For the past five years, or more, the Associated Press, along with the majority of what is known as mainstream media, has seen fit to give President Barack Obama, and his administration,  a free pass for whatever abuses of freedom they wished to perpetrate on the American people, including Fast and Furious, voter fraud, voter intimidation, Benghazi, etc.  In fact, they would probably have provided him with a cover story and protection from the late breaking IRS scandal, except for one thing.  His administration is directly responsible for government spying on the AP!  Imagine that!!

What baffles me is how they pretend to be at all surprised by this revelation. The President has demonstrated time and gain that he has no loyalty to anyone or any entity, so why should the AP be exempt?

I am reminded of a legend concerning a young Indian who found a rattlesnake, almost frozen to death.  The snake implored the youth, “Please take me to your tepee so that I can once again be warm and I will be your friend forever.”  The Indian protested, “No you are a rattlesnake and you will surely bite me and I will die.”  The snake renewed his pledge. “No, I promise not to bite you and I will be your friend for life.”  So the young Indian picked up the rattler and took it to his tepee.  Once the snake had warmed itself, the youth approached it whereupon the snake bit him several times in rapid succession. With his dying breath, the youth cried out. “You promised. Why did you bite me?”   The snake responded “You knew what I was when you picked me up.”

So it would seem was the fate of the AP.  They knew the character of the President and his administration.  There should be no surprise that they have been bitten.

At this point, given the many faceted scandals breaking out, almost on a daily basis, in which the President and his administration appear to be complicit, it will probably tax even the best of the apologists to try to cover them with a straight face.

The investigation into the Benghazi sell out is far from over. In fact, it is just now getting started. The American people deserve true answers and we are going to get them.  Everybody in the administration lied about this tragedy and four Americans died needlessly.  We will not forget. We will not let it be swept under the rug.

Fast and Furious is very much on the minds of the American people as more and more is learned about this idiotic venture, which ultimately placed weapons in the hands of the criminal Mexican drug cartel, resulting in the death of at least one Border Patrol agent, and an untold number of Mexican nationals.

Piled on top of that is the news that the administration has been using the IRS to intimidate and persecute groups opposed to the views and actions of the administration, to the point of costing them countless thousands of dollars and denying them the tax exempt status to which they are entitled. There are charges, too, that the IRS has targeted Mormons, as well as Jewish groups sympathetic to Israel.  This is one of the same tactics that President Richard Nixon employed against his enemies and would have been, had he not resigned, among the charges for which he would have been impeached.

Almost weekly we learn of more cases of voter fraud, some putting the legality of Obama’s re-election into serious question.

And yet, don’t be surprised to see most of the media rushing to “not cover” these issues, because they are afraid of making the President look bad.

To the AP, I say “When you lie down with the dogs, you’re gonna get fleas.”   The question is, “Will you give him a pass on this one too, or will you finally wake up and smell what many of us have been smelling for a long time?”

It sure ain’t roses!

Of late, things have not been going well in the liberal camp.  In fact, one might say, they are awash in their own stupid mistakes.

Their effort to push through an unconstitutional law requiring additional background checks for purchasing weapons fell through.  It failed simply because it was propped up by a passel of lies.

 Lie # 1, of course, was that it would keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable.  Of course no law affects criminals because they do not obey them.  Mentally unstable people do what the Newtown shooter did.  They kill somebody and take their legally purchased weapons.

Further they kept retelling the lie that the Newtown shooter used a semi-automatic rifle to “mow down” his victims.  According to the police determination, the AR-15 never left the trunk of the car and the shooting was all done with handguns. So much for “mowing down!”

Another lie was that the background checks would never be used to create a federal gun registry.  Based on the validity of this administration’s promises, nobody really believed that.

Further, the President claimed that 90% of the people in the country supported the background check, when, in fact, there is no empiric evidence to support such a statement.

The final lie was that the administration was not intending to disarm the American people, in spite of the fact that both Biden and Feinstein have made numerous statements alluding to that as their real goal.

Liberals must have hidden their heads under the pillow when the President lost his cool and had a temper tantrum, on TV, because he did not get his way. It reminded me of my 4 year old great grandson.

In the first days after the Boston Marathon bombing, many of the popular liberal talking heads on TV and in the press were expressing their belief and hope that the bombing was carried out by white right wing extremists.

Too bad, folks!   As it turns out, it was carried out by two Islamic terrorists. The surviving member of the duo has admitted his part and indicated that his brother, who was killed by police, was the brains behind the plot.  Did you hear that, Mr. President?

Further, they are now saying that the fact that they are Muslim is immaterial.  When will the liberal camp quit trying to whitewash Islam?  There are peaceful law-abiding Muslims, we all know.  We also know that some kinds of snakes are harmless and actually perform a service for mankind, but the other ones are particularly dangerous and not to be trusted.  For that reason, smart people distrust snakes until they find out what kind they are dealing with.

We are told that when Osama bin Laden was allegedly killed, that would be the undoing of al-Qaeda. Yet, just two days ago, the Canadian police arrested two people and uncovered an al-Qaeda plot to bomb trains going from Toronto to New York.

Our First Lady, Michelle Obama, was reported visiting one of the former Muslim suspects in the Boston bombing, in the hospital.  Note that she did not bother to visit any of the victims. Pretty embarrassing, I would say.

Oh, and by the way, liberal doofus, British born Piers Morgan, who promised to self deport if the gun control bill did not pass, has NOT been seen boarding  a plane back to jolly old England. In fact, at last check, he has not even bought a ticket.   Could it be that Obama is planning to fly him back on Air Force One, at the expense of the American taxpayer?   I doubt it. Most probably the real truth is that Morgan was lying through his teeth when he said it.

Hang in there liberals!  Something may go your way yet. But, don’t; count on it. You pretty much cooked your goose when you re-elected an unqualified man to the Presidency.

"Liberals, in total, believe they own black America," said Reginald Webb of Project 21. This statement sums up why liberals go into a panic mode every time a successful black conservative speaks.

Liberals are afraid that if they do not destroy black conservatives, they will lose a part of the stranglehold they have on black America.

They feel there is something basically wrong, maybe even immoral, when a black man thinks for himself and thus embraces conservative views and thought processes. Their first instinct is to discredit or destroy him, before he gets the attention of other black people and they too become conservatives. You see, they know that black America, at its roots is better and smarter than the “plantation Negro” niche they try to keep them in with their “vote for us and we will give you free ice cream” tactics.

Black Americans are, by and large, becoming too intelligent to fall for this line, realizing that it is a form of “enslavement by consent.” More and more of them are jumping ship and joining the growing number of black conservatives.

We all watched, in utter disbelief, as the liberals trotted out a broken-down has-been publicity hound to charge Herman Cain with sexual misconduct. Unfortunately, such a charge carries with it a “guilty until proven innocent” stigma, much the same as a rape charge. As usual, in cases drawing a lot of publicity and in the manner of flies around a molasses barrel, a couple more women joined the group of accusers. Notice how quickly they all disappeared when Cain withdrew from the Presidential race. Most thinking people saw through the character assassination, and let it be known. The liberals then tried to shift the blame to Mitt Romney, or other Republican candidates. Few believed that lie either.

But, in the end, they shut down, at least temporarily, one of the dreaded monsters, a successful black conservative.

Now, the liberal hatchet men have turned their attention to Dr. Benjamin Carson. Dr, Carson spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast. During his speech, he was critical of programs for which the President is responsible or supports. Immediately, the liberal machine accused him of “insulting the President”. That charge is incredibly ludicrous, especially in light of the Bush era mantra of the liberals, “It is our patriotic duty to challenge the President.”

What Carson did was to lecture the President on the fallacies of some of the President’s programs. The President was sitting less than 10 feet away from him during his speech and one cannot detect from Obama’s expressions that he feels he is being insulted.

Nevertheless, the liberals have issued instructions to their “hit men”, to destroy Dr. Carson, so, through various media outlets and hack journalists, they are proceeding on their mission.

Dr. Carson made some incredibly narrow-minded and unkind remarks regarding the gay community. Thought he has apologized, several times, the liberals will not let it go. According to the liberal press and journalists, the apologies were not sincere. They feel they have the magical ability to look inside his heart and mind and determine what his true feelings are.

After protests by a gay student group, Dr. Carson has withdrawn from his engagement as the commencement speaker at the John Hopkins School of Medicine. He cited his belief that his presence would distract form the celebratory nature of the occasion. Tomorrow’s headlines and the liberal writers will charge that he did it to keep from being forcibly replaced. But then, they are not well known for accuracy.

They are digging frantically to find anything derogatory, or even slightly doubtful, in Carson’s history, which they can use to destroy him.

The reason they need to destroy a black conservative is that they cannot use the infamous race card, of which they are so doggedly fond, when he speaks out against the administration. They are also panicked at the thought of a black conservative candidate for the Presidency in 2016. Much of their campaign in 2008 and again in 2012 was based on the fact that Obama is black. They would have no strategy to use in trying to defeat a black opponent.

The funny thing is, Dr. Carson, has not indicated any interest in running for that office. Be that as it may, he must be destroyed. He has transgressed. He has dared to become something other than a shuffle butt slave to the liberal dogma.

I don’t think anybody was surprised by the way the County Commissioners voted on the proposed ordinance to require those doing business with Cobb County, thereby collecting taxpayer dollars, obey the law by hiring legal workers. The only surprise is that unemployed residents have not “tarred and feathered” the three commissioners who voted against the ordinance.

The part of the meeting dealing with this ordinance should have been entitled “The “Chamber of Commerce presents Tim Lee, Helen Goreham, and Lisa Cupid, in a staged betrayal.”  

It included Lisa Cupid, delivering her lines haltingly as if she did not quite have them memorized.  She nitpicked the ordinance as well as IMAGE statutes, while praising the county’s ”smokescreen” enforcement policy, allegedly put into place on the heels of the courthouse debacle. Lisa should know that requiring an affidavit is not enforcement. Enforcement is oversight to assure that the things alleged in the affidavit are true, and continue to be true for the life of the contract.  I am pretty sure, unless they are skirting the law, that they had affidavits on the offending companies at the courthouse. The affidavits were pretty much worthless,.

Cupid’s finale was a reading of an obscure part of the ordinance dealing with “casual/day laborers”. She harped on a very narrowly defined set of hypothetical circumstances in which a legal worker might be denied a day’s work, under the statute.  Of course, her vote indicated that she cares nothing for the tens of thousands of citizens and legal immigrants who are missing days, weeks, months and even years of work under the current policy of allowing illegal immigrants to continue working.

Next on the program, Helen Goreham came across as an “angry old white woman”, with her complaints about personal criticism leveled at her for her flip-flop position on the question.  Her biggest problem with the ordinance seemed to revolve around the fact that she considers it a “mandate.”  Excuse me, Helen, but being required to show an ID to buy beer is a “mandate”, just as most laws are “mandates.”  Over the past weeks, Goreham has come up with some pretty silly reasons to oppose this ordinance, but I must say, this one is the silliest of all.

Tim, the king of the flip-flop crew, seems to be hung up over three words.  He mentioned some wording that he felt was sufficient reason to oppose the ordinance.  One of the words was “entity”.  He also came up with a case of a current vendor who threatened not to obey the ordinance.  The vendor was WellStar, which, we are told, provides medical care to the inmates of the County jail at a reduced rate. They flatly stated they would not enroll in IMAGE.  I suggest we put out a bid request for this medical care and see how much we really are saving with WellStar, then weigh that against the number of people out of work because we allow county subcontractors to use illegal workers.  I am not sure what to think of a “leader” who caves in to the demands of one vendor.

The sad thing is that none of these objections were ever made known prior to this meeting.  They probably could have been resolved if they had been. Of course, the Chamber of Commerce bigwigs did not want them resolved, because they did not want this ordinance to pass.

The real losers were the working people of Cobb county, who fight the daily fight and pay taxes (if they are fortunate enough to be employed) so that the illegal aliens can take their jobs, dumb down our schools, sap the resources of emergency rooms using them for drug store, live on social programs and anchor baby benefits, all the while sending their money out of the country.

There were no winners, except the lawbreaking tuxedo businessmen who run the Chamber of Commerce, and control most of the County Commissioners, taking taxpayer money to pay unlawful workers, and pocketing big profits at our expense.

I would like to see the MDJ issue a challenge to the county to use the "enforcement tools" they claim to have put into effect after the courthouse scandal was uncovered, not by our own people, but by outsiders. . They protested that we did not need IMAGE because these enforcement tools would do more.  Okay, challenge them to conduct an open audit of Croy Engineering and C.W. Matthews Contracting Company, Inc., in which impartial auditors are utilized. .

I would bet no such audit will be forthcoming.     

In the lead sentence of his column on Friday, the 15th, Kevin Foley tries to insinuate that women should be in fear for their lives because the House did not embrace the Senate’s version of the Violence Against Women Act, which is due for renewal.  

Women should be in fear for their lives because the liberals want to deny them the right to their first line of defense against said violence, which is a self defense weapon.  The government feels they are more qualified than a woman to tell her what kind of guns she can own and what kind she cannot own.

You see, the kickback from the female population against the liberal scheme to infringe upon our second amendment rights has taken the liberal leadership by surprise.  They had no idea the number of female gun owners was so great.

In their panic, the liberal anti-gun faction has slipped the traces of sanity and is now practicing inane damage control.  Now they are going after women gun owners, with some really far out and ludicrous approaches.

VP Joe Biden armed his wife with a double barreled 12 gauge shotgun, and some shells.  He told her if someone were trying to break in, she should load the shotgun, step outside and fire off both barrels. He guaranteed the would-be attacker would get scared and run away.  Really?  Who would be afraid of someone who had just rendered their weapon useless, except as a club?  

That is almost as ludicrous as the statement from the office Dianne Feinstein  to effect that, “The Senator believes if the people, including the police, laid down their weapons and Christopher Dorner could see that nobody except him was armed he would lay down his gun and surrender”   She concluded “That’s just human nature.”

The liberals have decided that a woman should use bodily fluids, or lies, as a defense against rape. Simply vomit on the attacker, or pee on him, or tell him you are menstruating or have VD.  I can hear it now. ”Stay away from me, I am sick to my stomach and have a full bladder.”  Yeah, I can see where that would be a real deterrent to rape.  “You don’t want to rape me. I am on my period and besides I have VD.”  This is supposed to stop someone bent on rape?  What happened to “rape is about control and not about sex?”

Some liberal gun grabber has suggested that a ball point pen is a great weapon.  In some cases, it would be. Of course, you must let the attacker come into close proximity with you to use it.   That violates all the rules of self defense.  Can you imagine your daughter facing an armed attacker and yelling, “I’m not afraid of you and your stupid Uzi, as long as I have my Pentel Rolling Writer?”   Excuse me, but I would rather my daughter had a Glock 9mm than a Paper Mate Flex Grip.  In reality, the poorest gun ever manufactured is infinitely better than the best ball point pen.

It must be a great comfort to know that Colorado State Rep, Joe Salazar and other liberals feel that co-eds are so brainless that they incapable of recognizing whether, or not, they are in danger, and would probably shoot the wrong people..  That statement overlooks a great many facts.  First of all, if the female in question were in the military, instead of college, she would be assumed intelligent enough to be issued a weapon.  If she had chosen to go into the field of firefighting, she would be judged intelligent enough to fight a fire in your home. etc.  

Salazar’s statement is totally chauvinistic and without supporting evidence.  He assumes that only men, not women, can become proficient with a gun.

There are a lot of weapons a woman can utilize to defend herself, but, in the end, the best is a well placed round from a gun in the hands of the intended victim.

Ladies, it is not the GOP you should fear, but the Democratic gun grabbers bent on disarming you and leaving you without your best line of defense.

In Kevin Foley’s column of last Friday, the 15th, entitled “Women second class citizens in GOP’s world”, he used scare tactics intended to frighten women. The crux of his rant was trying to prove that women’s health and their very lives are in danger from the GOP. That is a ludicrous and inane claim to begin with.

What is the premise for his charge? The GOP has not embraced the renewal of the “Violence Against Women Act.”

The 1994 version of the VAWA did very little to address the problem, which is a real threat to women. However, the act was designed as a means to, and most of the funds are allocated for, prosecution of the perpetrators, AFTER they have killed or injured a woman or women. Little is devoted to stopping the crime BEFORE it happens.

Of course, what Mr. Foley fails to mention is that the program is still in effect, so nobody is in danger yet. He also conveniently glossed over the reason for the stalemate. The liberals want to extend the coverage of the act to gay men, and lesbians, which is totally unnecessary, as men are covered by the provision of the original act. The act makes no distinction about the sexual preference of the victim or the perpetrator. Therefore gay men and lesbians are already covered.

They also want to extend it to Native Americans living on reservations, which is a violation of the treaties with the Indian tribes. Those treaties give the tribal leaders full authority over the tribal lands, and, in fact, enjoin the Federal government from interfering in tribal business.

But the final straw is that they tried to extend it to cover illegal immigrants, and grant them automatic temporary visas when they are victims of domestic violence. This is a group which is already costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually, and they are here illegally, in essence lawbreakers.

In short, had the liberals not tried to broaden the coverage of the act, it would already have been renewed.

What he also failed to mention is that the GOP controlled House passed its own bill eliminating the changes made by the Senate. The Senate has not approved that bill. Approval of that bill would effectively renew the VAWA. Obviously, they want it their way, or they will continue to blame the House and the GOP, while they share the blame equally.

When looking for someone to blame, looks like there is enough blame to go around to both parties and both chambers of Congress. 

It will be interesting to see if Mr. Foley is willing to admit that. .

Leave it to Kevin Foley to begin a column with a false statement.  It is a foolish and inane assertion that GOP candidates were deliberately offending Mexican and Latino voters, during last year’s Presidential election campaign, as his opening statement would have you believe. (Please note that I did not call Mr. Foley a “liar”, as I am sure to be accused of doing.)

He belittles remarks made by GOP candidates, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain and eventual party nominee, Mitt Romney, calling them “rhetoric.  The remarks he quoted were nothing more than insistence on enforcement of the laws already on the books.  Note that he quotes Bachmann as saying, “I believe we should uphold the laws of the land, which does include deportation.”  While she might be graded off for grammar, there is certainly nothing in that statement that qualifies as “rhetoric.”  Only a “spin doctor” would try to turn it into such.

It is a sad day indeed when insistence upon upholding the law is termed as “inflammatory.”  Instead of looking to the people who made the statements, we should be looking al the people who are offended by them. Only people who are intent upon breaking the law are afraid of, or get incensed, by talk of enforcement. 

Certain liberal politicians are insisting that the American people want the illegal immigrants to be granted amnesty, yet they produce little or no proof of their words, other than questionable polls. Without information as to the validity of the polls, the people polled and their location, poll results mean little. If you polled people in Los Angeles County about illegal immigrants you would find a resounding majority in favor of them.  Wow!  Big surprise?  Hardly, since you are, in many cases, asking them if they approve of themselves or their family or friends.  Conversely, if the same poll were conducted among the working class in the Atlanta area, where jobs are lost daily to illegal immigrants, the results would be much different. So, please take your poll results with a shaker of salt, not just a grain.

In 1986, President Reagan granted amnesty to about three million illegal immigrants in this country.  Along with that, we were assured of a closed border.  Only lip service was ever paid to that provision.  Now we have, depending upon whose estimate you use, between 11 and 15 million illegal aliens. Assuming that the 3 million constituted all the illegal aliens here at the time, the illegal alien population has continued to grow at the rate of over 407,000 per year.

No administration, since Reagan, has taken a pro-active stand against this illegal activity.  Bush, Sr. ignored it, Clinton ignored it, Bush, Jr. encouraged it and welcomed it, and Obama’s idea of getting rid of illegals is to make them legal. That’s a brilliant plan!   We can cut down our murder rate. All we have to do is legalize killing.  Our armed robbery rate would disappear, if we made robbery legal.  Heck, we could even unionize the robbers.

The current plan, as defined by the “Gang of Eight” (four liberal “weenies” and four RINOs) would secure the border, streamline the current immigration system and create a tough but fair legalization process.  It would require personal action by those wishing to become legal, including registration, paying fines, demonstrating a productive work record, paying back taxes and learning English, in order to be granted a “green card” and amnesty.  They would also go to the back of the line for citizenship.

However, President Obama only heard the part where they would be granted amnesty. He did not hear, nor does he care about the rest.  He is insisting on amnesty first, then all the other things, including closing the border.

Does anyone really think that, once they get amnesty, they are going to comply with the rest of the provisions?  They pay no attention to the law, or they would not be here.  Their “desire” for citizenship is,  in most cases,  a myth.  There may be a percentage which really wants to be citizens.  The rest want all the benefits without the responsibilities.

The borders will not be secured and the illegals will continue to flock across it, to the land of “leche y miel.”  And the liberals will have increased their voter base by eleven million, effectively ending the two-party system in the U. S. and creating a dictatorship for Obama.

Sorry, Kevin, but “party” is hardly the word for the nightmare of amnesty.

Foley’s column on Friday, January 18, 2013, entitled “Boortz was a boring boor”, came across as a thinly disguised cry for attention, a column written for no purpose.  In his pathetic attempt at putting down Neal Boortz, Foley has demonstrated a total lack of knowledge about the man, his work and, most of all, his listeners.

    

To be certain, Boortz was not always right, seldom tactful and, at times, was downright mean, but to call him “boring” is simply inane.  The man had a following of 4.25 million listeners, and was named one of the top 25 Top Influential Talk Show Hosts.  Boring people do not achieve that kind of success.

    

Foley amplifies his ignorance by inferring that over 4 million Boortz listeners do not think for themselves, are willfully ignorant, delusional, racist or paranoid.  Amazingly, those are the same terms Kevin frequently employs to describe everyone who disagrees with his rants. To compound the ludicrous and self deluding attempts at downgrading Boortz’s listeners, he infers they are “desperate for someone to affirm their deepest, darkest fears and prejudices.

    

In his ill-fated attempt at character assassination, Foley resorts to a series of quotes, the source of which he says is an organization called Media Matters.  The following description is from their website.

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not for profit, 501(c)(3), progressive research and  information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing and correcting conservative misinformation in the U. S. media.

With that glowing recommendation, would anyone like to venture a guess as to their objectivity?  It is probably somewhere on a par with Mr. Foley’s record of the same.  His collection of “out of context” quotes does less damage to the reputation of Mr. Boortz than to that of the writer who chooses to list them.

In fact, it appears that Media Matters is dedicated to doing the opposite of what Mr. Foley does, as a public relations executive.  His job is to “modify” and “filter” the facts just enough so that they still have a modicum of truth, but, in the process, make Mr. Foley’s client look like an Eagle Scout, even though he might, in reality, be a money launderer or a philandering politician.  Media Matters is dedicated to using the same process, to make conservatives look bad.  

Mr. Foley was indeed wise to wait until Boortz was no longer able to respond, to carry out his petty attack. Had he chosen to do so 30 days ago, Boortz would surely have burned him at the stake, figuratively speaking, of course, on his radio show.

One has to wonder, if Foley is so opposed to Boortz and his views, why he waited forty years to say something,. I am reminded of a time, years ago, when one of my friends was threatened by another man.  After the guy finished telling Robert how badly he was going to whip him, Robert responded, “It must be fear that’s holding you back.”  Could that be the answer to Foley’s forty years of silence about Neal Boortz?

Mr. Foley states he stopped listening to Boortz because he was always “bottom fishing”.  I submit that Mr. Foley’s column is a prime example of “bottom feeding.”  It was a direct attempt at character assassination, with no purpose. Even if everything he said about Boortz is true, what is the reason for saying it now?  The “offender” is off the air, and gone to Florida. Nothing will be accomplished with this attack, except that it will make Foley look petty and foolish.

Did you ever wonder why the gun control advocates refuse to acknowledge the huge body of scientific studies showing a direct cause and effect relationship between violent media (TV shows, movies, video games, children’s cartoons) and violent behavior?  Is it because of the large support the President, and the communications media, get from the entertainment media?

Did you ever wonder why the media is so intent upon pushing the gun control agenda of this administration even to the extent of ignoring all evidence of other causes of violent behavior?

Did you ever wonder what will be the reaction of the 50 millions gun owners in this country when this administration directly attacks the Second Amendment?

Did you ever wonder why President Obama thinks he can just dismiss the Second Amendment by writing an Executive Order?  Does he really think he was elected dictator instead of President?

Did you ever wonder why the rush to ban guns for everybody, when the crimes are committed by criminals, nor law abiding gun owners?   A half a hundred people commit crimes with guns and the gun control advocates want to punish 50 million innocent people for it.

Did you ever wonder how the gun control advocates plan to deal with the fact that those bent on committing crimes with guns will not pay one bit of attention to their silly gun ban laws?

Did you ever wonder if the gun control advocates realize that if we give up our guns, we will be defenseless against a growing number of armed criminals, thugs and hoodlums?

Did you ever wonder if a .38 in the hand is more effective than a cop on the phone, in stopping someone intent on doing you harm?

Did you ever wonder why the mainstream media never reported on the 14 Mexican teens reportedly  gunned down at a birthday party, some with weapons given the killers by President Obama’s ill conceived Fast and Furious Program?

Did you ever wonder why President Obama is giving guns to the Mexican drug cartels, planes to Egypt and arms to Libya, but wants to disarm American citizens?

Did you ever wonder why an armed person is called a citizen and an unarmed person is called a subject?  Give up your weapons and you won’t have to wonder why any more.

Did you ever wonder why, if just passing a law is going to get guns off the street, we don’t apply the same logic to alcohol, drugs, and illegal aliens?  Oh, yeah, we did that with alcohol. It was called prohibition and gave birth to modern organized crime syndicates.  We have law against drugs, but the streets are full of them and drug addiction is at an epidemic stage.  We have .laws against illegal aliens, but we have about 15 millions of them in this country right now.

Did you ever wonder why the gun control advocates are loath to refer to the Columbine shootings in their mad rush to ban “assault weapons?”  The Columbine shootings were carried out with three handguns and two shotguns, but only one rifle, not by responsible gun owners, but by a couple of psychotic students, who  planted improvised explosive devices in the cafeteria, which, if they had exploded would have killed virtually everyone in the cafeteria. They also planted explosive devices in their own cars, timed to explode and kill first responders.  Nope, the full facts on Columbine would not lend much support to their bull headed charge to ban rifles.

Did you ever wonder why the most outspoken gun control advocates are people who never served in the military, have led what we call sheltered lives, have never been called upon to defend anything requiring force, are somewhat ignorant of weaponry and might even be afraid of guns?.

Did you ever wonder why some of the most vociferous proponents of gun control are not willing to discus the real issue, not willing to discuss alternatives such as banning high capacity magazines, instead of rifles? Could it be that they are being paid by the gun control lobby to sway public opinion, and are only in it for the money?

Just a few things to wonder about, besides why our paychecks are suddenly smaller, and why Benghazi is suddenly out of the news, with no real answers yet.

In his column, “Public Safety, gun safety not mutually exclusive”, appearing January 4th, MDJ columnist has broken his own record at misrepresenting the facts. 
In the first paragraph has says that NRA president Wayne LaPierre told Americans to buy more guns. He did not make any such statement.  Foley than goes on to say “that just happens to be the products sold by the companies his outfit represents.”  The NRA represents America’s gun owners, not gun manufacturers.
In the second paragraph, he says that LaPierre called for arming every teacher. That is another blatant untruth.  At no time did he advocate arming every teacher.  What he did advocate was putting trained, armed guards in every school.  Something that President Clinton started, though not on such a grand scale.  Why do you think private schools have been exempt from Columbine, or Sandy Hook type shootings?  They are all guarded and secured, just the same as the private school to which President Obama sends his children.
In the third paragraph,. He engages in a little melodrama intended to make LaPierre look like ghoul.  He alludes to LaPierre making his first statement “as the babies of Sandy hook were being laid to rest”:  Sorry, Kevin, but LaPierre waited a respectful 9 days after the tragedy before making his statement, unlike the gun control crowd, who, like a bunch of vultures, did not even wait 9 hours, much less 9 days, before they verbally hung up the bodies of the 20 babies and pointed to them as proof that we must abolish the 2nd Amendment. 
His next two paragraphs address public safety, as if it were a given that outlawing guns would make the public safe.  Of course, anybody with reasoning power greater than that of a fence post knows that is not true.
Try this one on for size, by the way, Kevin.  According to the FBI, in 2011, there were 35% more murders committed with hammers, than with rifles.  Yet, what is it you want to outlaw? Rifles isn’t it?   Why not hammers?  Close down the hammer department at Home Depot.
Public safety discussions do not end where the topic of guns begins. It ends when you advocate surrendering liberty for a false sense of safety.  Our founding fathers warned us about that repeatedly.
Foley makes the erroneous statement that you can walk into almost any gun show and buy “assault weapons”, high capacity magazines and ammunition, no questions asked.  I will not dignify that by calling it an untruth. I will call it what it is. It is a bald faced lie.  Dealers at gun shows are bound by the same regulations requiring background checks, as they are when they are in their places of business.  Since Foley is only parroting something he has heard, I have no way of knowing whether he is aware of that or not.  But, I repeat, the statement is a lie.
Foley, Charles Gregory, is at this time a private citizen and his inane ravings do not, in any way, reflect the belief of most sane people. As to the Second Amendment, it does recognize our unfettered access to weapons.  The Second Amendment has been attacked in court many times and is still just as pristine as the day our founding fathers wrote it, without reservation, time limit or expiration date.
BTW, how many instances of a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun will it take to convince you?  It’s not a “wild west” thing, it is a fact. 
Your fantasies regarding teachers and people in church are just that. Fantasies, concocted to prove your point. They have no basis in fact. Nobody is advocating arming all the teachers, so your scenario of a gunman killing the teacher first is pure fantasy.  You reckon one armed member of the congregation could take out a shooter, but not before some people died.  That may be true, but is that not better than all the people being killed?  Without a gun, the killer could always toss in a stick of dynamite, or a firebomb and not risk getting shot at all.  Your fantasy scenario is invalid. 
You make a lot of noise about sensible, well thought out laws relating to firearms. We already have such, and you are not satisfied.  
What you are ignoring is the fact that people who intend to use guns for illegal purposes do not care about the law, whether it is well thought out or not.   What you are advocating is restricting the 2nd Amendment rights of over 3 million people for a false sense of safety.
Hammers and hand guns are used for killing far more often than rifles.  A third of all mass killings are accomplished without guns.  The first recorded murder in history was done before guns were ever invented.  Extremely strict guns laws in Chicago did not stop 440 school children from being shot, 62 of them fatally, in 2011. Chicago has an assault weapons ban. So does Connecticut. 
The children of Sandy Hook were not killed by the 2nd Amendment.  They were killed by a crazed maniac, who murdered his own mother to gain illegal possession of legal weapons. .Had he not been able to do that, he would have found another way to accomplish what he set out to do. Many have done so in the past.  Remember Timothy McVeigh?  He had a much higher body count without firing a single shot.