Archive for the ‘Non Compos Mentis’ Category

The Nobel Peace Prize ain’t what it used to be: Costa Rica?

November 16, 2010

Ex President  Oscar Arias, like so many other leftest douche bags has lectured we Americans after we kept his nation afloat for so many years.

Read his tirade HERE. More importantly, read the comments that follow. They explain things much better than I ever could.

Here are my solutions for dealing not just with Costa Rica, but with every other country that bites the American hand that feeds them.

  • Ban any, and all investment from American people and businesses.
  • Ban all travel to said nations.
  • No aid, disaster, food, military, or humanitarian of any kind to such nations.

We could call it the “Hate America First Act.” Want to fix the budget? That would be a first, and very big step in that direction.

70 percent of Oklahoma voters are wrong and one man is right.

November 12, 2010

Well, that didn’t take long. According to Clinton-appointed U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange, 70 percent of Oklahoma voters are wrong and one man is right. That man is Muneer Awad, who is the head of the Council on American-Islamic Relations for Oklahoma. He filed suit to block the adoption of the state constitutional amendment to prevent judges from considering international or Sharia law in their decisions, claiming the amendment “stigmatizes his religion.” Miles-LaGrange agreed, and the state cannot now certify the results of its election until a Nov. 22 hearing where Miles-LaGrange will rule on whether to grant a preliminary injunction to block the amendment.

Awad filed suit because he claims his will, which is based on Islamic law, would be made invalid by the amendment. “We are humbled by this opportunity to show our fellow Oklahomans that Muslims are their neighbors and that we are committed to upholding the U.S. Constitution and promoting the benefits of a pluralistic society,” he said.

Awad didn’t comment on whether those benefits of a “pluralistic society” would include honor killings or stonings of adulterous women, both of which are permissible in some interpretations of Sharia law.

SOURCE

Village idiots: Stuck on Stupid

November 12, 2010

Some things never change; like being stuck on stupid!

Fighting for Pelosi: “Speaker Nancy Pelosi is one of the strongest, most progressive leaders in Washington. Her determination brought health care reform back to life last winter, when the Senate and the White House were ready to scale back. She fought harder than anyone for bigger, better job creation bills. And right now, she is the strongest voice in leadership for ending Bush’s millionaire tax bailout. But after Tuesday’s elections, some corporate Democrats are taking the wrong lesson — saying that Democrats should be less progressive and more like the Republicans. And they’re pushing Speaker Pelosi to step down. This would be a terrible loss for progressives, and for the country.” –MoveOn.org

Unbelievable: “The president himself has to reconnect with the people. Remember, President Clinton reconnected through [the Oklahoma City bombing], right? … And the president right now seems removed. And it wasn’t until that speech that he reclicked with the American public. Obama needs a similar — a similar kind of event.” –Democrat pollster Mark Penn (They “need” another terrorist attack?)

Advice: “Seriously, if we ran Tom Hanks, if we ran Oprah — there’s a whole column of people who are beloved people. Smart and good.” –Michael Moore suggesting a new slate of Democrat candidates

California dreaming: “We’re nothing but a mirror of our consistent thoughts. You tend to manifest what you focus on. If you look around for what’s wrong, you’ll find it. But as all we know up here in San Francisco, when you focus on what’s right, you see it all around you. … There is absolutely nothing wrong with California that can’t be fixed by what’s right with California. … If you’re from another state, you’d love to have the problems of California.” –California Lt. Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom

SOURCE

Perhaps he needs his own reality show…

November 10, 2010

This is just to good not to republish! The epic fail obama, at his epic failing best!

“At his post-defeat press conference, Barack Obama worked hard to project an air of somber reflection, even as his remarks revealed that he had learned nothing from the defeat. Amidst the practiced pauses and detached narration of the crash came a litany of excuses, evasions, and arrogant denials. He more or less cast himself as the victim of a ‘bad economy,’ as if two years of sending anti-business signals to employers had nothing to do with the high jobless rate. He made sure to note that other presidents had gotten similarly clocked after two years. And he essentially blamed the American people for a lack of perception and patience. But since he couldn’t say that directly, he had to couch his self-justification in the form of patronizing blather about how he could have ‘accomplished’ more, made better ‘progress,’ and ‘communicated’ more effectively with the American people. … At the end of the day, he is nothing more than a shallow pol with little interest in or knowledge of governing. He backed into the White House through effortless luck (he ran against one of the worst Republican presidential candidates ever), and apparently assumed that running the White House would be just as easy. His shallowness also makes him obtuse, even from a rawly political and self-interested standpoint. He suffered one of the worst defeats in decades because of his environmental, socialist, and Brave New World dilettantism, yet spent much of the press conference talking about ‘electric cars,’ gays in the military, and 26-year-olds who, thanks to his largesse, will get to stay on the health care plans of their ‘parents.’ … Obama admitted that he lives in a ‘bubble,’ but that too was the fault of others. He presented himself as the passive victim of his own presidency. Near the end of the press conference, he allowed himself a particularly absurd and maudlin moment, complaining that because of the presidency’s inherently insular character no one can see the depth of his concern for the people. He said that ‘no one is filming him reading those letters’ from them which leave him so anguished and inspired. Perhaps he needs his own reality show.” –columnist George Neumayr

SOURCE

“seventy-five percent of BATFE prosecutions were constitutionally improper.”

November 9, 2010

What follows is a little dated, but at the time it didn’t get the coverage needed. This is just one of the things that the new Congress takes immediate definitive action on.

The Obama Administration and dozens of politicians are pretending that they are worried that America’s loose gun laws have allowed guns to be smuggled into Mexico for use in the drug wars that are plaguing that country.

President Obama is using this nonsense as an excuse to double the number of BATFE agents so he can blanket the border with agents to stop the flow of guns into Mexico.

What nonsense!  As if the drug cartels that have their own armies, huge fleet of airplanes, submarines and rocket launchers need to rely on smugglers to get guns from the U.S.!

Clearly, this is nothing other than the latest tactic from this antigun administration to add some muscle to the most reckless and corrupt branch of our government – the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

A couple of decades ago, Congress passed the FOPA (Firearm Owners Protection Act) to reign in this renegade agency after a Congressional investigation officially concluded that “seventy-five percent of BATFE prosecutions were constitutionally improper.”

Today, twenty-four years later, the BATFE is just as bad, if not worse, than it was back then.  Only now the White house and the Congress are filled with people who want to give them more power, more authority and more boots on the ground to continue their unconstitutional attack on gun owners.

From using paid “informants” to provide false testimony, to physically tampering with firearms to turn them into “machine guns,” to abusing and harassing mom and pop gun shops who cannot afford to legally defend themselves, this agency appears not only to have little or no regards for the rights of citizens, but is clearly willing even to ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court.

As you know, over the years, Gun Owners has helped dozens of victims of BATFE abuse.  Some of these victims were literally framed by BATFE agents who actually converted semi-automatic firearms into fully automatic weapons – and then charged them with selling unregistered machine guns!

In one case that we were involved with, the Olofson Case, we discovered that the alleged “machine gun” was, in reality, one of thousands of ordinary semi-automatic rifles made by Olympic Arms.  We learned that it only became a machine gun when the BATFE, behind closed doors, mechanically tampered with the rifle to the extent that it would misfire a burst of several rounds before it jammed.

Getting guns to malfunction is a favorite technique of the BATFE as it gives them a great opportunity to rack up convictions on the possession or selling of “machine guns,” which requires a special type of license.

For some time, Gun Owners has lobbied to require the BATFE to videotape their test firings of alleged machines.  We knew that if juries could see the outrageous, even bizarre, efforts the agency uses to get a gun to fire off an extra round or two, they would throw all of these cases out of court and Congress would have the evidence it needs to take action and clean house at this agency.

Unlike all other agencies, the BATFE has no sets of standards or rules for conducting their business.  They have no manuals that set out procedures for the work they do. This gives them the latitude to do whatever they wish with total impunity.

And this is what enables them to make the rules up as they go along.  This allows them to conduct repeated “test firings” until they get the results they are looking for.

Clearly, when a test firing fails to prove that a weapon is a machine gun that should be the end

of any debate as to whether a person is selling “machine guns.”  But because the BATFE has no rules, they simply do it again and again, until they are able to force a gun to misfire.

As you can see, with a renegade agency like this trampling our gun rights, nobody is safe.  Not you, not me and not our favorite semi-automatic firearm.

That is why we are really encouraged about the Fairness in Firearms Testing Act (H.R. 1923).  Introduced by Congressman Phil Gingrey, this bill will require that an unedited video be recorded during the testing of a firearm to determine if it is a machine gun.

Had such a law been in place when David Olofson’s rifle was being “tested,” his case would have been thrown out immediately and he would be home today with his wife and three children.

Had such a law been in place, jurors, the media and the Congress would have seen the extent to which the BATFE is capable of and willing to trample the rights of citizens in their frenzy to put innocent gun owners behind bars.

Sadly, H.R. 1923 is not yet the law of the land.  And, until it is passed, there will be more innocent Americans victimized by this out-of-control agency that acts more like a subsidiary of the anti-gun lobby than an agency under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

The Fairness in Firearms Testing Act ought to be an easy bill to pass.  Who can defend an agency that tampers with evidence to make their case or who pays thugs to entrap ordinary law-abiding citizens?

But with folks like Chuck Schumer and Caroline McCarthy running the Congress, it may be a lot tougher to pass such a sensible bill than you might imagine.  That is why I am looking for all all-out effort from you and all the other members of GOA.

Over the years, GOA has fought for a wide variety of gun rights issues.  Our yardstick for which issues we choose to prioritize is based on securing the liberty of ordinary citizens.  To me, the Olofson case is a clear example of what happens to our freedoms if we let our government abuse the law for its own purposes.

David Olofson has been robbed of all his freedom, not just his right to keep and bear arms.  He has lost his liberty, his family, and his life outside of prison.

It is just a turn of fate that it is David Olofson, not you or me that is rotting away in prison.  Please think about that when I ask you to sign the postcards I have enclosed.  The first postcard is addressed to David.  I have left the message side blank so you can choose your own words to let him know that there are a lot of gun owners out there praying for his release or whatever you wish to say to him.

Of the remaining postcards, one is for you and one for a friend or neighbor.  These postcards express our outrage at the lack of oversight this out-of-control agency receives and demands that H.R. 1923 be passed immediately so that no more innocent American citizens are framed and sentenced to prison so that the BATFE can rack up big numbers in their arrest column.

I also need you to try to make a generous contribution to Gun Owners so we can ramp up our efforts to find more cosponsors for H.R. 1923; call for an investigation into BATFE abuses; and continue our efforts to get David Olofson released and returned to his family.

Please try to be as generous as you can because every day this innocent gun owner remains in jail is not just a personal tragedy for the Olofson family, it remains a threat to all law-abiding gun owners.

I know that money is tight right now.  I feel it the same as you do and, at Gun Owners, we are doing everything we can to stretch every dollar for maximum effect.

So please, even if you cannot afford to send as much as you have done in the past, please try to send what you can safely afford.

Thank you again for your loyalty and your continued support for our work.

Sincerely,

Larry Pratt

Executive Director

SOURCE

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

At this moment, the future of Liberty is at stake

October 30, 2010

Rights Endowed by Whom?

What is really at stake in this election?

“The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government, are justly considered deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.” –George Washington

Buy this poster here

Next Tuesday’s 2010 midterm election marks the first major battle in a fired-up grassroots effort to restore constitutional integrity, one with a fervor not seen since the election of Ronald Reagan 30 years ago.

The stakes in this election and those to follow are much higher than a mere contest between competing political platforms and personas. These elections will determine who is this nation’s arbiter of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Perhaps unwittingly, Barack Hussein Obama, by way of omission in several recent speeches, has made it abundantly clear whom he and his comrades reject as the source of the rights of all men. On three separate occasions, when speaking at fundraisers for his Leftist comrades, Obama has referenced the Declaration of Independence.

Speaking at the Hispanic Caucus Institute’s Annual Awards Gala, Obama said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are … endowed with certain inalienable [sic] rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” When questioned about the omission of who, precisely, endowed those rights, the White House press office claimed that Obama went off script … unlikely for a man who has been glued and tattooed to his Teleprompters.

A few days later, speaking at a fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Obama said, “If we believe that … everybody is endowed with certain inalienable [sic] rights and we’re going to make those words live, and we’re going to give everybody opportunity, everybody a ladder into the middle class…” For the record, that utterance was not “off script.” Rather, it was precisely how the White House posted his speech.

At the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee fundraiser, he did it again, saying, “What makes this place special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire and said, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men … are endowed with certain inalienable [sic] rights.'”

In each instance, Obama omitted the Declaration’s clear affirmation that the rights of all people are “endowed by their Creator,” not by some potentate or government.

Our Declaration of Independence was derived from inherent common law, and in its first sentence, our Declaration establishes the rights of man as “which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them.”

When asked again about Obama’s omission, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs asserted, “I can assure you the president believes in the Declaration of Independence.”

So, Obama “believes in the Declaration”? The Declaration is a piece of paper, one that expresses a self-evident Truth. Were it destroyed today, or had it never been written, the right of all people to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” among other rights, would still be endowed by our Creator.

Mr. Gibbs’ assurances notwithstanding, Obama’s subtle but telling omissions expose the underbelly of the political beast that is intent on devouring Essential Liberty and replacing it with the rule of men.

With his omissions now a matter of public interest, Obama has now tossed “our Creator” into a stump speech before Election Day. But make no mistake: That would be subterfuge. Obama believes that the rights of men are subject to the rule of men, and the terminus of the unabated rule of men is always tyranny.

The election of Barack Hussein Obama was the worst of insults to our nation’s heritage of Liberty, but in one important way, it has proven a blessing in disguise.

It has drawn millions of Americans to the frontlines of the eternal war for Liberty and Rule of Law, as enshrined in our national Constitution. Still, this midterm election cycle is different than the knee-jerk response to Bill Clinton that seated a Republican majority back in 1994.

There is a Great Awakening across our nation, one being spearheaded by Tea Party Patriots who are armed with, among other things, the right tools to articulate the difference between Rule of Law and rule of men, and who are willing to passionately fight for the former over the latter.

In the words of Thomas Paine, “I call not upon a few, but upon all: not on this state or that state, but on every state; up and help us; lay your shoulders to the wheel; better have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake.”

At this moment, the future of Liberty is at stake.

Our Declaration of Independence concludes, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” (I suspect Obama would omit “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.”)

I know that you have “pledged your sacred honor” for the defense of Liberty. I beseech you to help us muster millions of additional Patriots to the frontlines for the battle ahead.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post

Belly Laugh of the Week: Politics

October 30, 2010

Belly Laugh of the Week: “One of [Barack] Obama’s greatest political weaknesses has been his stubborn — and unrequited — love for bipartisanship. … The expected Republican gains in the coming mid-term elections may solve one of Obama’s problems: his misplaced faith in logic, persuasion and cooperation in the national interest.” –Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page editor Cynthia Tucker

Belly Laugh II: “Unlike Ronald Reagan, whose poll ratings were slightly lower than Obama’s just before the 1982 mid-term elections, Obama didn’t take every possible opportunity to pin the economic mess on his predecessor.” –Cynthia Tucker, missing the fact that Obama takes every opportunity — and then some — to blame Bush

Sympathy for the devil: “Nancy Pelosi is considered one of the most effective speakers in congressional history. But now she’s faced with the fact that Democrats could lose the House in November. You get indignant when you hear that.” –CBS’s Rita Braver to Pelosi, who responded, “I don’t get indignant. I just don’t believe it.”

“Where is the celebration over what has been done and accomplished [by Barack Obama] in the face of all this anger and vitriol in Washington?” –MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski

Whose money is it? “Why are we letting the top 2 percent of the population win over the other 98?” –MSNBC’s Ed Schultz on taxes

Non Compos Mentis: “[The Tea Party’s philosophy is] every man for himself. … No more taxes, no more government, no more everything. No more safety net. You know these people, if they were every man for himself down in that mine [in Chile], they wouldn’t have gotten out. … They would have been killing each other after about two days.” –MSNBC host Chris Matthews

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