCED IN ANY U.S. SENATE RACE FOR NOVEMBER GENERAL ELECTION. When he gets around to mentioning Democrat Harry Reid, he says: "Admittedly, Senator Reid’s record is not perfect; few politicians’ records are.   For a number of years (primarily in the 1990s) Sen. Reid had some problematic votes on our issue." Mr. Cox then proceeds to describe a few of Reid's pro-gun accomplishments in recent years and finishes by giving this warning. "All of which leads to a very serious question for all NRA members and gun owners who oppose Sen. Reid to contemplate: who would take Reid’s place if he loses his race—and his critically important position as Senate Majority Leader?  Remember, the Senate Majority Leader is the gatekeeper who decides which legislation will be considered on the Senate floor.  If Sen. Reid loses, the next candidate for Majority Leader is very likely to be Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin—two of the most anti-gun U.S. Senators in history!"

Doesn't this sound like the NRA is assuming the Democrats will keep their control over Congress after the mid-term elections in November? The NRA has put all their eggs in one basket after they endorsed 53 Democrats in 2008 and they don't want to admit they made a big-ass mistake in giving total control of the government to the most anti-gun political party in American history. Now it seems the NRA is burying their collective heads in the sand by ignoring the Tea Party movement and the taxpayer revolt that has been sweeping across America. Every political writer is predicting the Democrats will loose their majority in the House and may well loose it in the Senate so Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin don't stand a chance of becoming the next Senate Majority Leader. 

Single-issue organizations like the NRA must be held accountable for the consequences of their endorsements. Those 52 Democrats they helped get elected in 2008 have voted along side their left-wing cohorts to cram one socialist piece of legislation after another down our throats and the American people are about to toss them out of office. You would think the NRA would get the message when 50,000 people staged a protest in Harry Reid's home town of Searchlight, Nevada a few months ago. That's some crowd seen in the aerial photos below.

Maybe that was too far away from their Virginia office complex to notice. Maybe then they should have paid attention when 2-million American citizens went to Washington, D.C. for their taxpayer protest on September 12, 2009. Hey, Chris, if you missed it, here is what it looked like.

By the way, Chris, Harry Reid's record of anti-gun voting extended well past those troubling 1990's that you mentioned. In case you missed a few of them, here is a recap of just the last 10 years.

February 2, 2000. Vote 4. Voted to make firearms manufacturers and distributors’ debts nondischargeable in bankruptcy if they were sued because they unknowingly sold guns to individuals who used the gun in a crime. 68 Senators voted against Reid’s position, including 17 Democrats including Bryan of Nevada.

March 2, 2000. Vote 27. Voted to say that school violence was due to the fact that Congress “failed to pass reasonable, common-sense gun control measures” and call for new gun ownership restrictions on the anniversary of the Columbine shootings.

March 2, 2000. Vote 28. Voted to say that school violence was due to the fact that Congress “failed to pass reasonable, common-sense gun control measures” and call for new gun ownership restrictions on the anniversary of the Columbine shootings (reconsideration of vote 27).

March 2, 2000. Vote 32. Voted to use Federal taxpayer funds to hand out anti-gun literature in schools and to run anti-gun public service announcements.

April 6, 2000. Vote 64. Voted for a gun control package including new onerous restrictions on gun shows.

April 7, 2000. Vote 74. Voted against an amendment to provide for the enforcement of existing gun laws in lieu of new burdensome gun control mandates.

May 16, 2000. Vote 100. Voted to commend the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures.

May 17, 2000. Vote 102. Vote to overturn the ruling of the chair that the Daschle amendment (commending the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures) was out of order.

May 17, 2000. Vote 103. Voted against an amendment stating “the right of each law-abiding United States citizen to own a firearm for any legitimate purpose, including self-defense or recreation, should not be infringed.”

May 17, 2000. Vote 104. Voted for an amendment commending the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures.

February 26, 2004. Vote 17. Voted for mandatory triggerlocks.

March 2, 2004. Vote 25. Voted for Federal regulation of gun shows.

July 28, 2005. Vote 207. Voted for mandatory triggerlocks.

March 5, 2009. Vote 83. Voted against a ban on the United Nations imposing taxes on American citizens after France and other world leaders proposed a global tax on firearms.

I strongly urge every current member of the National Rifle Association to join me in resigning their membership in the NRA and to join the real pro-gun group Gun Owners of America. This is no time to play politics with the future of our country. I also urge you to support the campaign of Sharron Angle for U.S. Senate in Nevada. The time to Take Back America, is NOW.

NRA Political Victory Fund chairman Chris W. Cox needs a brain transplant

In the August issue of American Rifleman, NRA PVF chairman Chris W. Cox takes up a whole page article titled Making Endorsements Count to explain the myopic single-issue viewpoint behind the NRA endorsement of certain political candidates. Mr. Cox doesn't mention the NRA support for Nevada Democrat Sen. Harry Reid but he does say he has received letters and emails from NRA members who had questions about "some of our endorsements". I'll bet he has received a few letters and I'll bet a lot of those letters were also telling him the writers were resigning their memberships or not renewing them as I have done and have been told many others have also. Here is my story about my 42-year membership in the NRA that I ended on July 2, 2010.

They say that most young people are not very conservative when then become adults, so I must have been an exception to the rule. In 1960, when I was 20 years old, the minimum voting age was 21. As a Catholic I was impressed with the background of John F. Kennedy and would have voted for him in 1960 if I could. My high esteem for this Democrat was soon shattered when he abandoned the Cuban freedom fighters after the Bay of Pigs invasion and left them without the air support he had promised them. That single act of treachery left Cuba solidly in the hands of a Communist dictator ever since. My self-awakening to patriotic causes didn’t occur until I saw the famous endorsement speech given to presidential candidate Sen. Barry Goldwater by Ronald Reagan in 1964 and from that day I have been a staunch conservative Republican.

On December 9, 1968 I became a Life Member of the National Rifle Association. In the mid-1970’s, when I was most active in politics, I began to notice some editorial writings in the NRA monthly magazine American Rifleman attacking people who were involved in conservative groups. I wrote the NRA and complained about the misguided logic of these attacks and received a response that convinced me this group was being run by some intellectual snobs. Since my dues were paid up I decided to just keep the magazine and ignored their slanted opinions.

When Charlton Heston became the Executive Vice President of the NRA the slant of the opinions in American Rifleman became a lot more conservative and my interest in the NRA perked up again. On December 9, 1996, I elevated my membership to Endowment level and followed that with Patron level in 2003 and finally in 2008 to Benefactor level, the highest paid membership level. I also became a frequent contributor to the NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action) and the NRA-PVF (Political Victory Fund).

Following the 2008 elections I learned that after America was fooled by the news media into electing  Barack Hussein Obama, an inexperienced, left wing candidate with strong anti-American feelings, the NRA had actually endorsed 53 Democrats for Congress and with the support of the NRA 52 of them were elected giving complete control of our government to a single party. And with that control the Democrats went on a power-crazed frenzy destroying American values and bankrupting our economy. That news forever changed my views about the NRA and I began to watch and read everything they did. These so-called pro-gun Democrats that the NRA had supported have joined other Democrats into ramming through Congress the most pro-socialist, outright marxist legislation in our nation’s history. These same Democrats have supported and voted for administrative appointments that consistently oppose our 2nd Amendment rights. In spite of the two recent Supreme Court rulings that clarified the right of citizens to own a gun, these same Democrats have proposed several pieces of legislation to deny these very rights. Under the Democrats conservative Americans have been declared potential domestic terrorists by the Dept. of Homeland Security and legislation has been written to deny anyone who appears on terrorist watch lists the right to own a gun. The NRA had clearly shot itself in the foot but they seem to want to ignore the consequences of their mistaken endorsements.

On May 9, 2010 I wrote the NRA Political Victory Fund chairman Chris W. Cox, about the following story that appeared in Newsmax, a foremost conservative news agency.

NRA Still Loves Harry Reid

The National Rifle Association has a record of supporting far more Republicans than Democrats, but there’s one powerful Democrat who has a not-so-secret admirer in the NRA — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

The NRA hasn’t officially endorsed Sen. Reid, who is facing a tough re-election battle in Nevada, but the gun rights group “really loves” Reid, an NRA insider tells Newsmax.

Even as tea partyers rallied against Reid in his hometown of Searchlight, Nev., on March 27, Reid was joined by NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre at the official grand opening of a $60 million shooting range Reid helped build north of Las Vegas.

“I know how you worked,” LaPierre said to Reid at the opening. “[This] would not have opened without the work of Sen. Reid.”

Reid’s re-election campaign describes LaPierre as “one of the senator’s supporters,” according to CNN.

Since his election to the Senate in 1986, Reid has consistently voted to protect the rights of gun owners and manufacturers:

    * In 1993, he was 1 of only 8 Democrats to vote against an assault weapons ban.
    * The following year he voted in favor of a bill preventing third-party lawsuits against gun manufacturers and distributors when their weapons are used illegally.
    * He voted against legislation that would have made it a federal crime to keep a gun unlocked and loaded for personal protection in the home.

The NRA sent a letter to its members in July 2009 stating that “for many years, Harry Reid has been supporting our Second Amendment rights in the U.S. Senate.”

At the opening of the shooting range, Reid donned ear plugs to test out his 12-gauge shotgun, Politics Daily reported. After the ribbon cutting, he autographed shell casings.

The NRA continued to justify their support for anti-gun Sen. Harry Reid. Then they gave Harry Reid a two page story in American Rifleman heaping praises upon him for helping get federal funding for a shooting range in Nevada.

MY NEW EX-NRA LIFE MEMBER HAT.

On July 2, 2010 I sent the following letter of resignation to:

Wayne LaPierre
Executive Vice President
National Rifle Association
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030

Dear Sir,

Single-issue organizations such as the NRA have a moral responsibility to be held accountable for the consequences of their actions. While you can argue that no other issue is of any concern to your organization’s goal of helping candidates get elected who claim to support the 2nd Amendment, you must be held responsible for what happens after those candidates are elected. Your actions in 2008 have resulted in every gun-owner in America now being threatened by the most anti-gun political party in the history of our nation. Now the Democrats you helped to get elected and take control of Congress have been on a power-crazed rampage ever since waging war against the Constitution. If you think the Supreme Court decisions upholding the 2nd Amendment is any guarantee of our rights then you haven’t paid attention to what Attorney General Eric Holder has proposed. Our only hope of stopping them hinges on electing this year more conservative Republicans.

One single act by the NRA in the mid-term elections in 2010 has pushed me to the point of submitting my resignation in the NRA after 42-years as a Benefactor level Life Member. In the state of Nevada you have by-passed a solid pro-gun conservative Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, Sharron Angle, in favor of another Democrat with a questionable anti-gun history. Shame on you. Enough is enough!

Erick Erickson, has compiled a record of Harry Reid’s anti-gun voting record and I quote from his article on the web site Red State.com

NRA Now Leans Toward Endorsing Harry Reid
Below are just a few of the votes that demonstrate Reid’s longstanding hostility to guns and the Second Amendment. Not included in this list is the long list of consistent and active support for anti-gun nominees to the Federal Judiciary and to high level cabinet posts. The reason I did not include anti-gun nominees is because he supported every last one of them.

June 28, 1991. Vote No. 115. Voted for a 5 day waiting period for handgun purchases.

October 21, 1993. Vote 325. Voted to eliminate the Army Civilian Marksmanship Program. Only the most fringe anti-gun Senators voted for the amendment.

November 19, 1993. Vote 385. Allow states to impose waiting periods over and above the 5 days waiting period required under the Brady Bill.

November 19, 1993. Vote 386. Voted to eliminate he 5-year sunset in the Brady Bill.

November 19, 1993. Vote 387. Voted to close off debate on the Brady Bill.

November 19, 1993. Vote 390. Voted to close off debate on the Brady Bill.

November 20, 1993. Vote 394. Voted for the Brady Bill, which imposed a 5-business-day waiting period before purchasing a handgun.

August 25, 1994. Vote 294. Voted to close off debate on the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

August 25, 1994. Vote 295. Voted for the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

April 17, 1996. Vote 64. Voted to expand the statute of limitations for paperwork violations in National Firearms Act from 3 years to 5 years.

June 27, 1996. Vote 178. Voting to destroy 176,000 M-1 Garand rifles from World War II, and 150 million rounds of 30 caliber ammunition, rather than giving them to the Federal Civilian Marksmanship program.

September 12, 1996. Vote 287. Voted to spend $21.5 million for a study on putting “taggants” in black and smokeless gunpowder.

September 12, 1996. Vote 290. Voted to make it a Federal crime to possess a gun within 1,000 yards of a school.

May 12, 1999. Vote 111. Voted to give the Treasury Department expansive new authority to regulate and keep records on gun shows and their participants, and criminalize many intrastate firearms transactions.

May 13, 1999. Vote 116. Voted to ban the importation of ammunition clips that can hold more than 10 rounds.

May 14, 1999. Vote 119. Voted to criminalize internet advertisements to sell legal firearms in a legal manner.

May 18, 1999. Vote 122. Voted to for Mandatory triggerlocks.

May 20, 1999. Vote 133. Voted to create new Federal regulation of pawn shops handling of guns.

May 20, 1999. Vote 134. Voted to give the Treasury Department expansive new authority to regulate and keep records on gun shows and their participants, and criminalize many intrastate firearms transactions. The vote was 50-50, with Vice President Gore casting the tie-breaking vote.

May 20, 1999. Vote 140. Voted for the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill, which contained a package of gun control measures.

July 29, 1999. Vote 224. Voted to close debate on the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill, which contained a package of gun control measures.

February 2, 2000. Vote 4. Voted to make firearms manufacturers and distributors’ debts nondischargeable in bankruptcy if they were sued because they unknowingly sold guns to individuals who used the gun in a crime. 68 Senators voted against Reid’s position, including 17 Democrats including Bryan of Nevada.

March 2, 2000. Vote 27. Voted to say that school violence was due to the fact that Congress “failed to pass reasonable, common-sense gun control measures” and call for new gun ownership restrictions on the anniversary of the Columbine shootings.

March 2, 2000. Vote 28. Voted to say that school violence was due to the fact that Congress “failed to pass reasonable, common-sense gun control measures” and call for new gun ownership restrictions on the anniversary of the Columbine shootings (reconsideration of vote 27).

March 2, 2000. Vote 32. Voted to use Federal taxpayer funds to hand out anti-gun literature in schools and to run anti-gun public service announcements.

April 6, 2000. Vote 64. Voted for a gun control package including new onerous restrictions on gun shows.

April 7, 2000. Vote 74. Voted against an amendment to provide for the enforcement of existing gun laws in lieu of new burdensome gun control mandates.

May 16, 2000. Vote 100. Voted to commend the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures.

May 17, 2000. Vote 102. Vote to overturn the ruling of the chair that the Daschle amendment (commending the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures) was out of order.

May 17, 2000. Vote 103. Voted against an amendment stating “the right of each law-abiding United States citizen to own a firearm for any legitimate purpose, including self-defense or recreation, should not be infringed.”

May 17, 2000. Vote 104. Voted for an amendment commending the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures.

February 26, 2004. Vote 17. Voted for mandatory triggerlocks.

March 2, 2004. Vote 25. Voted for Federal regulation of gun shows.

July 28, 2005. Vote 207. Voted for mandatory triggerlocks.

March 5, 2009. Vote 83. Voted against a ban on the United Nations imposing taxes on American citizens after France and other world leaders proposed a global tax on firearms.

I strongly urge every current member of the National Rifle Association to join me in resigning their membership in the NRA and to join the real pro-gun group Gun Owners of America. This is no time to play politics with the future of our country. I also urge you to support the campaign of Sharron Angle for U.S. Senate in Nevada. The time to Take Back America, is NOW.

Signs of victory: Raising flags and building mosques.

On February 23, 1945, after a fierce battle on the island called Iwo Jima, Marines of the 28th Regiment, Fifth Marine Division, hoisted the U.S. flag on a piece of pipe, at about 1020 Hrs at the top of Mount Suribachi. The flag raising was a sign of victory and the image captured through the lens of Associated Press photographer Joe Rosenthal is probably the most memorable icon of World War II.

Just as western civilization hoists flags to symbolize victory over conquered lands, Muslim armies have built mosques and converted churches and temples into mosques to symbolize their victory. In a public gathering in 1998, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, leader of the ruling Islamist party and current Prime Minister of Turkey, recited: "The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers..."

In his  intelligently written piece on the history of mosques, Vijay Kumar, Republican Congressional Candidate in Tennessee's 5th CD begins by saying:

THE MUSLIM MOSQUE: A STATE WITHIN A STATE

by Vijay Kumar

THE KAABA IN MECCA WAS NOT BUILT AS AN ISLAMIC MOSQUE. It was an ancient temple that had been shared by polytheists, Christians, Jews, and Hindus, honoring 360 different deities. In 630 A.D. the Kaaba was captured by Islam in its military invasion and conquest of Mecca.
On the day of its capture, Muhammad delivered an address at the Kaaba in military dress and helmet, according to Ayatullah Ja’far Subhani in his book, “The Message”:

“Bear in mind that every claim of privilege, whether that of blood or property is abolished . . . I reject all claims relating to life and property and all imaginary honors of the past, and declare them to be baseless . . . A Muslim is the brother of another Muslim and all the Muslims are brothers of one another and constitute one hand as against the non-Muslims. The blood of every one of them is equal to that of others and even the smallest among them can make a promise on behalf of others.” —Muhammad

Muhammad’s address at the Kaaba overthrew the Meccan government and declared all of Islam, anywhere in the world, to be a political and military state against all non-Muslims, regardless of the non-Muslims’ political, geographical, or national origins.

“If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him.” —Quran 3:85

Read the entire article here: http://oldironsides-thesilentmajority.blogspot.com/2010/07/supporting-those-who-pledge-to-defend.html

Saudi Arabia, the Islamic nation that gave America 15 of the 19 radical Muslim terrorists that hijacked 4 airliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, has been financing the construction of mosques all across the United States. Now, one of the most controversial mosques is about to begin construction in a place currently occupied with a building that was damaged during the World Trade Center attack. A large landing gear from one of the jets flown into one of the twin towers crashed through the roof and down through 5 floors of the former Burlington Coat Factory building at 43-45 Park Place, two blocks away from Ground Zero. 

The plan to tear down the old Burlington Coat Factory building and construct a 15-story tall mega-mosque has so outraged New Yorkers that tens of thousands have demonstrated against it. Totally oblivious to the fact that over 57% of the voters in New York City oppose the mosque, Billionaire mayor Michael Bloomberg and his City Planning Commission support it. Here are some of the photos taken from a recent protest of this mosque plan.

The demonstration was organized and promoted by Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs and Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch working together with their organization SIOA (Stop islamization of America) seen in the first photo below along with Singh Bhurji,  the president of the  NAMDHARI SIKH FOUNDATION. The foundation is a member of the Human Rights Coalition Against Radical Islam (HRCARI). HRCARI is a coalition of Hindus, Sikhs, Christians from Sudan, Egypt and Iraq, moderate Muslims and Jews - who are victims and targets of radical Islam around the globe.

Singh Bhurji said earlier, "Radical Islamists are killing people in India, trying to dominate that nation. And here too they come with violence against "infidels." We are "infidels united," standing together, brown, black and white, against this epoch's fascist movement. Radical Islam wants to dominate entire world. They want everyone to surrender. Islam radical or otherwise. They want to put the Islamic flag on White House."

9/11 families were joined by immigrants from India, Russia, Egypt, Israel, Africa, Iran and Europe to show opposition to the construction of a mega-mosque at Ground Zero. Others flew in from overseas to speak or just to share their particular ethnic communities' experiences at the hands of Muslims.

Port Authority and NYPD officers kept watch over the rally and were well aware of the need for heightened security at this event. One of their own Port Authority officers, WTC Sergeant Alan T. De Vona was on duty at the World Trade Center on 9/11, 2001, and was one of the first to help victims of the terrorist attack. He spoke these words to the SIOA rally:

Saudi Arabia, while providing the funds for constructing most of the mosques in America, does not permit any churches or synagogues in their strict Islamic country.

