Archive for October, 2010

Bloomberg follies Redux

October 30, 2010

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court indicated that a limited number of gun control restrictions are permissible under the Second Amendment — provisions such as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court said that its Heller ruling applied not just to Congress and federal enclaves, such as Washington, D.C., but nationwide as well.

Nevertheless, earlier this year, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg and his police commissioner, Ray Kelly, proposed new regulations designed to give the NYPD the power to deny a firearm license to anyone, for reasons that most Americans would consider not nearly serious enough to warrant the suppression of a fundamental individual right.

These reasons — grouped under the heading “lack of good moral character or other good cause” — include an applicant’s “poor driving history,” termination from employment due to “lack of good judgment or lack of good moral character,” failure to pay debts, or having ever been arrested for anything more serious than a traffic offense, even if no charges had been filed, charges had been dropped, or the applicant had been found not guilty in court. For individuals whose license applications cannot be denied for those reasons, the proposal would also allow the police to deny a license to anyone about whom “information demonstrates an unwillingness to abide by the law [or] a lack of candor toward lawful authorities,” or when there is “other good cause.”

Insulting the intelligence of anyone who can read the proposal, the mayor and commissioner announced it in a press release which focused on how their plan would streamline the gun license application process and reduce license fees — all of which will be meaningless to people whose license applications will be denied. Only in the next to last paragraph did the release note that “NYPD will add to its regulations to offer more detailed examples of eligibility standards for a permit,” without giving examples of what those “examples” might be.

With the public comment period on the proposed regulations having ended in mid-September, and city bureaucrats working out the new regulations’ final language, on October 19th Bloomberg appeared on CNN’s “American Morning” program, saying that it is the NRA that is “totally unreasonable.”

Bloomberg’s statement is absurd; probably the kind of thing the NYPD should take into account, if he ever applies for a license to possess a gun.


At this moment, the future of Liberty is at stake

October 30, 2010

Rights Endowed by Whom?

What is really at stake in this election?

“The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government, are justly considered deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.” –George Washington

Buy this poster here

Next Tuesday’s 2010 midterm election marks the first major battle in a fired-up grassroots effort to restore constitutional integrity, one with a fervor not seen since the election of Ronald Reagan 30 years ago.

The stakes in this election and those to follow are much higher than a mere contest between competing political platforms and personas. These elections will determine who is this nation’s arbiter of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Perhaps unwittingly, Barack Hussein Obama, by way of omission in several recent speeches, has made it abundantly clear whom he and his comrades reject as the source of the rights of all men. On three separate occasions, when speaking at fundraisers for his Leftist comrades, Obama has referenced the Declaration of Independence.

Speaking at the Hispanic Caucus Institute’s Annual Awards Gala, Obama said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are … endowed with certain inalienable [sic] rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” When questioned about the omission of who, precisely, endowed those rights, the White House press office claimed that Obama went off script … unlikely for a man who has been glued and tattooed to his Teleprompters.

A few days later, speaking at a fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Obama said, “If we believe that … everybody is endowed with certain inalienable [sic] rights and we’re going to make those words live, and we’re going to give everybody opportunity, everybody a ladder into the middle class…” For the record, that utterance was not “off script.” Rather, it was precisely how the White House posted his speech.

At the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee fundraiser, he did it again, saying, “What makes this place special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire and said, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men … are endowed with certain inalienable [sic] rights.'”

In each instance, Obama omitted the Declaration’s clear affirmation that the rights of all people are “endowed by their Creator,” not by some potentate or government.

Our Declaration of Independence was derived from inherent common law, and in its first sentence, our Declaration establishes the rights of man as “which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them.”

When asked again about Obama’s omission, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs asserted, “I can assure you the president believes in the Declaration of Independence.”

So, Obama “believes in the Declaration”? The Declaration is a piece of paper, one that expresses a self-evident Truth. Were it destroyed today, or had it never been written, the right of all people to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” among other rights, would still be endowed by our Creator.

Mr. Gibbs’ assurances notwithstanding, Obama’s subtle but telling omissions expose the underbelly of the political beast that is intent on devouring Essential Liberty and replacing it with the rule of men.

With his omissions now a matter of public interest, Obama has now tossed “our Creator” into a stump speech before Election Day. But make no mistake: That would be subterfuge. Obama believes that the rights of men are subject to the rule of men, and the terminus of the unabated rule of men is always tyranny.

The election of Barack Hussein Obama was the worst of insults to our nation’s heritage of Liberty, but in one important way, it has proven a blessing in disguise.

It has drawn millions of Americans to the frontlines of the eternal war for Liberty and Rule of Law, as enshrined in our national Constitution. Still, this midterm election cycle is different than the knee-jerk response to Bill Clinton that seated a Republican majority back in 1994.

There is a Great Awakening across our nation, one being spearheaded by Tea Party Patriots who are armed with, among other things, the right tools to articulate the difference between Rule of Law and rule of men, and who are willing to passionately fight for the former over the latter.

In the words of Thomas Paine, “I call not upon a few, but upon all: not on this state or that state, but on every state; up and help us; lay your shoulders to the wheel; better have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake.”

At this moment, the future of Liberty is at stake.

Our Declaration of Independence concludes, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” (I suspect Obama would omit “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.”)

I know that you have “pledged your sacred honor” for the defense of Liberty. I beseech you to help us muster millions of additional Patriots to the frontlines for the battle ahead.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post

The BIG Lie: again…

October 30, 2010

It’s all about me … except when that’s inconvenient: “It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, [Republicans] feel more responsible, either because they didn’t do as well as they anticipated, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn’t work for them, or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way.” –Barack Obama

Psychotherapy for voters: “Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we’re hard-wired not to always think clearly when we’re scared. And the country is scared.” –Barack Obama

Doesn’t say much: “The single best decision I have made was selecting Joe Biden as my running mate.” –Barack Obama

If only he understood his own claims: “I think families, as well as the federal government, have understood that you can’t just operate on the basis of debt.” –BO

Blame Bush, check; bash the Chamber, check: “We have lost millions of jobs to outsourcing under President Bush. We don’t intend to repeat that policy — no matter how much money the Chamber of Commerce dumps into our elections.” –House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) getting in all her talking points

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging: “When Barack Obama was elected president, he found himself in a hole so deep that he couldn’t see the outside world. It was like the Chilean miners, but he, being the man that he is, rolled up his sleeves and said, ‘I’m gonna get us out of this hole.'” –Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)

The BIG Lie: “In the course of this year we will have created more jobs this year, 2010, than in the entire Bush administration of eight years.” –Nancy Pelosi, who also once infamously claimed, “Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs.” (To say the least, she’s not very good at math.)

Yeah, fewer of them: “The health care bill is about jobs, the energy bill is about jobs, the education bill is about jobs, and the recovery act is about jobs.” –Nancy Pelosi


Belly Laugh of the Week: Politics

October 30, 2010

Belly Laugh of the Week: “One of [Barack] Obama’s greatest political weaknesses has been his stubborn — and unrequited — love for bipartisanship. … The expected Republican gains in the coming mid-term elections may solve one of Obama’s problems: his misplaced faith in logic, persuasion and cooperation in the national interest.” –Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page editor Cynthia Tucker

Belly Laugh II: “Unlike Ronald Reagan, whose poll ratings were slightly lower than Obama’s just before the 1982 mid-term elections, Obama didn’t take every possible opportunity to pin the economic mess on his predecessor.” –Cynthia Tucker, missing the fact that Obama takes every opportunity — and then some — to blame Bush

Sympathy for the devil: “Nancy Pelosi is considered one of the most effective speakers in congressional history. But now she’s faced with the fact that Democrats could lose the House in November. You get indignant when you hear that.” –CBS’s Rita Braver to Pelosi, who responded, “I don’t get indignant. I just don’t believe it.”

“Where is the celebration over what has been done and accomplished [by Barack Obama] in the face of all this anger and vitriol in Washington?” –MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski

Whose money is it? “Why are we letting the top 2 percent of the population win over the other 98?” –MSNBC’s Ed Schultz on taxes

Non Compos Mentis: “[The Tea Party’s philosophy is] every man for himself. … No more taxes, no more government, no more everything. No more safety net. You know these people, if they were every man for himself down in that mine [in Chile], they wouldn’t have gotten out. … They would have been killing each other after about two days.” –MSNBC host Chris Matthews


ObamaCare is an unmitigated disaster-in-the-making

October 30, 2010

“ObamaCare is an unmitigated disaster-in-the-making. If people can be forced to buy health insurance and states can be forced to blow gigantic, federally-mandated holes in their budgets, this country will never recover. Our wannabe socialists in Congress and the White House are already, as Margaret Thatcher put it, ‘out of other people’s money.’ The election in November may do much to blunt their odious ambitions, but they will never give up trying to turn America into a socialist nation.” –columnist Arnold Ahlert

“The question here is in one crucial sense about health care, but it is in fact about much more than that. It concerns the federal government’s claimed entitlement to instruct us concerning the decisions we make about caring for our health. It is possible, no doubt, to claim that ObamaCare, as enacted last spring by Congress, is so wonderful a thing no one should miss out on it. It is another matter entirely to suggest that the end here justifies the means. That’s to say because ObamaCare is wonderful/marvelous/you name it, you and you and you should be made to buy into it. That kind of assertion gives off the odor of tyranny — a prospect worse, I hope we can agree, than gaps in health insurance coverage.” –columnist William Murchison

“A nirvana ‘Star Trek’ world without money, without sickness, and without envy ignores reality. Yet not only do the Left pretend this is possible, but they sell the idea by using envy and government checks like candy from their pocket. They sell this idea to those in need, taking power in exchange for promises they cannot possibly keep. They have merely shifted the burden, first to ‘the rich,’ and then always expanding according to ever-increasing needs to the entire producing half of the country. This is not fairness. This is lust for power. This is the face of tyranny in disguise. This, then, is the liberal Democrat message of Hope and Change.” –columnist Richard Pecore

“The problem is, and always has been, that once government programs and agencies are created, they quickly become sacrosanct and virtually impossible to destroy. As Ronald Reagan said, ‘Government programs, once launched, never disappear … a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!’ So it doesn’t matter that the Department of Education doesn’t educate, or that the Department of Energy doesn’t produce energy. It’s government and, thus, by definition good in the minds of the Washington establishment.” –columnist Cal Thomas

“All indications coming out of the White House suggest that if Democrats suffer major losses, the president and his top aides will resolutely refuse to reconsider the policies — national health care, stimulus, runaway spending — that led to their defeat. Instead, they will point fingers in virtually every direction other than their own. Come November, it’s likely the D-for-Democrat that the president refers to so often will actually stand for denial.'” –Washington Examiner political correspondent Byron York


The ‘Alice in Wonderland’ test

October 30, 2010

“Legal arguments for Obamacare’s individual mandate fail the ‘Alice in Wonderland’ test and the duck test. In two court challenges to the law in the past 11 days and a court hearing today on a third, the Obama administration’s legal position is fading faster than the Cheshire Cat. Democrats took some solace from the first case, a challenge in Michigan, because Judge George C. Steeh ultimately ruled in favor of Obamacare. Yet even though that Clinton-appointed judge refused to declare the mandate unconstitutional, he undercut the administration’s key argument that the penalty for failing to buy insurance is a ‘tax,’ and that the mandate it enforces is allowable within the broad taxing power provided by the Constitution. ‘The provisions of the Health Care Reform Act at issue here, for the most part, have nothing to do with the assessment or collection of taxes,’ Judge Steeh ruled. This is so important that the federal district judge in Florida, in Thursday’s preliminary ruling in the second case, spent 22 pages analyzing it. If the fine is a penalty rather than a tax, Congress’ power is far less extensive. Judge Roger Vinson noted Congress repeatedly called the fine a ‘penalty,’ explicitly changing its description from a ‘tax’ that earlier versions of the bill assessed by name. Citing Alice’s admonition to Humpty Dumpty that words can’t ‘mean so many different things’ as Humpty intended, Judge Vinson concluded, ‘Congress should not be permitted to secure and cast politically difficult votes on controversial legislation by deliberately calling something one thing … [only to] argue in court that Congress really meant something else entirely.’ Judge Vinson explained that no matter what Congress called it, the assessment was designed to act as a punishment, not a revenue measure. Hence, it’s not a tax. His 22-page analysis is an exposition of the logic that if something is called a duck, acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck — and the same goes for a penalty. The tax issue is vital because it’s the Obama administration’s fallback position if it loses on the first and biggest dispute, which is whether Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause not only to regulate commerce, but to force individuals to engage in specific commerce.” —The Washington Times


GOP RINO’s attack: Truth in politicing?

October 29, 2010

Seems that there are some behind the scenes activity going on in Wyoming politics. As usual, the mainstream GOP is attempting to co-op TEA Party people, and calling members of the movement out of touch, radicals, and all the usual garbage.

There are a number of letters circulating on the Internet telling people to Google Matt Mead — guns. When they do they are led to several websites (more than one of them designed by the same person giving the impression that there is a whole body of “evidence” regarding Matt’s position on gun control, when in fact just one person is pushing his own agenda). These phony sites are putting out erroneous information concerning Matt Mead’s record on gun issues.

Really? Have you bothered to notice all the comments? Or the fact that this blog certainly isn’t ran by that person?

A California transplant moved to Wyoming and started a blog about gun rights and gun issues. He published that Matt Mead was anti-gun and supported the BATF in lawsuits against Wyoming and Wyoming gun laws. These statements are not true and when confronted, said blogger refused to meet with Matt to correct his misrepresentations.

Sorry, but the facts are otherwise. Not to mention that he uses a website, not a blog… I’m also a California transplant just to let you know. I left there in 1978 because of the stupid anti freedom things that were going on. Now people are trying to pull the same sorts of insanity here..?

Matt Mead is a member of the NRA and has an A rating from them. He has not favored/does not favor gun control. People need to remember that the Internet is a tool which can be a very good source of information, but some who have an agenda can also use it to spread misinformation. Wyoming has seen its share of “dirty politics” but deliberate untruths which seek to malign a person’s character or present false information about him should be rejected.

One of Matt mead’s big campaign points is that he will stand up for Wyoming: FACT; He went after Wyoming as a U.S. Attorney. Just doing his job? Alright, I can understand that. That’s also what those folks said at Nuremberg, and things didn’t work out so well for them. Rightfully so I might add. So what if the NRA gave him a favorable rating? They gave favorable ratings to a lot of people that the membership, such as myself, deplore.

I have found Matt Mead to be very approachable and willing to sit down and rationally discuss any topic. I am certain that Matt will protect your Second Amendment rights as well as other constitutional rights and will be a good governor for Wyoming.

He may be, but if past behavior is any indicator of future actions then the people of Wyoming need to think long and hard about electing a RINO. Not that there is much out there to be had other than the lessor of evils, yet again.



‘Army of One’ takes on Colorado Legal establishment

October 29, 2010

‘Army of One’ takes on Colorado Legal establishment

Campaign finance and electioneering complaint filed against “Know Your Judge” consortium


Contact Matt Arnold: or 303.995.5533.

This afternoon, Clear the Bench Colorado – Political Action Committee filed, pro se, a campaign finance and electioneering complaint against the “Know Your Judge” consortium: the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (“IAALS”), Colorado Bar Association (“COBAR”), Colorado Judicial Institute (“CJI”) and the Colorado League of Women Voters (“LWV”).


In this complaint, Clear the Bench Colorado alleges that both collectively as the “Know Your Judge” campaign and as individual organizations, these groups have engaged in electioneering communications through print, radio and television advertisements as well as on their website – in violation of campaign finance laws, which would have subjected them to the same guidelines to file as a political committee (and the same contribution and expenditure limits) with the Secretary of State’s office as were followed by Clear The Bench Colorado.


Tens of thousands of dollars have been spent by these organizations with no accountability or transparency, in sharp contrast to Clear the Bench Colorado – which has followed the ever-changing law to the letter – while conducting similar political advocacy activities.


In a clear example of “what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander,” Clear the Bench Colorado simply wants these organizations held to the same legal standard as is everyone else in the state.


Unlike the frivolous, groundless, and vexatious complaint filed by “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) against Clear the Bench Colorado back in May, this lawsuit has a solid legal basis (in part, due to the ruling against CTBC, ironically enough).  View our website,, to read the complaint in its entirety and for updates.


If Clear the Bench receives a favorable judgment, these organizations will be subject to fees ($50 per day that they didn’t file) as well as fines of 2-5 times the contribution totals above and beyond the $525 contribution limit of a political committee (which, since these groups spent at least $85,000, will add up to a hefty sum).


These groups, with armies of accountants and lawyers at their beck and call, should (and do) know better.  Apparently, they thought that they could get away with violating the law, since CTBC’s resources (and ability to challenge) have been strained almost to the breaking point.  However, they messed with the wrong guy…


Clear The Bench Colorado may be the underdog in this fight – but it’s not the size of the dog in the fight that matters, but the size of the fight in the dog.  CTBC doesn’t have armies of attorneys and accountants on call – but CTBC is… an Army of One.


Political Correctness, and getting laid; Talk about Big Brother / Sister!

October 27, 2010

What follows, is well? Beyond stupid in my not so humble opinion…

I am a Conservative Libertarian, hence the name of this blog. What follows, is either some really funny tounge in cheek. Or some serious Big Government Mysandry / Misogyny intrusion on personal liberty…

Seeking Promiscuous Heathen Female Roommate

Dear Fair Housing Center of West Michigan,

I am writing to express my concern over a recent civil rights complaint that has been filed against a woman who posted an advertisement at her church last July. Apparently, you were upset that she was seeking a Christian roommate. I came to that conclusion after reading the following in the complaint you recently filed against her: “(The ad) expresses an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths.”

As someone who is preparing to move to Grand Rapids, I am concerned about your complaint. I’m not concerned about the Christian woman. I’m concerned about myself. Let me explain.

Because of recent financial hardships I have had to take a job in Michigan and, for the same reasons, I am going to have to seek a roommate. I want to live with a woman. Not just any woman but, preferably, a really sexually promiscuous one. In order to increase the chances that she’ll be promiscuous I am specifically demanding that she be a practitioner of Heathenism, just like me.

But now I have read a Fox News story that quotes your Executive Director Nancy Haynes as saying “It’s a violation to make, print or publish a discriminatory statement. There are no exemptions to that.” Director Haynes statement is incorrect because there is, in fact, an exemption for gender when there is a shared living space. I plan to take advantage of that by discriminating on the basis of gender. I’ll seek women only and, of course, demand that the woman I choose shares a bedroom with me throughout the duration of our relationship.

I am concerned that Director Haynes has said that, depending on the outcome of the case, the Christian woman could face several hundreds of dollars in fines and fair housing training to prevent it from happening again. I don’t want to face the same prospect.

Harold Core, director of public affairs with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, recently told the Grand Rapids Press that the Fair Housing Act prevents people from publishing an advertisement stating their preference of religion with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling. And he made no distinction between an owner-placed ad and one placed by a prospective occupant.

Joel Oster, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is representing the Christian woman free of charge. He says this case is simply “outrageous.” So I plan to call the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to see if they will defend my right to live with a promiscuous heathen woman. I know they would not represent me if I were seeking a Christian roommate. Thank Government Almighty they aren’t morally consistent!

Okay folks, I couldn’t remove the “sign up” Button… Here is the source

Bad driver? In debt? Proposed NYC law would ban you from owning a gun…

October 27, 2010

This makes about as much sense as basing auto insurance ratings on your credit rating. Simply an agenda…

New York City residents who want to own a gun may soon be denied permits if they are litterbugs, if they are bad drivers, or if they have fallen behind on a few bills. Under proposed revisions to the police department’s handgun, rifle and shotgun permit procedures, the NYPD can reject gun license applicants for a number of reasons.

Read About It: Fox News

%d bloggers like this: