Did Clinton Gun Ban Make Fort Hood Vulnerable to Jihad Attack?

The Washington Times recently ran the following editorial:

Last week’s slaughter at Fort Hood Army base in Texas was no different – except that one man bears responsibility for the ugly reality that the men and women charged with defending America were deliberately left defenseless when a terrorist opened fire.

Among President Clinton’s first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones.

After talking to a veteran and reviewing some forums on such matters, it seemed that the assertions in the article may not bear up under scrutiny. For example:

“I spent 23 years in the military under about 6 presidents and I can’t recall anyone walking around US bases (been through many of them on my way here and there) armed unless they were MPs or DOD cops, or troops about to deploy (in which case they would be on their way somewhere, and ,,, the live ammo would still be in the crates until they reached wherever it was they were going to use it). I don’t recall anyone strutting around with side arms just for the hell of it.”

We have finally located Army Regulation 90-114, the 1993 regulation which limits carrying of weapons for law enforcement and security personnel within military installations. Despite the Clinton administration’s limitations upon MP’s and other LEOs on base, the regulation nevertheless provides for law enforcement personnel to carry weapons to:

(1) Conduct law enforcement activities including cases or investigations of espionage, sabotage, and other serious crimes in which DA programs, personnel, or property are involved and investigations conducted in hazardous areas or under hazardous circumstances.

(2) Protect classified information, systems, or equipment.

(3) Protect the President of the United States, high ranking Government officials, DOD personnel, or foreign dignitaries.

(4) Protect DOD assets and personnel.

(5) Guard prisoners.

d. DA military and civilian personnel may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection when the responsible intelligence center identifies a credible and specific threat against DA personnel in that regional area. Firearms will not be issued indiscriminately for
that purpose. Before individuals are authorized to carry a firearm for personal protection under this regulation, the authorizing official must evaluate—

(1) The probability of the threat in a particular location.

(2) The adequacy of support by DA or DOD protective personnel.

(3) The adequacy of protection by U.S. or host nation authorities.

(4) The effectiveness of other means to avoid personal attacks.

Thus, officers of field grade rank or higher, or civilian equivalent of GS-12 or above may authorize the carrying of firearms and the Secretary of the Army has authority to authorize carrying for personal protection within the continental United States. And yes! It is hard to believe that we don’t trust soldiers with guns on an Army base when we trust these very same men in Iraq and Afghanistan:

“In states where legal concealed carry is an accepted practice, American service members need to be allowed to carry a gun for self-defense – on post and off – because the global war on terror has changed the risk level they live with each and every day.

The global war on terror has changed the way America fights our wars and has changed the risk level our service members are forced to endure. Letting soldiers have the same rights afforded to civilians when it comes to carrying a concealed handgun is a reform that is well past due.”

See also How Many Died Because of Ban?

The Washington Times article refers to research showing that when folks are armed the damage caused in active shooter situations will be more limited. This is because a “major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the time that elapses between the launch of an attack and when someone – soldier, civilian or law enforcement – arrives on the scene with a gun to end the attack.”

The article goes on to claim that all the public shootings in the United States in which more than three people have been killed have occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned.

A 23 year old Islamic convert killed one soldier and wounded another outside a recruiting center in a jihad attack in Little Rock, Arkansas:

A 23-year-old man upset about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan opened fire from his truck at two soldiers standing outside a military recruiting station here on Monday morning, killing one private and wounding another, the police said. According to the New York Times (June 1, 2009):

The gunman, identified by the police as Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad of Little Rock, fled the scene and was arrested minutes later a short distance from the recruiting station, in a bustling suburban shopping center. The police confiscated a Russian-made SKS semiautomatic rifle, a .22-caliber rifle and a handgun from his black pickup truck.

The NYT article goes on to explain that bomb threats and vandalism against recruiting offices are not uncommon. For example, in 2008, a bomb exploded at a military recruitment center in Times Square. Thus, our troops are in as much risk at home as they are on foreign battlefields. Rather than blame it on President Clinton, we should focus on enabling soldiers and sailors to carry weapons openly on base (and openly or concealed off base as permitted by local and state laws; i.e., with a Concealed Pistol License where and when required. It even makes sense to provide some special training that will qualify personnel to carry on base. By arming more qualified personnel on and off base, the military will advance the objective of keeping our men and women safe while they protect us from our nation’s enemies.

Police & Seattle Times Identify Lone Wolf Terrorist

This week, Seattle got an up-close opportunity to study a unique breed of terrorist in the person of Christopher John Monfort. Monfort allegedly assassinated a Seattle police officer on Halloween night while conducting on-the-job training with another officer as the officers sat in a patrol car discussing a traffic stop that occurred right before the shooting.

A tip from the suspect’s neighbor led the Seattle police to stake-out a vehicle matching the suspect’s Datsun 210. When Monfort came out of his apartment, officers approached Monforth to question him and the suspect fled. Monfort allegedly pointed a pistol at pursuing officers but the pistol failed to fire. With officers still in pursuit, Monfort turned and pointed the pistol at them again and the officers shot him.

Almost immediately, Seattle Assistant Police Chief Jim Pugel called Monfort a “domestic terrorist.” According to Pugel as reported in the Seattle Times, a search of Monfort’s apartment produced “bomb-making materials, improvised explosive devices and two rifles, including a “military-style assault rifle” similar to the type of weapon police believe was used to fire at Brenton, 39, and Sweeney, 33. Additional bomb-making materials were found inside a storage shed attached to his patio.”

Additional evidence includes:

Investigators have linked Monfort to a firebombing at a Seattle Police Department maintenance yard Oct. 22. A small American flag was left behind at the South Seattle facility and near Brenton and Sweeney’s police cruiser — an apparent calling card from the suspect, investigators said.

Inside Monfort’s apartment, detectives found news clippings about the maintenance-yard destruction. They also found a manifesto protesting police brutality and the videotaped jail-cell beating of a 15-year-old girl by a King County sheriff’s deputy last year in SeaTac. A one-page note was found at the maintenance yard, lambasting the SeaTac beating and threatening police deaths if the violence didn’t stop.

Monfort, who survived the confrontation with the Seattle PD, works with youth, sought a career in law enforcement and wrote a dissertation on jury nullification- i.e., he advocated educating jury pools to disregard judges’ instructions about the law and acquit defendants in cases where a defendant may be rectifying injustices (like police brutality) in the criminal justice system.

Monfort may be a “lone wolf” terrorist. According to Fred Burton and Scott Stewart, forecasters for Stratfor Global Intelligence, many people “in law enforcement and intelligence circles misuse (the term Lone Wolf) or use it imprecisely.” A lone wolf is a person who acts without a direct connection to a terrorist organization. The lack of a direct connection to a so-called “sleeper cell” or any other organization provides “superior operational security”.

For example, it also became apparent over the last week that Islamicist web sites helped to radicalize Major Hasan, the Palestinian-American soldier-psychiatrist that allegedly committed the premeditated murder of 13 fellow soldiers inside Fort Hood.

U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra R-Mich, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, told CNN on Monday that U.S. intelligence agencies denied him the information he requested over the weekend pertaining to Major Hasan.

Nevertheless, the media is getting some of the same information denied to the Intelligence Committee! It appears, at any rate, like there is an aspect to the story about which the public is in the dark. Rep. Hoekstra also referenced the internet training sites which provide direction to individuals like Hasan that otherwise have no apparent affiliation with terror operations. So much contradictory information has come out rleated to the Fort Hood shootings that there seem to be aspects of the case that are being covered up.

Websites that provide information on how to conduct terrorist attacks include Al Qaeda affiliated magazines, such as Maaskar al-Battar (Al-Battar Training Camp). Produced by al Qaeda’s Saudi affiliate, the sites provide guidance and training on surveillance, selection of targets — and even how to operate weapons.

Up until lately, few terrorist attacks have been perpetrated by lone-wolf operatives. The usual profile of an “active shooter” is not the politically motivated lone-wolf. Individuals like Hasan- acting out of demonstrated political motivation- are not easy to identify for a number of reasons. According to Burton and Stewart, “a lone wolf is a standalone operative who by his very nature is embedded in the targeted society and is capable of self-activation at any time.” The nature of the “lone wolf terrorist”, by definition, is that he does not receive instructions from others. Thus, when such terrorists conduct operations, the media and political authorities are reluctant to identify such activities as terrorism because of the lack of organizational ties.

Another important manner in which many terrorists have been hidden beneath the radar of public perception, is that the motivating factors for many of the perpetrators of such violence are either in harmony with the public policy goals of the “mainstream” academic, media and political world or recognizing the perpetrators of such crimes as terrorism offends the ongoing elitist diversity agenda. One example is that of the New Black Panthers that stood outside a polling place in Philadelphia.

Sgt. Asan Akbar, a Muslim American soldier with the 326th Engineer Battalion who threw hand grenades and aimed his M-4 automatic rifle into tents filled with sleeping commanding officers at the 101st Airborne Division’s 1st Brigade operations center in Kuwait.

On March 3, 2006 at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, an Iranian student named Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, 22, drove a sport utility vehicle into a crowded pedestrian zone. He struck nine people but, fortunately, none were severely injured. Daniel Pipes suggests that the just-graduated student’s post-arrest remarks offer some clues. He even told interviewers that his primary motive for obtaining a degree was to commit an act of jihad and demonstrate to the world that he was not mentally ill and that Muslims can obtain a prestigious education. Nevertheless, his lack of known organizational ties prevented the incident from receiving much attention outside of Chapel Hill and it was not reported as a terrorist event.

There is not enough space or time to cover all the instances of such lone wolf attacks but there was an attack on pedestrians (in which an SUV was also utilized) that ended at a Jewish community center in San Francisco:

-The man called himself a terrorist.

-He is a Muslim.

-The driver struck pedestrians at full speed in a dozen locations.

-The final location, with 2 victims, was a Jewish Community Center.

-Intercepted Jihad documents have stated the intent to kill US pedestrians with SUVs.

-The man had recently been in Afghanistan.

-Consistent with previous jihadi attacks, the driver was reportedly calm with an angry look during the attacks, made eye contact with his victims and was unruffled afterwards.

And in Seattle in 2006, an armed Islamic man attacked the headquarters of the Jewish Federation. He stated that he was upset about Israel’s incursion into Lebanon and he has alleged via his attorneys that he was mentally ill.

In most of the incidents discussed above, the media and governmental authorities either played down the terrorist aspect of the stories, virtually ignored the Islamic connection and/or virtually failed to report the story. Although much of the information reported above is difficult to find, it is nevertheless finally recognized that one cop-killer in Seattle, Montfort, is a domestic terrorist. Why not Major Hasan? The Islamic affiliation is the only discernible difference.

The Seattle Police Department and the local news media have done an excellent job in identifying Montfort for what he is. Such individuals would be wolves that are easy to see if it were not for the liberal forests in which such radicals are found hiding.

Sgt. Munley: Courage, Active Shooter Protocol & Firearms Training


Sgt. Kimberly Denise Munley is a Killeen police officer who was close to Fort Hood on Thursday when she heard the police radio reporting the attack at the SRP. Sergeant Munley, 34, is also member of Killeen’s SWAT team. Although the City of Killeen contracts to provide police services on the base, she was following a procedure that has now become the accepted approach for officers arriving at an “active shooter” crime scene before the SWAT team; i.e., a crime-scene where a gunman is at large, killing as many people as he can. Munley deployed active shooter protocol.

Sgt. Kimberly Denise Munley drove directly to the scene of the carnage and identified the active shooter within three minutes after Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s first shots were reported. Hasan was chasing a wounded soldier. She walked up and engaged him because her training taught her that “if you act aggressively to take out a shooter you will have less fatalities.”

It often takes SWAT crews 30 minutes or more to arrive at a crime scene. In other shootings like the school shooting at Columbine, active shooters continued killing victims while patrol officers, trained to wait for SWAT, had to stand by out of the line of fire. At Columbine, a few officers that were on the scene at the outset returned fire with pistols. They probably saved some lives but were ineffective without the rifles that have since become almost standard for many patrol officers. With an average time of one victim shot every fifteen seconds, first-responders like the patrol officer that stopped an active shooter in a South Carolina nursing home are critical.

As she headed towards the shooter, Hasan charged towards Munley firing and striking her more than once as she went into a crouched or kneeling position. Her partner may have struck Hasan with gunfire but that remains unclear at this time.

What is clear is that Munley shot at Major Hasan while he returned fire. She ran or walked rapidly toward him, continuing to fire; both she and Hasan went down, each with multiple bullet wounds.

The original 911 call came in at 1:23 p.m., and five minutes later Sergeant Munley had already shot the gunman. According to the New York Times:

Sergeant Munley began her career as a police officer in the beachside town of Wrightsville, N.C., after graduating from high school in nearby Wilmington. She quickly earned a reputation for fearlessness, despite her stature….

Sergeant Munley was wounded in both thighs and her right wrist. Sergeant Munley has two children. She joined the police force in January 2008 after a career in the Army much of which she spent at Fort Hood. Her husband is Matthew Munley, a member of the Special Forces. Munley is an advanced firearms instructor for the civilian force that assists military police on the base. She developed a love of shooting and hunting when she was young.
The information herein is pieced together from articles in the Washington Post and New York Times.

There is little information so-far about Munley’s partner. At least one police officer was killed in the firefight. But Munley’s partner, Sgt. Mark Todd, apparently survived the shootout. Todd told CNN:

Todd, who had become separated from Munley, saw that she (Sgt. Munley) had been shot. Hasan was 15 yards from him, Todd told CNN, “standing there hiding behind a telephone pole waving his weapon, firing it at people.” Todd said Hasan saw him, calmly pointed and shot. Todd couldn’t see a weapon — only a muzzle flash –and fired back. Hasan, who by then had allegedly shot 100 rounds, fell.

This officer’s bravery amazes all of us. Nevertheless, most of us that are not police officers could have done what she did- if you and I have the right training and the equipment.

Jihad or PTSD: American Jihadist In U.S. Military

Thirteen are dead, 30 wounded after a shooting Thursday at a soldier-processing center at Fort Hood, Texas. Did the shooter target individuals that he knew? The shooter reportedly cried, “Allahu Akbar” as he commenced shooting.

It has been reported that he previously declared that Islamic people should rise up against those that are oppressing them in Iraq and Afghanistan. The shooter posted the following:

“There was a grenade thrown among a group of American soldiers. One of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He inentionally took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that “IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE” and Allah (SWT) knows best.”

He apparently posted the comments above on the internet stating that suicide bombers are equivalent to soldiers that throw themselves on a hand grenade to shield their brothers in arms; i.e., heroic defenders of the peaceful Islamic way of life. Not surprisingly, he allegedly received a negative evaluation regarding his work at Walter Reed Hospital.

The terrorist killed and wounded more than forty people- the worst shooting on a U.S. Army base in U.S. history- and now it turns out that he is alive. Why is PTSD an issue when he was never close to combat until Thursday. He only opposed warfare because of his commitment to jihad? He wanted to get out of the military at one point but could not do so without repaying the U.S. taxpayers for his medical training.

The gunman is an officer in the U.S. Army and an Army psychiatrist. Despite reports that he converted to Islam, the shooter has always been Islamic, according to his cousin, a Jordanian-American who was interviewed on the news. Immediately after Maj. Malik Nidal Hasan’s name was announced to the world, experts began to ask the inevitable questions about whether the attacks were Lone Wolf terrorism, Mumbai-style tactical attacks or further evidence of so-called Sudden Jihad Syndrome. The fact that there were reports of more than one shooter at first raised questions about whether other attacks may have been about to materialize in places like Seattle or Fort Lewis. It has now been solidly determined by ballistic evidence that the shooter acted alone. There is no evidence that he was a member of an organized terror cell.

Army spokesman Lt. Gen. Bob Cone stated that two other soldiers were detained as suspects but have been released. The authorities are no doubt following up every rumor or thread of evidence.

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, 39, was stopped by gunfire from a local police officer after he opened fire at about 1:30 p.m. CST at the Soldiers Readiness Processing Center. Soldiers get medical check-ups and have their wills drafted at the SRP before leaving for and arriving from overseas deployments.

Why was a local police officer the first one to effectively respond and why there is not more armed security on base? It turns out that the City of Killeen, Texas contracts with the Department of Defense to provide police protection on base and a female officer made the shot that stopped the killer. We should hear more about her- she deserves maximum kudos for heroic service to her country! The New York Times deserves a favorable mention for its story on Sgt. Kimberly Denise Munley. Incidentally, Killeen is the city in which 24 were killed by a shooter in Luby’s Cafeteria in 1991.

The shooter killed one civilian police officer, according to Cone.

Hasan was a psychiatrist who previously worked at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. He recently was a psychiatrist at Darnall Army Medical Center at Fort Hood, according to professional records. He was scheduled to be deployed to Afghanistan and was apparently upset about the deployment. He may have gotten into arguments with other personnel as a result of his outspoken support for Islamic extremism.

Investigators are looking into why he was recently promoted to the rank of major- despite complaints about anti-American, pro-Islamicist statements and religious proselytizing of his PTSD patients. Questions are being raised already in connection with how he previously lectured his colleagues regarding beheading of infidels and harangued co-workers about similar religious subjects.

On Sunday, Sen. Lieberman, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, called for Senate investigations into these reports and other disturbing allegations (such as that Hasan was sending messages to jihadist websites) and as to why the Army missed so many obvious signs that Hasan has been a radical Islamicist for some time.

The reports that he may have felt he was being discriminated against by his colleagues and received legal advice related to getting out of the Army a few years back raise the issue of why the Army did not just let him resign instead of recently promoting Hasan to the rank of major.

Ten of the deceased were soldiers and another was a civilian police officer who was working as a contractor on the base, Cone said.

The shooter had two handguns, commenced with the obligatory jihadi cry of “God is great!” in Arabic and fired as many as 45-50 rounds. Despite the many conflicting reports, the casualties began at 1:30 PM Central Time at the SRP.

“The local police response forces were there relatively quickly and killed the confirmed shooter,” Cone said (later it turned out Hasan is alive). Multiple reports persisted of shooting that occurred at more than one location within Fort Hood and the facility was still locked down at 5:00 PM Thursday.

One pistol was semi-automatic and the other a .357 revolver. It may take a few days, but I see an upcoming CNN story on the dangers of semi-automatic weapons. Have you ever seen how quickly some folks shoot and reload revolvers?

It is unfortunate that a few more military personnel with weapons (semi-automatic or otherwise) could not have been close-by to stop the massacre within Fort Hood. Fort Hood’s garrison commander explained that the base is reviewing its security procedures. An equally important concern expressed by General Casey, is to avoid a backlash against loyal Islamic soldiers. One theme coming through in some of the commentary is that Fort Hood is the Army’s home; of course soldiers would not be armed in their home. Interesting point of view!

Why do so many of the folks on television seem to have received the same talking points! Unfortunately the alleged shooter, like several other jihadists” that were planning to do the same thing at Fort Dix and various other military installations, didn’t get the memo about Fort Hood as a gun-free home in which for soldiers to rest secure- presumably off-limits for terrorists to attack?

When will the U.S. Government realize that we are in a war where every area is a danger zone? There have been many plans interrupted already in which military bases were targeted for tactical attacks by teams of shooters. Every soldier should be encouraged to obtain a Concealed Pistol License in the state where he lives (the federal government should again consider issuance of a universal concealed-carry permit- good in all states) and carry a weapon all the time- on and off base. It seems unlikely, however, that Congress or the Army will take such measures. Our prayers go out to the surviving victims and families of all service personnel, especially thise that are directly impacted.

See More Personnel Identified as Jihad Risks at Fort Hood.


If you falter in times of trouble, how small is your strength! Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it.

Proverbs 24:10-12

Emergency Preparedness: King County Violating Washington State Gun Rights

How many years have we listened to the talking class bemoan the fact that most of us know more about what happens in the Middle East than we know about our own local governments? Suddenly the internet and cable TV have created an explosion of engaged citizens and the political class is worried! In between Tea Parties and disrupting Town Meetings, citizen activists all over the State of Washington are investigating county and local governments that have enacted emergency power provisions that violate RCW 9.41.290, the Washington State preemption statute.

For example, the City of Yakima just amended certain local laws that were in violation of the state preemption law. Then we discovered to our dismay that the Council had retained the following:

Chapter 6.06


(7) An order prohibiting the possession of firearms or any other deadly weapon by a person (other than a law enforcement officer) in a place other than that person’s place of residence or business;

Such statutory provisions are in direct violation of the state preemption statute:

The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.

RCW 9.41.290

King County Code presently includes the following:

B. Upon the proclamation of an emergency by the executive, and during the existence of such emergency, the executive may make and proclaim any or all of the following orders:

9. An order prohibiting the carrying or possession of firearms or any instrument which is capable of producing bodily harm and which is carried or possessed with intent to use the same to cause such harm; provided that any such order shall not apply to peace officers or military personnel engaged in the performance of their official duties;

King County Code 12.52.030 (9)

Note that the King County emergency gun ban even goes beyond banning guns outside homes and businesses. Apparently the King County Council claims the power to ban guns in your home- just like the authorities in New Orleans that went from house to house, disarming terrified residents that had already been abandoned by police and other authorities during a time when the citizens of New Orleans desperately needed protection from looters and roving gangs of thugs.