Hindu human rights activists Narain Kataria, Prasad Yalamanchi and unidentified friend came from Mississippi and Chicago with banners and flyers highlighting the radical statements of imam Rauf and his jihadist roots.

Considering that New York City is the main base for almost every television network news service, not one single network television camera was sent to cover this event. 

Stephen Dyer and Gary Jules journalism students at York College, with Pamela Geller. Not one major network sent a satellite truck or camera crew to this event. Without bloggers this newsworthy event would have remained unknown to the public and history.

The proposed mega-mosque is scheduled to be unveiled on September 11, 2011, and of all the possible dates they had to defame this one with their obscene symbolism. Next will be the amplified wailing of the Arabic call to prayer that will be heard 5 times a day in the shadow of the World Trade Center grave. If that isn't a sign of Islamic conquest, I can't think of a better one. This mosque MUST NOT BE BUILT, EVER.

Supporting those who pledge to defend America from our real enemies.

Two of the most informative web sites about Islam are Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch and Pamela Geller’s Atlas Shrugs. Both of these sites contain resources of immense importance about the true nature of radical Islam. One startling fact is that the very core of Islam, the Qur’an, is more of a field manual for warfare between all Muslims and non-Muslims than it is about worshiping God. The Qur’an contains more hate than any other religious book. With over 100 passages depicting the most barbaric instructions for torture and killing it sets itself apart from any conventional concept of religion.

If you believe the frequent pronouncement that “Islam is a religion of peace” then how do you equate the admiration seen across America for leaders of terrorist organizations? Recently, in Detroit, Michigan, thousands of Shi’ite Muslims took to the streets to mourn the death of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, an Islamic cleric who was responsible for the 1983 Hizballah attack on the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon that killed 241 Marines.

Almost 9 years ago America was attacked by 19 followers of radical Islam on September 11, 2001 and it was quickly learned that 15 of these attackers came from Saudi Arabia. Trained and financed by money funneled into the United States from sources in the Middle East. The kingdom of Saudi Arabia has also been financing the construction of mosques in the United States, some 1200 to date, with hundreds becoming the training ground for terrorists.

One person has written a most informative article on the true purpose behind these mosques. He is Vijay Kumar and he is a Republican candidate for Congress from Tennessee’s 5th Congressional District, a person I admire and support. Vijay Kumar wrote this article for Atlas Shrugs entitled: The Muslim mosque: A state within a state.  He has consented in allowing me to repost this article here. Please visit his web site and support this brave man: http://www.kumarforcongress.com/

"Vijay Kumar is a Republican candidate for U.S. Congress from Tennessee's 5th District. A native of Hyderabad, India, Mr. Kumar lived in Iran during the 1979 Islamic Revolution, when he came to the United States. A naturalized American citizen, Mr. Kumar has lived in Nashville, Tennessee for 24 years. He has been married to his wife, Robin, a native of Bowling Green, Kentucky, for 27 years, and they have three children, two of whom are adopted." In "The Muslim mosque: A state within a state" at Atlas Shrugs, July 9, he explains the political significance of the Islamic mosque:

THE MUSLIM MOSQUE: A STATE WITHIN A STATE
by Vijay Kumar

    THE KAABA IN MECCA WAS NOT BUILT AS AN ISLAMIC MOSQUE. It was an ancient temple that had been shared by polytheists, Christians, Jews, and Hindus, honoring 360 different deities. In 630 A.D. the Kaaba was captured by Islam in its military invasion and conquest of Mecca.

    On the day of its capture, Muhammad delivered an address at the Kaaba in military dress and helmet, according to Ayatullah Ja’far Subhani in his book, “The Message”:

        “Bear in mind that every claim of privilege, whether that of blood or property is abolished . . . I reject all claims relating to life and property and all imaginary honors of the past, and declare them to be baseless . . . A Muslim is the brother of another Muslim and all the Muslims are brothers of one another and constitute one hand as against the non-Muslims. The blood of every one of them is equal to that of others and even the smallest among them can make a promise on behalf of others.” —Muhammad

    Muhammad’s address at the Kaaba overthrew the Meccan government and declared all of Islam, anywhere in the world, to be a political and military state against all non-Muslims, regardless of the non-Muslims’ political, geographical, or national origins.

        “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him.” —Quran 3:85

    Although the rightful owners of the Kaaba are the many religions that shared it before the Islamic military conquest of Mecca, according to Subhani the Kaaba today is under the control of a hereditary regime going back to Muhammad: “currently the 12th Imam from the direct descent of the Prophet of Islam is the real protector, its custodian and guardian.”

    All Islamic mosques everywhere in the world are required to have a clear visible indication pointing in the direction of Mecca and the Kaaba, where the international political and military state of Islam was founded. In most mosques there is a niche in the wall—the mihrab—that points toward the seat of Islamic power. Each mosque, like the Kaaba, is governed by an Imam in compliance with the political documents of Islam.

    Mosques and the Political Documents of Islam

    The Quran is the supreme political document of Islam—its political manifesto and political constitution. It is the only constitution of the nation-state Saudi Arabia, which is the home of Mecca and the Kaaba, where all mosques point, and is the birthplace of Islam.

    The Quran is a totalitarian constitution. It demands submission by anyone within its jurisdiction. The Quran governs all mosques everywhere in the world.

