Archive for March 20th, 2008

Anagram: The Apologist/Agile Hotspot « Mikey the Rhino’s Great American Rantfest

March 20, 2008

Anagram: The Apologist/Agile Hotspot « Mikey the Rhino’s Great American Rantfest

Mikey, like all of us it seems, is angry. However, Mikey is all over the board with his anger. The logic of his anger mystifies me. He is here about this, then there about that, when the root is the same. I am no fan of Obama, as you may well expect if you have been around this blog for any amount of time. Nor, am I a fan of McCain, as far as being President goes. I honor him for his service, and am worried that he truely does have PTSD. Beyond all that? I have posted elsewhere on this blog many times about both of them having to do with suppressing First Amendment and Second Amendment rights.

Niether man is in the least bit qualified to be President. Nor is Hillary…

More Obamination..?

March 20, 2008

“The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man.” —James Madison

“We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.” —C.S. Lewis

“Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one less scoundrel in the world.” —Thomas Carlyle

“The world is weary of statesmen whom democracy has degraded into politicians.” —Benjamin Disraeli

“Freedom has a thousand charms to show, That slaves, howe’er contented, never know.” —William Cowper

“I profoundly believe it takes a lot of practice to become a moral slob.” —William F. Buckley

“[Barack] Obama says Rev. [Jeremiah] Wright is no longer among his campaign’s ‘spiritual advisers.’ Obama should not be asked which of Rev. Wright’s outrageous statements he disagrees with, but rather which ones he does agree with. That Obama remains a member in good standing of Trinity United Church of Christ indicates that he prefers the company of many people who have demonstrated that they believe what their pastor has said.” —Cal Thomas Break“We don’t need a President of the United States who got to the White House by talking one way, voting a very different way in the Senate, and who for 20 years followed a man whose words and deeds contradict [Barack] Obama’s carefully crafted election year image.” —Thomas Sowell

“All you really need to know about Barack Hussein Obama is this: Louis Farrakhan really, really, really wants him to be president.” —Don Feder

“Barack Obama is, of course, a very talented politician with a first-rate political organization at his back. But it does not detract from his merit to say that his race is also a large part of his prominence. And it is undeniable that something extremely powerful in the body politic, a force quite apart from the man himself, has pulled Obama forward. This force is about race and nothing else.” —Shelby Steele

“It’s equally obvious… that if Hillary was male—and not married to Bill Clinton—she wouldn’t be in her position. Hillary came to national prominence not through her own efforts but through the success of her husband. Virtually all her ‘experience’ prior to being elected Senator is in fact Bill Clinton’s experience. She wouldn’t even have been elected to the Senate without Bill.” —Dinesh D’Souza

“[T]here’s a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way.” —Justice Anthony Kennedy during Tuesday’s hearings on the Second Amendment

“Barack Obama’s story that he never once heard his preacher trash whites and America in hundreds of sermons sounds like Bill Clinton claiming he never inhaled while smoking dope. The mushrooming church scandal has taken the shine off the golden boy of politics, a two-decade regular at ‘unashamedly black’ Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. With his phony defense, the Democrat front-runner has exposed himself as both a typical Beltway spinmeister and a hypocrite. From the start of his presidential campaign, Obama has positioned himself as a straight shooter and a uniter—the very antidote to the sinister Clintonian politics of the past… ‘You know what I’m saying is true,’ he reassured voters. Yet his denial over Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s vitriol does not ring true. He’s suddenly shocked—shocked!—that his black nationalist church would spew anti-American venom. ‘I did not hear such incendiary language myself, personally,’ he insisted, ‘either in conversations with him or when I was in the pew.’ Back in February 2007, however, Obama knew Wright might be a political liability. His chief campaign strategist, David Axelrod, was so worried about his provocative statements that he urged Obama to withdraw a request that Wright deliver an invocation at his presidential campaign kickoff. Reluctantly, Obama ‘uninvited’ his long-time friend and mentor, according to Wright’s own account at the time, telling him ‘it’s best for you not to be out there in public.’… Here’s another whopper Obama tells concerning Wright: ‘He hasn’t been my political adviser, he’s been my pastor.’ Yet it turns out Wright quietly had a formal role in Obama’s campaign, and was only pushed out last week as a member of his spiritual advisory committee when the tapes hit the airwaves. Spinning harder, Obama claimed Wright’s remarks are not ‘reflective of the church.’ Yet the videos clearly show fellow members whooping and thumping in their applause of Wright’s hateful rants. These weren’t just a smattering of amens and hallelujahs. They were standing ovations. Point is, these are the folks with whom the Obamas worship and socialize. Yet we’re expected to believe Obama never heard the same incendiary remarks from them, either? His plea of ignorance doesn’t wash.” —Investor’s Business Daily

The above from the Patriot Post:

Remember folks, you heard it all here first. Dating back well over a year ago, only now, it is big news. When I tell someone posting here to do their own research it is because the information is readily available, and people learn better when they actually work at learning. Barak Obama, bad for America, bad for the world.

Supreme Court Oral Arguments In DC v Heller‏, two approaches

March 20, 2008

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Gun owners had their day in court on Tuesday, when the U.S. Supreme Court
heard oral arguments in the DC v. Heller case, which involves a challenge to
the DC gun ban.

Absent some world-shaking surprise, it is pretty clear that there are five
votes on the Supreme Court to declare that the Second Amendment is an
individual right.

That fact alone should be enough to settle the argument over gun control and
protect gun owners’ rights. But as we all know, that’s where the battle over
the meaning of the Second Amendment begins.

More to the point, Justice John Paul Stevens asked Alan Gura, the attorney
for Dick Heller, if it would be proper to say that the right protected in
the Second Amendment shall not be “unreasonably infringed”?

To our shock and horror, Gura answered “yes.”  He did
qualify his answer
somewhat by saying “we don’t know” exactly what this
“unreasonable standard
looks like.”  But he conceded a significant amount of ground with his
answer, because any ban would be “reasonable” to Chuck
Schumer and Sarah

Truth be told, we do have a proper standard for interpreting the Second
Amendment.  The language doesn’t say anything about
“reasonable” or
“unreasonable;” it simply says the right of the people
“shall not be
infringed.”  It’s a shame that even people on “our
side” don’t fully
understand that.

That’s why when USA Today looked at all the briefs which had been submitted,
the editors decided to use GOA for the opposing voice in today’s editorial.
The editors told our attorneys that GOA had an argument that was

Indeed we do.  GOA’s brief says:

 [T]he argument that “the right of the people” is subject to
 regulation and restriction tramples on the very words of the Second
 Amendment, reading the phrase — “shall not be infringed”
— as if it read
 “shall be subject only to reasonable regulation to achieve
public safety.”

“Public safety” is frequently a canard that tyrants hide
behind to justify
their oppressive policies.  Writing in USA Today, our attorneys Herbert
Titus and William Olson stated:

 No government deprives its citizens of rights without asserting that its
 actions are “reasonable” and “necessary” for
high-sounding reasons such as
 “public safety.”  A right that can be regulated is no
right at all, only a
 temporary privilege dependent upon the good will of the very government
 officials that such right is designed to constrain.

For the rest of the editorial:

For the GOA brief, and other important documents and briefs in DC v. Heller:

And then there are the sell outs;

Fairfax, Va.-Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller, a case the Court has stated is “limited to the following question: Whether Washington, D.C.’s bans [on handguns, on having guns in operable condition in the home and on carrying guns within the home] violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.” 

The case came before the Supreme Court on appeal by the District of Columbia, after a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declared the city’s gun bans unconstitutional. The panel’s decision was upheld by the full Court of Appeals. 

The Court of Appeals decision–consistent with the views of the Framers of the Bill of Rights, respected legal commentators of the 19th century, the Supreme Court’s ruling in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), numerous court decisions of the 19th century, the Supreme Court’s ruling in U.S. v. Miller (1939), the position of the U.S. Department of Justice, and the vast majority of Second Amendment scholars today-concluded that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).” 

In today’s argument, the Justices aggressively questioned advocates for all sides, including Walter Dellinger for the District, Solicitor General Paul Clement for the Department of Justice, and Alan Gura for the plaintiffs challenging D.C.’s law. 

While it would be a mistake to predict the outcome of a case from questions at oral argument, some justices’ questions clearly suggested where they stand-as when Chief Justice John Roberts, questioning the District’s Dellinger, scoffed at the idea that a citizen awakened by an intruder in the middle of the night could “turn on the lamp . pick up [his] reading glasses,” and disengage a trigger lock.  Dellinger back-pedaled from D.C.’s longstanding position that its laws prohibit self-defense, claiming that D.C. actually supports citizens having functional firearms for defense. 

Justices extensively questioned all three attorneys on the meaning and effect of the Second Amendment’s “militia clause,” with Dellinger taking the extreme position that unless a state “had attributes of [a state] militia contrary to a Federal law,” the Second Amendment would have no effect as a restraint on legislation.  Several justices seemed to disagree strongly with that view, with Justice Antonin Scalia noting that even if the militia clause describes the purpose of the Second Amendment, it’s not unusual for a law to be written more broadly than necessary for its main purpose. 

Justice Anthony Kennedy questioned the attorneys very actively, especially on the importance of self-defense in the Founding era.  Justice Kennedy suggested that even the Supreme Court’s 1939 Miller decision-which gun control advocates have often wrongly cited as protecting only a “collective” right-was “deficient” and may not have addressed the “interests that must have been foremost in the Framers’ minds when they were concerned about guns being taken away from the people who needed them for their defense.” 

Plaintiffs’ attorney Gura-in addition to responding to many hypothetical questions-noted that the Second Amendment was clearly derived from common law rights described by Blackstone and other 18th Century commentators.  Although the militia clause “gives us some guide post as to how we look at the Second Amendment,” Gura said, “it’s not the exclusive purpose of the Second Amendment.”

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox (who both attended the arguments) commented, “Washington, D.C.’s ban on keeping handguns and functional firearms in the home for self-defense is unreasonable and unconstitutional under any standard. We remain hopeful that the Supreme Court will agree with the overwhelming majority of the American people, more than 300 members of Congress, 31 state attorneys general and the NRA that the Second Amendment protects the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms, and that Washington, D.C.’s bans on handguns and functional firearms in the home for self-defense should be struck down.” 

Amicus briefs filed with the Supreme Court in support of the Court of Appeals’ decision included those by the National Rifle Association and the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund; Vice-President Dick Cheney (in his capacity as President of the Senate) and Members of Congress; the state attorneys general; and noted Second Amendment scholars. All the briefs in the case are available at

 Listen to the audio recording of the oral arguments (RealPlayer required)

 View the transcript (PDF format)

NRA-ILA Alerts


March 20, 2008

The Colorado Division of Wildlife will hold a public meeting to discuss deer and elk hunting license numbers for the 2008 hunting season for the Gunnison Basin on March 28 at the Holiday Inn Express in Gunnison.  
Two sessions are scheduled: From 10 a.m. to noon wildlife officials will discuss Game Management Units 66 and 67; from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., they’ll discuss GMUs 54, 55 and 551.  
Wildlife managers will present deer and elk population estimates, and discuss license numbers for the upcoming big game season. The information they use to determine these numbers includes the previous season’s harvest numbers, post-hunt aerial survey data and estimated winter mortality.  Each year wildlife managers strive to meet population and sex ratio objectives established in deer and elk management plans.  The harsh winter season and the ongoing feeding operation will be taken into consideration.   
Written comments also are welcome. Please send to: Brandon Diamond, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 300 New York Avenue, Gunnison, CO  81230. Written comments must be received by April 4.  
The Colorado Wildlife Commission will set license numbers on May 1 at its meeting in Grand Junction. Big game limited license applications are due April 1.  

For more information about Division of Wildlife go to:


March 20, 2008

Regional and state directors from the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) were on-hand at the DOW Headquarters in Denver today to sign the Colorado Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Plan.

The plan is designed to guide and facilitate the conservation of greater sage-grouse and their habitats. It identifies broad measures and strategies for the grouse, addressing threats that contribute to population declines, and recognizes the important conservation role played by local working groups. Local working groups consist of private landowners, public agency representatives and other interested stakeholders.

The plan has been in development for the past 2 ½ years, and is a compendium of information about Colorado populations of greater sage-grouse as well as analysis of threats facing them. A steering committee comprised of the signatory agencies developed the plan in partnership with an advisory committee made up of representatives from local working groups. Collectively, the federal agencies and DOW are responsible for the management of sage-grouse populations and habitat on public land, encouraging sage-grouse conservation on private lands, and conserving the species such that federal listing protection does not become necessary. Colorado’s effort is part of a larger conservation effort by state and federal wildlife agencies across 12 western states.

“The conservation of our sage-grouse requires active collaboration among our public and private partners at both the local and regional level to implement on-the-ground conservation actions.” said Tom Remington, Director of the DOW. “For wide-ranging wildlife species, these multi-state, multi-agency partnerships on public and private lands represent the future of conservation planning.  This plan will ensure that the best possible science and analysis will guide those conservation efforts”

“This state-wide conservation plan signals a strong commitment by all partners to maintain and improve the sagebrush ecosystem for the benefit of all sagebrush-dependent species,” said Steve Guertin, USFWS Director of the Mountain-Prairie Region. “I commend Federal and state agencies as well as the local working groups for their ongoing efforts to develop and implement conservation strategies that will not only benefit the Greater sage-grouse but numerous other species that utilize sagebrush habitats for all or part of their life cycles.”

Greater sage-grouse are designated by the DOW as a state Species of Concern. The species was petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act and its status is undergoing review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service to determine whether federal listing is needed.

Greater sage-grouse are the largest grouse in North America. Males are known for two large air-sacks on their chest that are inflated in elaborate courtship displays. Sage-grouse are found in areas where sagebrush is abundant. Sagebrush provides food and cover for the birds. During the winter months, sage provides the entire diet for sage-grouse, so the protection of quality sagebrush habitats is critically important for the species.

For additional information on greater sage-grouse and to view a copy of Colorado’s Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan please visit:

%d bloggers like this: