A greater tragedy than Tucson ~ By Robert Ringer

When it comes to guns, let's stop humoring those who want to fundamentally transform America into a nation of sheep whose main function would be to obediently serve their rulers. The fact is that the Second Amendment is not intended to protect the rights of hunters. It is to confirm the natural right of every citizen to protect himself from a tyrannical government. That is not vitriol. It's a Constitutional fact.

In this column, Robert Ringer brings up two points that to his knowledge, or mine, "no one has addressed." They are great points that surprisingly, I had not heard any of the pundits (dare) mention.

At the end of the column, Robert reminds us that while what occurred in Tucson was a terrible tragedy, "let us not confuse this tragedy with what needs to be done to rein in an oppressive government and thus prevent the far-greater tragedy of America being fundamentally transformed into an authoritarian police state."

A greater tragedy than Tucson

ROBERT RINGER

By Robert Ringer

January 21, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

I purposely delayed writing about the recent tragedy in Tucson, because I wanted to give myself time to get all the facts and observe the media reaction and political fallout.

Unfortunately, mass slayings are not a new phenomenon to the U.S. Two previous massacres that immediately come to mind are Charles Whitman's killing of 16 people at the University of Texas in 1966 and Seung-Hui Cho's murdering of 32 students and faculty members at Virginia Tech in 2007. In both cases, the perpetrator suffered from severe mental illness, as is almost certainly true of Jared Loughner, the Tucson killer.

Unfortunately, as was expected, within hours after the Tucson tragedy, those on the left started revving up their hate rhetoric. They quickly zeroed in on the "vitriol" of conservative talk radio, Fox News, Sarah Palin and the tea-party movement. As polls show, however, most people realize that these claims are bogus, since all evidence indicates that Loughner had no political connections of any kind. End of discussion.

However, I'd like to make a couple of points that, to the best of my knowledge, no one has addressed.

The first is that even if the killer had been a tea-party person or a member of a right-wing paramilitary outfit … or had openly stated that he was a rabid Rush Limbaugh fan … or, yes, even if he had claimed that Sarah Palin's target map inspired him to commit murder, it would have been irrelevant.

The fact is that Loughner is a mentally ill person, and just about anything can set off someone who has severe mental problems. Take, for example, the Hollywood film about the assassination of George W. Bush! Or movies that glorify the most gruesome violence imaginable. I would guess that such films have pushed far more lunatics over the edge than the most vile political rhetoric.

So, when conservatives argue that the murderer had no connection to conservative politics, they are allowing themselves to once again be sucked into the liberals' false-premise trap. It's the wrong argument. Both liberals and conservatives have a right to say whatever they please, because it's (supposed to be) a free country.

If an insane person killed someone and told the police he was motivated by the political rhetoric of Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, or Joe Klein, none of these hateful individuals would be at fault. They have a perfect right to be hateful so long as it's OK with their employers.

Sane people cannot be muzzled in an effort to keep their words from affecting the mentally ill, so it isn't necessary to argue that it was not conservative talk radio, Sarah Palin, Fox News, et al. that motivated Jared Loughner.

Again, whatever the motivation, it would be irrelevant. The fact is that whether on the right or the left, it's absurd to believe that people should base their words and actions on how they might affect a mentally unstable person whom they have never even met.

The second point I'd like to address is a bit ancillary, but important. It's the accusation that Sharron Angle's remark about the possibility that citizens may have to consider their Second Amendment right to bear arms as a defense against an oppressive government also qualifies as dangerous rhetoric. I disagree. The natural right of an individual to bear arms was considered so important to the Founding Fathers that they took the trouble to amend the Constitution to underscore it.

The truth is that few people want to face up to the reality that the way things are going in this country, it may someday get down to a choice between servitude and taking up arms. I hope it never comes to that, but it's something every rational, liberty-loving individual needs to think about – before it happens.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

It's the Constitution, stupid! ~ By Henry Lamb

The oath taken by every elected official to uphold and protect the U.S. Constitution are idle words uttered by hypocrites when their next action is to ignore or seek to destroy an essential element of the Constitution. It is the Constitution that created the government that allowed individual people to create a great nation. Deviation from constitutional principles diminishes our government and our nation. Strict adherence to those principles provides the self-correcting mechanisms designed by our founders.

The first lesson every elected official should learn is this: It's the Constitution, stupid!

Henry Lamb explains how there are Progressives that want to take away our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, using the tragedy in Tucson as an excuse. Even after they take the oath to uphold the Constitution, they ignore it as soon as they get into office.

It's the Constitution, stupid!

HENRY LAMB

By Henry Lamb

January 15, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, New York Times' Paul Krugman, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Rep. Robert Brady and a growing number of progressives are quick to condemn behavior that may be appalling to them, but is a God-given freedom guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Dupnik and Krugman, of course, were quick to blame the Tucson tragedy on free speech offered by non-progressives that they consider to be "hate speech." Rockefeller says his work would be easier if MSNBC and Fox News were to be shut down. Brady, poor soul, says he does not want to limit free speech – he just wants it to be illegal to use symbols he doesn't like.

New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy can't let this crisis go to waste; she's introducing new gun-control legislation in hopes of capturing support from the emotion surrounding the Tucson event.

The Constitution is not a document of convenience to be ignored at will and displayed at election time.

about the First Amendment that's so hard to understand? "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech. …" There is no exception for "hate speech" in the Constitution. There is no definition of "hate speech" in the Constitution. "Hate speech" is the construct of progressives who need a way to control the flow of information that exposes the fallacies of their philosophy.

What's far more dangerous and damaging than anything Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or any other conservative has said is the irresponsible actions of the Department of Homeland Security when they issued a memo to law-enforcement officials that said there may be a "possible" connection between the Tucson shooter and an organization they labeled as "anti-government, anti-immigration, anti-ZOG (Zionist Occupational Government), anti-Semitic."

When asked by Accuracy in Media, the group's leader, Jared Taylor, said:

"That is complete nonsense. I have absolutely no idea what DHS is talking about. We have never used the term 'ZOG.' We have never thought in those terms. If this is the level of research we are getting from DHS, then Heaven help us."

DHS has backed away from its memo, saying that it has no direct connection or linkage between the Tucson shooter and the group mentioned, but the damage is done. The group's reputation has been damaged beyond recompense. The DHS should be liable for those damages, but will not be held accountable.

Those who ignore the Constitution and persist in their efforts to control speech and guns refuse to recognize that government control of both could not prevent a recurrence of another Tucson-like tragedy. Deranged people who strike out at others are not deterred by laws. Laws only restrain law-abiders. There were plenty of laws in place last week, which the Tucson shooter completely ignored. Anyone who thinks that another law to prohibit free speech or another law to ban guns would have made a difference is just irrational.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

The Tucson witch trials ~ By Patrice Lewis

In the Tucson incidence, the progressives are doing their best to whip up the masses into mob rule so they can lynch (that's a metaphor) everyone and everything they don't like. They want to lynch talk radio and free presses and gun ownership and Alaskan hockey moms. They want to lynch, bit by bit, the entire Bill of Rights so they can replace it with whatever their Borg-like minds believe will create a perfect Stepford society.

And of course, if anyone protests against increased gun control or limitations on free speech, "it will be inferred that we are just fine with members of Congress, judges and little girls being gunned down in the street," in the words of Erik Rush.

I thought witch trials were a thing of the past. Evidently I'm wrong.

No, actually, Patrice is right, in the way she explains what is going on with the vitriol coming from the left! And here is one additional thought: Do you really believe that those that are blaming the Right for the terrible tragedy in Tucson actually believe that it was people such as Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin that caused Loughner to commit such a heinous crime? I don't, and what Patrice says about the progressives whipping up the masses helped to put the pieces together. They are not letting a crisis go to waste, and they know that they can use the Tragedy in Tucson to take away our gun rights and freedom of speech, and probably more! The progressives knew that they just had to spin it against those of us that believe in our freedoms and the Constitution. Their plan will hopefully not work, which is why columns like this one, and the columns that Phil Elmore and Erik Rush wrote this week, need to be read by as many Americans as possible.

The Tucson witch trials

PATRICE LEWIS

By Patrice Lewis

January 15, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

A few days ago, I came across a classic book from my childhood: "The Witch of Blackbird Pond" by Elizabeth George Speare. The book was published in 1958 and won a Newbery Medal.

The story takes place in 1687 in Weathersfield, Conn. A 16-year-old orphan named Kit leaves her native Barbados and travels to Puritan New England to live with her austere aunt and uncle, which turns out to be a difficult adjustment. Kit befriends an elderly outcast Quaker woman named Hannah living on the edge of a swamp. When illness strikes the village and children start dying, a lynch mob blames Hannah and storms to her house to string her up. Kit spirits Hannah to safety, but then she herself is accused of sorcery until a dramatic trial proves her innocence.

It was a great story when I was a kid, and it has lost none of its merit after I re-read it this week. It was an interesting reminder of how far we've advanced from the ignorance and superstitions of our past.

Or have we? It seems witch trials are alive and well in 2011 America. I refer, of course, to the absurd and almost comical attempts to blame the tragic shootings in Tucson on anyone and anything that isn't progressive.

It didn't take long – maybe 15 minutes or so – for the mob to start assembling in front of microphones, screaming invectives and rousing the rabble to string up anyone whose name they could spit out of froth-foamed mouths. Rush Limbaugh, Joseph Farah, Glenn Beck, the tea party in general and of course the ever-popular Sarah Palin were blamed for the insanity lurking in the killer's head. This is just about as logical as blaming a harmless old woman for the fever deaths of children.

What IS it with this predilection of the left to pin unwarranted blame on the right despite a total lack of evidence? It's apparent Loughner acted alone. His history and behavior suggests that he is insane and capable of twisting anything around in his sick head to justify his actions. Yet I've watched the progressive talking heads go through the most amazing verbal gymnastics and linguistic contortions in an effort to ignore Loughner's apparent leftist inclinations and blame … Sarah Palin. Huh?

I don't know about you, but it would never cross my mind – not in a million years – to take a lone madman's attack on innocent people and blame Barack Obama or Al Franken or Rosie O'Donnell. Never.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Shut up and die ~ By Erik Rush

What adds insult to injury – or disaster to tragedy as the case might be – is the necessity that existed for political factions to capitalize on this horrible event. In the face of the incremental bloodless coup that is taking place in America, progressives' adversaries must exploit the left's reaction to the shooting. In addition to the obligatory damage control called for in order to neutralize the wholesale liberal propaganda being churned out by the establishment press, they have no choice but to draw attention to progressives' dogged and misplaced efforts to tie conservatives to Loughner's actions.

PHIL ELMORE

I do not want you to think that I am "blue-skying" you today, but I must tout two of the most important columns in a long time that were written this week: This one, by Erik, and the other being Phil Elmore's column, "Leftists' Horrible Paradox," both being published at wnd.com on Thursday, January 13. And why do I feel that they are so important? It is because they are both a call to the American people to wake up, unite, and not allow peaceful dissent to be suppressed or silenced by our government!

It almost makes me wonder if Erik and Phil somehow collaborated on these two columns! Once you have read them both, I believe that you will agree: Americans shouldn't be complacent when it comes to the the kind of divisive attacks that have been made on those of us that have peacefully dissented against what seems to be an arrogant abuse of government power and control in our lives.  Our future depends on having the freedom to nonviolently express our beliefs. Without that, no matter if you are on the Right or the Left, Conservative or Liberal, Republican or Democrat, tea-partier or Janeane Garofalo, Vicki Jackson or Bill Maher, none of us will be free.

And my bet will be that upon Gabby's full recovery, God willing, she would agree with both of these two patriots!

You see, they didn't expect us to fight. Americans who do have an idea of who we are and what our nation represents were supposed to shut up and die – or more accurately, to stay asleep, to lay down and just let the socialists have their turn.

Shut up and die

ERIK RUSH

By Erik Rush

January 13, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

I recall an anecdote my father used to relate from time to time concerning a young man he'd seen on the way home from his job in Manhattan one evening during the mid-1960s. This man had been standing on a retaining wall, passionately preaching peace, love and tolerance to passers-by. What gave my dad pause always came at the end of the story, and had to do with this young orator's tone, his general comportment, body language and so forth.

He had looked like he wanted to rip someone limb from limb.

On Jan. 8, 2011, 22-year-old Jared Loughner shot 20 people at town-hall style meeting in Tucson, Ariz. Six were killed, including a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl. Gabrielle Giffords, a congressional representative, was critically injured with a gunshot wound to the head.

Regardless of what political leanings, if any, it turns out that Jared Loughner had, he did not pull the trigger for political reasons; he did so because he is dangerously deranged. This fact, more than any information yet revealed, stands out more than any other.

Within minutes of the tragic incident initially being reported, however, emissaries of the political left had convicted those on the political right – from prominent entertainers, commentators and politicians, to grass-roots activists – of either provoking or inspiring Loughner's attack.

All of this was exacerbated by the blatantly partisan and irresponsible blabbering of Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik. As though he were qualified to make the above diagnosis, this armchair psychiatric clinician chimed in with liberal politicians, activists and the establishment press, essentially blaming talk radio, conservative Internet publications, blogs and Fox News for somehow pushing the demented young man over the edge. Since then, the instances of prominent progressives taking to the airwaves to condemn the right have been nearly too numerous to mention.

Though it has long been and remains a wholly baseless claim, those on the left have long charged those on the right with advocating violence, fomenting civil unrest, employing "hate speech" and generally advancing a militant worldview. Thus, it was not surprising that the incident of Jan. 8 precipitated the left's attempt to make political gains out of it.

Earlier this week, WND's Bob Unruh detailed a few of many of the antagonistic terms and phraseology used by President Obama over the last two years. In October, ex-Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., said that Florida's Republican Gov. Rick Scott should be put against a wall and shot. And just last week, one of Obama's idols, communist professor Frances Piven (whose methodology was used to bring about the financial implosion resulting from the subprime mortgage debacle) was calling for violent revolution in America.

So, who is employing inflammatory rhetoric?

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Loughner, language and the Big Lie ~ By ILANA MERCER

Liberals contend that free, right-wing speech drove Loughner over the edge. I would counter thus: The perversion of speech – and the manifest discrepancy between words and what they stand for – is what encourages "madness" and mayhem in individuals like Loughner.

An inability to deal with incongruity does not imply an absence of mens rea (criminal intent). "Crazies" know right from wrong.

We are all equally exposed to the Big Lies pushed by the country's so-called cognoscenti. The political class has manufactured a parallel universe for us to inhabit. We are, however, all free to refuse to occupy it.

Just in case you weren't sure, one of the definitions of semantics is:

the branch of linguistics that deals with the study of meaning, changes in meaning, and the principles that govern the relationship between sentences or words and their meanings

~ Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition

Ilana Mercer tries to explain the relationship between Loughner's madness and his obsession with the government and the incongruity of semantics. In other words... I have no idea. But the column is interesting enough that it is worth reading.


Loughner, language and the Big Lie

ILANA MERCER

By Ilana Mercer

January 14, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

"What is government if words have no meaning?" Jared Lee Loughner asked Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., in 2007.

Loughner was attending a Giffords "Congress in Your Corner" get-together. The gracious congresswoman attempted to answer the youth's riddle. As we now know, no reply would have satisfied or stilled the mind of this obsessive individual.

Four years later, on Jan. 8, 2011, Loughner went on a rampage outside a Tucson grocery store, where the representative held a similar event. He killed six people and wounded 14, among whom was Gabrielle Giffords.

Loughner was both fixated on his representative's imagined failings, and preoccupied with language and its misuse. These elements combined and then combusted in his head.

As a writer who really loves the English language, I am intrigued by the intrusive, persistent thoughts about grammar and illiteracy to have plagued Loughner.

You see, as I mourn the senseless slaughter of my countrymen, I also grieve – with almost every book I pick up or Internet tract I read – the bastardization of the language.

Given time, the nation's mental-health mavens will confuse matters. They will likely assert, without any science, that misfiring neurotransmitters in the man's brain brought us to this point. It would appear, however, that what pushed Loughner into an abyss was the inability to "read" the world around him.

Words are symbols. They are used as agreed-upon conventions to make sense of the world. For Loughner, these constructs no longer corresponded to the things they are supposed to describe.

The magazine Mother Jones interviewed Bryce Tierney, a close friend of Loughner. Tierney confirmed "the fascination Loughner had with semantics and how the world is really nothing – [an] illusion." In addition, Loughner, said his pal, liked to insist (credibly) that government was "f---ing us over."

Perhaps, then, it was not speech per se that inflamed Loughner's febrile passions, but, rather, Orwellian speech; lies that belie reality.

The Big Lies.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Look behind the eyes of Jared Loughner

Some have speculated that Loughner's anti-government rants, published on his YouTube site, may identify the accused killer as a tea-party-type activist.

As WND reported, however, his classmate Caitie Parker wrote of Loughner, "As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal and oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy."

Loughner also listed on his YouTube channel among his favorite books Karl Marx's "The Communist Manifesto" and Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf," casting further doubt on the notion that he was an angered tea-party type.

I actually had somebody tell me yesterday that the shooter in the Tuscon tragedy was "probably some tea-party whacko." I asked him where he got that idea. He said, "from the local newspaper." Oh, you mean like in the letters to the editor or an editorial column? Nope. In a news story. It was quoted from some politician (but he didn't remember who it was that was quoted).

So, okay, we are in luck today. I saw this excellent column on WorldNetDaily.com. We can all now try to dispel the misinformation.

Look behind the eyes of Jared Loughner

Investigations reveal shooter's toxic mix of drugs, occult activity, radical politics

By Drew Zahn

January 10, 2011 ~ 6:39 pm Eastern

© 2011 WorldNetDaily

22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner is in police custody, accused of opening fire into a crowd in Tucson, Ariz., killing six and critically wounding Democratic U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Jared Lee Loughner

Thousands of news reports have described him as "troubled," "disturbed" or a "loner."

Loughner's YouTube and MySpace accounts give clues to his thoughts, but mostly contain disjointed, rambling diatribes about illiteracy, the government, mind control and "conscience dreaming."

But what else is known about the background of Loughner?

He lived with his parents – who have yet to speak to the media – the Associated Press reports, "in a middle-class neighborhood lined with desert landscaping and palm trees" about five minutes from the scene of the shooting. Neighbors reportedly described him as walking his dog, wearing a hooded sweatshirt, listening to heavy metal on his iPod and keeping to himself.

The more America learns about the accused assassin, however, the more disturbing the picture of this "disturbed" young man becomes.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

AP: Arizona Rep. Giffords shot, 6 killed in rampage

A terribly tragic shooting occurred early Saturday afternoon that shook the country. It happened in Tucson, Arizona. I was looking for the story, and my google search found this one for me, where FoxNews.com had picked up this Associated Press story.

Before I tell you what I thought of this news article, I do want to pass on my condolences to all of the families that lost a loved one, or that have somebody fighting for life in the hospital. It was a horrible and senseless act of violence.

But here is what really bothered me about this story, and the way it was written. Just for starters, they spelled the name of the alleged shooter both as Jared Laugher and Jared Loughner, and one time they did that in the same paragraph:

The suspect's exact motivation was not clear, but a former classmate described Laugher as a pot-smoking loner who had rambling beliefs about the world. Federal law enforcement officials were poring over versions of a MySpace page that belonged to Jared Loughner and over a YouTube video published weeks ago...

But, if that was not bad enough - clearly the editor dropped the ball on that - the story goes on and on about vitriolic political rhetoric and violence against politicians and lawyers. It was what Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said that seemed so creepy. He was really pushing the vitriol and violence thing, and you know who he was trying to blame from this statement: "When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government." Am I out of line to guess that when he said "out of certain mouths," he was either talking about certain conservative talk radio hosts, or possibly even Sarah Palin? Or maybe he is still upset about Arizona's SB 1070, Gov. Jan Brewer's immigration legislation. Sure, Sheriff, way to spread that vitriol.

So, once again, before all the facts are in, people - or so-called journalists - are trying to blame conservative talk radio for the violent act in Tucson. However, from what we read in this column about the alleged shooter, Jared What-Ever-His-Last-Name-Is, tends to fit the profile of an anarchist:

High school classmate Grant Wiens, 22, said Loughner seemed to be "floating through life" and "doing his own thing."

"Sometimes religion was brought up or drugs. He smoked pot, I don't know how regularly. And he wasn't too keen on religion from what I could tell," Wiens said.

I'll guarantee you that as more facts come out about the gunman, there will be no doubt that he is not a Conservative Right-wing Christian. I'm just sayin'....


UPDATE:
January 9, 2010 at 23:45 CST

Here is the complete video of the statement by Sheriff Clarence Dupnik:

Video provided by Attention101 on January 09, 2011

Furthermore, from a story on the Christian Science Monitor, we have this:

A possible link between Jared Lee Loughner, the primary suspect in the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, and American Renaissance, the publication of an anti-immigration group, offers potential new insights into what may have caused the 22-year-old Arizonan to carry out the attack, which killed six people and wounded more than a dozen outside a Tucson, Ariz. stripmall on Saturday.

The CSMonitor story continues on to say:

American Renaissance is the publication of the The New Century Foundation, described by the Anti-Defamation League as a "self-styled think tank." The ADL, on its website, calls American Renaissance a "white supremacist journal and companion Website" that "promotes pseudoscientific studies that attempt to demonstrate the intellectual and cultural superiority of whites and publishes articles on the supposed decline of American society because of integrationist social policies."

It turns out that my hunches were correct! And we can say, Jared Lee Loughner isn't your typical American, and he's definitely not a Tea-partier, that would turn to violence because of the "vitriolic political rhetoric." 

Therefor, my belief is that Sheriff Clarence Dupnik may just be your typical liberal!

RELATED STORY:
The Sheriff's Vitriol ~ By John Kubicek


AP: Arizona Rep. Giffords shot, 6 killed in rampage

FoxNews.com

Published January 08, 2011 | Associated Press


Associated Press Writers Pauline Arrillaga in Tucson, Jacques Billeaud, Bob Christie and Paul Davenport in Phoenix, and Espo, Matt Apuzzo, Eileen Sullivan, Adam Goldman and Charles Babington in Washington contributed to this report.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ)

TUCSON, Ariz. – Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona was shot in the head Saturday by a gunman who opened fire outside a grocery store during a meeting with voters, killing a federal judge and five others in a rampage that rattled the country and left Americans questioning whether divisive politics had pushed the suspect over the edge.

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said Giffords was the target of a gunman whom he described as mentally unstable and possibly acting along with an accomplice. He said Giffords was among 13 people wounded in the melee that killed six people, including Arizona's chief federal judge, a 9-year-old girl and an aide for the Democratic lawmaker. He said the rampage ended only after two people tackled the gunman.

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik

The sheriff pointed to the vitriolic political rhetoric that has consumed the country as he denounced the shooting that claimed several of his friends as victims, including U.S. District Judge John Roll. The judge celebrated Mass on Saturday morning like he does every day before stopping by to say hello to his good friend Giffords.

"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous," the sheriff said. "And unfortunately, Arizona I think has become the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."  [Emphasis my own]

READ FULL STORY at FoxNews.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!