HB 1832 has been stuck in the House Judiciary Committee for more than a few years. The proposed legislation would prohibit government gun grabs during emergencies but has little chance of being reported out of committee unless irate Washington State voters start raising a hue and cry!

Contact your local law enforcement and city and county lawmakers if such a law has been enacted where you live and contact us to let us know what responses, if any, that you receive. We have been involved professionally with clients and citizen activists in successfully advocating changes in both the Federal Way and Yakima codes by simply informing honest public servants that some local laws are illegal. Federal Way is now one hundred percent in compliance with state law.

On September 1, 2009, the City of Yakima discussed three statutes that were in violation of RCW 9.41.290, the Washington State preemption statute. Thanks to Dave Poling’s hard work and testimony, the Council decided to Amend its city ordinances in order to repeal certain restrictions including the “power” to ban guns during emergencies.

See VIDEO starting at minute 5:35.

Emergency bans on weapons raise liability issues. When local governments claim powers that that can lawfully only be invoked by the governor and/or the state legislature, federal and state civil remedies are available to citizens that are harassed (such as by gun confiscation). See Video (fast forward to last five or ten minute segment).

Thus, the real issue is liability if an emergency gun ban is invoked, a municipality confiscates guns lawfully carried by citizens and the victims of the confiscation subsequently take legal action. Even the Governor may incur liability if she confiscates weapons during an emergency where there are federal emergency funds coming into the state. City, county and state officials should consider the legal fees and costs incurred by New Orleans when guns were confiscated in the aftermath of Katrina. The issues raised at the Yakima City Council meeting relate to Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution, RCW 9.41.290 State Preemption and RCW 43.06.010(12) in which the Governor has sole power and duty to proclaim an emergency in Washington State.

Leaving emergency powers laws on the books until challenged can be a costly decision. The Yakima City Council already recognized that state law preempts local laws in all matters pertaining to firearms when it removed two other illegal statutes from the books at the same meeting during which legal counsel made the comments referenced above.

You can ascertain much about the status of firearms laws in various localities and other information at http://www.OpenCarry.com.

The Governor has emergency powers that enable her to ban guns outside the home during a state of emergency:

RCW 43.06.220

State of emergency — Powers of governor pursuant to proclamation.

(1) The governor after proclaiming a state of emergency and prior to terminating such, may, in the area described by the proclamation issue an order prohibiting:
(e) The possession of firearms or any other deadly weapon by a person (other than a law enforcement officer) in a place other than that person’s place of residence or business;

While the above referenced state law is not in violation of the state preemption statute, residents of Washington state should be considering the way in which residents of New Orleans experienced a massive gun confiscation during the emergency following Hurricane Katrina. See NRA vs New Orleans.

The NRA and many state legislators all over the United States have worked to enact laws preventing just such a confiscation in other states. Nevertheless, in Washington state, we are at the mercy of the Governor because, although there is proposed legislation modeled after the NRA endorsed legislation, it is unlikely it will ever get reported out of committee.

As indicated above, states, counties and local governments may be sued under the Stafford Act if gun confiscation laws are enforced during an emergency for which a state or local government is receiving federal funds:

Private rights of action

(1) In general

Any individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may seek relief in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress against any person who subjects such individual, or causes such individual to be subjected, to the deprivation of any of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by this section.

(2) Remedies

In addition to any existing remedy in law or equity, under any law, an individual aggrieved by the seizure or confiscation of a firearm in violation of this section may bring an action for return of such firearm in the United States district court in the district in which that individual resides or in which such firearm may be found.

(3) Attorney fees

In any action or proceeding to enforce this section, the court shall award the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.

42 USC Sec. 5207 (01/08/2008)

See video: Gun Confiscation in New Orleans.

Should America Be Transformed Into Europe?

Behind many of President Obama’s recent forays into the international arena lies the issue of whether the United States is to retain its sovereign status or merge into something that is new. Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have already decided cases by promoting theories that meld U.S. law with foreign law. Are international norms a prism through which U.S. Constitutional law should be interpreted?

MEDELLIN VS TEXAS was a 2007 death penalty case that decided whether the State of Texas must give a psychopath a new trial. Its sordid origins trace to 1993, when José Medellín, a Mexican national, murdered two Houston teenagers. He was sentenced to death by a Texas jury, but his lawyers argued on appeal that he hadn’t had access to Mexico’s consulate before he confessed to his crimes.

Mr. Medellin’s claim was that a violation of the 1963 VIENNA CONVENTION had occurred; diplomats are supposed to be notified when their nationals are arrested. Mexican authorities sued the U.S. in the International Court of Justice at The Hague. The ICJ ruled in Mexico’s favor, ordering states to give Medellín and some 51 other nationals new hearings. The question before the Supreme Court was whether such international dictates must be enforced by sovereign state courts.

Justice John Roberts, writing for the 6-3 majority, ruled that the ICJ finding was not binding because the Vienna Convention is a diplomatic compact that was never intended to automatically create new individual rights enforceable domestically by international bodies. Thus, Texas’s violation of diplomatic protocols called for a diplomatic remedy.

Treaty provisions must be in accord with the plain meaning of the Constitution as it is written, not as some would have them to be. This distinction establishes a fire wall between international and domestic law. The day may come when Washington State’s Attorney General has to defend the protections afforded by our state Constitution against treaties negotiated by folks in Washington, DC.

Washingtonians may just be a bunch of cowboys but so far we are sticking to our guns! Despite the opinions of some law professors and elitists that believe a treaty supersedes the U.S. and Washington state constitutions, we should continue to uphold our Washington State Constitution even if we need to do so in the face of new treaties and/or Medellín being reversed by SCOTUS at some time in the future.

MEDELLÍN also disposed of the Bush Administration’s claims of Presidential power. The Bush Administration had attempted to calm the diplomatic world by directing states to comply with the ICJ ruling in a 2005 executive order. The Court ruled that the President’s power is limited by the Constitution.

For many years, elitist lawyers and politicians have been claiming that the Constitution is always changing based on the needs of each generation. This is not rule of law but an argument for tyranny which would interlineate international norms in place of Constitutional norms.

The crowd that expressed outrage against Bush’s claims of executive power can’t wait to turn greater executive powers over to international politicians who have already banned many freedoms- including freedom of speech and religion- in Europe, Australia and Canada, to name a few! Be vigilant and watch for the propaganda blitz that is coming. If MEDELLÍN is reversed, UN mandates squelching free speech, gun rights and even the ability to practice your religion may follow.

Tacoma- Pierce County Contemplate Domestic Gun Owner Abuse


Firearms were used in 54 percent of the state’s domestic violence-related homicides since 1997. The Tacoma News Tribune states that abusers used firearms in 232 of 430 deaths that resulted from domestic violence between Jan. 1, 1997, and June 30, 2008. These statistics must cause all of us to be concerned.

See State Report Takes On Domestic Violence, By Stacey Mulick.

Statewide in the last two years, 68 women, men and children were killed in domestic violence incidents; 33 victims were shot. Should we look at how the criminal justice system can take further steps to get the weapons out of the hands of convicted abusers?

Under the 1996 Lautenberg Amendment and Washington state law, people convicted of domestic violence, including law enforcement officers and members of the military, are not allowed to possess firearms- no exceptions for police and military. These laws make it difficult to attract and retain personnel! Even authorizing a soldier to handle a weapon while stateside puts his command at risk of criminal prosecution.

Domestic violence laws like the federal Lautenberg Amendment make recruiting and retention of police and military personnel difficult. At one time there were exceptions for police and members of the military:

“For more than thirty years, the Gun Control Act of 1968 has provided the basic framework for gun control in the United States.” The law prohibited convicted felons from possessing firearms, but it provided an exception for members of the government, such as police and military members. This new Amendment, however, does NOT include such a provision. If, however, an officer is convicted of a felony version of domestic violence, the exception applies and the officer may continue to possess a weapon for the performance of his duties.

Since the Lautenberg Amendment became effective, officers who are convicted of a misdemeanor version of domestic violence are prohibited from possessing firearms, even on duty. This inconsistency in the statute has left police and military administrators in a difficult situation regarding the assignment of officers who are affected, although the number of officers affected has been relatively low. This statute also reaches back to prior convictions and applies them to prohibit officers from possessing firearms today, even when they have lawfully been armed officers for years.”

Thus, there are still exceptions that apply for military and police where DV protection orders have been entered and, ironically, where the DV conviction is a felony and not a misdemeanor!

§ 925. Exceptions: Relief from disabilities

(a)(1) The provisions of this chapter, except for sections 922 (d)(9) and 922 (g)(9) and provisions relating to firearms subject to the prohibitions of section 922 (p), shall not apply with respect to the transportation, shipment, receipt, possession, or importation of any firearm or ammunition imported for, sold or shipped to, or issued for the use of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof.

The impact on recruitment and retention becomes evident once you realize how little it takes to get arrested for domestic violence when a mandatory arrest staute is in place. Mandatory arrest laws enacted in Washington and many other states make officers liable for any mistakes that result from exercise of discretion in making arrests for domestic violence. Thus, almost any hearsay accusation or circumstantial evidence (such as a case in which an officer responds to a 911 caller that was just driving by) can result in an arrest, no-contact orders and a chain of legal events that becomes so complicated and bewildering that defendants often feel that pleading guilty is their only choice.

The “victim” often pleads with the prosecutors to drop the case and a great deal of pressure, including threats of prosecution against the victim, are often employed in order to gain the testimony of the “complainant witness ” that may have never initiated the complaint at all. The State has sole control over whether to proceed with the charges in Washington State and in King County and Seattle rarely dismisses cases even when the “victim” is vehemently denying that any assault ever occurred.

Even when a woman denies that an assault has occurred her husband or boyfriend is prone to be arrested, jailed and charged despite the responding officers’ common sense determinations. This is because of the technical fact that probable cause exists and failure to arrest makes officers liable for any mistaken judgment that results in death or injury to the “victim”.

Every officer, prosecutor and criminal defense lawyer is familiar with the problem of how unfair the system is to men. Nevertheless, no politician, prosecutor or judge is going to position himself or herself to look soft on domestic abusers! The coalition of DV activists in Western Washington is ferocious to any official that crosses their agenda:

A police officer having probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing a felony shall have the authority to arrest the person without a warrant. A police officer may arrest a person without a warrant for committing a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor only when the offense is committed in the presence of the officer, except as provided in subsections (1) through (10) of this section….

(c) The person is sixteen years or older and within the preceding four hours has assaulted a family or household member as defined in RCW 10.99.020 and the officer believes: (i) A felonious assault has occurred; (ii) an assault has occurred which has resulted in bodily injury to the victim, whether the injury is observable by the responding officer or not; or (iii) that any physical action has occurred which was intended to cause another person reasonably to fear imminent serious bodily injury or death. Bodily injury means physical pain, illness, or an impairment of physical condition. When the officer has probable cause to believe that family or household members have assaulted each other, the officer is not required to arrest both persons. The officer shall arrest the person whom the officer believes to be the primary physical aggressor. In making this determination, the officer shall make every reasonable effort to consider:

(i) The intent to protect victims of domestic violence under RCW 10.99.010;

(ii) the comparative extent of injuries inflicted or serious threats creating fear of physical injury;and

(iii) the history of domestic violence between the persons involved.

RCW 10.31.100

“This degree of statutory control leaves the officers with little discretion, imposing a duty upon the officers to make arrests in most cases. The result is that officers make arrests in marginal situations, essentially because they are “afraid not to. Officers tend to err on the side of the statute’s demand for an arrest, even when they believe an arrest is unnecessary.”

See Impact of Domestic Violence On Law Enforcement.

Seattle Fights Back Against Chicago-Style Gun Control

Nickels Missing; Seattle Finds Smoking Gun Dec 17, ’08 1:14 AM

by Mark S. Knapp, Federal Way

Subsequent to publishing the following article, Nickels issued his edict. He is now out of office and his successor and the City of Seattle are battling at least two legal actions that the City cannot expect to win:

Mayor Nickels wrote to the Speaker of our State House of Representatives, Hon. Frank Chopp, on May 4, 2006. Greg Nickels stated:

“State law preempts any and all local regulations related to firearms. Our hands are tied at the local level and we are unable to adopt any local laws to protect our residents from gun crime.”

-Mayor Greg Nickels, May 4, 2006.

For several months after the Mayor Nickel held public hearings on his plans to ban guns on City property, he seemed to know that the legal action ready to be filed by the Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue, Washington can seriously hurt the City. Then in March, 2009, the Mayor’s office indicated that the edict will go into effect on a yet to be announced date. See Workman.

During his nonappearance at the public hearings held to air his edict banning carry of weapons on most city premises and parks, the Mayor clearly created an unrebuttable presumption that he has delusions of grandeur that are more characteristic of Cook County political personalities than the traits we see in our Seattle politicians.

Maybe guilty of malfeasance and violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution by reason of insanity will be his plea? Official misconduct to deprive citizens of privileges and immunities is a form of reckless disregard of the Mayor’s official duties and oath of office, according to one retired Coast Guard member. “Gun free zones don’t work,” the indignant citizen proclaimed as he stood there, still a watchman on the stormy sea of liberty. This theme was repeated by several speakers until finally one impassioned lady cried, “The reason we keep repeating ourselves is because you guys just don’t hear us!” The people of Mumbai seem to have heard the message better thsn the Mayor.

I read in the newspaper this week that a guy in Mexico makes a little boat that stays right below the water and leaves no heat signature because the exhaust pipes are under water. They cost a million dollars but drug dealers buy them up faster than the government can eliminate them. A terrorist could never bring a crew to Seattle like that? Those guys only know how to handle weapons of mass destruction like nukes and crude biological stuff. They would never get in an underwater boat and come to a friendly town like Seattle where everybody except Weyerhauser Corporation loves trees. But then again, the boat has a range of 2,000 some miles…. I digress.

According to FBI crime statistics, there were 9,000 hate crimes in 2007 and 41% of those crimes occurred in public buildings such as the Seattle City Hall. Back in 2008, the Mayor announced that he had legal authority to ban weapons on City property. That is when the public hearings occurred. Since then, the number of approved applications for Concealed Pistol Licenses has increased and so have gun sales in King County.

Yvonne Ward, a civil rights lawyer that represents crime victims, was present at the hearing and told the City of Seattle exactly why Mayor Nickels’ gun ban will make victims more vulnerable to men that prey on women. The Mayor’s edict victimizes women twice by making criminals of those that disobey the law.

Ms. Ward, an Asian-American leader who definitely carries, was among many that provided public comment and then asked, “Where is Mayor Nickels?” The Mayor was conspicuously absent. The hearing, held on Bill of Rights Day, was replete with doctors, retired veterans, academics (including a UW professor emeritus) and victims of violent crimes- all opposed to Nickels’ decree.

One of the few that favored the ban claimed to speak for the Jewish Federation insisting that disarming honest people on City property is a “common sense” way to stop hate crimes like the shootings that occurred at the Federation’s Seattle headquarters. I asked the speaker wouldn’t he be safer having armed citizens nearby? He abruptly cut off the discussion with me in the hallway.

A survivor of the same hate crime (committed by a menatlly ill person of Middle Eastern ancestry who became agitated when Israel went into Lebenon a few years ago) said her niece was also a victim. She also stated that she is a board member of Washington Ceasefire. These were some of the few that favored the gun ban. Several speakers made reference to Hitler and Lenin’s outspoken support for gun control, the point being that all dictators share the same sentiments as Washington Ceasefire.

Joe Waldron came from sunny Florida to point out that if you lock your weapon in the car in order to comply with the Mayor’s edict you run the risk of getting your weapon stolen like Gil Kerlikowske- the former Seattle PD Chief’s gun was stolen from his vehicle and is now a potential instrumentality of criminal violence on the streets! Evidently the Obama Administration overlooked little problems like the lost gun and the fact that his son has a drug problem. He is now slated to be the nation’s new drug chief!

Speakers favoring responsible self-defense included self-professed “liberals” and gay people that are opposed to becoming victims. A rape victim stated that she would be terrified to walk in a Seattle park near her home without concealed carry. Many fathers also expressed safety concerns about taking their families to parks without the ability to protect their kids. Judges and prosecutors might also have concerns about their own personal safety traversing City property but none were present to testify. In Seattle, many folks use Metro and cannot lock their weapons in the car to enter property belonging to Mayor Nickels. You may or may not be surprised how many lawyers carry- for good reason.

One of these days I would like to write an article analyzing the statistical probability that ethnic minorities will be victims of violent crime compared to statistics for non-minority Caucasians. Of over 150 people present from many races and backgrounds, there must have been twenty that favored the Nickels Gun Ban.

Most of those that favored the change seemed to be spokespersons from Ceasefire. They used words like illogical to characterize armed self-defense. Hmmmmm….

See Video: Public Hearing.

Is Your Mayor Lobbying Against Your Guns?

Yakima Mayor Edler recently announced that he joined Mayor Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG). Yakima is dealing with a string of gang-related shootings that have rocked the City of Yakima. MAIG’s Mission Statement declares:

“We support the Second Amendment and the rights of citizens to own guns.”

The anti-gun mayors’ group does not support the right to bear arms, however. MAIG has stated that “a policy that is appropriate for a small town in one region of the country is not necessarily appropriate for a big city in another region of the country.”

Many of the positions taken by MAIG around the U.S. violate our Washington State Constitution and RCW 9.41.290 which “fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation” within Washington State. Thus, our state firearms preemption law prohibits local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law.

Yakima’s City Council recently decided to repeal two illegal firearms restrictions that violate state preemption law.

A nineteen year old man was shot dead during an argument yesterday (September 17, 2009) at the Federal Way Transit Center. There have been previous shootings there, including the death of an innocent bystander.

Federal Way’s neighboring mayor, Pete Lewis of Auburn, and other Washington mayors presumably join Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) to combat violent crime and make cities like Auburn safer.

According to MAIG, more than 450 mayors from big cities and small towns across the country have joined the coalition. MAIG claims that it just seeks common sense solutions that may vary for different localities but MAIG’s real agenda (possibly unknown to well-intentioned mayors like Mr. Lewis- but unlikely at this point in time) is to restrict folks from exercising many of our gun rights, gradually removing the ability of citizens to stop violent crimes immediately by armed self-defense.

Legislation supported by MAIG includes repealing the Tiahrt Amendment which provides for trace data to be provided to law enforcement and prosecutors but prohibits providing firearms information for lawsuits aimed at closing down gun manufacturers and gun shops. The NRA and The Fraternal Order of Police oppose releasing such data as releasing some of the data could jeopardize officer’s lives.

Mayor Bloomberg would restrict people on the terror watch list from buying or owning guns. Earlier this year, Homeland Security warned that some of our troops returning from combat zones pose a potential terrorist threat.

Do we want our returning servicemen and women placed on a watch list and losing their right to keep and bear arms? Once on the list, many Americans have found that there is no way to get off of it- even where the government admits a mistake has been made.

Mayor Nickels of Seattle, a founding member of MAIG, announced again that he is prepared to proceed with an illegal gun ban on city premises despite the certainty that he will soon be leaving office (he did not make it past the primary due to the unpopular style of his governance in the Emerald City). Despite Washington’s firearms preemption law and an imminent legal challenge that Seattle cannot win, Seattle’s lame-duck mayor is foisting huge legal expenses on Seattle’s taxpayers. Isn’t it less expensive to simply punish violent predators to the maximum extent of the law? But Nickels, like a few of Seattle’s other anti-gun politicians now in Washington, DC, is feathering his own nest in hopes of a salaried position with MAIG or even a position in the Obama Administration.

See Dave Workman.

MAIG is against HR 2296 and S. 941 which would clarify the standards and improve the process for imposing penalties related to intentional violations of federal gun laws. MAIG’s opposition is apparently because the proposals are not hard enough on simple paperwork mistakes that can presently result in the BATF harassing and even closing down legitimate gun dealers!

MAIG’s present goal in Washington State is apparently to remove the so-called “gun show loophole”. The argument (shown to be false by Department of Justice statistics) is that, since people can buy guns at gun shows without a background check, many criminals are purchasing guns at gun shows. The Washington Arms Collectors, the organization that hosts many gun shows in Washington, requires that only WAC members (all of whom have passed background checks) can purchase weapons at gun shows. Dealers still have to perform NICS checks at gun shows just like they do in their regular place of business.

Under present Washington law, private parties can presently buy or sell weapons away from gun shows without any background check. Will MAIG want legislation closing the private party loophole next?

Efforts to prevent the existence of any loopholes work better in totalitarian societies. Laws already enacted need to be enforced more strictly before we give up our freedom. Let’s make society safer by making things harder for the predators, not for law abiding gun owners.

You can find out whether your mayor is a member of MAIG with the handy NRA list from the NRA-ILA. The following Washington mayors (as of August 20th, 2009) are involved in this anti-civil rights organization:

Mayor Peter B. Lewis
Auburn, WA

Mayor Cary Bozeman
Bremerton, WA

Mayor Greg Nickels
Seattle, WA

Mayor Bill Baarsma
Tacoma, WA

Mayor Royce Pollard
Vancouver, WA

Mayor David Edler
Yakima, WA

Obama, Van Jones & Chicago-Style Change

“A wise man attacks the city of the mighty
and pulls down the stronghold in which they trust.”

Proverbs 21:22

As the U.S. dollar gets ready to free-fall into oblivion, President Obama has presided over a radical remolding of the American economy during which the reality of the U.S. Government seizing corporations seems imminent. One of the reasons that the U.S. quarantined Castro’s Cuba after the Cuban Revolution was because Cuba nationalized assets belonging to U.S. citizens. Nevertheless, we may see the “takings” clause of the 5th Amendment shredded along with many of our other dearly purchased Constitutional rights.

Now we have seen men like Chas. Freeman, Jr. that shill for China and attack Israel nominated for important intelligence posts. Almost every cabinet level office that has been filled is staffed by henchmen of the gun-control lobby and we should keep our eyes on Van Jones, a former street agitator known for harassing the police in the San Francisco Bay Area. The group called ColorOfChange, formerly affiliated with Van Jones, has been busy calling for boycotts of Glen Beck because Beck referred to President Obama as a racist!

Jones himself stated that when he was jailed in San Francisco for participating in a protest against police brutality:

“I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’ I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary. I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist.”

In March, 2009, a number of concerned Americans, including the San Francisco Police Officer’s Association, began calling attention to the evidence implicating Obama cronies Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn in the 1970 murder of a San Francisco police officer. In light of what has transpired since inauguration day, it is worth taking another look at what some of us already knew about Obama during the “mainstream” campaign while the media turned a blind eye:

During the campaign, Obama resigned membership in his racist anti-American Chicagoland church (to which he belonged for over twenty years). Obama had previously called for unity and an end to the politics of division while including his anti-American pastor on his campaign committee.

There were efforts to distance himself from a long time friend, a Catholic priest for whom Obama had gone to bat in the U.S. Senate and the Illinois legislature. Sen. Obama won hundreds of thousands of taxpayer funding in order to fuel Father Pfleger’s ministry in Chicago. Father Pfleger accepted such largesse even while proclaiming that America is the worst sin in God’s eyes.

“In addition to giving $20,000 of his own money to Jeremiah Wright, as a state senator Obama directed $225,000 of the Illinois taxpayers’ money for programs run by Father Pfleger. In the U.S. Senate, Obama earmarked $100,000 in federal tax money for Father Pfleger’s work. Giving someone more than 300 grand is not just some tenuous, coincidental association.”

Barack Obama had a long record of associating with anti-American radicals including William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn who were local activists in Hyde Park (the stronghold in Chicago’s South Side where the University of Chicago is located and one of the Midwest’s strongest left-wing bastions.

Dohrn and Ayers are better known nationally as two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement, according to Ben Smith at http://www.politico.com.

Obama was at Bill Ayers’ home when Alice Palmer stepped down from running for office and identified Obama as her successor in the race. The visit by Obama to their home — part of a campaign courtship — reflects more extensive interaction than has been previously reported, according to Smith.

Ayers and Dohrn were violent bombers and members of the violent SDS Weatherman faction that were wanted by the federal government for planning to kill members of the U.S. Armed Forces and other crimes.

“Politicians of an earlier generation had their own relationships with figures now far to their left. Hillary Rodham Clinton, for instance, interned at a radical San Francisco law firm while in law school.

Prof. Dohrn and Dr. Ayers disappeared in 1970, after a bomb — designed to kill army officers in New Jersey — accidentally destroyed a Greenwich Village townhouse, and turned themselves into authorities in 1980. Ayers was never prosecuted for his involvement with the 25 bombings the Weather Underground claimed; charges were dropped because of improper FBI surveillance. Dohrn received a relatively light sentence for a terrorist when she refused to testify about what she knew.

Both have written and spoken at length about their pasts, and today he is an advocate for progressive education and a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago; she’s an associate professor of law at Northwestern University.

But — unlike some other fringe figures of the era — they’re also flatly unrepentant about the bombings they committed in the name of ending the war, defending them on the grounds that they killed no one, except, accidentally, their own members. But is it true to claim that the two only killed other radicals when the bombs (constructed to use against members of the U.S. Armed Forces) blew up by accident:

“The Society of Former Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation authored a 1979 pamphlet on the WUO that reported, ‘On October 18, 1974, Larry Grathwohl, a former member of the WUO, testified before a US Senate Subcommittee that Bill Ayers, a WUO leader, had told him that Bernardine Dohrn, another WUO leader, had to plan, develop and carry out the bombing of the police station in San Francisco. Ayers told Grathwohl the bomb was placed on the window ledge and he described the bomb that was used to the extent of saying what kind of shrapnel was used in it.’

Ayers was never convicted because of a legal technicality- the FBI surveilled and/or wiretapped Ayers illegally. However, Dohrn, who is married to Ayers, was jailed for less than a year for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating as to other Weather Underground members’ robbery of a Brinks truck, in which a guard and two New York State Troopers were killed.

“I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough,” Ayers told the New York Times in 2001.”

Paradoxically, like many leftists that would justify violence in order to accomplish socialist political objectives, Sen. Obama has a soft spot in his heart for gun control. Even while he was telling rural voters during the campaign that he believed the Second Amendment protected individual rights, the Senator from Illinois reassured the liberal elite that he considered such rhetoric to be worthy of only derision and ridicule- window dressing for illiterate masses that cling to religion and guns.. See http://www.politico.com.

Sen. Obama’s church, Trinity United Church of Christ, is not a mainstream church but one that is linked to “liberation theology”. Sen. Obama indicated that his former pastor, Rev. Wright, won Obama to “Christianity” and has been a mentor and spiritual guide to the Senator. The theology of the Reverend is a racist stew of Liberation Theology and black separatism. Liberation Theology is a radical Marxist-Leninist reinterpretation of the Bible that has taken root in many different denominations.

Sen. Obama’s pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr, not only has a militant past but travels with Louis Farrakhan, an Anti-Semite that believes whites, the U.S. and Zionist Jews are the axis of evil. Rev. Wright also has recently supported Hamas on his church webpages; Hamas is a recognized terrorist organization that has killed many innocent Israelis and Americans.

The United Church of Christ, Rev. Wright’s denomination, is being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service for a speech Obama delivered at a church conference in June in Hartford, Conn. The Wall Street Journal suggested that the South Side church may be violating its tax-exempt status by endorsing a candidate.

The New York Times presented a picture of Rev. Wright, a man that uses obscenities to get his points across, as vehemently opposed to America’s role in the world and Wright has made comments that seem to indicate we got what we had coming on September 11th.

The following excerpts from an article by By Ed Lasky show how Obama may pose a threat to Israeli and American security:

Senator Barack Obama has become the rarest of politicians: a man who has seemingly come out of nowhere to ascend to the top rank of Democratic Presidential candidates.

Obama’s spiritual mentor

Given the anti-Semitism that is sadly so often associated with other leaders and groups that have emphasized black separatism and empowerment (think Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton) perhaps some qualms might be warranted, particularly given some of the actions and statements of the Church’s minister.

Pastor Wright is a believer in “liberation theology,” which makes the liberation of the oppressed a paramount virtue. The language of liberation all too often veers off into anti-Jewish rants. For example, one of the founders of the movement, Gustavo Gutierrez, has stated that the infidelities of the Jewish people made the Old Covenant [between the Jews and God] invalid.” Pastor Wright is also a supporter of Louis Farrakhan, and in 1984 traveled with him to visit Col. Muammar al-Gadaffi, an archenemy of Israel’s and America and a firm supporter of terror groups.

But what were his views before he ran for and was elected to the Presidency?

One other aspect of Obama’s support that was cause for some discomfort is the fact that he had the seal of approval from Jimmy Carter and billionaire George Soros-both influential and powerful people who take an unseemly glee in trying to undermine the American-Israel alliance. Soros has been funding powerful 527 groups, donating to candidates and others-such as Wes Clark-who are severe critics of Israel…

Furthermore, Obama stated that he supported a resumption of aid to the Palestinian government… the international community has laid down requirements for such aid to continue: not only must the Palestinians renounce terrorism, but they also must stop it…

Note: President Obama has now pledged millions of dollars in aid to Hamas, even though Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. Government.

Similarly, his use of the discredited term “cycle of violence” Obama displayed an approach that equates Palestinian terror attacks with Israeli defense actions. If Obama were true to his rhetoric of peace and the need to come together, why didn’t he speak out about Palestinian textbooks that teach children to hate and that celebrate martyrdom? (Even Hillary Clinton has done so).

No wonder Barack Obama was and is so popular among denizens of Hollywood…

The fact is that Barack Obama had a record on which he never had to run because the press was virtually silent as to serious questions raised by his record:

The Wall Street Journal provided the following in relation to how Obama came to hold office in Illinois:

In real life, it did not matter what Mr. Obama said on the stump or whether South Side voters were impressed. What mattered was that, beginning on Jan. 2, 1996, his campaigners began challenging thousands of petition signatures the other candidates in the race had submitted in order to appear on the ballot. Thus would Mr. Obama win his state Senate seat, months before a single vote was cast.

According to the Chicago Tribune, Mr. Obama’s petition challengers reported to him nightly on their progress as they disqualified his opponents’ signatures on various technical grounds — all legitimate from the perspective of law. One local newspaper, Chicago Weekend, reported that “[s]ome of the problems include printing registered voters name [sic] instead of writing, a female voter got married after she registered to vote and signed her maiden name, registered voters signed the petitions but don’t live in the 13th district.”

One of the candidates would speculate that his signature-gatherers, working at a per-signature pay rate, may have cheated him by signing many of the petitions themselves, making them easy to disqualify.

In the end, Mr. Obama disqualified all four opponents — including the incumbent state senator, Alice Palmer, and three minor candidates. Ms. Palmer, a former ally of Mr. Obama, had gathered 1,580 signatures, more than twice the 757 required to appear on the ballot. A minor, perennial candidate had gathered 1,899 signatures, suggesting the Obama team invested much time working even against him.

The act of throwing an incumbent off the ballot in such a fashion does not fit neatly into the narrative of a public-spirited reformer who seeks to make people less cynical about politics.

Commitment to old-style politics, exemplified by repeated endorsements of Chicago’s machine politicians, characterizes much of the President’s political career:

In the 2006 election, reformers from both parties attempted to end the corruption in Chicago’s Cook County government. They probably would have succeeded, too, had Mr. Obama taken their side. Liberals and conservatives came together and nearly ousted Cook County Board President John Stroger, the machine boss whom court papers credibly accuse of illegally using the county payroll to maintain his own standing army of political cronies, contributors and campaigners.

The since-deceased Stroger’s self-serving mismanagement of county government is still the subject of federal investigations and arbitration claims. Stroger was known for trying repeatedly to raise taxes to fund his political machine, even as basic government services were neglected in favor of high-paying county jobs for his political soldiers.

When liberals and conservatives worked together to clean up Cook County’s government, they were displaying precisely the postpartisan interest in the common good that Mr. Obama extols today. And Mr. Obama, by working against them, helped keep Chicago politics dirty. He refused to endorse the progressive reformer, Forrest Claypool, who came within seven points of defeating Stroger in the primary.

After the primary, when Stroger’s son Todd replaced him on the ballot under controversial circumstances, a good-government Republican named Tony Peraica attracted the same kind of bipartisan support from reformers in the November election. But Mr. Obama endorsed the young heir to the machine, calling him — to the absolute horror of Chicago liberals — a “good, progressive Democrat.”

Mayor Richard M. Daley — who would receive Mr. Obama’s endorsement in 2007 shortly after several of his top aides and appointees had received prison sentences for their corrupt operation of Chicago’s city government — was invested in the Stroger machine’s survival. So was every alderman and county commissioner who uses the county payroll to support political hangers-on. So was Mr. Obama’s friend and donor, Tony Rezko, who is now in federal prison awaiting sentencing after being convicted in June of 16 felony corruption charges. Rezko had served as John Stroger’s finance chairman and raised $150,000 for him (Stroger put Rezko’s wife on the county payroll).

See “Obama Played by Chicago Rules” by DAVID FREDDOSO; August 20, 2008; Page A19. Mr. Freddoso is the author of the just-published “The Case Against Barack Obama” (Regnery).

The other big Obama story that some segments of the media have done a fairly job at following:

Senator Barack Obama admitted that he had made repeated lapses of judgment in dealing with an indicted Chicago real estate developer, Antoin Rezko, and acknowledged that Mr. Rezko had raised more money for his political campaigns than he had previously disclosed.

The aspect of the Rezko story that has not been fully reported has to do with Obama’s possible Syrian ties to Rezko and at least one Rezko affiliate who contributed to Obama’s campaigns. The fact that Rezko and at least one of his associates were from Syria was not in and of itself sinister but we should have been informed about the possibility of a “Syrian connection” because there is a history of Democrats allowing themselves to be used by foreign powers in return for campaign contributions. According to Human Events:

Companion Security was headed by a former Chicago policeman with a troubled history, Daniel T. Frawley, in partnership with Mr. Rezko and in association with Daniel Mahru, the lawyer for the original contract and Mr. Rezko’s former business partner. In April 2006, Mr. Frawley entered negotiations with Governor Rod Blagojevich’s staff to lease a military facility in Illinois to be a training camp. In August 2006, Mr. Frawley started negotiations with Mr. Obama’s U.S. Senate staff to complete the contract.

The discussions with Mr. Obama’s staff continued over many months, including e-mails and conferences with an Obama staffer, Seamus Ahern. Questions raised by this contact go to the issue of whether or not Mr. Obama ever favored Mr. Rezko’s commercial ties. Mr. Obama has said often that he performed no favors for Mr. Rezko.