Archive for the ‘Men’s Issues’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

A Most Humble Invitation to Osama bin Laden

March 25, 2010

It seems Mr. bin Laden ignored my invitation to him. Lo those many years ago…

The offer still stands, and, we could accommodate many of your fellows as well. Although I am no longer a resident of Colorado the offer still stands. I am sure that you would feel right at home. There have also been rumors about your health issues over the years Osama, and Colorado can surly help with those as well, possibly ending the suffering that you have gone through for so many years!

We grow, and learn Osama. There is no need for anger. Please, come to Colorado, we eagerly await your august presence!


Tags:, , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Men's Issues, News, Politics, War, Warfare, Wordpress Political Blogs | 6 Comments »

‘The Palladium of Liberties’

March 5, 2010

Second Amendment — Still ‘The Palladium of Liberties’

“The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” –James Madison

James Madison’s words regarding the “ultimate authority” for defending liberty (Federalist No. 46) ring as true today as in 1787, when he penned them.

Likewise, so do the words of his appointee to the Supreme Court, Justice Joseph Story, who wrote in his 1833 “Commentaries on the Constitution,” “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

In recent decades, the “enterprises of ambition” and “usurpation and arbitrary power” among Leftist politicians and their corrupt judicial lap dogs have become malignant, eating away at our Essential Liberty and our constitutional Rule of Law. This has never been more so than since the charlatan Barack Hussein Obama duped 67 million Americans into seating him in the executive branch.

Now more than ever, armed Patriots must stand ready, in the words of Patrick Henry, to “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.”

In June 2008, the Supreme Court, by a narrow 5-4 vote (Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Kennedy), reaffirmed, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the people’s inherent right to keep and bear arms is plainly enumerated in our Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment ensures an individual right, that DC could not ban handguns, and that operable guns may be maintained in the homes of law-abiding DC residents.

This was an important decision affirming the plain language of our Second Amendment and its proscription against government infringement on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

However, Heller pertained to a federal district, and while our Bill of Rights has primacy over state and municipal firearm restrictions, a Supreme Court case to give judicial precedent to that primacy has yet to be decided.

In his dissenting opinion in Heller, 89-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens expressed concern that the case “may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table,” should “the reality that the need to defend oneself may suddenly arise in a host of locations outside the home.”

One might only hope!

This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in McDonald v. Chicago, the next test case for the Second Amendment, which will determine if Chicago’s onerous gun restrictions are in violation of the Constitution’s plain language prohibition of such regulations by states and municipalities.

Otis McDonald, the 76-year-old plaintiff in this case, is challenging Chicago regulations that make it unlawful for him to keep a handgun in his home for self-defense.

My colleague Dave Hardy, a scholar of constitutional law, particularly the Second Amendment, summarized the arguments as follows: “McDonald v. Chicago illustrated the dichotomy between a government of laws and a government of men. One wing of the Court (perhaps the majority) looked to the essential enumeration of the right to arms; the other seemed to argue that since they, as powerful individuals, did not care for the right, or thought it was one of the Framers’ bad ideas, they could disregard it.”

That is an apt summary of how all cases are handled by the federal judiciary.

Typical of Leftmedia summations, The New York Times opined, “At least five justices appeared poised to expand the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms.”

Expand?

Only the most uninformed opinion would suggest that asserting the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms in Chicago is an expansion of the Second Amendment’s scope. But considering the source…

Mr. McDonald’s lawyers insist that the 14th Amendment’s “privileges or immunities” clause (“no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”) is grounds for overturning Chicago’s gun restrictions, and those of other states and municipalities across the our great nation.

Unfortunately, trying to establish a 14th Amendment precedent in and of itself undermines the authority of our Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

Recall that there was great debate among our Founders concerning the need for any Bill of Rights. It was argued that such a specific enumeration of rights was redundant and unnecessary to the Constitution and that listed (and unlisted) rights might then be construed as malleable rather than unalienable, as amendable rather than “endowed by our Creator” as noted in the Constitution’s supreme guidance, the Declaration of Independence.”

To that end, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 84, “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. … For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?“

Madison prevailed, however, and for clarity he introduced a preamble to the Bill of Rights: “The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution…”

In other words, the Bill of Rights was enumerated to ensure against encroachment on our inherent rights. Read in context, the Bill of Rights is both an affirmation of innate individual rights (as noted by Thomas Jefferson: “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time…”), and a clear delineation of constraints upon the central government.

Note that the Second Amendment is unique in the Bill of Rights in that it expressly asserts the “right to keep and bear arms” is “necessary,” more so than just important, to a “free state.”

But as feared by those who argued such rights should not be recorded, the “despotic branch,” as Jefferson presciently dubbed the judiciary, has endeavored to limit those enumerated rights by way of convoluted and fraudulent precedents.

Likewise, citing the 14th Amendment’s “privileges or immunities” clause suggests the Second Amendment was and remains amendable. That, of course, is an egregious affront to Essential Liberty — but that’s the way the game is played today.

Currently, 41 states issue concealed handgun carry permits, or don’t require them at all, for law-abiding citizens. Seven other states allow local municipalities to determine gun restrictions; Illinois and Wisconsin do not even allow that option.

Much of the debate about the need to infringe upon the right to bear arms is framed in terms of safety. Gun-control advocates argue that more guns equal more crime. Those advocating for more lenient gun laws argue that more guns equal less crime. Only one of these diametrically opposed views can be true.

While the latter group is factually and demonstrably correct, basing Second Amendment arguments on the issue of safety is as fallacious as attempting to assert the 14th Amendment argument.

In an editorial this week, the conservative Washington Times opined, “The year after the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and gun-lock requirements, the capital city’s murder rate plummeted 25 percent. The high court should keep that in mind…”

No, they should not.

After all, violence is a cultural problem, not a gun problem, and certainly not a Second Amendment problem.

What each member of the Supreme Court must only keep in mind is the plain language of the Constitution, the Second Amendment and the First Principle of his or her oath: “To support and defend our Constitution,” as should everyone who has taken that oath.

Accordingly, the High Court should find that the gun restrictions in Chicago, and by extension, those in any other state, are in direct violation of the inherent rights of the people “to keep and bear arms.”

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

(To submit reader comments click here.)

*****

(Please pray for our Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families — especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)

Well stated sir, as always.

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

SCOTUS will again take the wimp road

March 3, 2010

The oral arguments at yesterdays  SCOTUS  were an exercise in circular logic, and clearly indicate that although expansion of Second Amendment rights is a probability it will be for the weaker of the reasons presented. So, what is the rest of the world saying about it? Well, this is what we have so far.

Click here for complete transcript of the oral arguments in McDonald V. Chicago.

News and Editorial Coverage of the Case

Supreme Court appears set to widen gun rights

The Supreme Court majority that two years ago ruled a near total ban on handguns in the District to be unconstitutional seemed equally willing on Tuesday to extend the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms to the states.

The Washington Times

New ammunition for gun rights

The Supreme Court seemed likely to rule for the first time that gun possession is fundamental to American freedom, a move that would give federal judges power to strike down state and local weapons laws for infringing on Second Amendment rights.

The Wall Street Journal

2nd Amendment extension likely: McDonald v. Chicago

The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed poised to require state and local governments to obey the Second Amendment guarantee of a personal right to a gun, but with perhaps considerable authority to regulate that right.  The dominant sentiment on the Court was to extend the Amendment beyond the federal level, based on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “due process,” since doing so through another part of the 14th Amendment would raise too many questions about what other rights might emerge.

SCOTUS blog
Scotus blog

Justices signal they’re ready to make gun ownership a national right

The Supreme Court justices, hearing a 2nd Amendment challenge to Chicago’s ban on handguns, signaled Tuesday that they were ready to extend gun rights nationwide, clearing the way for legal attacks on state and local gun restrictions.

The Los Angeles Times

Justices seem to lean toward extending individual right to own guns

At least five justices appeared poised to expand the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms on Tuesday, judging from comments at an unusually intense Supreme Court argument.
By its conclusion, it seemed plain that the court would extend a 2008 decision that first identified an individual right to own guns to strike down Chicago’s gun control law, widely considered the most restrictive in the nation.

The New York Times

2nd Amendment extension likely: McDonald v. Chicago

The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed poised to require state and local governments to obey the Second Amendment guarantee of a personal right to a gun, but with perhaps considerable authority to regulate that right.  The dominant sentiment on the Court was to extend the Amendment beyond the federal level, based on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “due process,” since doing so through another part of the 14th Amendment would raise too many questions about what other rights might emerge.

SCOTUS blog
Scotus blog

Justices signal they’re ready to make gun ownership a national right

The Supreme Court justices, hearing a 2nd Amendment challenge to Chicago’s ban on handguns, signaled Tuesday that they were ready to extend gun rights nationwide, clearing the way for legal attacks on state and local gun restrictions.

The Los Angeles Times

Justices seem to lean toward extending individual right to own guns

At least five justices appeared poised to expand the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms on Tuesday, judging from comments at an unusually intense Supreme Court argument.
By its conclusion, it seemed plain that the court would extend a 2008 decision that first identified an individual right to own guns to strike down Chicago’s gun control law, widely considered the most restrictive in the nation.

The New York Times

What Do the Supremes Think of Chicago’s Gun Ban?

Despite the push by Chicago to make McDonald v. City of Chicago about crime, a majority on the Supreme Court today appeared to want nothing to do that argument. Justice Anthony Kennedy described the right to self defense as being as “fundamental” as the right to freedom of speech. The question the court faces is how many of Chicago’s regulations beyond the ban should survive.

Fox News

Will the Supreme Court Recognize the Truth

In the 2008 “Heller” decision, the Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban and gunlock requirements. Unsurprisingly, gun control advocates predicted disaster. They were wrong. What actually happened in our nation’s capital after the Heller decision ought to be remembered tomorrow as the Supreme Court hears a similar constitutional challenge to the Chicago handgun ban.

Fox News

Guns before the court

Today the Supreme Court will hear argument in a case that is likely to result in a landmark decision. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Court will consider whether the individual right to bear arms it recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller can be enforced against State and local governments. In doing so, it may address more broadly the way in which individual rights are enforced against the States and the extent to which State and local governments can regulate or restrict those rights.

American Spectator

Does the Second Amendment Apply Outside the Home?

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court considered the question of whether the Second Amendment applies outside of jurisdictions controlled by the federal government. The court will almost certainly say yes, and soon it may consider a question that should be equally easy to answer: whether the Second Amendment applies outside of the home.

Townhall

Our most basic rights

The Second Amendment of the Constitution says “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday as to what that actually means.

The Herald Journal (Spartanburg, S.C.)

Gun rights: High court hears another case

In a 5-4 decision in the summer of 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for private use.
Washington, D.C., Mayor Adrian Fenty was apoplectic. “More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence,” he predicted, demanding that the City Council promptly enact onerous new gun control rigmarole that would “get around” the Heller decision.
“Armageddon never arrived,” John Lott Jr. points out in a March 1 essay for FOXNews.com. Quite to the contrary, murders in Washington plummeted by a whopping 25 percent from 2008 to 2009, Mr. Lott reports. D.C.’s murder rate “is now down to 23.5 per 100,000 people, Washington’s lowest since 1967.”

The Las Vegas Review Journal

A few thoughts on the McDonald argument

Based on a quick read of the oral argument transcript, a few things stood out:
1.The Privileges or Immunities arguments never really got off the ground. None of the Justices seemed in favor of that approach, at least based on the questions. (Justice Thomas, as is his custom, asked no questions.) Only about 10-12 minutes of the questioning even concerned the P or I route, and the questioning seemed mostly focused on trying to understand the nature of the claim. For my VC co bloggers and many VC commenters who hoped today would signal the beginning of the libertarian constitutional revolution, there doesn’t seem to be much room for optimism.

The Volokh Conspiracy

More guns, less crime

The District of Columbia’s murder rate plummeted by an astounding 25 percent last year, much faster than for the US as a whole or for similarly sized cities. If you had asked Chicago’s Mayor Daley, that wasn’t supposed to happen. The Supreme Court’s 2008 decision to strike down DC’s handgun ban and gunlock requirements should have lead to a surge in murders, with Wild West shootouts. The Supreme Court might keep Daley’s predictions in mind today as they hear the oral arguments on Tuesday in the Chicago handgun ban case.

Big Government

Press Releases:

Michigan Attorney General: Confident U.S. Supreme Court will protect right to bear arms

Attorney General Mike Cox today said he is confident the United States Supreme Court will again protect the right to bear arms found in the Second Amendment to the Constitution as they hear oral arguments over Chicago’s handgun ban. The local case has national implications because it could put an end to state and local infringement of gun ownership.

Office of the Michigan Attorney General

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott attends landmark Second Amendment argument

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott today attended oral argument at the United States Supreme Court, which this morning heard the Second Amendment case, McDonald v. City of Chicago. The landmark case involves a constitutional challenge to the City of Chicago’s prohibitions on handgun possession. Attorney General Abbott led a national effort to protect all Americans’ right to keep and bear arms by forging a 38 state coalition that defended the Second Amendment and argued that Chicago’s handgun ban is unconstitutional.

Attorney General of Texas

Ohio Attorney General: Compelling arguments today in defense of Second Amendment rights

The United States Supreme Court heard arguments today in the case of McDonald v. Chicago and is poised to decide whether the Second Amendment right of people to keep and bear arms applies not only to the federal government, as the court held two years ago, but also to state and local governments.

Ohio Attorney General

Ohio Rep. Space: Supreme Court must stand up and again defend right to bear arms

Anticipating the start of oral arguments in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case, U.S. Rep. Zack Space today called on the Supreme Court to again stand up for the Second Amendment Rights of all Americans. Space has been one of the most vocal advocates in Congress for Second Amendment Rights and Second Amendment issues.
“The Second Amendment is crystal clear: Americans have a Constitutional right to bear arms,” Space said. “We’ve seen this Supreme Court side with Second Amendment advocates before, and we’re demanding that they rule again in defense of Americans’ Constitutional rights.”

Representative Zack Space, U.S. House of Representatives

Florida Senator LeMieux: Right to bear arms is fundamental

U.S. Senator George LeMieux (R FL) today made the following statement after attending the U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments of McDonald v. Chicago. The Supreme Court is weighing whether the Second Amendment protection against government infringement of an individual’s right to keep and bear arms should apply to state and local governments. The federal government is already restricted from such an infringement on personal liberties.
Senator LeMieux said: “Before our nation’s founding, the right to keep and bear arms was accepted as a fundamental individual right. The Framers of the Constitution were careful to assure that this right would not be infringed by expressly preserving it in the Second Amendment.

Senator George LeMieux, U.S. Senate

Kansas Rep. Tiahrt: Supreme Court should bring Chicago back from left

U.S. Congressman Todd Tiahrt (R Kan.) today issued the following statement as the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing opening arguments in a case that challenges whether or not local and state entities can take away the 2nd Amendment rights of American citizens to defend themselves in their own homes. Tiahrt has fought to protect the privacy of every firearm owner in America with the Tiahrt trace data amendment that has been attacked by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and liberal gun control organizations.

Representative Todd Tiahrt, U.S. House of Representatives

Montana Sen. Baucus: Supports 2nd Amendment by attending Supreme Court gun rights arguments

Montana’s senior U.S. Senator Max Baucus today was present at the Supreme Court to hear oral arguments for a case that may have far reaching affects on gun owners in Montana and across the country. The high court is considering a case that is expected to establish whether or not state and local governments are required to obey the Second Amendment guarantee of a personal right to own a gun.
“I’m extremely interested in the outcome of this case,” Baucus said after the hearing. “Oral arguments were compelling. The bottom line is that all law biding citizens have the right to bear arms — whether it’s for hunting in the great outdoors or for protection. It’s spelled out right in the Constitution, and we’ve got to protect it. You can bet I’ll be keeping a close eye on this case as it moves forward.”

Senator Max Baucus, U.S. Senate

SOURCE

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

Coming to YOUR State soon!: The epic fail Obama’s minions are hard at work!

February 28, 2010

It has been said that California leads the way when it comes to social change. Usually for the worse… I would however submit that as distorted and stupidly off course as my home state  most often is? New York is just as much a leader in the destruction of freedom and Liberty. I mean think about it? This is a State that continually elects people like the straw purchase felon Michael Bloomberg, and the overtly treasonous to his oath to uphold the Constitution Charles Schumer!

New York, the State, is actually pretty conservative, if not outright Libertarian. However, democracy, being what it is? New York City rules the entire state. That’s a fact Jack! I think that is pathetic. Further, I think that the rest of New York should just pull up stakes, and secede from the city. Tell them to go take a hike,and form their own state. Much as my home state of California should be split into three entities… Or become parts of Nevada or Arizona…

Take a look at just what the minions of epic fail obama are trying to pull off in New York… As pissed as I get at the NRA? This should have been FRONT page at Gun Owners of America!

Read on faithful readers…

Laundry List of Anti-Gun Bills Introduced in the Empire State
Friday, February 26, 2010
Please contact your lawmakers and urge them to oppose the laundry list of anti-gun bills pending consideration in Albany prior to the Assembly’s annual “gun day.”  The package includes the following bills:

  • Assembly Bill 801A and its Senate companion, S 1598A, would require five-year renewals on pistol licenses.
  • Assembly Bill 1093 and its Senate companion, S 1715, would create liability for legal firearm retailers when criminals misuse firearms.
  • Assembly Bill 1275 and its Senate companion, S 1712, would outlaw the private sale and transfer of long guns.
  • Assembly Bill 1326 and its Senate companion, S 5228, would outlaw the sale of all handguns not equipped with so-called “child proofing” devices.
  • Assembly Bill 2881 and its Senate companion, S 2379, would ban the sale of common self-defense and hunting ammunition.
  • Assembly Bill 2884 would prohibit gun shows on public property.
  • Assembly Bill 2885 and Assembly Bill 2910 would establish standards for guns sold in the state and would allow the state police to prevent ANY firearm they deem unsafe from being transferred into the state.
  • Assembly Bill 3200 and its Senate companion, S 2953, would require ammunition coding or bullet serialization.
  • Assembly Bill 3346 would outlaw affordable handguns commonly used for self-defense.
  • Assembly Bill 3477 and its Senate companion, S 1188, would expand the failed 10-year-old ballistic imaging program to include even more firearms.
  • Assembly Bill 4441 and its Senate companion, S 4338, would prohibit the manufacture, sale or transfer of handguns not equipped with so-called “smart gun” technology.
  • Assembly Bill 5844 and its Senate companion, S 3098, would prohibit keeping firearms available for self-defense in the home.
  • Assembly Bill 6157 and Assembly Bill 6294 and their Senate companion, S 4084, would drastically expand the state’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” to include virtually all semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can accept detachable magazines.
  • Assembly Bill 6468B and its Senate companion, S 6005, would outlaw the sale of all semi-automatic handguns not equipped with so-called “microstamping” technology.
  • Senate Bill 4752 would ban certain firearms based upon bore diameter.

As the anti-gun agenda awaits activity, a few other measures deserve our support. They include Assembly Bill 5118A and its Senate companion, S 2430A, which would grant a tax exemption to conservation clubs and rod and gun clubs owning land having an assessed value of $500,000 or less. These bills are in the Assembly Real Property Tax Committee and the Senate Local Government Committee respectively.

NRA-ILA also supports Assembly Bill 7463A and its Senate Companion, S 3299A, which would expand hunting opportunities by allowing the use of a rifle to hunt deer or bear in certain parts of Chautauqua County.  These bills are pending in the Assembly and Senate Environment Committees, respectively.

Please contact your lawmakers and urge them to oppose the anti-gun bills pending in the Assembly and to support AB5118A/S 2430A, AB7463A/S 3299A in both the Senate and Assembly.

State Assembly Members can be reached by phone at (518) 455-4100.  To find your Assembly Member, please click here.

Your State Senator can be contacted through the Senate switchboard at (518) 455-2800. To find your State Senator, please click here.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Law, Men's Issues, Military Science, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

Pathetic Politicaly correct prosecutors: Honor Killing in AZ

February 27, 2010

Arizona prosecutors have decided not to pursue the death penalty in the case of Faleh Al-Maleki, the Iraqi immigrant who struck his 20-year-old daughter Noor — and the woman who was protecting her — with his vehicle. Noor, whom Al-Maleki had accused of being too “Westernized,” died of her injuries, and her father has been charged with first-degree murder, attempted murder, and two counts of leaving the scene of a serious accident.

Public defender Billy Little asked the judge to take “special precautions” that the D.A. wouldn’t seek death because Al-Maleki is a Muslim. The irony is that Al-Maleki committed his crimes because by his own reckoning, his daughter was not true to her Muslim faith.

In addition, Little’s bias is apparently acceptable. Little, in reference to the religious beliefs of County Attorney Andrew Thomas, asked for “An open process [that] provides some level of assurance that there is no appearance that a Christian is seeking to execute a Muslim for racial, political, religious or cultural beliefs.”

This murder was based on the centuries-old tradition — still adhered to in some parts of the world — of murdering female relatives who don’t obey Islamic rules. It is, arguably, even more disturbing when the crime happens in the United States and political correctness affords special protection for her murderer.

SOURCE

This is prosecutorial mis-conduct at it’s worst, and all in the name of political correctness.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Immigration, Law, Men's Issues, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on Pathetic Politicaly correct prosecutors: Honor Killing in AZ

General Quarters General Quarters Man your battle stations!

February 22, 2010

Remember the old navy movies when the speaker would squak out that you were being attacked? Well, the obamanites are cruising at ramming speed,and they are aiming straight at you, your children, and your grandchildren.

The economic disaster that is obamacare is about to be force fed to you. Guess what Mister President? I refuse to eat the broccoli!

I don’t want you involved in my health care decisions, and if all the demonstrations that made the news last year didn’t get your attention? Then perhaps the absolute backlash that will occur as a result of your lairding it over the soiled masses will be all yours. You will not be able to blame it on Bush. You will own it, lock, stock, and barrel, period.

What type of bloodshed will it take to get you to listen to the people of America? Your apparent disgust for the American military, as exemplified by hiring Hillary Clinton to a cabinet level post. Your abhorrent attitude toward decent Law Enforcement still doesn’t pass muster, even after a beer… Your apparent distaste for those that put their lives on the line on a daily basis, unless they are union Paramedics and Firefighters… That based upon reports from Chi Town from EMS workers while you were a “community organizer.”

Tell ya what Mister impostor in chief? I’ll keep my guns,and you can keep your “change!”

Yes, regular readers know that I really don’t get this fired up unless something  is amiss in a very big way. Well..?

A mere three days before President Obama’s supposedly bipartisan health-care summit, the White House yesterday released a new blueprint that Democrats say they will ram through Congress with or without Republican support. So after election defeats in Virginia, New Jersey and even Massachusetts, and amid overwhelming public opposition, Democrats have decided to give the voters want they don’t want anyway.

Ah, the glory of “progressive” governance and democratic consent.

“The President’s Proposal,” as the 11-page White House document is headlined, is in one sense a notable achievement: It manages to take the worst of both the House and Senate bills and combine them into something more destructive. It includes more taxes, more subsidies and even less cost control than the Senate bill. And it purports to fix the special-interest favors in the Senate bill not by eliminating them—but by expanding them to everyone.

SOURCE

What next? The FBI will be taken over by the BATFE?

Don’t forget folks, as posted earlier in a Gun Owners of America alert, the thing was chock full of anti liberty items, and now? Even more of the same? It’s just a bit after seven in the evening my time. Any bets on how long before the Commie America haters, say, at the SPLC, or the Brady Bunch will will chime in like good little brown nosing storm troopers..?

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Immigration, Law, Local Politics Colorado, Local Politics Wyoming, Men's Issues, mysandry, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Stupid is as Stupid Does, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 4 Comments »

Profiles in Valor: Ed Freeman, and media politics

February 7, 2010

This is stolen from Kieth over at Lighthouse Patriot Journal. Since the Government Controlled media, as Anthony calls it, refuses to tell the tale about this man then we of the not so mainstream have an obligation to do so. Is it political that CNN etc. are not covering this? After all, the media were on the side of the enemy in the Viet Nam War, and they still have their darling the treasonous John Kerry to wax elegant about.

This is a rather long post, but please read it in it’s entirety.

The following email was sent by Joan Bartelson concerning a hero described in the chain email circuit …

You’re a 19 year old kid. You’re critically wounded, and dying in the jungle in the Ia Drang Valley, 11-14-1965, LZ X-ray, Vietnam. Your infantry unit is outnumbered 8 – 1, and the enemy fire is so intense, from 100 or 200 yards away, that your own Infantry Commander has ordered the MediVac helicopters to stop coming in. You’re lying there, listening to the enemy machine guns, and you know you’re not getting out. Your family is 1/2 way around the world, 12,000 miles away, and you’ll never see them again. As the world starts to fade in and out, you know this is the day. Then, over the machine gun noise, you faintly hear that sound of a helicopter, and you look up to see an un-armed Huey, but it doesn’t seem real, because no Medi-Vac markings are on it. Ed Freeman is coming for you. He’s not Medi-Vac, so it’s not his job, but he’s flying his Huey down into the machine gun fire, after the Medi-Vacs were ordered not to come.

He’s coming anyway.

And he drops it in, and sits there in the machine gun fire, as they load 2 or 3 of you on board. Then he flies you up and out through the gunfire, to the Doctors and Nurses. And, he kept coming back…. 13 more times….. And took about 30 of you and your buddies out, who would never have gotten out.

Medal of Honor Recipient , Ed Freeman , died last Wednesday at the age of 80, in Boise , ID ……May God rest his soul….. I bet you didn’t hear about this hero’s passing, but we sure were told a whole bunch about some Hip-Hop Coward beating the crap out of his “girlfriend” Medal of Honor Winner Ed Freeman!

Shame on the American Media.

Myth Blaster Verdict:Truth, except remarks concerning American Media.Ed W. “Too Tall” Freeman was born November 20th 1927 in Neely, Mississippi and died on August 20th 2008. He was a US Army helicopter pilot who received the Medal of Honor for his action during the Battle of Ia Drang in the Vietnam War. Mr. Freeman was a wingman for Major Bruce Crandall who also received the Medal of Honor.Mr. Freeman served in World War II and attained the rank of Master Sergeant by the time the Korean War began. He was in the Corps of Engineers, but fought as an infantry soldier in the Korean War. He fought in the Battle of Pork Chop Hill and received a battlefield commission as an officer, which made him eligible to become a pilot, a dream he had since childhood. When he applied for flight school training, he was considered too tall (six foot, four inches) for pilot duty, and thus the reason for his nickname. In 1955, the height limit was raised and Mr. Freeman was accepted to attend flight school. He first trained in fix-wing aircraft and then switched to helicopters. He was an experienced helicopter pilot by the time he was sent to Vietnam in 1965 and became second-in-command as a Captain in Company A, 229th Assault Helicopter Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile), 16-helicopter unit. Wikipedia (verified):

On November 14th, 1965, Captain Freeman and his unit transported a battalion of American soldiers to the Ia Drang Valley. After returning to base, they learned that the soldiers were under intense fire and taking heavy casualties. Enemy fire around the landing zones was so heavy that the medical evacuation helicopters refused to fly in to the landing zone. Freeman and his commander, Major Bruce Crandall, volunteered to fly their unarmed, lightly armored helicopters in support of the embattled troops. Freeman made a total of fourteen trips to the battlefield, bringing in water and ammunition and taking out wounded soldiers. Freeman was sent home from Vietnam in 1966 and retired from the military the next year. He settled in the Treasure Valley area of Idaho, his wife Barbara’s home state, and continued to work as a pilot. He used his helicopter to fight wildfires, perform animal censuses, and herd wild horses for the Department of the Interior until his retirement in 1991. Freeman’s commanding officer nominated him for the Medal of Honor for his actions at Ia Drang, but not in time to meet a two-year deadline then in place. He was instead awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. The Medal of Honor nomination was disregarded until 1995, when the two-year deadline was removed.

He was formally presented with the medal on July 16th, 2001 by President George W. Bush. Freeman died on August 20, 2008, due to complications from Parkinson’s disease. He was buried in the Idaho State Veterans Cemetery in Boise. In the 2002 film We Were Soldiers, which depicted the Battle of Ia Drang, Freeman was portrayed by Mark McCracken. The post office of Freeman’s hometown of McLain, Mississippi, was renamed the “Major Ed W. Freeman Post Office” in March 2009.

Medal of Honor Citation:

Captain Ed W. Freeman, United States Army, distinguished himself by numerous acts of conspicuous gallantry and extraordinary intrepidity on 14 November 1965 while serving with Company A, 229th Assault Helicopter Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile). As a flight leader and second in command of a 16-helicopter lift unit, he supported a heavily engaged American infantry battalion at Landing Zone X-Ray in the Ia Drang Valley, Republic of Vietnam. The unit was almost out of ammunition after taking some of the heaviest casualties of the war, fighting off a relentless attack from a highly motivated, heavily armed enemy force. When the infantry commander closed the helicopter landing zone due to intense direct enemy fire, Captain Freeman risked his own life by flying his unarmed helicopter through a gauntlet of enemy fire time after time, delivering critically needed ammunition, water and medical supplies to the besieged battalion. His flights had a direct impact on the battle’s outcome by providing the engaged units with timely supplies of ammunition critical to their survival, without which they would almost surely have gone down, with much greater loss of life. After medical evacuation helicopters refused to fly into the area due to intense enemy fire, Captain Freeman flew 14 separate rescue missions, providing life-saving evacuation of an estimated 30 seriously wounded soldiers — some of whom would not have survived had he not acted. All flights were made into a small emergency landing zone within 100 to 200 meters of the defensive perimeter where heavily committed units were perilously holding off the attacking elements. Captain Freeman’s selfless acts of great valor, extraordinary perseverance and intrepidity were far above and beyond the call of duty or mission and set a superb example of leadership and courage for all of his peers. Captain Freeman’s extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit and the United States Army.[4]

The following entries of the bibliography demonstrate that Major Freeman, US Army retired was afforded plenty of publicity – even at this death, as one of many American heroes of our nation’s history. That part of the chain email was untrue.Some email versions, according to SNOPES, presents the wrong date of death.The email as one can see is a bit outdated and has made the chain email circuit many times, sometimes changed in various ways.The travesty of this story is how long it took for the man to receive his honor as an American hero, the two-year limit rule was ridiculous. In the myriad of paperwork, sometimes thinks get misplaced. My father finally received his additional medals after World War II – twenty years later.Bibliography MOH Recipient Ed Freeman Dies … (August 21st 2008) Idaho Statesman, Military.comMedal of Honor Recipient Ed Freeman, 80, dies … Nightly News videoEd Freeman … Snopes Ed Freeman, Medal of Honor Recipient … David Emery, Urban Legends Netlore Archive, About.comRemembering Medal of Honor Recipient Ed Freeman … Truth or FictionEd Freeman … Wikipedia Biography with sources Decades Later, Vietnam War Hero Is Finally Awarded Medal of Honor … Sandra Jontz, Stars and Stripes, July 17th 2001 Bush Presents Congressional Medal of Honor … CNN, July 16th 2001Congress Names Post Office for Valley Medal of Honor Recipient, Idaho Press-Tribune, March 18th 2009

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Men's Issues, Military Science, News, Politics, Profiles in Valor, Valhalla, War, Warfare, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

Tenth Amendment Wyoming

February 3, 2010

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

I recently attended a meeting in Sheridan that addressed the growing movement for strengthening the Tenth Amendment in Wyoming. Indeed, this should be boilerplate for any politician at local and state level in each and every state.

The Federal government has abused the states ever since the War of Northern Aggression and, simply put, it needs to be reigned in. From abuse of the “commerce Clause” to Second Amendment issues to drug laws the Federal Government is, and has been as out of control as a drunk teenager. Anytime that anything within the Bill of Rights is weakened,the entire body of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution is weakened.

All to often though our so-called leadership does a roll over and licks the boots of the Federal lairds.

See video Here

Hat tip to Anthony Bouchard!

We need laws passed, not toothless resolutions.


Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Blogroll, Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Law, Local Politics Wyoming, Men's Issues, mysandry, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

FEDS RESPOND TO FIREARMS FREEDOM ACT

January 21, 2010
FEDS RESPOND TO FIREARMS FREEDOM ACT LAWSUIT MOTION TO DISMISS “EXPECTED”
MISSOULA – The United States has made its first response to a lawsuit filed in federal district court in Missoula to test the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA), passed by the 2009 Legislature and signed into law by Governor Schweitzer.

The MFFA declares that any firearms, ammunition or firearms accessories made and retained in Montana are not subject to federal regulation under the power given to Congress in the U.S. Constitution to regulate commerce “among the several states.” The MFFA is a states’ rights challenge on Tenth Amendment grounds, with firearms serving as the vehicle for the challenge.

This lawsuit to validate the MFFA was brought by the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). The suit names U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder as defendant, and is referred to as MSSA v. Holder.

The first response to the lawsuit by the United States is a Motion to Dismiss, submitted January 19th and considered to be a standard procedural maneuver in lawsuits against the U.S government . This motion seeks to avoid the legal merits by asserting that the Plaintiffs lack standing to sue, that a justiciable controversy does not exist, and that prevailing case law is against Plaintiffs.

MSSA President Gary Marbut, also a Plaintiff in the lawsuit explained, “The first import of this response is that the legal game is now on. There was some concern that the defendants would forfeit the game with no response in an effort to prevent this important issue from being adjudicated properly. We are now beyond that hurdle.” However, the Motion to Dismiss by Washington also seeks to sidestep proper adjudication.

SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb said, “We are disappointed but not surprised that the government would try to kill this suit on standing, rather than arguing about the merits of the case.”

