Murphy Receives Endorsement from Chairman of Nation’s Largest Political Organization of Independent Voters

New York, New York and Crofton, Maryland, June 30, 2010 – Frank MacKay, Chairman of the Independence Party of America (IPA), today announced his endorsement of Brian Murphy, Republican Candidate for Governor of Maryland. The IPA is America’s voice of independence, with more than 412,000 members in the New York affiliate alone. The IPA focuses primarily on fiscal responsibility, and does not take a stand on social issues.

“The American people are tired of incumbents. They want new voices. We have been watching the events in Maryland with great interest. Murphy is an independent voice, and I believe he has the vision, leadership and experience to take Maryland forward,” said MacKay.

Because of Maryland’s large percentage of independent voters, the IPA has been looking for an entryway into Maryland. While the IPA traditionally backs Independent candidates, it is backing Murphy for Governor because his fiscally conservative principles are those valued by the IPA.

“Murphy is the best candidate to win in November and to fix Maryland. He has a proven track record: as an economist, he helped build and lead Maryland’s premium multi-billion dollar company. In doing so, he built a reputation as one of the nation’s premiere risk managers. There is no one with a better understanding of how to fix Maryland’s economic woes, create jobs and balance the State’s budget than Murphy. This is why I will put all my weight and support behind him,” said MacKay.

In response to MacKay’s endorsement, Murphy provided the following statement:

“I am honored by Chairman MacKay’s support, and I wholeheartedly accept his endorsement. This alliance is evidence that when Republicans hold firm to the principles of fiscal responsibility, we enlarge our voter base and attract Independents. Expanding our base is how I intend to win the Primary, and how I intend to win the General Election as well.”

———————-

Brian Murphy and Robert Ehrlich are running in the Republican Primary on September 14. Governor Martin O’Malley is running in the Democratic Party Primary on September 14. The winners of the respective parties’ elections will square off against each other in the November 2 General Election.

Brian Murphy is a successful Maryland businessman with a BA in Economics from the University of Maryland and an MBA from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. He is founder of the Plimhimmon Group, whose first investment, the Smith Island Baking Company, has been featured in The Washington Post, the Wharton Magazine, the Baltimore Sun, Businessweek and other publications for its principled approach to job creation in Maryland.

Supreme Court Deals Blow to Liberty

by David French

Monday, June 28, 2010, was a landmark day for liberty—but not in the way that most conservatives realize. News outlets led with stories of the Supreme Court’s gun rights ruling in McDonald v. Chicago (Matt Drudge even announced the ruling with one of his famous “siren” graphics) and then quickly shifted their attention to Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearing. Lost in the shuffle was a second Supreme Court decision, one that contains a line of reasoning that threatens our understanding of what liberty is.

That case, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, dealt with a seemingly simple issue: Could a university require a Christian student organization to open its leadership and voting membership to those who disagree with the group’s faith or who refuse to abide by its code of conduct? In other words, could the university require a Christian group to be led by Muslims or by people who disregard biblical commands regarding, for example, sexual behavior.

Common sense would dictate that a group should be able to limit its membership and leadership to those who share the group’s purpose. After all, who ever heard of a Republican group led by Democrats, an African-American group led by white supremacists, or a vegetarian group led by cattle ranchers? But this involved a university, where common sense is always trumped by political correctness, and this particular school (Hastings College of Law in San Francisco) said that each student group had to open its membership and leadership to every student on campus.

This “all comers” policy destroys freedom of association—the constitutional liberty to form a group around a shared purpose—and the Christian Legal Society sued to protects its rights. After a long and winding litigation road, the case reached the Supreme Court, and on Monday the court ruled against the Christian group.

The 5-4 decision was written by Justice Ginsburg and was joined by Justices Sotomayor and Breyer. Justices Stevens and Kennedy filing concurring opinions. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Thomas.

Justice Ginsburg’s opinion, contains a dangerous contention. To the court’s majority, the Christian Legal Society was simply arguing for special, or “preferential” treatment when it filed suit. According to the court:

“CLS, it bears emphasis, seeks not parity with other organizations, but a preferential exemption from Hastings’ policy. The 1st Amendment shields CLS against state prohibition of the organization’s expressive activity, however exclusionary that activity may be. But CLS enjoys no constitutional right to state subvention of its selectivity.”

Put in plain English, the court is allowing the university to put in place a policy that destroys the free-association right of all student groups, then is accusing the one group with the courage to challenge that action of seeking a “preferential exemption.” Since when did the defense of longstanding constitutional rights become a quest for special treatment?

Underlying the court’s reasoning is a dangerous view of the enormous breadth of government power. In the court’s eyes, students who want to meet in empty classrooms (rooms their tuition and tax dollars pay for) are receiving a government benefit, not exercising a fundamental right. In the court’s eyes, these “benefits” (broadly defined) can be made contingent on forcing citizens to surrender their most basic liberties. Cato’s Roger Pilon summed it up perfectly:

“That is a new standard for constitutionality when it comes to fundamental rights. And if students, whatever their interests or values, cannot form organizations limited to people who share those interests and values, what’s the point of having student organizations at all? In a word, like the mugger who says, “Your money or your life,” today’s opinion enables Hastings to say, “If you want benefits otherwise available to all, you’ve got to give up your right to freedom of association.” No public institution should be able to put people to such a choice.”

Not only is the court’s decision to equate the defense of fundamental rights with a quest for “special rights” legally suspect, it has a pernicious effect in the public square. Many Americans—especially conservatives—are outraged when groups seek special favors or special exemptions from generally applicable laws. To cast the Christian Legal Society in that light brings automatic suspicion to their claims.

The bottom line is that the government—whether acting through Congress or through a university administration—should not have the power to regulate away our fundamental rights. And those groups courageous to stand against such a power grab are defending liberty, not seeking special status.

School Officials in Mass. Town Won’t Let Students Recite Pledge of Allegiance

By Todd Starnes

When Sean Harrington entered his freshman year at Arlington High School, he noticed something peculiar: There were no American flags in the classrooms, and no one recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

So Harrington enlisted the aid of his fellow students, and now, three years later, they have succeeded in getting flags installed in the classrooms. But the pledge still will not be recited.

The Arlington, Mass., school committee has rejected the 17-year-old’s request to allow students to voluntarily recite the Pledge of Allegiance, because some educators are concerned that it would be hard to find teachers willing to recite it, according to a report in the Arlington Patch.

Harrington had presented school officials with a petition signed by 700 people, along with letters of support from lawmakers including Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.

But the request to have the pledge recited failed when the committee’s vote ended in a 3-3 tie.

“I was really heartbroken,” Harrington told FOX News Radio. “It’s hard to think that something so traditional in American society was turned down.”

His fight has received quite a bit of support from the community. “When I was going to school, it was an honor and a privilege to pledge allegiance to the flag,” Francis De Guglielmo, 55, told the Patch. He called the ban an “absolute travesty” and a “disgrace.”

Harrington, who will be a senior in the fall, said he will continue to fight. “I’m not a person who quits and I don’t back down. It’s a very righteous cause and needs to be followed through until the end.”

Some committee members voiced concerns about forcing people to do something that might violate their beliefs – including religious beliefs. Among the no-votes was committee member Leba Heigham.

“Patriotism is a very personal thing for all of us, but I do not think it is in the school committee’s best interest to mandate that any of our employees recite the pledge,” she told the Patch.

Harrington said the recitation would have been strictly voluntary.

“If we can’t find one teacher who is willing to say the pledge, then the system we have is cracked,” he told FOX News Radio, noting that a number of teachers signed his petition.

He said the school’s ban on the pledge sends the wrong message. “It tells me that we’ve basically cast aside what our country is founded on,” he said. “It’s saying that we don’t really care, and it’s sad.”

Arlington’s superintendent of schools did not return a call for comment.

Rep. Stark Mocks Border Security Advocates: Who Are You Going to Kill Today?

A California congressman known for edgy sarcasm mocked an opponent of illegal immigration during a town hall meeting last week, asking, “Who are you going to kill today?” before the constituent, a self-identified Minuteman, posed his question.

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., no stranger to controversy, mocked the idea that the borders are not secure when asked about the federal government’s lack of activity on border security.

“We can’t get enough Minutemen armed. We’d like to get all the Minutemen armed so they can stop shooting people here,” Stark said.

Eventually, members of the audience urged Stark to offer a serious answer.

“If you knew anything about our borders, you would know that’s not the case. Our borders are quite secure, thank you,” Stark said, drawing jeers.

Stark resumed his hostile act, asking the Minuteman what he would do to secure the border.

“I would send about about 25,000 troops for one thing and build a wall down so vehicles could not pass,” the Minuteman said.

“How high and long would it be?” Stark asked.

“As high and as long as it takes,” the Minuteman said, elicting cheers.

Stark said he would start a ladder company with the Minuteman if he designed the wall and doesn’t shoot the people coming over.

“But I’ve got to know how high the wall is and I’ll sell a whole lot of ladders for people who want to come,” Stark said.

“This is a very serious matter and you’re sitting there making fun of it,” the Minuteman responded.

“I don’t have to make fun of you sir, you do a fine job all by yourself,” Stark said.

Stark made the comments last week at a town hall audience that included Steve Kemp, a member of the Golden State Minutemen, a group that opposes illegal immigrants. Kemp recorded the confrontation.

A spokesman for Stark did not return voicemail messages left at his office or on his cell phone. He also didn’t respond to an e-mail seeking comment.

The clash came as the national spotlight focuses on Arizona’s tough new law cracking down on illegal immigrants and the protests it is drawing across the country, including a legal challenge from the federal government.

Immigration is shaping up to be among the critical election-year issues as Republicans try to regain control of both chambers in Congress riding a wave of anti-Washington sentiment.

Stark, a liberal Democrat, is expected to easily win re-election against a lightly regarded opponent, political newcomer Justin Jelincic, who describes himself as a conservative Democrat.

Stark earned his primary challenge after he slammed a constituent who voiced his opposition to Obama’s health care plan last summer at a town hall meeting.

“Mr. Congressman, don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining,” the constituent told Stark, referring to what he called the smoke and mirrors of the president’s plan.

“I wouldn’t dignify you be peeing on your leg,” Stark fired back. “It wouldn’t be worth wasting the urine.”

In March, Stark seized control of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee for one day after Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., stepped aside due to an ethics probe. But Stark was quickly pushed aside in favor of Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., after many Democrats privately complained that Stark was too volatile to lead such an important committee.

Stark is known for making inflammatory comments.

In 2007, Stark accused President Bush of sending troops to Iraq “to get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement.”

He also once called former Colorado Republican Rep. Scott McInnis a “fruitcake.”

VA hospital may have infected 1,800 veterans with HIV

Patients receiving dental work at a Missouri VA hospital may have been exposed to potentially life-threatening diseases.

(CNN) — A Missouri VA hospital is under fire because it may have exposed more than 1,800 veterans to life-threatening diseases such as hepatitis and HIV.

John Cochran VA Medical Center in St. Louis has recently mailed letters to 1,812 veterans telling them they could contract hepatitis B, hepatitis C and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) after visiting the medical center for dental work, said Rep. Russ Carnahan.

Carnahan said Tuesday he is calling for a investigation into the issue and has sent a letter to President Obama about it.

“This is absolutely unacceptable,” said Carnahan, a Democrat from Missouri. “No veteran who has served and risked their life for this great nation should have to worry about their personal safety when receiving much needed healthcare services from a Veterans Administration hospital.”

The issue stems from a failure to clean dental instruments properly, the hospital told CNN affiliate KSDK.

Dr. Gina Michael, the association chief of staff at the hospital, told the affiliate that some dental technicians broke protocol by handwashing tools before putting them in cleaning machines.

The instruments were supposed to only be put in the cleaning machines, Michael said.

The handwashing started in February 2009 and went on until March of this year, the hospital told KSDK.

The hospital has set up a special clinic and education centers to help patients who may have been infected. However, Carnahan said he feels more should be done and those responsible should be disciplined.

“I can only imagine the horror and anger our veterans must be feeling after receiving this letter,” Carnahan said. “They have every right to be angry. So am I.”

This is not the first time this year a hospital has been in hot water for not following proper procedures.

In June, Palomar Hospital in San Diego, California, has sent certified letters to 3,400 patients who underwent colonoscopy and other similar procedures, informing the patients that there may be a potential of infection from items used and reused in the procedures.

Mr. Lead Paint buys a federal judgeship

Jack McConnell, left, a Rhode Island trial lawyer who made famous lead paint lawsuits, is the president’s pick to preside over the federal district court in his home state (Stew Milne/AP file)

Examiner Editorial

We have learned from the sordid saga of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois of the lengths to which some people will go for an appointment to the United States Senate. Apparently, it’s not all that different for Blago’s fellow Democrats in Washington, D.C. when the prize is a federal judgeship. How else to explain President Obama’s nomination of Jack McConnell, a Rhode Island trial lawyer, for the federal district court in his state. McConnell made his fortune at the Motley Rice class-action law firm litigating asbestos, tobacco, and lead paint cases. Since 1993, he and his wife have contributed $694,000 to Democrats. Among the beneficiaries of this campaign largesse were Obama, four members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that approved his nomination, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. All 12 Democrats on the panel voted yes on McConnell’s nomination.

Have other judicial nominee been so generous to politicians?For comparison purposes, only four of President George W. Bush’s 261 district court appointments contributed more than $20,000 in their entire political careers prior to their nomination, according to Federal Election Commission data. The most generous of those, a former county GOP chairman, gave $83,000 before he was appointed.

By the way, McConnell’s law firm also previously kicked in another $7,700 to Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the lone Republican voting in his favor. That only one member of the GOP was involved should surprise no one. The trial lawyers’ chief Washington voice is the American Association for Justice, dubbed a “Heavy Hitter” by OpenSecrets.org. The AAJ has given more than $31 million in federal campaign contributions in the last 20 years, 91 percent of which went to Democrats.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., who voted for his home-state nominee, has a long relationship with McConnell that includes a history of generous campaign contributions. When Whitehouse was Rhode Island’s attorney general, he awarded McConnell’s firm a lucrative contingency-fee contract to sue lead paint manufacturers on behalf of the state.McConnell pursued the case using an unorthodox theory. In 2006, he sold a judge and then a jury on the idea that lead paint is not just a dangerous product but also a “public nuisance,” and that companies that once manufactured it must therefore pay for its abatement everywhere in Rhode Island.Can you imagine the costs — and more importantly, the size of the contingency fee?

When the state Supreme Court unanimously slapped down McConnell’s theory, it delivered a welcome dose of common sense. Unfortunately, common sense is rare in the nation’s capital and it will become less so if more men like McConnell are allowed to advance the agenda of the Democratic Party and the class-action trial lawyers’ bar from the federal bench.

Why Islam Will Never Accept the State of Israel

By Steven Simpson

It is a common belief that the “Arab-Israeli conflict” is a conflict of two peoples fighting over the same piece of land and is therefore one of nationalism. Rarely, if ever, do we hear or read of the religious component to this conflict.

However, if anything, the conflict is more of a “Muslim-Jewish” one than an “Arab-Israeli” one. In other words, the conflict is based on religion — Islam vs. Judaism — cloaked in Arab nationalism vs. Zionism. The fact of the matter is that in every Arab-Israeli war, from 1948 to the present, cries of “jihad,” “Allahu Akbar,” and the bloodcurdling scream of “Idbah al- Yahud” (slaughter the Jews) have resonated amongst even the most secular of Arab leaders, be it Nasser in the 1950s and 1960s or the supposedly “secular” PLO of the 1960s to the present. Indeed, the question must be asked: If this is really a conflict of different nationalisms and not Islamic supremacism, then why is it that virtually no non-Arab Muslim states have full (if any) relations with Israel?

There is a common Arabic slogan that is chanted in the Middle East: “Khaybar, Khaybar! Oh Jews, remember. The armies of Muhammad are returning!” It would be most interesting to know how many people have ever heard what — or more precisely, where — Khaybar is, and what the Arabs mean by such a slogan. A short history of the Jews of Arabia is needed in order to explain this, and why Islam remains so inflexible in its hostile attitude towards Jews and Israel.

Until the founder of Islam, Muhammad ibn Abdallah, proclaimed himself “Messenger of Allah” in the 7th century, Jews and Arabs lived together peacefully in the Arabian Peninsula. Indeed, the Jews — and Judaism — were respected to such an extent that an Arab king converted to Judaism in the 5th century. His name was Dhu Nuwas, and he ruled over the Himyar (present day Yemen) area of the Arabian Peninsula. In fact, it is most likely that the city of Medina (the second-holiest city in Islam) — then called Yathrib — was originally founded by Jews. In any event, at the time of Muhammad’s “calling,” three important Jewish tribes existed in Arabia: Banu Qurayza, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qaynuqa.

Muhammad was very keen on having the Jews accept him as a prophet to the extent that he charged his followers not to eat pig and to pray in the direction of Jerusalem. However, the Jews apparently were not very keen on Muhammad, his proclamation of himself as a prophet, or his poor knowledge of the Torah (Hebrew Bible). Numerous verbal altercations are recorded in the Qur’an and various Hadiths about these conflicts between the Jewish tribes and Muhammad.

Eventually, the verbal conflicts turned into physical conflicts, and when the Jews outwardly rejected Muhammad as the “final seal of the prophets,” he turned on them with a vengeance. The atrocities that were committed against these tribes are too numerous to cite in a single article, but two tribes, the Qaynuqa and Nadir, were expelled from their villages by Muhammad. It appears that the Qaynuqa left Arabia around 624 A.D. The refugees of the Nadir settled in the village of Khaybar.

In 628 A.D., Muhammad turned on the last Jewish tribe, the Qurayza, claiming that they were in league with Muhammad’s Arab pagan enemies and had “betrayed” him. Muhammad and his army besieged the Qurayza, and after a siege of over three weeks, the Qurayza surrendered. While many Arabs pleaded with Muhammad to let the Qurayza leave unmolested, Muhammad had other plans. Unlike expelling the Qaynuqa and Nadir, Muhammad exterminated the Qurayza, with an estimated 600 to 900 Jewish men being beheaded in one day. The women and children were sold into slavery, and Muhammad took one of the widows, Rayhana, as a “concubine.”

In 629 A.D., Muhammad led a campaign against the surviving Jews of Nadir, now living in Khaybar. The battle was again bloody and barbaric, and the survivors of the massacre were either expelled or allowed to remain as “second-class citizens.” Eventually, upon the ascension of Omar as caliph, most Jews were expelled from Arabia around the year 640 A.D.

This brings us, then, to the question of why modern-day Muslims still boast of the slaughter of the Jewish tribes and the Battle of Khaybar. The answer lies in what the Qur’an — and later on, the various Hadiths — says about the Jews. The Qur’an is replete with verses that can be described only as virulently anti-Semitic. The amount of Surahs is too numerous to cite, but a few will suffice: Surah 2:75 (Jews distorted the Torah); 2:91 (Jews are prophet-killers), 4:47 (Jews have distorted the Bible and have incurred condemnation from Allah for breaking the Sabbath), 5:60 (Jews are cursed, and turned into monkeys and pigs), and 5:82 (Jews and pagans are the strongest in enmity to the Muslims and Allah). And of course, there is the genocidal Hadith from Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:177, which would make Adolph Hitler proud. “The Day of Judgment will not have come until you fight with the Jews, and the stones and the trees behind which a Jew will be hiding will say: ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!”‘ Thus, the Arab Muslims had their own “final solution” in store for the Jews already in the 7th century.

The fact that Muslims still point to these (and many other) hateful verses in the Qur’an and Hadith should give Jews — not just Israelis — pause to consider if there can ever be true peace between Muslims and Jews, let alone between Muslims and Israel. When the armies of Islam occupied the area of Byzantine “Palestine” in the 7th century, the land became part of “Dar al-Islam” (House of Islam). Until that area is returned to Islam, (i.e., Israel’s extermination), she remains part of “Dar al harb” (House of War). It now becomes clear that this is a conflict of religious ideology and not a conflict over a piece of “real estate.”

Finally, one must ask the question: Aside from non-Arab Turkey, whose relations with Israel are presently teetering on the verge of collapse, why is it that no other non-Arab Muslim country in the Middle East has ever had full relations (if any at all) with Israel, such as faraway countries like Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? Indeed, why would Persian Iran — conquered by the Arabs — have such a deep hatred for Jews and Israel, whereas a non-Muslim country such as India does not feel such enmity? The answer is painfully clear: The contempt in which the Qur’an and other Islamic writings hold Jews does not exist in the scriptures of the Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and other Eastern religions. Therefore, people that come from non-Muslim states do not have this inherent hatred towards Jews, and by extension, towards Israel. But when a people — or peoples — is raised with a scripture that regards another people and religion as immoral and less than human, then it is axiomatic why such hatred and disdain exists on the part of Muslims for Jews and Israel.

Islam — as currently interpreted and practiced — cannot accept a Jewish state of any size in its midst. Unless Muslims come to terms with their holy writings vis-à-vis Jews, Judaism, and Israel and go through some sort of “reformation,” it will be unlikely that true peace will ever come to the Middle East. In the meantime, unless Islam reforms, Israel should accept the fact that the Muslims will never accept Israel as a permanent fact in the Middle East.

Chicago Mayor Vows To Fight Against The Rights Of The People…

(CBS/AP) A Supreme Court ruling finding that Americans have the right to bear arms anywhere they live almost certainly means the end of Chicago’s decades-old handgun ban, but it may not make handgun ownership there much easier if the city’s powerful mayor has his way.

Shortly after the high court voted 5-4 Monday along ideological lines – with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed – Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley said officials were already at work rewriting the city ordinance to adhere to the court ruling while protecting Chicago residents from gun violence.

“We will never give in to those who use guns to harm others,” Daley said in comments aimed at his constituents. “Your fight is my fight and we’re in this together.”

And in other cities and states, officials said they were confident their gun control laws would withstand legal challenges.

“We do think it’ll probably give us some bigger legal bills, but I suspect that we will be able to continue to do exactly what we’ve been doing – have reasonable regulations as to who can buy and where you can carry,” New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an ardent gun control advocate, said of Monday’s ruling.

The decision didn’t explicitly strike down nearly 30-year-old handgun bans in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park. Instead, it ordered a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that the statutes eventually would fall.

In the majority decision, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the Second Amendment right “applies equally to the federal government and the states.”

But the decision also signaled that some limitations on the Constitution’s “right to keep and bear arms” could survive legal challenges. Alito noted that while fully binding on states and cities, the Second Amendment “limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values.”

Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, each wrote a dissent. Stevens said that unlike a ruling two years ago overturning a Washington, D.C., handgun ban, Monday’s decision “could prove far more destructive – quite literally – to our nation’s communities and to our constitutional structure.”

Gun rights supporters had challenged the Chicago and Oak Park laws – the last two remaining outright bans in the country, according to The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence – almost immediately after the high court struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in Washington, a federal city with a unique legal standing. That ruling applied only to federal laws.

Lower federal courts upheld the Illinois cities’ bans, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment.

Monday’s ruling was a victory for gun rights supporters, but they also said they expected state and local governments to draft laws to impede gun ownership.

Attorney David Sigale, who represented one of the plaintiffs associated with Monday’s decision, said he has been advising prospective handgun owners to hold off buying them.

“In light of Mayor Daley’s threat … that there could be a whole new mess of regulations on the books, which I’m sure will only go to further hinder and burden the Constitutional rights given today, I think it would be prudent to wait and see what those developments are before everyone rushes out and avails themselves of this new right,” Sigale said.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, said he expects the same from other municipalities as well, saying the NRA “will continue to work at every level to insure that defiant city councils and cynical politicians do not transform this constitutional victory into a practical defeat through Byzantine regulations and restrictions.”

In Massachusetts, Attorney General Martha Coakley said the ruling would not pose a problem because the state controls, but doesn’t ban, guns. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick is pushing a bill that would make it illegal to buy more than one gun per month.

“The provision in the governor’s bill relative to a one-gun-a-month limit is not analogous since it does not ban the ownership of firearms, but just regulates the amount,” said Patrick’s spokesman, Kyle Sullivan.

Daley didn’t specify what measures he intends to push, but he said he planned to move quickly to get them in front of the City Council, saying that it is possible a special session will be called to address the issue.

He said he’s considering creating a registry of the names and addresses of everyone in the city who legally owns a handgun, which would be made available to police officers, firefighters and other “first responders” before they arrive at the scene of emergencies.

The mayor also said Chicago might follow the District of Columbia’s lead in requiring prospective gun owners to take training courses that include several hours of classroom learning about gun safety and passing a 20-question test.

Daley has suggested that owners may be required to buy insurance for those guns.

Sex complaint against Gore is detailed, credible

By: Byron York

The allegation that Al Gore sexually assaulted a woman in a Portland, Ore., hotel room nearly four years ago has dealt a serious blow to the former vice president’s story that he and wife Tipper simply “grew apart” after 40 years of marriage.

The police report of the masseuse’s complaint is 73 pages long and extremely detailed. According to the document, she got a call from the front desk of the trendy Hotel Lucia on the night of Oct. 24, 2006. The hotel had a special guest. Could she come at 10:30 p.m.?

She went to Gore’s room carrying a folding massage table and other equipment. Gore, whom she had never met, greeted her with a warm embrace. “The hug went on a bit long, and I was taken just a bit aback by it,” the masseuse told police. But she went along because Gore “was a VIP and a powerful individual and the Hotel Lucia had made it clear to me by inference that they were giving him ‘the royal treatment.'”

Gore said he was tired from travel and described in detail the massage he wanted. It included work on the adductor muscles, which are on the inside of the thighs. “I mentally noted that a request for adductor work is a bit unusual,” the masseuse told police, because it can be “a precursor to inappropriate behavior by a male client.”

Gore also requested work on his abdomen. When that began, “He became somewhat vocal with muffled moans, etc.,” the masseuse recounted. Gore then “demand[ed] that I go lower.” When she remained focused on a “safe, nonsexual” area, Gore grew “angry, becoming verbally sharp and loud.”

The masseuse asked Gore what he wanted. “He grabbed my right hand, shoved it down under the sheet to his pubic hair area, my fingers brushing against his penis,” she recalled, “and said to me, ‘There!’ in a very sharp, loud, angry-sounding tone.” When she pulled back, Gore “angrily raged” and “bellowed” at her.

Then, abruptly, the former vice president changed tone. It was “as though he had very suddenly switched personalities,” she recalled, “and began in a pleading tone, pleading for release of his second chakra there.”

“Chakra,” in Gore’s new-agey jargon, refers to the body’s “energy centers,” which the masseuse interpreted as having a specific meaning. “This was yet another euphemism for sexual activity he was requesting,” she told police, “put cleverly as though it were a spiritual request or something.”

She wanted to end the session, but Gore “wrapped me in an inescapable embrace” and “caressed my back and buttocks and breasts.” She tried to get away — in the process calling Gore a “crazed sex poodle” — but the former vice president was too strong for her.

A little later, she said, Gore produced a bottle of brandy and mentioned there were condoms in the “treat box” provided by the hotel. “He then forced an open mouth kiss on me,” she said.

At that moment, the masseuse brought up Gore’s long marriage. “How do you rectify this with your wife?” she asked. That brought on another “quick shift” in Gore’s mood. “I never saw anybody’s moods just go like this,” the masseuse told police, snapping her fingers.

The accuser said Gore maneuvered her into the bedroom. His iPod docking station was there, he told her, and he wanted her to listen to “Dear Mr. President,” a lachrymose attack on George W. Bush by the singer Pink.

“As soon as he had it playing, he turned to me and immediately flipped me flat on my back and threw his whole body face down over atop of me,” she said. “I was just shocked at his craziness.”

“He pleaded, grabbed me, engulfed me in embrace, tongue kissed me, massaged me, groped by breasts and painfully squeezed my nipples through my clothing, pressed his pelvis against mine, rubbed my buttocks with his hands and fingers and rubbed himself against my crotch, saying, ‘You know you want to do it.'”

Finally she got away. Later, she talked to friends, liberals like herself, who advised against telling police. One asked her “to just suck it up; otherwise, the world’s going to be destroyed from global warming.”

She got a lawyer and made an appointment to talk with authorities. She canceled and did not tell police until January 2009 and even then did not press charges.

In 2007, a Portland paper learned what had happened. Gore’s lawyers called the story “absolutely false,” and it wasn’t published.

Now the National Enquirer has made the police report public. And Gore’s family-man image will never be the same.