Archive for the ‘Men’s Issues’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Dems derail Brophy bill to protect homeowners

January 28, 2009

State Senator Greg Brophy has been stabbed in his own home, so to speak. Despite the logic, and indeed inalienable right to properly and effectively defend themselves Democrats stopped this needed legislation.

A Republican effort that would have reinforced Coloradans’ ability to defend their families against home intruders hit a dead end today in a Senate committee.

Assistant Senate GOP leader Greg Brophy, R-Wray, presented Senate Bill 74 before the Senate Committee on State, Veterans, and Military Affairs, calling it a matter of “statewide concern.”

SB 74 would prohibit local governments from passing any law or regulation that requires a person to store their lawfully-owned firearms in a way that renders them inoperable. The Democrat-controlled committee voted to postpone the bill indefinitely, effectively killing it.

Brophy said the bill addresses and recognizes the landmark United States Supreme Court decision made last summer in the District of Columbia v. Heller case.  The Heller decision held that gun ownership is an individual right and that any government in the U.S. cannot put individuals in the position where they would be inadequately prepared to defend themselves against home invasion.

“We need to pass the ban on safe-storage laws in Colorado,” Brophy said in the committee. “I think the Heller case raised this issue to the national spotlight and brought it forward so that everybody is aware of it.”

Research Director of the Independence Institute Dave Kopel, left, tesifies in favor of Sen. Greg Brophy’s Senate Bill 74.

“This would save the citizens of Colorado the trouble of being forced to go the courts and have the courts say, ‘yes indeed the Supreme Court has already ruled on this,'” Brophy said.

Currently, the cities of Denver and Boulder have so-called “safe-storage” laws that require guns be disassembled or secured with a trigger lock while stored in private homes.

In his testimony in favor of the bill, renowned Second Amendment expert and constitutional lawyer Dave Kopel, who is research director at the Golden-based think tank the Independence Institute, offered evidence showing that cities with safe-storage laws actually have higher rates of home intrusion and violence because criminals are all too aware that homeowners are unable to defend themselves.

“Law-abiding gunowners in Denver and the public in general continue to be in danger due to unreasonable laws that prevent families from teaching gun safety in their own homes and make it way too difficult for crime victims in Denver to be able to protect themselves,” Kopel said after the bill was killed.

While ruling Democrats offered few insights to their opposition to the bill, Fort Collins Democrat Bob Bacon rasied concerns about second-guessing local-government policies on the issue of gun ownership.

Brophy countered that such concerns reflect misplaced priorities.

“They’re giving City Hall the right to preempt your own right to defend yourself and your family,” Brophy said. “And I think that’s just wrong.”

Assistant Senate Republican Leader Greg Brophy, of Wray, sits in disappointment after his bill, which would have given homeowners more power to defend themselves, was killed in a Democrat-controlled committee.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Local Politics Colorado, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on Dems derail Brophy bill to protect homeowners

Has free-market capitalism died?

January 27, 2009

Always, and in  all ways  freedom and individual liberty will forever be the favorite whipping boy of those with a socialist bent. Populist’s, such as the new President are in bed with socialist on a number of issues that are directly related. Be that Gun Control, or taxation. However, the economy is currently at the forefront. Below, is an excellent expose of this better than thou attitude by those that are of the collectivist mind set.

Has free-market capitalism died?

Michael Miller

Who would have imagined 20 years ago — when the Berlin Wall fell and we celebrated the death of socialism — that capitalism would be under heavy fire? The cardinal of Westminster, Cormack Murphy O’Connor, reportedly said 2008 was the year when “capitalism died.”

What are we to make of capitalism in light of all the crises, fraud and government intervention, when even some traditional supporters of markets are supporting bailouts?

Before answering this question, it is important to note that “capitalism” is a Marxist term. It gives the impression that the market is a nebulous force. This impersonal understanding can lead us to blame markets when things go wrong instead of exploring reasons that are harder to diagnose.

