Posts Tagged ‘election 2012’

Comparision / Contrast: AKA holding your nose when you vote

January 29, 2012

We Americans are about to yet again have to hold our collective noses when we vote in the coming election.

One thing is clear, and that is that Obama must go. His attempts at undermining American sovereignty. His just plain lousy choices for advisers and people in high office such as Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder being the best examples. His idiotic handling of energy and economic issues, crony capitalism, and the list just goes on forever make his removal from office a no brainer. His inexcusable use of the military as an election tool just tops off the cake.

So, what are we left with? Yet another chorus of decidedly poor choices. Let’s take an observation  them through the looking glass of the Bill of Rights.

Mitt Romney

In the recent Presidential debate, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann said America’s voters did not need to “settle” for the moderate candidate. Amen to that.

And gun owners do NOT want candidates who talk out of both sides of their mouths.

As the Gun Owners of America’s Board of Directors looks at the Republican candidates running to unseat radical anti-gun President Obama, we see several who have strong pro-gun backgrounds. Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman all have solid pro-gun records and deserve a hard look from pro-gunners.

At least one frontrunner candidate stands in contrast with a decidedly mixed record on the gun issue. While Mitt Romney likes to “talk the pro-gun talk,” he has not always walked the walk.

“The Second Amendment protects the individual right of lawful citizens to keep and bear arms. I strongly support this essential freedom,” Romney assures gun owners these days.

But this is the same Mitt Romney who, as governor, promised not to do anything to “chip away” at Massachusetts’ extremely restrictive gun laws.

“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,” he said during a gubernatorial debate. “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”[1]

Even worse, Romney signed a law to permanently ban many semi-automatic firearms. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense,” Romney said in 2004. “They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”[2]

Romney also spoke in favor of the Brady law’s five day waiting period on handguns. The Boston Herald quotes Romney saying, “I don’t think (the waiting period) will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.”[3]

Mitt Romney doesn’t seem to understand the meaning of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

And that makes it all the more troubling that Romney refuses to answer GOA’s simple candidate questionnaire. In our more than 36 years of experience, a candidate is usually hiding anti-gun views if he or she refuses to come clean in writing with specific commitments to the Second Amendment.

Today, Romney may be a favorite “Republican Establishment” candidate of the national press corps. But that is exactly what gun owners DON’T need in a new President. We need someone who will stand by true constitutional principles and protect the Second Amendment.


[1] Mitt Romney in the 2002 Massachusetts Gubernatorial debate.  Part of the quote can be read in this article at Scot Lehigh, “Romney vs. Romney,” Boston Globe (January 19, 2007) at:

http://mittromney4potus.blogspot.com/2007/01/context.html

“Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons ban,” July 8, 2004, at: http://www.iberkshires.com/story.php?story_id=14812

[3] Mitt Romney, quoted by Joe Battenfeld in the Boston Herald, Aug. 1, 1994.

Newt Gingrich

Prior to the “Republican Revolution” of 1994, Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia had earned an A rating with Gun Owners of America.  But that all changed in 1995, after Republicans were swept to power and Gingrich became Speaker of the House.

The Republicans gained the majority, thanks in large part to gun owners outraged by the Clinton gun ban.  And upon taking the reins of the House, Speaker Gingrich said famously that, “As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no further erosion of their rights.”

His promise didn’t hold up, however, and his GOA rating quickly dropped to well below the “C-level.”  In 1996, the Republican-led Congress passed the “gun free school zones act,” creating criminal safe zones like Virginia Tech, where the only person armed was a murderous criminal.  Speaker Newt Gingrich voted for the bill containing this ban.[1]

The same bill also contained the now infamous Lautenberg gun ban, which lowered the threshold for losing one’s Second Amendment rights to a mere misdemeanor.[2] Gun owners could, as a result of this ban, lose their gun rights forever for non-violent shouting matches that occurred in the home — and, in many cases, lose their rights without a jury trial.

While a legislator might sometimes vote for a spending bill which contains objectionable amendments, that was clearly NOT the case with Newt Gingrich in 1996.  Speaking on Meet the Press in September of that year, Speaker Gingrich said the Lautenberg gun ban was “a very reasonable position.”[3] He even refused to cosponsor a repeal of the gun ban during the next Congress — despite repeated requests to do so.[4]

Also in 1996, Speaker Gingrich cast his vote for an anti-gun terror bill which contained several harmful provisions.  For example, one of the versions he supported (in March of that year) contained a DeLauro amendment that would have severely punished gun owners for possessing a laser sighting device while committing an infraction as minor as speeding on a federal reservation.[5] (Not only would this provision have stigmatized laser sights, it would have served as a first step to banning these items.)  Another extremely harmful provision was the Schumer amendment to “centralize Federal, State and Local police.”[6]


Final passage of H.R. 3610, Sept. 28, 1996 at:  http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml . Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) warned his colleagues about the hidden dangers in H.R. 3610, and in regard to the Kohl ban, noted that it would “prohibit most persons from carrying unloaded firearms in their automobiles.”

See Gingrich’s vote at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml .

[3] Associated Press, “Gingrich Favors Handgun Ban for Domestic Abuse Convicts,” Deseret News, Sept. 16, 1996.  The full quote reveals how much Speaker Gingrich had adopted the anti-gunners’ line of thinking:  “I’m very much in favor of stopping people who engage in violence against their spouses from having guns,” the Georgia Republican said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I think that’s a very reasonable position.”  But the fact that this gun ban covers misdemeanors in the home is primary evidence that NON-violent people have been subjected to lifetime gun bans for things like:  shouting matches, throwing a set of keys in the direction of another person, spanking a child, etc.

[4] See H.R.1009, “States’ Rights and Second and Tenth Amendment Restoration Act of 1997,” introduced by Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-ID).

H.R. 2703, March 14, 1996 at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll066.xml .

S. 735, April 18, 1996 at:  http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll126.xml .

Both the above assessments are from Gun Owners of America

Clearly, neither candidate is a real friend of the Bill of Rights, and especially of the Second Amendment. Both are hell on taxes after all the whitewash has been removed. Both support the taking of fundamental rights away from people forever for less than felonious behaviors. Both believe in government running your personal day to day lives. Both are supporters of big government authoritarianism. Both are unacceptable, period…

* Here’s something to think about.*

January 15, 2012

Got this from a friend.

 

What others see plainly, we often ignore.

* Here’s something to think about.*

I remember asking dad about Castro when I was about 9 years old. I asked, “Is Castro a good guy or bad?”

Dad said…he couldn’t tell!! This was about 1955. We were living in Louisiana …at the time. Dad was in the Army there.

Cuba was fairly close and in the news a lot. The Cubans were asking the same question! Ike was president.

This past July, we had the pleasure of sharing a summer barbecue with a refugee from Cuba . Our dinner conversation was starkly different than most.

This refugee came to the United States as a young boy in the early 1960’s. His family was more fortunate than most, as they were able to
bring a suitcase…and $100 when they fled Castro’s newly formed revolutionary paradise.

Our dinner consisted of all-American fare: hamburgers, potato salad, watermelon and fresh ears of sweet corn. This is a menu shared with family and friends nationwide…while celebrating the birth of our beloved America …on the Fourth of July.

We began with a simple discussion about our country, and the direction it has taken since Barack Obama came to power. We shared the usual complaints about the sour economy and liberal social engineering emanating from the rulers in Washington .

But then he said it. The sentence came naturally. I assume it was unplanned. But it carried the weight of a freight train. “You know when Castro took power, none of us knew he was a Communist”.

We sat stunned. He continued, “Yes, we all thought he was a patriot, a nationalist. Before the revolution he didn’t sound like a radical.”

The comparison at this point was easy, and I interjected, “You mean just like Barack Obama?”

He responded; “Yes, just like Barack Obama.”

He continued, “We were all shocked as the government just continued to grab more power. First they said the revolution is over, so please turn in your guns. We all complied.”

I remember my uncle saying after it started; “Castro will only nationalize some of the big industries. He will never come and take our family hardware store!!” But that is exactly what happened. Castro started with the sugar mills and the large industries, but they eventually came and knocked on the door of our family hardware store. My family had run this store for generations. They said we now own the hardware store, you work for us. And that nice, large four-bedroom home you own…it is now our property also, and…you can move yourself and five children into two rooms of the house, because others are moving in with you.”

The lesson learned from this discussion, is a lesson most Americans refuse to hear. Political leaders can lie about their agenda and once in office…they can take totally unexpected turns.

If you had asked us three years ago if we thought General Motors would be nationalized, we would have never believed it. We could never contemplate a country where the rule of law, the most fundamental building block of a justice society…would be evaporating, just like it did in Castro’s Cuba in the early 1960’s.

But the news of injustice keeps increasing. Black Panthers are not charged with wrong doing by the U.S. Department of Justice…because their crimes are against whites. The bondholders of GM are stripped of their assets…without due process by the government! Governmental leaders are bribed in full daylight…only to have all investigation of the crimes stifled…by the Attorney General.

The U.S. borders are over run with crime and illegal activity, and the leaders in D.C. act as if it is important to protect the lawbreakers…while the innocent are killed and over run. When local communities attempt to enforce the law, they are ridiculed…and threatened as racists and bigots. They are sued by the very administration…entrusted with enforcing the law.

Without the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution is a sham!! Without the rule of law, our beloved America is swiftly becoming a country where only the well connected and politically powerful will be safe. As Michelle Malkin has so eloquently explained in her recent book…a culture of corruption has replaced honest government.

The only way this problem will be fixed, is by massive citizen action. All honest citizens that want to be treated equally, must come together…and demand that the favoritism, the bribes, the uneven enforcement of law…end now!! And yes, it can happen here…

Fresh Air from Utah; No, not Romney you silly liberal!

January 15, 2012
Two pro-gun conservatives recently announced they were running against Utah Senator Orrin Hatch.
This is welcome news for gun owners. In a Senate career that has lasted more than thirty five years, Hatch has not been a particularly good friend of the Second Amendment.
During negotiations over the 1986 McClure-Volkmer Firearms Owners Protection Act — designed to protect gun owners from abuses of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms — Hatch sat at the negotiating table next to officials of the ATF and argued against the pro-gun positions of Sen. Jim McClure.
Though a senior member of the Senate, Hatch did nothing to block camels-nose legislation slammed through by Republican leader Bob Dole in the late 1980s to regulate armor-piercing bullets and outlaw non-existent “plastic guns.”
As ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1993-4, Hatch refused to filibuster the Brady Law, even though it would have been possible to kill it.
He supported the 1996 Lautenberg amendment to impose a lifetime gun ban on people guilty of “domestic misdemeanors” – a term so amorphous that it could apply to spanking your kid or engaging in a verbal argument.
In the wake of the Columbine shooting, Hatch voted for amendments which would have effectively banned gun shows, made it more difficult to keep a loaded gun in your home for self-defense, and codified the Bush-era semi-auto import ban.
This package of legislation was stopped in a conference committee only after Hatch and others were pummeled relentlessly by tens of thousands of GOA activists.
In 2007, Hatch supported the Veterans Disarmament Act—which could strip the Second Amendment rights of honorably discharged veterans who seek professional counseling following traumatic wartime experiences.
Over the following two years, while GOA was working with pro-gun Senators to repeal the gun ban in national parks, Hatch voted against repeal before voting for it in 2009.
Last year, Hatch opposed an amendment offered by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) to exempt gun buyer information from the Obama administration’s virtually unlimited ability to seize “business records” under the reauthorization of post-9/11 legislation.
Sen. Hatch hasn’t exactly stood up to the Obama administration, either. He voted in favor of regulatory “czar” Cass Sunstein, who favors a ban on hunting and who would grant animals legal protections in court.
And, despite repeated pleas from GOA members, he voted to confirm Eric Holder as Attorney General. In addition to being mired in the Fast and Furious scandal, Holder was the point man on gun control for President Bill Clinton and is a vocal supporter of banning many semiautomatic firearms.
Thankfully, Orrin Hatch is facing a serious challenge in this year’s Republican convention.
Former State Senator Dan Liljenquist is a stalwart pro-gun conservative who understands the dangers of compromising with the likes of President Obama.
And State Rep. Chris Herrod also jumped in the race because, he said, “we don’t have much time to fix our challenges” as a nation. Both Herrod and Liljenquist are “A” rated on gun rights issues.
The candidates will face off in the state Republican convention in April. If no candidate receives more than 60 percent of the delegate votes, the top two vote-getters will run in a June primary.
Gun Owners of America welcomes the challenge to a Senator with a long history of compromising on Second Amendment rights.

Election 2012: Which candidates really believe like those that send them to foggy bottom do?

January 8, 2012

We often see in candidates the populist notion, or action that shows them to be followers of the wind. Bill Clinton being the most famous of those that rule by polls. Polls can, and are twisted by those that put the damned things together. Like statistics, they can always be manipulated to show whatever bias the pollster wishes to convey to further their position. Be that the NRA (full disclosure I am a Life Member.) or NOW.

However, answering questioneres about a subject can provide insights into a candidate. What follows is from an email from a pro gun advocacy group, NAGR, with a link following so that you may join or donate to the cause should you choose to do so.

With the Iowa caucuses just a few days behind us, and with New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada choosing their Republican candidates soon, I wanted to write to you and give you a quick update on the NAGR Presidential Survey program.

As you know, NAGR has mailed every candidate for President an official NAGR Gun Rights Survey.

Ron Paul is the only remaining Republican candidate who has returned his survey 100% in favor of gun rights.

Over the last few weeks and months, I’ve asked you to call the campaigns of Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry to demand that each candidate return their gun rights survey 100% in favor of the Second Amendment.

Believe me, your calls worked. Repesentatives from each of those campaigns called NAGR offices, demanded we instruct our members and supporters to stop calling and to send them a survey.

Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry were hurt severely in Iowa because they stonewalled gun owners by refusing to return their surveys, and I think the longer that Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney ignore gun owners, the more it will hurt them as well.

Each candidate has the NAGR Presidential Survey in hand. However, we didn’t stop the calls, and we won’t. Each of the remaining candidates needs to know that gun owners have a powerful voice and we will assume that silence is a sign that they are hiding an anti-gun position.

I have serious concerns about Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Perry. It’s their records that worry me.

Let me take a minute or two right now to remind you about the positions of the four Presidential candidates who have so far refused to return their National Association for Gun Rights Presidential Survey.

Mitt Romney:

So far Mitt Romney has refused to respond to his NAGR gun rights survey, perhaps because when Mitt Romney was Governor of ultra-liberal Massachusetts he signed a bill to ban an entire class of firearms.

Would he do the same thing — or even worse — as President of the United States? His record indicates that he would.

Mitt Romney supports the Brady Registration Act, mandatory 5-day waiting periods, mandatory firearms ID cards, the Federal Feinstein Gun Ban (so-called “assault weapons ban”) and he signed the Massachusetts Semi-Auto Ban in 2004.

He even went as far as to say that he supported Massachusetts’ tough anti-gun laws: “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them… I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”

And to throw fuel on top of Mitt Romney’s anti-gun fire, he received the endorsement of John McCain this week, who himself has recorded promotional commercials for anti-gun groups hell-bent on restricting our Second Amendment rights.

Rick Santorum:

If you’ve watched any of the Presidential debates, you’ve noticed that Rick Santorum claims time and again to be a “fighter” who has “led on conservative issues.”

Rick Santorum’s record on the Second Amendment, however, tells a different story.

In the 90s, he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, which stripped law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights for life, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouses wrist.

He voted for a bill in 1999 disguised as an attempt to increase penalties on drug traffickers with guns… but it also included a provision to require federal background checks at gun shows.

In 2000, Santorum voted to force pawn shops to require a background check on anyone coming into the store to sell a firearm.

And then he voted with gun-controlling Democrats Dianne Fienstein and Frank Lautenberg to mandate locks on handguns in 2005.

But worst of all, Rick Santorum has a storied history of bailing out anti-gun Republicans facing reelection.

Rick Santorum came to anti-gun Arlen Specter’s defense in 2004 when he was down in the polls against pro-gun Republican Pat Toomey. Specter won and continued to push for gun control during his years in the Senate.

He also supported and openly campaigned for anti-gun New Jersey governor, Christine Todd Whitman.

It certainly appears that Rick Santorum has no regrets about his past anti-gun record. Worse, it appears he’d be happy to continue along this path as President.

Newt Gingrich:

For those who have followed Newt Gingrich’s career, the revelation that he talks out of both sides of his mouth won’t be a surprise.

Despite claiming to be pro-gun, Newt Gingrich’s reign as Speaker was downright hostile to our Second Amendment rights.

Newt supports the Brady National Gun Registry, a national biometric thumbprint database for gun purchasers, the Lautenberg Gun Ban and the “Criminal Safezones Act.”

Newt doesn’t think the Brady Instant Gun Registry goes far enough — he wants thumbprints:

“I think we prefer to go to instant check on an immediate basis and try to accelerate implementing instant checks so that you could literally check by thumbprint… Instant check is a much better system than the Brady process.” — June 27, 1997

Gingrich may claim to be pro-gun . . .

But his record indicates otherwise, and his refusal to answer his NAGR survey should give any Second Amendment supporter cause for concern.

Rick Perry:

Texas Governor Rick Perry has received an earful from NAGR members over the past several months for refusing to return his Candidate Survey.

His strategy seems to be to tell gun owners “trust me” while keeping completely silent on what he would do about our gun rights if elected President.

Over the years, gun owners have learned that this is a failed strategy.

George H.W. Bush ran as a pro-gun candidate for President in 1988, but when elected, things changed.

First, he signed an Executive Order banning the importation of so-called “assault weapons.”

Not only that, but it was under President Bush that “Operation Triggerlock,” which dramatically increased funding and power for the BATFE, was implemented.

Of course, as Governor of Texas, Rick Perry did make some minor improvements in state law for gun owners.

It is, however, one thing to act pro-gun as Governor of a state like Texas and quite another to be a pro-gun President of the United States.

Please keep up the pressure on these four Presidential candidates who continue to stonewall gun owners.

Give each campaign a call and demand the candidates return their National Association for Gun Rights Presidential Survey — at once:

Mitt Romney: 857-288-3500

Rick Santorum: 603-518-5199

Newt Gingrich: 678-973-2306

Rick Perry: 855-887-5627

You and I know that we have the most anti-gun President in the history of our country right now in the Oval Office . . .

. . . but perhaps even more dangerous would be a Republican with a proven anti-gun history cutting backroom, anti-gun deals.

National Association for Gun Rights

Year in Review for 2011; Gun Owners of America

December 21, 2011
“In the 35 years since its foundation, the GOA has maintained its staunch opposition to any form of gun control, often taking a harder stand than the NRA.”Ben Garrett, award-winning journalist, newspaper editor and blogger
With your help, Gun Owners of America was able to accomplish quite a bit in 2011. We thank you for your support, which makes this e-mail and web service possible. In order to continue serving you into the next year, we hope that you will please consider either:
2. If you are already a GOA member, giving a gift membership to GOA to your family and friends during this holiday season.
As we approach the Christmas holidays, we certainly have a lot to be thankful for. Here’s a partial list of what we accomplished together this year.
January
* One of the first acts of the Congress in 2011 was to read the Constitution aloud, for the first time in history, on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte led the effort in the House and credited GOA for helping make it happen.
“I want to thank Gun Owners of America for early support of the idea to read the U.S. Constitution on the House floor and for taking the lead to rally the grassroots in support of the Read the Constitution effort,” Goodlatte said.
Of course, reading the Constitution is one thing, abiding by it is another. And that is a battle GOA brings to Capitol Hill on a daily basis.
*GOA began a year-long effort to call attention to Fast and Furious. This operation that was run out of the Justice Department helped criminals buy guns “legally” from American gun stores -­ with the hopes that the ensuing violence would drive calls for more gun control.
February – March
* GOA began warning its activists that anti-gun Democrats might try to attach gun control restrictions on a bill to reauthorize funding the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). These proposals included a ban on high capacity magazines; restrictions that would end gun shows; and, potentially, a provision stripping millions of gun owners of their rights by placing them on “watch lists” without any due process of law.
GOA worked on the Hill by putting pro-gun amendments into the hands of certain Senators. Our efforts to counter these disastrous proposals with pro-gun initiatives backed the gun grabbers into a comer and stymied their plans.
*GOA and its activists won temporary victories when the House voted to repeal the anti-gun ObamaCare law and to adopt the Boren-Rehberg amendment — which would defund ATF’s latest gun registry.
Gun Owners of America contacted every member of the House of Representatives prior to winning the votes on ObamaCare and Boren-Rehberg. Sadly, both of these victories were temporary, as the Democrat Senate refused to go along.
* GOA began a national campaign to defeat restrictive legislation introduced by New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D). Her bill, HR 308, would resurrect the ban on high capacity magazines which passed during the Clinton administration — but later sunset in 2004. (GOA will spend the year mobilizing gun owners against this threat, and can thankfully report that, by year’s end, her bill has remained bottled up in committee.)
April-May
* After President Obama nominated Goodwin Liu to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, GOA worked hard to alert Senators to his extreme, anti-gun record. Like many radical progressives, Liu believes that while our Second Amendment rights might have been necessary in the 1700s, they are no longer needed today. Thanks, in large part, to Liu’s radical views on the Second Amendment, his nomination was narrowly defeated.
* Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) tied the Senate in knots for more than a week fighting for a GOA­backed amendment which would have protected 4473’s and other gun records from blanket searches by the ATF under the so-called PATRIOT Act.
Because many leaders in his own party refused to back him, Sen. Paul was not successful this time, but he put a marker down that gun rights would not be violated without a fight from the pro-gun community.
Sen. Paul thanked “Gun Owners of America for their strong support of my amendment to protect the privacy of gun owners.”
June – August
* GOA activated its grassroots members in opposition to S. 679, the Cover-up Protection Act — a bill that would exempt hundreds of federal appointees from Senate confirmation, thus allowing the President to stack his administration with flaming anti-gunners.
This battle underscored the power of the grassroots — and the effect that phone calls and emails can have upon their elected officials. After hearing from thousands upon thousands of GOA’s activists, Capitol Hill staffers confided to GOA that key Senators reversed course and decided to add amendments which would require the most important Presidential appointments to still be approved by the Senate.
* The crescendo over the Operation Fast and Furious debacle continued to build. Dubbed as Obama’s Watergate, Fast and Furious highlights the extent that his corrupt administration will go to demonize gun owners. GOA has spent the first half of the year educating the media and the grassroots over Fast and Furious — and for its part, CBS and Fox News lead the media in covering this fiasco.
September
* GOA began to energize its grassroots in favor of concealed carry reciprocity bill introduced by Georgia Rep. Paul Broun. His bill (HR 2900) will allow law-abiding gun owners to carry out­of-state without requiring them to possess a concealed carry permit in the state they are visiting.
*Gun Owners of America briefed an important case before the U.S. Supreme Court earlier in the year — and, in September, we won! The Court handed down its decision in Bond v. United States, where the U.S. government had made a “federal case” out of a domestic dispute involving a Pennsylvania woman who injured her neighbor.
There was absolutely no reason why the federal government should have been prosecuting Carol Bond, as opposed to the local authorities. So GOA got involved with the intent to help drive the federal government back into the parameters as outlined in the Constitution — a result which will, most definitely, benefit gun owners.
October- November
* In late October, GOA began pressing hard for congressmen to start petitioning for Eric Holder’s resignation. Within a week, the number of Representatives calling for Holder’s resignation rose to more than two dozen — and the number has since doubled to more than four dozen.
* The Obama Administration issued regulations earlier this year requiring agencies to lie to the public under certain circumstances. GOA alerted its grassroots in October to these regs and urged Congress to defund the administration’s ability to enforce them. The Administration pulled the regulations within the week.
* In November, Gun Owners Foundation won a Supreme Court case in defense of a gun owner in Virginia. Russell Ernest Smith had been wrongfully convicted of “willfully and intentionally” making a false statement on his 4473 form when purchasing a firearm. But GOF believed that the government’s argument against Smith was specious.
So Gun Owners Foundation prepared its amicus brief and submitted it on behalf of Mr. Smith. GOF was the only group making the case that Smith’s conviction should be overturned. After waiting several months for the verdict, the Virginia Supreme Court announced its verdict … and Smith emerged victorious.
What’s both interesting and exciting in this case is that, in overturning Smith’s conviction, the judges used an argument that GOF had made — an argument which his own lawyer did not even make. GOF is clearly making an impact upon the courts in defense of gun owners’ rights!
* Concealed carry reciprocity legislation passed on the floor of the House by a 272-154 vote. Representatives had two bills to choose from — although the weaker bill passed. The battle now moves to the Senate, where GOA will work to amend the legislation with the provisions of HR 2900, the “constitutional carry” friendly bill.
December
* GOA worked hard this year to stall (or defeat) the nomination of anti-gun judges. One of Obama’s picks who stalled out was Caitlin Halligan, a judicial nominee with a history of anti­gun activism. But with most of the nation focusing its attention on the upcoming holidays, GOA had to call the troops into battle after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to ram through Halligan’s confirmation in early December.
* The response of Gun Owners of America members to the GOA alert was overwhelming and played an important role in defeating the confirmation of Halligan. On the Hill, Gun Owners of America briefed Senate offices right up to the time of the vote about the danger of confirming Halligan. Thankfully, in a procedural maneuver known as a “cloture vote,” Reid fell six votes short of getting the needed votes to move the nomination forward for a final vote.

Some thoughts on term limits

December 5, 2011

Like everything, term limits has it’s pros, and cons. Back in the day I helped the Libertarians spearhead the term limits law in Colorado, and yes, it got co opted by the Republicans. This was one time however when the Utilitarian came out in me.

We cleaned out so much dead wood and big government, I am the world types that I thought we had reached near political heaven…

That lasted about a handful of years and then we had to come to grips with the fact that now we didn’t have the quantity, nor the quality of freedom loving people willing to take a pay cut to serve in the Colorado legislature. (It barely paid minimum wage.)

Tabor was passed along with other laws that actually repealed laws that restricted the liberty and freedom of the people of the state. Private property laws were also reinforced. But then the inevitable happened.

I posted this in response to a thread over at Texas Fred’s. There are times when something appears to be the absolute best solution to a problem. Only to find out later that it really just backfired.

My wonderful adopted home was invaded. By miscreants from my actual home state, New York City, Chicago, and so on. Those people Californicated Colorful Colorado. Leftest of the worse sorts were elected, and most if not all the gains that had been made in the cause of freedom were abolished, or made toothless. Laws were passed that would insure that freedom loving people would have a difficult time getting elected, and gerrymandering reached heights that make the firestorm about that in Texas look like a schoolyard spitting match! Laws that take away your rights forever for less than felony behaviors or severe mental illness got their starts in Colorado during this time. Calling taxes something other than taxes started there as well.

And getting anyone elected that thought otherwise in any place besides conservative strongholds became all but impossible.

My point in all this is to remind everyone that most things in life have a double edged sword effect, and term limits is right there with all the rest of the unintended consequences.

How often must people be reminded that the grass is not always greener on the other side of the hill?

Political Correctness, gross morality, and Election 2012

December 3, 2011

Herman Cain tossed in the towel today, and that is as it should be. However, not because of the many accusations of questionable conduct and gross morality. His positions were flawed, period.

So then, who will be the next person sacrificed upon the alter of populism known as political correctness? More to the point why should we really care? As in who passes the political correctness tests that abound in today’s world?

I submit that I would rather have someone that has been tempered in the fire of life than any incompetent that has never tasted life for what it is. In other words; I would rather have a felon that has changed his / her ways in a position of power than anyone that has never tasted life as it really is. How the hell I ask, can a person that has never been knocked down tell the rest of us how to get back up, and fight back..? Back in the day a friend of mine was sent to prison. He made the unforgivable mistake of defending his wife, and a damned assistant district attorney decided that it would be an easy feather in his war bonnet to convict him. I think that my friend should have been awarded a medal of some kind… I know another person that went astray using illicit drugs. Today she happens to be one of the emotionally strongest people that I have ever seen, and helps others to gain that sort of strength. Yet another man that I know went to an unpopular war in southeast Asia, did what his nation asked of him, and came home to an ungrateful people that hated him. He responded in kind, and payed the price for doing so. Seven years in a place called Folsom Prison for basically defending himself. He’s had his rights restored, and now councils others that are coming home from not just one, but two unpopular wars.

Any of these people could be President, and a damned good one at that! Why? Because they have character. Character that has stood the test in the most trying of situations. What are we offered? A bunch of Lilly white types that can’t even cover their own butts while at the same time assuring us all that they indeed know what is better for us all than those that have or are living life could ever do.

 

U.N. abuse of U.S. may have a price; It’s about time!

December 2, 2011

Representative Joe Walsh (R-IL) has drafted a bill that would block U.S. funding to the United Nations if it seeks to implement gun control measures affecting U.S. citizens.

 

Despite victories by gun owners in elections and legislative battles throughout the country in recent years, on the international front gun control is moving quickly.

 

Most significantly, in 2012 the UN plans to release a final draft of the Arms Trade Treaty—a treaty that will have severe consequences for American gun owners.

 

Meetings are held behind close doors, but from information gathered by GOA we believe that the ATT will, at the very least, require gun owner registration and microstamping of ammunition.

 

The ATT will define manufacturing so broadly that any gun owner who adds an accessory such as a scope or changes a stock on a firearm would be required to obtain a manufacturing license.

 

It would also likely include a ban on many semi-automatic firearms (like the Clinton gun ban) and demand the mandatory destruction of surplus ammo and confiscated firearms.

 

President Obama, not surprisingly, welcomes the treaty. He knows that he is unlikely to get such radical proposals through the Congress, so the UN provides him a backdoor way to enact gun control.

 

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is also on board and began pushing for the treaty as soon as she was confirmed in her position. “The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area,” she said.

 

Since treaties must be ratified by the Senate, GOA is working continually to buck up weak-kneed Senators who might be pressured to ratify the treaty.

 

But the House, which controls the nations’ purse strings, can also play a role in killing the ATT (or any other anti-gun treaty, for that matter).

 

Rep. Joe Walsh’s legislation will cut U.S. funding to the UN if the international body imposes any restrictions on Americans’ gun rights.

 

This is a huge deal, because without the contributions of the United States, the UN would be crippled financially. According to government reports, U.S. taxpayers foot the bill for 22 percent of the UN’s regular budget and 27 percent of its “peacekeeping” budget.

 

American gun owners, in other words, are funding the organization that wants to do away with the Second Amendment!

 

Rep. Walsh is putting the UN on notice: back off our gun rights.

 

Entitled the “The Second Amendment Protection Act of 2011,” Rep. Walsh is now seeking original cosponsors to join him in the House. He plans to introduce the bill within the next week.

 

Rep. Walsh highlights for his House colleagues the necessity of his proposal, noting that:

 

It is the constitutional power of Congress to determine United States foreign policy through the ratification of international treaties;

U.S. Presidents, by signing on to treaties, have opened the door for international organizations to unilaterally regulate the lives of citizens of the United States;

 

International and transnational organizations force their rules on people of the United States through conventions, multilateral agreements, and nonratified treaties, such as agreements that affect the private ownership of firearms by law-abiding citizens; and

 

United States sovereignty is risked by domestic legal applicability of international treaties and executive agreements that have not been voted on and congressionally adopted through formal processes.

 

Let’s help Rep. Joe Walsh get as many cosponsors as possible. In the process, we’ll find out how many Representatives are willing to stand up to the behemoth United Nations in defense of the Second Amendment.

 

Click here to send your Representative a prewritten message.

 

 

 

 

Newtered; And the race tightens…

November 23, 2011

Newt Gingrich blew a hole completely through his foot. Again. Look candidates, illegal immigration is a major issue. Newt seems to think that pandering to a political correctness model that includes way too many people is an acceptable thing to do. I said it earlier this year that compromise with your fundamental values is not acceptable. This, combined with his half baked ideas about gun control, have made him an easy “NO” vote.

What will it take for these so-called “leaders” to figure out that we the people simply do not want a load of lawbreakers or their progeny here? Don’t we have enough home grown criminals?

What will it take for this same group of elites to figure out that we don’t want them messing with our fundamental and inalienable rights?

That is even when they, in their majesty, deem it to be for our very own good! We reserve certain things, such as the right to fail, unto our selves. Keep government out of our lives to the greatest extent possible while maintaining order and social discipline. Is that too much to ask..? It worked fairly well for most of our history.

Newts, political witchery and such…

November 22, 2011

From an email I received, and it is on target, no adjustments needed!

I know I don’t have to tell you, but politicians often say one thing but do the complete opposite — especially if they think no one is looking.

Newt Gingrich is the poster child for these sort of “flexible” principles.

I’ve been around the block a few times (I’m about to start my 20th year as a gun rights lobbyist) and dealt with literally thousands of candidates and politicians, but no Republican politician has managed to support and vote for anti-gun legislation and still proclaim that he is “pro-gun” more effectively than Newt Gingrich.

Don’t be fooled by his rise in the polls; Newt Gingrich has a long history of supporting gun control …

… and he has blatantly refused to return his National Association for Gun Rights Presidential Survey.

With more than three decades as a public figure, Newt is the quintessential political chameleon, shifting his views to reflect whatever is popular with the Washington, D.C. chattering class.

Make no mistake, while Newt may talk a solid conservative game, his record is that of a typical Inside-the-Beltway politician who will cut ANY compromise or make ANY deal with anyone for his own political or personal gain.

While Newt used the institutional gun lobby as a mouthpiece to convince millions of gun owners nationwide that “as long as he is Speaker, no gun-control legislation is going to move in committee or on the House floor,” he was working behind the scenes to pass gun control.

In 1996, Newt Gingrich turned his back on guns and voted for the anti-gun Brady Campaign’s Lautenberg Gun Ban, which strips the Second Amendment rights of citizens involved in misdemeanor domestic violence charges or temporary protection orders –- in some cases for actions as minor as spanking a child or grabbing a spouse’s wrist.(1)

Gingrich even called the anti-gun measure “reasonable,” and predicted that it would sail through his Republican-controlled House of Representatives with little trouble.(2)

The Lautenberg Gun Ban is one of the Congressional Republicans’ worst betrayals of gun owners, and those complicit in its passage deserve nothing but contempt from gun owners.

This gun control measure ranks right up there with the Brady Registration Act as the most aggressive gun control in America, denying hundreds of thousands of would-be gun owners the right to self defense.

Gingrich also stood shoulder to shoulder with Nancy Pelosi to pass the “Criminal Safezones Act” which prevents armed citizens from defending themselves in certain arbitrary locations. You and I both know that Criminal Safezones don’t protect law-abiding citizens, but actually protect the criminals who ignore them.(3)

As you can see, Newt Gingrich is no friend of gun owners, or small government conservatives. He simply can’t be trusted, and his record reflects his contempt not only for the truth, but his own integrity and the integrity of the very people he’s asking to vote for him to be the most powerful man in the modern world.

This is the same man who railed against the Obama bailouts of Fannie and Freddie Mac while receiving more than $1.5 million from Fannie Mae as a “consultant”(4) while his firm also raised $37 million to pass healthcare insurance mandates.(5)

 

He’s also the same man who sat next to Nancy Pelosi and insisted global warming was a man-made problem in need of a government-mandated solution. Now that he’s running for the Republican nomination, he doesn’t believe in global warming and calls the TV ad he did with Pelosi “inexplicable.” Please click here to watch the video.(6)

I’m concerned, though, that Newt’s snake-oil act is catching on.

It’s time for gun owners and liberty-minded, small government activists to hold Newt’s feet to the fire.

That’s why I need you to call the Gingrich campaign headquarters right now at (678) 973-2306. Demand that Newt Gingrich apologize for his past support of gun control, and make a dramatic turnaround statement of support to repeal the gun controls he’s supported.

Tell his campaign that you expect Newt to not only apologize for his past support of anti-gun measures but also to reveal where he stands on international gun grabs like the UN “Small Arms Treaty” and domestic anti-gun schemes like the banning of .50 caliber rifles.

Demand he quit stonewalling gun owners and return his National Association for Gun Rights Presidential Survey — at once. You and I both know that election season, when they’re begging for the votes of gun owners, is one of the best times to lobby candidates and politicians.

With Republican presidential primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina mere weeks away, it’s vital that gun owners know where the Republican candidates for President stand on important Second Amendment issues.

Newt’s record is as crooked as a dog’s hind leg. With a horrible voting record on Second Amendment issues, gun owners just don’t know which side Newt’s on.

Please call the Gingrich campaign headquarters right now at (678) 973-2306. Demand that Newt Gingrich apologize for his past support of gun control.

For Freedom,

 

signature

Dudley Brown

Executive Director

 

P.S. Newt Gingrich’s anti-gun record is too important — and dangerous — to ignore. That’s why I felt compelled to inform you.

His support for numerous gun controls is in direct contradiction to his current campaign statements.

Call the Gingrich campaign headquarters right now at (678) 973-2306. Demand that Newt Gingrich apologize for his past support of gun control.

The National Association for Gun Rights is working day and night to keep gun owners like you up-to-date on the presidential candidates’ records — please consider contributing to the effort by chipping in $15 or $20.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml

Associated Press, “Gingrich Favors Handgun Ban for Domestic Abuse Convicts,” Deseret News, Sept. 16, 1996.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml

http://www.freep.com/article/20111117/NEWS07/111170448/Newt-Gingrich-paid-least-1-5-million-consulting-Freddie-Mac-official-says

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gingrich-think-tank-collected-millions-from-health-care-industry/2011/11/16/gIQAcd72VN_print.html

The National Association for Gun Rights is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, single-purpose citizens’ organization dedicated to preserving and protecting the Constitutionally protected right-to-keep-and-bear-arms through an aggressive program designed to mobilize public opposition to anti-gun legislation. The National Association for Gun Rights’ mailing address is P.O 7002, Fredericksburg, VA 22404. They can be contacted toll-free at 1-877-405-4570. Its web address is http://www.NationalGunRights.org/

Not produced or e-mailed at taxpayer expense.

To help the National Association for Gun Rights grow, please forward this to a friend.

To view this email as a web page, please click this link: view online.

Help fight gun control. Donate to the National Association for Gun Rights!

NAGR