Archive for the ‘mysandry’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

“Task Force” Using Crime And Corruption In Mexico As Premise For Gun Control In U.S.

October 16, 2009

As previously reported here, the NRA is getting fired up over the “Bi-National” shenanigans that are thinly vield shots at U.S. sovereignty because Mexico can’t get a handle on corruption.

On October 13, the Associated Press reported that the so-called Bi-National Task Force on Rethinking the United States-Mexico Border has produced a report, which, among other things, calls for re-imposition of the federal “assault weapon” ban of 1994-2004, saying it would improve security in both countries.

The “border-rethinking” group has been put together by the Pacific Council on International Policy and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations. The group consists mostly of former U.S. and Mexican officials and journalists, none of them currently elected by the people of the U.S. or Mexico to make policy on these issues.

According to the Pacific Council, the report is being released under the auspices of the Mexican CFR on November 13th and is absolutely unavailable until that time.  The Brady Campaign, naturally, has a copy of the report anyway, and quotes its executive summary as saying “The United States should intensify efforts to curtail the smuggling of firearms, ammunition, and bulk cash into Mexico by aggressively investigating gun sellers, regulating gun shows, [and] reinstituting the Clinton-era ban on assault weapons.”

Congress finished its hearings on the Mexico situation several months ago, and many members of Congress have declared their line-in-the-sand opposition to re-imposition of the ban.  So given that Brady Campaign seems to be the only outfit that has a copy of the embargoed report, it’s safe to conclude that the “task force” is trying to keep the public primed for the next attack on the ownership of firearms like the AR-15 and Remington 11-87, and ammunition magazines designed for defensive purposes.

Whatever the opinions of those who sip tea and nibble biscuits while musing about how to restrict the rest of us, re-imposing the ban would have no effect on Mexico’s historic problem of crime and corruption, for at least three reasons.

First, as has been amply demonstrated, the cartels are not limited to semi-automatic AR-15s and AK-47s.  They have hand-held and tripod-mounted, belt-fed machine guns; grenade launchers and grenades; and a variety of other high-end firearms, explosives, and special-purpose optics and communication gear acquired from countries other than the United States. Thanks to some Americans’ insatiable appetite for mind-altering drugs, they have enough money to buy the “task force” 10 times over, along with any weapon that can be found among any infantry platoon on Earth, no matter what kind of gun law gets imposed.

Second, most of the firearms seized from the cartels do not come from the United States. The claim that “90 percent” of Mexican “crime guns” originate in the U.S. is false. It does not relate to all firearms the Mexicans have seized from the cartels, but only to guns that the Mexicans have asked the BATFE to trace. As the Government Accountability Office has explained, “In 2008, of the almost 30,000 firearms that the Mexican Attorney General’s office said were seized, only around 7,200, or approximately a quarter, were submitted to [BATFE] for tracing.” The 6,700 guns that BATFE traced to the U.S. accounted for about 90 percent of the 7,200 guns that BATFE traced, but only 22 percent of all firearms seized by the Mexican government

Third, the ban did not stop the production and sale of any guns, it merely put a one-attachment limit on new guns. For example, before the ban, AR-15s had a pistol-type grip, flash suppressor and bayonet mount. The 750,000 AR-15s made during the ban had only the grip.  If the “task force” thinks the fate of Mexico hinges on whether a relatively small number of semi-automatic rifles have flash suppressors and bayonet mounts, its members ought to switch to decaffeinated tea and sugar-free cookies during their get-togethers.

Make no mistake, however. Even if the “task force” doesn’t understand the finer details of the old “assault weapon” ban, leading gun ban advocates like Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, the Brady Campaign, the Violence Policy Center, the Joyce Foundation, and the Legal Community Against Violence do.  If they have their way, they will eventually drag us into a much larger battle over the right to keep and bear semi-automatic shotguns, M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, and Ruger Mini-14s, in addition to the AR-15s, semi-automatic AK-47s, and other commonly owned firearms that were at issue during the 1994-2004 ban.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Immigration, Law, mysandry, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

Sleazy politics: it’s worse than watching sausage-making

October 16, 2009
Anti-gun ObamaCare Now Moves to the Senate Floor
— But Obama does not yet have the 60 votes he needs

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

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Well, there’s good news and bad news.

If you’ve been listening to the media, you know the bad news.  Senators voted the Baucus version of the ObamaCare bill out the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday, and the legislation now moves to the Senate floor.

So what’s the good news?  President Obama still doesn’t have the 60 votes he needs to overcome a filibuster of his nationalized health care bill.

In brief, the Baucus bill which passed out of committee will hurt you in several ways:

* You will have less money for buying firearms and ammunition. Hopefully, you have $25,900 that you don’t know what to do with — every year.  Because that’s how much the Baucus bill is going to cost an average family of four to pay for a government-mandated ObamaCare policy every year.

That’s right … $25,900 every year!  That will be your cost, according to a Price Waterhouse study of the Baucus legislation.  You will be required to purchase this ObamaCare policy and pay this amount under penalty of law under Baucus’ bill. (Go to http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_pwc2.html to read the Price Waterhouse study.)

* Anti-gun medical database that can be used to deny your right to purchase firearms. As GOA has warned for several months, the ObamaCare legislation will pump your medical information into the medical database that was created under the stimulus bill earlier this year.

The federal government has already used medical diagnoses (such as PTSD) to deny more than 150,000 military veterans the right to own guns — without their being convicted of a crime or receiving any due process of law.  So don’t be surprised if socialized ObamaCare results in your medical information being used to infringe upon your Second Amendment rights.

* Discrimination against gun owners. ObamaCare legislation in Congress will very likely empower anti-gun bureaucrats to deny medical reimbursements to individuals who engage in supposedly “dangerous” activities, like hunting or keeping loaded weapons for self-defense.  As GOA pointed out in an earlier alert, this type of discrimination against gun owners has already occurred in the homeowner insurance industry. (See documented examples of this at http://gunowners.org/op0231.htm on the GOA website.)

Bottom line:  Don’t be surprised if an Obama-prescribed policy precludes reimbursement of any kind in a household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense.

Sleazy politics: it’s worse than watching sausage-making

In order to get a somewhat positive financial analysis from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) kept the details of his health care rationing scheme secret.  He did this by providing the CBO an outline of the legislation, rather than providing real legislative language.

In fact, at the hour that the Senate Finance Committee was being forced to vote on the Baucus bill, the legislative language was still not available!  So the Senate Finance Committee voted on a bill that will take over one-sixth of the American economy without even seeing specific legislative language.

Otto von Bismarck, the first Chancellor of the German Empire, used to say that, “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.”

That’s still true today.  In order to get this sleazy effort to the Senate floor without anyone knowing what is in the legislative language, the Senate leadership has developed a really contemptible scheme:

* They will take a totally unrelated piece of legislation — perhaps a bill that deals with AIG bonus legislation — and then amend it with a thousand-page health bill that no one, to this date, has been able to read.

* The Republicans will filibuster this attempt to vote on “secret legislation” — requiring the Democrats to muster 60 votes.  If Democrats are successful in doing so, many of them will be free to vote against the health care bill on final passage, since only 51 votes will be needed for the final passage vote.  These switch-hitting Democrats would then be free to tell their constituents that they “opposed” the anti-gun socialized medicine bill because they voted against it on “final passage” — a nearly irrelevant vote that only requires the assent of 51 senators.

But make no mistake:  The REALLY IMPORTANT VOTE is the one that requires 60 votes.  That’s the vote to end the filibuster (or “invoke cloture”) on the motion to proceed to the secret bill.

At this point, it is not clear that Obama has the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster.  Already, one Democrat, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, has announced he is opposed to the Baucus plan.

And Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa indicated recently that there may be one more Democrat who is leaning against the bill.

That’s why it’s IMPERATIVE that you contact both of your senators.  Don’t think:  “Oh, my Senator is a Democrat and he’s going to support the President.”  We can’t afford to think that way.  All we need to do is pick off one more Democrat Senator and this bill is dead!

At the same time, we need to make sure all the Republicans vote against this anti-gun monstrosity.  Even with liberal Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine defecting, it is still possible to win the war over this legislation.

ACTION: Contact your two U.S. Senators.  Let them know of your disgust for the Baucus bill, and urge them to vote against cloture on the motion to proceed to a “secret” composite bill crafted behind closed doors.

You can 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.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

This may come as a surprise to you.  But most Americans can’t afford $25,900 a year to pay for health insurance under the sleazy bill passed out of the Senate Finance Committee.

According to a Price Waterhouse study, by 2019, the cost of the average family’s government-mandated Obama-drafted health insurance policy — which I would be required to purchase under penalty of law — would be $25,900 A YEAR.  This is a much bigger increase in premiums than if Congress did nothing.

Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office agrees that premiums would climb faster under the Baucus bill than if Congress did nothing.

Incidentally, please do not try to tell me that the “fines” for not purchasing an ObamaPolicy have been reduced and that I can’t be sent to prison.  This is largely a lie.

An ordinary family would pay $1,500 in fines when the bill fully kicks in.  And, while an amendment added by Senator Charles Schumer says you can’t be sent to prison if you can’t afford the policy, it does NOT say you can’t be sent to prison if you can’t afford the fine.

The next step will be a motion to proceed to a bill which would implement a government takeover of a sixth of the American economy — and put the government in charge of making decisions over whether my family and me live or die.

That motion to proceed will be made at a point when there is no CBO score based on legislation — and possibly no legislative language at all.

I would urge you, in the strongest terms, to vote against that motion to proceed — particularly if there is not a final CBO score BASED ON LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE.

Please do not vote wrong on this crucial cloture vote — and then expect that you can trick me by voting “no” on a meaningless final passage vote which only requires 50 senators.

Sincerely,

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

Tonight, tonight, what will we learn tonight..?

October 11, 2009

This will be on Oct 11th :

Sunday night at 9 PM Eastern.

This Sunday Fox news, is going to air a very important documentary about President Barack Obama, Sunday night at 9 PM Eastern.
The report will go back to Obama’s earlier days, showing even then his close ties to radical Marxist professors, friends, spiritual advisers, etc.

It will also reveal detail his ties to Rev.. Wright for 20+ yrs.
How he was participating with this man, and not for the reasons he
states!

The report has uncovered more of Obama’s radical past and we will see things that no one in the media is willing to put out there. It will be a segment to remember.

Mark your calendar and pass this on to everyone you know: Sunday night, 8 PM. CT ; 9 PM ET. Democrat or Republican, this report will open your eyes to how YOUR country is being sold down the road to Totalitarian Socialism. If you care about the direction of our country,

Pass this notice on to everyone you know.

email from poligotcha is the source

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

Bloomberg sycophants

October 10, 2009

The Bloomberg sycophants are marching along like good little serfs as usual. Read on…

Bathed in camera flashes during a “news conference” on October 7, 2009, New York City’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg was in his element in announcing “a wide-ranging undercover investigation by the City of New York into illegal gun sales” that revealed “a willful disregard of the law” by “74% of gun show sellers.”

Or, so he claimed.  The ego-driven multi-billionaire’s publicity stunt was neither “wide-ranging” nor representative of what occurs at gun shows, nor was it intended to be.  And it determined nothing about “74%” of all gun show sellers.

Instead, as Bloomberg’s report on the stunt openly admits, his “investigators” attended gun shows only “in states . . . that supply crime guns trafficked across state lines at the highest rates,” only in neighborhoods with the highest incidence of “federal prosecutions for straw buying and trafficking, and proximity to urban areas experiencing gang violence,” and ultimately focused their attention on only 47 individuals who, based upon their comments and actions, seemed the most likely to violate a gun sale law.

Even that amount of deliberate skewing of Bloomberg’s sample of the nation’s “gun show sellers” did not work as he expected.  Only 35 of the 47 (hence, the fraudulent “74%” claim) ultimately exercised poor judgment with respect to a gun sale law or, in perhaps some of the cases, may have been willing to break a law, and thus be subject to prosecution.

Anti-gun groups and politicians immediately heralded Bloomberg’s effort as definitive proof of the need for more restrictions on guns.  “Thanks to Mayor Bloomberg and the New York City Police Department, the public can see firsthand what goes on at these weapons markets,” said the Brady Campaign. “This investigation reveals how easy it is for criminals and even terrorists to purchase firearms at gun shows,” said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.).

And, since the day of fair, hard and objective reporting has apparently passed into journalism’s history, newspapers went along with Bloomberg’s charade like shills at a carnival game of chance, reminding us why public confidence in “the press” has dropped to 15% in annual polls.

“[I]n almost three out of four instances, undercover investigators were able to purchase guns illegally,” the New York Times dutifully reported. Bloomberg’s investigators “repeatedly bought guns from unlicensed dealers at gun shows even though they disclosed they probably couldn’t pass a background check,” said the Washington Post. “Bloomberg’s sting documented that these transient marketplaces for guns, ammunition and accessories are a multibillion-dollar business that is funneling weapons directly into criminals’ hands, in plain sight,” said the New York Daily News.  “Any doubt that stricter regulation would be helpful was removed last week when the results of an undercover investigation of gun show sales in Tennessee and two other states was released by the office of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg,” the (Memphis) Commercial Appeal editorialized.

Bloomberg’s bottom line?  You guessed it.  Congress should adopt S. 843 and H.R. 2324 to “close the gun show loophole by requiring background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows.” Bloomberg and his media friends failed to mention, of course, that both bills also propose that gun show promoters be registered, be required to pay unspecific fees, and be required to maintain ledgers of all non-dealers who bring firearms to shows (even if they bring them to sell only to dealers).  H.R. 2324 further proposes that promoters be required to provide such ledgers to the Attorney General.  For more information about anti-gun show legislation, see our facts sheets on S. 843 (www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=229&issue=014) and H.R. 2324 (www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=252&issue=014).

Reporters worthy of the name would have pointed out that buying a gun for a family member or friend as a gift is not a straw purchase.  It’s a violation of the law only to buy a gun for a prohibited person.  And competent reporters would have also noticed that Bloomberg’s “investigation” actually undercuts his call for requiring background checks on non-dealer sales at gun shows.  The most common gun sale violation, Bloomberg says, is that straw purchasers defeat the background check.  Requiring more sales to be run through checks would not alleviate the straw purchase problem one whit.

Individuals—dealers and non-dealers alike—who knowingly break the law should, of course, be prosecuted, as NRA has long advocated.  Obtaining and providing a gun for a prohibited person are both federal felonies, each punishable by 10 years in prison.

However, enforcing gun sale laws is the responsibility of the BATFE, and state and local agencies.  Bloomberg has no jurisdiction in other cities, let alone outside New York State.  His periodic interstate escapades, of which “Gun Show” is but the latest, are not only possibly illegal (in that they may violate firearm sales laws), but risk compromising federal, state and local law enforcement agencies’ investigations.

At the bottom line, Bloomberg’s effort shows that even when you work very hard to find law-breakers at gun shows, you find that such individuals are few and far between.

Once again, Hizzoner demonstrates his true priority—media grandstanding.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, mysandry, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 7 Comments »

Obamacare = Anti Liberty and Freedom

October 9, 2009

You heard it here first!  Obamacare (caps only for grammar purpose’s) The devil, is ALWAYS in the details! Well, the details are starting to roll in, and, as I warned. The obamacare assault on personal freedom and liberty will be a back door attempt at gun control.

Recently, a good friend and fellow bloger has gotten into a spitting match with a Texas Mayor. I have refrained from commenting, as I intend to allow this…. So-called Gun Rights supporter to spew enough rope to hang His-self… And? You knew it was coming! 😀

Most of the comments at my friends website, as well as at a local MSM outlet call for enforcement of all existing laws… Friends, Americans, Liberty Countrymen across the world!

I call for fewer laws that restrict any persons ability to defend themselves…

I call for the repeal of laws that take away anyone’s unalienable rights save conviction of classic felony’s or demonstrated mental incompetence. No more Lautenberg, period. He is a proved traitor to his oath to uphold our Constitution. No more Schumer; he is Lautenberg’s Page. No more Pelosi. We are not her grandchildren. Ex post facto law is immoral, and I don’t give a damn if the Supreme Court endorsed it being the cowards that they are. The list goes on, but those are the main players in the drum roll to abolish freedom and liberty. Not just here, but world wide. The obaminaion is their lap dog.

Read on…

ObamaCare Could be Used to Ban Guns in Home Self-Defense
— Important vote to occur on Tuesday

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

Friday, October 9, 2009

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has something to say to gun owners:  “Own a gun; lose your coverage!”

Baucus’ socialized health care bill comes up for a Finance Committee vote on Tuesday.  We have waited and waited and waited for the shifty Baucus to release legislative language.  But he has refused to release anything but a summary — and we will never have a Congressional Budget Office cost assessment based on actual legislation.  Even the summary was kept secret for a long time.

But, on the basis of the summary, the Baucus bill (which is still unnumbered) tells us virtually nothing about what kind of policy Americans will be required to purchase under penalty of law — nor the consequences.  It simply says:

* “all U.S. citizens and legal residents would be required to purchase coverage through (1) the individual market…”;

* “individuals would be required to report on their federal income tax return the months for which they maintain the required minimum health coverage…”;

* in addition to an extensive list of statutorily mandated coverage, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would be empowered to “define and update the categories of treatments, items, and services…” within an insurance plan which would be covered in a policy constituting “required minimum health coverage.”

ObamaCare and gun control

It is nearly certain that coverage prescribed by the administration will, to control costs, exclude coverage for what it regards as excessively dangerous activities.  And, given Sebelius’ well-established antipathy to the Second Amendment — she vetoed concealed carry legislation as governor of Kansas — we presume she will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and self-defense using a firearm.  It is even possible that the Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any kind in a household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense.

The ObamaCare bill already contains language that will punish Americans who engage in unhealthy behavior by allowing insurers to charge them higher insurance premiums.  (What constitutes an unhealthy lifestyle is, of course, to be defined by legislators.)  Don’t be surprised if an anti-gun nut like Sebelius uses this line of thinking to impose ObamaCare policies which result in a back-door gun ban on any American who owns “dangerous” firearms.

After all, insurers already (and routinely) drop homeowners from their policies for owning certain types of guns or for refusing to use trigger locks (that is, for keeping their guns ready for self-defense!).  While not all insurers practice this anti-gun behavior, Gun Owners of America has documented that some do — Prudential and State Farm being two of the most well-known.

The good news is that because homeowner insurance is private (and is still subject to the free market) you can go to another company if one drops you.  But what are you going to do under nationalized ObamaCare when the regulations written by Secretary Sebelius suspend the applicability of your government-mandated policy because of your gun ownership?

All of this is in addition to something that GOA has been warning you about for several months … the certainty that minimum acceptable policies will dump your gun information into a federal database … a certainty that is reinforced by language in the summary providing for a study to “encourage increased meaningful use of electronic health records.”

Remember, the federal government has already denied more than 150,000 military veterans the right to own guns, without their being convicted of a crime or receiving any due process of law.  They were denied because of medical information (such as PTSD) that the FBI later determined disqualified these veterans to own guns.

Is this what we need on a national level being applied to every gun owner in America?

Incidentally, failure to comply would subject the average family to $1,500 in fines — and possibly more for a household with older teens.  And, although a Schumer amendment purports to exempt Americans from prison sentences for non-purchase of an ObamaPolicy — something which was never at issue — it doesn’t prohibit them from being sent to prison for a year and fined an additional $25,000 under the Internal Revenue Code for non-payment of the initial fines.

ACTION:  Contact your two U.S. Senators.  Ask him or her, in the strongest terms, to vote against the phony Baucus bill.

You can 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.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

You already know that the phony Baucus bill:

* Is predicated on $283 billion in phony “cuts” which have never, never ever been realized since a similar commitment to cut Medicare costs in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 — and will never, never ever be realized under the Baucus bill;

* Requires massive numbers of Americans to have government-approved insurance which the CBO predicts will be more expensive than current policies;

* Refuses to provide a cost for these policies, making it almost certain that more and more Americans will find insurance beyond their reach;

* Has no legislative language and nothing but a CBO “guesstimate” of the cost and benefits, based on a summary.

On the basis of the summary, the Baucus bill tells us virtually nothing about what kind of policy Americans will be required to purchase under penalty of law — nor the consequences.  It does say that the “Secretary of HHS [Kathleen Sebelius] would be required to define and update the categories of treatments, items, and services…” within an insurance plan which would be covered in a policy constituting “required minimum health coverage.”