    As a political document, the Quran asserts that everyone in the world is within its jurisdiction. So far, Islam has not been able to enforce that totalitarian claim on the entire world, but has managed to do so through threat, infiltration, violence, terrorism, and coercion on roughly 20% of the world. It is engaged in a 1400-year-long Universal Jihad to dominate the rest of the world. All mosques are its outpost headquarters.

    Central to the Quran’s political mandates is prohibition of religious freedom and religious tolerance, along with denouncements of religions such as Christianity and Judaism.

        “O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them.” —Quran 5:51

        “Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)” —Quran 9:5

    All mosque leaders must be loyal to and supportive of these political and militaristic mandates.

    The Quran as a political document also forbids separation of church and state. That is why every Islamic nation, where Islamic leaders have managed to gain power, is a theocracy, ruled by the Quran and Islamic Sharia law.

    The Hadith (reported sayings and acts of Muhammad) and the Sira (the official biographies of Muhammad) are the other political documents that, along with the Quran, constitute the basis for Islam’s Sharia law.

        “There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Sharia.” —Syed Qutb

    Sharia law is administered by Islamic Imams who interpret the law and hand down rulings in their sole discretion. Sharia law does not allow trial by jury. Sharia law also mandates a double standard of laws for Muslims (believers) and infidels (non-believers). Sharia law mandates a discriminatory tax, called jizya, on non-Islamic religions and nations:

        “Fight those who believe not in Allah...until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” —Quran 9:29

    Sharia law also mandates discrimination toward women, and forbids any criticism of Islam or its founder, stifling freedom of speech.

    Sharia law also mandates that all men are slaves with no right to freedom of religion:

        “Allah’s right on His slaves is that they should worship Him (Alone) and should not worship any besides Him.” —Muhammad Sahih Bukhari 4:52:108, Narrated Mu’adh

    Sharia law does not allow for separation of church and state. Sharia regards church and state as one inseparable entity governing every aspect of individual and social life, both spiritual and secular. That is why all Islamic nations are theocracies.

    In short, Sharia law stands in direct opposition to the American Constitution and Bill of Rights. The implementation of Sharia law demands the overthrow of the American Constitution and our form of government and system of laws. Mosque leaders, in every nation in the world, are loyal to the Quran, the Hadith, the Sira, and consider them divine law, and therefore supreme over all manmade laws.

    Other political and military documents of Islam include treaties of Muhammad, which are held in reverence by Islam as models of conduct in relations between nations.

        “Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah [Muhammad] a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah.” —Quran 33:21

    “War is deceit.” —Muhammad Sahih Bukhari 4:52:268, Narrated Abu Hurarira

    In one treaty proposal, to Jaifer and Abd, Muhammad wrote:

        “If you two accept Islam, your country will, as usual, remain with you. But if you refuse or object, it is a perishable thing.” —Muhammad

    In another, to the Chiefs of Aqaba, he wrote:

        “It is better for you either to accept Islam or agree to pay Jizya and consent to remain obedient to Allah . . . If you do not accept these terms . . . I shall have to wage war (to bring peace and security).” —Muhammad

    These same patterns and political mandates have been used over and over by Muslims since 610 A.D. to invade and conquer many civilizations and nations throughout the world, and to eradicate human rights and freedoms in those lands. Iran once was called Persia and was Zorastrian. Egypt was Christian. What was once a Hindu civilization was conquered and made into Pakistan, which is now part of the Axis of Jihad, along with Iran and Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan was Buddhist for thousands of years. Now its chief exports are heroin and Islamic terrorism.

        “When We decide to destroy a population, We (first) send a definite order to those among them who are given the good things of this life and yet transgress; so that the word is proved true against them: then (it is) We destroy them utterly.” —Quran 17:16

    In every instance where Islam has conquered and “destroyed utterly” a nation or civilization, the key to the conquest was the establishment of mosques, which are political and military command and control centers for Islam, and which all point toward the seat of Islamic power: the Kaaba.

    Mosques and the Fallacy of the “Moderate Muslim”

    The majority of Germans during World War II were not active members of the Nazi party, were not waging war, and were not involved in the holocaust. The leaders, though, were active members of the Nazi party, were waging war, and were involved in the holocaust.

    The majority of Russians and eastern Europeans under the rule of the U.S.S.R. were not trying to spread Communism throughout the world, and were not threatening and waging war and revolution, but were going about their daily lives trying to survive. The leaders, though, were doing everything they could to spread Communism throughout the world, and were threatening and waging war and revolution.

    Throughout history, since 610 A.D., the leaders of Islam have been waging Universal Jihad around the world for the purpose of Islamic totalitarian domination of the world. It has never mattered what percentage of the Muslim population was “peaceful” or “moderate.” Peace and moderation are not relevant to the totalitarian mandates of Islam’s political documents, and Islam’s leaders always follow the totalitarian mandates of Universal Jihad contained in them.

    There are post-Nazi democracies. There are post-Communist democracies. There are no post-Islamic democracies. Literal Islam, as contained in its political documents, is the consummate totalitarianism. Neither Nazism or Communism had a metaphysical factor, as does Islam. Islam uses its metaphysics as a wedge to drive in its totalitarian political doctrines.

    Once Islam has established itself sufficiently in any nation, it seeks to overthrow any existing regime or constitution or law, and replace it with Islamic theocracy. Even the most “moderate” Muslim is bound to obey Islamic law, and so is bound to fight if ordered to fight:

        “When you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately.” —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 4:52:79:Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas

    All Islamic mosques have Islamic leaders (rulers) who can call Muslims for fighting, and as such are satellite headquarters for spreading Literal Islam’s political doctrine of world domination and totalitarianism—no matter how many “moderate Muslims” they serve.

    Mosques and the Worldwide Islamic State

    Islam is a de facto political state wherever it exists anywhere in the world. The Quran is its constitution. The Kaaba is its seat of power, still in the control of the regime that occupied it in 630 A.D. All Muslims in the world, regardless of nationality, are required to travel to the Kaaba at least once in their lifetime and pay homage to it.

    The fact that nations and international political institutions in the world do not recognize Islam as a de jure state is irrelevant. Muhammad himself declared it as a state, and Islam’s own political documents declare it to be a state, and, ipso facto, it always is a state-within-a-state, governed by the Quran and Sharia law internally, anywhere that it has not yet gained full power and control.

        “The Believers are but a single brotherhood.” —Quran 49:10

        “A Muslim has no nationality except his belief.” —Syed Qutb

        “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program.” — Syed Abul A’ala Maududi

    Just as our Constitution of the United States binds and identifies us as a single political and legal union of non-contiguous states, territories, political groups, and people, so the Quran binds and identifies all Islamic nations and all Muslims as a single political and legal union of non-contiguous nations, territories, political groups and people, regardless of geographic boundaries, whose seat of power is the occupied Kaaba. All Islamic Imams, in every mosque everywhere in the world, are bound to the Quran as supreme law.

    As we have seen, Islamic law gives Islamic Imams the power to order Muslims to fighting. The German Max Weber, who had considerable influence on international law and politics, defined “state” as that entity that has a “monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.”

    Islam declares that the Quran and Sharia law are divine, and, as such, are the only “legitimate” law in the world. In that way, Islam “self-legitimizes” its right to use physical force anywhere in the world, and the right of every Imam in every mosque in the world to call for physical force and violence at any time. This makes every Imam in every mosque a military leader.

    Islam is a state by every definition and theory, and is a state hostile to and at war with the United States of America and its Constitution.

    Mosques and Treason and Sedition Against the U.S.

    Islam’s political documents and law call for the overthrow of our Constitution and our man-made laws, and therefore for the overthrow of our government, which by definition constitutes sedition and treason. The Islamic documents call for the overthrow of our government—a protector of religious freedom and human rights—through violence:

        “I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘there is no god but Allah.’” —Muhammad’s farewell address, 632

        “I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’” —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 4:52:196 Narrated Abu Huraira

        “He who fights so that Allah’s Word (Islam) should be superior, then he fights in Allah’s cause.” —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 1:3:125 Narrated Abu Musa

        “I asked the Prophet [Muhammad], ‘What is the best deed?’ He replied, ‘To believe in Allah and to fight for His Cause.’” —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 3:46:694 Narrated Abu Dhar

        “And fight them till there is no more affliction (i.e. no more worshiping of others along with Allah)”. —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 6:60:40 Narrated Nafi’

        “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers.” —Quran 3.151

        “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.” —Quran 8:12

        “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know.” —Quran 8:60

    The Quran, as the constitution of Islam and Muslims, is diametrically opposite to the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. According to Islam and Muslims, the Quran is divine law, uncorrupted and incorruptible, whereas the United States Constitution is man-made and is not infallible, and therefore is corrupt. The U.S. Constitution is the antithesis of the Quran; therefore Muslims have no obligation to obey it.

    A mosque in the United States is a command and control center of a foreign political and military state that seeks the overthrow of our government, and an Imam in a mosque is a political and military representative of a foreign state that calls for the overthrow of the United States.

    The laws of the United States provide specific criminal penalties for sedition and treason. These laws are not only applicable to those advocating and calling for the overthrow of our Constitution and our government; they are applicable to anyone who gives “aid or comfort” to such declared enemies of the United States, or who “organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons” so engaged. The terms “organizes” and “organize” extend to “the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.”

    Mosques are just such units.

Vijay Kumar is a Republican candidate for U.S. Congress from Tennessee's 5th District. A native of Hyderabad, India, Mr. Kumar lived in Iran during the 1979 Islamic Revolution, when he came to the United States. A naturalized American citizen, Mr. Kumar has lived in Nashville, Tennessee for 24 years. He has been married to his wife, Robin, a native of Bowling Green, Kentucky, for 27 years, and they have three children, two of whom are adopted. Read more of Vijay Kumar's articles on his blog here: http://kumarforcongress.net/

Beware of Obama's anti-gun Supreme Court candidates

   

Before reading the following message from AmeriPac about Obama's nomination of Elana Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, please watch this video testimony by Capt. Pete Hegseth before the Senate Judicial committee hearings on that nomination.

A special message from:

Kagan Has "Confirmation Conversion..." But Religion Is Still Gun Control ALERT: THE LIBERALS WANT TO DESTROY OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS SO THEY CAN LIVE OUT THEIR FANTASY: A GLOBAL GUN BAN. OBAMA IS STAFFING THE SUPREME COURT WITH THE MOST RADICAL PROGRESSIVES IN HISTORY SO THEY CAN VOTE TO ANNIHILATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT. SOTOMAYOR AND NOW KAGAN WILL HELP THE LIBERAL ELITES CARRY OUT THEIR PLAN TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS. TELL EVERY SINGLE SENATOR TO FILIBUSTER Obama's Supreme Court Nominee: SEND YOUR FAXES NOW! Obama is scheming to execute his master plan: to shred our Constitution to pieces. He is weaseling in Liberal activist judges into the Supreme Court so the Liberals can vote our rights away. Pretty soon our Constitution will become something we can only read in history books. First, Obama pushed the extreme leftie nut job Sonia Sotomayor into the Supreme Court. Sotomayor's only big accomplishment was grabbing guns from law-abiding American citizens. Agree That "The Second Amendment Right Is An Individual Right"---Select Below to Tell Congress They Must Vote No To Kagan---NOW! TELL EVERY SINGLE SENATOR TO FILIBUSTER Obama's Supreme Court Nominee: SEND YOUR FAXES NOW! Throughout Sotomayer's Confirmation process the Obama camp deliberately tried to keep her disturbing personal politics out of the media. When word got out that Sotomayer voted that the second amendment does not apply against state gun the Liberals rushed to her rescue and tried to cover up the mess. Sotomayor went as far as lying and claimed she agreed that "the Second Amendment right is an individual right" during her Confirmation. On Monday, Sotomayor voted against the Second Amendment. Apparently, telling the truth is not Sotomayor's strong point. To explain her anti-Constitution vote she said she couldn't find anything in the Constitution that said the Second Amendment that protected citizen's rights to bear arms. Sotomayer needs to brush up on her history. The Second Amendment was CREATED AND WRITTEN TO ensure our right to own firearms is not taken away. One delusional Liberal Justice was not enough to ensure Obama that he had Progressive control over the Supreme Court so he nominated uber-leftie, Elena Kagan. Kagan has been a fixture in the anti-gun movement for her whole life. Despite her total lack of experience, she has racked up countless offensives against the Second Amendment. Kagan conspired with Bill Clinton and tried to shut down gun shows and ban many semi-automatic firearms. She also compared the NRA with the Klu-Klux Clan an irresponsible outrageous and inflammatory statement by any nominee. OBAMA TO FILL SUPREME COURT WITH ANTI-GUN CRUSADERS Obama is trying to convince America that Kagan is a moderate judge who will rule fairly. Kagan is an extreme Liberal activist judge who will vote to destroy our right to keep and bear arms. Even more disturbing is Kagan and Sotomayor will likely conspire to further push their anti-gun personal politics. KAGAN WILL NOT PROTECT SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS SHE WILL DESTROY THEM Ironically, Solicitor General Kagan claimed she would protect Second Amendment rights. Kagan however has not devoted her time to preserving the Second Amendment. While at her confirmation hearing she is claiming to have a "confirmation conversion..." her religion is still gun control. THIS IS A FIGHT WE CAN'T AFFORD TO LOSE. YOUR FUTURE IS AT STAKE AND ALSO THE FUTURE OF YOUR FAMILY. TELL EVERY SINGLE SENATOR TO FILIBUSTER Obama's Supreme Court Nominee: SEND YOUR FAXES NOW! Every Supreme Court Justice is selected for one reason: to uphold the constitution. Clearly, Elena Kagan has other agendas. OUR COUNTRIES SECURITY IS AT STAKE AND ELENA KAGAN IS NOT LOOKING OUT FOR AMERICA Please, take action right away to DEMAND that Senators ENSURE that there is no place on the Supreme Court for personal beliefs that trump America's safety. Send Your Donation---STOP Kagan---Send Any amount---$1000, $500, $100 or even $25 will help us fight the battle to Secure America. It's time we stood up and said enough is enough! Please join us with your AmeriPAC donation TODAY. Thank you. For more information, visit www.AmeriPAC.org Sincerely, Alan M. Gottlieb Chairman, AmeriPAC www.AmeriPAC.org P. S. It's really VERY VERY SIMPLE: The Supreme Court is no place for an "open minded" inexperience activist with a personal extreme liberal agenda. Agree That "The Second Amendment Right Is An Individual Right"---Select Below to Tell Congress They Must Vote No To Kagan---NOW! TELL EVERY SINGLE SENATOR TO FILIBUSTER Obama's Supreme Court Nominee: SEND YOUR FAXES NOW! Please make checks payable to AmeriPAC: American Political Action Committee (AmeriPAC) PO Box 1682 Dept Code 4233 Bellevue, WA 98009-1682 Paid for by AmeriPAC, a federally-authorized and qualified multicandidate political action committee. Contributions to AmeriPAC will be used in connection with federal elections. Maximum contribution per individual per calendar year is $5,000. Contributions from foreign nationals and corporations are prohibited. Contributions are not deductible for federal income tax purposes.

The Declaration of Independence

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies: For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton