Archive for the ‘mysandry’ Category

President of Wyoming Family Coalition lies to gun owners about Matt Mead

November 2, 2010

Reprinted, with permission.

Director of Wyoming Gun Owners asks for Maureen Emrich to step down.

Maureen Emrich, President of Wyoming Family Coalition, has apparently become a mouthpiece for the Mead Campaign. But not on the issues one would expect. To the contrary Emrich has decided to act as if she is an expert on gun rights. To read Emrich’s letter click here

These are the same kind of insider politics that have become the norm with ineffective lobby groups, including the NRA. Instead of standing for principles, they opt to sell-out and compromise, only leading to furthering the opposition’s agenda. We call this the proverbial seat at the table.

Being a Wyoming Gun Rights Advocate, I expect attacks on my character from career politicians, but not from a conservative advocacy group’s leader. Like me, you should find it disturbing that Emrich left out the most important part – THE TRUTH.  As usual I pride myself in delivering factual information, so please listen to the following conversation with Maureen Emrich. click here

Emrich’s letter is strikingly similar to the Mead Campaigns rhetoric, however Bill Novotny from the Mead Campaign denies that they had anything to do with Emrich’s letter. My hunch is that a lower level campaign aid was involved and Maureen Emrich was foolish to take the bait!

Since she threw gun rights under the bus for political gain, it reveals that Emrich is calling plays right out of “the book of compromise”. Following are the facts that Emrich was so eager to overlook:

1. It is an undeniable fact that Matt Mead fought against gun rights and States Rights in Wyoming vs. BATF. For Brady Campaign link click here

2. Matt Mead stated he was just doing his job, but I contend he ignored the oath he took to uphold the Constitution.

3. Mead admitted that as a U.S. Attorney he had the ability to recues himself from a case, but he chose not to do so in Wyoming vs. BATF.

4. Mead has been disingenuous by reporting he never had contact with me, the truth is Mead spoke with me by phone, not just once, but twice. Mead said about Wyoming vs. BATF – quote – “I was just doing my job” and “you should see my gun collection”.

5. Mead is misleading in telling his supporters that he knows me as “some blogger from California”. Mead is fully aware of my position as a gun rights advocate in Wyoming.

MORE REVEALING INFORMATION–
6. Mead supports the Patriot Act, in his own words he stated and I quote – “You’re not going to like my answer, I support the Patriot Act”. If you don’t know what the Patriot Act is click here

By writing an editorial without verifying facts, Maureen Emrich, President of a group that says it stands for conservative principles, has seemingly become nothing more than a marionette puppet with politicians pulling her strings.  Look out – Emrich’s nose might start growing!

To put this more directly, Emrich has no business sticking her nose where it doesn’t belong!

Clearly, if Emrich can so easily attack those who have consistently defended Gun Rights, it will call into question her ability to lead a “conservative” organization in Wyoming, PERIOD.

Wyoming Conservatives, especially the “gun bearing” types, should contact the Wyoming Family Coalition and ask that Maureen Emrich immediately submits her resignation.  Not only is their credibility at stake. But it is apparent that under her leadership their organization has only become part of the problem in Wyoming politics.

For Wyoming Family Coalition contact info click here

Anthony Bouchard
Director – WyGO

SOURCE

Bloomberg follies Redux

October 30, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCE

The ‘Alice in Wonderland’ test

October 30, 2010

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

SOURCE

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

October 27, 2010

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

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

Seeking Promiscuous Heathen Female Roommate


Dear Fair Housing Center of West Michigan,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 27, 2010

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

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

Read About It: Fox News

Flying J truck stops had better NOT check their customers sleepers!

October 27, 2010

Pilot / Flying J Travel centers will be in for a shock if they find out just what is on their property. Company policies are in place to deny fundamental rights to their employees, but? Their customers are different…

NASHVILLE – Republican gubernatorial candidate Bill Haslam‘s support for requiring businesses to allow their workers to store guns in vehicles parked on company property conflicts with the policy in place for the 20,000 employees at a chain of truck stops his family owns.

But his position is in sync with the approach followed by the city of Knoxville, where he is mayor.

Pilot spokeswoman Cynthia Moxley told The Associated Press on Tuesday that Knoxville-based Pilot Flying J prohibits workers from storing firearms in their vehicles at both its travel centers and corporate offices.

Haslam said after a speech in Nashville on Tuesday that he was unaware of the policy.

“The leadership of that company made a decision on that,” he said. “I never had a role in even talking to them about it. I didn’t even know what the rule was.”

Haslam was president of Pilot until he was elected Knoxville mayor in 2003. The company was founded by his father Jim Haslam and is now run by his brother Jimmy Haslam. The candidate maintains an unspecified stake in the company.

Efforts to repeal a state law that lets companies decide whether to forbid employees from keeping guns in their cars while they work has pitted advocates like the National Rifle Association and Tennessee Firearms Association against business interests like the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Memphis-based Fedex Corp., whose lobbyists in committee hearings have argued that the gun ban is a workplace safety issue.

Haslam caused some confusion on the campaign trail Monday when he first said it should be up to employers to decide about gun policies on their property, but later clarified that business owners’ rights shouldn’t extend to firearms stored in locked cars.

On Tuesday, Randy Kenner, spokesman for Haslam, deferred the question of whether city workers are allowed to bring guns to work and store them in their cars to the Public Building Authority, the landlord of the City County Building.

Dale Smith, CEO of PBA, said there is not a policy on the issue for the city and county garages, including the City County Building.

“There has never been a policy against having a gun in your vehicle,” Smith. “It would be unenforceable.”

That means employees can store guns in their vehicles, he said.

At the same time, “Even people with carry permits are not allowed to bring firearms in the buildings,” Smith said.

Haslam’s gun positions have come under closer scrutiny since he told the Tennessee Firearms Association last week he would sign into law efforts to end a requirement for people to obtain state-issued permits in order to carry handguns in public.

The Republican said his personal preference is to maintain the current requirements for the state’s approximate 300,000 permit holders, but that he would defer to the will of the Legislature on the matter.

Haslam, who does not own a gun, said he also supports a new state law allowing handgun carry permit holders to be armed in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. The measure has been the subject of two overrides of gubernatorial vetoes in the last two years.

Democrat Mike McWherter has seized on Haslam’s positions on guns, calling it “irresponsible” because it will encourage sympathetic lawmakers to pass a bill to do away with handgun carry permits. He also argues for restoring a ban on handguns at late-night bars.

McWherter said it is the policy at his Jackson beer distributorship to allow workers to keep guns in their cars on company premises, but he wants to leave it up to each business to decide for itself.

“Bill Haslam is for letting anyone bring a gun to work unless they work for his oil company, in which case they can’t,” McWherter spokesman Shelby White said in an e-mail message. “He’s all over the map on a fundamental public safety issue.”

SOURCE

Behind the Scenes, Obama Continues Pushing UN Gun Control Treaty

October 26, 2010

The never ending attack on the United States of America by the epic fail obama administration continues unabated. Read on…

Voters can stop this global tyranny by electing an Obama-proof Congress
Friday, October 22, 2010

 

In late September, several dozen UN representatives met at the University of Massachusetts in Boston to further discuss their plans for global gun control.

While our President may have a history of being absent for important events — missing over 300 votes while in the U.S. Senate, dissing important dignitaries who visit our country, etc. — he was sure to have his administration represented at this meeting.

The final report for the Boston Symposium on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is posted online and states that:

“In the end, we seek to achieve an ATT that will establish the highest possible common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms, including small arms and light weapons, in order to contribute effectively towards peace and stability. This Symposium has brought us one step closer to achieving that goal.”

So, they are one step closer to their goal.  What are there goals for our firearms?

Apart from using generic phrases like “highest possible common international standards” (aka, gun controls), the gun banners are very careful not to publicly post specific anti-gun proposals that would excite the American public against them.  But Paul Gallant and Joanne Eisen, who have attended these UN meetings, spell out what the proposed ATT will really entail.

Writing together with another noted firearms author of the Independence Institute, Dave Kopel, they say that an Arms Trade Treaty would impose:

* Microstamping on firearms, thus increasing the cost of each gun by about $200;

* Registration of all firearms, which is often a prelude to gun confiscation;

* Restrictions on gun sales, especially private transfers (thus, no more gun shows as we know them);

* Embargoes on firearms and materials (such as nickel and tungsten) that would limit access to many of the firearms which are sold in this country.

I’ll never submit to any stinkin’ gun control laws!

You might think:  “I don’t care what the UN imposes on us, I will never comply with their gun controls.”

Oh really?  So, you’ll never buy a new gun from a gun dealer?  Because if you do — and that gun has been manufactured according to UN treaty standards — then the microstamping technology on that gun will cost you a couple hundred dollars extra.

Not only that, the signature impressions that the firing pin leaves on your spent cartridge cases will be registered with the government under your name.

No problem, you say, you’re not a criminal — so who cares if the signature from your firing pin is registered with the government.

Well, do you ever take your guns to a shooting range and leave your spent brass?  According to Kopel, criminals could easily implicate innocent gun owners by going to gun ranges, collecting the empty casings and dumping them at crime scenes.  Moreover, the common practice of selling or giving away once-fired brass could disappear overnight.

Do you still think that a UN treaty won’t affect you?  The “master minds” at the UN plan to register every firearms sale that passes through a gun dealer and to cut off (make illegal) any private sale that you might attempt as a means of circumventing their controls.

But we can beat this travesty by electing an Obama-proof Senate this November!

Even if the President signs the Arms Trade Treaty — and he most certainly will when it’s completed — we can strangle this hideous creature in its cradle if he can’t get two-thirds of all the Senators to support him.

Help GOA stop UN gun control

That’s why GOA is here, fighting to make sure he can’t impose a UN gun ban on every American citizen.

GOA has published its 2010 Voter Guide which is available at the GOA website.

And the GOA Political Victory Fund has helped pushed several pro-gun candidates over the hump in their primaries and into the lead for the general election.  You can go to the GOA-PVF site to get more details on these races.

Finally, you can help Gun Owners of America continue to spread the word about pro-gun candidates by clicking here and contributing to the organization that is on the front lines defending your gun rights without compromising one inch.

This is crunch time.  We are less than two weeks away from one of the most important elections in our lifetimes.

Thank you so much for your support!

SOURCE

New England Journal of Medicine: Stuck on stupid, again…

October 25, 2010
Medical journals are not always the objective, purely scientific publications we might think that they are. Their editors have increasingly strayed into politics at the expense of scientific accuracy. For example, the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine has over the last few months published a number of extremely biased and poorly done studies on gun control.

Read About It: The National Review
SOURCE

Big Green verses CNBC

October 25, 2010

This week, CNBC aired an hour-long attack on the Remington 700 rifle, rehashing decades-old allegations about the popular rifle’s trigger system.  (Interestingly, the network’s “10-month investigation” aired just a few months after a press release went out from a Kansas City law firm that has sued Remington in the past, seeking plaintiffs for new cases against the gun maker.)  While CNBC and plaintiffs’ lawyers claim the rifle will fire without the trigger being pulled, Remington says that neither the company nor the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses have ever been able to cause such a discharge in a properly maintained, unaltered rifle.

The program also repeated the gun ban lobby’s longstanding complaint that the Consumer Product Safety Commission doesn’t have the power to order recalls of firearms and ammunition.  Congress’s wisdom in refusing to give CPSC that power was proven in the 1990s, when CPSC staff told the Clinton White House the agency “would love to get into the gun regulation business” and anti-gun Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) introduced legislation to remove the restriction.

The NRA is second to no one in supporting and promoting firearm safety, and NRA publications have regularly published announcements of voluntary recalls by gun and ammunition manufacturers.   Yet since long before “Dateline NBC” used rocket motors to blow up pickup trucks in staged collisions, gun owners have rightly been skeptical of the mainstream media’s ability to report fairly and accurately on firearms issues.  These attacks on Remington are far from over, and NRA members who want to hear the company’s side of the story can visit Remington’s new website on the issue at www.remington700.tv.

SOURCE

The Ruling Class — Past and Present

October 18, 2010

Defenders of the idea that only the ruling class should be able to make decisions for everybody else desperately try to put lipstick on the tyrannical pigs of history and today.

One common argument – in both Russia and in the West – is the defense of Lenin as a well-intentioned guy whose good work was cut short by his premature death. Then that bad old Stalin took over and tyranny sprang up like flowers after a rain in the desert.

Robert Gellately in Lenin, Stalin and Hitler has examined this notion and has totally destroyed its claim to veracity from first-hand accounts. His conclusion is that Lenin was “a heartless and ambitious individual who was self-righteous in claiming to know what was good for humanity, brutal in his attempt to subject his own people to radical social transformation, and convinced he held the key to the eventual overthrow of global capitalism and the establishment of world Communism.”

The picture Gellately paints of Stalin and Hitler shows that Lenin’s character flaws were shared by them as well.

Gellately describes Lenin in terms that disturbingly fit Saul Alinsky, President Obama’s intellectual inspiration. Both men wrote that the current system needs to be collapsed. While Alinsky argued that it should be collapsed from within, Lenin sought the same goal by deliberately provoking a civil war which would then be followed with murder and terror as an official regime policy. Lenin was successful, and as a result of the war, he emerged in total control of the country at a cost of two million dead. Of course, he and his disciple Stalin killed many tens of millions more in the years following.

Larry Grathwol was the FBI agent who infiltrated close-Obama-friend Bill Ayers’ terrorist Weather Underground. He testified that he had a conversation with Ayers in which the terrorist said that after taking power it would probably be necessary to kill 25,000,000 Americans who could not be reeducated to accept the new communist system.

Grathwol reported that Ayers made that statement in a room of some twenty-five people, most of whom had graduate degrees. Gellately found that the leaders of the death squads in Hitler’s Nazi regime were also similarly well-educated. This information certainly adds perspective to the detrimental value afforded by a liberal arts education in most universities of the United States.

All three of these mass murderers followed the Alinsky prescription faithfully, namely, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” When we look at President Obama’s method of operation, we can see that he learned this lesson well. (Indeed, Obama taught Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals for two years at the University of Chicago School of Law).

He picks targets for smearing (banks, insurance companies, Republicans, etc.). He then goes on to freeze his target, to personalize it (greedy executives, House Minority Leader John Boehner) and then to polarize. Polarizing is part of the acid used by the 20th Century’s tyrants as well as Saul Alinsky and his followers.

While we are not yet where Germany and Russia ended up,, the end game of polarizing the population against a personalized enemy led to the destruction of Jews and foreigners under the Nazis. And in the Soviet Union, it led to the destruction of the nobility, the educated, and the clergy, as well as businesses and farm owners. As Rahm Emmanuel, the president’s close friend and former White House Chief of Staff has put it, you never let a good crisis go to waste. The crisis allows the implementation of the Alinsky formula, creating an enemy that must be fought. In order to fight the enemy, the tyrant demands that all power be handed over to him.

According to Rep. Michelle Bachmann, Obama now controls seventy percent of the private sector in the United States. This takeover has been carried off by a constant rush from one crisis to another. “The time for talking is over. The time for action is now.”

Well, Mr. Obama, the time for voting is coming. The time for the arrogance of power is over.

SOURCE