This could spell trouble for gun owners.

It is nearly certain that coverage prescribed by the administration will, to control costs, exclude coverage for what it regards as excessively dangerous activities.  And, given Sebelius’ well-established antipathy to the Second Amendment — she vetoed concealed carry legislation as governor of Kansas — I presume she will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and self-defense using a firearm.  It is even possible that the Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any kind in a household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense.

This is, of course, in addition to the certainty that minimum acceptable policies will dump my gun information into a federal database — a certainty that is reinforced by language in the summary providing for a study to “encourage increased meaningful use of electronic health records.”

Incidentally, failure to comply would subject the average family to $1,500 in fines — and possibly more for a household with older teens.  And, although a Schumer amendment purports to exempt Americans from prison sentences for non-purchase of an ObamaPolicy — something which was never at issue — it doesn’t prohibit them from being sent to prison for a year and fined an additional $25,000 under the Internal Revenue Code for non-payment of the initial fines.

Please oppose the Baucus bill.

Sincerely,

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hunting Fishing and the Great Outdoors, Law, Men's Issues, mysandry, News, Politics, War, Wordpress Political Blogs | 5 Comments »

Joe Arpaio: American hero

October 8, 2009

People do what they are driven to do. Some address general issues within society, other times they are more specific, and still others sort of work along a general line but still focused within a parameter. Sheriff Joe Arpaio is one of those types. An equal opportunity Sheriff, he will arrest any law-breaker, and house them accordingly.

How to deal with such an upstart? By golly! Use the race card! It’s always worked in the past after all!  So, what do the people in the obamanure administration do? They try and brand him a racist, and attempt to pull his authority that’s what they do to those that don’t fit with their political correctness agenda. Judgment Day is coming next year progressives, and when that day comes your amnesty dream plan, along with many others will be heading straight into the toilet. Where it belongs…

Hat tip to a relatively new blogger for what follows.

And that folks,was followed up by the sycophants here…

The issue is not about racism. Not at all. It is about enforcing our laws, and national security. Nothing more, and nothing less.

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

Acting 101: political propaganda

October 7, 2009

This looks so staged it has to be from the mind of a script writer. It is also, clearly, an act that involves a straw purchase or the attempt to do so.

The Felon Mayor Bloomberg, is above the law, at least that is what a Federal Judge ruled. If it were a common citizen pulling these shenanigans? Can you say prison..?

Onward Hopolophobe soldiers! We are onto your games.

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, mysandry, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

Is the Bill of Rights toilet tissue?

October 7, 2009

The Bill of Rights places restrictions on what government may, and may not do. A pretty simple concept really. However, big government types and lawyers over the years sound a lot like economist’s do. As in making something that is fairly simple to understand into something utterly unfathomable. It’s understandable, after all. Lawyers need to make a living, as do bureaucrats. Politicians for the most part are driven by inner forces and recognition needs, that are  for the most part  noted by Maslow.

That’s all well and good as far as understanding what drives people to do what they do. In fact, I think that a lot of the people who I mentioned above are well intentioned. However, a well intentioned rogue is still a rogue, and unintended consequences may not be all that unintended.

By example, we are more than aware that the current administration is filled with people who are not only hostile to the Constitution but also are outspoken enemies of the Bill of Rights.

Across this nation the States are taking on the Federal Government over the usurpation of States Rights in numbers not seen since the War of Northern aggression.

Just short of secession many states are telling the Federal Government to just plain back off. Enough is enough if you will. Perhaps if the Supreme Court had issued a blanket ruling that incorporation of the Bill of Rights applied to all of the states, all the way down to the smallest level of government this would not be happening. But, they didn’t, and things are getting a bit dicey as a result.

Montana is leading the charge, and the people that brought you Ruby Ridge and the American Holocaust are, like good little serfs fighting back.

Read about that here.

Don’t fall into the trap that this is about gun control even if that is in fact the direct issue at hand. It is about your freedom and liberty.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, mysandry, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 4 Comments »

How Much Will The Anti-gun ObamaCare Bill Cost?‏

October 3, 2009

Senator Baucus Thinks You’re Too Dumb to Understand Legislation
— Don’t let your two U.S. Senators go along with his arrogance

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


Friday, October 2, 2009

It didn’t seem like such an unreasonable request.  Before the Senate Finance Committee passes one of the most important pieces of legislation in our lifetime, we (the American people) wanted to see two things:

* First, the actual language of the latest anti-gun ObamaCare bill.

* Second, a definitive Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reading of the cost of the legislation, based on its specific language.

But, incredibly, this simple request is too much for Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, who intends to force the committee to vote on the bill with nothing but a “quickie guesstimate” of the cost — a “guesstimate” which CBO will have to reach WITHOUT EVEN HAVING ACCESS TO THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION.

That’s right.  The committee has virtually finished consideration of the health care bill — the most important in our lifetime — AND THERE IS STILL NO LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE.

Shouldn’t we at least have a cost estimate that is based on what is actually in the bill?  Yes, but a full CBO cost estimate would take two weeks — and this is inconsistent with efforts by liberal Democrats to cram this bill quickly down the throats of the American people.

Moreover, don’t you realize that “legislative language is very complex” and the American people are just too stupid to understand it.

Well, are the members of the committee too stupid as well?  And what about the CBO?  Is it too stupid?

A Third World country would be embarrassed by the sleaze, corruption, and fraud being used to pass the most expansive government intrusion into health care of our lifetime.

It’s time to put an end to these disgusting tricks.

ACTION:  Call your two U.S. Senators.  Ask them to oppose any ObamaCare legislation — at least until we have two things:

1. The actual legislative language.

2. A definitive Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reading of the cost of the legislation, based on what’s in the bill.

You can call your two Senators toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.

You can also 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.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

I would urge you, in the strongest terms, to resist considering any health care bill from the Senate Finance Committee until we have at least two things:

* First, the actual legislative language.

* Second, a definitive Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate of the cost of the legislation, based on legislative language.

It has been reported that, incredibly, this simple request is too much for Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, who intends to force the committee to vote on the bill with nothing but a “quickie guesstimate” of the cost — a “guesstimate” which CBO will have to reach WITHOUT EVEN HAVING ACCESS TO THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION.

It is unfathomable to me that the committee has virtually finished consideration of the health care bill — the most important in our lifetime — AND THERE IS STILL NO LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE.

Contrary to Senator Baucus’ assumptions, the American people are not too stupid to understand legislation which will affect whether they live or die.

Neither are the members of the committee nor the CBO.

A Third World country would be embarrassed by the sleaze, corruption, and fraud being used to pass the most expansive government intrusion into health care of our lifetime.

Please vote against the legislation under these circumstances.

Sincerely,


—————————–

Olofson Update

You may recall that Gun Owners Foundation is taking David Olofson’s case to the Supreme Court.  Olofson was railroaded by the federal government.  The feds claim that when David loaned a friend a semi-auto AR-15 that malfunctioned at the range, he was guilty of illegally transfering a machine gun.  A major step on the road to the Supreme Court has now been taken, as GOF has filed its Petition for Certiorari.  You can read that document at: http://gunowners.com/Olofson-Petition-for-Certiorari.pdf

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Immigration, Law, mysandry, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

Supreme Court to Hear McDonald v. Chicago — Monumental Second Amendment Case

October 1, 2009

Yesterday when I first read about this I was a bit stunned. It took seemingly forever to get any real Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court. This has me a bit frightened for my fellow Americans. The Court showed it’s true colors by making ex post facto law the law of the land earlier this year via the Lautenberg abomination. They made it constitutional to change the rules after the game has been played. Having a sexist that practices mysandry from the bench now on the Court does not bode well at all. As well as the general tendency to vote on laws based in political correctness rather then what is clearly written in the Constitution. Molon Labe anyone..?

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the City of Chicago’s ban on handguns, a case that will test the reach of the Second Amendment.

In last year’s historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that: “The Second protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.”

That ruling shattered years of anti-gun revisionist history and misinformation that claimed the Second Amendment protected a “collective” right of the states to maintain something like the National Guard.

Heller, though, was limited in scope only to Washington, D.C., a federal enclave.  The Court did not address the issue of whether states or localities can prohibit the right to keep and bear arms, or if the Second Amendment was “incorporated” to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court will consider this question in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, a suit filed immediately after the Heller decision.  A lower court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the city, setting the stage for Supreme Court consideration.

The spotlight is sure to focus brightly on new Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.  In a case before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in January, 2009, Judge Sotomayor ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states.

When questioned during her confirmation hearings, Sotomayor argued that she was only following Supreme Court precedent, to which she was bound.  Well, now that she is on the Supreme Court, her hands are no longer tied.

Will she now rule that the Second Amendment should not, unlike many other rights in the Bill of Rights, be incorporated to the states through the Privileges or Immunities Clause or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Also during her confirmation hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Sotomayor was asked a straightforward question by Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

“Do you believe,” the Senator asked, “that I personally have a right to self-defense?”

This did not seem to be a particularly difficult question.  Sen. Coburn didn’t even ask about defending himself with a firearm.  He only asked if Americans have a basic right to self-protection.  Her answer?  “That’s sort of an abstract question.”

In fact, it’s hard to imagine a less abstract question.  The right to keep and bear arms is afforded special protection in the Constitution precisely because it is a fundamental right.

It is a right that predates the Constitution because the Founders wrote the Bill of Rights not to create new rights, but to protect old ones — our “unalienable” rights — among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

John Dickison, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from Pennsylvania, explained an unalienable right this way: it is something “Which God gave to you and which no inferior power has a right to take away.”

And so, if our right to life is a natural right, then the right to self-protection necessarily follows from it.  And self-protection, be it protection from individual criminals or a criminal government, was, to the Founders, synonymous with the right to bear arms.

Interestingly, the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted in great part specifically to protect the gun rights of freed slaves.  After the Civil War, many states passed laws to disarm blacks who were former slaves, such as Mississippi’s post-war law: No freedman “shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition.”

Proponents of the Fourteenth Amendment argued that the amendment was necessary, in part, to stop the disarming of the freedmen — lest they be little better off than before emancipation.

One hundred years later, in the 1960s, the Deacons for Defense armed themselves and often successfully defended themselves in areas where civil rights were still not adequately protected and blacks were targets of violence.

If the right to keep and bear arms is found not to be a “fundamental” right, people in places like Chicago and New York City will find themselves on a 21st century plantation, treated more like subjects than citizens.

SOURCE

Then from those stalwarts that sold out the people of the United States on GCA 68, and Lautenberg we have this.

Fairfax, Va. — The National Rifle Association applauds the Supreme Court’s decision, announced today, to hear the landmark Second Amendment case of McDonald v. Chicago. The case will address the application of the Second Amendment to the states through either the Due Process clause or the Privileges or Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case has major implications for the legality of restrictive gun laws not only in Chicago, but also in other cities across the United States. The decision to hear the case, which will be argued later this year or early next year, gives Second Amendment advocates across America hope that this fundamental freedom will not be infringed by unreasonable state and local laws.

“The Second Amendment applies to every citizen, not just to those living in federal enclaves like Washington D.C. In the historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed what most Americans have known all along — that the Second Amendment protects an individual right and that it applies to all Americans. The government should respect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens throughout our country, regardless of where they live, and NRA is determined to make sure that happens,” said Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president.

In the June ruling that the Supreme Court will now review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments. That opinion left in place the current ban on the possession of handguns in Chicago.

However, the Seventh Circuit incorrectly claimed it was bound by precedent from 19th century Supreme Court decisions in failing to incorporate the Second Amendment. Many legal scholars believe that the Seventh Circuit should have followed the lead of the earlier Ninth Circuit panel decision in Nordyke v. Alameda County, which found that those cases don’t prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To the contrary, a proper incorporation analysis supports application of the Second Amendment to the States.

“It is an injustice that the residents of Chicago continue to have their Second Amendment rights denied,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. “It’s time that the fundamental right of self-defense is respected by every jurisdiction throughout the country. It is our hope that the Supreme Court will find, once and for all, that all law-abiding Americans have the God-given, constitutionally-protected right of self-defense, no matter what city, county or state they call home.”

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Domestic Violence, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Men's Issues, mysandry, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »