Archive for the ‘Hoplophobia’ Category

President Obama’s voting puppets: GOA strikes back

October 18, 2010

On the Campaign Trail in Arkansas

Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund endorsed three candidates in Arkansas for the November elections: Richard Crawford in the First Congressional District, Tim Griffin in the Second, and John Boozman for Senate. 

All three are campaigning vigorously, and their hard work is paying off in recent polls.

Arkansas First Congressional

According to a poll released this week by The Hill, a Washington, D.C. political news organization, Rick Crawford is leading his Democrat opponent in the First Congressional District.

Crawford, a small business owner and constitutional conservative, is forthright in his support for the Second Amendment.  His commitment to protecting the right to keep and bear arms earned him an “A” rating from GOA. 

Tim Macy, Roger HedgecockGOA Vice-Chariman Tim Macy (left) with nationally syndicated talk show host Roger Hedgecock on the campaign trail in Arkansas 

His rival, a staffer for the retiring Congressman in the district, did not return a GOA survey even though he was given two opportunities to do so in the past few months.  This is usually a sign that the candidate is hiding anti-gun views.

Learn more about Rick http://www.meetrickcrawford.com.

Arkansas Second Congressional

In the Second District, Tim Griffin leads his opponent by 17 points.

A fifth generation Arkansan, Tim is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and is committed not only to opposing the anti-gun schemes of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but he will also work to roll back the unconstitutional gun laws already on the books.

His opponent, “F” rated by GOA, will be just another vote for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her radical, anti-gun agenda.

Tim’s website is http://www.timgriffinforcongress.com.

Arkansas Senate

In the race for one of Arkansas’ U.S. Senate seat, Rep. John Boozman holds a double-digit lead over incumbent Sen. Blanche Lincoln.

In the U.S. House, Rep. Boozman has been a champion for the Second Amendment, one of only six House members to earn an “A+” from GOA.  In addition to holding a perfect voting record, Rep. Boozman is the author of the “Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act,” a bill which would allow concealed carry licenses to be recognized while traveling across state lines.

He also recently took the lead in opposing President Obama’s efforts to block the importation of—or even destroy—nearly one million M1 Garand rifles from South Korea.  The firearms are lawful for Americans to own, and Rep. Boozman continues to work on this issue even as the congressional session winds down.

His opponent has proven to be one of President Obama’s voting puppets.  Sen. Lincoln voted for a slew of anti-gun nominees put forward by the President, including two anti-Second Amendment Supreme Court Justices and a U.S. Attorney General who would like to reinstate the semi-auto ban of 1994.

The polls indicate that voters have had enough of Sen. Lincoln marching in lockstep with the President and his anti-gun agenda.  Rep. John Boozman is a proven leader and a consistent friend of gun owners both across the state of Arkansas and across the country.

Visit John Boozman on the web at http://www.boozmanforarkansas.com.

The elections in Arkansas are crucial for the makeup of the new Congress.  Not only are pro-gunners leading in Districts 1 and 2, but both seats also stand to flip from Pelosi-supporting anti-gun puppets to strong Constitutional leaders.

And in the Senate, John Boozman will be one less vote for anti-gun Majority Leader Harry Reid, and one less vote for the devastating Obama agenda.

Although their hard work is paying off with great polling numbers, none of these candidates are taking anything for granted. They are campaigning hard right up to Election Day, so if you can help out any of these campaigns with volunteer efforts or a financial contribution, please visit their websites.

SOURCE

New York: Imitating California, as in going full blown stupid..?

October 18, 2010

 

Andrew Cuomo and the Gunmaker Litigation

Posted by Walter Olson

There are many reasons to be glum about the impending coronation of dynastic heir Andrew Cuomo, now leading in the New York governor’s race against a GOP opponent (Carl Paladino) who at first polled decently but has since stumbled. Some fret about the Democrat’s reputation for political hardball: former governor Eliot Spitzer (Eliot Spitzer!) last month called Cuomo the “dirtiest, nastiest political player out there,” which is like being called overdressed by Lady Gaga. Others find Cuomo too much of a camera-chaser as attorney general in Albany, and almost everyone is queasy over his role (as Clinton-era housing secretary) in encouraging risk-taking by federally backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, leading by direct steps to today’s ongoing mortgage crisis. (For background, see Wayne Barrett’s famous 2008 Village Voice article.)

I have a different reason for cringing at the idea that voters would ever elevate Andrew Cuomo to higher office, and it’s also based on memories of his tenure as housing secretary. Not the Fannie-Freddie-subprime end of it, although I concede that in a strictly economic sense those were the most damaging things he did. No, what I find permanently hard to forgive is the way Cuomo threw himself into the role of chief national cheerleader for the municipal anti-gun litigation of the 1990s and early 2000s.

Because that litigation mostly fizzled out, it is now only half remembered and doesn’t much feature in Cuomo profiles. At the time, though, it was a close-fought battle and a big story. More than 30 cities and counties sued firearms makers, alleging that courts should hold them financially responsible for the costs of urban shootings. The cry was to make guns the “next tobacco,” following the successful litigation campaign against tobacco companies that extracted hundreds of billions of dollars for the benefit of state coffers (and private lawyers).

Of course there are enormous differences between the tobacco and gun businesses. One is that while major tobacco makers had billion-dollar revenue streams to share as part of a settlement, most gunmakers are smallish enterprises, often family-owned. And this in fact was a conscious element of the strategy for the lawyers who promoted the suits: because gunmakers were too thinly capitalized to withstand the costs of years of legal defense, it was thought they’d fold their hands and yield to “gun control through litigation” (explicitly couched as an end run against a then-Republican Congress resistant to gun control proposals). Smith and Wesson actually did yield to a settlement on this rationale, which soon collapsed following a public outcry from gun owners and others outraged by the use of extortive litigation to achieve gun control objectives. The gamble having failed, the suits eventually reached judges and were generally thrown out, but not before imposing huge and uncompensated costs on many small companies that had violated no laws. Some were bankrupted.

Mindful of traditional tenets of legal ethics that forbid lawyers from using the cost of legal process as a bludgeon, most backers of the suits prudently refrained from any hint that imposing unsustainable legal costs was part of the plan. One exception was Cuomo, who warned gunmakers that unless they cooperated, they’d suffer “death by a thousand cuts.” And another was then-New-York-AG Spitzer, who reportedly warned an executive of holdout Glock: “If you do not sign, your bankruptcy lawyers will be knocking at your door.”

I think Spitzer and Cuomo deserve each other, really. What I can’t figure out is why the good citizens of New York would want either of them.

SOURCE

Second Amendment Foundation Defends an American Veteran!

October 17, 2010

Alright… I like the Second Amendment Foundation, what they do, and why they do what they do. What makes me sick though is the never ending begging for bucks that they engage in. Want to donate? Fine, I’ll plug in a link at the end.

Now, the meat of this is a theme often addressed here. That being life time bans of inalienable rights for less than felonious deeds. Indeed, since the treasonous and un-Constitutional Lautenberg Abomination that made ex post fact law the national norm? Things have only become worse, due to hot button political correctness. The Second Amendment Foundation is taking this head on. Playing follow the leader is not always a bad thing, as Gun Owners of America have been on top of this from day one. While the NRA, sat back, and collected dues…

SAF Sues Eric Holder, FBI Over
Misdemeanor Gun Rights Denial

Acting on behalf of a Georgia resident and honorably discharged Vietnam War veteran, the Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation over enforcement of a federal statute that can deny gun rights to someone with a simple misdemeanor conviction on his record.

The lawsuit was filed in United States District Court for the District of Columbia. SAF and co-plaintiff Jefferson Wayne Schrader of Cleveland, GA are represented by attorney Alan Gura, who successfully argued both the Heller and McDonald cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

MILITARY VETERAN ACTING IN SELF-DEFENSE DENIED RIGHT TO OWN A GUN

In July 1968, Schrader, then 21, was found guilty of misdemeanor assault and battery relating to a fight involving a man who had previously assaulted him in Annapolis, MD. The altercation was observed by a police officer, who arrested Schrader, then an enlisted man in the Navy, stationed in Annapolis. The man he fought with was in a street gang that had attacked him for entering their “territory,” according to the complaint.

FBI THREATENS TO CONFISCATE SCHRADER’S FIREARMS

Schrader was ordered to pay a $100 fine and $9 court cost. He subsequently served a tour of duty in Vietnam and was eventually honorably discharged. However, in 2008 and again in 2009, Mr. Schrader was denied the opportunity to receive a shotgun as a gift, or to purchase a handgun for personal protection. He was advised by the FBI to dispose of or surrender any firearms he might have or face criminal prosecution.

FELONS GIVEN MORE RIGHTS THAN HONORABLE SERVICEMAN

“Schrader’s dilemma,” explained SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “is that until recently, Maryland law did not set forth a maximum sentence for the crime of misdemeanor assault. Because of that, he is now being treated like a felon and his gun rights have been denied.

“No fair-minded person can tolerate gun control laws being applied this way,” he added. “Mr. Schrader’s case is a great example of why gun owners cannot trust government bureaucrats to enforce gun laws.”

Now, more than ever, we need your commitment to fight the war against unlawful gun enforcement. The lawyer’s bills are mounting. Fighting for freedom is not inexpensive. Help us raise the amount we need to stop the anti-gunners dead in their tracks.

Support from patriots like you will help us make sure what happened to Jefferson Wayne Schrader doesn’t happen to you.

YOU CANT PUT A PRICE ON THE VALUE OF YOUR LIFE

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.SAF.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms.  Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

DO NOT BE SILENCED – MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!

For our projects to be successful, we must count on the voluntary financial support from individuals like you who care.

We need your financial support today to ensure we have the resources to beat back anti-gunners who will stop at nothing to take away our right and ability to defend ourselves and our families.

Here is the obligatory link

Colorado Election : Positions concerning 2010 Statewide Ballot Initiatives

October 16, 2010

As directed by the Libertarian Party of Colorado Constitution, the Board of Directors has reviewed the 2010 amendments and propositions on the ballot for voter consideration.  There are seven proposed amendments to the Colorado Constitution and two propositions to change the Revised Statutes.

For the 2010 election, the Colorado “Blue Book” contains succinct summaries of each of these.  There are also pro and con websites and other information being provided in numerous information media outlets.
The Libertarian Party of Colorado consists of free thinkers and responsible voters who seek as much information as possible about the pros and cons of every voting decision they will make.  We believe every libertarian and other voters will make up their own minds based on their careful review of the issues.
The following are the Libertarian Party of Colorado positions concerning each of the 2010 Colorado initiatives.
Amendment P –Regulation of Games of Chance. The LPCO takes no position either way on this amendment.
Moves bingo and raffle licensing from Sec State to Dept of Revenue (or other designated by the state legislature).  In addition to time, energy, and money already expended on this change to existing law, there will be a onetime $116,000 expenditure from bingo and raffle license fees.
The amendment makes no significant changes to the Colorado Constitution or the long term financial situation of the State Government-
Amendment Q –Temp Location of State Seat of Government.  The LPCO recommends Yes on this amendment.
Currently there is no provision in the Colorado Constitution for convening of the State Government if a major disaster emergency were to make Denver unusable.  This amendment provides direction for the Governor and the Legislature to designate a temporary location for the seat of government.
Amendment R –Exempt Possessory Interests in Real Property.  The LPCO recommends Yes on this amendment.
Eliminates property taxes for individuals and businesses that use government-owned property for a private benefit worth $6,000 or less in market value.
The fiscal effects of this amendment are relatively minor, but should increase the efficiency of local governments by reducing the costs of assessing and collecting minor amounts of property taxes from numerous small assessments.
Ammendment 60 –Concerning Property Taxes. The LPCO recommends a YES vote on this amendment.
Strengthens TABOR by adding a new section (10) to Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution.
-Requires audit and enforcement of this section.
-All owners of real property would be entitled to vote on all proposed property taxes affecting their property.
-Voters may petition to lower property taxes
-Property tax issues shall have November election notices separate from debt issues
-Property Tax bills list only property taxes and late charges
-Enterprise and authorities shall pay property taxes.  Lower mil-levy rates to offset income to taxing dist
-10 year expiration on property tax rate increases
-Extending expiring property taxes, is a tax increase
-Prior actions to keep excess property tax revenue are expired; future actions are tax increases expiring in 4 years.  Local governments and enterprises will have to make serious adjustments to their budgets and seek direct voter approval of property taxes on at least a four-year cycle.
-by 2020, non-college school districts phase out ½ of their 2011 property tax rate for operating expenses.  State aid replaces the revenue.  Shifts school operating costs to State general fund from local resources.
Amendment 61 –Limit State and Local Government Borrowing. The LPCO recommends YES on this amendment.
-Repeals existing Article XI Section 3 and re-enacts the original 1876 version of this section to read, “The state shall not contract any debt in any form.”
-Repeals Article XI Sections 4, 5, 6(2), and 6(3) as obsolete and superceded.
-Repeals and re-enacts Article XI Section 6(1) to require voter approval for local governments to contract debt.  Also requires ballot title to be specific.
-Adds further specific requirements concerning debt to Article X section 20(4)
–November Ballot approval
–10 year limit on new local debt
–borrowing can’t exceed 10% of assessed valuation
–Tax Rates must be reduced when borrowing is repaid
Amendment 62 Application of Term Person. The LPCO recommends NO on this amendment.
Would define person as at the beginning of biological development and entitled to full protection of Colorado law.
This is an effort to insert the State into the intensely personal decisions concerning the beginning of human life.  It would only further complicate already difficult decisions.
Amendment 63 -Health Care Choice. The LPCO recommends Yes on this amendment.
Adds Article II section 32 to make health care choice a constitutional right.  Prohibits the state from requiring a person to participate in health plans.  Restricts the state from limiting a person’s ability to make or receive direct payments for health services.  Exempts emergency treatment and Workers’ Compensation from this new right.
This is in response to the recently enacted Federal health care decrees.  It is unfortunately now necessary for Colorado to take a stand to protect individual and state rights associated with US Constitution Article I and Amendments 9 and 10.
Proposition 101 -Income, Vehicle, and Telecommunication Taxes and Fees.  The LPCO recommends YES on this Proposition.
-Reduces state income tax rate from 4.63% to 4.5% in 2011 and then over time to 3.5%.
-reduces and eliminates vehicle taxes and fees over next 4 years.
-eliminates all state and local taxes on telecommunications service, except 911 fees
-requires voter approval to for future vehicle and telecomm fees.
Proposition 102 –Criteria for Release to Pretrial Services Programs.  The LPCO recommends NO on this proposition.
Adds requirements to Colorado Statutes to prohibit release of a defendant on an unsecured bond to pretrial services program unless it is a first offense and is nonviolent misdemeanor.
If passed this measure will reduce the ability of Judges to release those accused of crimes while awaiting trial.  Those unable to afford additional bonding expenses would remain in custody.  Additional total costs to the State are estimated at $2.8 million.
Retention of Colorado Supreme Court Judges.
For the 2010 November election, voters are asked to consider retention/non-retention of a number of Judges.  The LPCO encourages all voters to carefully consider each judge.
Several of the Citizen initiated amendments on the 2010 November Ballot are in response to Supreme Court decisions contrary to the intent of existing constitutional provisions.  The activist nature of the recent Colorado Supreme Court and it’s decisions appears to be more focused on predetermined outcomes rather than the Rule of Law.
-The LPCO recommends NO on each of the 3 Supreme Court Judges to be considered.
SOURCE:
Date: 12 Oct 10
From: LPCO Board of Directors
To:   Colorado Libertarians and interested Voters
Subj:  Libertarian Party of Colorado Positions concerning 2010 Statewide Ballot Initiatives.

Perhaps the LPCO has regained some semblance of sanity? Time will tell.


Denver Post endorsesClear The Bench Colorado!* sort of…

October 16, 2010

 

Denver Post endorsesClear The Bench Colorado!*

(*Well, sort of…  one editor (of 5 total), endorsing 2 out of 3 recommendations plus all of the analysis, pretty much adds up to one endorsement.  Fun with fractions!)

Contact Matt Arnold: director@clearthebenchcolorado.org or 303.995.5533.

 

On Wednesday October 13th, the Denver Post, in what is the closest thing to an official position on the three Colorado Supreme Court incumbents (justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Nancy Rice) seeking an additional 10-year term on this year’s ballot the newspaper is likely to take, endorsed two of the three recommendations advanced by Clear The Bench Colorado.

The editorial (“No clean sweep of justices“) endorsed the “compelling indictment of Michael Bender and Alex Martinez” but differed with Clear The Bench Colorado’s recommendation on Justice Rice.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether Justice Rice deserves another 10 years on the bench (CTBC’s analysis of her opinions in key constitutional cases shows a split result, leaning narrowly towards non-retention; Attorney General John Suthers had also earlier endorsed a “retain” vote on Justice Rice while advocating a “do not retain” vote on Justice Michael Bender and Justice Alex Martinez, as well).

Most importantly, the Denver Post editorial strongly complimented the Clear The Bench Colorado Evaluations of Judicial Performance analysis as a superior resource to the sham “Blue Book” reviews:

“In every election, voters go to the polls with virtually no knowledge of the judges up for retention – thanks to the nearly useless evaluations issued by the state’s judicial performance commission. So voters do owe Clear the Bench Colorado their thanks for actually offering substantive analysis.”

 

The ultimate responsibility – and authority – rests with the voters.  Clear The Bench Colorado urges all Colorado citizens to become informed about how the Colorado Supreme Court has aided and abetted assaults on their rights (and wallets!) with a consistent pattern of not following the Constitution where it doesn’t agree with their own personal agenda – and drawing the necessary and logical conclusions.

As a Citizen, you DO have the right to vote “NO” on these incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices as they seek an additional 10-year term this November.  Clear The Bench Colorado urges Colorado voters to exercise their rights on the ballot this November.

Why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

October 12, 2010

Why The Gun In Civilization

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat — it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

SOURCE

NRA Endorsements: Single issue organization fallacy

October 12, 2010

The National Rifle Association recently released it’s political endorsements for the upcoming elections. There is an excellent discussion about this HERE. Be sure to read through the comments as they are a bot more than enlightening. I had planned on an in depth posting on the subject, however Dave Kopel really beat me to it! 🙂

Now, speaking as a Life Member I have one thing to say about the NRA being a “single issue” organization. BOVINE FECES Mister Cox and Mister LaPierre. I seem to remember something about “It’s not about hunting ducks.” Yet, the NRA has an entire division devoted to hunting. Let’s not forget about the various marksmanship  and safety programs that are offered. Single issue? Hardly! Stop the hypocrisy, please!

Then we have the NRA rolling over time and time again; The NRA supported ex post facto law. The NRA has supported so-called “reasonable” restrictions on your Second Amendment rights on so many occasions that I won’t bother with citation.

Now, I happen to like many of the programs noted above, and believe that they are quite valuable resources. Just stop playing the game that, for all appearances, looks to simply be more pandering to high dollar donors. While at the same time going into damage control mode when the membership decides to take you to the wood shed over yet another action that is so clearly against their (the membership’s) wishes. And or dealing in appeasement politics.

Who will truly protect your rights on a national level? Gun Owners of America does. As does the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Association for Gun Rights. There are also regional and state organizations that refuse to kow tow to along the lines of the NRA. Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, and Wyoming Gun Owners come to mind, and there are others out there that I am not familiar with.

Sure, vote freedom first! Just make sure that is actually what you are doing, and support those organizations that truly defend your rights!

Epic Fail obama: American Civilian Gunned Down In Cold Blood On Mexican Border

October 8, 2010

Obama has still not responded to the heartbreaking and shocking news of last week’s murder of American civilian David Hartley. “How many more American citizens have to die?” said Texas Governor Rick Perry as he challenged Washington to get its act together.

Hartley and his wife Tiffany were jet skiing on Falcon Lake, which straddles the Texas border between the U.S. and Mexico. While they were sight-seeing they were savagely ambushed and attacked without provocation by Mexican pirates. The pirates swooped in mercilessly on speed boats and gunned down David Hartley in cold blood. Tiffany was unable to recover her husband’s body after he was shot in the head, and she fled the attackers back to the U.S side of the lake in order to get help.

Tell The Congress No Amnesty – Secure the Border NOW!
SELECT HERE – Stop Amnesty – Defend Arizona

The pirates are believed to be a part of Mexican drug cartels which are notoriously active in the area. Cartel violence and the entire U.S.-Mexico border are so out of control now that the Mexican government has finally dispatched its military to deal with the gangs. However, the Mexican military seems to have no effect on the brutal cartels.

What has Obama done about escalating U.S. losses? Nothing but post signs telling Americans to stay away from border areas on U.S. soil and RUN AWAY from killers in our own backyard!!! Well, I guess even a jet ski is just not fast enough.

This savage killing is just another tragic result of the Obama administration not securing the border and leaving U.S. citizens defenseless to completely unacceptable and totally avoidable murders known to be perpetrated by ruthless Mexican drug runners.

Just last spring Rancher Robert Krentz was killed by an illegal alien believed to have ties to the drug cartels on his own land. Krentz’ murder was the flashpoint which ignited the controversial Arizona immigration enforcement legislation signed into law by the Governor of AZ and promptly stayed by the Obama Justice Department. The outrage over the open border has only grown since then. Americans want the border sealed and the flow of illegal criminals, thugs and drugs pouring over the border stopped!

However, the Obama administration has done nothing to combat this crisis. The safety of American citizens relies on signs posted 70 miles inside the border saying that American soil is no longer safe and AMERICAN CITIZENS are not allowed on their own land. This is an unprecedented act of cowardice, ceding sovereign U.S. territory to alien banditry, and Obama is the first American President to ever passively and preemptively concede American land to foreign terrorists.

Governor Perry is right to be outraged! He is doing everything he can to make sure the body of David Hartley is recovered. Mexican authorities aren’t allowing U.S. officials to enter the Mexican waters of Falcon Lake to aid the search. Mexico City district attorney Marco Antonio Guerrero Carrixales said recently that they, “are not certain that incident happened the way that they are telling us.” Tiffany Hartley is convinced, as are many others, that Obama could bring more pressure on the Mexican government to exert itself against the cartels to recover the body. Governor Perry responded by saying, “I find it really reprehensible for anyone, U.S. or Mexican, to speak otherwise” about Tiffany’s claims.

Perry has again beseeched Washington for more troops and support on the border. He spoke to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s chief of staff on Tuesday and made a request for 1,000 National Guard troops for the Texan-Mexican border — a request that was promptly denied.

Washington cares more about its political standing with a country that can’t even police itself than for the safety and security of its own citizens. They should be ashamed of themselves. How many innocent Americans have to be murdered before Obama acts? In any other time these killings and invasions would constitute an act of war. All American citizens ask for is a closed and secure border, so we can safeguard the people of this country.

Obama and the Democrats have already put the Amnesty wheels in motion as orders are out to scuttle ICE raids of companies hiring illegal workers, remove key elements of 287G policies that give local law enforcement the ability to arrest illegal aliens, and to set the stage for the in-take processing of millions of illegal aliens so as to grant mass AMNESTY TO ILLEGALS.

Obama lied to Governor Jan Brewer of AZ in the Oval Office. Obama committed to present details within two weeks of meeting Gov. Brewer, regarding his plans for sending National Guard troops to the Arizona border and spending $500 million on border security.

Well, time’s been up for MONTHS, Obama did nothing, and CONGRESS in fear of facing their constituents at home passed a head-fake border security “beef-up” bill that will wallow in bureaucratic limbo. Gov. Brewer is not waiting for Obama to do the job. And neither are the rank-and-file officers and employees of ICE Enforcement and Removal — who have passed a unanimous “Vote of No Confidence” in their Obama- appointed Director, John Morton! Obama’s biggest action has been in retreat — in surrender to the Mexican Invasion he put up new Federal border signs warning Americans to stay away, as he cannot protect them if they travel within southern Arizona. More signs will no doubt be shipping into Texas, next!

AZ and TX need your help – do not leave them to defend the border alone!

Gov. Brewer has stated, “We need action from the federal government, not signs ceding sovereign U.S. territory to international drug cartels and human smugglers.” Brewer sent a letter to Obama outlining her Four-Point Border Action Surge Strategy. This strategy contains most actions advised in the 2005 Norwood Minuteman Report, and the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps Project has been calling for these vital actions to be implemented for 5 years — and whole-heartedly supports them TODAY. As Gov. Brewer enumerated in her Four-Point Strategy to Obama:

  1. National Guard Personnel and Aviation
  2. Border Fence
  3. Enforce Federal Law and Appropriately Fund the Effort
  4. Reimburse States for the Additional Burden of Illegal Immigration

We Say, “Defend AMERICA” — Obama And Feds Do Nothing but Sue AZ!

The tragedy is that the escalating violence in our southern sector could have been prevented years ago, and countless innocent American lives saved, if the federal government had responded to our warnings and recommendations, and had acted decisively for a secure border patrolled by the National Guard and a border fence! The level of accelerating violence and social chaos that has the President of the United States now ceding our territory to international bandits is the direct responsibility of the United States Government, and its gross dereliction of its duty under the U.S. Constitution.

The Obama Administration was and still is grossly negligent in their sworn oaths of office to protect the sovereignty of the United States. The government did not do its job and was complicit in the act when foreign nationals invade American soil and killed innocent U.S. citizens! And now the situation only worsens, as Obama plays politics with border security, and his Justice Department STOPS Arizona for acting to save American lives, property and sovereignty!

Why is Washington’s response to try to SUPPRESS Arizona’s proper and Constitutional defense of our people and lands from foreign invasion? The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps sounded the alarm 5 years ago and this border crisis could have been prevented if the federal government had done its job!

Support Brewer – DO NOT LET Obama Put More Americans at Risk.

Obama lied to Governor Jan Brewer of AZ in the Oval Office. Obama committed to present details within two weeks of meeting Gov. Brewer, regarding his plans for sending National Guard troops to the Arizona border and spending $500 million on border security.

Well, time’s been up for MONTHS, Obama did nothing, and CONGRESS in fear of facing their constituents at home passed a head-fake border security “beef-up” bill that will wallow in bureaucratic limbo. Gov. Brewer is not waiting for Obama to do the job. And neither are the rank-and-file officers and employees of ICE Enforcement and Removal — who have passed a unanimous “Vote of No Confidence” in their Obama- appointed Director, John Morton! Obama’s biggest action has been in retreat — in surrender to the Mexican Invasion he put up new Federal border signs warning Americans to stay away, as he cannot protect them if they travel within southern Arizona. More signs will no doubt be shipping into Texas, next!

AZ and TX need your help – do not leave them to defend the border alone!

Gov. Brewer has stated, “We need action from the federal government, not signs ceding sovereign U.S. territory to international drug cartels and human smugglers.” Brewer sent a letter to Obama outlining her Four-Point Border Action Surge Strategy. This strategy contains most actions advised in the 2005 Norwood Minuteman Report, and the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps Project has been calling for these vital actions to be implemented for 5 years — and whole-heartedly supports them TODAY. As Gov. Brewer enumerated in her Four-Point Strategy to Obama:

  1. National Guard Personnel and Aviation
  2. Border Fence
  3. Enforce Federal Law and Appropriately Fund the Effort
  4. Reimburse States for the Additional Burden of Illegal Immigration

We Say, “Defend AMERICA” — Obama And Feds Do Nothing but Sue AZ!

The tragedy is that the escalating violence in our southern sector could have been prevented years ago, and countless innocent American lives saved, if the federal government had responded to our warnings and recommendations, and had acted decisively for a secure border patrolled by the National Guard and a border fence! The level of accelerating violence and social chaos that has the President of the United States now ceding our territory to international bandits is the direct responsibility of the United States Government, and its gross dereliction of its duty under the U.S. Constitution.

The Obama Administration was and still is grossly negligent in their sworn oaths of office to protect the sovereignty of the United States. The government did not do its job and was complicit in the act when foreign nationals invade American soil and killed innocent U.S. citizens! And now the situation only worsens, as Obama plays politics with border security, and his Justice Department STOPS Arizona for acting to save American lives, property and sovereignty!

Why is Washington’s response to try to SUPPRESS Arizona’s proper and Constitutional defense of our people and lands from foreign invasion? The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps sounded the alarm 5 years ago and this border crisis could have been prevented if the federal government had done its job!

Support Brewer – DO NOT LET Obama Put More Americans at Risk.

But please, remember what is at stake — the security, the safety, the sovereignty — very possibly the very survival of not just Americans, but America herself.

For more information go to www.MinutemanHQ.com

Edited to cut out the spam, and constant begging for bucks. Which made up for a lot of the story!

Clear the Bench Colorado Press Release

October 7, 2010

Clear The Bench Colorado invites comparison: our Evaluations vs. the ‘Commission on Judicial Performance’ “reviews”

Contact Matt Arnold: director@clearthebenchcolorado.org or 303-995-5533

Clear The Bench Colorado invites comparison: our Evaluations vs. the ‘Commission on Judicial Performance’ “reviews”

Colorado voters are being subjected to a barrage of big-money, special-interest advertising on judicial retention elections this year – as decried in editorials from the New York Times and other media sources across the country, as well as in other news coverage statewide.Special-interest groups are spending tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars attempting to influence Coloradans to vote their way on the question of whether to retain incumbent judges (including three incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices facing “stiff opposition” as they seek an additional 10-year term in office).

There’s just one problem with this narrative – and why you haven’t heard about it in the mass media.

All of this special-interest money is being spent in Colorado to prop up the judicial incumbents

Legal establishment special-interest groups are spending tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars to convince Colorado voters that “all is well” with state courts – promoting the farcical rubber-stamp “reviews” conducted and published by the commissions on judicial “performance.”

Why are the “reviews” not a reliable source of information on judicial performance?

1. The “reviews” do not distinguish between good and bad judicial performance – and almost ALWAYS recommend a “retain” vote for the judges ‘reviewed.’ Colorado Commission on Judicial Performance Evaluations (CCJPE) Executive Director Jane Howell confirms that, over the decades-long history of the review process, Colorado Supreme Court justices “reviewed” by the commissions have received a “retain” vote 100% of the time.

(Similarly, Court of Appeals judges have also received a 100% “retain” recommendation, while all judges at other levels have received “retain” recommendations 99% of the time).

Even Fidel Castro and the late Saddam Hussein didn’t receive that level of “retain” votes!

(Although Colorado has plenty of good judges, at many levels – they’re not all that good.)

2. The “reviews” – published as a 5-paragraph narrative, only one paragraph of which even pretends to address actual judicial “performance” – provide very little substantive information on which to base an informed decision. The review criteria are shallow (“timeliness”, ‘orderliness’ and “demeanor”) rather than substantive and performance-based. The level of “evaluation” is more like a kindergarten report card (“Benny is punctual, keeps his area neat & tidy, and plays well with others” ) rather than a serious look at judicial performance.

A Denver Post guest commentary written by a former State Judicial Performance Commissioner provided an insightful critique of the current process several months ago.

3. The “reviews” provide NO information on how the justices actually voted in important constitutional cases – rulings which have had a tremendous (and highly negative) impact on Colorado citizens.

Where can voters get substantive analysis of the performance of Colorado Supreme Court justices?

Clear The Bench Colorado has conducted an exhaustive analysis of Colorado Supreme Court decisions addressing important constitutional issues of interest to the greatest number of Colorado voters.

We invite voters to compare and contrast our  Evaluations of judicial performance with the “reviews” perpetrated by the ‘performance’ commissions (and foisted upon voters, at great taxpayer expense and without opposing views, as is otherwise required by law for other ballot questions) in the “Blue Book.”

We are confident that discerning voters will find our  Evaluations of much greater value.

Voters deserve to be provided with more extensive, informative, and useful information on which to base their voting decisions.  “The high marks received by each justice through the system of evaluation in place” are NOT an endorsement of the justices, but rather  an indictment of the weakness and inadequacy of the judicial performance review process.  Despite the genuinely hard work and good intentions of the majority of the judicial performance review commissioners, the process (and end-products) are perhaps endemically flawed.

There has been a failure of real performance evaluation and a lack of analytical content in the write-ups for the voters.  If narratives provide meaningful information about how a justice has decided cases, there will be accountability and the system will work as it is designed to do.  Too often in the past, narratives have amounted to complimentary resumes instead of job performance evaluations.  Some commentators and observers have denigrated the narratives as a “rubber stamp” exercise for retaining judges.

The ultimate responsibility – and authority – rests with the voters.  Clear The Bench Colorado urges all Colorado citizens to become informed about how the Colorado Supreme Court has aided and abetted assaults on their rights (and wallets!) with a consistent pattern of not following the Constitution where it doesn’t agree with their own personal agenda – and drawing the necessary and logical conclusions.

 

Blue Dogs, or Pelosi Lap Dogs?

October 7, 2010

Deceptive Blue Dogs Prop up Pelosi
Over fifty Democrats in Congress—so-called Blue Dogs—claim to be pro-gun, but can any member who votes to retain Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House really be considered a defender of the Second Amendment?

Most of the Blue Dog members voted with Pelosi as she crammed the anti-gun ObamaCare bill down the throats of the American people. Most voted against protecting gun rights in national parks. And, not surprisingly given their anti-gun voting records, they stood with Pelosi to silence groups like GOA by supporting the so-called DISCLOSE Act.

So, are they Blue Dogs, or Pelosi Lap Dogs? Read more HERE.

SOURCE

Now, contrast what is revealed in the linked story with this from the National Rifle Association;

So far this year, the NRA has endorsed 58 incumbent House Democrats, including more than a dozen in seats that both parties view as critical to winning a majority. The endorsements aren’t the result of a sudden love for a party with which the NRA is often at odds. Rather, the powerful group adheres to what it calls “an incumbent friendly” policy, which holds that if two candidates are equally supportive of gun rights, the incumbent gets the nod.

Read About It: The Washington Post