The tragic murder of three people and wounding of 180 others, many grievously by two Muslim brothers with the 19-year old brother surviving his older brother has echoes of the 11/05/2009 Fort Hood massacre by U.S. Army major Nidal Hasan that caused 42 casualties,13 killed, 29 wounded.

In both cases, President Obama warned against “a rush to judgment”. Most recently: “That’s why we take care not to rush to judgment – not about motivations of individuals, certainly not about entire groups of people.”

A significant difference, concerning the Boston bombing: Obama said “the FBI was investigating the twin bombings as a terrorist act”.  He also admitted: “Anytime bombs are used to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terrorism.” Obama never mentioned terrorism in connection with the Fort Hood massacre.

Although Major Hasan shouted “God is great!” in Arabic as he opened fire on unarmed military personnel at Fort Hood and despite presentations to other military psychiatrists wherein the Major justified Muslims killing non-Muslims – after Obama, as Commander in Chief of U.S. Armed Forces, visited Fort Hood and spoke to military personnel and their families – news media reported “motivation for the attack was unknown”.  Eventually, the DOD categorized the Major’s rampage – “the deadliest attack on a U.S. military base (13 killed, 29 wounded)” – as “workplace violence”.

It was also reported – about “the 19-year-old: who is accused of helping carry out the attack that killed three people and wounded 180 others, many of them critically, near the finish line of Monday’s race.” – “No motive has been revealed for Monday’s attack.”

Earlier this year, a military judge set Maj. Nidal Hasan’s court-martial for May 29, 2013 at the Texas Army post.  After about four weeks of jury selection, testimony is expected to begin July 1.  If the trial starts on schedule, it will be slightly more than three and one-half years since the major’s murderous rampage.

So, if the Boston terrorist is afforded the same legal protections – albeit in civilian rather than military court – and numerous trial delays as has the murderous major, his trial might begin by October 2016.  Obviously, when President Obama calls for “no rush to judgment” for murderous Muslims, his call is heeded in spades.

It’s appears Obama views Muslims murdering non-Muslims, even on U.S. soil, as a lesser crime wherein the perpetrators’ civil and legal rights take precedent over their victims and survivors rights to justice.  One might reasonably expect a U.S. President, who is Commander in Chief of U.S. Armed Forces, to want speedy justice for victims and survivors of the Fort Hood attack.

Now, it’s time to refute the President’s recent statement about not rushing to judgment: “That’s why we take care not to rush to judgment – not about motivations of individuals, certainly not about entire groups of people.”

By looking back at two situations, it’s obvious neither Obama nor supporters follow his high-minded advice.  In the first situation the President himself rushed to judgment. In the other, Obama failed to warn about rushing to judgment and allowed civil rights groups and mainstream media to convict an alleged killer in the court of public opinion.  In both cases, the victims were blacks; their alleged attackers were not black.

In July 2009, “President Obama said that police in Cambridge, Massachusetts, ‘acted stupidly’ in arresting a prominent black Harvard professor … after a confrontation at the man’s home.”

Regardless of any subsequent actions to ameliorate his hasty statement, Obama clearly rushed to judgment about one policeman’s motivations as well as the mental acuity of Cambridge police.

When Trayvon Martin was killed February 26, 2012, did Obama warn against a rush to judgment against George Zimmerman?  Did he warn against pre-judging motivations of Zimmerman or local police?  If he did, his warnings were unheeded by civil rights activists and mainstream media who virtually lynched Zimmerman in the court of human opinion.

Eventually, a trial lawyer called for facts to decide the trial’s outcome. Mark NeJame, “a CNN contributor who has practiced law, mainly as a criminal defense attorney, for more than 30 years” wrote: “Although Trayvon Martin’s killing is a tragedy at the highest level, his death and the prosecution of George Zimmerman symbolize so much more.  The issues they raise belong in the public discourse, but should not influence or cloud the facts or outcome of the case.”

Finally, consider a “what if” regarding the Boston Marathon bombers.  What if – instead of two Muslim brothers allegedly killing three and wounding 180 others, some grievously – the two brothers were Anglo and Christian originally from Mississippi but Boston residents for about 10 years?

Mainstream media restrained by the same Political Correctness – that prevented the U.S. Military and FBI from acting upon Major Hasan’s radical statements and PowerPoint presentations to other military psychiatrists – have refrained from labeling the alleged perpetrators as “militant Muslims” or “radical Islamists’.

However, in our what if scenario, the Anglo brothers would be pilloried as “domestic militia”, “fundamentalist Christians”, “white supremacists”, “members of a vast right wing conspiracy” and “domestic terrorists whose objective was to destroy the venerable Boston Marathon”.  The Justice Department would try the case in federal court in order to seek the death penalty.  Liberals would call for the bombings to be classified as hate crimes so penalties could be doubled.

Liberals and their media counterparts may complain the “what if” scenario impugns their journalistic integrity.  But, if they have a scintilla of honest analytical reason remaining, they will admit a simple what if understates the delight and fervor with which they would attack the youthful, transplanted Mississippians if they were the actual culprits.

Why was he detained? The first responding officer said that someone called in and reported a man walking with a rifle slung over his shoulder (which is completely legal). Mr Grisham asked the officer if he explained the law to that the person that called the police. The Sergeant responded “They don’t care what the law is.”

When he asked the officers what law he had broken, the Temple police officers invented a new crime – “rudely displaying a weapon.” Displaying a weapon rudely is not mentioned in any Texas law. In fact, you can openly carry rifles and shotguns in the state of Texas. A CHL is not needed to do this. However, you must do so in a manner not “calculated” to cause alarm; meaning you are carrying the rifle to purposely intimidate or scare people by threatening them or pointing it at someone. Mr Grisham was hiking in a rural area with his rifle on a sling. He obviously wasn’t out threatening anyone.

Several disturbing comments were made by the Temple police offers during Mr Grisham’s detainment.

At the 3:39 mark, after Mr Grisham explains Texas law to the officers, the first responding office quickly and sarcastically states that he “felt threatened” by the soldier and Eagle Scout.

At the 3:55 mark, the Sergeant in charge tells Mr Grisham that police are exempt from the law.

At the 5:15 mark, the offer tells Mr Grisham he’s a bad excuse of a dad, right in front of his son. I suppose he thinks that a good parent should never speak up and defend their rights.

At the 5:45 mark, the Sergeant states that all people that have guns are dangerous. It’s horrible to hear the police take this stance since only an extremely small fraction of gun owners have ever committed a crime. If we allow the police to treat all gun owners as criminals, then they could just wait at gun ranges and near other shooting and hunting areas to detain everyone they see, for no legal reason what so ever.

At the 5:59 mark, the Sergeant tries to compare people that carry rifles in Temple Texas to insurgents in the war in Iraq. These officers badly need a refresher course on American’s constitutional rights.

At 6:55, when Mr Grisham asks repeatedly what crime he is being detained for, the Sergeant replies “because you’re carrying a firearm.” Another fabricated law that they made up on the spot.

Mr Grisham eventually is placed in the police car and charged with “resisting arrest”, which he may have done verbally by arguing the law and defending his rights, but once he as booked into jail were reduced, but not dropped, and the Temple Police have refused to return Mr Grisham’s firearms or his concealed carry permit.

The open carry of long arms in Texas is a very common and legal occurrence. Not only are they carried for protection from attacks by people, snakes, dogs, coyotes, wild hogs, mountain lions, etc, they are also occasionally displayed during protests as an exercise of our American rights. The images shown alongside this text show people carrying long arms while protesting civil rights issues. These protests were done in urban areas without harassment by the police, so it’s  particularly disturbing to see this happen in a rural area where rifles are used more often in peoples day to day activities.

The definition of tyranny is the arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority. Inventing laws that don’t exist, restricting an American’s rights when he hasn’t committed a crime, and charging a person with a crime he hasn’t committed because you believe that police are exempt from the law definitely fall under that definition. It’s sad to see the police bring that kind of rule to the people of Temple Texas.

If you’d like to learn more about this case, or help Christopher Grisham with his legal defense fun, visit this link for more information.

To speak with Officer Steve Ermis and Sergeant Minnicks of the Temple Police Department click here, or call (254) 298-5500 and ask them about how they train their officers on Texas gun laws and the US Constitution.

Via The Hill:

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has claimed that agents do not need warrants to read people’s emails, text messages and other private electronic communications, according to internal agency documents.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which obtained the documents through a Freedom of Information Act request, released the information on Wednesday.

In a 2009 handbook, the IRS said the Fourth Amendment does not protect emails because Internet users “do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such communications.” A 2010 presentation by the IRS Office of General Counsel reiterated the policy.

Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986, government officials only need a subpoena, issued without a judge’s approval, to read emails that have been opened or that are more than 180 days old.

What do you think? Do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you send a personal email or text message? Are you OK with the government intruding in these aspects of your life?

This bizarre statement was made during an anti-self defense conference promoting stricter gun control laws on California citizens.

The Orwellian practice of changing the meaning and tone of language to promote the left’s agenda is quite common, but it seemed to have backfired on Chief James and only succeeded at making this police force sound like aggressive thugs. Every day we see the media try to convince the public that semi-auto rifles are military assault weapons, and that standard capacity magazines have dangerously high amounts of ammunition that must be banned. These small language manipulations have worked well for the anti-self defense crowd, but to hear a police chief go as far as to state that his police force does not use their firearms to defend themselves and their community, but rather to intimidate and show power is mind blowing.

Chief James is trying to paint all gun owners at aggressive criminals, but the video of the statement only seems to make the Emeryville Police look like the tyranical agressors. For those that would like to ask Chief James a question about his statement, please visit the Emeryville Ca. contact page here. Or mail them at the following address: 2449 Powell Street – Emeryville, CA  94608 – Ph: (510) 596-3700 – Fax: (510) 653-5883.

Thankfully there are hundreds of great law enforcement officials defending our rights and upholding their oath of office, such as Texas Sheriff Jack Brandes.

For more than 100 years, the Boy Scouts have enjoyed a rich history and tradition of building moral character and instilling lifelong family values.  However, that history is now under attack by liberal activists who want to sacrifice the Boy Scouts beliefs on the altar of political correctness.  As a Scout leader recently stated, “Some Boy Scouts board members are endeavoring to force their social agenda on 3.6 million Scouts and adult leaders. They want scouting to comply with their corporate policies, which have adopted the homosexual agenda under pressure, primarily from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.” It is time for us as conservatives to stand with Gov. Perry and the Boy Scouts of America.

In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case, Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale.  The court concluded that the constitutional right to freedom of association allows a private organization like the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to exclude a person from membership when “the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.”

In the 12 years since that decision, the Boy Scouts have become a favorite target of the liberal left, consistently working to force their liberal agenda on this private organization.

Surprisingly, the liberal attack is coming from within the organization.  As pro-family conservatives, we must stand for the values and principles that have served the Boy Scouts so well for generations.  The Boy Scout Oath states, “On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.”

The Boy Scouts National Board of Directors is meeting this Wednesday, February 6, 2013 to consider lifting the restriction and allowing homosexual members and leaders. If the ban is lifted, it will signal the end for Boy Scouts as we know it. I want to encourage you to take action immediately and encourage the Board of Directors stand firm on their current policy.

It is vital that they hear from you!  You can contact those who will actually be casting their vote on the issue.

Send this information to your email distribution lists now. We only have a two day window to stop the liberal left from taking over the Boys Scouts.

1. If you haven’t already, sign the petition to the National Council. The American Family Association will deliver the petition just prior to the executive committee meeting.

2. Contact Wayne Brock, Chief Scout Executive, at 972-580-2004 or 972-580-2000, and by email at  mailto:Wayne.Brock@Scouting.organd at mailto: feedback@scouting.org. Ask him to keep the Boy Scouts current policy.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

One of the most popular television shows on A&E, Duck Dynasty, features the Robertsons, a family of hunters and duck call makers that own Duck Commander, a company that manufactures duck calls, hunting videos and other outdoor clothing and accessories. This television show allows the public to see hunters using the very popular Benelli semi-auto hunting shotgun on almost every episode.

Hunting shotguns are protected in Feinsteins gun ban, aren’t they?

A closer look indicated that even the Duck Commander’s hunting shotguns could be faced with a federal ban. The ban language reads:

All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

The vague language banning any shotgun with a forward grip, without indicating if they meant vertical grip or horizontal, would allow the government to ban almost every semi-auto shotgun on the market, including the hunting firearms used by America’s favorite hunting family, the Robertson’s.

Why would they want the forward grip removed from a shotgun? Will barrel shrouds be allowed on semi-auto shotguns? Barrel shrouds prevent a shooter from burning their hands and may be used in some cases to replace a forward grip, but they are specifically banned on her semi-auto rifle section. Why do they want gun owners to burn their hands, and why do they think this will make people safer?

It just proves that the people writing these bills know nothing about firearms and they are willing to include awkward vague language that gives them complete power to disarm every American, and turn many American’s into criminals if they don’t comply with her gun grab, including hunters like the Duck Commanders.

President Obama appointed Vice-President Joe Biden to find a way to cut down on gun violence. We all know this would be more accurate to say, President Obama appointed Vice-President Joe Biden to find a way to take away the right to bear arms from “we the people”.

The Right to bear arms was written into our Constitution by our forefathers, not to protect the right to hunt, but was written to protect all of our rights. Unfortunately,even many on the right are willing to overlook this fact.

In a recent interview on Fox News, Geraldo Rivera stated in his anti-gun rant that we should not have assault rifles or high capacity clips. He rationalized this by saying “no one uses an AK47 to deer hunt ” and not ONE person at Fox News pointed out the fact that the right to bear arms was not to protect the hunter, but to give us “we the people”,  the right to protect ourselves from an over bearing, evil government.

If anyone really cared about the violence in America and wanted to look at what could be done to stop it or to bring down the numbers of violent crimes, they would look at the cause of violence.  Where does the violence come from?

The violence that occured in Newtown was not lurking from within the guns that were used to kill the innocent. When Cain killed his brother Abel ,the tool used, whether rock or stick, was not laying on the ground with a burning evil within itself waiting for a willing human to tempt him into murdering Abel. The violence was grown within the heart and sprang forth directly from the heart of this evil youth.

The problem we have in this nation with violent crimes does not come from the tools used in the crimes, but is  within the hearts of “we the people”.  If someone truly wanted to address this issue they must address the heart of man.  This cannot be done through legislation, but MUST be done with the help of GOD.

We see state legislators requiring special background checks to buy a box of ammunition. We see long lists of useful and popular firearms banned due to their color or cosmetic features. We see legislators trying to add gun owners to a database that can be tracked,  just like sex offenders. Forced buy back confiscation plans proposed. The list goes on and on.

Although we would never blame an entire religion of people due to the acts of a few crazed killers on 9/11, the Obama administration is set on punishing an entire nation of law abiding gun owners for the acts of a few mentally ill murderers. This unprecedented attack on our constitutional rights is enough to overwhelm many Americans, but there are beacons of hope out there – local law enforcement officials that are willing to stand up and defend us.

The final line of defense for any community is their local Sheriffs Office, and this week a bold new sheriff from Austin County Texas put out a statement promising that he will keep his oath of office and protect his citizens from unconstitutional federal laws and agencies sent to enforce them.

Sheriff Jack Brandes‘ press release was titled “The Constitution Of The United States Of America and Your Second Amendment Rights” that said the following:

I, Jack W. Brandes, Sheriff of Austin County, will defend the Constitution of The United States of America until there is not a breath left in my body. As Sheriff, I will not allow any agency to come into Austin County and unlawfully disarm law abiding citizens or impose any unlawful unconstitutional orders upon our citizens. I, as Sheriff, will take every measure necessary to protect you and all law abiding citizens of Austin County. – Sincerely, Jack W. Brandes

Download original signed document here

Sheriff Brandes, and the dozens of other Sheriffs across our nation that have opposed Obama’s unconstitutional agenda are true leaders, and I hope that their brave actions are followed by many other sheriffs throughout the country.

Their support will give hope to millions of Americans that know that if a government fears it’s citizens enough to strip their second amendment rights, they will just as easily take away their fourth and first amendment rights soon after. The second amendment is one of the cornerstones of our free constitutional republic and should never be destroyed.

Sheriff Jack W. Brandes – Austin County Sheriff
Address: 417 North Chesley Street, Bellville, TX 77418
Phone: (979) 865-3111

Martin Luther King, Jr.January 15, 1929 - April 4, 1968

I would like to encourage all of my fellow Republicans to take a moment today to honor the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Dr. King was a minister and the most famous civil rights activist in our American history and it was his work on behalf of civil rights that earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 at age 35, making him the youngest person in history to receive the honor.

Dr. King is most often remembered for his, “I Have a Dream” speech, which included a reference to the Declaration of Independence and went on to say, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

Dr. Martin Luther King fought for equality, for justice and for human dignity. These are not ideals that belong to the Republican Party or to the Democrat Party. These are American ideals that belong to all freedom-loving Americans.

As our Declaration of Independence says most eloquently, “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.”

Dr. King stood for these ideals, lived for these ideals and ultimately, died for them.

Regardless of political philosophy or party affiliation, we should all stop for a moment today and remember Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s life, his work and the truly American ideals for which he stood.

Jared Woodfill Harris County GOP Chair

I was amazed, shocked, and disappointed by the House’s passage of the Democratic/Liberal fiscal cliff “deal.” A minority of Republicans in the house joined the Speaker in voting for a “compromise” that was a total surrender of their campaign promises. I am proud to say that most of our local Republican Congressman voted against the compromise, including Cong. John Culberson, Cong. Mike McCaul, Cong. Ted Poe and Cong. Pete Olson. Newly elected Congressmen Steve Stockman and Randy Weber both indicated that given the opportunity, they too would have voted against the compromise. The compromise results in tax increases and huge additions to the federal deficit. The increased debt will lead to higher unemployment and potentially another recession. Obama ignored the warning of another Democrat, Bill Clinton, who said, “I don’t think it’s a good idea to raise taxes on anybody during a recession.”

This New Year’s Day deal was filled with pork. It appears they avoided the “fiscal cliff” and fiscal responsibility. While increasing our tax rates, the bill also included billions of dollars of pork for the Democrats’ closest pals. The bill includes $430 million in tax perks for Hollywood, $331 million for railroad operators, $222 million for Puerto Rico and Virgin Island rum producers, $70 million for NASCAR, $59 million for algae growers, $4 million for electric motorcycle makers, and even $15 million for asparagus growers. Conspicuously absent from the compromise is entitlement reform and any real spending cuts. Also, the legislation attacks married couples, adding hundreds of dollars in new penalties to many of their households. The compromise leaves joint tax filers, i.e., married couples, with less than twice the standard deduction for individuals. Discouraging marriage creates more government dependence.

The compromise increases taxes for individuals and couples making more than $400,000 and $450,000 respectively; the middle class will also see a large part of their paychecks disappear. The Social Security tax increases by 2%, which will result in Americans taking home less money and giving more to the government. When you include the onslaught of ObamaCare taxes beginning in 2013, the legislation is even less appealing.

You can usually judge the merits of a Congressional deal by those who applaud it. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) celebrated the deal as a “happy start to the New Year.” It is clear that President Obama and Democrats have no desire to deal with out-of-control spending. A vote for this bill was a vote for President Obama’s liberal tax and spend agenda. The bill stuck taxpayers and our children with an even greater financial burden! If we ever expect to take back the majority in the Senate or win the presidency, we must stand on principle. This recent retreat and surrender strategy of some Republicans only weakens our chances of achieving that goal.

The next Congress is inheriting the debt crisis and Tuesday’s compromise was to avoid another fight by kicking the sequestration can down the road for a few more months. I am hopeful that the next Congress will stand and fight President Obama and his liberal allies for the sake of taxpayers, our children, and our grandchildren!

Jared Woodfill – Chairman, Harris County Republican Party