Archive for the ‘Wordpress Political Blogs’ Category

Lies, and more lies…

November 20, 2009

So many things are going on at once that I think it’s a strategy of the left. Distract, and then slip things through that otherwise would not pass muster. Once again, The Patriot Post provides meaningful analysis.

The BIGGEST LIE Yet

“It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth — and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. … For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.” –Patrick Henry

Sometimes the biggest lies come under cover of a truth.

Such was the case this week, when Barack Hussein Obama proffered this observation about deficits: “I think it is important, though, to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession.”

“Keep on adding to the debt”? From this, one might conclude that Obama has never suggested such a thing, and is truly concerned about deficits.

His revelation came amid discussion of tax reductions engineered to increase employment, as if our Constitution has a provision for that, anymore than for Obama’s other proposals.

Obama is feigning concern about deficits now that there is discussion of tax cuts, which he concludes would increase deficits.

“At some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy”? Like the Red Chinese, who hold more U.S. government debt than any other nation ($800 billion), and upon whom we are depending to fund more of our debt. No coincidence that Obama’s remarks were made while on his most recent appeasement tour in Beijing.

“Even in the midst of this recovery”? What recovery?

Oh, the one that his $787 billion “hope-n-change” big-government payout package was supposed to ensure?

At the time of that proposal, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office offered this summary: “In the longer run, the [Obama] legislation would result in a slight decrease in gross domestic product compared with CBO’s baseline economic forecast.” Put another way, the CBO static scoring projected that Obama’s big government pork giveaway would hinder economic recovery. Dynamic scoring by economists shows a much worse destiny.

But Obama warned, “If nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.”

Now, after a quick assessment of the Obama Recovery through October, one is stuck with the conclusion that his spending spree has resulted in 10.2 percent unemployment — except, of course, in such places as Washington, DC, where government jobs are immune to recession.

That would be double-digit unemployment — so now you know why Obama cleverly framed his recovery program in terms of jobs “created or saved.” His administration announced that through October, the American Recovery Act had “created” or “saved” 640,329 jobs. However, a growing number of skeptics, even among his once-adoring media, found some very questionable accounting methods used to come up with that figure.

Asked about some of the discrepancies, Obama’s Recovery Czar, Ed Pound, responded, “Who knows, man, who really knows?”

Recovery reality check: Remember when Obama claimed, “This is our moment, this is our time to turn the page on the policies of the past, to offer a new direction”?

That is a reference to Obama’s v Reagan’s policies, big government solutions v. free enterprise solutions.

Ronald Reagan’s economic policies unleashed an unprecedented period of growth, which continued right up until the financial sector collapse in ’08, a calamity resulting from policies implemented during the Clinton years, which undermined the values of derivatives used as collateral due. Those policies, as we now know, gave license for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to back high-risk loans to unqualified buyers, thereby setting the stage for the subprime mortgage meltdown and the crash of 2008.

Recall that in 2005, Sen. John McCain sponsored the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act, saying, “For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac … and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. … If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”

McCain noted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulators concluded that profits were “illusions deliberately and systematically created by the company’s senior management.”

McCain was right, but Democrats, including Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, ensured that nothing would be done to alter current practices at Fannie and Freddie. “These two entities … are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” Frank said at the time.

The net result of the derivative dilution was a crisis of confidence in the U.S. economy, second only to that which led to the Great Depression.

Remember when Obama claimed, “We are fundamentally transforming the United States of America”? Well, we’re in mid-transformation, and how are things looking now?

Obama also said, “Generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was our time.”

Indeed, his time to saddle them and their children with unprecedented debt, not only from his “stimulus” folly, but next up, ObamaCare, and then his job-killing cap-and-tax scheme.

If you think you can count on the administration’s estimates of the true cost of ObamaCare, think again. The Washington Times recently reminded us of the estimated cost of Medicare shortly after Democrats implemented it in 1965. Then, it was predicted to cost $12 billion by 1990. In actuality, it cost $98 billion, which is to say the original estimate was short by more than a factor of seven.

In my home state of Tennessee, we’ve already been there and done that. Our state’s version of ObamaCare, known as TennCare, implemented by Democrats in 1994 ostensibly to contain healthcare expenses, has quickly grown to consume more than a third of state revenues.

The CBO now says that the $1 trillion estimated cost of ObamaCare is “subject to substantial uncertainty.” How’s that for qualifying understatement?

As for the big picture, U.S. National Debt topped the $12 trillion mark this week, or approximately $39,000 for every man, woman and child in America, and the federal deficit that Obama now pretends to be concerned about hit a record high $1.42 trillion for fiscal year 2009.

Obama’s administration projects that the national debt will top $14 trillion by this time next year, and my sense is that they’re being modest. At the current pace, within 10 years our national debt will exceed our Gross Domestic Product.

Of these staggering debt figures, Obama now claims, “I intend to take serious steps to reduce America’s long-term deficit because debt-driven growth cannot fuel America’s long-term prosperity.”

But, what’s his real endgame?

We can be certain that Obama’s solution to deficits will not be less government. Instead, it will be unprecedented tax increases, a.k.a., socialist redistribution of wealth, a.k.a., “the fundamental transformation of America.”

The Tax Foundation now estimates that to offset deficits, “Federal income tax rates would have to be nearly tripled across the income spectrum,” with the lowest bracket at 27 percent and the highest at 95. Even the CBO estimates that rates would have to exceed 80 percent, and that’s before state and local taxes.

Do you get the picture, folks?

Obama will succeed in his effort to socialize the U.S. economy, using the tax code as his hammer and sickle, unless growing ranks of Americans object to the fact that he has no constitutional authority to do so.

In the meantime, Patriots, keep your powder dry.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

Obama Approves Troop Increase in Southern District of New York

November 19, 2009

Received this in an email from a newer political group action  faction. I can’t really  vet them at this point, but?  I do like their style.

Posted: 18 Nov 2009 02:22 PM PST

Perhaps it’s not surprising that President Obama would think nothing of subjecting Manhattan to the spectacle of a civilian court trial against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.  This is the administration that thought having an F-16 trail Air Force One around Ground Zero on a workday morning was a good idea.

On the other hand, perhaps we should view KSM as Obama’s consolation prize for failing to secure the 2016 Olympics on U.S. soil.  (How much tourism revenue will KSM’s trial bring to lower Manhattan?)

To try KSM and his four co-conspirators in federal court, New York will have to create a de facto Guantanamo Bay—one that is smaller than but as secure as the real thing.  The city will need to spend millions of dollars ensuring extra protection for the courthouse, the densely populated neighborhood—indeed all of downtown—including shipping in hundreds of U.S. marshals from other jurisdictions.  They will have to make special efforts to protect the judge, prosecutors, jury, federal agents, and witnesses, all of whom will receive death threats and will need armed protection.

As Rudy Guiliani noted, trying those who planned 9/11 in a civilian court in lower Manhattan is like trying those who planned Pearl Harbor in a civilian court in Hawaii.

The trial will drag on for years and New York will face extra, unnecessary risk during every day of the circus.  Manhattan will be placed in the international spotlight and become a prominent stage for jihadists to stage a suicide or car bombing.  Would-be attackers won’t have to do it right in front of the courthouse—anyplace in Manhattan would capture headlines and give encouragement to the Islamist cause worldwide. read more »

SOURCE

Happy Birthday I2I !

November 19, 2009

Happy birthday Independence Institute! Your detractors are many, and you just keep on treading along. Indeed, as so many cry out that you are insignificant they have to create counter organizations to oppose what you stand for.

Story HERE, and be sure to read the comments! 😀

And just what does the Independence Institute have to say concerning Obamacare? Well, here is a very small part…

© 2008, Benjamin Hummel. To see more cartoons like this go to www.politixcartoons.com.

Storm Warnings: Yelling fire

November 16, 2009

American balkanization is going full steam. The regional separatism that is unfolding before our eyes is telling. Even the terminology is getting twisted. The term “Redneck” is just one example. It originated in the Appalachian region, and defined union workers. Not exactly your right wing terrorists as the DHS likes to call anyone that disagrees with them, and that is not a communist or Muslim.

Anti liberty forces propagandize without bothering to note facts. Just today a WordPress blog that is anti liberty made a post about veterans and made it appear that those veterans were mentally incompetent, as defined by law. When, in fact, that statement was made by none other than the Brady Bunch. A group that has become notorious for being less than truthful.

These not so United States are being torn asunder. There appears to be little middle ground where differences can be hashed out that will be acceptable to all party’s. These things range from States Rights, to abortion, to taxes, gun control, the drug war, and beyond. Lets not forget Man Made Global Warming while we are at it.

These same arguments are all to often clouded with red herrings that further cloud issues. Be that gay rights, property rights, special rights for special groups, and racism to name but a few.

It used to be said that we are a nation of laws, and not of men. Yet, when law is used to belittle others, then respect for the law evaporates.

1984 has come and gone, yet newspeak is all the rage it seems. Most especially in the Senate and Congress. Are these concerns simply yelling fire in a crowded theater? If so, then what if the theater is in fact on fire? Do you allow those people to just burn alive?

As the song says, if you cannot stand for something, then you stand for nothing at all, or something like that.

More on obamacare: devils in the details

November 14, 2009

What a whopper… The obamanure that is the so called health care reform bill will bust the nation into pieces. Talk about a humpty dumty situation. As always, the Patriot Post provides us with a solid analysis.

Saturday Night Special

“Woohoo — I’m close to controlling your health care!”

The Constitution took a beating Saturday night when the House passed its 2,000-page version of ObamaCare by a 220-215 vote. Only one Republican, Joseph Cao of New Orleans, voted for the $1 trillion bill, while 39 Democrats voted against it. But Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) didn’t dwell on the bipartisan opposition to this legislative disgrace, instead saying, “We’re glad to take responsibility for this bill. And the credit.” Famous last words?

Perhaps. Pelosi has reportedly informed fellow Democrats that she is willing to lose seats in 2010 to get health care “reform” passed. And why not? As Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto quipped, “At 69, Pelosi stands a good chance of facing a death panel before she leads a majority of this size again.”

ObamaCare’s prospects are uncertain in the Senate, where several Democrats have announced their opposition. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is possibly the most vulnerable Democrat in 2010 and may not be crazy about hanging this albatross around his neck. Still, we’re not hopeful that the Senate will refrain from passing something dreadful, if only less so than the House version.

As we noted Tuesday, part of the blame for passage falls on pro-life groups for forcing Republicans to vote for an amendment prohibiting funding of abortions via the “public option.” The intent was good, but ironically, the absence of the amendment might have brought the bill down to defeat. And it was likely a hollow victory anyway, as House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) says there is “no guarantee” the amendment will survive.

In fact, the real “right to life” issue is that every medical decision may soon be subject to both political and budgetary considerations. What ever happened to the old liberal slogan, “Keep your laws off my body”?

Furthermore, the bill raises a tax issue. Capital gains taxes will rise from 15 percent to 20 percent when the Bush tax cuts expire in January 2011, and the Democrats’ bill raises them again to 25.4 percent with a surtax. That’s a 69 percent increase, the result of which will be less investment, lower stock prices, economic turmoil and a drop in tax revenue. Of course, revenue is one of the gimmicks in the bill — the Senate bill counts on 10 years of new taxes to pay for just seven years of spending. And it includes a government-run long-term insurance program that begins collecting premiums in 2011 but waits until 2016 to pay benefits.

One other notable stinker is a tort provision that gives “incentive payments” to states that come up with “alternative medical liability law” that encourages “fair resolution” of disputes and “maintains access to affordable liability insurance.” The catch is that states can’t “limit attorneys’ fees or impose caps on damages.” DNC Chair Howard Dean was right: Democrats don’t have the guts to stand up to their ambulance-chasing sugar daddies.

Meanwhile, some 11 amendments requiring members of Congress to be enrolled in the public plan were rejected by Democrats. What’s good for the goose is apparently not so appealing to the gander.

And so the unconstitutional attempted takeover of one-sixth of the U.S. economy marches on.

SOURCE

Support BATFE Reform Bills S. 941 And H.R. 2296

November 14, 2009

As we’ve been reporting for months, Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) have introduced S. 941, the “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2009” in the U.S. Senate.  Representatives Steve King (R-Iowa) and Zack Space (D-Ohio) have introduced a companion bill—H.R. 2296—in the U.S. House.  The bills would roll back unnecessary restrictions, correct errors, and codify longstanding congressional policies in the firearms arena.  These bipartisan bills are a vital step to modernize and improve BATFE operations.

Of highest importance, S. 941and H.R. 2296 totally rewrite the system of administrative penalties for licensed dealers, manufacturers and importers of firearms. Currently, for most violations, BATFE can only give a federal firearms license (FFL) holder a warning, or revoke his license.

S. 941 and H.R. 2296 would allow fines or license suspensions for less serious violations, while still allowing license revocation for the kind of serious violations that would block an investigation or put guns in the hands of criminals. This will help prevent the all-too-common situations where BATFE has revoked licenses for insignificant technical violations—such as improper use of abbreviations or filing records in the wrong order.

Among its other provisions, S. 941 and H.R. 2296 would:

·  Clarify the standard for “willful” violations—allowing penalties for intentional, purposeful violations of the law, but not for simple paperwork mistakes.

·  Improve the process for imposing penalties, notably by allowing FFLs to appeal BATFE penalties to a neutral administrative law judge, rather than to an employee of BATFE itself.

·  Allow a licensee a period of time to liquidate inventory when he goes out of business. During this period, all firearms sold would be subject to a background check by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

·  Allow a grace period for people taking over an existing firearms business to correct problems in the business’s records—so if a person inherited a family gun store (for example), the new owner couldn’t be punished for the previous owner’s recordkeeping violations.

·  Reform the procedures for consideration of federal firearms license applications. Under S. 941, denial of an application would require notification to the applicant, complete with reasons for the denial. Additionally, an applicant would be allowed to provide supplemental information and to have a hearing on the application.

·  Require BATFE to establish clear investigative guidelines.

·  Clarify the licensing requirement for gunsmiths, distinguishing between repair and other gunsmith work and manufacture of a firearm. This would stop BATFE from arguing that minor gunsmithing or refinishing activities require a manufacturers’ license.

·  Eliminate a provision of the Youth Handgun Safety Act that requires those under 18 to have written permission to use a handgun for lawful purposes (such as competitive shooting or safety training)—even when the parent or guardian is present.

·  Permanently ban creation of a centralized electronic index of out of business dealers’ records—a threat to gun owners’ privacy that Congress has barred through appropriations riders for more than a decade.

·  Allow importation and transfer of new machineguns by firearm and ammunition manufacturers for use in developing or testing firearms and ammunition, and training customers. In particular, ammunition manufacturers fulfilling government contracts need to ensure that their ammunition works reliably. S. 941 and H.R. 2296 would also provide for the transfer and possession of new machineguns by professional film and theatrical organizations.

·  Repeal the Brady Act’s “interim” waiting period provisions, which expired in 1998.

·  Give BATFE sole responsibility for receiving reports of multiple handgun sales. (Currently, dealers also have to report multiple sales to state or local agencies, a requirement that has shown little or no law enforcement value.) State and local agencies could receive these reports upon request to BATFE, but would have to comply strictly with current requirements to destroy these records after 20 days, unless the person buying the guns turns out to be prohibited from receiving firearms.

·  Restore a policy that allowed importation of barrels, frames and receivers for non-importable firearms, when they can be used as repair or replacement parts.

S. 941 represents the first time such BATFE reform legislation has been introduced in the Senate.  However, the House passed similar legislation (H.R. 5092) in the 109th Congress by a 277-131 vote.  A majority of the House–224 congressmen–cosponsored H.R. 4900 in the 110th Congress.

A fact sheet on S. 941/H.R. 2296 can be found here.

 

As of this writing, S. 941 has 16 cosponsors, and H.R. 2296 has 193 cosponsors.

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Senators and Representative, and ask them to cosponsor and support S. 941 and H.R. 2296! You can call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121, and your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121.

SOURCE

Urgent Alert: Ask Your U.S. Senators And Representative To Sign Amicus Brief Supporting Second Amendment Rights In The States!

November 14, 2009

As a critical Second Amendment case goes before the United States Supreme Court, U.S. Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Jon Tester (D-MT), and Congressmen Mike Ross (D-AR) and Mark Souder (R-IN) are gathering signatures for an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief by Members of Congress.  And we need your support for this important effort next week.

The case is McDonald v. City of Chicago, and it will answer the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states—as the Congress clearly intended in the 1860s, when it adopted the Fourteenth Amendment to protect constitutional rights against abuse by state and local governments.  This brief is an opportunity for today’s Congress to show just as clearly that it respects the Second Amendment’s importance to all Americans—not just residents of the District of Columbia and other federal territories.

The brief describes Congress’s debates on the Fourteenth Amendment, and points out the many occasions—from 1866 to 2005—when the Congress has spoken in favor of the Second Amendment as protecting a right of all Americans, and taken action to protect that right against actions such as gun confiscation and predatory lawsuits.  It also makes the case for Congress’s interest (under its constitutional war powers) in preserving an armed citizenry as part of America’s national defense.

 

When Congress speaks, the Supreme Court listens.   And it did in the historic Heller case last year when 55 Senators and 250 Representatives signed an amicus brief supporting the Second Amendment as an individual right.  Now every Senator and Congressman who supports the rights of all Americans should step forward to be heard by signing this brief in the McDonald case.

 

The brief must be filed within the week, so we need your immediate help! On Monday through Thursday, please call your U.S. Senators and Representative, and urge them to sign on to this critically important brief, which will be a key part of the legal battle to protect the Second Amendment in the U.S. Supreme Court.

You can call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121, and your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-31

SOURCE

AWB 2009 Redux: or maybe 2010..?

November 13, 2009

Well, they are back, as we warned you vigilance is the word of the day. Repeating the same old worn out lies and deceptions yet again, America, is being blamed for the corruption of a nation that is out of the control of legitimate government.

The Hidalgo’s that run Mexico, be they in government, or the real people that run things down there, the cartel’s, have a problem. It is their problem, and not ours. yet, the statists in and out of our own government insist that by depriving our people of their rights it will somehow set Mexico on the straight and narrow.

I say, in no uncertain terms, bullshit! If anything, restrictions on heavy weaponry for common Americans should be relaxed, if not abolished. I don’t buy into the “just enforce the existing laws” argument. Not for a second. We already have too many laws, and more will only muddle the mix even more, not to mention that a lot of laws just plain should not be on the books in the first place.

Want to stop the black markets in weapons? Pull it’s teeth, as in take the incentive from the criminals. Make them legal. Same thing for most gang related violence. End the turf wars via de-funding the gangs. Legalize recreational drugs and the gangs go broke. It’s a lot tougher to by grenades and full auto weapons when you don’t have a ready made money pipeline to draw upon.

So just what brought this up? read about it HERE.

These fools want amnesty for illegals as well. Go figure!

Force Feeding: Long term leftest strategy

November 13, 2009

As we see our freedoms and liberty evaporate with the leftest Congress we can become ever more active politically. We can vote the bums out, as some like to say. That is all well and good, and, come Judgment day 2010 perhaps some sanity may be restored.

However, it becomes more complicated when those same people that are in office now gerrymander districts with the long term goal of complete political domination for the foreseeable future. Too make things even more desperate for those that love our nation, there is the ever present threat of the judicial branch being stacked with activist’s that ignore the Constitution that they swore to uphold. That, is what we truly need to concern ourselves with.

We can fight tactically, as in voting out treasonous members of Congress and the Senate. We can fight operationally, as was seen this past summer by letting those that Laired it over the masses know that they may well be in for a figurative Tar and feathering.

However, we have indeed lost the initiative in the theater of strategic politics. Lifetime appointments of judicial appointees by the aforementioned enemies of freedom can, and will, undermine any of our other efforts. Witness the rulings this past year that made such blatant a thing as ex post facto law, something that is profoundly immoral, the law of the land, and that is only one example. Hence, this latest threat in the form of a radical that only obamanites could love.

Obama Pushing a “Radical’s Radical” to the Federal Bench
— Vote could come as early as Monday

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

Thursday, November 12, 2009

He has been called “extreme” by some.  But to others, he’s beyond extreme… he’s a “Radical’s Radical.”

Whatever he is, he could become President Obama’s next choice for the federal judiciary.

This radical is Judge David Hamilton, and he’s been nominated for a position on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Hamilton has made many political enemies on the right, seeing that his politics are to the far left of the political spectrum.  Oh yes, judges aren’t supposed to be political, but this one has engaged in quite a bit of leftist activism.

His biggest opponent on Capitol Hill is Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Based on his analysis of Hamilton, gun owners should be very concerned about a judge who is all to willing to “amend the Constitution.”  According to Senator Sessions:

Judge Hamilton stated in a 2003 speech that the role of a judge includes writing footnotes to the Constitution: “Judge S. Hugh Dillin of this court has said that part of our job here as judges is to write a series of footnotes to the Constitution. We all do that every year in cases large and small.” In explaining this statement to Senator Hatch, Judge Hamilton wrote that he believes the Framers intended judges to amend the Constitution through evolving case law.

Of course, we have seen this pattern time and time again.  Judges ignore the clear wording of the Constitution — in essence, amending the Constitution through each new case they decide.

The courts then become the vehicle for rewriting the Second Amendment!

Not surprisingly, Judge Hamilton’s politics are to the extreme, far left.  He spent a brief stint as a fundraiser for ACORN, the organization that was an aggressive supporter of Barack Obama in the presidential election.  In addition to all the evils surrounding ACORN is the fact that the organization has lobbied against Second Amendment rights — as seen by the New Jersey chapter supporting a one-gun-a-month ordinance in Jersey City.

Certainly any judicial nomination put forth by our anti-gun President is suspect, but it’s interesting to note who his chief backer is in the U.S. Senate.  It’s none other than Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, who holds an “F” rating from Gun Owners of America.

Lugar has never failed to support one of Obama’s anti-gun nominations, as evidenced by his votes for Attorney General Eric Holder, State Department lawyer Harold Koh, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the incredibly wacky Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein.

On policy questions, Senator Lugar is no better.  To wit, he voted against repealing the gun ban in Washington, DC this year.

Considering Hamilton’s extreme track record, it’s no wonder that Senator Lugar — in introducing Hamilton to his colleagues — begged his fellow Senators to ignore the judge’s policy views.  Lugar asked them not to base their votes on “partisan considerations, much less on how we hope or predict a given judicial nominee will ‘vote’ on particular issues of public moment or controversy.”

Instead, Lugar asked his colleagues “to evaluate judicial candidates on whether they have the requisite intellect, experience, character and temperament that Americans deserve from their judges….”

In other words, ignore Judge Hamilton’s liberalism and just vote for him because he’s so smart and because he’s such a nice guy!

Judge Hamilton’s rulings have made a lot of enemies on the political right, especially the one in Hinrichs v. Bosma where, according to a November 3 editorial in The Washington Times, he “prohibited prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives that expressly mentioned Jesus Christ… yet he allowed prayers which mentioned Allah.”

Gun owners have much to be concerned about, as well.  Anytime a judge who believes in rewriting the Constitution is elevated to sit as an appellate judge, that’s a scary thing — especially given the fact that most cases never reach the U.S. Supreme Court and are, thus, decided at lower levels in the federal judiciary.

ACTION:
Please contact your Senators right away and urge them to vote AGAINST Judge David Hamilton.  You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your legislators the pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

I urge you to vote against Judge David Hamilton for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  In addition to opposing his far left views, I don’t appreciate his disdain for the Constitution.

To quote Senator Sessions, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

“Judge Hamilton stated in a 2003 speech that the role of a judge includes writing footnotes to the Constitution: ‘Judge S. Hugh Dillin of this court has said that part of our job here as judges is to write a series of footnotes to the Constitution. We all do that every year in cases large and small.’ In explaining this statement to Senator Hatch, Judge Hamilton wrote that he believes the Framers intended judges to amend the Constitution through evolving case law.”

Of course, we have seen this pattern time and time again.  Judges ignore the clear wording of the Constitution — in essence, amending the Constitution through each new case they decide.

The courts then become the vehicle for rewriting the Second Amendment!

Not surprisingly, Judge Hamilton’s written answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee show his lack of understanding regarding the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.  While Hamilton cannot ignore what the Supreme Court said in DC v. Heller (2008), he refuses to admit that the individual right to keep and bear arms applies anywhere outside of Washington, D.C. — instead, he just says he will rely on evolving “case law [as] developed in earlier incorporation cases.”

Once again, evolving case law — more often than not — takes us away from what the Constitution actually says.

Please vote NO on David Hamilton.

Sincerely,


The Larry Pratt News Hour is carried by the Information Radio Network on Saturdays (rebroadcasts Sundays). The show is simulcast on the web at http://irnusaradio.com/ and previous episodes are archived at http://irnusaradio.com/our-programs/larry-pratt-news-hour with a number of listening formats, including podcasts, supported.

Recent guests and topics, among many others, have included:

* Jim Kouri — Police Against Socialized Medicine
* Chris Knox — Neal Knox and the Gun Rights War
* Mike Adams — The Campus Wars Against Gun Owners

Whipping Boys

November 10, 2009

Whipping Boys, the realm of the elites… Well, folks, there is yet another whipping boy out there. (Hat Tip to Kurt) True to form, the whipping boy had little to actually do with what was done. Guilt by association is the tried and true methodology involved.

The Brady Foundation et al, are, to be blunt… Incapable of rational thought, much less abstract application. As in, what’s the cause, not just the methodology. It’s no wonder that they capitalize on grief. They feed on the grief of others, while Paramedics, Firefighters, and Peace Officers look for solutions.

That people such as the “Brady Bunch” capitalize, as in make money for political and monetary gain? Is, in my sense of being? Immoral. Yes, I am well aware that it is in fact impossible to prove how many lives have been utterly destroyed by their lies, deceptions, and misconstruing of the most simple things.

Yet? To use a tool? To address human failure? As in how the tool was used..?