The MFFA concept has gained traction across the Nation since its passage in Montana. Tennessee has enacted a clone of the MFFA, and other clones have been introduced in the state legislatures of 19 other states, including: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. . Ten or more additional states are expected to introduce yet more MFFA clones in the next few weeks. (See: http://www.FirearmsFreedomAct.com)

The U.S.’s Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support are viewable at: http://FirearmsFreedomAct.com/montana-lawsuit-updates/

MSSA and SAF have assembled a litigation team for this effort consisting of three attorneys from Montana, one from New York, one from Florida and one from Arizona. Lead attorney for the Plaintiffs is Quentin Rhoades, partner the Missoula firm of Sullivan, Tabaracci and Rhoades. Other interested parties from both in and out of Montana are preparing to weigh in on this issue of national interest and national importance as amicus curiae (friends of the court).

Marbut commented, “The FFA concept has created a firestorm of interest nationwide. Lots of people and other states are watching carefully to see how Montana fares in this challenge to overbearing federal authority and to Washington’s attempt to control every detail of commerce in the Nation, especially including activity wholly confined within an individual state. That level of micro management certainly was not the intent of our founders when they gave Congress limited power in the Constitution to regulate commerce ‘among the states’.” (See: http://FirearmsFreedomAct.com/what-is-the-commerce-clause/)

MSSA is the primary political advocate for gun owners and hunters in Montana, having gotten 54 pro-gun and pro-hunting bills through the Montana Legislature in the past 25 years. SAF is a pro-gun foundation in Bellevue, Washington, established to press the rights of gun owners primarily in judicial fora. SAF has been a party to numerous lawsuits to assert the rights of gun owners across the Nation.

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations 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. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Hunting Fishing and the Great Outdoors, Immigration, Law, Local Politics Colorado, Local Politics Wyoming, Men's Issues, mysandry, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

Lautenberg and Bloomberg’s terrorist watch list

January 18, 2010

This is a tad stale, what with all the hoopla over the special election, and soon to be apparent thuggery employed by Martha the mysandryist Coakley, and epic fail obama in the get out the vote pogrom. But, this is precisely what happens when you elect big government authoritarian Chicago style politicians to positions where they can wreck havoc.

As we’ve reported before, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), encouraged by New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, wants to prohibit anyone on the FBI’s terrorist watchlist from possessing a firearm. Yet, the list and its criteria are secret, and Lautenberg’s bill would criminalize the exercise of a constitutionally protected right while denying a person the opportunity to clear himself of accusations in a fair and open hearing before a court of law. Even today, thousands of people who aren’t terrorists cannot prevent the list from misidentifying them, causing them delays and embarrassment when trying to board commercial aircraft.

It’s one thing when an adult gets the run-around at an airport, because he or she has a name identical or similar to someone the FBI is watching. As the American Civil Liberties Union has pointed out, the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) “automatic selectee” list — its list of people who are not permitted to board an aircraft without being given the once-over by the agency’s machines and uniformed, latex-gloved personnel — is based on people’s names, not on physical factors like age.

But when the system is so unorganized that it cannot distinguish a kid from a terrorist, what’s going on here? Yesterday, the New York Times reported that for the last six or seven years, one of Lautenberg’s constituents — eight-year-old New Jersey Cub Scout Michael “Mikey” Hicks — hasn’t been able to get on a plane without being patted down like your average neighborhood hubcap thief with his palms on the hood of a police cruiser and a nightstick between his legs. Repeatedly mistaken for someone on the FBI’s terrorist watchlist since he was two years old, Mikey’s encounters with the federal government have consisted of, as his mother puts it, “Up your arms, down your arms, up your crotch, someone is patting your 8-year-old down like he’s a criminal.”

To say that the situation is ironic is a gross understatement. The government can’t or won’t get Mikey’s situation straightened out. And he isn’t alone. The Times says that of nearly 82,000 travelers who have applied through the Department of Homeland Security to get their names cleared from the watchlist during the last three years, 25,000 are still waiting.

Yet, the government failed to add to the TSA’s “no-fly list” the self-proclaimed al Qaeda-trained Nigerian Islamist fanatic who allegedly smuggled military high explosives aboard a plane bound for Detroit on Christmas Day last year and almost blew the plane to kingdom come. As the White House report on the incident concluded, there was enough information to have placed him on the “no-fly list;” he was already in the government’s international terrorist identities database (the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or TIDE). But, the government failed to recognize that he had a U.S. travel visa (which it could have revoked) because it had misspelled his name.

TSA can spell “Mikey,” however. Despite efforts by the boy’s parents and their congressman to get TSA to straighten out the error, the delays and pat-downs continue. Meanwhile, other non-terrorists tired of their airport delays have been able to get off TSA’s radar screen by changing their names or deliberately misspelling their names when purchasing a ticket.

Irrespective of how this relates to Second Amendment issues, we think — and more and more people are likely to agree — that while our fellow Americans in federal service have prevented virtually all terrorist attacks in the U.S. since the September 11 attacks, numerous problems with the watchlist apparatus remain and it is long past the time that these problems should have been corrected.

Mikey’s case, however, serves to remind us of the potential ramifications for the Second Amendment, if the watchlist is used by the likes of Lautenberg and Bloomberg to their nefarious ends.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Law, Men's Issues, mysandry, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on Lautenberg and Bloomberg’s terrorist watch list

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »