Mountaineerfan's Blog

I'm posting this here because i think it's sorta strange that this story of using a handgun for self defense didn't make Fox 5 News despite making every other major local network.I wonder why not?

Even more ironic is the fact that there was another liquor stor robbery later that evening in Lanham which was foiled by an undercover cop.Needless to say that story got all kinds of coverage from Fox 5.

LARGO, Md. - The co-owner of a Largo liquor shot and killed a man during an attempted robbery Friday, police said.

Bill Miles, another co-owner of Kettering Liquors, was there. He saw the shooting. He says the would-be robber came in with a gun and a struggle ensued. Officers say it ended when Miles' business partner pulled out his gun and shot the man.

"There were a lot of us in the tussle and so it didn't work out too well for the other guy," Miles said. "It's tragic. Somebody died today. Good news is, it wasn't one of us. It was the bad guy."

The owner who shot the man was identified as Bill Robertson by Carolyn Tucker, a store employee.

"He must have thought somebody was going to get hurt," she said.

Tucker arrived for work around 8:30 Friday morning. She was met by police officers, crime scene tape and the news one of her employers shot and killed a robber. Tucker said it was the first hold-up she knew of at Kettering Liquors.

Solly Sellers, a Kettering Liquor customer, defended the co-owner's actions: "Would you defend yourself if you got robbed? Sure you should defend yourself. Why not?"

The co-owner who opened fire has not been charged. Investigators will determine whether the shooting was justified.

A handgun was recovered from the deceased man at the scene, police said.

Neighboring business owners in the shopping center say the area has been plagued with crime. The liquor store is protected by bars on its windows and, according to a friend of the owner, it has barbed wire in the ceiling to protect against burglars who come in through the roof.

Kevin McMann, another merchant in the Largo Plaza, said, "It's unfortunate for the robber, but it, you know, had to be done, in my opinion. Maybe it'll send a message out to other people: Don't mess with the owners."

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1208/577329.html
 

His Excellency Peter Ogego, Kenyan Ambassador to the United States admitted in this radio interview that Barack Obama was born in Kenya!

Listen in while Michigan Radio Talk Show Mike Clark,co-host of WRIF's "Mike In The Morning",asked Kenya Ambassador Ogego if there was going to be a marker where Barack Obama was born in Kenya,to which he replied "it is already an attraction."

The next question fronted to Ambassador Ogego was "Will they put up a marker at Obama's birthplace there?" to which Ogego claimed  "it's already well known!"

Check the radio show here at the 12 minute,39 second mark:

http://my.wrif.com/mim/?p=916 

Also,did anyone see anything at all about `Bama'a grandmother's funeral?Why didn't he attend?Where was it held?Was it held?Why no pics in any media?Why no press release?

Been kinda wondering about this myself.First disarm the American populace,then.................

Posted: July 15, 2008

By Joseph Farah

For WorldNetDaily
 

With all the reporters covering the major presidential candidates, it amazes me no one ever seems to ask the right questions.

For several days now, WND has been hounding Barack Obama's campaign about a statement he made July 2 in Colorado Springs – a statement that blew my mind, one that has had me scratching my head ever since.

In talking about his plans to double the size of the Peace Corps and nearly quadruple the size of AmeriCorps and the size of the nation's military services , he made this rather shocking (and chilling) pledge: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Now, since I've never heard anyone inside or out of government use the phrase "civilian national security force" before, I was more than a little curious about what he has in mind.

Is it possible I am the only journalist in America who sought clarification on this campaign promise?

What does it mean?

If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?

I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

Now, maybe he was misquoted by the Congressional Quarterly and the Chicago Tribune. I guess it's possible. If so, you would think he would want to set the record straight. Maybe he misspoke. That has certainly happened before. Again, why wouldn't the rest of my colleagues show some curiosity about such a major and, frankly, bone-chilling proposition?

Are we talking about creating a police state here?

The U.S. Army alone has nearly 500,000 troops. That doesn't count reserves or National Guard. In 2007, the U.S. Defense budget was $439 billion.

Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that?

If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?

So far, despite our attempts to find out, the Obama campaign is not talking.

At this point all I can do is enlist your help – and the help of every other journalist who still thinks the American people have a right to know the specifics about a presidential candidate's biggest and boldest initiatives before the election. I also want to ask radio talk-show hosts across America to start asking this same question. I have a feeling if others join our quest, we might yet get clarification on this proposal from Obama.

Who will Obama appoint to administer this new "civilian national security force"? Where will the money come from? Where in the Constitution does he see justification for the federal government creating such a domestic army? 

The questions are endless.

But before we can hope to get to the specifics, we need much more in the way of generalizations from Obama.

Certainly there have been initiatives like this elsewhere – Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, North Korea. But has anything like this ever been proposed in a free country?

I have a feeling there would be more questions from the press if I myself had proposed the creation of something as preposterous as a "civilian national security force" than there has been about this proposal by the presidential candidate currently leading in most of the polls. I'm quite sure I would be hung out to dry as some kind of Nazi thug. Meanwhile, Obama makes this wild suggestion and it is met with a collective yawn from the watchdogs.

Help me out here. What am I missing?

Can I get a hand?

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. His latest book is "None of the Above: Why 2008 is the year to cast the ultimate protest vote." He also edits the online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=69601 <
/p>

By NWV News Director, Jim Kouri
For NewsWithViews.com
November 8, 2008

ACORN, the publicly funded national organization linked to voter fraud in several states is now actively interfering with the exercise of firearm civil rights in New Jersey, and the Second Amendment Foundation is calling for an immediate federal investigation.

One example of ACORN's gun control activism is when its officials intervened in an unsuccessful attempt to defend Jersey City, New Jersey's local gun control ordinance, which was struck down December 13, 2006 in New Jersey state court as a violation of state law pre-empting stronger local gun ordinances.

"ACORN has, since 1998, received an estimated $31 million in government funding," said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. "Now they have intervened in a New Jersey gun rights case in defense of an illegal Jersey City one-gun-a-month ordinance that violates the state preemption statute."

"For the past few election cycles," Gottlieb noted, "ACORN has clearly grown more partisan toward the political Left. ACORN'S PAC has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president. That's hardly surprising since he used to serve as their legal counsel and he taught the group about community organizing. ACORN and Obama are lockstep in seeking to destroy our Second Amendment rights," he stated.

"The organization is currently under FBI investigation over allegations of voter fraud in several states," he added.

"Bad enough that ACORN is implicated in fraudulent activities in several states, but now an ACORN chapter in the Garden State is working against the ability of New Jersey gun owners to exercise a constitutionally protected individual civil right to own a handgun," said former NYPD detective, Sid Frances.

"It is an outrage that this group has intervened to defend an antigun ordinance that has already been declared illegal by the court," he observed. "So long as ACORN accepts one penny of public funding, the organization should remain absolutely neutral on social issues, political campaigns and especially legal actions defending the right to keep and bear arms."

"We call upon the FBI to expand the scope of its ACORN investigation and focus on the group's involvement in the Jersey City case," Gottlieb stated.

"We support Ohio Congressman John Boehner's request that the White House immediately block all federal funding of ACORN activities until this group's questionable activities are fully investigated. We want to know how they are paying for attorneys, and why Seton Hall's Center for Social Justice and the Public Interest Law Center are providing legal assistance to ACORN for this effort."

"This is still the United States, not a socialist gulag," Gottlieb concluded. "Public money should not be given to private organizations which then turn around and utilize that funding to usurp the electoral process and erode constitutionally guaranteed civil rights."

Other political observers see something more sinister at play with Obama and ACORN's interest in disarming law-abiding citizens.

"This gun control effort is part of an overall government takeover by the radical left who now control the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The next part of the Obama-ACORN plan is a new military force separate from the US Armed Forces," claims political strategist Mike Baker.

"Obama has called for a 'civilian national security force' as powerful as the US military, comments that were ignored by the vast majority of the corporate media but compared by conservatives to the Nazi Hitler Youth," warns Baker.

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded," said Senator Obama during his campaign.

The idea wasn't Obama’s but Robert Gates’ which might explain why Obama is toying with the idea of keeping him on in his administration, claims Det. Frances.

"An Obama Administration will accelerate the rush toward the New-World Order: first, by confiscating privately owned weapons, followed by creating a military force that would have jurisdiction within the US mainland. It will happen sooner than we believed," said the decorated former New York police officer.

http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news106.htm

Well y'all I never though for a second that the Brits could outdo what they did in the article I posted just recently about how Bristol authorities were advicing homeowners to not lock their shed because it might make it too hard for thieves to break into them,thus creating more damage.

Just when I thought I couldn't look at the mega liberal Brits and their attitude of putting crooks before average citizens with any more intense of a "What the holy hell???!!!" factor then this little tidbit comes along.

Once again,welcome to Liberalville!

dailymail.co.uk

By Daily Mail Reporter

09th October 2008

A gardener who fenced off his allotment with barbed wire after being 
targeted by thieves has been ordered to take it down - in case 
intruders scratch themselves.

Bill Malcolm erected the 3ft fence after thieves struck three times in 
just four months, stealing tools worth around 300 pounds-sterling from 
his shed and ransacking his vegetable patch.

But Bromsgrove district council has ordered the 61-year-old to remove 
the waist-high fence on health and safety grounds.
Bill Malcolm

Mr Malcolm, who has grown potatoes, onions, beetroot and asparagus on 
two patches at the Round Hill allotments in Marlbrook, Worcestershire, 
for the past eight years, said: 'It's an absolutely ridiculous 
situation.

'All I wanted was to protect my property but the wire had to go in 
case a thief scratched himself.

'The fence was just a single strand and ringing my property. It was 
only 3ft high - it wasn't as though I'd dug a moat filled with piranha 
fish and erected 6ft iron railings.

'The council said they were unhappy about the precautions I had made 
but my response was to tell them that only someone climbing over on to 
my allotment could possibly hurt themselves.
Bill Malcolm

'They shouldn't be trespassing in the first place but the council 
apologised and said they didn't want to be sued by a wounded thief.

'I told them to let the thief sue me so at least that way I would know 
who was breaking into my allotment but everything I said fell on deaf 
ears. It seems as though they are so wrapped up in red tape, they are 
unable to help me.'

Mr Malcolm said he had been robbed three times since June, along with 
around 16 of the 50 allotment keepers on the site.

'About 300 pounds-sterling worth of tools were taken, including 
everything from a stainless steel border spade and pitchforks to 
screwdrivers and hammers,' he added. 'The thieves cut through steel 
locks on the shed, or broke in through the windows. I caught one lad 
of about 16 red-handed.

'He dropped the bag of tools and fled, but although the police took a 
description and finger prints, I heard nothing. Another time yobs 
broke in and completely trashed my potato and vegetable patches.

'A lot of people, myself included, are growing our own veg to beat the 
credit crunch. But what's the point if they are going to be ripped up 
by mindless idiots?

'I take care of this allotment but it's very demoralising to have your 
belongings stolen and your hard work ruined.'

A spokesman for Bromsgrove council said: 'With regard to the barbed 
wire, when this is identified on site, we are obliged to request its 
removal or remove it on health and safety grounds.'

Sergeant Nick Husbands, of West Mercia Police, said: 'We can confirm 
that five thefts from Round Hill allotments have been reported in the 
past year.

'These have mainly been from sheds and our advice to allotment holders 
is not to leave anything of value there.'

Mr Malcolm's plight comes just weeks after Bristol council angered 
allotment holders by urging them not to lock their sheds in case 
burglars damaged them breaking in.

http://tinyurl.com/4bufva 

I'm not going to linger long on this because,frankly,I'm tired of MrsSouthern's silliness and childlike demeanor.

MrsSouthern,I will sum all of this up real simple for you.I posted a single comment to your blog which you deleted.Apparently your definition of "inappropriate" is anything which doesn't jive with your own opinion given how many other's comments you deleted too.

Once you deleted my comments I used a loophole to reply to you by posting a reponse as a seperate blog of my own.As much as you may hate it that is my right.I thought the issue you presented was too important to see yet another appologetic post on it and then stand by and censor anyone who didn't agree with them.

On my reply blog I brought up some facts and some historical talking points.I invited anyone to tackle them.All of a sudden you and your alias "Concetoduet" show up along with another potential alias "Wifemom" all trying to talk me into deleting my blog to which I have refused.I know you are Concetoduet because I caught you redhanded.You posted a comment while being signed in as MrsSouthern but you had forgotten and thought you were signed in as Concertoduet.Busted!

Then you show up as Wifemom trying to talk me into deleting my reply blog so that I could "win it"(whatever it is)"my way and not hers".Like I said "Nice try!" after which I post a comment asking MrsSouthern to never reply or she would be deleted.Sorry but you did nothing but harrass me and try to smear me by projecting you own character flaws onto me.If you had just tried to tackle one issue honestly............Contrary to your demensia no-one is playing a game with you.

Now all of a sudden you show up like five times today as MrsSouthern ranting and raving about how I am harrassing YOU when in fact it is YOU who are harrassing ME.

Well MrsSouthern you go right ahead and talk whatever because you've already got yer foot into your mouth clear up to the knee.Wanna go for the whole leg?

Yesterday yet another newbie joined our ranks and is turning out to be another Liberal censor Nazi.Yet again someone comes along who can only win an arguement be censoring others.

I won't post the whole content of that person's blog as it is just a couple of frames away anyhow.I will,howevr,post my own comments and the replies I got in return after being censored by this person.

MrsSouthern might I suggest you move to another country where they encourage this type of indoctrination?Or,at a minimum,just get out of the kitchen if you can't stand the heat.

My first reply to MrsSouthern was:

"What a fat load!Truth is that racism is almost non-existant in this world except amongst people like you who have to keep it alive for the sake of using it as a scapegoat every time some white person disagrees with you.

"Oh,No!A white man doesn't agree with me so he MUST be a racist!Goodness knows that there can be nothing else whatsoever to blame for his dislike of me because I'm so perfect."

Oh,please!Tell it to Jesse and Al."

The answer I recieved went this way:

"Mr. Mountaineerfan

First of all my race is white and my family was very much apart of the civil rights era. But I am no fool to believe that racism and prejudice no longer exist. It still does just in a different fashion. I respect what you have to write but I will not tolerate name calling, we are adults and therefore we all should be able to voice our opinions without personal attacks or bashing.

I do appreciate your feedback and thank you."

To this I then responded:

"Yes,I figured you possibly for a white appologetic after finally reading your profile.You're the biggest sucker of all.Blacks have used your sense of guilt and remorse to beat you down.They use that same ol' "whitey hates me" story and whenever someone contradicts them they bring up the slavery bit.
Well,I'll tell you what.I'll feel sorry for what my ancestors did during the early America period when blacks feel sorry for the tens of millions of white slaves they bought from Europe and shipped to Africa during the Viking era.
I will also feel a bit more sorry for them when they quit telling the story of slavery as one where whitey ran through the jungle rounding up blacks willy nilly as apposed to the way it really happened with established dominate black tribes who had been rounding up inferior tribes and selling them to the middle east for thousands of years already.The Dutch and the Spanish were just late comers in an already well established market.BTW,where are the demands from blacks regarding compensation from middle easterners?How about the Spanish/Mexicans?Oh,I forgot....it was all "whitey's" fault.
Last thing is that no matter who you are you do not have a right to be liked by anyone,much less everyone.The Constitution of the U.S. protects no such right.You do on the other hand have a right to be tolerated by others.In other words you may not like me or my ways but you do have to tolerate me.
We all do,however,have the right to dislike anyone or anything we choose.If I don't like some other race besides my own then that's o.k. because I have the right not to.I also have the right to express my displeasure with them.On the other hand I should not be allowed to treat minorities or any other group unfairly in employment or business.Public life is one thing,private life is another.
Blacks and other special interest groups have had equal rights since the ERA.IMO everything since has been an attempt to gain more than others and to force their own lifestyles upon us and to gain more than their fair share.For instance a single gay couple in NYC having all Christmas activities banned from NYC schools because "they" might feel "insulted".Where is their tolerance now?What were they willing to sacrifice in order to accept MY religion?How about blacks passing laws saying that I have to hire/accept someone less qualified just so the darker crayons get used when I color the picture of my workforce or classroom?"

The final response "I" recieved was actually posted to someone else.Not even the gonads to address me directly:

"Mr. Arky51

Thank you for your feedback and you are welcome. I disagree with name calling, and I have seen a lot on this community blog. Southern hospitality does not involve displaying personal attacks; opinions can be made without getting personal. No one has to agree with me but I would appreciate if the topic is discussed and not taking the time to hurl insults at me for writing my opinion. I think it is very much southern hospitality; I just don’t want it on my blog. I have always been gracious with any blogger even when I disagree and that is southern hospitality. I have no problem in removing my response to Mountainneerfan."

Anyone who so desired may post their comments to MrsSouthern right here on this blog

Anyone who knows anything about Democrats in general and Obama in particular knows that they despise the Constitution of the United States.Obama has,in the past,shown support for attacks on both the 1st and 2nd Amendments.Well,here is just another example.

Now what's really ironic,and funny as hell IMO,is that the newspaper doing the griping is none other than the Free Lance Star  out of Fredericksburg,Va.Y'all remember them don't ya?Look back through my archives and you will see all sorts of stories from them calling for outright bans on the 2nd Amendment as well as their habit of tossing slews of insults at gun owners.

Oh and if you've been around here for more than two years you may remember the Freelance as the paper that likes to publish shopping lists for gun thieves by printing the names and adresses of everyone in the Fredericksburg area with concealed carry permits.A blatant attempt at harrassment of gun owners.

Now look at how they cry when their precious 1st is being attacked.Typical liberal pick and choose.

Free Lance Star - Fredericksburg
September 27, 2008

NOT ALL COUNTRIES guarantee their citizens the right to virtually 
unbridled freedom of speech. The United States does. Would someone 
please tell the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama? And the dozing 
guardians of liberty at the University of Mary Washington?

Mr. Obama, the Democratic nominee for president, is scheduled to speak 
at a rally at the university today. The public is invited to this 
forum, on property it, the public, owns. However, signs and banners 
will not be allowed, according to the organizers and compliant campus 
officials. Suddenly, UMW is a First Amendment-Free, or at least a 
First Amendment-Crippled, Zone, subject to the self-serving 
preferences of politicos. Why does an Obama rally--or a McCain rally 
or a Nader rally--justify taking a little off the top of Americans' 
most fundamental rights?

A UMW spokeswoman says that the Obama campaign required the sign-and-
banner ban. That campaign tells us that the ban is for "security" 
reasons. But a spokesman for the U.S. Secret Service, responsible for 
protecting presidential candidates, says that the service has no 
objection to signs at rallies, provided that no "part of the sign 
could be used as a weapon"--e.g., a heavy metal pole or a sharpened 
stick. Finally, the McCain campaign tells us, "We encourage people to 
make signs at our events."

Regarding today's event, one would expect better from a campaign 
bearing the name of a former professor of constitutional law. (See 
Ambrose Bierce's definition of a lawyer: "one skilled in circumventing 
the law.") And one would expect much better from a university that, in 
pursuit of a day of celebrity, a boost in prestige, and profits from 
its book store's planned commemorative Obama T-shirts (now scotched), 
shaves away an American liberty purchased by men who turned white snow 
red and dry dirt wet with their sacrificial blood. This is a lot to 
swap for a mess of pottage. Remarks the Rutherford Institute's John 
Whitehead, who has turpentined the Bush administration's civil-rights 
record, "The Secret Service has a better free-speech viewpoint than 
the college."

The First Amendment guarantees the freedoms of religion, speech, the press, peaceable assembly, petition of the government. Will one who aspires to the title Defender of the Constitution begin inhibiting these First Freedoms even before he is in office--at a public university?

http://tinyurl.com/3me5o5

Once again another pro-self defense story not heard in the news.Once again more people that Obama would leave defenseless.

Bernard Baker
Danville Register and Bee
Published: September 27, 2008

A few hours after two men attempted to rob the Corner Cupboard on Thursday night and fled with nothing, a group of Averett University students was robbed on Chatham Avenue, Danville police said Friday.

The clerk at Corner Cupboard told officers that two men entered the Wooding Avenue convenience store shortly before 9:30 p.m. and one of them was carrying a shotgun, Lt. Mike Mondul said.

“The clerk retrieved his own firearm and the two men fled from the scene,” the police spokesman said.

Police describe the suspects as black males. One suspect was wearing a brown jacket, while the other was a tall male wearing a black, hooded jacket. The male with the hooded jacket had the shotgun, Mondul said.

He said a group of Averett University students then told police they were robbed in the 700 block of Chatham Avenue at about 11:45 p.m.

In this case, a shotgun was fired into the car the students were riding in, Mondul said.

“During the encounter, the man with the shotgun fired a shot into the vehicle, breaking the passenger door glass of the Ford Explorer the group was riding in,” he said. No injuries were reported.

The group of students, which consisted of four men in their late teens, said they gave the suspects an undetermined amount of money, police said.

The suspect carrying the shotgun was described as wearing a dark, hooded jacket. The other suspect had a handgun and also was wearing a dark-colored jacket, police said.

Police said they are investigating the possibility that the two incidents may be related and said they have a suspect in the Chatham Avenue case.

Anyone with information about these crimes is encouraged to contact Danville Crime Stoppers at (434) 793-0000, or via the crime tips line at crimetips@ci.danville.va.us. Information given will remain confidential.

http://www.wsls.com/sls/news/local/southside/artic
le/danville_police_think_robberies_may_be_linked/18233/
 

Anyone want to guess what the reaction of the authorities would have been to this incident in Maryland or D.C.?

Also,I wonder why this story never showed up on the news?I'll bet that if this gal had been shot with a stolen gun by one of these thugs it would have been first run for days.Go ahead Fox and tell me I'm wrong.

By Elisa Glushefski

For InsideNoVa.com

Published: September 29, 2008

Three robbers wielding scissors picked the wrong place to rob over the weekend, police say.

Three would-be robbers, one armed with a pair of scissors, walked into a Woodbridge store on Saturday morning with criminal intent.

They left empty-handed and apparently more than a little frightened.

About 11:30 a.m. the three walked into Tienda Hispana Esperanza. One rushed to the counter and pointed the scissors at the owner's neck and another grabbed her son’s arm, the family that owns the store said Monday.

But the owner, Esperanza Salazar, 36, reacted immediately.

She leaned back and reached for her handgun and pointed it at the three unknown males, the Salazar family said.

"It kind of looked like 'The Matrix,' " said 14-year-old Julio Salazar, who was

working at the store with his mother that day.

One of the would-be robbers immediately ran out of the store, located on PR Business Center Drive. A second robber, who wielded the scissors, tried to run out of the store but tripped on a clothes rack and fell. He finally crawled out the front door.

The third robber paused and sat down in a folding chair, putting his hands in the air. When Esperanza Salazar told her son to call 911, the third man ran for the door and momentarily got tangled in the clothes rack before running out of the store.

All three eventually ran toward the back of the business center off Smoketown Road, according to police.

Esperanza Salazar, with her son translating for her, said that while she was nervous, she wouldn't have let anything happen to her son.

The investigation revealed that the three had been loitering outside the store before the robbery attempt, but it was unknown for how long, said police spokeswoman Officer Erika Hernandez.

"Based on the witnesses statements, it appeared they were staking out the business," Hernandez said.

Officers, including a K-9 unit, searched the area and surrounding businesses for roughly 2 1/2 hours but found no one, Hernandez said.

Police said the first would-be robber was described as a Latino man, 30 to 35 years old, collar-length straight hair, with a medium build and a mustache. He was wearing a green sweater with a white T-shirt underneath, a black baseball cap, black sneakers and glasses.

The second robber, who was armed with the pair of scissors, was described as a Latino man, 20 to 21 years old, with a medium build and shoulder-length curly hair, police said. He was wearing a white T-shirt, blue jeans and a black cap with letters on the back.

The third robber was described as a Latino male, between 17 and 18 years old, collar-length straight hair, with a medium build and unshaven chin. He was wearing a light brown shirt and blue jeans.

Anyone with information about this incident is asked to call Prince William County Crime Solvers at 1-866-411-TIPS. Callers don't have to give their names, just the information, and could earn up to a $1,000 cash re-ward

http://www.insidenova.com/isn/news/crime/article/m
other_fends_off_robbers_with_handgun/21884/ 

Holy freakin' sh-t on a shingle!!!!!! I thought `Bama's comments about Christians and gun lovers being "bitter" and "clingy" was off base and brain dead backazzwards but this is really out in left field.Hell this is out of the park and making it's way out of the parking lot.

I wonder if it actually hurts to be this stupid?It must.Surely they must realize that someone is probably rolling tape and that someone will hear it outside of their little elitist  "club".

Sad thing is I actually had a bit of respect for this jackazz.Well,so much for that sh-t,huh?

For The Dakota Voice

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/10/senate-candidat
e-homeschoolers-pro.html 

Posted by Bob Ellis

I haven't been following closely the Virginia senate race between Democrat Mark Warner and Republican Jim Gilmore (to replace the retiring Senator John Warner).

But I came across this clip this morning and found it startling. I found it startling not for what was said--because I hear Democrats saying things like this every day, just not ones running for office--but because someone was actually able to record it. Democrats--at least ones running for public office--are usually more circumspect about their true feelings like this.

In this clip, you'll hear Democrat Senate candidate Mark Warner tell a group

So Christianity is threatening to what it means to be an American?

So living out one's faith as if it really mattered is threatening to what it means to be an American?

So protecting innocent human life is threatening to what it means to be an American?

So defending the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is threatening to what it means to be an American?

So parents teaching their children, to preserve their moral center and ensure a quality education, is threatening to what it means to be an American?

Well, I guess I've been wrong all these years about what it means to be an American

And apparently the people who founded America were also wrong about what it means to be an American.

Because the kind of things Mark Warner finds repugnant and threatening to what it means to be an American...these are the kind of values the Founders held to be so deeply important.

It's interesting to know that people like me and people like the Founders didn't understand that being an American is really about total sexual license, denial of the Creator who gave us our rights, and total subservience to the state.

I'm glad Mark Warner set us straight on that.

It is very, very rare indeed to see a Democrat with the courage to tell us what they really believe, and set us straight on "what it means to be an American."

A short but sweet article pointing out just how `Bama is all for coddling criminals and supporting crime while making the innocent suffer.

When I was 13 I,along with most males I knw and even a few females,had already been handling firearms for years.The thought of using them to solve an issue with another person never entered our minds.I can assure you too that if we had it would have been our azzez going off the deep end because no-one,and I mean NO-one,would have been blaming the gun.

Pay attention `Bama and Peaceaholics leader and liar Ron Molten.The availability of guns is NOT the problem.The sorry BLEEP job you have done at instilling any sense of morality upon these kids is the problem.

This story makes me think back to about a year and a half ago when that 13 year old girl was shot execution style by another 13 year old gang banger.He hopped right out of the car,walked up to her in a crowd and started blasting away.

Later on when this little punk was arrested who shows up to not only protest his arrest but to demand his release without bail?????Marion Barry and Ron Molten.

This is the sort of thing `Bama supports.

From The Buckeye Firearms Association

Submitted by cbaus on Tue, 10/07/2008

Buckeye Firearms Association endorsee and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin delivered headlines across America this weekend by drawing attention to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's long-time connections to unrepentant former terrorist Bill Ayers.

Obama's campaign surrogates at the New York Times is attempting to pass off the connection as nothing more than "crossed paths" and "casual encounters" - you know, "casual" like meeting Ayers at his home in 1995, and serving on a seven-member board together for several years {The Times called this a simple "overlap" of the two men's lives).

Another "casual encounter" between Obama and Ayers has been uncovered - sharing the stage in 1997 in a fight to stop crime legislation aimed at punishing under-18 gang-bangers who use guns in their heinous crimes as adults.

From a 1997 press statement still hosted on the University of Chicago website:

William Ayers, author of A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court (Beacon Press, 1997), says "We should call a child a child. A 13-year-old who picks up a gun isn't suddenly an adult. We have to ask other questions: How did he get the gun? Where did it come from?"

Ayers, who spent a year observing the Cook County Temporary Juvenile Detention Center in Chicago, is one of four panelists who will speak on juvenile justice at 6 p.m. Thursday, Nov. 20, in the C-Shop. The panel, which marks the 100th anniversary of the juvenile justice system in the United States, is part of the Community Service Center's monthly discussion series on issues affecting the city of Chicago. The event is free and open to the public.

Ayers will be joined by Sen. Barack Obama, Senior Lecturer in the Law School, who is working to combat legislation that would put more juvenile offenders into the adult system...

Obama's wife Michelle is also quoted in the release, offering praise for the panel.

As Obama continues his attempts to distract and mislead gun owners about his true beliefs about the Second Amendment, this discovery of Obama's work with Ayers to stop this crime legislation is still more proof of that gun owners cannot count on him to punish criminals while protecting their rights. In fact, the record shows he'll do quite the opposite.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6044

Great article on domestic terrorist `Bama and his pals.

From Politico

By BEN SMITH | 2/22/08 1:09 AM EDT 

In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they’re better known nationally as two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement.

Now, as Obama runs for president, what two guests recall as an unremarkable gathering on the road to a minor elected office stands as a symbol of how swiftly he has risen from a man in the Hyde Park left to one closing in fast on the Democratic nomination for president.

“I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers’ house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,” said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the informal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn. “[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.”

Obama and Palmer “were both there,” he said.

Obama’s connections to Ayers and Dorhn have been noted in some fleeting news coverage in the past. But the visit by Obama to their home — part of a campaign courtship — reflects more extensive interaction than has been previously reported.

Neither Ayers nor the Obama campaign would describe the relationship between the two men. Dr. Young described Obama and Ayers as “friends,” but there’s no evidence their relationship is more than the casual friendship of two men who occupy overlapping Chicago political circles and who served together on the board of a Chicago foundation.

But Obama’s relationship with Ayers is an especially vivid milepost on his rise, in record time, from a local official who unabashedly reflected a very liberal district to the leader of national movement based largely on the claim that he can transcend ideological divides.

In one sense, Obama’s journey toward the cultural and political center is not unusual among national politicians. But its velocity is.

Politicians of an earlier generation had their own relationships with figures now far to their left. Hillary Rodham Clinton, for instance, interned at a radical San Francisco law firm while in law school.

On the other side of the political spectrum, many in the generation before hers shifted dramatically on civil rights. John McCain voted against creating a holiday to honor Martin Luther King Jr. and later called that a mistake.

The relationship with Ayers gives context to his recent past in Hyde Park politics. It’s milieu in which a former violent radical was a stalwart of the local scene, not especially controversial.

It’s also a scene whose liberal ideological features — while taken for granted by the Chicago press corps that knows Obama best — provides a jarring contrast with Obama’s current, anti-ideological stance. This contrast between past and present — not least the Ayers connection — is virtually certain to be a subject Republican operatives will warm to if Obama is the Democratic nominee.

The tension between the present and recent Chicago past is also evident in some of his positions on major national issues. Many national politicians, including Clinton, have moved toward the center over time. But Obama’s transitions are still quite fresh.

A questionnaire from his 1996 campaign indicated more blanket opposition to the death penalty, and support of abortion rights, than he currently espouses. He spoke in support of single-payer health care as recently as 2003.

Like many of the most extreme figures from the 1960s Ayers and Dohrn are ambiguous figures in American life.

They disappeared in 1970, after a bomb — designed to kill army officers in New Jersey — accidentally destroyed a Greenwich Village townhouse, and turned themselves into authorities in 1980. They were never prosecuted for their involvement with the 25 bombings the Weather Underground claimed; charges were dropped because of improper FBI surveillance.

Both have written and spoken at length about their pasts, and today he is an advocate for progressive education and a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago; she’s an associate professor of law at Northwestern University. 

But — unlike some other fringe figures of the era — they’re also flatly unrepentant about the bombings they committed in the name of ending the war, defending them on the grounds that they killed no one, except, accidentally, their own members.

Dohrn, however, was jailed for less than a year for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating other Weather Underground members’ robbery of a Brinks truck, in which a guard and two New York State Troopers were killed.

“I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough,” Ayers told the New York Times in 2001.

And their rehabilitation in establishment circles, even in Hyde Park, has its limits.

Though he is a respected figure in liberal educational circles, Ayers wrote recently about how in 2006 he was informed he was persona non grata at a progressive educators’ conference in the summer of 2006.
“We cannot risk a simplistic and dubious association between progressive education and the violent aspects of your past,” he quoted the conference organizers, whom he described as friends, as writing to him.

But the couple has been embraced, by and large, in the liberal circles dominating Hyde Park politics.

“Bill Ayers is one of my heroes in life,” said Sam Ackerman, a longtime local activist. “I knew Tony Rezko, and he ain’t no Rezko.”

But others in Hyde Park, whose intellectual and political life revolves around the University of Chicago, view the couple with ambivalence.

“I feel very uncomfortable with their past, but neither of them is thought of as horrible types now — so far as most of us know, they are legitimate members of the community,” said Cass Sunstein, a University of Chicago law professor who has known Obama since the early 1990s and supports his campaign.

“Not only is Obama the opposite pole from radicals like Ayers and Dohrn at least as one point were, he’s not a conventional left liberal by any means,” he said.

Others are less inclined to even consider forgiveness.

“Ayers was a terrorist. Bernardine Dohrn was a terrorist. Ayers has never offered one word of apology — he glories in it, thinks it’s terrific. And that to me is not what I would call acceptable or mainstream behavior,” said Dan Polsby, a former law professor at Northwestern who is now dean of George Mason University Law School. “If Obama takes a different view on that — well, OK, that’s data about Obama.”

On Thursday, Ayers spoke at the State University of New York at New Paltz, where he refused to answer questions from Politico about his relationship with Obama.

Dohrn did not respond to a message left at her office.

Obama’s campaign dismisses the notion that his relationship with Ayers should be seen through the lens of the latter’s violent past, or his present lack of regret for the bombings.

“Sen. Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence,” said Obama’s press secretary, Bill Burton. “But he was an 8-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost 40 years ago is ridiculous.”

He described Ayers as “a professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago and a former aide to Mayor Richard J. Daley,” referring to printed reports that he had “advised” Daley on school reform.

As Bloomberg News reported recently, Obama and Ayers have crossed paths repeatedly in the last decade. In 1997, Obama cited Ayers’ critique of the juvenile justice system in a Chicago Tribune article on what prominent Chicagoans were reading. He and Ayers served together on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago for three years starting in 1999. In 2001, Ayers also gave $200 to Obama’s state Senate reelection campaign.

Many details of the 1995 meeting are shrouded by time and by Obama’s and Ayers’ refusals to discuss it.

The exact date is not known, but it was in the second half of 1995, before Palmer’s decision — late in her losing congressional primary against Jesse Jackson Jr. — to jump back into the special election for her state Senate seat. (Her decision produced a rift between her and Obama, who was able to get her thrown off the ballot on technical grounds.)

“That’s too long ago — that’s ancient history,” Palmer said, when asked of the meeting.

Dr. Young and another guest, Maria Warren, described it similarly: as an introduction to Hyde Park liberals of the handpicked successor to Palmer, a well-regarded figure on the left.

“When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn,” Warren wrote on her blog in 2005. “They were launching him — introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.”

Contacted by e-mail, Warren declined to describe the meeting further and later blogged of her concern that Republicans would use accounts of the event for “left-baiting.”

Young described the gathering as a matter of “due diligence” for Palmer to introduce her chosen successor to constituents. “Many of us knew him already,” he said.

They, like others in his old Chicago world, now consider him a bit too “conservative” for their liking, as Warren wrote recently.

Ackerman, the Hyde Park activist, complained of his votes for continued funding for the Iraq war.

“A lot of people were very angry when he voted to fund the war,” he said. “But any candidate running for president is going to strive for broader appeal and move more to the center — I don’t believe that Barack has departed from his basic principles.”

Dr. Young said, however, that he isn’t supporting either of the leading presidential candidates because he is a single-issue voter, and the issue is single-payer health care.

He said he was disappointed that Obama is “equivocating” on his support for single-payer health care, after saying in the past that he supported it. But he said Obama’s style — “cautious, deliberate, defensive” — was also familiar from the senator’s Hyde Park days.

“In fairness, there’s no double dealing,” he said. “It’s part of his stated strategy: He wants to get maximum unity.”

Stringer Andrew Lipkowitz contributed to this story.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.htm
l

New Obama Campaign Ad Lies About Obama’s Support For Hunting Rights:

Obama Campaign Ad: NRA Member Greg West: “I hunt, I fish, I love the outdoors. I love this country and I support Barack Obama.” (Ben Smith, “Obama: ‘Life Member,’” The Politico’s “Ben Smith’s Blog,” www.politico.com, 10/5/08)

The Ad Does Not Mention That In 2003, Obama Voted In Support Of Legislation That “Would Have Banned Most Of The Privately Held Hunting Shotguns, Target Rifles, And Black Powder Rifles” In Illinois. “[I]n 2003, Obama voted in support of SB1195, which, if passed, would have banned most of the privately held hunting shotguns, target rifles, and black powder rifles in the state. If the ban was enacted, law enforcement officials would have been authorized to forcibly enter private homes to confiscate newly banned firearms.” (Illinois State Rifle Association, “ISRA Blasts Candidate Obama On His Record Of Hostility Toward Law-Abiding Firearm Owners,” Press Release, 8/24/04)

• Target Shooters And Hunters Feared SB 1195. “Target shooters said SB 1195 would have banned several popular rifles. Hunters feared the bill would prohibit common guns and ammunition used for recreation and hunting, including deer slugs for shotguns and muzzleloaders larger than .50-caliber.” (Scott Richardson, Op-Ed, “Legislative Action Has Impact On Outdoors,” The [Bloomington, IL] Pantagraph, 6/22/03)

---------------------

New Obama Campaign Ad Lies About Obama’s Support For The Right To Self-Defense:

Obama Campaign Ad: Announcer: “Barack Obama supports gun rights. Our right to protect ourselves.” (Ben Smith, “Obama: ‘Life Member,’” The Politico’s “Ben Smith’s Blog,” www.politico.com, 10/5/08)

The Ad Does Not Mention That In 2004, Obama Voted Against Legislation “Drafted To Protect Homeowners From Prosecution In Cases Where They Used A Firearm To Halt A Home Invasion.” “[O]bama cast a total of 4 votes in opposition to SB2165. SB2165 was drafted to protect homeowners from prosecution in cases where they used a firearm to halt a home invasion. Once again, Obama found himself on the wrong side of the issue as overwhelming majorities of both the House and the Senate voted in favor of this important legislation. Obama’s steadfast opposition to SB2165 is indicative of his misplaced priorities on issues of self-defense and personal firearm ownership.” (Illinois State Rifle Association, “ISRA Blasts Candidate Obama On His Record Of Hostility Toward Law-Abiding Firearm Owners,” Press Release, 8/24/04)

• “The State Handgun Bill Obama Voted Against Was A Response To The Case Of A Suburban Chicago Restaurant Owner Who Shot A Burglar Who Had Broken Into His Home Twice.” (Mike Robinson, “Keyes Rips Obama Over Opposition To Gun Bill,” The Associated Press State & Local Wire, 8/24/04)

The Ad Does Not Mention That Obama Has Called For Banning The Manufacture, Sale & Possession Of Handguns – Firearms Used For Self-Defense. Question from a 1996 Independent Voters of Illinois questionnaire: “Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” Obama’s Answer: “Yes.” (Independent Voters Of Illinois Independent Precinct Organization 1996 General Candidate Questionnaire, Barack Obama Responses, 9/9/96)

The Ad Does Not Mention That Obama Believes The D.C. Gun Ban Is Constitutional. “[T]he campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he ‘...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.’” (James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins, “Court To Hear Gun Case,” Chicago Tribune, 11/20/07)

• The Ad Does Not Mention That During An Interview, Obama Acknowledged His Support For The D.C. Gun Ban. Questioner Leon Harris: “One other issue that’s of great importance here in the district as well is gun control. You said in Idaho recently – I’m quoting here – ‘I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns,’ but you support the D.C. handgun ban.” Obama: “Right.” (Leon Harris and Sen. Barack Obama, Forum Sponsored By ABC And Politico.Com, Washington, DC, 2/12/08)

The Ad Does Not Mention That In 2001, Obama Voted Against And “Helped Defeat” A Bill To Allow Individuals To Carry A Concealed Weapon When They Have A Valid Order Of Protection Out Against Another Person. (S.B. 604, Senate Floor Third Reading, Failed, 29-27-0, 4/4/01, Obama Voted Nay)

• Obama “Helped Defeat” The Bill. “After extensive debate on the Senate floor … state Sen. Barack Obama (D-13) helped defeat a bill that would allow people who receive an order of protection to possess and carry a concealed firearm. … ‘Concealed-carry laws would only increase the problem of handgun violence and ultimately make the streets less safe everywhere,’ said Obama. … ‘It was a bad idea and I’m glad it failed,’ said Obama.” (Todd Spivak, “Sen. Obama Helps Defeat A Concealed Firearm Bill,” Hyde Park Herald, 4/11/01)

The Ad Does Not Mention That Obama Opposes Concealed Carry. Obama: “I am not in favor of concealed weapons … I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.” (Mike Wereschagin and David M. Brown, “Candidates’ Gun Control Positions May Figure In Pa. Vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 4/2/08)

---------------------

New Obama Campaign Ad Claims Support From Single NRA Member:

Obama Campaign Ad: NRA Member Greg West: “I’m a lifetime member of the NRA. … I love this country and I support Barack Obama.” (Ben Smith, “Obama: ‘Life Member,’” The Politico’s “Ben Smith’s Blog,” www.politico.com, 10/5/08)

The Ad Does Not Mention That In 2004, 2002 And 1998, Obama Received “F” Ratings From The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund. (National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund Website, www.nrapvf.org, Accessed 1/8/08; National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund Website, www.nrapvf.org, Accessed 1/8/08; 1998 Illinois National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund Political Preference Chart, p.2)

• NOTE: An “F” Is Described As A “True Enemy Of Gun Owners’ Rights. A Vehement Anti-Gun Candidate Who Always Opposes Gun Owners’ Rights And/Or Actively Leads Anti-Gun Legislative Efforts, Or Sponsors Anti-Gun Legislation.” (National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund Website, www.nrapvf.org, Accessed 1/2/08)

The Ad Does Not Mention That The NRA Has Said Obama Would Be “The Most Anti-Gun President In American History.” “The message of the new site, GunBanObama.com, is not subtle. According to the NRA, Obama would be ‘the most anti-gun president in American history.’ And it provides a list of fact sheets, news articles, and quotes by Obama to underscore their point.” (Emily Cadei, “NRA Takes Aim Online At Obama,” Congressional Quarterly Today, 9/3/08)

The Ad Does Not Mention That NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre Has Said Obama Is Out To “Destroy” The Right To Keep And Bear Arms. “Obama’s alleged support of the Second Amendment is utterly cynical and false. Barack Obama is not for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; he’s out to destroy it.” (Wayne LaPierre, “Barack Obama’s Slippery Oratory,” 4/11/08)

The Ad Does Not Mention That NRA’s LaPierre Blasted Obama For His “Bitter” Comments. “Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of the NRA, blasted Obama on ABC News this week. ‘American gun owners have for years understood the elitist concept of special privileges for the few, the same few who look down their nose at the people who respect basic American traditions like flying the flag, going to church, owning a gun and believing in the Bill of Rights,’ LaPierre said. ‘Obama’s statement is a crack in the door that gives all of us a peek as to how the ‘special’ people look at the rest of us. Americans can read that code.’” (Roger Simon, “People Who Cling To Guns Vote, Too,” Politico, 4/15/08)

The Ad Does Not Mention That NRA Chief Lobbyist Chris W. Cox Said Obama Lies About His Gun Record. NRA Chief Lobbyist Chris W. Cox: “[Obama] has supported bans on handguns and semi-automatic firearms, and he has voted to ban possession of many shotguns and rifles commonly used by hunters and sportsmen across America. And we will remind voters every single time he lies.” (National Rifle Association-Institute For Legislative Action, “NRA To Obama: Do Not Lie To Hunters And Gun Owners,” Press Release, 9/10/08)

---------------------

The Ad Does Not Mention That Obama Is Currently Attacking The NRA:

The Ad Does Not Mention That Obama Is Threatening Stations That Ran An NRA Ad That Highlighted Obama’s Anti-Gun Record. “[T]he Obama campaign was threatening stations in Pennsylvania and Ohio that ran an ad from the National Rifle Association that said Mr. Obama would be ‘the most anti-gun president in American history’ and detailed his statements on a number of gun-related issues.” (Victor Morton, “Free Speech II,” The Washington Times’ “Inside Blogotics” Blog, www.washingtontimes.com, 9/30/08)

• The Ad Does Not Mention That The General Counsel To Obama For America Has Written A Cease And Desist Letter To TV Stations Asking Them To Take Down NRA Ads. “As General Counsel to Obama for America, I write about an advertisement sponsored by the National Rifle Association (“NRA”) that may be airing on your station. … We request that you immediately cease airing this advertisement.” (Robert F. Bauer, Cease And Desist Letter To TV Stations, 9/23/08)

The Ad Does Not Mention That Obama Has Been “Harshly Critical” Of The NRA. “Obama was harshly critical of the National Rifle Association, the nation’s largest interest group opposing gun-control legislation.” (John Chase, “Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns,” Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04)

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6046 

Over the last couple of year y'all have seen me post one increasingly absurd article after another on those wacky,brain dead Brits and their mega liberal "answers" to crime and the status of criminals in society.With knife crimes now far exceeding the levels that gun crimes ever enjoyed in the now gun free islands and criminals now enjoying "prefered citizen" status over ordinary folks I have been sitting back just drooling over the prospects of what the old Limey's might think of next to farther prove just how socially back azzwards they,and all of their fellow liberals,are as a society.

Now.......it has come.I have to admit that I never saw this one coming nor could I have ever dreamed it up myself.These are the people who so boldly label themselves "progressive" and "enlightened"???Really???You all are gonna love this one.

Oh,and welcome to Obamaville!

From The DailyIndia.com:

London, October 1: Bristol City Council is urging people to leave their sheds open because padlocks could lead to thieves forcing their way through doors and windows of the council-owned sheds to steal garden equipment.

The council said that its new initiative could save taxpayers' money because fewer sheds would have to be repaired or replaced.

"Don't padlock your shed; it can save the shed being damaged if someone does try to get into it. If there is a break-in, always inform the police," the Telegraph quoted its guide as reading.

The advice has not gone down well with a gardener at Bifield Allotments, in the Stockwood area of the city, whose shed was broken into a few weeks ago.

Terry Nichols, 71, a retired engineering consultant, who has rented a plot at the site for more than 25 years, said: "It beggars belief that the council is telling us to leave our sheds wide open so that anyone can get in them. Everyone who has an allotment has been sent a letter. I have never read anything so ridiculous in all my life. I doubt the council would pay up if the sheds were burgled while they were left unlocked."

A spokesman said: &