All bow and worship at the altar of the First Amendment....

It sickens me that we have to fight tooth and nail year after year for the right to keep weapons, which is explicitly constitutional, while this filth, which I would argue the constitution was NEVER intended to protect, has its most vehement vanguards among those who attack our rights to bear arms......

This is absurd, to borrow Ben's phrase.

Seattle-Area Pedophile Has 'How-to' Web Site for Men Seeking Little Girl Activities
Friday, March 30, 2007

SEATTLE — A Web site created by a pedophile is a virtual "how-to" manual, complete with the best places in western Washington state to see little girls, and tips on how to avoid getting caught by the police.
The site, titled "Seattle-Tacoma-Everett Girl Love," has been around for a few years. The police know all about it, yet they say they can't shut it down because the site is legal.
"As disturbing and offensive as we find this, there's no evidence of a crime, or even suspicion of illegal activity," said Rebecca Hover of the Snohomish County Sheriff's Department.
The man who runs it, 45-year-old Jack McClellan, has never been convicted of a sex crime, which means he can attend any family-friendly events where children are present, and take all the pictures he wants for his Web site. He also lives close to a school bus stop.
McClellan says his purpose is to promote association, friendship and legal, consensual hugging and cuddling between men and pre-pubescent girls. He admitted to FOX News that his "age of attraction" is between 3 and 11 years old.
"I guess the main thing is I just think they're cute, a lot cuter than women. I admit there is kind of an erotic arousal there," McClellan said.
"It makes me happy simply. Like I said, I think girls are cute, beautiful, just children in general make me happy ... being around lots of them. ... I'm doing what anyone else would do with a hobby. If someone's into birds they're taking pictures of birds. I'm convinced that none of these images are illegal."
McClellan wants to bring pedophiles out of the closet and give them a way to get some relief, by going out and being around little girls. He suggests a number of places, such as plays at elementary schools, parks, swimming pools and libraries.
"I really think a lot of this pedophilia hysteria is overblown. I think there are a lot of people like me. They have the attraction but they're not going to do anything physical because of the laws. It just makes me happy to attend these events."
McClellan said that for pedophiles, just being around children is almost like a "legal high" that makes them happy.
But "I can understand the fear," he added. "I hope that what I'm doing is setting myself up as an example that it is possible to have these attractions and not be out of control."
But he said while it's OK to look, it's not OK to touch, given the many state laws in place to protect children against that.
"I know it sounds kind of crazy, but there's kind of a code of ethics that these pedophiles have developed and what it is ... the contact has to be completely consensual, no coercion, if you're going to do it," McClellan said.
Parents are understandably outraged. FOX News spoke to the mother of an 8-year-old girl whose picture appeared on the Web site. The picture was taken at a dance recital.
"I needed to get those pictures off of there. I didn't want the pedophile community having any visibility to my daughter or her friends or any of the children that were on that site," said parent Ann Cialoa. "Whether it's a physical threat, a perceived threat, whatever threat it is. It's our jobs as parents to protect our kids from threats, and he is a threat, and people like him are a threat."
Some legal experts have said the best course of action for parents who see their kids' pictures on sites like these, is to get a temporary restraining order against McClellan and demand that his Web site be taken down.
"You have one in your face and you can't do anything about it because there's not a law to protect them from that," Cialoa said. "It's scary, and the fact that we're going to wait around for him to violate before we do something."
Neighbors of McClellan's say there's a man who rides his bike around town at night and peeps into others' windows. They believe that may be McClellan.
"You'll notice that every single person in this neighborhood has very large attack dogs," said neighbor Melissa Henry.
The Web site was taken down by the Internet service provider after FOX News called the company about it this week. The company is investigating whether any material on the site is illegal.
At least one area school has sent McClellan a letter saying if he comes onto school property or attends their functions, they will consider it trespassing and will have him arrested.
Police and prosecutors are watching him closely to see if he crosses the line. A handful of state legislators are looking at drafting a new law to deal with such Web sites. But until they do, McClellan is free to continue pushing pedophilia.

Famous last words:

I'll get a world record for this.

It's fireproof.

He's probably just hibernating.

I'm making a citizen's arrest.

So, you're a cannibal.

Are you sure the power is off?

Yeah, I made the deciding vote on the jury, so what of it?

I've seen this done on TV.

These are the good kind of mushrooms.

Let it down slowly.

Rat poison only kills rats.

Just take whatever you want, this is a ghost town.

It's strong enough for both of us.

This doesn't taste right.

Nice doggie.

I've done this before.

Well, we've made it this far.

That's odd.

Don't be so superstitious.

Well, this is good news....

Ben and Micah, you'll like this.

This decision from the DC circuit court of Appeals has been a long time coming, and hopefully the en banc panel will uphold it if it is appealed there or the Supreme Court if it gets appealed there. We shall see.

http://howappealing.law.com/030907.html#023153

BREAKING NEWS -- Divided three-judge D.C. Circuit panel holds that the District of Columbia's gun control laws violate individuals' Second Amendment rights: You can access today's lengthy D.C. Circuit ruling at this link.

According to the majority opinion, "[T]he phrase 'the right of the people,' when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." The majority opinion sums up its holding on this point as follows:

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

The majority opinion also rejects the argument that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a State. And the majority opinion concludes, "Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."

Senior Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the majority opinion, in which Circuit Judge Thomas B. Griffith joined. Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented.

Judge Henderson's dissenting opinion makes clear that she would conclude that the Second Amendment does not bestow an individual right based on what she considers to be binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent requiring that result. But her other main point is that the majority's assertion to the contrary constitutes nothing more than dicta because the Second Amendment's protections, whatever they entail, do not extend to the District of Columbia, because it is not a State.

This is a fascinating and groundbreaking ruling that would appear to be a likely candidate for U.S. Supreme Court review if not overturned first by the en banc D.C. Circuit.

This is something I came across today. Good stuff, kinda makes the 9/11 conspiracy theory folks look a little silly...

Uncomfortable Questions: Was the Death Star Attack an Inside Job?

Wednesday, February 28th, 2007

We’ve all heard the “official conspiracy theory” of the Death Star attack. We all know about Luke Skywalker and his ragtag bunch of rebels, how they mounted a foolhardy attack on the most powerful, well-defended battle station ever built. And we’ve all seen the video over, and over, and over, of the one-in-a-million shot that resulted in a massive chain reaction that not just damaged, but completely obliterated that massive technological wonder.

Like many Americans, I was fed this story when I was growing up. But as I watched the video, I began to realize that all was not as it seemed. And the more I questioned the official story, the deeper into the rabbit hole I went.

Presented here are some of the results of my soul-searching regarding this painful event. Like many citizens, I have many questions that I would like answered: was the mighty Imperial government really too incompetent to prevent a handful of untrained nerf-herders from destroying one of their most prized assets? Or are they hiding something from us? Who was really behind the attack? Why did they want the Death Star destroyed? No matter what the answers, we have a problem.

Below is a summary of my book, Uncomfortable Questions: An Analysis of the Death Star Attack, which presents compelling evidence that we all may be the victims of a fraud of immense proportions.

Uncomfortable Questions about the Death Star Attack

1) Why were a handful of rebel fighters able to penetrate the defenses of a battle station that had the capability of destroying an entire planet and the defenses to ward off several fleets of battle ships?

2) Why did Grand Moff Tarkin refuse to deploy the station’s large fleet of TIE Fighters until it was too late? Was he acting on orders from somebody to not shoot down the rebel attack force? If so, who, and why?

3) Why was the rebel pilot who supposedly destroyed the Death Star reported to be on the Death Star days, maybe hours, prior to its destruction? Why was he allowed to escape, and why were several individuals dressed in Stormtrooper uniforms seen helping him?

4) Why has there not been an investigation into allegations that Darth Vader, the second-ranking member of the Imperial Government, is in fact the father of the pilot who allegedly destroyed the Death Star?

5) Why did Lord Vader decide to break all protocols and personally pilot a lightly armored TIE Fighter? Conveniently, this placed Lord Vader outside of the Death Star when it was destroyed, where he was also conveniently able to escape from a large-sized rebel fleet that had just routed the Imperial forces. Why would Lord Vader, one of the highest ranking members of the Imperial Government, suddenly decide to fly away from the Death Star in the middle of a battle? Did he know something that the rest of the Imperial Navy didn’t?Emperor Palpatine fails to act after being informed of the attack

6) How could any pilot shoot a missile into a 2 meter-wide exhaust port, let alone a pilot with no formal training, whose only claim to fame was his ability to “bullseye womprats” on Tatooine? This shot, according to one pilot, would be “impossible, even for a computer.” Yet, according to additional evidence, the pilot who allegedly fired the missile turned off his targeting computer when he was supposedly firing the shot that destroyed the Death Star. Why have these discrepancies never been investigated, let alone explained?

7) Why has their been no investigation into evidence that the droids who provided the rebels with the Death Star plans were once owned by none other than Lord Vader himself, and were found, conveniently, by the pilot who destroyed the Death Star, and who is also believed to be Lord Vader’s son? Evidence also shows that the droids were brought to one Ben Kenobi, who, records indicate, was Darth Vader’s teacher many years earlier! Are all these personal connections between the conspirators and a key figure in the Imperial government supposed to be coincidences?

8) How could a single missile destroy a battle station the size of a moon? No records, anywhere, show that any battle station or capital ship has ever been destroyed by a single missile. Furthermore, analysis of the tape of the last moments of the Death Star show numerous small explosions along its surface, prior to it exploding completely! Why does all evidence indicate that strategically placed explosives, not a single missile, is what destroyed the Death Star?

Source: http://www.digg.com/politics/Uncomfortable_Questions_Was_the_Death_Star_Destruction_an_Inside_Job