letters cartoon

Dear Mr. President

January 16, 2013
President Barak Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20501

Dear Mr. President,

Last year, I was re-elected overwhelmingly to my second term as Sheriff of Pinal County, Arizona. The citizens of Pinal County have placed their sacred trust into my hands and the hands of my office to keep them and their families safe.

Our nation has seen several tragic attacks against innocent adults and children by criminals armed with guns. Because of these attacks, many politicians including yourself have used these tragic events as a means to push their agenda related to “gun control.”

America has seen an even higher number of our citizens killed by impaired drivers involved in automobile collisions. Why are you not seeking to remove vehicles from our roadways? … it’s because you realize it’s the drivers who are at fault and not the vehicle they were driving. This same analogy holds true with these shootings … it’s not the gun that’s at fault but rather the criminals who use them. Do you honestly feel that any criminal or someone who is mentally ill will obey an executive order made by you related to “gun control?” Criminals get their name, because they don’t follow our laws already Mr. President. I have sworn a solemn oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America when I was first sworn in as an Army Private, later as an Army Officer, then as a Police Officer and now twice as the constitutionally elected Sheriff. You too Mr. President have taken the same oath, therefore I am gravely alarmed – just as most Americans are that you would attempt to circumvent the Constitution of the United States.

The most important office in our republic is that of a private citizen. You are not a dictator or a king, who can act unilaterally and ignore our legislative process of law making. All elected leaders are empowered as a trustee of the people we are elected to serve. We are given designated and limited powers. Your actions and quest for unconstitutional power threatens the future of our sacred Republic and the Liberty we all hold so dear.

Your own administration during, “Operation Fast and Furious” facilitated and approved the transfer of over 2,000 weapons to the Mexican Drug Cartels who the Mexican Government is at war against and over 60,000 people have been killed. Those same weapons have made their way back into the United States and have been used to kill and injure our citizens and members of law enforcement, yet now you threaten to use an executive order to take away the 2nd Amendment Rights of our citizens?

Mr. President, if you attempt to carry through with your proposal, it will hinder the ability of good citizens to defend and protect themselves and others against those who wish to cause them harm through the use of deadly force. Your actions would turn many good citizens, who wish to maintain their God given Constitutional Rights to bear arms, into criminals.

I am writing you this letter today to inform you that any "law" or regulation created by an executive order of your office which is contrary to what the Constitution of the United States of America says, shall be deemed as unlawful and shall not be carried out by myself or my office.

I will also push for legislation which would make it a crime for any federal law enforcement officer to infringe upon any of Constitutional rights of the citizens I am sworn to protect. Neither myself nor you have any right to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights of our citizens.

Former President Ronald Reagan said it best, “The right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive.”

With grave concern,

Paul Babeu, Sheriff
Pinal County, Arizona


2nd Amendment

I'd like to tell you a little about the 2nd Amendment Day Rally held in Boise on Saturday, Jan. 19.  The rally was put on in part by Tony and Valerie Snesko, founders of the Idaho Open and Concealed Carry organization.  The event drew about 800 folks (maybe more, I'm terrible at guessing crowd sizes) who braved the 10 degree outside weather to assemble in the state capitol rotunda.  The rotunda consists of a basement level plus 3 upper levels.  The first level, where my wife and I were, was shoulder-to-shoulder folks.  The two upper levels were almost as full.  The event lasted for about 45 minutes with 5 speakers urging the audience to support our U. S. Constitution especially to defend the 2nd Amendment which is now under Federal attack as you all know.  Aside from the high attendance, members of the Capitol Police were there to keep order in case of hecklers (there were none).  They were there to protect the attendees as well although at least half of the folks were openly carrying sidearms as well as rifles, many of which were AR-15s.  I suspect that most of the rest of us were carrying concealed sidearms.  Both open (no permit required) and concealed (with a permit) carry are allowed in Idaho and the police are aware and generally friendly to us.

Just picture this:  Eight hundred plus armed citizens peacefully assembling in a state capitol building with absolutely no issues of order or other type of disturbances.  The mood was cheerful and friendly with lots of conversations between attendees.  We were there as a group who is passionate about our liberty and want the politicians to know it.  I'm not sure in how many other states such a rally with mostly armed citizens could have taken place in the state capitol building within a few yards of the Governors office but I'm proud to say it can happen in Idaho.

George Pitt
Boise, Idaho


Blood on the hands of the LEFT

I will tell you why the Connecticut school shooting happened:

It didn’t happen because of the so-called gun culture, or because of poor security at the school.

It happened because of the modern LEFTIST culture that has removed all semblances of personal responsibility and respect.

It happened because of the Hollywood and television types who lecture the Conservatives on how people should live, while they make FORTUNES producing absolute FILTH in their movies and on television programs.

It happened because of reality television shows that demean humanity. And shows that make people laugh at the pain and humiliation of others.

It happened because multi-millionaire computer game producers create UGLY digital scenarios that poison young minds with abject and gratuitous violence.

It happened because the school system doesn’t teach values, and promotes the idea that everything goes. And that all people are equal regardless of the truth. And that no one ever fails.

It happened because LEFTISTS won’t allow concerned and loving parents to discipline their children, or raise their children the way they want to.

It happened because far too many Liberals spend far too much time and effort ridiculing and attacking people who want to live by the lessons of the Bible and the Torah.

In truth … this and other horrible acts of violence happen, because our society from our entertainment industry, to schools, to the media, and our governments have created the social and cultural foundation that is eating away at our countries like a cancer.

I know that what I just wrote WILL inflame those on the LEFT, and that’s OK, because if they don’t like it … they can ROT in HELL along with the demons of their own creation.

I want my old country values back … when we stood in school when an adult entered the room. When we were really disciplined for bad behavior. When we were measured by our successes and failures. When not everyone had to waste years of his or her life in college studying basket weaving instead of taking a trade course, or going to work right after finishing high school. When your mom was a woman and your dad was a man. And when there weren’t vulgar parades extolling the “virtues” of being gay.

If you want to stop the sickness … its time to stop the LEFT.

Howard Galganov, Former Liberal
Ontario, Canada


Gun control by Executive Order

Our Constitution – the Supreme Law of the Land – included the Second Amendment provision to "keep and bear arms" to ensure that the new American government could not disarm the people.

The right to bear arms is an essential part of liberty and a free society. Yes, our forefathers knew the importance of an armed citizenry as a check against big government and tyranny.
Further, they knew that individuals should always be free to protect themselves, their family, and their property.

Why has this become so controversial today?

The Second Amendment states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I ask you to reject the reinstatement of an Assault Weapons Ban and its goal to restrict the purchase or transfer of military-grade weapons, for the Second Amendment protects such.
I want you to understand, care about, an d protect the Second Amendment. Consider Thomas Mullen of the Washington Times' comment:

"Having weapons of war on the streets is the whole point of the 2nd Amendment. The amendment wasn't drafted to ensure that Americans could hunt. It wasn't drafted so that Americans could protect themselves, although the natural right to defend one's life was never as compromised as it is in the modern gun control era.

They weren't out to confiscate hunting rifles, 'fer squirrels and sech,' either. They intended to confiscate a store of arms that would outfit the average colonist with weapons roughly equivalent to the average British infantryman.

That's why the 2nd Amendment was written, to ensure that the government's army would never have superior firepower to the people."

Yes, the Second Amendment protects all weapons, even so-called "weapons of war." Again, this is not controversial – it is simply what the founders gave us to preserve our free society.

I will not permit bad, utopian ideas that suggest society can abolish violence, aggression, and death by simply removing guns. Such an argument even a child wouldn't believe – and I hope you don't. I stand for my right to keep and bear arms defensively, and I stand for my neighbors' rights to do the same.

As your constituent, I demand that you refuse any and all attempts to disarm Americans through Diane Feinstein's coming "Assault Weapons Ban" or any other gun control bill Obama or your colleagues may propose!

Further, I demand that you prepare to combat any and all executive orders that would establish increased gun control. It is in Congress’ power to oppose any executive action by:

1) a three-fourths vote against it;
2) refusing to appropriate funds for the order’s execution; or,
3) passing legislation that would interfere with the order.

I am counting on you to uphold your oath of office to uphold the constitution at all costs.

I am watching your actions on this.

If you want to tell Congress to reject any and all executive orders that would succeed in disarming law-abiding Americans, (click here) to fax this article to your Senators and Representative free of charge.

Silent Majority USA
P.O. Box 402
Douglass, TX 75943
Visit www.we-the-people-usa.com.


Second Amendment's intent was and is to protect Americans from a mutinous government

The radical 'left' in politics and the 'mean-stream' media are manipulating Americans on proposed changes in laws to outlaw our rifles, shotguns, pistols, and accessories.  Their ill-promoted campaigns are to deceive Americans that all hunters, sportsmen/sportswomen, and/or others will not be affected by their legislation; but only to eliminate victims of all guns.
Our Founding Fathers were well aware most men were hunters who went out to kill wildlife in providing meat to feed themselves and their families.  Hunting for food with guns was no concern for creating the Second Amendment.

Read the U.S. History: http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm. The primary purpose of the Second Amendment was and is to make sure Americans were never to be denied adequate weapons to compete in a battle against a 'mutinous government'.

Who should or would want to own a weapon with a magazine that holds 40 cartridges?  Anyone who wishes to protect himself/herself, his/her family, our Constitutional freedoms, and wishes to maintain whatever is necessary for these protection(s), and/or when any of us foresee the potential(s) who may decide to overrule our Constitutional freedoms and when mutinous government official(s) have weapons with a magazine that holds 40 cartridges.  This is when you and I must demand that we, too, be allowed to compete in the battle with weapons against any individual(s), group(s), government(s), etc. for the protection of our lives, our families, and our Constitutional freedoms.

Look around. Talk to your family, friends, and neighbors.  Many are now in fear of a potential mutinous government right here.  Many elected and appointed officials are ignorant, ignoring, and/or disobeying our Constitution, US Code, and many other laws as they choose; without even being investigated, arrested, and/or prosecuted.

Do not be misled by the 'left' in politics and/or by the 'main-stream' Media.  Become more educated by our Founding Fathers:http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html.

We must keep and protect our Second Amendment.  It was and is intended to protect Americans from a mutinous government, not just allowing sportspersons to hunt for wildlife.

Oscar Y. Harward
Monroe, North Carolina


Tucson City Court arrogantly asserts the power of Prior Restraint

As a matter of fact, the Tucson City Court is a limited jurisdiction court of non record, directed by the Tucson City Council, partisan political and economic interests and local "Good Old Boys."
In other words it is one of the smallest courts in the land, where, speaking very frankly, most of the significant constitutional violations begin.

Yet arrogantly and unlawfully, the Tucson City Court asserts an authority surpassing that of the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in the land: the power to issue a non-appealable order of prior restraint to silence a political speaker who challenges the rectitude of local political authority.

The issue of "prior restraint" is addressed in several U.S. Supreme Court cases, notably New York Times vs United States (1967) which says they should never be issued, and Walker v Birmingham (1971) which says injunctions which temporarily restrict expressive conduct must be obeyed until they are appealed.

The Arizona Supreme Court, in State v Chavez, (involving the Director of the Farm worker's Union, activist Cesar Chavez), affirmed the holding in Walker v Birmingham.

And the 9th Circuit, in accordance with Walker and Chavez, has precisely set forth the conditions which must be met regarding any prior restraint restrictions on free speech:
Prior restraints on free speech "will be upheld only if they ...provide for a prompt decision during which the status quo is maintained and there is the opportunity for a prompt judicial decision" Dream Palace v. County of Maricopa, 384 F.3d 990, 998 (9th Cir 2004).

Significantly; none of the rulings in any of the courts cited above conflict. All are in accordance with each other regarding orders of prior restraint.

And it is abundantly clear: NONE of the above courts would condone the policy of the Tucson City Court, to wit: Use Non Appealable Conditions of Release Orders of Prior Restraint to Silence the Voice of Those Who Challenge Local "Open Border Policy."

Some may ask: "Then, why is there no case precisely on point specifically outlawing the issuance of Non-Appealable Orders of Prior Restraint?"

For two reasons: (1) no local attorney has ever had the guts to frame the issue correctly and thus anger local courts, or (2) no court (other than Tucson City Court), has ever been stupid enough to issue one.

Because of my experience with local attorneys I'm betting the answer is #1.

In any event the issue of local courts suspending constitutional rights, now that it has been properly framed in Warden v Tucson City Court,  is going to Pima  County Superior Court, and from there up the Judicial Food Chain towards the Arizona Supreme Court.

Roy Warden
An Exercise in Aggressive, Non-Partisan Political Activism



During "Meet the (de)Press(ed)" with host David Gregory on Sunday, January 13, former Department of State Secretary, Gen, Colin Powell, condemned hateful speech against minorities. Ahem, General, do you recognize the following statement?

"I mean, you got [sic] the first African-American (referring to Obama) who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man!"

The speaker? Current VP Joe Biden, in January of 2007, blurting out one of his notorious gaffes.
Tell me, General, does Biden feel that other blacks are inarticulate, dull, dirty and ugly-looking? From the text, it so seems.

General, why don't you leave the Repugnican Party, and take McCain and Bloomberg with you? Maybe the three of you can sabotage the Democrap Party from within, for a change.

Not very respectfully,

J-P. A. Maldonado, Independent voter


The rights of children

I am disappointed that homosexual partners Elton John and David Furnish have adopted another child via a surrogate mother. Last June, the American scientific magazine “Social Science Research,” the most prestigious peer reviewed publication of its kind, published two new innovative and definitive studies on children raised by same-sex couples. From the studies it emerged that 12 percent of children brought up by same-sex couples contemplate suicide (against 5 percent of children with heterosexual parents), they are more inclined to be unfaithful (40 percent against 13 percent), they are unemployed more often (28 percent against 8 percent) and they are more likely to visit a psychotherapist (19 percent against 8 percent).

They are also more often under social service surveillance compared to peers who are raised by heterosexual couples. In 40 percent of cases they will catch a sexually transmitted disease at some point (against 8 percent of peers raised by heterosexual couples) and they are generally less healthy, poorer and more likely to smoke and commit criminal offences. The few studies published so far that support the theory that there is no difference between children brought up in heterosexual and homosexual families are - unlike the new studies - based on non-random, non-representative data often employing small samples that do not allow for generalization to the larger population of gay and lesbian families.

It is time we realize that the rights of children trump the right to children.

Paul Kokoski
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada


February is the desert’s Season of Subtle

More than six weeks till the official arrival of spring, February teases the Cave Creek populous with a hint of what’s to come.

The Season of Subtle is first visible in the Feathery Senna; tiny yellow bell-shaped blossoms whose sweet aroma perfumes breezes.

Next in line is the Pomegranate. Burgundy-colored buds shoot out of slender limbs, setting the stage for lipstick-red blossoms that eventually transform into fruit.

Any temp bump in February excites Penstemon to overflower its scarlet spikes, bending its gangly stalks to the ground. If the temps swell humid come evening the Argentine cactus is given to trumpet blast its spectacular white flowers. Their fragrance is a bonus.

Brittlebush and Desert Marigold almost defy seasonal switches. However, February’s warming can spark the two plants into floral tizzy.

Other Season of Subtle hopefuls are Chuparosa and Fairy Duster. Chuparosa not only subscribe to prolific flowering but also provide “hummers” with winter nectar prior to spring mating rituals.
And the Fairy Duster’s tickly flower keeps alive the mythology that its miniature harp-like strands serve as a rouge brush for fairies themselves.

Of course, the desert’s trees are in no rush. Those great practitioners of patience reveal only that new leaves are in stasis, waiting Nature’s “All Clear to Grow” prompt that unleashes limbs to reach ever higher.

Come April, the Palo Verdes command the palette and the color is decidedly yellow. But February’s Season of Subtle is worth a look before the desert really starts to dazzle.

Vincent Francia
Mayor, Cave Creek


Abysmal failure

The 100 year old Income Tax is an abysmal failure.  It is unfair and the only ones who benefit from it are congressional lobbyists and congressmen on the take.  The Fair Tax HR25 and S13 will replace the income tax with a fair consumption tax by eliminating the IRS. 

All tax measures must originate in the House Ways and Means Committee.  The bill has been shelved there for over 5 years without a vote.  It is time to pressure our Representatives to do the right thing and move this bill out of committee and on the floor of the House for a vote.
Anyone doubting the Fair Tax only need to realize what would happen to the economy if every person received their full paycheck/retirement every payday and every business never has to report anything to the IRS ever again.  Think it through and support the Fair Tax.

Roy T. Newsom
Granbury, Texas