Pope John Paul II rejected the term, preferring “market economy,” “business economy” or “free economy.” He did so to illustrate that markets are networks of human relationships. This sheds light on the underlying moral nature of markets.

Markets are the combined activities of millions of individuals. They are not composed merely of some guys on Wall Street; they are made up by us. Like anything else run by humans, markets can fail. If we become overly speculative and convinced that prices can go nowhere but up — as happened in the Tulip Bubble in 1637, the dot.com bubble in 2000 and the recent housing bubble — sooner or later reality will set in.

Despite their failures, however, free markets have lifted more people out of poverty and helped create prosperity and peace better than any system.

In these days of financial turmoil, we often hear critics speaking about deregulation or “unbridled capitalism.” But try to think of one country where there are no regulations. For free markets to succeed, they require a framework built on rule of law, contracts and secure property rights.

The real question is what kind of regulation and what level of intervention we should choose.

Many contributing causes of this crisis were an overly invasive government. Federal regulators required banks to provide mortgages to customers who could not pay back the loans; the Federal Reserve manipulated the money supply, exacerbating the housing boom; and politicians promised bailouts that created incentives for irresponsible behavior.

How many of us, out of greed, gluttony or pride, used credit cards to buy things we did not need or could not afford? What about Wall Street bankers who took imprudent risks with clients’ money? Markets cannot succeed without a strong moral fabric among the citizenry.

Yet we again hear calls for increased regulation and government involvement.

If we regulate too much, we concentrate the power of markets in fewer and fewer hands. This has led to all sorts of evil and corruption. Socialist economies, cartels, oligarchies and union-controlled industries produce stagnation and create incentives for corruption. It is a false hope to believe regulation will make everything right.

It is likewise delusional to believe markets alone are enough. Our Founders taught us that without virtue political liberty could not long be sustained. The same holds true for economic liberty. And yet without economic liberty there can be no political liberty. Like liberty, the market must be moral, or it cannot exist.

Michael Miller is director of programs at the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty in Grand Rapids. E-mail letters to letters@detnews.com.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Immigration, Law, Local Politics Colorado, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 3 Comments »

Hope ‘n’ Change: Reform, riffraff and rubbish, oh my!

January 23, 2009

Obamamania has swept the world — or so the Leftmedia would have us believe. Before the Anointed One uttered a word at his inauguration, The New York Times and The Washington Post were headlining polls that purported to show overwhelming support for the new president. The Times said, “Poll Finds Faith in Obama, Mixed With Patience.” Even the UK’s Daily Mail got into the act: “Obama can save us, says America as polls show wave of optimism sweeping the nation.” The Mail must have stopped with polling at NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN offices.

One couldn’t watch so much as the AFC championship football game on Sunday night without the halftime report by Katie Couric on what Barack Obama had for dinner (we couldn’t hear what she really said since the TV was muted). And while the morning shows found time last Friday to discuss such things as “Obama thongs,” President George W. Bush’s farewell speech was almost entirely ignored. All told, Obama’s inauguration received 35 times the coverage that his predecessor’s did. Indeed, the media’s behavior would make Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels proud.

As for new policy, considering Obama’s reforms in his first three days in office, we find little reason for optimism. Among his first acts behind the Oval Office desk was a phone call to Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority. Obama soon set to work with other agenda items such as issuing an executive order to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, within a year, as well as preventing CIA interrogators from using lawful techniques not found in the Army Field Manual, which assumes honorable combatants. Items to follow may include re-banning offshore drilling, getting Congress to allow open homosexuals to serve in the military by rescinding “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” calling for a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and working to make the expired federal “assault weapons” ban permanent.

Meanwhile, Wall Street was not optimistic Tuesday either, dropping 300 points, or four percent, to below 8,000 — the worst Inauguration Day drop in history.

For the inauguration itself, Washington, DC, officials reported that 1.8 million people came to the Mall and the surrounding areas for the ceremony. But how many were actually there? Washington officials claim to have gotten their 1.8 million number from The Washington Post, but the Post said that its analysis “concluded that about 1 million people were on the Mall.” An Arizona State University journalism professor tallied only 800,000 using satellite images.

What we do know is that the word “historic” was used approximately 1.8 million times during inauguration coverage, particularly in The New York Times. Oddly enough, the Times’ own style manual says, “Use [the word historic] with caution for a current event, because history’s verdict is rarely predictable by journalists, and the word suggests hyperbole.” Perhaps someone should have looked that one up beforehand.

However many Obamaphiles showed up, there was certainly enough trash to go around. Estimates are that visitors left 130 tons of garbage — and that was just on the Capitol steps! Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh dubbed it “Hurricane Latrina.”

SOURCE

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Immigration, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 5 Comments »

Ushering in the error of Obama

January 23, 2009

Hope, and change. Yes, that’s it! I get it! Hope for nanny government to take care of all us poor sops that are just to damned dumb to know how to take care of ourselves, and change into some remnant of what it is to be an American. Now, we can all be ruminants! Read on, Mark is a lot better at explaining these things than I am.

Ushering in the error of Obama

By Mark Alexander

Presidential oath — redux

The inauguration-ordination-coronation of Barack Obama on Tuesday was heralded by his fawning media as nothing less than a “messianic” revival, with endless inaugural balls and star-studded celebrations on either end.

Strange, but I seem to recall that the Leftmedia skewered George W. Bush for spending almost $40 million on his first inauguration, proclaiming the events to be “grotesque” and all about “excess.”

But with deficit spending estimated to fly past the trillion-dollar mark in Obama’s first year in office, not one of his media sycophants has questioned the cost of this week’s events. Perhaps that is because it cost a mere $.00017 trillion, or about $1.25 million for each of the 130 tons of garbage his constituents dumped on the Mall.

All this was apparently not enough funding, however, to provide for his attendance at the Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball, which has been attended by every president since its inception 56 years ago. The event, hosted by the American Legion, the Military Order of Purple Hearts, and Paralyzed Veterans for America, recognizes their service and was attended by 48 of the nation’s 99 living Medal of Honor recipients. This is the 50th anniversary of the Medal of Honor Society.

Of course, it might be deemed indecorous to question the cost to inaugurate the first “African-American” president. (I hyphenated Obama’s heritage because, unlike 99 percent of blacks in America who are native to this land, one of Obama’s parents was actually African.)

Millions across the nation and around the world were watching as the climactic moment of the festivities arrived — the part where Barack Hussein Obama interrupted Chief Justice John Roberts just four words into the oath, then choked as he vowed to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Who could have predicted that? (Justice Roberts administered the oath of office again, Tuesday evening, in the Oval Office. Reportedly, Obama waited for his cue the second time around.)

To put Obama’s inaugural address into context, consider this proclamation at his kick-off celebration in Philadelphia: “What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives…” While he spells out his vision for that “new declaration” for our nation in his inaugural speech, I can only presume that his reference to “in our own lives” means rehab for those of us who are “bitterly clinging to guns and religion.”

As a public service, we analyzed Obama’s speech with The Patriot’s proprietary Leftspeak decoder software, using it to translate his speech into Rightspeak so that our fellow Americans might more fully understand what he was saying. I selected a few excerpts from our analysis for your consideration.

BHO: “My fellow citizens,” Apostles and disciples of hope and change,

“On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.” Disagree with me and you must be racist or ignorant, or both.

“Our Founding Fathers … drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man … and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake.” But we will overwrite them with judicial diktats until my rule is the rule of law.

“What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.” Our founders are dead and so is their vision for our nation.

“In the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.” Disagree with me and you are in violation of Scripture.

“We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth…” Let’s not offend anyone with the simple and undeniable truth that our national heritage rests on a Judeo-Christian foundation.

“Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some…” Blame our badly weakened economy on Wall Street greed and irresponsibility rather than Democrats in Congress.

“The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act … to lay a new foundation for growth.” Government growth…

“The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.” More government growth…

“Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill … but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control.” We must not only grow the government, but also ensure that it regulates every aspect of the economy.

“The nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.” Darwin had it right, except in regard to human nature and free market capitalism.

“A new era of responsibility…” An era in which the fiscally responsible will bear an ever-greater tax burden for those of us who are not…

“Less measurable, but no less profound, is a sapping of confidence across our land; a nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable, that the next generation must lower its sights.” The crisis of confidence and propagation of fear was the staple of my campaign rhetoric, and it was largely responsible for my election.

“Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.” I will remake America into Amerika.

“We will restore science to its rightful place.” Global warming hysteria is a great catalyst for expanding government control.

“The world has changed, and we must change with it.” Out with national sovereignty and in with the New World Order…

“Power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please.” Appeasement works…

“Our security emanates from the justness of our cause; the force of our example; the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.” Appeasement really works…

“To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.” To the Islamic terrorists, we seek to appease you.

“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” Except for my mentors Frank Marshall Davis, Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, and my colleagues in the Democrat Party, the Socialist New Party, the ACORN crowd, Rod Blagojevich, Richard Daley, Saul Alinsky, Father Michael Pfleger, Khalid al-Mansour, Kwame Kilpatrick, Louis Farrakhan, Rashid Khalidi and Raila Odinga. You guys can just keep up the good work.

“This is the source of our confidence: the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.” I am calling on you to follow me.

Obama ended his speech with the last of several references to our Founders, calling on Americans to remember the words “the father of our nation” delivered to troops: “Let it be told to the future world … that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive… that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it].”

Of course, those words were written by Thomas Paine on 23 December 1776 in his work, “The American Crisis,” which, indeed, George Washington ordered read to his Patriot countrymen on the eve of the Battle of Trenton.

Paine’s pamphlet, which begins famously, “These are the times that try men’s souls…” was about the animating contest for freedom and liberty from government oppression.

However, Obama’s entire treatise on the role of government, “a new declaration of independence … a new foundation for growth … a watchful eye … a new era of responsibility … remaking America,” contradicts everything that Patriots have died for since our Declaration of Independence.

Our Founders outlined their just cause for revolution with these words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”

During the next four years, every thoughtful American will come to learn that Barack Hussein Obama is no friend of freedom and liberty; that his “vision for America” is the antithesis of that held by our Founders.

George Washington admonished future generations to “Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.”

Indeed.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 6 Comments »

Montana leads the way!

January 22, 2009

Hat tip to The Liberty Sphere!

The federal government has for years had the idea that it is in fact omniscient. Built in safeguards from the Bill of Rights are largely ignored and from were I sit things do not appear to be changing at all. However, Montana is taking the bull by the horns and challenging the Federal choke hold that the states have been enduring for more years than I care to remember.

2009 Montana Legislature

Additional Bill Links PDF (with line numbers)

HOUSE BILL NO. 246

INTRODUCED BY J. BONIEK

A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: “AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA; PROVIDING FOR THE DUTIES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE.”

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

NEW SECTION. Section 1.  Short title. [Sections 1 through 7] may be cited as the “Montana Firearms Freedom Act”.

NEW SECTION. Section 2.  Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 7] is the following:

(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.

(4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

NEW SECTION. Section 3.  Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 7], the following definitions apply:

(1) “Borders of Montana” means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution.

(2) “Firearms accessories” means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.

(3) “Generic and insignificant parts” includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.

(4) “Manufactured” means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.

NEW SECTION. Section 4.  Prohibitions. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana.

NEW SECTION. Section 5.  Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:

(1) a firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;

(2) a firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;

(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or

(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

NEW SECTION. Section 6.  Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 7] must have the words “Made in Montana” clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.

NEW SECTION. Section 7.  Duties of the attorney general. (1) A Montana citizen whom the government of the United States attempts to prosecute, under the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, for violation of a federal law concerning the manufacture, sale, transfer, or possession of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained within Montana must be defended in full by the Montana attorney general.

(2) Upon written notification to the Montana attorney general by a Montana citizen of intent to manufacture a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition to which [sections 1 through 7] apply, the attorney general shall seek a declaratory judgment from the federal district court for the district of Montana that [sections 1 through 7] are consistent with the United States constitution.

NEW SECTION. Section 8.  Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 7] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 7].

NEW SECTION. Section 9.  Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009.

– END –

source

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 4 Comments »

Charisma as a tool to tame the masses?

January 21, 2009

Charisma is a two edged sword to be sure. One thing about President Obama is his charismatic manner of speech. At least as long as there is a teleprompter or notes near at hand.

When I was still a sophomore in college I took a course in “Public Speaking” as I’m sure many of my readers also did. Having been a “Gavel Club” member and participant in High School I couldn’t help but note the differences that were taught in speaking methodology.

I certainly picked up on some of those things yesterday while listening to the new President. It was of course not laid out in debate format. But meant to be inspirational, especially to his followers. I was reminded of other inspirational speakers from the realm of politics, and religion for the most part.

Then today I wake up, and check the news. What sort of beast have we unleashed upon our nation? What sort of people put him there?

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Historical Quotes, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 5 Comments »

As A Rabidly Anti-gun Executive Takes His Oath Of Office…

January 20, 2009

As A Rabidly Anti-gun Executive Takes His Oath Of Office…
There is some good news for gun owners

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

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

“I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear….”

As our new President takes his oath of office today, the war against
our rights is soon to begin. In fact, it has already begun, as Obama’s
choice for Attorney General (Eric Holder) is one of the most anti-gun
picks that he could have made.

As we mentioned in last week’s alert, Holder supported policies —
during his tenure in the Clinton administration — that were aimed at
driving the nation’s gun dealers and manufacturers out of business. As
part of an Obama administration, he will have even more power to
continue his war against gun owners.

At lot has happened since you received our alert last week. GOA was
asked by the Judiciary Committee to testify at the Senate hearings on
Eric Holder, as we were the ONLY national gun group that has told
Senators we will rate their vote on confirming Holder.

We also “hammered” one of the Republican members of the
Judiciary Committee — Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah — in his home state
after he announced his support of the Holder nomination.

Last week, GOA issued a stinging alert and mobilized its members in the
state of Utah after The Hill reported on January 12 that Hatch
“will support Eric Holder’s nomination for attorney general,
giving him a major boost toward confirmation.”

GOA is never timid about putting the heat on faltering legislators, no
matter what their party affiliation. Strangely, GOA was disinvited
from appearing before the Judiciary Committee, and not allowed to
present testimony.

Well, the Committee might try to squelch our voice, but they cannot
squelch yours. Your Senators have to answer to you — and they need to
hear that an Attorney General who just argued (in the DC v. Heller
case) that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms does NOT
deserve to be confirmed.

Please take the recommended action suggested below, even if you have
already contacted your Senators. This is just too important.

And now for some good news… Bush commutes the sentences of Ramos and
Compean!

You might remember that, last month, GOA and its members issued a
strong plea to President Bush, urging him to pardon Ignacio Ramos and
Jose Antonio Compean — two Border Patrol agents who were sentenced to
ten years in prison in 2007 for shooting a smuggler. Their conviction
was fraudulent, as there is no such crime as “using a gun in a
federal crime.”

Because this precedent could greatly impact all gun owners, GOA got
involved in this case and submitted amicus briefs in the courts. If
the feds can prosecute its own agents on trumped up charges for
“using” a gun in a crime, then why not also a mom or dad who
is driving their kids through a gun free school zone while armed?

Well, good news arrived yesterday when President Bush — as one of his
last acts in office — listened to GOA members and commuted the two
agents’ sentences! We wish a full pardon had been granted, erasing
their felony conviction, but at least they will be home soon with their
families.

ACTION: Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the
pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Prewritten Letter —–

Dear Senator:

I urge you to vote AGAINST Eric Holder for U.S. Attorney General.

Holder has been a long-time gun control activist. Most recently, he
joined 12 other former Justice Department officials in SUPPORTING the
DC gun ban and arguing the Second Amendment does NOT protect an
individual right.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court ruled against Holder in the DC v. Heller
case. But this is a man who will try any means to enforce gun control.

Remember his attempts — as an official in the Clinton Administration
— to make an end-run around Congress and use the courts (through
litigation) to impose gun control? He strongly approved of the HUD
lawsuits against the gun industry, where through a system of extortion,
HUD only promised to drop the lawsuits if gun makers would impose
certain gun restrictions.

Eric Holder is tremendously out of step with the American people. In
February, 2008, a USA Today/Gallup poll reported that 73% of all
Americans support the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. Eric
Holder is in the extreme minority. Please don’t vote to put him into a
position where he will be able to use the force of government to
discourage gun ownership in America.

Please vote NO on Eric Holder for Attorney General.

Sincerely,

****************************

What’s Your Current GOA Status?

Obviously, we now face years of invigorated attacks on our gun rights.
Shutting down gun shows, prohibitions on specific calibers, another
semi-auto ban, and the anti-gun extremists’ Holy Grail of mandatory
federal licensing and registration of all gun owners — these are just
some of the horrors that we already know we’ll have to defeat head-on.

It can’t be done without every single voice being counted. That’s why
we are asking you to consider making the commitment of becoming a Gun
Owners of America Life Member. By doing so, you put the politicians on
notice that neither you nor GOA is going away — that no matter who’s
in the White House, there is always going to be a solid wall of
resistance.

Now is a perfect time to come a Life Member. In addition to providing
GOA an infusion of much-needed funds, you can take advantage of a free
firearms inventory software promotion.

And if you aren’t a GOA member at all, isn’t it time you became one? Or
maybe you are a current member and can’t commit to Life at this time,
but could spare another small additional donation. In those instances,
the free software also applies… because GOA is doing all it can at
this time to line up the troops for the battles that surely must be
fought.

Please go to http://www.gunowners.org/ordercs.htm to upgrade your
participation in GOA.

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on As A Rabidly Anti-gun Executive Takes His Oath Of Office…

Obama voting demographics, where do you fit..?

January 18, 2009

Who elected Obama?

By Mark Alexander

Last week we answered the question “Who is Barack Obama” by posing questions that Obama did not answer during the presidential campaign. This week, we take a look at who voted for him.

Police mugshots of Obama constituents

On 20 January, Barack Hussein Obama will be inaugurated as the next president of our United States, according to our Constitution. However, his largest constituencies tend to view this event as either the coronation of the “royal one” or the ordination of the “holy one.”

Before we further define those constituencies, here, for the record, is a recap of the survey data concerning the presidential election.

Some 136.6 million Americans voted — a 64.1 percent turnout and the highest since 1908. Obama is the first Democrat to win a majority of the popular vote (53 percent) since Jimmy Carter. By sex, BHO’s support was 49 percent male and 56 percent female. By ethnic group, his support comprised 41 percent of Whites, 61 percent of Asians, 75 percent of Latinos and 95 percent of Blacks. By age, BHO’s largest support demographic was 66 percent of voters under the age of 30. By income, 52 percent of voters with more than $200,000 in annual income voted for Obama. By education, his support came from those without a college degree and those with a post-graduate degree.

So, his victory was largely due to support from non-whites, from those under 30, from those with the lowest income and education, and from a small number of voters at the other end of those spectrums, while those of middle age, income and education tended to support John McCain.

By religion, Obama received support from 46 percent of Protestant voters, 56 percent of Catholic voters and 62 percent of voters of other religions. BHO received 76 percent of atheist and agnostic voters.

The Barna Research Group looked at some other interesting characteristics of Obama voters: 57 percent of those who consider themselves “lonely or isolated,” 59 percent of those affected by the economic decline in “a major way,” and 61 percent of those who claim they are “stressed out” supported BHO.

So, considering the stats, the Democrats’ strategy of fomenting dissent and disunity by promoting themes of disparity was vital to Obama’s election. Indeed, the Left’s political playbook has only one chapter defining their modus operandi — “Divide-n-Conquer.” No wonder their national leadership calls itself the DnC.

Obama’s largest constituent groups fall under the general umbrella of “disenfranchised victims,” those who feel they are ethnically or economically handicapped. Other significant constituent groups are those who identify with the disenfranchised; this includes two small but highly ideologically influential groups, the economic and academic elite.

The disenfranchised victim groups and those who identify with them have a number of common characteristics. They have a low civic IQ and virtually no understanding of our Constitutional Republic and its heritage and legacy of liberty. They have fully bought into the “Politics of Disparity” or “class warfare.”

However, it is Obama’s small economic and academic elite constituencies who pose the greatest danger to that heritage of liberty. They neither know nor care any more about liberty than the disenfranchised legions with which they seek to identify. They are the “king makers,” those who have funded and charted Obama’s course to the coronation.

Some have made a lot of “easy money,” which explains why Obama received far more support from Wall Street than McCain. Others are inheritance-welfare liberals, those who value government welfare dependence because they were, themselves, dependent on inheritance throughout their formative years and never developed the character necessary to succeed on their own initiative.

Whether fast money or inheritance, neither group has direct contact with the unwashed masses other than those who keep their homes, offices and imported autos clean and in good repair. This utter dependence upon the low end of the “service sector” is perhaps the source of the insecurities that drive them to identify with the masses.

Obama’s academic elite are just as insecure, but they are driven by ideology. They are Leftists, Western apologists for socialist political and economic agendas. Regular readers of this column will recognize them as “Useful Idiots” for their advocacy of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism. Like Obama, they reject constitutional authority and subscribe to the errant notion of a “Living Constitution”.

Among Obama’s Left elite are such Marxist radicals as Frank Marshall Davis and William Ayers and his religious mentor Jeremiah Wright.

There are some characteristics that are common to many BHO supporters among both the disenfranchised and the elite.

Obama’s cult-like following among these constituencies is not the result of deception. In fact, it can be attributed to something much more subtle and, potentially, sinister, with far more ominous implications for the future of liberty.

Most of Obama’s supporters identify with some part of his brokenness, his dysfunctional childhood and his search for salvation in the authority of the state. The implications of this distorted mass identity are grave, and its pathology is well defined.

Another common characteristic is that liberals tend to be very emotive. Ask them about some manifestation of their worldview — for example, why they support candidates such as Obama or Hillary Clinton and they will likely predicate their response with, “Because I feel…”

On the other hand, ask conservatives about what they believe or support, and they invariably predicate their response with, “Because I think…”

So, the once great Democrat Party has now devolved into constituencies who view the inaugural as either a coronation or an ordination.

Of course, all the MSM print and tube outlets are fawning over BHO and calling next Tuesday’s inaugural “historic.” Well, it’s not often that I agree with the paper media and 24-hour news cycle talkingheads, but this is truly a historic inauguration — historic for several reasons.

First, never before has such an ill-prepared president-elect been sworn in as president. Second, never before has a more liberal president-elect been sworn into office. And third, never before has a candidate had so little regard for the constitutional oath he is taking.

Oh, and some suggest this election is historic because half of the president-elect’s genetic heritage is African — and here I thought Bill Clinton was our first “black president.”

It is no small irony that the day before Obama’s inauguration, the nation will pause to honor Martin Luther King. In 1963, King stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and gave his most famous oration, the most well known line from which is, “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

But Obama and his party have divided the nation into constituency groups judged by all manner of ethnicity and special interests rather than the individual character King envisioned.

Perhaps the most famous line from any Democrat presidential inaugural was uttered by John F. Kennedy in 1961. He closed his remarks with these words: “And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

Barack Obama and his party have turned that clarion call on end, suggesting that their constituents should “ask what your country can do for you.”

On Tuesday, Barack Obama will take an oath “to support and defend the Constitution”, but he has no history of honoring our Constitution, even pledging that his Supreme Court nominees should comport with Leftist ideology and “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted.”

Some have suggested that since the election is over and Obama is the victor, we should accord him the honor due his office. But if he does not honor his constitutional oath, why would anyone extend him the honor of its highest constitutional office?

“We should never despair, our Situation before has been unpromising and has changed for the better, so I trust, it will again. If new difficulties arise, we must only put forth new Exertions and proportion our Efforts to the exigency of the times.” –George Washington

source

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Historical Quotes, Immigration, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 29 Comments »

Colorado Castle Doctrine to be voted on!

January 18, 2009

COLORADO: Important Castle Doctrine Reform Bill to be Considered on Wednesday, January 20! On Wednesday, January 20, the Colorado Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee will vote on Senate Bill 8, a bill sponsored by State Senator Ted Harvey (R-30). This legislation seeks to expand Colorado’s Castle Doctrine law. SB 8 would amend Colorado’s current version of the Castle Doctrine to ensure that all citizens have a right to use force, including deadly force, against a violent attacker, not only within their own dwellings, but their places of business as well. SB 8 is critically important as it expands Coloradans’ right to self-defense and protects victims from frivolous civil lawsuits by criminals or their family. Please contact the members of the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee TODAY and respectfully urge them to vote for SB 8. Contact information can be found by clicking here.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Local Politics Colorado, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

Gun Salesman of the year!

January 17, 2009

Outdoor Wire Names Obama “Gun Salesman of the Year” By Jim Shepherd Jan 14, 2009 – 7:22:08 AM In recognition of the unprece­dented demand for firearms by nervous consumers, The Outdoor Wire has named President-elect Barack Obama its “Gun Salesman of the Year”. For me, it was a simple fact of recognizing that without President-elect Obama’s frightening consumers into action, the firearms industry might be suffering the same sort of business slumps that have befallen the automotive and housing industries. It’s credit where credit is due. Mr. Obama has consistently voted against individual rights to firearms, appointed a re-tread Clinton administration full of gun banners, and made it plain to anti-gun groups that despite what he might say to the contrary, he’s on their side That history, along with the unquestioned support of anti-gun organizations has spooked consumers into a buying frenzy for firearms that could be outlawed in another Assault Weapons Ban. Manufacturers are months behind on orders for semi-automatic pistols, AR-style rifles, and anything with so-called ‘high-capacity magazines, buyers we’ve surveyed across the country seem to have a single explanation for their rush to purchase firearms – Obama. The buying panic is not limited to people you might be described as aficionados or even ‘gun nuts’. Recently, I was in a gun store when a gentleman came and said he’d never wanted to own a gun before, but wanted to get one while he still could.” Since the November Presidential election, firearms sales have been at unprecedented levels. For December 2008 the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) recorded a twenty-four percent increase in background checks for 2008 (1,523,426) over December 2007 (1,230,525). This follows a forty-two percent (42%) increase in November 2008, the highest number of NICS checks in the system’s history. Those FBI background checks are required under federal law for all individuals purchasing firearms from federally licensed firearms retailers. In other words, gun sales have never been better. Sales are so good that on Tuesday, January 6, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued a notice to all federal firearms licensees that “an unprecedented increase in demand for ATF Form 4473 had run supplies low enough that dealers were temporarily given permission to photocopy the form until supplies caught up with demand. Completion of a form 4473 is required whenever a federal firearms licensee sells a fire­arm.

Stolen From

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hunting Fishing and the Great Outdoors, Immigration, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on Gun Salesman of the year!

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »