Law School Conservative

A few days ago, a group of about 50 veterans and gun owners gathered in New Mexico to commemorate United Nations Day.  You know how they did it?  They burned the flag of the United Nations.

Of course, you didn't see it in the news.  And no matter how you feel about burning the flag of the United Nations, you've got to agree the U.N. stands against a lot of what America stands for.

For more than a decade, we've documented the UN's global war on your gun rights.

For more than a decade, we've warned you about how hundreds of international gun-ban groups are working with dictatorships and terrorist states toward their goal of a disarmed, dependent and helpless human population.

We've told you how the U.N. gun bans are part of a much larger campaign funded in part by freedom-hating billionaire George Soros.

And we've told you how a U.N. gun-ban treaty would threaten your rights for decades to come.

The U.N. is not about people. It's about governments.

The U.S. rejects tyrants.  But the U.N. protects tyrants.

So it's no wonder that the United Nations wants to disarm the subjects  and peoples of the world.  And they see the United States as the last obstacle in their way.

So when a bunch of American veterans and gun owners get together on United Nations Day and they want to burn the flag of the United Nations, I say to the media... cover the story and tell America why.

Remember a few years ago, when they said so-called campaign finance reform was going to "take the big money out of politics" and "level the playing field"?

How wrong they were.

So far this year, individual donors have given more than 11 million dollars to liberal 527 groups.

Republicans, on the other hand, have given conservative groups only about six million dollars ... and four million of that came from just one person.

Not only has campaign finance "reform" not taken the big money out of politics, it hasn't leveled the playing field, either.

Corporate political action committees have been hobbled, while union PACs and 527s are raking in millions. In fact, five of the 10 largest 527s this year are union-based.

The gulf between liberal and conservative 527s is enormous. As of June 30, left-leaning 527s had raised more than 104 million dollars, compared with just 20 million dollars raised by conservative 527s.

More money means more advertising and more chances to influence voters. Add in the impact of the anti-gun mainstream media, and gun owners are at a huge disadvantage in terms of the money we can raise and spend.

Politicians have succeeded in making it much harder for us to speak out during these election periods. But they can't stop us from getting out and voting on Election Day.

And trust me, on Election Day, we will make our voices hear.

I know this is hard to believe, but Congressman John Conyers is actually trying to fool people into thinking he doesn't really want to ban gun ownership in America.

Conyers must think he can hide his 30-year anti gun record as easily as putting on a cheap Halloween mask.

Here's what Conyers said last week:

"If I become chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I certainly will not support or forward to the House any legislation to ban handguns."

What he didn't say is that, during his entire political career, he's never met a gun ban or ammunition ban he didn't like.  For years, John Conyers has been right up there with the likes of Schumer and Kennedy as a poster boy for the entire anti-gun, anti-freedom lobby.

And he's been proud of it.  Until now.

So what changed?

The potential for Conyers to gain more political power.  He knows that if his Democratic Party takes over the House, he'll become Chairman of the powerful Judiciary Committee.  So right now, he'll say anything- anything- to reach that goal.

If he became Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Conyers said a few months ago, "It would become a new day."

Well I don't think the man who offended 4 million NRA members by calling us "merchants of death" deserves a new day.

I'll never forget that slur, and neither should you.

John Conyers isn't tricking anybody.  Even on Halloween.

Two researchers in Australia just published a study they did on murder and suicide in the ten years since Australia banned all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns and rifles in 1996.

The verdict?

According to the Australian Bureau of statistics and the Australian Institute of Criminology, murder rates in the country weren't affected by the gun ban at all. And gun-related suicide rates weren't affected by the gun ban, either.

They stayed the same, with or without the gun ban.

And you don't need to be a criminologist to predict what else the researchers found in their study:

More than 90 percent of the firearms used to commit homicide were not registered... and their owners were not licensed.

In other words, the criminals didn't obey Australia's laws!

How much do you think it cost them to figure that one out?

I bet you're not surprised.

Who would be?Well, Simon Chapman, a university professor who says the research can't be taken seriously because it doesn't analyze the incidence of mass murder in Australia, which is what prompted the gun ban in the first place.

But the fact is, a 2002 study already looked at that question. Just like other crime rates, they were the same before the gun ban as after the gun ban: about once per year.

So, what does it all mean?

It means Australia spent a half-billion dollars to confiscate and destroy 640,000 rifles and shotguns ... and didn't accomplish a thing.

And it means the next time another Al Gore or John Kerry or Hillary Clinton offers you the false promise of safety in exchange for your freedom--their promises don't mean a thing.

It wasn't too long ago that the anti-gun Brady Campaign held a fundraiser at the French Embassy in our nation's capitol. You might remember that eventit's where Mike Wallace of CBS News made fun of former NRA president Charlton Heston and gun owners in general.

At the time, I thought it was ironic that the Brady Campaign was raising money at the French Embassy, considering France's crime rate is higher than that of the United States. But now I know that in France, groups like the Brady Campaign have already won.

France's election day is coming up soon, just like our own, and the conservative French candidate has come out with his position on gun control. Here's what he said:

Remember, this is the conservative candidate: "In my vision of the French Republic, security is the responsibility of the state I am against private gun ownership, and I would like to make you think about it. If you are attacked by an armed man, he will be better than you with a gun and you will put yourself in jeopardy Private gun ownership is dangerous."

And this is the conservative candidate! What's the position of the liberal? Send every gun owner to the guillotine?

While the French politicians tell their countrymen to rely on the police, the police wish they could rely on the politicians. In one Paris suburb, robberies are up 23 percent over last year, and violent assaults are up 14 percent. In fact, in September alone there were 480 attacks against police reported throughout the country.

A recent poll of French citizens found nearly 80 percent said the justice system isn't hard enough on criminals. Soft on crime plus tough on gun owners equals a society where the criminals have the upper hand.

The Brady Bunch might say "Viva La France!", but I still say "God Bless the U.S.A.!"

This is a tale of two crimes, committed by the same two thugs on the same night. The story was told recently in the Washington Post, but in typical fashion, the Post didnt tell you the whole story. Here's how the story goes... On a dark, cold night last January, two cousins set out on a violent robbery spree. They drove to a nice neighborhood in Washington, D.C. and spotted a 63-year-old man taking his after-dinner walk. One of the thugs, Percy Jordan, jumped from the car and began beating the elderly gentleman with a heavy pipe. "Give it up, old man, give it up, old man," Percy yelled. As the old man crumpled to the ground, the other cousin, Michael Hamlin, ripped the wallet from the elderly man's pocket. The two men fled, leaving the old man brutally beaten and bleeding. He later died all for about 250 bucks. But the violent cousins weren't done. They drove to another neighborhood and terrorized a defenseless woman in her 50s, robbing her of everything she had. Then they went on a shopping spree with the stolen money and credit cards. Fortunately, they were caught, and last week, this tale of two crimes was told in court. But what they didn't tell you was what NRA members and gun owners already know: That violent predators seek out and prey upon the most vulnerable the elderly gentleman or the defenseless woman. And they didn't tell you that in Washington, D.C., everyone is defenseless. Because in our nation's capitol, you can't carry a firearm to protect yourself. You can't even own a gun in your home to protect your family. Every criminal justice study on the topic proves that violent criminals avoid people they think may be armed. But Percy Jordan and Michael Hamlin had no fear attacking their two victims on that cold January night. Because in Washington, D.C., every potential victim is unarmed and defenseless.

A brand new Gallup poll on guns came out last week, and guess what it says Americans think about gun control?

Well, I bet you won't see the results in the media. Because the Gallup poll shows that Americans are on the side of gun owners, not the gun-control groups.

Gallup asked people whether a gun in the home made it safer or more dangerous. More Americans said a home with a firearm is a safer place than one without a gun. In fact, the number of Americans who replied that a home with a gun is a safer place has climbed 12 percent since 2000!

Meanwhile, the percentage of Americans who say a gun in the home makes it more dangerous has dropped since 2000.

Gallup also asked whether we need to enforce our current laws or pass new gun-control laws. More than half of those surveyed said we need to enforce our current laws rather than pass new gun control laws. And two-thirds of Americans felt that handguns should not be banned.

You know, its sad to say, but the horrors of 9-11 and the shocking gun confiscations in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina have helped hundreds of thousands of Americans realize that they can't leave their security in the hands of the government. It's up to us to take care of ourselves. And every year, more of us get it.

The tragic thing is, you probably won't hear that fact anywhere but here.

As you know, Katie Couric is the new anchor of CBS Evening News, the job once held by Walter Cronkite, "the most trusted man in America." But she's not even close to filling Cronkite's shoes.

That's not just my opinion that's what the numbers say.

In her first six weeks as anchor, Katie Couric has fallen behind NBC and ABC in the Nielsen ratings, dropping from first place to last place among the big three networks. In fact, Katie has lost about 25 percent of her viewers since she took the helm after Labor Day.

Those numbers tell me that Americans may like Katie. But I'm not so sure Americans trust Katie.

I mean, she has always looked down her elitist nose at mainstream American values. Like gun ownership.

Gun owners remember how, after the tragedy at Columbine, Katie tried to bully and browbeat Charlton Heston over the need for more gun control laws.

Gun owners remember how she teamed up with President Bill Clinton to blame you and the NRA for gun crime in America.

Gun owners remember how, after President Reagan passed away, Katie brought Sarah Brady on her show to perpetuate the lie that President Reagan wasn't an NRA member.

He was an NRA member an NRA Life Member. But you'd never know that if you listened to Katie Couric.

Now, as anchor of CBS Evening News, Katie hosts a segment called "freeSpeech," where she supposedly opens the floor to dissenting opinions.

In a freeSpeech segment recently, a man whose son was murdered at Columbine said, "This country is in a moral free-fall. For over two generations, the public school system has taught in a moral vacuum We teach that there are no absolutes, no right or wrong."

Well, his opinion apparently offended Katie. She later wrote on her blog that she knew some viewers might even find it repugnant."

"Repugnant"? How could this man's opinion be "repugnant"? Because he didn't toe Katie's anti-gun line? Because he didn't blame gun owners and the NRA?

Now, don't get me wrong. Reasonable people can disagree.

But when you call an opinion "repugnant" just because you disagree that's pure arrogance, and pure elitism.

And it's a good reason to tune into someone else to report the news.