Archive for the ‘Blogroll’ Category

Obama vs. Reagan

February 22, 2009

By Mark Alexander

“This is our moment, this is our time to turn the page on the policies of the past, to offer a new direction. We are fundamentally transforming the United States of America. And generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was our time.” –Barack Hussein Obama [emphasis added]

In July 2006, the median price of a home reached an all-time high of $230,900 and, on 9 October 2007, the Wilshire Broad Market Indexes peaked at 15,806, the latter being the most significant indicator of investor confidence.

According to the latest data, the median home price has decreased by almost 25 percent (a $7.5 trillion loss), and the WBMI is now down 50 percent (a $7.9 trillion loss in capital wealth).

Coincidentally, perhaps, the dramatic downturn in the financial and housing markets corresponds to the last presidential campaign, in which one party rallied Americans around an optimistic outlook for the future, and the other rallied constituents around familiar themes of pending doom. The latter made a more compelling case than the former, which gave Barack Obama the victory, but that victory was accompanied by a colossal crisis of confidence, which is largely responsible for the current economic recession.

For sure, there were very real financial problems fueled by the Democrat congressional mandates that the world’s largest lenders, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and others downstream, engaged in subprime mortgage lending in order to create more home-ownership opportunities for their low-income constituents. Those mandates trace their origins to Jimmy Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and Bill Clinton’s insistence that the Department of Housing and Urban Development enforce the CRA regulations. Banks were coerced to alter their lending practices and, by 2006, were underwriting loans to a whole spectrum of unqualified buyers.

As you recall, when Republicans, most notably Sen. John McCain, raised questions about how meddling in the housing market could backfire — four years before the housing collapse began — Demo Rep. Barney Frank was the most vociferous defender of market adulteration: “These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the federal government does not bail them out.”

Apparently Frank understood the importance of market confidence, but insisted, “The federal government does not bail them out.”

Demo Rep. Maxine Waters added, “We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particularly Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Frank Raines.” (That’s the same Frank Raines who directed enormous campaign contributions to Barack Obama.)

It is no small irony that Frank is now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and Waters is Chairwoman of its Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity.

If fact, economists uniformly agree that the current crisis of confidence in the market reached critical mass when the federal government stepped in to bail out these two massive corporations — and it’s been a hard, fast ride down ever since.

There was a competing philosophy back when Republicans and Democrats were debating the wisdom of government interference in the home lending markets: Republicans insisting this was problematic and Democrats insisting this would create no problems.

Those competing philosophies are boiling over this week, as Barack Obama signed into law his federally mandated confiscation and redistribution of more than $1.3 trillion dollars over the next decade and maybe as much as $3 trillion and counting. One day after signing the so-called “Recovery Act,” Obama promised another $275 billion from the so-called “Troubled Assets Relief Program” for mortgage bailouts to his constituents — those who enjoy more expensive houses than they can afford — loans that Frank and Waters insisted were not a problem.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office offered this summary: “In the longer run, the [Obama] legislation would result in a slight decrease in gross domestic product compared with CBO’s baseline economic forecast.” Put another way, we’re going to add trillions in debt in order to obtain a slight decrease in economic growth.

Now, according to Obama, “Government has to take responsibility for setting rules of the road that are fair and fairly enforced. Banks and lenders must be held accountable for ending the practices that got us into this crisis in the first place. And each of us as individuals has to take responsibility for their own actions. That means all of us have to learn to live within our means again.”

In other words, government is the solution and it was all those greedy bankers and lenders who “got us into this crisis in the first place.”

In a recent debate about President Ronald Reagan’s approach to economic crisis versus that of Barack Obama, columnist Charles Krauthammer argued, “Reagan had a lot more substance and he had a lot more ideas. Obama has never managed a candy store, and the way he put together his cabinet shows that he’s got a long way to go.”

In other words Reagan was all substance and Obama is all fragrance. However, Obama is now managing the largest candy store on the planet.

So, given that both Reagan and Obama entered office in a time of severe economic decline, let’s contrast their proposed solutions and the known outcomes of those solutions: Reagan v. Obama.

In the wake of Jimmy Carter’s “Great Malaise,” the last colossal undermining of American confidence, Ronald Reagan entered office with inflation at almost 14 percent and unemployment soaring into double digits. It took President Reagan several years to restore free-market principles that would sustain the largest peacetime economic surge in American history.

Campaigning for the presidency, Reagan said, “This is the issue: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them for ourselves. … Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.”

In his 1981 inaugural address, President Reagan assured the nation: “The economic ills we suffer … will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away. They will go away because we, as Americans, have the capacity now, as we have had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom. In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. … Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed. It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the federal government and those reserved to the states or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government.”

Reagan implemented massive tax reductions, deregulation and anti-inflation monetary policies, which brought inflation down to 3.2 percent by 1983 and unleashed a historic period of economic growth. Of course, behind all the policy implementation was the most important element of the recovery: Ronald Reagan was a man of character and substance, as evidenced by his historic re-election in 1984. He restored American confidence.

On the other hand, Obama, now facing the worst economic decline since the Carter debacle, has promised to “fundamentally transform the United States of America. … Everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — to lay a new foundation for growth.”

In his inaugural speech, Obama said, “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.” This, of course, suggests that somehow our bloated central government is not the problem, but the solution, if it is managed correctly.

Obama’s economic philosophy and solution to the current crisis is rooted in the tried and failed policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who attempted unsuccessfully to end the Great Depression with massive government spending. Obama also subscribes to Roosevelt’s class-warfare decree: “Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.”

If Roosevelt’s “principle” sounds familiar, that’s because it was no more American than Obama’s. Roosevelt was paraphrasing Karl Marx, whose maxim declared, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

History, as we know, is littered with the rubble of failed Socialist regimes. Nonetheless, Obama and his ilk press forward with their statist agendas, clearly indicative of their pathological predisposition toward fatalism.

After signing the Democrats’ massive pork pie spending bill, Obama said, “I don’t want to pretend that today marks the end of our economic problems. Nor does it constitute all of what we have to do to turn our economy around. But today does mark the beginning of the end.”

The beginning of the end of the last chapter of liberty and free enterprise, perhaps…

In the final analysis, Obama can redistribute a lot of wealth, but he can’t do what Reagan did — restore our nations confidence, because most Americans, Left and Right, know that he has no character, no substance.

Make no mistake: The “Recovery Act” is not about economic recovery. It’s about shackling our future to a socialist agenda, which will play out in the next decade short of significant intervention — a cyclical economic recovery, the advent of another great leader with the stature of Reagan, or another unpleasantry like that one begun in 1776, the discussion of which has now entered mainstream conversations, albeit at a whisper.

P.S. Visit Obama’s Recovery Act Web site. Once there, you’ll be greeted with a header proclaiming, “Your money at work.” The Accountability and Transparency section claims, “This is your money. You have a right to know where it’s going and how it’s being spent.”

Isn’t that nice — Obama is telling me who he is giving my money to because I “have a right to know”?

Now, if the money that Obama is confiscating from my family were really “my money,” it would be at work paying our mortgage and my kids’ tuitions, paying small contractors for improvements to our home, growing our small publishing business, funding salary increases for my employees to the benefit of their families. Heck, I might even replace my 10-year-old SUV with another GM product.

Obama’s Recovery Act site also has a link to “Share your Recovery Story.” I invite you to share yours today.

(For a list of economists who oppose BHO’s policies, or to read essays by economists who object, link to http://patriotpost.us/reference/disagreement.php.)

Quote of the week

“The fact is, we’ll never build a lasting economic recovery by going deeper into debt at a faster rate than we ever have before.” –Ronald Reagan

On cross-examination

“What [Obama calls] tax reductions in this bill are really transfer payments, particularly redistribution of income from the rich to the poor. The economy did very well [after the Bush] tax cuts of 2003. Obama has blamed [the Bush tax cuts] for part of the current financial collapse. There’s really no linkage between the tax cuts of 2003 and the financial and housing collapse we’ve seen in recent months. Abolishing the corporate income tax at the federal level I think would be very positive. It’s a very poor form of taxation. I would make permanent the kinds of changes that were in the 2003 tax reform, including the marginal tax rate structure.” –Harvard Economist Robert Barro on Obama’s “terrible piece of legislation”

Open query

“President Reagan inherited an economic situation even worse than the one President Obama has. When Reagan took office, the economy had been in recession for about a year, the unemployment rate was almost identical to today’s, but the labor force participation rate was smaller, and inflation was out of control. At the time, the newspapers were filled with stories about the ‘worst economy since the Great Depression’ — which, unlike today, was true, and the economic establishment seemed to be bereft of ideas of what to do. Credit markets were in a mess, and both businesses and consumers were not borrowing because they could not afford the interest rates. President Reagan, unlike his critics, had a clear plan to revive the economy, which included: monetary restraint to stop inflation; large reductions in marginal tax rates to renew the incentives to work, save and invest; and a reduction in nondefense spending as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). Unlike other recent presidents, Reagan actually kept and delivered on his promises, which resulted in high growth (7.2 percent in 1984 alone) and large reductions in the unemployment rate — particularly, inflation. He stuck with Mr. Volcker and his monetary restraint because he understood inflation had to be brought under control, even though he also knew it would necessarily prolong the recession. How many of today’s politicians would be willing to take the heat for the long run good?” –Richard W. Rahn, Chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth

Patriot Post

Vol. 09 No. 07
20 February 2009

Mark’s assessment is much kinder than what I expected. Then again, he is a gentleman.

Tags:Economy, News, Obama, Patriot Post, Politics, Reagan, Taxation
Posted in Blogroll, Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 8 Comments »

I want a SAMMY!

February 16, 2009

Sam Adams Alliance presents second annual Sammie Awards

Topics: Sam Adams Alliance

February 16, 2009

It’s award season, and no, we don’t mean those silly Oscars, Grammys, or Emmys. It’s Sammie time! Sponsored by the pro-liberty Sam Adams Alliance, the awards are designed to recognize grassroots work fighting government corruption and waste and support those who spread a message of liberty. The awards are backed with $40,000 in cash and it’s not too late to apply.

This year, the awards are offered in nine categories, ranging from best use of open records to best state or local-level blogger, and best voter watchdog. The deadline to apply has been extended to March 20th and submissions can include video or other demonstrations of your work.

We know that Coloradans are working hard to fight government corruption and expansion, so hurry up and apply. You can read about last year’s winners for ideas and inspiration. And while you’re at it, don’t forget to check out Face the State’s own investigative reporting contest.

Tags:awards, Blogs for Liberty, News, Politics, Sam Adams Alliance
Posted in Blogroll, Editorial, Opinion, Education, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

Second Amendment Update, and a few other items

February 11, 2009

Dave Kopal is probably the smartest person that I have ever been privileged to meet. Albeit quite briefly. Dave’s newsletter is incredible and I would urge anyone interested in freedom, liberty, and law to subscribe. Here is the latest.

From:	Kopel Newsletter [kopelnewsletter@liberty.seanet.com]
Sent:
To:
Subject:

h4 { /* Section Headings */ font-weight: bold; color: black; /*font-size: 1.2em;*/ } h3 { /* Item Titles */ font-weight: bold; color: black; /*font-size: 1.2em;*/ } h2 { /* Item Titles */ font-weight: bold; color: black; text-align: center; /*font-size: 1.2em;*/ } p { /* Default text */ font-weight: normal; color: black; font-size: 1em; } a { /* Default links */ } a:hover { /* Link hover */ }

Dave Kopel’s Second Amendment Newsletter

February 10, 2009
Dave Kopel’s Second Amendment Project is based at the Independence Institute,
a free-market think tank in Golden, Colorado.
http://www.independenceinstitute.org

The Independence Institute publishes several newsletters on other topics, plus a weekly newsletter containing our most recent op-eds and news of our activities. E-mail subscription to any of these newsletters is free.

Delivery of this newsletter comes courtesy of the Second Amendment Foundation, in Bellevue, Washington.
http://www.saf.org
This email was sent to psperry1@aceweb.com

Please visit Dave Kopel’s website, containing articles on the Second Amendment and other freedom topics.
http://www.davekopel.org

To subscribe to this free e-mail newsletter, please send a request to:
kopelnewsletter@liberty.seanet.com

New by Kopel: Amicus brief in Oak Park Case; Law Review Articles on the Relationship between Guns and Freedom; Magazine articles and short essays on the new administration, ‘BEWARE THE RAHM!,’ Eric Holder, The Sword & the Tome, the SHOT Show, Kmiec v. Kmiec, IANSA Strikes Again, a new Podcast Series, one on Holder, one on Hillary Clinton, and… Twitter!
Online Video: Satirical ‘Gun Free Zones,’ NRANews video archive
International: Armed Nepalese; Pakistani Self-Defense; Uruguayan Gun Control
Anti-Rights Movement: Obama’s Anti-RKBA Plans Surface; Brady Wish List; Philadelphia Protest; Regulatory Czar Stealth Agenda; Heller’s Lack of Effect; NRA on the Holder Nomination; Another SHOT Forecast
Pro-Rights Movement: Firearms Retailer Defense Fund; Halbrook on Holder; Winnetka Caves in Illinois; Massachusetts Police Chief Charged; Minnesota Concealed Carry
States and Failed States: Colorado Won’t Pre-Empt ‘Safe Storage’ or Castle; DC Busts USMC Amputee; NJ Gun Rationing; New York Loopholes and Legal Horrors
Law: Federal Courts on Chambers and Heller, No OSHA Pre-Emption, SF Housing Authority Caves, National Parks Carry Suit; State Courts on Haney, Gary Suit Back On, Nebraska Locales can’t forbid Concealed Carry
Research: Hardy on ‘Popular Understanding’ and St. George Tucker; The ‘Remainder Problem’ in Gun Control; Lund on Originalist Jurisprudence; Volokh vs. Brady Campaign in Fed. Soc Debate

New by Kopel

Legal Brief

Amicus brief in Chicago and Oak Park Handgun Ban Cases

David B. Kopel, Maureen Martin and James W. Ozog
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
February 4, 2009
http://davekopel.org/Briefs/ILEETA-Chicago-amicus.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.

Dave’s brief in the 7th Circuit appeal of the SAF and NRA challenges to the handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park. The brief is filed on behalf of the Independence Institute, the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, The Heartland Institute, Prof. David J. Bordua, Prof. William R. Tonso, and the Law Enforcement Alliance of America. The brief explains the social science evidence showing the public safety benefits of guns in law-abiding hands, and provides data showing the failure of the Chicago handgun ban.

Law Review Articles

The Second Amendment in the Tenth Circuit: Three Decades of (Mostly) Harmless Error

David B. Kopel
Denver University Law Review
Vol. 86, No. 3, 2009, forthcoming
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1327473

This is Lead article in their annual Tenth Circuit Survey. It provides a detailed analysis of all Second Amendment cases which have been decided by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The article examines the Circuit’s superficial reasoning in its claims that the Second Amendment protects only militiamen, and the Circuit’s refusal even to address important sources of authority which took a different view.

Is There a Relationship between Guns and Freedom? Comparative Results from 59 Nations

David B. Kopel
Texas Review of Law and Politics
Vol. 13, 2009, Forthcoming
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1090441

The near-final version of this forthcoming article from the Texas Review of Law & Politics is now available on SSRN. Dave wrote the article with Carl Moody and Howard Nemerov. Here’s the abstract: There are 59 nations for which data about per capita gun ownership are available. This Article examines the relationship between gun density and several measures of freedom and prosperity: the Freedom House ratings of political rights and civil liberty, the Transparency International Perceived Corruption Index, the World Bank Purchasing Power Parity ratings, and the Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom. The data suggest that the relationships between gun ownership rates and these other measures are complex. The data show that (although exceptions can be found) the nations with the highest rates of gun ownership tend to have greater political and civil freedom, greater economic freedom and prosperity, and much less corruption than other nations. The relationship only exists for high-ownership countries. Countries with medium rates of gun density generally scored no better or worse than countries with the lowest levels of per capita gun ownership.

Magazine Articles and Short Essays

Gun Control

David B. Kopel
Change in Command Issue 24
January, 2009
http://changeincommand.com/issues/gun-control

Dave here examines how Americans should view the inauguration of President Obama from a 2nd Amendment perspective.

BEWARE THE RAHM

Dave Kopel
America’s First Freedom
January, 2009
http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/beware-the-rahm.htm

“After pledging his support for the Second Amendment during the campaign, President-elect Barack Obama appoints devout gun-ban supporter Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff.”

STRIKE TWO!

Dave Kopel
America’s First Freedom
February, 2009
http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/Strike-Two.htm

On the heels of naming gun-banner Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff, Barack Obama once again puts the lie to his supposed support of the Second Amendment by selecting former Clintonite and gun-hater Eric Holder as attorney general.

The Sword & the Tome

Dave Kopel
America’s First Freedom
February, 2009
http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/Sword-and-Tome.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.

With a new presidential administration that is hostile to private firearm ownership now in office, we’ll likely be hearing a renewed torrent of anti-gun rhetoric coming from all directions. As we prepare for these challenges and arguments, it’s a good time to recall some important quotes that provide a long-term perspective.

SHOT Show Report

David Kopel
The Volokh Conspiracy
January 17, 2009
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_01_11-2009_01_17.shtml#1232226470

Retailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers were happy that they had been making lots of money (because of concerns about the administration) but there was also great trepidation about the future.

Kmiec v. Kmiec regarding Heller

Dave Kopel
The Volokh Conspiracy
January 6, 2009
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_01_04-2009_01_10.shtml#1231289178

“It seems odd for a legal scholar to reverse his view of a major constitutional issue so completely and so vehemently in a such a short period of time, especially without an expalanation of how he came to the conclusion that his former view was so utterly mistaken–or without even an acknowledgement that he recently held his former view so firmly that he urged the Supreme Court to adopt it.”

Arms Trade Treaty’s Purpose: Block Arms Sales to Israel

Dave Kopel
The Volokh Conspiracy
January 30, 2009
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_01_25-2009_01_31.shtml#1233368908

“A recent statement by the International Action Network on Small Arms, the world’s leading gun prohibition lobby, states that the Arms Trade Treaty, currently being drafted in the United Nations, would prohibit arms sales to Israel and to Hamas.”

New Podcast Series

Attorney General Eric Holder

Dave Kopel
Dave Kopel’s Second Amendment Podcast
Jan. 23, 2009
http://audio.ivoices.org/mp3/iipodcast252.mp3

This is the first installment of a new series of weekly podcasts, to be published every Friday. The Feb. 6 topic will the the Seventh Circuit cases on the Chicago handgun ban.

Hillary Clinton

Dave Kopel
Dave Kopel’s Second Amendment Podcast
January 29, 2009
http://audio.ivoices.org/mp3/iipodcast228.mp3

Hillary Clinton will be a strong Secretary of State, but her hostility to civillian ownership of firearms continues unabated.

Ongoing Dave Updates

Twitter/davekopel

Dave Kopel
Twitter.com

https://twitter.com/davekopel

Check in on Dave on Twitter. For the yet-unschooled, “Twitter is a free service that lets you keep in touch with people through the exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?” Dave provides hyperlinks and other data related to his ongoing activities. The service lends itself to small, handheld internet devices.

Online Video

Gun Free Zones

The Half Hour News Hour
YouTube Video
July 16, 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8

A rather funny short from the canceled Fox satirical series about the concept of protecting oneself within the putative safety of a ‘gun free zone.’

NRANews.Com

Informational Web Site
The National Rifle Association

http://www.nranews.com/nranews.aspx

The NRA has produced weekly professional internet videos on subjects of interest to supporters of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. This site offers access to the current week’s broadcast and an archive of past video.

International

Nepal

All Nepalese should carry weapons, says Maoist Minister

Press Trust Of India
January 11, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/b85snp

“All Nepali citizens should be given the right to carry arms for protecting themselves from ‘colonial powers’, a controversial Maoist Minister said. Gopal Kiranti did not elaborate on the “colonial powers”, but the statement comes a day after media quoted a yet-to-be released Maoist political document as saying that ‘American colonialism is moving ahead through Indian expansionism with the intention of increasing its hegemony in South Asia.’ “

Pakistan

For Middle-Class Pakistanis, a Gun Is a Must-Have Accessory: With Kidnappings and Violence on the Rise, Demand for Weapons Permits Grows

Peter Wonacott
The Wall Street Journal
January 6, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123120431026355961.html

After escaping kidnappers who chained him to a bed for 25 days, Mohammad Javed Afridi pressed Pakistani law enforcement for swift justice. The police offered him something else: temporary permits for four automatic assault rifles.

Uruguay

Discussing an Agenda for Gun Control

Comunidad Segura: Network of Ideas and Practicies in Citizen Security
UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
January 16, 2009
http://www.comunidadesegura.org/?q=en/STORY-Uruguay-Discussing-agenda-for-gun-control

“Congresswoman Daisy Tournİ, one of the main champions of gun control in the Uruguayan Parliament is also currently head of the nation’s Ministry of Interior. Since she took office however, progress on the nation’s gun control agenda has been postponed by issues related to violence and insecurity, as well as social demands.”

The Anti-Rights Movement

Urban Policy

Informational Web Page
The White House
January 21, 2009
http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/

On this website, posted the day after the inaguration, the Obama/Biden administration lists its objectives in this area: repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, which they claim restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and which they say would give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor ‘commonsense measures’ that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the ‘gun show loophole’ and making guns in this country childproof, the term is undefined. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

Gun Violence in America: Proposals for the Obama Administration

Press Release
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
December 28, 2008
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/politics/obama-transition-memo.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.

The Brady Campaign here makes its own case for ‘common sense’ gun laws to the impending Obma Administration. The document treats the need for immediate gun control as part of the President’s health care agenda.

5 Activists Arrested at Gun Shop Protest

Dafney Tales
The Philadelphia Daily News
January 15, 2009
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20090115_5_activists_arrested_at_gun_shop_protest.html

Five activists were arrested by Philadelphia Police after refusing to leave Colosimo’s Gun Center, despite multiple warnings.

Obama ‘Regulatory Czar’ has Secret Animal-Rights Agenda, Says Consumer Group

Press Release
Center for Consumer Freedom
January 15, 2009
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/Cass-Sunstein/Animal-Rights/prweb1868134.htm

“The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom said today that Cass Sunstein, the Harvard University Law School professor tapped by President-elect Obama to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has a secret aim to push a radical animal-rights agenda in the White House. Sunstein supports outlawing sport hunting, giving animals the legal right to file lawsuits, and using government regulations to phase out meat consumption.”

Letter on the Eric Holder Nomination for Attorney General of the United States

Wayne LePierre and Chris W. Cox
The National Rifle Association
January 9, 2009
http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/HolderLetter010909.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.

The Executive Vice-President of the NRA and the Executive Director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action wrote an open letter to Senators Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter on their grave misgivings over President Obama’s nomination of Eric Holder to be the next Attorney General. Holder opposed Heller, declared that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right, and supported restrictive fierarms control legislation.

The New Second Amendment: A Bark Worse than Its Right

Adam Winkler
The Huffington Post
January 2, 2009
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/the-new-second-amendment_b_154783.html

“To date, the lower federal courts have ruled in over 60 different cases on the constitutionality of a wide variety of gun control laws. There have been suits against laws banning possession of firearms by felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens, and individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. The courts have ruled on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting particular types of weapons, including sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, and specific weapons attachments. Defendants have challenged laws barring guns in school zones and post offices, and laws outlawing “straw” purchases, the carrying of concealed weapons, possession of an unregistered firearm, and particular types of ammunition. The courts have upheld every one of these laws. Since Heller, its Gun Control: 60, Individual Right: 0.” Winkler is a law professor at the UCLA School of Law.

Post-SHOT Recovery

Michael Bane
The Michael Bane Blog
January 25, 2009
http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2009/01/post-shot-recovery.html

Dave made reference to this summary of the firearms scene at the SHOT Show and in the political environment in Washington.

The Pro-Rights Movement

Firearms Retailer Defense Fund Launched

GunReports
January 13, 2009
http://www.gunreports.com/news/news/Firearms-Retailer-Defense-Fund-SHOT-Show_1071-1.html

“The Firearms Retailer Defense Fund is a new non-profit corporation created to assist independent retailers with legal expenses should they need to defend themselves against industry-altering litigation.”

FRDF: Firearms Retailer Defense Fund, LLC.

Informational Web Page

http://www.frdf.org/

“The Firearms Retailer Defense Fund (FRDF) has been created to assist firearms retailers should they find themselves involved in litigation filed by politicians, municipalities or anti-gun orgnanizations that scrutinize your business practices. As independent firearms retailers, you need not feel alone in your battle to defend your business and your rights to keep and bear arms.”

Halbrook to Testify in Hearings on Eric Holder for Attorney General

David Theroux
The Beacon Blog
January 16, 2009
http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=914

Here is Theroux’s blog posting of the testimony of Stephen P. Halbrook on the nomination of Eric Holder to be the next Attorney General of the United States, with comments and links.

Testimony of Stephen P. Halbrook on the Nomination of Eric H. Holder, Jr., For Attorney General of the United States

Stephen P. Halbrook
The Senate Judiciary Committee
January 14, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/d6tnn6

Here is the verbatim transcript of Halbrook’s testimony.

Outdoor Sports

Ark. Lawmaker Seeks Amendment to Protect Hunting

AP (Arkansas)
5NewsOnline
January 12, 2009
http://www.kfsm.com/Global/story.asp?S=9661050

“State Sen. Steve Faris is trying again for an amendment creating a constitutional right for Arkansans to hunt and fish.”

PETA wants to Rename Fish “sea kittens”

Lindsay Barnett
The Los Angeles Times
January 12, 2009
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2009/01/sea-kitten-peta.html

PETA has come up with an interesting tactic to discourage human consumption and sporting pursuit of fish.

Proposed Rule Clarifies Hunting Rule Changes at National Wildlife Refuges

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Federal Register
January 13, 2009
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-287.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.

This document describes proposed changes in policy and regulations regarding U.S. Wildlife refuges.

States and Failed States

Colorado

Brophy bill to Protect Homeowners Killed in Committee

Colorado State Senate News
January 26, 2009
http://www.coloradosenatenews.com/content/view/899/26/

Dave testified in favor of a bill to forestall municipalities from passing ‘safe storage’ laws that render firearms useless for immediate home defense. Democrats killed the bill in a strict party-line vote in the Senate Committee on State, Veteran, and Military Affairs.

Committee Dems Refuse to ‘Make My Day Better’

Colorado State Senate News
January 28, 2009
http://www.coloradosenatenews.com/content/view/903/26/

“Republican efforts to extend to the workplace the same rights Colorado citizens already have to protect their homes from violent intruders were stymied by ruling Democrats today.” The Democrats of the committee voted unanimously against the bill.

District of Columbia

Marine Amputee Acquitted On Gun Possession Charges

Keith L. Alexander
The Washington Post
January 14, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/an6g9o

“After being deadlocked twice, a D.C. Superior Court jury yesterday acquitted a Marine amputee on felony charges of gun possession stemming from an arrest while he was on the way to Walter Reed Army Medical Center.”

New Jersey

N.J. Fight on “Straw” Gun Buys Heats Up

Jonathan Tamari
The Philadelphia Inquirer
January 4, 2009
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/37053659.html

“New Jersey could soon become the fourth state to limit handgun purchases to one a month, a move aimed at fighting “straw” gun buyers who purchase weapons legally and pass them to criminals.”

New York

Old Firearms Given New Life by Restrictive New York Gun Control Laws

J.D. Tuccille
Examiner.com
January 19, 2009
http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2009m1d19-How-New-York-City-gave-new-life-to-old-guns

With criminals ignoring New York City’s gun restrictions, citizens are purchasing exempted black powder muzzle-loading revolvers in an effort to protect themselves.

Does Nassau County D.A.’s No-Handgun-Possession Policy Violate New York Law?

Eugene Volokh
The Volokh Conspiracy
January 13, 2009
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_01_11-2009_01_17.shtml#1231876639

Nassau County prohibits its assistant D.A.’s from applying for a handgun permit or owning a handgun while in office. Gene Volokh isn’t certain that New York state law allows an employer to do that.

My Time in a NYC Jail

‘Kwais’
grylliade.org
January 21, 2009
http://www.grylliade.org/node/3169

A retired Marine and a current Defense contractor spent two days and one night in a New York City jail after being improperly arrested in violation of federal law while trying to transport an unloaded firearm required for his work overseas.

NYC Jailhouse Blues

Brian Doherty
Reason Magazine
January 23, 2009
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/131241.html

Here’s a notice and further comment upon the account above.

Law

Federal Courts

CHAMBERS v. UNITED STATES

Associate Justice David Breyer
January 13, 2009
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/6-11206.html

In Chambers v. US, the Court clarified the potential impact of failing to report for penal confinement if you are later convicted of being a felon with a firearm. Under the Armed Career Criminal Act, an individual convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm gets a mandatory 15 year sentence if they have three prior convictions for serious drug offenses, violent felonies, or both. Federal prosecutors wanted to use a previous conviction for failing to show up to jail as one of Mr. Chambers “violent felonies.” The Supreme Court said no in an opinion by Justice Breyer, Justice Alito concurred.

Oral Argument on the Nordyke Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case

Case No. 07-15763
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
January 15, 2009
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000002641

Here is the actual audio of the oral arguments presented in the Nordyke vs. King case, the suit contesting an Alameda County law prohibiting gun shows on county property.

Federal Act Does Not Pre-empt Oklahoma Gun Law

Marie Price
The Journal Record (Oklahoma City)
January 21, 2009
http://www.journalrecord.com/article.cfm?recid=95327

“The federal agency in charge of workplace safety does not believe the Occupational Safety and Health Act pre-empts an Oklahoma law prohibiting employers from forbidding the storing of firearms in workers’ cars, according to a letter filed in an appeal with the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.”

Housing Authority Settles Gun Lawsuit

Bob Egelko
The San Francisco Chronicle
January 14, 2009
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/13/BALM15A1SG.DTL

The San Francisco Housing Authority has agreed to allow its residents to own guns in a settlement of a National Rifle Association lawsuit that followed last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the right to bear arms.

Settlement Agreement in Doe v. San Francisco Housing Authority

Trutanich-Michel LLP and Henry Alvarez, Executive Director of the San Francisco Housing Authority
United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division
January 12, 2009
http://volokh.com/files/sfpublichousingguns.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.

Here is the actual agreement in facsimile.

New National Parks Rule Allowing Loaded Guns Challenged by Lawsuit

Michael Sangiacomo
The Cleveland Plain Dealer
January 7, 2009

“The National Parks Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees filed suit this week in U.S. District Court to stop enforcement of a new regulation allowing loaded, concealed firearms in national parks, including the Cuyahoga Valley National Park.”

The First (?) Post-Heller Case Holding a Gun Control Law Unconstitutional

Eugene Volokh
The Volokh Conspiracy
January 12, 2009
http://volokh.com/posts/1231712651.shtml

“That’s U.S. v. Arzberger. The gun control law is the part of 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B) that requires that when someone is charged with possessing child pornography (among other crimes) and is freed on bail, he be ordered not to possess any firearm.” Dr. Volokh provides some commentary by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV.

United States of America vs. Jason Arzberger

Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV
United States District Court, Southern District of New York
December 31, 2008
http://www.volokh.com/files/arzberger.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.

Here is the actual decision.

State Law and Cases

Interesting Georgia Case

David Hardy
Arms and the Law
January 19, 2009
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/01/interesting_geo.php

“The gun owner was convicted of a drug offense in 1969, and received a full pardon in 1995. When he tried to purchase a firearm, the NICS staff called a local judge and asked him to revoke the fellow’s pistol permit (which I suspect is a BIG violation of the Privacy Act). Basis was a Georgia statute that says persons convicted of a drug offense are forever ineligible to get a pistol permit.Initially he surrendered his permit, then got new counsel, John Monroe and Douglas King, and they put up a fight. The judge ultimately rules for them. A pardon is an executive act, authorized by the state Constitution. The Legislature cannot change its effect. He then sued for an injunction against Federal authorities stopping his purchase and seeking an injunction against them prosecuting him. Here’s the GeorgiaPacking.org webpage on the pleadings. Word is that the government caved in, and provided him with a certification that he is not prohibited to purchase and possess.”

In Re Haney

Probate Court of Forsyth County
State of Georgia
December 23, 2008
http://www.georgiapacking.org/docs/haney_pardon_gfl/Order_Granting_GFL.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.

The actual order of the court In Re Haney is here.

Indiana Supreme Court Green-lights Lawsuit that Blames Gun Makers for Gary’s Crime Problems: Case Alleges Gun Makers, Dealers Knew Weapons Would Go to Criminals

Jon Murray
The Indianapolis
January 13, 2009
http://www.indystar.com/article/20090113/NEWS02/901130359

“The Indiana Supreme Court declined to review a lower court ruling, ending the second round of appeals since the case was filed in 1999. Gary’s suit alleges that 16 gun makers, including Smith & Wesson and Beretta, and six Northern Indiana gun dealers sold handguns they knew would get into the hands of criminals barred from owning them.”

Authority of Local Political Subdivisions to Prohibit the Carrying of Concealed Handguns by Permit Holders under the Concealed Handgun Permit Act

Jon Bruning
Attorney General, State of Nebraska
January 14, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/djrozv

The Nebraska Attorney General opinion explains that cities and towns may not ban the licensed carrying of handguns, because such a ban is preempted by state law. Localities may ban licensed carry in places (e.g., schools) were the mere possession of handguns is prohibited.

Research

Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment as Reflected in the Print Media of 1866-68

David T. Hardy
Working Paper
January 1, 2009
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1322323

Hardy argues that the decision in Heller arose from a belief that is not the intent of the body that proposed an amendment, but the understanding of the people at large who ratified it that matters in understanding a constitutional right. In that context, he analyzes the 14th Amemendment, arguing that the Slaughterhouse decisions invalidated what was understood by the mass of the people supporting its ratification to be that amendment’s expansion of the Bill of Rights to preclude its abrogation by the states.

The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker: A Framing Era View of the Bill of Rights

David T. Hardy
Northwestern University Law Review: Colloquy
December 22, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/bdg79c

“Given contemporary adherence to originalist interpretation, and the likelihood of future conflict—as demonstrated in Heller—between varieties of originalist analysis, dissemination of Tucker’s hitherto unpublished lecture notes may offer an important contextualization of the Bill of Rights during the Founding period. It is my hope that working to democratize, as it were, the availability of these documents will assist future historical and legal analysis.”

Imagining Gun Control in America: Understanding the Remainder Problem

Nicholas J. Johnson
Wake Forest Law Review
January 13, 2009
http://lawreview.law.wfu.edu/documents/issue.43.837.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.

“Without a commitment to or capacity for eliminating the existing inventory of private guns, the supply-side ideal and regulations based on it cannot be taken seriously. It is best to acknowledge the blocking power of the remainder and adjust ourgun control regulations and goals to that reality. Policymakers who continue to press legislation grounded on the supply-side ideal while disclaiming the goal of prohibition are deluded or pandering.”

The Second Amendment, Heller, and Originalist Jurisprudence

Nelson Lund
UCLA Law Review
2009 Forthcoming
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/amar.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.

While Lund agrees with the majority’s conclusion, he is disappointed in, for example, its dicta regarding how certain laws would still pass muster, which is given without any explanation derived from original understanding.

Gun Policy Debate Podcast

Charlie Blek and Eugene Volokh
Los Angeles chapter of Federalist Society and the Libertarian Law Society
December 5, 2008
http://www.losangelesfedsoc.org/GunPolicyDebate.mp3

Here is the audio of a fifty-one minute debate, moderated by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, between Mr. Charlie Blek of the Brady Campaign and Professor Eugene Volokh of the UCLA Law School on the subject of firearms policy.

This newsletter is compiled with help from Dr. Rob S. Rice. For more on this hyperenervated, yet volitional individual, see here: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rrice/rrice_hd.html. Dr. Rice also labors assiduously on his non-fiction, for examples of which see here: http://tinyurl.com/dhx7vx

Al Qaeda delenda est!

Tags:Bill of Rights, Constitution, Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, Law, News, Politics, Second Amendment
Posted in Blogroll, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Local Politics Colorado, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized, War, Wordpress Political Blogs | 6 Comments »

Pathology of the Left

April 11, 2008

This is yet another fine piece by Patriot Post’s Mark Alexander. In defining what a leftest is, this is undoubtedly the best tool for determining that. Yes, it is more than three years old, and it is still accurate.

Pathology of the Left

Mark Alexander
From Patriot Post Vol. 05 No. 08; Published 25 February 2005 |

In 2003 the American Psychological Association printed a study by a few academicians from Cal-Berkeley and the University of Maryland. The study, entitled “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition,” purported to have identified some determinants that are common to those holding a “conservative” worldview.

As one reads the report, it becomes readily apparent that their “norm” — that is, their control group — was somewhere to the left of SanFranNan Pelosi and her Ya Ya sisters, Babs Boxer and Di Feinstein — but then, what are we to expect from Cal-Berkeley and UM, or just about any of our nation’s “leading” academic institutions?

The authors received more than 1.2 million of your hard-earned tax dollars from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation in order to, by their own account, “consider evidence for and against the hypotheses that political conservatism is significantly associated with (1) mental rigidity and closed-mindedness; (2) lowered self-esteem; (3) fear, anger, and aggression; (4) pessimism, disgust, and contempt; (5) loss prevention; (6) fear of death; (7) threat arising from social and economic deprivation; and (8) threat to the stability of the social system.”

In other words, if you (1) have an opinion; and are (2) humble; (3) assertive; (4) a realist; (5) a conservationist; (6) not suicidal; (7) from modest means; and (8) a constitutional constructionist, or worse, a Christian, then you’re probably a wacky conservative.

Actually, what taxpayers got was re-warmed 1950-vintage rhetoric on what the authors call “authoritarianism and the fascist potential in personality.” They assert that “one is justified in referring to Hitler, Mussolini, Reagan, and Limbaugh as right-wing conservatives…” (Is it just us, or is that a rather tendentious juxtaposition of murderous tyrants and conservative icons?) All in all, this research stands as a sterling example of academic twaddle, providing “an integrative, meta-analytic review of research on epistemic, existential, and ideological bases of conservatism.” The authors’ ultimate finding — for what it’s worth — is that conservatives tend to “arrive at premature conclusions and impose simplistic clichés and stereotypes,” which, ironically, is precisely what the authors have done.

I waited for conservative behaviorist academicians to respond to this farcical pseudo-scholarly diatribe with a brief essay outlining the pathology of liberalism (contemporary, not classical). However, most conservative behaviorist left the academy a long time ago, and forgot to turn out the lights. That being the case, what follows is a rebuttal to this Leftist invective in the most general terms — sans the $1.2 million in confiscated wages and a forest of pulp for reprinting in “scholarly journals.”

Now then, what, in the broadest terms, constitutes a contemporary liberal — and why?

Liberals are almost uniformly defined by their hypocrisy and dissociation from reality. For example, the wealthiest U.S. senators — among them the Clintons, Kerry, Gore, Kennedy, Rockefeller, Feinstein, et al., — fancy themselves as defenders of the poor and advocate the redistribution of wealth, but they hoard enormous wealth for themselves and have never missed a meal.

Liberals speak of unity, but they seed foment, appealing to the worst in human nature by dividing Americans into dependent constituencies. Just who are these liberal constituencies? They support freedom of thought, unless your thoughts don’t comport with theirs. They feign tolerance while practicing intolerance. They resist open discussion and debate of their views, yet seek to silence dissenters. They insist that they care more about protecting habitat than those who hunt and fish. They protest for nature conservation while advocating homosexuality. They denounce capital punishment for the most heinous of criminals, while ardently supporting the killing of the most innocent among us — children prior to birth. They hate private-gun ownership, but they wink and nod when it comes to WMD in the hands of tyrants. They advocate for big government but want to restrain free enterprise.

Liberals constantly assert their First Amendment rights, except, of course, when it comes to religion. Here, they firmly impose the doctrines of secular atheism on everyone else. They believe that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than marijuana and crack smoke. They believe that one nut accused of bombing an abortion clinic deserves far more law-enforcement attention than Jihadi cells planning the 9/11 attacks. They call 9/11 victims “Hitlerian” while calling their murderers “oppressed.” They hate SUVs, unless imported and driven by their soccer mom constituents. They advocate mass transit but commute on private jets. They believe trial lawyers save lives and doctors kill people. They believe the solution to racism is to treat people differently on the basis of the color of their skin rather than the content of their character. They deride moral clarity because they can’t survive its scrutiny. They promote peace but foment division and hate.

Ad infinitum…

Why do liberals believe what they believe — and act the way they act? Psychopathology dictates, or frames, worldview, and worldview manifests in such things as political affiliation. Liberal pathology is very transparent and, thus, well defined.

Generally, liberals tend to be mentally rigid and closed-minded because they are insecure, the result of low self-esteem and arrested emotional development associated, predominantly, with fatherless households or critically dysfunctional families in which they were not adequately affirmed. They exhibit fear, anger, and aggression — the behavioral consequences of arrested emotional development associated with childhood trauma (primarily rejection by a significant family member of origin as noted above).

Liberals display pessimism, disgust, and contempt for much the same reason. They focus on loss prevention because they have suffered significant loss. They fear death because they have little or no meaningful connection with their Heavenly Father — often the result of the disconnect with their earthly fathers. They often come from socially and/or economically deprived homes, but those who are inheritance-welfare trust-babies (see Kennedy, et al.) manifest similar expectations about being helpless without external sustenance. Liberals reject individual responsibility and social stability because these were not modeled for them as children — the generational implications of pathology.

Sound familiar — apparently the profs at Cal-Berkeley and Maryland attributed their own pathological traits to their opposition. It’s called projection — or, yes indeed, hypocrisy.

While the aforementioned environmental and behavioral factors are not universally causal in the emergence of a liberal worldview, they certainly are predominant. Close examination of the early childhood of most liberals will reveal they were “victims” of many of these circumstances, which is, in part, the basis for their “victim mentality.”

Medically speaking, there is a diagnosis for Leftist over-achievers like Bill Clinton and Albert Gore. They are pathological case studies of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, as outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — the standard reference used for psychiatric evaluation.

The diagnostic criteria for NPD includes a “pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts,” which manifests as “a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements);” “a preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love; and a belief that he or she is ‘special’ and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions),” and the subject “lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others…shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.”

Dr. Henry Miller, a 20-year veteran of the National Institutes of Health and Food & Drug Administration, notes, “People who suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder are tough to be around. They make terrible bosses, unbearable in-laws and insufferable neighbors. That’s why I don’t want Al Gore to be president – or to live next door to me.”

As a Tennessean, not only do I not want Al Gore as a neighbor, I would be content if he never returned to my state. In fact, as an American, I would prefer he pack up and leave the continent altogether.

Of course, there are many conservatives who were raised by a single parent or in critically dysfunctional and/or impoverished homes. However, somewhere along the way, they were lifted out of their misery by the grace of God — often in the form of a significant mentor who modeled individual responsibility and character. As a result, they have the courage to internalize their locus of responsibility, unlike liberals, who externalize responsibility for problems and solutions, holding others (read “conservatives”) to blame for their ills, and bestowing upon the state the duty for arbitrating proper conduct — even proper thought.

And a footnote: It’s no coincidence that conservative political bases tend to be suburban or rural, while liberal political bases tend to be urban (see http://PatriotPost.US/map.asp). The social, cultural and economic blight in many urban settings are the catalysts for producing generations of liberals. Many urbanites no longer have a connection with “the land” (self-sufficiency) and, thus, tend to be largely dependent on the state for all manner of their welfare, protection and sustenance — “It Takes a Village” after all.

Posted in Blogroll, Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, Local Politics Colorado, Men's Issues, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

Ask Your U.S. Senator and Representative To Sign The Amicus Brief Against The D.C. Gun Ban Today!

January 31, 2008

URGENT ALERT: Ask Your U.S. Senator and Representative To Sign The Amicus Brief Against The D.C. Gun Ban Today!

As the most critical Second Amendment case of our lifetimes is now before the Supreme Court, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) is gathering signatures for an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief by Members of Congress. And we need your support to back up this important effort, today.

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller — the case in which several District of Columbia residents have challenged the District’s laws that prohibit handgun ownership and armed self-defense in the home. This brief is an opportunity to show strong congressional support for the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms and not just a “right” to bear arms while serving in a government militia.

Sen. Hutchison’s brief points out the many occasions-from 1866 to 2005-when the Congress has spoken in favor of the Second Amendment as protecting the rights of individuals, and has taken action to protect those rights by law. Congress has also voted repeatedly to repeal the D.C. gun ban.

When Congress speaks, the Supreme Court listens. Every Senator and Congressman who supports individual rights should step forward to be heard by signing this brief. The brief is due within days, so we need your immediate help today.

Please call and email your U.S. Senator and Representative today and urge them to sign on to this critically important brief, which will be a key part of the legal battle to protect the Second Amendment in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Posted in Blogroll, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Local Politics Colorado, News, Politics, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

HOW TO CATCH WILD PIGS « D=S

January 12, 2008

HOW TO CATCH WILD PIGS « D=S

I stumbled across this while web surfing today. It is a take off from something that I was told as a child and the message is still important today, if not more so. All to often, men simply act in what they perceive to be in their best interest for the moment. Never bothering to look past what is directly in front of their noses.

Now, one might believe that this is simply a function of youth and inexperience. If that were so then people like John McCain and Fred Thompson wouldn’t say or do some of the stupid things that they do. Rather, they are the ones that are subtly building the fence.

Posted in Blogroll, Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Men's Issues, Military Science, News, Politics, Uncategorized, War, Warfare | Comments Off on HOW TO CATCH WILD PIGS « D=S

Front Sight, simply the best that there is!

January 12, 2008

January 11, 2008

Dr. Ignatius Piazza
Founder and Director
http://www.frontsight.com

Do You “Digg” Front Sight and the Millionaire Patriot?

Dear Patrick,

I’d like to ask you a favor by helping me in a little
Internet experiment…

I created the http://www.frontsight.com/free-gun.asp page
and am giving you the first shot at the unbelievable offer
before I begin promoting it throughout the Internet by
various methods.

Since it is a brand new page, I would like to see if WE (me,
you, and our fellow Front Sight enthusiasts) can get it
immediately listed high in the search engines.

Would you please do me the favor of placing
http://www.frontsight.com/free-gun.asp as a link on any and
all of your personal and business web pages? I would
appreciate it very much.

And equally important for this particular Internet
experiment, please go to http://digg.com/register/ and join
the “Digg” Community. Once you have joined Digg, then click
on the “Digg It” button I installed on the top of
http://www.frontsight.com/free-gun.asp which will
dramatically help the offer get quickly exposed to the
Digg Community throughout the Internet world.

I will let you know how this all works in a couple of weeks.

Again, I greatly appreciate your favor in placing the
http://www.frontsight.com/free-gun.asp link on your
websites today and helping us penetrate the online Digg
Community by joining it and then clicking on the Digg It
button on the Millionaire Patriot page at:

http://www.frontsight.com/free-gun.asp

Thanks again for your support in spreading this fabulous
offer to all who will appreciate it.

I look forward to seeing you at Front Sight soon!

Sincerely,

Dr. Ignatius Piazza
Founder and Director
Front Sight Firearms Training Institute
http://www.frontsight.com
info@frontsight.com
1.800.987.7719

Tags:Training
Posted in Blogroll, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Local Politics Colorado, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Irish Christmas Cookies

December 22, 2007

Some things are timeless indeed. My forefathers brought certain things from the Emerald Isle that persist to this very day in fact! A Pint of plain, was, and still is the very same Guiness. Celtic gold work is still among the finest made. Celt whisky, be it Irish or Scot, is, and always be, ambrosia…

1c of dark brown sugar
1c (2 sticks) butter
1c of granulated sugar
4 large eggs
2c of dried fruit, such as dried cranberries or raisins
1tsp salt
1tsp fresh lemon juice
1c coarsely chopped walnuts or pecans
2c all-purpose flour
1 bottle Knappogue Castle

Instructions:

Take a large bowl, sample the Knappogue Castle to be sure it is of the highest quality, pour one level cup and drink.

Turn on the electric mixer… beat one cup of butter in a large bowl. Add one teaspoon of sugar. Beat again.

At this point it’s best to make sure the is still OK, try another cup, just in case.

Turn off the mixerer thingy. Break 2 legs and add to the bowl and chuck in the cup of dried fruit. Pick the frigging fruit off floor…

Mix on the turner. If the fried druit gets stuck in the etrrs, just pry it loose with a drewscriver.

Sample the Knappogue Castle to check for tonsisticity.

Next, sift two cups of salt, or something.

Check the Knappogue Castle.

Now shift the lemon juice and strain your nuts. Add one table. Add a schpoon of sugar, or somefink… whatever you can find.

Grease the oven. Turn the cake tin 360 degrees and try not to fall over.

Don’t forget to beat off the turner.

Finally, throw the bowl through the window, FINISH the Knappogue Castle and make sure to put the stove in the dishwasher.

Cheery Mishmas..

stolen in principle from; http://texasfred.net/archives/870#comment-5805

Tags:Christmas, Cookies, Cooking
Posted in Blogroll, Education, Humor, News, Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

	Patrick Sperry on On Not so civil wars…
	TexasFred on Guest commentary…
	MaddMedic on Guest commentary…
	Patrick Sperry on The Stupid runs deep…
	Patrick Sperry on Math for planning in the comin…