Right before I left the biggest issue on the block was Elena Kagan. While the outcome was pretty much written in stone well before the confirmation vote took place it was an eye opener when it comes to just who really supports liberty and freedom in the Senate.
Archive for the ‘States Rights’ Category
These statements are just the tip of the iceberg…
August 22, 2010GOA scores victories for liberty and freedom!
August 22, 2010Granted this is a little late folks. I’m still playing catch up. Contrast this with my earlier post about Matt Mead here in Wyoming.
GOA Scores Another Win in Tuesday’s Primaries
|
— Colorado’s Ken Buck Joins Growing List of Pro-gun Candidates
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
As we inch closer to the all-important 2010 general election, Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund added one more name to the list of candidates who will come to Washington to slam the brakes on the Obama/Pelosi/Reid gun control agenda. In Tuesday’s Republican primary in Colorado, Ken Buck won a hard fought victory with 52% of the vote. Late in the campaign, Buck’s opponent criticized him for standing up for the rights of gun dealers when he worked as a federal prosecutor. In 1999, a U.S. Attorney appointed by President Clinton engaged in politically motivated prosecutions of several Colorado gun dealers. Buck took a bold stand to protect these businessmen and their Second Amendment rights in the aftermath of the horrific Columbine shooting. Ken Buck’s victory is the latest in a string of wins for GOA-endorsed candidates. In May, GOA-PVF supported Rand Paul in a primary against the hand-picked candidate of the Washington Republican establishment. Paul coasted to victory, defeating his opponent by more than twenty percentage points. Dr. Paul, an eye surgeon, faces Democrat career politician Jack Conway. GOA-PVF also opposed the reelection of long-time incumbent Senator Bob Bennett of Utah. Bennett went down in defeat at a Republican Party state convention in May. Solid pro-gunner Mike Lee is favored to win the general election. Another GOA-PVF candidate, Marco Rubio of Florida, avoided a primary altogether when his opponent dropped out of the Republican primary to run as an Independent. And in what is the most watched, and maybe most important race in the country, GOA-PVF candidate Sharron Angle emerged victorious from a grueling three-way primary. Mrs. Angle, a staunch, conservative pro-gun former state legislator, will take on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in November. There are still several more Senate primaries to go before November. J.D. Hayworth in Arizona and Christine O’Donnell in Delaware is running against one of the most anti-gun members of Congress, Mike Castle. GOA-PVF is also supporting Carly Fiorina, who is running against Sen. Barbara Boxer — one of the most anti-gun members of the U.S. Senate. The 2010 elections may be the most important votes we cast in our lifetimes. To learn more about all of the candidates GOA-PVF is supporting, please visit www.goapvf.org. |
U.S. Firearm Production Soars
August 22, 2010Anti-Gun Group Shows Why The American
Way Is Better, As U.S. Firearm Production Soars
Anyone who traveled behind the Iron Curtain back in those days probably didn’t have to look very hard to find groups of “workers” sitting around doing pretty much nothing, except collecting a taxpayer-funded government paycheck.
The American way is better. Anti-gun group employees can still sit around doing pretty much nothing and collect a paycheck, but the money—lots of it—comes from donations, from foundations and individuals who share their ideals. While the rest of us have to contend with anything tangible they might produce, at least we don’t have to pay for it, most of the time.
Take the latest from the so-called Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV), a handful of gun-hater lawyers operating out of an office in San Francisco, California. Mimicking the Brady Campaign—probably not a good business plan, given that Brady Campaign is not exactly a thriving enterprise these days—LCAV is now ranking the states according to how “strong” their gun laws are.
If by any chance you are unfamiliar with the word “ludicrous,” now would be a good time to look it up in your dictionary. On the other hand, never mind, because once you go over LCAV’s pseudo-scientific poppycock, you’ll be able to write a good definition yourself.
Some examples serve to make the point. LCAV ranks California best in the nation, though its firearm-related death rate is higher than those of 16 other states, including Vermont, the gun owner-friendly laws of which LCAV ranks third worst in the nation. LCAV ranks Maryland 7th-best, just ahead of New York and Rhode Island, the firearm-related deaths rates of which are only 42 percent and 29 percent that of Maryland. Joining the declaration of ideological war by some in California against neighboring Arizona, LCAV ranks the Grand Canyon State worst in the nation.
And it goes on from there, with no correlation between LCAV’s ranking and the states’ widely divergent firearm-related death rates, no recognition of the fact that most firearm-related deaths are suicides, the frequency of which cannot be restrained by any gun control law, and no recognition of the fact that the world is still waiting for any evidence that any gun control law on the planet has ever prevented individuals or regimes from committing crime.
LCAV’s point structure for the various gun laws doesn’t even make sense. LCAV gives states four points (the maximum for any gun law) for requiring registration of all guns. We get that, since we know that gun control supporters consider registration indispensable, for purposes of enforcing a subsequent gun confiscation law. But LCAV gives almost as many points (three) for banning .50 caliber rifles (which are probably the type of gun least frequently involved in firearm deaths, or darned close), three points for requiring a dealer to be licensed (even though federal law requires that in every state anyway), and . . . well, you get the idea.
Similar to Violence to Policy Center, LCAV is especially apoplectic about “assault weapons” (three points for a ban), standard self-defense magazines that hold more than 10 rounds (three points for a ban), and anything at all to do with carrying a firearm for protection. Relative to the latter, a state gets a minus-1 point for a “shall issue” carry permit law, minus-1 for open carry without a permit, and minus-two points for concealed carry without a permit. All this malarky, with the number of carry states at an all-time high and the nation’s violent crime rate at a 35-year low.
We’re not sure how often LCAV will have the opportunity to repeat its state ranking exercise, though. One bad gun law at a time, NRA, its members, and their friends elected to state office have been eliminating gun control laws left and right for the last two decades in most states. And, Americans have responded by exercising their right to acquire arms in record numbers.
Some evidence to that effect was put forward by the BATFE recently, in the form of its report on U.S. firearm manufacturing in the first half of 2009. In the first half of 2009, U.S. manufacturers produced more rifles, more pistols, more revolvers and more shotguns, than in all of 2008. Coupled with increases in NICS checks of 11 percent between 2006 and 2007, another 14 percent between 2007 and 2008, and another 10 percent between 2008 and 2009, the evidence is pretty clear that the gun control laws LCAV wants have been on the wane, while the ones it most despises have become the norm.
Another episode of “Their back…”
August 20, 2010The forces of anti freedom and liberty are back yet again pursuing their ultimate goal of submission of the masses to their agenda.
The shear stupidity of these people just never fails to astound those that think in a rational manner.
WEIS: It’s just common sense legislation. I don’t see how anyone could say this is restrictive when we’re simply asking for a background check if you’re going to buy a weapon. This is pretty simple to understand.
Thirty-three states, including Indiana, allow private dealers to sell guns to anyone without a background check.
They answer their own statement. There is a reason that thirty-three states do not agree. They also lie because if it is at a gun show, you have to be approved to exercise a “right.” This is about the outlawing of guns, and especially private sales or gifts. Hell, as it already is, I can’t “give” a firearm to my grandson legally…
Ron Micheli for Governor
August 16, 2010Please follow the link to WYGO to view the video clip.
Thanks to those that made this possible.
Wyoming Gun Owners
WyGO PAC
Politics: Some things never seem to change…
August 16, 2010From Lisa we get this reminder that November is not all that far away, and that we need to remember just who it is that is seeking to destroy America, and all that we hold dear.
A check list if you would please.
Please read carefully and remember November elections are not far off. It’s time to take back our country and pay back our representatives.
The following senators voted against making English the official language of America :
Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Now, the following are the senators who voted to give illegal aliens Social Security benefits. They are grouped by home state. If a state is not listed, there was no voting representative.
Alaska : Stevens (R) (deceased)
Arizona : McCain (R)
Arkansas : Lincoln (D) Pryor (D)
California : Boxer (D) Feinstein (D)
Colorado : Salazar (D)
Connecticut : Dodd (D) Lieberman (D)
Delaware : Biden (D) Carper (D)
Florida : Martinez (R)
Hawaii : Akaka (D) Inouye (D)
Illinois : Durbin (D) Obama (D)
Indiana : Bayh (D) Lugar (R)
Iowa : Harkin (D)
Kansas : Brownback (R)
Louisiana : Landrieu (D)
Maryland : Mikulski (D) Sarbanes (D)
Massachusetts : Kennedy (D) (d) Kerry (D)
Montana : Baucus (D)
Nebraska : Hagel (R)
Nevada : Reid (D)
New Jersey : Lautenberg (D) Menendez (D)
New Mexico : Bingaman (D)
New York : Clinton (D) Schumer (D)
North Dakota : Dorgan (D)
Ohio : DeWine (R) Voinovich(R)
Oregon : Wyden (D)
Pennsylvania : Specter (R)
Rhode Island : Chafee (R) Reed (D)
South Carolina : Graham (R)
South Dakota : Johnson (D)
Vermont : Jeffords (I) Leahy (D)
Washington : Cantwell (D) Murray (D)
West Virginia : Rockefeller (D), by Not Voting
Wisconsin : Feingold (D) Kohl (D)
IF YOU CARE, PLEASE SEND THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW, OTHERWISE JUST DELETE IT.
THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES NEEDS TO KNOW THIS INFORMATION,
UNLESS THEY DON’T MIND SHARING THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY WITH FOREIGN WORKERS WHO DIDN’T PAY A DIME INTO IT.
—
~~Lisa
The best way to lead a nation astray of its values is to keep it ignorant of its history (ld).
Wake up & Get a Clue at http://GetdClu.com/
Catching Hell: The National Rifle Association
June 18, 2010The National Rifle Association has been catching some serious hell as of late. While that is nothing new? Where the incoming fire is coming from is. It has been from people such as myself, a Life Member, and others that make up this organization.
Don’t get me wrong. The NRA has done a lot for gun owners over the years. Most training and safety involving firearms has roots in the NRA, and that surely is a good thing. However, politically the NRA has for many years taken the easy route. Deal cutting may be the way that things are done in the beltway, but on the range there are no excuses for acting in an irresponsible manner.
Simply put, the NRA has been a pig with lipstick that fly’s for quite some time, and the membership is more than a bit fed up with that. What follows is a follow up from Gun Owners of America, and then my “personal” response about my complaint from NRA / ILA. I will leave it to my readership to read the tea leaves as it were…
Threat to Free Speech Lights a Fire in the Grassroots
— Vote has been temporarily postponed; keep up the heat!
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
www.gunowners.org
“[T]he NRA — on whose board of directors I serve — rather than holding steadfastly to its historic principles of defending the Constitution and continuing its noble fight against government regulation of political speech instead opted for a political deal borne of self-interest in exchange for ‘neutrality’ from the legislation’s requirements.”
— NRA Director Cleta Mitchell, June 17, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
The above quote — part of an editorial authored by NRA Director Cleta Mitchell — ran in The Washington Post today.
Like Mitchell, bloggers and editorial writers around the country have lit up the Internet with the story that we have been alerting you to over the past 48 hours. Here are just some of the headlines:
* “The NRA sells out to Democrats on the First Amendment,” The Wall Street Journal
* “Conservatives take on the NRA over deal on disclosure bill,” The Washington Post
* “The National Rifle Association’s Excuse Holds No Water,” RedState.org
The conservative movement (and to be honest, many liberal organizations as well) are coming together to loudly protest the DISCLOSE Act — legislation that threatens to gag our ability to effectively hold individual congressmen accountable in the days and weeks leading up to an election.
It is imperative that we continue hammering the Congress. But rather than cry “uncle,” liberal Democrats are now trying to buy off more groups with an exemption for those that have at least 500,000 members (rather than the higher threshold of one million, which would have applied to few groups other than the NRA).
Of course, how is the government going to know how many members an organization has? According to the legislation, each organization will have to certify to a government commission how many members they have. But what if the commission wants documentation; will the organization have to “disclose” the names of their members?
GOA, of course, will never do this. Furthermore, you should know that your Gun Owners of America can NOT be bought off. We will continue opposing this bill on principle, urging all gun groups to stick together in this fight. As we stated yesterday, we realize that: “We must all hang together, or we will all hang separately.”
GOA applauds NRA Director Cleta Mitchell for the courageous stand she took today. (You can read her editorial here.) We hope that the NRA leadership will heed her wisdom and take a stand against this bill. If they don’t, we wouldn’t be surprised if NRA members start demanding a change in their leadership. After all, the NRA has engaged in many good fights over the years, and it would be a shame to lose this VERY IMPORTANT battle because high-ranking staff led the NRA down the wrong path.
ACTION:
1. Please call your congressman today and urge him or her to oppose HR 5175. We’ve asked you to send emails before, but now on the eve before the vote, it is crucial that the phones ring off the hook. If they’re not ringing, they won’t be worried.
You can use the Talking Points below to call your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.
2. If you haven’t yet urged the NRA staff to change its position on HR 5175 and stand with Gun Owners of America, please do so. NRA Director Cleta Mitchell was absolutely correct, and the NRA leadership should heed her wisdom. You can call the NRA at (800) 392-VOTE (8683).
3. Please help Gun Owners of America to continue fighting for your rights. You can go to http://gunowners.org/contribute-to-goa.htm to help us alert as many people as possible to the DISCLOSE Act threat.
—– Talking Points for contacting your Representative —–
1. I stand with Gun Owners of America in opposing the DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175).
2. The Bill of Rights is clear in saying that Congress has no authority to pass legislation like this. Just like the Second Amendment says our gun rights “shall not be infringed,” the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.”
3. The Supreme Court was right earlier this year in the Citizens United case. Sen. John McCain — the author of the Campaign Finance Reform law (otherwise known as the Incumbent Protection Act) — was wrong. Americans, and the groups they choose to associate with, should be able to criticize Congress in the days and weeks leading up to an election WITHOUT BEING GAGGED OR FORCED TO JUMP THROUGH HOOPS that are mandated by Congress.
This is the baffle them with bull pucky response that I recieved from the NRA;
We appreciate some NRA members’ concerns about our position on H.R. 5175, the “DISCLOSE Act.” Unfortunately, critics of our position have misstated or misunderstood the facts. We have never said we would support any version of this bill. To the contrary, we clearly stated NRA’s strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (as introduced) in a letter sent to Members of Congress on May 26. Through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has consistently and strongly opposed any effort to restrict the rights of our four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide. The initial version of H.R. 5175 would effectively have put a gag order on the NRA during elections and threatened our members’ freedom of association, by forcing us to turn our donor lists over to the federal government. We would also have been forced to list our top donors on all election-related television, radio and Internet ads and mailings—even mailings to our own members. We refuse to let this Congress impose those unconstitutional restrictions on our Association. The NRA provides critical firearms training for our Armed Forces and law enforcement throughout the country. This bill would force us to choose between training our men and women in uniform and exercising our right to free political speech. We refuse to let this Congress force us to make that choice. Is it worth us having to live with this bill’s draconian restrictions just to protect the First Amendment rights of other groups? We don’t think so. We didn’t “sell out” to Nancy Pelosi or anyone else. We told Congress we opposed the bill. As a result, congressional leaders made a commitment to exempt us from its draconian restrictions on free speech. If that commitment is honored, we will not be involved in the final House debate. If that commitment is not fully honored, we will strongly oppose the bill. Our position is based on principle and experience. During consideration of the previous campaign finance legislation passed in 2002, congressional leadership repeatedly refused to exempt the NRA from its provisions, promising that our concerns would be fixed somewhere down the line. That didn't happen; instead, the NRA had to live under those restrictions for seven years and spend millions of dollars on compliance costs and on legal fees to challenge the law. We will not go down that road again when we have an opportunity to protect our ability to speak. There are those who say the NRA has a greater duty to principle than to gun rights. It’s easy to say we should put the Second Amendment at risk over some so-called First Amendment principle – unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do. The NRA is a bipartisan, single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. That's their responsibility. Our responsibility is to protect and defend the interests of our members. Best regards, NRA-ILA Grassroots Division _________________ Lipstick on a pig...
NRA sells out the people of America:Statement From The National Rifle Association On H.R. 5175, The Disclose Act
June 16, 2010After spending close to half an hour on hold I was finally able to speak to an NRA rep. at NRA / ILA. I received the usual lip service, and was told that my comments would be passed on…What follows is the limp wristed defense of their actions that landed in my email inbox this morning. This is just another example of the NRA selling out, again…
Statement From The National Rifle
Association On H.R. 5175, The Disclose Act
The National Rifle Association believes that any restrictions on the political speech of Americans are unconstitutional.
In the past, through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has opposed any effort to restrict the rights of its four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide.
The NRA’s opposition to restrictions on political speech includes its May 26, 2010 letter to Members of Congress expressing strong concerns about H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act. As it stood at the time of that letter, the measure would have undermined or obliterated virtually all of the NRA’s right to free political speech and, therefore, jeopardized the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding American.
The most potent defense of the Second Amendment requires the most adamant exercise of the First Amendment. The NRA stands absolutely obligated to its members to ensure maximum access to the First Amendment, in order to protect and preserve the freedom of the Second Amendment.
The NRA must preserve its ability to speak. It cannot risk a strategy that would deny its rights, for the Second Amendment cannot be defended without them.
Thus, the NRA’s first obligation must be to its members and to its most ardent defense of firearms freedom for America’s lawful gun owners.
On June 14, 2010, Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives pledged that H.R. 5175 would be amended to exempt groups like the NRA, that meet certain criteria, from its onerous restrictions on political speech. As a result, and as long as that remains the case, the NRA will not be involved in final consideration of the House bill.
The NRA cannot defend the Second Amendment from the attacks we face in the local, state, federal, international and judicial arenas without the ability to speak. We will not allow ourselves to be silenced while the national news media, politicians and others are allowed to attack us freely.
The NRA will continue to fight for its right to speak out in defense of the Second Amendment. Any efforts to silence the political speech of NRA members will, as has been the case in the past, be met with strong opposition.
And this is what GOA has to say about this issue;
— Help GOA get other pro-gun groups on board in this fight
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
We alerted you last week to the very dangerous DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175), where liberal House Democrats are trying to gag their political opponents.
Well, there have been some late-breaking developments in the fight to kill this bill, but you’re not going to believe what’s happening. This is what Politico.com reported yesterday:
House Democrats have offered to exempt the National Rifle Association from a sweeping campaign-finance bill, removing a major obstacle in the push to roll back the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling.
The NRA had objected to some of the strict financial disclosure provisions that Democrats have proposed for corporations and politically active nonprofits and that had kept moderate, pro-gun Democrats from backing the legislation.
But if the NRA signs off on the deal, the bill could come to the House floor as early as this week. The NRA said it would not comment until specific legislative language is revealed.
An NRA official also noted that the group would not be supporting the bill but would not actively oppose it if the deal with the Democratic leadership holds up.
So if the NRA gets an exemption for itself, it will not oppose the anti-freedom DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175). This legislation is designed to overturn major parts of the recent Supreme Court decision which restored the ability of groups like GOA to freely criticize elected officials during a campaign.
But the NRA would no longer oppose the bill once they’ve won an exemption for themselves. As reported by Politico.com:
The legislation in question is designed to restore more campaign finance rules in the wake of last year’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, which removed prohibitions on corporations and unions running TV ads opposing or backing candidates in the run-up to an election.
Democratic leaders fear the Citizens United decision could open the floodgates for corporate money to flow into this year’s midterm elections, which they believe would favor Republican interests.
The legislation, offered by Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, would require special-interest groups to disclose their top donors if they choose to run TV ads or send out mass mailings in the final months of an election.
In addition to benefiting the NRA, this “exemption” amendment will benefit Blue Dog Democrats who will be given a green light to support the Obama-Pelosi backed bill:
Democrats are justifying the NRA exemption, saying the organization has a long history of being involved in the political process, and they say the real goal of the new campaign finance bill is to expose corporations and unions that create ambiguous front groups to run attack ads during campaigns. Unions would not be allowed to use the NRA exemption.
North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler, an NRA backer and conservative Democrat, proved to be pivotal to the NRA deal. Shuler was the first to offer an amendment to exempt the NRA and other nonprofits from the legislation, but that move drew objections from campaign watchdog groups.
“There were a number of concerns that the DISCLOSE Act could hinder or penalize the efforts of certain long-standing, member-driven organizations who have historically acted in good faith,” Shuler said, referring to the NRA. “Most of those concerns are addressed within the manager’s amendment.”
But here’s the rub, the special exemption amendment will ONLY benefit the NRA and no other groups whatsoever. It will leave all other groups who are currently in Obama’s crosshairs dangling in the wind:
The proposal would exempt organizations that have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations. Democrats say the new language would apply to only the NRA, since no other organization would qualify under these specific provisions. The NRA, with 4 million members, will not actively oppose the DISCLOSE Act, according to Democratic sources.
The exemption for a huge group like the NRA is sure to outrage smaller special-interest groups [like Gun Owners of America].
We are in a political war, and our opponents are trying to change the rules of the game by gagging those groups that are their political enemies. Some might say that the requirement to disclose our membership is not a gag rule, but it most certainly is. Gun Owners of America will NOT do anything that would jeopardize the privacy of our members!
Gun owners know the dangers of being registered, as it has often proven to be the first step towards gun confiscation — which, by the way, is why it’s lamentable that the management of the NRA is selling out its members for the proverbial bowl of pottage. (Go to http://tinyurl.com/2uw9sm9 to see what a leading Capitol Hill blog has written about this sell-out.)
We’re positive that regular members of the NRA would never want this to happen — where all the other pro-gun organizations (like GOA) that are fighting to protect our rights would be gagged, while special favors are cut for one group in particular.
We stand shoulder to shoulder with NRA and all the other pro-gun groups when they are fighting to defend our Second Amendment freedoms. We all have to stick together if we are going to win these battles.
We’re not sure who is making the decisions over at the NRA headquarters… but this type of thing would have never happened in the past, and we’re positive that the NRA membership would not be happy with it. This cannot stand!
ACTION: Please do everything you can to kill this dangerous DISCLOSE Act legislation (HR 5175). Here’s what you can do:
1. Urge your congressman to oppose HR 5175. You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send a pre-written message to your Representative.
2. Call the NRA-ILA at (800) 392-VOTE (8683) and urge them to oppose this legislation and to rate any congressman who votes in favor of HR 5175 as having cast an ANTI-GUN vote. Urge them not to sell out our constitutional freedoms just because they can get an exemption for themselves.
3. Please help Gun Owners of America to continue fighting for your rights. You can go to http://gunowners.org/contribute-to-goa.htm to help us alert as many people as possible to this new threat.
—– Pre-written letter —–
Dear Representative:
I stand with Gun Owners of America in opposing the DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175).
There are reports that a deal may be cut to exempt one large organization from the terms of the DISCLOSE Act. This smacks of the money-for-votes fiasco which helped grease the skids for passage of ObamaCare and which has already lowered Congress’ reputation to unprecedented depths.
On the Senate side, Senator Mitch McConnell blasted this deal, which is aimed at carving out special exemptions for the NRA leadership in exchange for their promise to sit on their hands and not oppose the DISCLOSE Act. “If there is one thing Americans loathe about Washington, it’s the backroom dealing to win the vote of organizations with power and influence at the expense of everyone else,” McConnell said.
“Just as it wasn’t the Democrats’ money to offer in the health care debate, free speech isn’t theirs to ration out to those willing to play ball — it’s a right guaranteed by our First Amendment to all Americans.”
I agree wholeheartedly. Please do NOT vote in favor of this legislation, as it will have a chilling effect upon our free speech rights by forcing the organizations we associate with to disclose their membership lists.
How ironic that a Congress and President who treat transparency with contempt should now be trying to force legal organizations to disclose the names of their law-abiding members. The hypocrisy is blatant, to say the least.
Vote no on HR 5175.
Sincerely,
The more we learn: epic fail obamacare
June 14, 2010As more and more of the contents of obamacare are exposed it is clear. We warned you, and it’s actually worse… This obomanation shoved down the throats of Americans is being touted by the impostor in chiefs administration and lackey’s as something otherwise. Like a ckeck to seniors that helps cover the “doughnut hole” will make up for all the rest of what is in it.
Those opposed to Democratic health reform still see the issue as a political winner, White House p.r. efforts notwithstanding. House minority leader John Boehner sent out a press release about the newly energized Administration messaging campaign titled “All that Glitters Is Not Sold,” and James Capretta, a former White House staffer during the George W. Bush Administration, is spearheading a website touted by conservative Bill Kristol to counter pro–health care reform messages. Called ObamaCareWatch.org, the site includes commentary and reporting critical of the Affordable Care Act. The opening piece on the website is headlined, “The More We Learn, the Worse It Gets.”
Full Story HERE.
Straw Purchase Felon Michael Bloomberg better get this one correct :)
June 11, 2010The Mayor of New York City had better be looking a bit south and paying some attention to what is happening there. This is a States Rights issue and it really should have been written to cover more issues than firearms. But? West Virginia shines this day. Basking in the bright light of liberty and justice!
Fairfax, Va. — Today Governor Joe Manchin (D) signed NRA-supported Senate Bill 1005 into law in West Virginia. He had vetoed the original version of this bill (SB 515) earlier this year due to a drafting error. Recognizing the importance of this measure, Governor Manchin added SB 515 to his agenda for the 2010 Extraordinary Session and it was renumbered SB 1005. Both bills, introduced by State Senator Jeff Kessler (D-2), will make it a crime to knowingly solicit illegal gun sales and to conduct illegal sting operations like those conducted by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
“I would like to thank Governor Manchin and the West Virginia legislature for taking the necessary steps to prevent these illegal entrapment schemes,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA-ILA. “We hope that governors and legislators around the country follow in Virginia and West Virginia’s footsteps and make this the law of their respective states.”
This measure passed out of the West Virginia House of Delegates on May 14, 2010 and will take effect 90 days from its passage. A similar piece of legislation was signed into law in Virginia in 2007.
“Any elected official who wants to truly have an impact on reducing crime knows that the way to do it is to focus law enforcement resources on prosecuting crime,” concluded Cox. “Our hardworking federal, state and local law enforcement officials should be able to do their jobs without having to worry about out-of-state politicians and their political agendas.”





