Archive for the ‘Wordpress Political Blogs’ Category

And about that pesky 2ed Amendment…

September 29, 2016

This is stolen from a Facebook Friend Cary Cartter, who posted it as follows.

A blogging friend, Douglas Gibbs, teaches Constitutional Classes in California. Here’s his 2nd Amendment guide:

Lesson 14

Militias and Standing Armies

2nd Amendment: Keep and Bear Arms
The 2nd Amendment does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment does not protect you against the government from taking away your guns. Your rights are given to you by God, and protecting your rights is your responsibility. Like anything else you own, if you give away your rights, or allow someone to take them, they may still belong to you as an unalienable, God-given right, but you have given up all access to them, and can no longer exercise those rights.

In the Washington, D.C. v. Heller case in 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the right to bear arms is an individual right, as opposed to a collective right which would only allow the bearing of arms for the purpose of participating in government approved groups, such as law enforcement agencies.

During the early years of the United States under the United States Constitution, the Anti-Federalists feared the creation of a central government because they feared the federal government would become tyrannical, and take away people’s rights. Therefore, even though the Constitution in the first seven articles did not grant to the federal government any authority over gun rights, along with the rest of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, those skeptical over the creation of a central government wanted an amendment that clarified the federal government had no authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

The States have Original Authority, meaning that all powers belonged to the States prior to the writing of the Constitution. The first seven articles of the document did not give to the federal government the authority to regulate firearms, therefore, any legislative power over gun rights is a State power. The 2nd Amendment simply confirms that. The argument then becomes about the potential tyranny of the States. If the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States, what keeps the States from infringing on gun rights?
The State constitutions, and the people, hold the responsibility of restraining the States from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. The Founding Fathers were not concerned with a tyranny of the States because the State governments are closer to the people, and therefore the people have fewer legal and political obstacles when acting to ensure the State governments do not infringe on individual rights.

Complacency, then, becomes our greatest enemy.

With freedom comes responsibility.

Understanding that the Framers expected their posterity to be informed problem-solvers, while recognizing that basic human nature would invite complacency and the rise of a tyrannical government, it becomes clear why the Founding Fathers put so much importance on gun rights.

In early American society the need to be armed was necessary for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to, protecting one’s property, facilitating a natural right of self-defense, participating in law enforcement, enabling people to participate in an organized militia system, deterring a tyrannical government, repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, and hunting.

The right to keep and bear arms is not merely about protecting your home, or hunting, though those are important, too. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect us against all enemies, foreign and domestic, which could include a potentially oppressive central government.

Noah Webster in his “An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” in 1787 articulated the necessity for keeping and bearing arms clearly: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”

Some will argue the 2nd Amendment does not apply to our current society because the militia is a thing of the past.

The National Guard now serves as the organized militia envisioned by the Founding Fathers, but an unorganized militia also exists.

Title 10 of the United States Code provides for both “organized” and “unorganized” civilian militias. While the organized militia is made up of members of the National Guard and Naval Militia, the unorganized militia is composed entirely of private individuals.

United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces, Subtitle A – General Military Law
Chapter 13 – The Militia:

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are –

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Other than age, health, gender, or citizenship, there are no additional provisions for exemption from membership in the unorganized militia. While it is doubtful that it will ever be called to duty, the United States civilian militia does legally exist. The Founding Fathers would have likely included in the definition of unorganized militia, “All able-bodied citizens capable of fighting.”

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) challenged the City of Chicago’s ban on hand guns, bringing to the surface the debate over whether or not the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government.

The 5-4 Decision of the McDonald v. City of Chicago case by the U.S. Supreme Court holds the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms in all cities and States. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that originally the 2nd Amendment applied only to the federal government, but it is in the opinion of the court that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights, therefore applying those amendments, and more specifically the 2nd Amendment, to the States.

The decision by the Supreme Court, in this case, makes all State laws on fire arms null and void. Applying the 2nd Amendment to the States means the 2nd Amendment is supreme over any and all State laws on firearms, and according to the 2nd Amendment, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” If “shall not be infringed” applies to both the federal government and the States governments, then all persons are allowed to possess a firearm. The words, “shall not be infringed” carries no exceptions.

The reason the 2nd Amendment is absolute in its language is because it was intended to only apply to the federal government. The federal government shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms in any way, but the States retain the authority to regulate guns as necessary based on the needs and allowances of the local electorate.

The U.S. Constitution applies to the federal government except where specifically noted otherwise.

In reference to McDonald v. Chicago, I am uneasy anytime the federal government tells a city or state what they have to do, even if on the surface it is for a good cause.

If we give the federal government the right to tell cities they have to allow gun ownership, what stops them from doing the opposite later? This case created a precedent of allowing the federal government to dictate to the States and cities what they have to do, and that kind of federal intrusion constitutes great danger to State Sovereignty.

Breaking down the language used in the 2nd Amendment assists in clarifying what the original intent was.

The 2nd Amendment begins, “A well regulated Militia.” The immediate understanding of that phrase by the average American in today’s culture recognizes it as meaning, “A militia under the control of the government,” or “regulated by government agencies,” or “managed by federal law.”

All of the above definitions are wrong.

As discussed regarding the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8, the word “regulated” does not mean “controlled or restricted by government.” The definition used by the Framers, and the one that fits best with the context of the period, and the principles of the Constitution, can be found in the 1828 Webster Dictionary. Webster defined regulated as: “To put in good order.” Some historians state that the word “regulate” in the 18th Century meant “To make regular.” The word “restrict” was not used in the 1828 definition until the third and final definition of “regulated,” revealing that today’s most common definition was the “least used” definition during the time of the writing of the United States Constitution.

Since “regulate” did not mean “to control and restrict,” but instead meant “to put in good order,” that means a well regulated militia is one that is in good order.

The need to have a militia in good order makes sense when one considers that during the Revolutionary War the militia was not in good order. The muskets were all different sizes, often the clothing of some members of the militia was tattered, and many didn’t even have shoes.

To put the militia in good order, Congress was required to create standards for the militia to follow. The authority to Congress regarding this power is revealed in Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, where the Constitution says, “The Congress shall have Power. . . To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

The next part of the 2nd Amendment reveals that a well regulated militia is “necessary to the security of a free State.”

The word State, in that instance, means “individual, autonomous, sovereign State.” In other words, a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free Massachusetts, a free Pennsylvania, a free Virginia, a free New York, a free Ohio, a free California, and so on.

“Necessary to the security of a free State.” A militia is necessary, not just recommended, to the security of a free State. Security against whom? A foreign invader? Isn’t that what the standing army was supposed to be for? Why would States need militias, capable of being called up by the governor of the State, for their “security,” and to ensure that security is for them to remain a “free State?”

Foreign enemies were a concern, but not as much of a concern as a tyrannical central government. Thomas Jefferson so distrusted a central government that he suggested there would be a bloody revolution every twenty years.

“… can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independant 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” — Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787

The Declaration of Independence also states that the people have the right to stand up against their government should it become tyrannical. In the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence it reads:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The right to alter or abolish a tyrannical government walks hand in hand with the right to keep and bear arms. How could it ever be logical that the right to keep and bear arms could ever be influenced or restricted by the very government that that right exists to protect the people against in the first place?

Arms – Weapons, firearms; a gun that may be used for protection of property or as part of a militia.

Collective Right – Rights held by a group, rather than its members separately.

Declaration of Independence – The unanimous formal Declaration of the thirteen united States of America declaring their freedom from Great Britain, dated July 4, 1776.

Individual Right – Rights held by individuals within a particular group.

Organized Militia – A well trained militia that is in good order that operates under the authority of Congress, able to be called into actual service by the executive authority of a State, or by the Congress of the United States; National Guard, Naval Militia, State Militias.

Original Authority – Principal agent holding legal authority; initial power to make or enforce laws; the root authority in government.

Regulated – To make regular; to put in good order.

State Sovereignty – The individual autonomy of the several states; strong local government was considered the key to freedom; a limited government is the essence of liberty.

Unorganized Militia – Able-bodied citizens of the United States, or those who have made a declaration of intention to become citizens of the United States, who are members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Questions for Discussion:

1. In your opinion, what are the most important reasons for the right to bear arms?

2. If the courts, or the federal government, were to redefine gun rights as being a collective right, how would that affect our individual right to keep and bear arms?

3. Is a militia necessary in today’s society? Why?

4. Why did the Founding Fathers see it as necessary to prohibit the federal government from any authority to prohibit the right to keep and bear arms, but felt it necessary to allow the States full authority over gun regulations?

5. In McDonald v. Chicago the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to cities and States. How does that open up the opportunity for the federal government to further regulate firearms?

10 USC § 311 – Militia: Composition and Classes, Cornell University
Law School:

McDonald v. City of Chicago, United States Supreme Court:

Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal
Constitution (Philadelphia 1787), The Federalist Papers:…/noah-webster-an-examin…

The Tree of Liberty Quotation, Monticello – TH: Jefferson Encyclopedia:…/The_tree_of_liberty…(Quotati…

Washington, D.C. v. Heller, Supreme Court of the United States Blog:

Ready for Oppression?

September 1, 2016

What follows is one of the best explanations about the current political status here in these not so United States. Please read the whole article.

The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights does not “grant” Americans the right to armed self-defense, it simply recognizes and affirms this God-given human right. The Constitution, including the Bill or Rights, is a very succinct document that was written in plain English intended to be fully understandable by ordinary citizens, requiring no interpretation by judges. Article III of the Constitution discusses the responsibilities, powers and limitations of the Judiciary, including the Supreme Court.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court is a super-legislature authorized to amend the Bill of Rights by a simple majority vote among its nine lifetime-appointed justices. In fact, Article III Section 2 explicitly grants to Congress the power to regulate which cases the Supreme Court may adjudicate at all. However, in the current political climate, with a toothless Congress abdicating its power to the Executive and Judicial branches, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will be reined in and confined within its Constitutional limits.

My scenario for a second American civil war involves a Hillary Clinton victory in November 2016, followed in 2017 by the appointment of a Supreme Court justice politically to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. The Second Amendment will then be gutted using a specious argument such as that the militia has “evolved” into the modern National Guard, meaning that there is no longer a right for private citizens to individually keep or bear arms. Liberal politicians and the collaborating liberal mainstream media will be in full-throated agreement with this false interpretation of the Second Amendment.


Leave it to a NAVY SEAL to explain it so well!

Part of the problem, or part of the solution..?

August 29, 2016

Stolen from a Facebook Friend, Bret Rogers;

If you believe you’re oppressed, but you vote for bigger government, then you don’t deserve any sympathy whatsoever. You’re putting your own chains on you.

If you’re dissatisfied with how social security has been managed by the politicians you elected to office, but you expect your kids to fix it for you, then you’re handing the problem you perpetuated to your children.

If, on one hand, you think electing a single person can fix all of this but on the other you say you believe in the country as founded, then it seems you might not understand that the country as founded cast off the notion of a king.

Government is never the solution. It won’t fix “oppression.” It creates oppression.

It won’t fix social security. The only way to “fix” social security is to take more money from your children.

Allowing the consolidation of power to a single person won’t fix anything. It will invite tyranny because no one should be trusted with that much power.

Government is never the solution.

More on the Hildebeast; No, we will not give a girl a break!

August 26, 2016

While I really am not any sort of big fan of Donald Trump, there is no way in hell that I could ever support “The Potty Mouth” What follows is a short film that exposes her, yet again, for what she is, as well as is not.

Her ongoing disrespect for the military and the deadly consequences from that, her blatant misandry, her utter disrespect for The Bill of Rights (It’s not just the Second Amendment), her support of terrorists, and obvious racism are disgusting…

Should HRC become POTUS this nation will be ripped asunder in a very bloody revolt.

A feminist..?

August 10, 2016

Stolen from Eric @ Tygrr Express!


Hillary Clinton is supposedly:

1) Exceptionally bright. Yet she failed the DC Bar exam. She only became an attorney by passing the much easier Arkansas bar exam.

2) Exceptionally hard-working. She was kicked off the Nixon impeachment committee team for unethical behavior.

3) Exceptionally diligent. She was an average attorney who had her Governor husband beg people to give her monthly retainers so she would not get fired.

4) Exceptionally accomplished. none of her supporters can seem to name one single policy accomplishment.

Hillary Clinton is not a moron like Debbie Wasserman Schultz or Nancy Pelosi. She is not lazy like O44. She is not oblivious like O44. She does not have a policy legacy like FDR or even her husband.

She is an average woman with an undistinguished record. Wherever she has gone, she has avoided being the worst but has never been anywhere near the best. As Secretary of State, she was far below average. Everywhere else, she was inconsequential.

So enough with the myth that Hillary Clinton is some kind of trailblazer. She married a talented guy and rode his coattails. He was exceptional whether one agreed with him or not. She was just along for the ride. That is not feminism. That is the opposite of feminism.

It kills liberals to admit it, but many conservative women they deride as dumb or evil are far more accomplished.

Sarah Palin ran a city. Liberals will sneer that Wasilla is small, but it is still more than what Hillary did.

Michele Bachmann is an accomplished tax attorney. Tax law is a very complex subject and Bachmann knows it inside and out.

Dr. Condoleeza Rice is off the charts regarding her many accomplishments in terms of depth, width and breadth. She is also a classically trained pianist.

Hillary Clinton is just a woman who was lucky enough to marry a guy who accomplished stuff. Take away him, and she is nothing.

That is who Democrats are propping up in their latest attempt to continue treating the presidency as an affirmative action project. Hillary Clinton is inferior, and deep down she knows it.

eric @ Tygrrrr Express

The Senate does the right thing, and Democrats can’t figure that out!

June 21, 2016

The Senate hammered proposed gun control laws, and Democrats simply cannot figure out that disarming Americans in the face of extreme danger isn’t the correct thing to do.

Listening to the news, and reading social media brings something to mind. Specifically, a bumper sticker that we got into trouble for placing on the ceiling of the ambulance. “Are you stoned, or just stupid?” Let’s go through the proposals.

On Terrorists: Who gets to choose who is a “terrorist?” Would that be the very same people that called many non leftest WordPress Bloggers “terrorists?” Along with others that simply disagree with these elitists..?

Background test expansion: Anyone with a brain knows that background tests simply do not work. They never have, and never will. A black market is already thriving in this nation for weapons that the average person does not, or can’t get access too. This simple fact of life also blows away the RINO proposal of a waiting period that allows a challenge for denial of a purchase.

Implementing even more restrictions on the rights and liberties of Americans will be met with the same success that our fabulous victory that The War on Drugs has racked up.

On that note? Have those that desire Americans to be helpless in the face of grave danger simply stoned from inhaling Unicorn Farts, or are they in fact guilty of treason? Or both..?

Words of wisdom from and internet friend

June 9, 2016

Here is a guest post from my wonderful friend Tex Reynolds, as fine a writer as you’re likely to find, a true Patriot and a staunch Conservative. 

Huffington Post writer defends riots at Trump rallies as ‘violent resistence’ (sic)

Is this “free speech”? There is a difference between being able to speak out on one’s beliefs and using violence to quash the rights of others.

According to Wikipedia:
The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that “everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference” and “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice”. Article 19 additionally states that the exercise of these rights carries “special duties and responsibilities” and may “therefore be subject to certain restrictions” when necessary “[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others” or “[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals”.

In the past seven years we have seen progressives use (abuse) semantics and twist the actual definitions of words, often using a word while meaning that word’s antonym. They use honesty meaning prevarication; transparency meaning secrecy; openness meaning obfuscation; work meaning golfing, compromise meaning capitulation; freedom meaning subservience; respect meaning disdain; and unity means division; etc. They accuse others of doing of acts that they, themselves are actually guilty.

Supposed journalists, those who should have a basic working knowledge and vocabulary ignore what it is occurring, instead using their bully pulpits slathering praise on those who would destroy America.

For decades we have witnessed the planned moral decline of this Nation.

We have allowed liberals to dominate our education system and dumb down the populace. We have allowed the eco-freaks to preserve our natural resources so that they now can be stolen by foreign entities. We have watched as multinational agro companies decimated our family farms so they could control food supplies and use those food supplies as weapons of power. We have watched politicians compromise principles and allow the watering down of our Constitution. We have watched a legal system that favors the rich, gives more rights to the criminals and ignores the victims.

We have watched faux preachers establish their private earthly kingdoms while ignoring the Heavenly Kingdom. We have watched our Country become a world joke and now we watch as the anarchists, the communists, the socials and provocateurs use violence to silence us.

Now there are people who are willing to stand up and resist the further destruction of our Nation, are you one of them? This country was founded on religious principles but designed NOT to be a theocracy. Stand up for America


7 myths…

February 16, 2016

Alright, it’s all starting again. So to speak… The anti liberty and freedom forces are back at it again as usual. Well, here is the best summation that I have found anywhere when it comes to understanding the debate about destroying your right to be able to properly and effectively defending yourself as well as others…

The Gun Control Debate.

Hey Buffalo Bill…

January 5, 2016

Buffalo Bill Cody is probably turning over in his grave!

Tomorrow (Jan 6) in Cody WY the school board is having what they call a ‘special meeting’ that includes both school board members and state legislators about…guns in schools.

This meeting is so ‘special’ – that they decided the meeting shouldn’t be advertised to the public.

The truth is, they don’t want you to know!

You see, Park county’s anti-gun school superintendent Ray Schulte is working hard to ensure law abiding Citizens like YOU are NEVER allowed to exercise the God-given right to self defense.

And just what is Schulte pushing?

He is in support of legislation strikingly similar to Senator Hank Coe’s substitute bill that effectively derailed the repeal of gun free zones in Wyoming.

And this isn’t the first time superintendent Schulte has been on the wrong side of your right to keep and bear arms. The more that you see him in action, the more you realize he is aligned with Joe Biden, the author of gun free zone legislation.

Here’s the low down…

Schulte in his capacity as superintendent of schools in Torrington Wy —-> testified against repealing gun free zones in a Wyoming Senate committee in 2012.

It was at this moment we discovered that superintendent Schulte doesn’t even trust the citizens who submit to a full background check.

Schulte stated in open committee, “I spoke with our police chief and he told me there over two thousand permit holders right here in out district, can you imagine all of them being in the school at the same time?”

It was shortly after, that the Goshen School board had enough of Schulte…

In June of 2012 the school board voted against Schulte and one board member even stated publicly that, “the superintendent wasn’t doing a good job” and “his salary was too high.”

The Torrington headline actually read, “District Superintendent Ray Schulte does not have the full support of the Goshen County School Board.”

Sadly by the following year, the folks in Cody took him in as their new school superintendent, at an even higher salary of $150,000 a year.

It should be noted that instead of inviting the public to a meeting where the only agenda is about guns, Schulte invited several neighboring district board members – Now you know why it’s called a “special meeting.”

Please contact the following Park county school board members and let them know you are on to their scheme.

Jake Fulkerson
Term Ends: 2016

Julie Snelson
Vice Chairman
Term Ends: 2016

Stefanie Bell
Term Ends: 2016

Kelly Simone
Term Ends: 2018

Ed Seymour
Term Ends: 2016

I have confirmed that the Grizzly Room at the Cody Library is reserved from 6-9pm on Jan 6. I have also confirmed that public comments will not be allowed. If you can be there please do so with a recording device and camera in hand.

In order for WyGO to continue opposing the likes of Superintendent Schulte and Senator Hank Coe, I need your help. Please consider a donation of $100, $50 or just $25 today.

For Freedom,

Anthony Bouchard
Executive Director
Wyoming Gun Owners

Wyoming Senators: Silence is anything but golden!

June 4, 2015
We lost by a mere 16 votes, but thanks to your grassroots activism, U.S. Senate Leadership took it in the shorts.

First, the scary stuff…

Obama’s declaration of victory on the passage in the Senate by a 67-32 vote:

Immediately signing the wrongly named USA Freedom Act, Obama stated, “my administration will work expeditiously to ensure our national security professionals again have the full set of vital tools they need…

Now the back story…

While Senator(s) Barrasso and Enzi voted NO on the so-called USA Freedom Act, other Republican Senators who also voted NO, admitted that they did so because the measure “didn’t go far enough” to spy on Americans.

Several hours of floor debate revealed the real imbalance in Congress — only one Republican Senator shined by standing up and pushing real freedom.

Samuel Adams said it best ~ “It does not take a majority to prevail… but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

If you want to see this played out in modern politics — watch Senator Rand Paul setting the brushfire on the Senate floor, by clicking here.

The good news is that every single poisonous amendment was voted down, despite the foolish utterances by phony Republican Mitch McConnell.

McConnell proposed four amendments to address what he called the bill’s “serious flaws.”

You just can’t make this stuff up!

McConnell even suggested that Obama’s failed foreign policy was somehow equated to the Senate’s refusal to accept his dangerous amendments that would have further violated the privacy of Americans.

As I watched Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell during this historic defeat, I must admit…it was truly a rewarding experience to see him to burn in the flames.

And you can be proud of being a part of the grassroots brushfire.

But, at the risk of being redundant, Barrasso and Enzi voted correctly while remaining silent.

While thankful that they both voted right, we are at a loss that the Wyoming delegation didn’t stand with Rand Paul in the vocal debate.

Like most politicians, our Senators love to receive accolades for their display of rhetoric in front of Fox News cameras — but where it matters most on the Senate floor, they remain closemouthed.

If the Wyoming Senators want us to believe they were standing on the proper side of the fence — they should have been setting their own brushfires of freedom — instead of leaving the fight to Republican Senator Rand Paul, who single-handedly pushed back at the entire establishment.

For Freedom,

   Anthony Bouchard
Executive Director
Wyoming Gun Owners

%d bloggers like this: