Posts Tagged ‘John McCain’

Musings After Midnight — With ear to the ground, more rumblings heard from the political landscape

December 24, 2013

Much has happened since the last time we met here on this forum, which has become our virtual fireside chat about the events of the day, the preservation of liberty, and other such issues of vital importance.

So, sit back and relax. Have a soothing beverage. Have a cigar. Or maybe the pipe. I have some of the finest tobacco to be found anywhere, courtesy of a local dealer who offers only the very best to his customers.

Recently I have discovered the pleasures of the corncob pipe. They are very inexpensive, which is probably why the higher end tobacco shops do not carry them. But I will guarantee you that you will get a mellow, fine smoke from these pipes that have a very long history.

I have to watch myself with this, though, because as an intermittent asthmatic, I cannot smoke like I want. So, I have to limit myself to special occasions.

Now, let’s get down to business.

As most of you already know I try to keep my ear to the ground to ascertain what is going on in the vast political landscape. And I must be quick to say that there is always something going on there. It is relentless. And some of the most important activity is that which we cannot see. The political underground is where the power is, where the forces of good make plans to keep the fires of liberty flickering…and where the evil forces reside in their attempt to snuff out those fires. These individuals rarely show their faces above the ground, except for the purpose of wearing masks. Masking is vital to the forces of collectivism and progressivism, for this is the only way they can succeed. Dangerous enemies of liberty would never make any headway if they told the truth to the public. Most Americans would find the ultimate ends of progressivism so repulsive, so untenable, so unconscionable, that they would relegate the proponents of such tyranny to the dustbin of worthless radicals who are not to be taken seriously, much less elected to public office.

Most progressives/collectivists are smart enough to know this. They know they cannot tell the truth. They know that telling the truth will mean the end of their movement. Their goals, their dreams, all they have worked for since the late 1800s would go up in smoke right before their very eyes.

Thus, the progressives must lie to get elected. They must lie to get their agenda and proposals accepted by the public. They must lie to get their proposed laws passed by Congress. And they must lie to the public once again about the nature of the fallout of that agenda.

Welcome to the world of the vast political underground. Nothing is as it seems in public. And I mean nothing. People are not who you think they are. Their real goals are usually the opposite of what they have led you to believe. This is the only way they can lure you into supporting them.

It just so happens that 2008 was the year of the perfect political storm. All of the various components of the collectivist agenda came together in one nightmarish superstorm, a demonic cyclone in which Marxists, Islamofascists, Nazis, totalitarians, liberals, and others who affirm the goals of collectivism/progressivism all coalesced together to take control of the White House and both houses of Congress, with supermajorities that insured the minority Party had no power whatsoever.

This demonic cyclone rammed through an unpopular law in the middle of the night with no support at all from the minority Party in either the House or the Senate. This has never happened in the history of the country. For the very first time in our history, a broad, sweeping law that would not only totally change and revamp the healthcare system but change the very nature of our Republic, was passed without any support from the Party not in power. In the past such sweeping legislation was passed with at least some bipartisan support in both houses of Congress. But not this time.

Not a single Republican voted in favor of Obamacare in either the House or the Senate.

Now, I want you to let that sink in for a bit. Conservatives such as myself have often bemoaned the fact that Republicans have been stymied and hamstrung by dangerous progressives (RINOS) who form what is known as the Republican leadership establishment. These Republicans often vote with Democrats on legislation that is denounced by conservatives. Yet when it came to Obamacare, even John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Lisa Murkowski, Olympia Snowe, John Boehner, and Eric Cantor voted against it. All of them, every single one.

That alone should have told us something about the danger lurking in the Obamacare law. And the very fact that Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Biden, Schumer, Hoyer, and others would ram through this legislation and approve it without ANY Republican support whatsoever, should have been enough to show the country that this crowd is not interested in “looking out for the people” or “reaching across the aisle for bipartisan solutions.” In a pig’s eye they were. They don’t care about you or me. They don’t want bipartisanship except when THEY are the minority Party. The ONLY thing they want is power, control, money, and bigger and bigger government. They wish to be the ultimate authority in all matters.

And now that we know what Obamacare is all about, we can understand why they rammed it through, why no Republican voted in favor of it, why they lied incessantly about its provisions, and finally, why Nancy Pelosi said, “We have to pass the law before we can know what’s in it.”

Most did not read it, for sure. But I will guarantee you that just as sure as the sun rises the ones in leadership knew full well what was about to happen, which is why they lied and why they did not want to tell us what was in the law. Even if they did not read the entire law, they had been fully briefed by the authors of it, such as Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (Rahm “Dead Fish” Emanuel’s brother), and David Cutter of Harvard, among others.

Yes, Pelsoi knew. Reid knew. Schumer knew. Hoyer knew. Even Kirsten Gillibrand, the junior Democratic senator from New York, admitted that she knew. Gillibrand has not been around that long. So what would lead us to believe that a junior senator knew but Pelosi, who has been around forever, did not? Such a notion is laughable. They ALL knew.

Oh, but if you like your current plan and your current doctor, you can keep them. You knew that didn’t you.

One commentator counted the number of times Obama made that promise to the American people. He got as high as 48 and quit counting. But now, the Fuhrer has relented and “allowed” people to keep these plans for an extra year. An extra year? Why not, like, from now on? And nevermind that most of these plans have already been cancelled due directly to the provisions of the Obamacare law, which forbids companies from offering to the public any plan that is not approved by Obamacare.

So, the Obama one-year extension comes just a tad late for most people. They have already been dropped. Their plans have been discarded in accordance with what the providers thought was the law. And now they are being asked to go back and resurrect those plans because Obama is taking a political shellacking from the public? Of course he is paying them off to sooth ruffled feathers. They are being bribed to continue supporting the Obamacare law. But no need for worry, any losses they incur will be more than compensated through health insurance company bailouts and hidden taxes in the new law that are designed to go directly to the insurance companies.

This is what it has come to, folks. If a private corporation had engaged in bribery, you and I both know what would happen. But not if government does it. What kind of a perverted standard is that?

These people are criminals. And those who aid and abet them are criminals, and that includes companies and voters who continue to support them in spite of their known lies and corruption.

Yeah, that’s right, I said it. If you support this bunch, you yourself must be a criminal. 

I can be most forgiving and accommodating toward those who were genuinely fooled by Obama and company. I realize that many people today are stretched to the limit. There are limits on their time, limits on their money, limits on their ability to keep up their mortgage payments, and the like. Many do not have the time or the energy to keep up with politics.

These people can learn a valuable lesson in all of this. Politics is important, and we had best pay close attention. We had best not accept what we are told at face value, but dig much, much deeper to get at the real truth. If you have learned these lessons sincerely, I can fully embrace you.

But if you can sit back and look at the lies of Obama, incessant lies, lies upon lies, lies he even told to you directly, making promises to you that he knew he could not keep, but he made them anyway just to get your support, and yet you still support this scam we call the Obama administration and their enablers in Congress, then I have no qualms whatsoever about telling you that you are aiding and abetting criminals. And you know what that means. People who support criminal activity become accessories to the crime. That means you, yourself, are a criminal.

My friend, you need to do some deep, serious soul searching. You need to understand the gravity of your position. You cannot claim any regard for morality or ethics or spirituality of ANY kind if your heart is so corrupt that you can fully embrace the deception and debauchery of the present administration and their allies in Congress.

Now, at the outset I told you I had heard more rumblings from the political landscape that should be of great interest to you. Not all of it is good, but not all of it is bad.

First, the bad news.

I have become aware in recent days that in spite of losing significant support from the American people (Obama’s approval rating is down to only 37 percent), the Obama camp is most resilient and has incredibly deep support from leftwing financiers and those who are committed to the progressive vision for the country and the world. These people never give up. They have been around since the late 1800s under various and sundry names. Who would have thought that in 2008, after over 100 years since they first made waves in the world of politics, that they would show such considerable strength?

But when one looks at who, exactly, is in this movement, it soon becomes all too clear that we who oppose them have a most arduous task on our hands. They will not be easily defeated. Consider some of the main players: the leadership of the Council on Foreign Relations, George Soros and his various organizations, the Federal Reserve, Wall Street mega-banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the EPA, the FBI and the ATF, the NSA, the FISA Court, the IRS, John Podesta’s Center for American Progress, and murky financiers from the European Union and from radical Islamic nations who wish to influence U.S. policy.

Remember that the Clintons and Obama have been the recipients of thousands of political donations from overseas, the names of which have been kept secret. But what we do know is that Communist China has pumped money into leftwing politics in this country. So have Islamic extremist nations. No wonder the American Leftwing finds itself in bed with Islamic radicals, the “Palestinians,” the Muslim Brotherhood, and other like-minded groups. Following the money trail is always such an incredibly enlightening process.

Further, we have seen how far the Obama camp will go to achieve their goals. Lying to the public is only part of it. We now know that the administration manipulated the unemployment figures just two months prior to the 2012 elections. Many of us said at the time that something was amiss, that what we were observing in the corporations and small businesses at the time was not consistent with the unexplained, sudden drop in the jobless rate in September of that year.

Well, now we know that the administration had cooked the books. The real unemployment rate (that is, as “real” as the government can be) was at least three-tenths of a percent higher than what was being reported. This meant that an unemployment rate of 8.1 dropped, in one month’s time, to 7.8 — just in time for the presidential election. Obama could then claim, “My policies are working.”

Of course, I had already outed the government on its false figures on unemployment, along with others who saw the same thing. The government has gradually changed the manner in which it calculates unemployment. At the height of the recession in 2009, the government claimed that the jobless rate was in the 8 to 9 percent range. But if we were to use the same method that was used during the Great Depression of the 1930s to calculate unemployment, the rate would be 20 percent…some economists placed it even higher than that. This matches the unemployment figures of the 1930s.

The Obama administration has never, ever counted as part of its calculation of unemployment the number of people who have quit looking for work in despair. Many have gone five years without a full time job, despite their best efforts. Many of these gave up after so much disappointment.

Well, guess what. When you drop out of the employment market, you are no longer counted as unemployed, in spite of the fact that you have no job.

How convenient for the administration and Congressional Democrats.

Thus, not only were the books manipulated by ceasing to count those who drop out of the job market in despair, but the administration cooked the books on its own skewed jobless figures. What they saw was a jobless rate of 8.1 percent. What they reported was 7.8 percent.

This is why I contend that nothing in this administration is as it seems to be. It is all smoke and mirrors. Manipulated figures. Outright lies and deception. And this has happened not once, not twice, but over and over and over again.

Fast and Furious. TARP I and II. The bailouts. The economic stimulus that wasn’t. Benghazi. Egypt. The Fox News-Associated Press eavesdropping scandal perpetrated by the Feds. The NSA spying scandal. The IRS scandal that targeted the Tea Party, conservatives, Christian groups, etc. And now the Obamacare scam.

“If you like your current healthcare plan, you can keep it. If you like your present doctor, nobody is going to take that away from you, period.”

Anyone who would do these things and deceive the American people this way, over and over, is not to be trusted. That should go without saying. But some Americans, apparently, are slow to learn. How can you trust someone who lies to you on a daily basis about the most important issues effecting your life?

And that is why I say we are entering a most dangerous period in this whole sordid saga. Obama and his minions have shown they will not hesitate to do anything to keep their power and to amass more power. They will lie, cheat, deceive, steal, bribe, and who knows what else, to maintain their current status as the kings and queens of the hill.

Now that millions of Americans are onto them, many for the first time since this crowd took office, the faceless, nameless figures of the vast army of underground operatives and thugs are probably becoming more desperate. In all likelihood they will become even more desperate as we edge closer to the 2014 midterm elections.

We have already seen at least some signs of their desperation. In Texas, cops set up a roadblock on a major roadway and took saliva samples from every single driver. Who ordered such an act of tyranny? Where were the court-issued warrants?

In addition, some trustworthy citizens are already sitting in federal prison on trumped up charges. You didn’t hear that from me. But if your government would lie to you about your healthcare, what is to prevent them from arresting you simply because they don’t like your views? If they decide you are expendable, then off you go to prison.

And remember, New York State has already implemented a provision of its new gun and ammo law that encourages citizens to turn in their family members, neighbors, and friends if they have seen them loading more than seven bullets into a gun in the privacy of their homes.

Any government entity that will do that will kill you if you get in their way.

We are not dealing with nice people here. They are not good, honest, trustworthy public servants. They are deadly tyrants.

And so, my friends, we are going to see increasing confrontations between the forces for liberty and the forces for government control of our lives. The rubber is about to meet the road. Are you ready?

And let me be very clear about one thing. If you wish to deprive me of my guns and ammunition, then you are not for liberty and you are not my friend. If you wish to dictate to me what I can and cannot eat, what I can and cannot drink, what I can and cannot smoke, and such, then you are not for liberty and you are not my friend. If you wish rob me of my right to have the doctor of my choosing, and the healthcare plan of my choosing, and even the right to decide I don’t want any damn insurance at all, then you are not for liberty and you cannot be my friend.

It all boils down to liberty vs. tyranny. Freedom vs. slavery. If you support measures that restrict my liberties and freedoms, then you are automatically for tyranny and slavery to an all-encompassing, all-powerful central government. There is no middle ground here.

That’s the bad news. Now for the good news.

Patriots all across this land are awake and paying attention. In some ways the Obamacare debacle was a blessing in disguise. It woke some people up who have not been awake in years, and not even Benghazi, the NSA spying scandal, or Fast and Furious could wake them. But Obamacare sure did.

It is very personal, and sobering, when you believed your president when he promised you that you could keep your current insurance plan and doctor if you like them, only to find that within the last seven weeks since Obamacare was rolled out you received a piece of mail telling you that since your current plan is no longer allowed by federal law, it has been discontinued and you are thus dropped from your insurance plan.

Yes, it is now very personal. As one lady put it, a 58 year old who received one of those letters, “He lied to me!!”

Well, he sure did. Now what are you going to do?

At least she is awake, and millions like her who thought they could trust Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and even Hillary, are awake as well. And they are damn mad.

Trust is a lot like toothpaste that leaves the tube. Once it is gone, it is awfully hard to get back.

This means that millions of people who were not watching closely before are now watching with a telescope. They are placing every word uttered by Obama and his minions to the test. Is this yet another falsehood? Another deception? Another ruse? Can I trust this smiling face? He seems so likable. But, but…he was smiling and entirely likable when he lied to me. So how can I trust these smiles? Maybe there is much more to a person than simply the likability factor. Ted Bundy was a charming individual too.

We as Americans have GOT to get over our obsession with how a person “comes across on TV.” We CANNOT accurately make judgments about a person’s character or trustworthiness based upon how they look on television. Those who know how to manipulate the masses through videos, TV, and such, are taught how to fool you. Even an actor is taught how to fool you. When you watch them in a movie, the name of the game is to get you to believe they ARE the person they portray on the screen. Nothing is wrong with that, for sure, but it makes my point. Those who know how to manipulate the masses through images are very good at fooling you, some for nothing more than entertainment purposes, but others for evil intent.

I’m glad that Clint Eastwood, Tommy Lee Jones, Robert De Niro, and others can so thoroughly entertain me by their ability to actually become a fictitious character on a movie screen. They are so very good at what they do. Good acting is one of life’s pleasures. But I don’t want my president to be a good actor. I don’t want him to fool me. And when he does, he loses something vital to governance — in a free society you cannot lead unless the people can trust that what you tell them is the truth.

And that is precisely what has been lost.

There are many ways that the liberty and patriot movement is making headway. Gone are the days when progressives in power can successfully enact gun bans. They tried, but they failed except in the most virulently blue states. Gone are the days when JBTs can perpetrate a Ruby Ridge, a Waco, etc, and not expect some sort of response from citizens who will not stand for oppressive violence by ANY government official.

Patriots are doing their part, most often in secret, away from public view. They are not violent in any manner whatsoever. But they ARE cunning and courageous. They know how to thwart the plans of tyrants under cover and without a single shot being fired. They are smuggling “illegal” firearms into states that have banned what most citizens would view as perfectly acceptable means of self-defense. But they are not going to allow government tyrants to deprive them of a guaranteed Constitutional right. So, the vast underground is very active, much as it was during Prohibition when again, government jackbooted thugs tried to prevent citizens from drinking alcohol.

How did that work out for ya, you progressive knucklehead?

And one more thing, my dear patriot friend, remember that as long as human beings long for the freedom to make their own decisions, chart their own course, live out their lives as they see fit, apart from the crazed nannies and social change agents of the surveillance state, then liberty will never be totally removed from the earth. It is much bigger than you or me. Liberty is part of our deepest longings, our hopes, and our dreams. People don’t dream of becoming slaves. They dream to be free, to fly, to be their own person as a competent, reliable, and self-reliant human being. This means our cause is part of the human spirit. It is part of our nature as human beings to want to live free. And that is why, in the end, we cannot lose.

SOURCE

Rep. Cheri Gerou (R-Evergreen) voting to restrict your gun rights Colorado

May 6, 2013
 

I’m not sure if you were able to read my message last week about Rep. Cheri Gerou (R-Evergreen) voting to restrict your gun rights and now working overtime to silence gun owners!

But you need to hear this…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7raB-X82zM&list=UUJdIbpK5kD-sQggDggzULdQ&index=1

Voting records and actions don’t lie; they reveal who people really are when (they think) no one is watching.
I hear some of the same responses nearly every time I call out a Republican on their anti-gun position:

“C’mon, you don’t say! A Republican wouldn’t actually vote with Democrats to take away our gun rights, would they?”

“She emailed me personally and told me not to listen to RMGO, she says you’re lying.”

And one of my personal favorites…
“It can’t be true; the NRA gave the legislator an A-rating.”

Of course if you’ve been following politics for any amount of time you know when it comes to defending the Second Amendment…

…liberal Republicans like Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and yes, even Cheri Gerou, consistently find a way to undermine our Constitutional rights.
But you already knew that.

, I don’t need to tell you politicians are shifty or underhanded or that they don’t just come out and claim to be anti-gun to your face.

In Gerou’s case, she voted against what the Colorado media labeled as the most controversial gun control measures.

But once the cameras were off and Coloradans’ attention was directed toward other issues like immigration and education, without missing a beat, Rep. Gerou voted to restrict your Second Amendment Rights.

That’s why RMGO keeps a weathered-eye on the issues even when they don’t garner the limelight.

Here are the bills that Rep. Gerou voted for this year:

  • HB 1043-Redefine a deadly weapon: Labels any firearm loaded or unloaded as a deadly weapon. This bill takes away due process by giving DAs the upper hand in the courtroom and makes it harder for honest citizens to defend themselves by adding an automatic assumption of intent.
    (House Republican Yes Votes: Gerou, Gardner)

  • SB 195-Stricter Requirements to Obtain a CCW Permit: Citizens shouldn’t have to fight through the bureaucratic red-tape to practice their Constitutional Rights. Unfortunately, this bill makes it even harder and more restrictive for honest law-abiding citizens to obtain a CCW Permit.
    (House Republican Yes Votes: Gerou, Gardner, Conti)

  • SB 13-Gives Peace Officer Status to the Secret Service: This bill gives the same person behind the infamous Fast & Furious scandal, Eric Holder, the power to arrest and detain Colorado citizens without due process through the use of the Secret Service, which Holder is appointed power over.
    (House Republican Yes Votes: Gerou)

  • HB 1306-Creates Mental Health Task Force: This bill aims to create legislation which could give bureaucrats the ability to violate your private health records and strip away your right to bear arms through a Government controlled databases.
    (House Republican Yes Votes: Gerou)

The truth is in the public records!

In fact, out of 28 House Republicans, Gerou was only one of three House Republicans to vote for gun control. Of the nine gun control measures Gerou voted on in the House, Gerou voted for anti-gun measures four times — the most of any Republican in the entire legislature!

Normally we don’t hand out grades at RMGO, but in this case we’re going to make a special exception for Rep. Gerou:

RMGO Grade – 55%-F

To make matters worse, now “representative” Gerou has filed an “ethics” complaint against RMGO Lobbyist Joe Neville in a radical attempt to silence pro-gun supporters at the state Capitol.

Despite being the instigator and aggressor in this incident, she had the audacity to have one of our staffers “investigated” by anti-gun tribunal.

While she claims RMGO is lying about her behavior, just take a listen to her testimony about the incident in the video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7raB-X82zM&list=UUJdIbpK5kD-sQggDggzULdQ&index=1

I don’t know about you, but to me, sounds like “representative” Gerou isn’t as pro-gun as she’d like you to believe.

You see, Gerou represents House District 25, the safest Republican seat in all of Jefferson County and also one of the largest support bases for the Second Amendment in all of Colorado.

This is why we believe Gerou is doing everything possible to block, shutdown, and firewall the public from knowing the truth about her anti-gun positions.

But those who know me know there’s nothing that infuriates me more than weak-kneed politicians playing fast and loose with our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

I will expose the records of those politicians from ANY PARTY who fail to stand up for our Second Amendment Rights, NO COMPROMISE!

I don’t work for one party or another. I work for the tens of thousands of pro-gun supporters just like you who expect me to protect and defend your right to keep and bear arms.

As the Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners that has been my promise to you and I intend to keep it.

So if you haven’t yet, please click here to help RMGO fight back against Representative Gerou’s radical attempt to silence gun owners.

, your donation of $100, $50, or even $30 – or whatever you can afford – will help us battle this onslaught.

Only together can we win this fight to preserve our constitutional rights.

For Freedom,

Dudley Brown Signature
Dudley Brown

P.S. Rep. Gerou voted for four of the nine anti-gun measures. This was the most of any Republican in the entire legislature!

Now, Gerou has filed an ethics complaint against RMGO Lobbyist Joe Neville in a radical attempt to silence pro-gun supporters at the state capitol.

So if you haven’t yet, please click here to help RMGO fight back against Representative Gerou’s radical attempt to silence gun owners.

Your donation of $100, $50, or even $30 – or whatever you can afford – will help us battle this onslaught.


Watching a dung beetle drag its “prey” back to its lair: Chuck Schumer

April 26, 2013

“Immigration reform could be a bonanza for Democrats [and] cripple Republican prospects in many states they now win easily.” — Politico, April 22, 2013

In 1984, California was sufficiently conservative so that it cast its electoral votes for President Ronald Reagan. It was not fiercely pro-gun, but, then again, it wasn’t New York.

But, in 1986, Reagan signed an immigration amnesty bill, called Simpson-Mazzoli. The bill was small compared to the current amnesty bill. Three million illegals benefited.

But that was enough to change California from a sometimes “swing state” to a state almost wholly controlled by Leftists. Within 20 years — and continuing to this day — California couldn’t pass enough gun bans, gun registration, ammunition limits, and ammunition registration.

So it is with some concern that Chuck Schumer’s amnesty bill (S. 744) which is currently on the table would cover 11,000,000 to 20,000,000 illegal aliens — four to seven times the size of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill.

We predict that, if the bill is passed, by 2035, the American electorate will have changed so fundamentally that California-style gun control could become a very real possibility in this country!

We know you’re tired. We have just fought a hard-fought battle over explicit gun control in the Senate — a battle which we won.

But it does strike us as interesting that the same gun control crazies who pushed gun control want to slam immigration amnesty through the Senate quickly so they can redirect their fire against us again.

Who are the chief architects of forging a more anti-gun electorate? Well, the chief sponsor of S. 744 is Chuck Schumer, and he is joined by other Second Amendment haters such as Dick Durbin (D-IL), Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and compromiser John McCain (R-AZ).

Over the next week or so, we’ll let you in on some of the anti-gun specifics of Schumer’s “amnesty bill,” as it’s correctly dubbed. But for starters, the bill would push us towards a biometric ID card, which is something that GOA has opposed for years — given that a de facto National ID poses a huge threat to gun owners’ privacy.

But then there’s the fact that Schumer’s “amnesty bill” requires the government to give its okay — in a Brady Gun Check-type procedure — before you could get a private job in America (section 3(c)(2)(A)(iii)). Does anyone not see why this might be a problem?

We’ve just gone through excruciating pain to stop the expansion of Brady Checks for guns. Now we turn around and the same parties who were pushing that are now pushing Brady Checks for private jobs.

It’s ironic that those pushing for background checks are adamantly against ID’s for voting because that would disenfranchise the elderly, the poor, and minorities. Hmm, so they do understand that background checks — as a prior restraint — are a fundamentally flawed concept?

But this is where the real fun starts. You feed the potential employee’s info into a government database and, according to Senator Durbin, “up pops a picture.” And, says Durbin, “if that picture doesn’t match [the one on your ID], you may not be employed.”

The Brady Check deals with a list of names which is in the millions. It deals only with things like names and social security numbers, not pictures. Yet it gives “false negatives” 8% of the time. And if you’re one of those 8% who are illegally denied a gun, the FBI’s response, more often than not, is “So sue us.” If this weren’t bad enough, the system breaks down for days at a time — normally the times when the most people need it.

Do we really want to expand this flawed concept to other areas of our lives?

If this weren’t bad enough, we know that, once the government has to give its approval before you can do something, it’s an almost iron-clad guarantee that it will exercise that power in a political manner. Under the Brady Check system, 165,000 law-abiding honorable veterans have lost their gun rights, not because they have done anything wrong, but because they sought counseling from the VA on the basis of a traumatic experience in the military.

Watching Schumer explain on the Senate floor why those veterans should lose their constitutional rights without any court order — while he vigilantly defends due process for foreign terrorists — is like watching a dung beetle drag its “prey” back to its lair.

So we know 165,000 non-politically correct veterans lost their gun rights under Brady Checks. Who will become politically incorrect unemployable non-persons under Brady Checks for Jobs?

Now, one would think that the fact that one million people in Boston were put under house arrest last week because our current immigration system allowed two asylum-seekers from terrorist-filled Chechnya to become legal residents and, in one case, a citizen of our country, will put the skids on the “inevitability” of Schumer’s amnesty bill. After all, gun control was “inevitable” too.

But the bottom line is this: Just as we saw the gun ramifications of ObamaCare, we will also see the problems with a bill that alters the electorate in such a way that the Second Amendment will cease to exist. In doing so, we will need to make sure that we don’t have most of our guns registered or confiscated in 2035 because short-sighted politicians listened to MSNBC and turned our country blue.

But we will also make sure that we do not take bad gun law and turn it into bad employment law.

ACTION: Click here to contact your Senators and ask them to oppose the anti-gun Schumer amnesty bill (S. 744).

Schumer, like Bloomberg et al seem to be one hundred percent on the wrong side of things one hundred percent of the time!

 

NRA positive rated sellout politicians; They will still be rated as good on guns no doubt!

April 12, 2013

Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) – NRA A rated

Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) – NRA A rated

Richard Burr (N.C.) – NRA A rated

Saxby Chambliss (Ga.) – NRA A rated

Tom Coburn (Okla.) – NRA A rated

Susan Collins (Maine) – NRA C+ rated

Bob Corker (Tenn.) – NRA A rated

Jeff Flake (Ariz.) – NRA A rated

Lindsey Graham (S.C.) – NRA A rated

Dean Heller (Nev.) – NRA A rated

John Hoeven (N.D.) – NRA A rated

Johnny Isakson (Ga.) – NRA A rated

Mark Kirk (Ill.) – NRA F rated

John McCain (Ariz.) – NRA B+ rated

Pat Toomey (Pa.) – NRA A rated

Roger Wicker (Miss.) – NRA A+ rated

13 of these Senators have NRA “A-ratings.”

SOURCE

The “Schumer Sell-Out”

February 26, 2013
Anti-gun Sen. Charles Schumer‘s staff is leaking out to the press the Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn is “on the verge” of caving in and agreeing to a ban on private gun sales — and requiring virtually every American to get the government’s approval before exercising their constitutional right to become a gun owner.
According to The Washington Post (2/23/13), the remaining sticking point is Coburn’s reluctance to require a 4473 for every private transaction.  Were this to occur, ATF’s practice of going into gun stores and copying all the 4473’s — a practice which has been documented by GOA — would soon produce a national gun registry.
Schumer’s people have also let it be known that they may have Susan Collins (R-ME), John McCain (R-AZ), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) in the bag.  (Note to gun owners in these states:  These Senators really need to hear from you!)
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the final version of the “Schumer sell-out” prohibits any paperwork from being kept on private gun sales.
Even then, the “Schumer Sell-Out” would still result in one out of seventeen legal gun purchases being permanently and illegally blocked. 
According to scholar John Lott, 8% of all gun purchases are currently blocked by the FBI.  But, according to a recent study by the Department of Justice, only 1.8% of the 8% are blocked because they are “denied.”  That means that 6.2% are neither “denied” nor “approved.”  However, because most gun sellers won’t sell a firearm under these circumstances, even after three days, these legal gun purchasers are permanently denied their constitutional rights by bureaucratic fiat.
Although the FBI is legally required to state a reason for blocking a gun purchase within five days, it NEVER complies with the law — daring purchasers, instead, to “sue us.”  Most purchasers, lack the means to do just that.
What if one out of seventeen lawful voters was illegally turned away from the polls?  What if one out of seventeen innocent men was illegally sent to prison?  What if one out of seventeen newspapers was shut down?  None of these would be acceptable to anti-gun zealots who, with relish, deny the right of legitimate gun purchasers to exercise their Second Amendment rights one out of every seventeen times.
The “Schumer Sell-Out” would still strip 150,000 veterans of their Second Amendment rights with no due process whatsoever.  Sure, there will reportedly be throwaway language, supposedly allowing veterans to get the constitutional rights back.  Schumer fooled Coburn into accepting comparable language on a 2008 law, but it never had any impact.  The problem is not “getting their rights back.”  The problem is preventing their rights from being unconstitutionally stripped — with no due process whatsoever — in the first place.
Under the 2008 Schumer legislation, the Obama administration can use a psychiatrist’s diagnosis to strip veterans and others of their constitutional rights.  No court order is needed.  Soon, under Obama’s Executive Action Number 1, millions of Americans with ADHD, and even post partem depression could have their gun rights taken away with a keystroke by Medicare, Medicaid, and the Department of Education.  Firemen, policemen, and soldiers with PTSD could also lose their gun rights under the “Schumer sell-out,” and there’s nothing they could do about it.
The “Schumer Sell-Out” would exacerbate the problem with NICS system breakdowns during weekends and black Fridays — blocking all gun purchasers.
 
The “Schumer Sell-Out” would strip farmers and Americans in rural areas of their Second Amendment rights.  Sure, there is a possibility that Schumer will accept do-nothing language in the Brady Law protecting remote Alaskan villages.  But millions of Americans would still have to travel hundreds of miles (accompanied by their sellers) in order to transfer a firearm to their next-door neighbor — hoping desperately that they’re not among the 6.2% of Americans who get a non-committal response from the FBI.
The “Schumer Sell-Out” would still be ineffectual to stop Adam Lanza (who stole his guns) and James Holmes and Jared Loughner (who passed background checks).  In fact, an internal Department of Justice memorandum concedes that it would be almost totally ineffectual.
As a result, the main purpose of the “Schumer Sell-Out” remains, and has always been, to “break the back of the gun … lobby” and to serve as a platform for the next round of gun control.
The Sunday New York Times (2/23/13) pointed out what this is all about.  According to the Times, Schumer is jealous to protect the 13 Democratic seats in pro-gun states which will come up in 2014.  Press reports ascribe Coburn’s role as being one who will “provide cover” for Democrats running for reelection.
From a purely partisan standpoint, the GOP should realize that guns will serve as a powerful political weapon for them, unless Coburn’s acquiescence to the “Schumer Sell-Out” takes guns off the table.  In places like Arkansas and Montana, 95% of all voters would no doubt oppose the “Schumer sell-out,” as 95% of NRA members and 96% of 25,000 GOA members did in recent surveys.
Conversely, the “Schumer Sell-Out” will revitalize and engerize the handgun control movement.
 
Finally, the “Schumer Sell-Out” will give Obama the aura of invincibility and make it virtually impossible to stop the rest of his agenda.
If Sen. Coburn really wants to “compromise” with Schumer, he should make Schumer give up some ground and demand that Congress repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act.  Now, that would be a real “compromise” that would save lives!
ACTION:  Contact your U.S. Senators and ask them to oppose the “Schumer sell-out.”  Click here to send a prewritten message to your Senators
Please note that there are two different action responses for you to send, and the system will automatically send that response, depending upon whether your Senator is a Republican or Democrat.

McCain may be working to stab us in the back, and what else is new..?

January 4, 2013
Whether the Semi-Auto Ban Passes May
Depend on What Happens to the Senate Rules

McCain may be working to stab us in the back

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is still trying to rig the Senate rules so that President Barack Obama can get his anti-gun and anti-Constitution agenda passed.

But first, here’s some good news.

GOA activists like yourself are having an impact!

Prior to the New Year, the reports coming out of Washington, DC indicated that Senator Harry Reid was going to nuke the filibuster on the first day of the new Congress (which would have been yesterday).

But Politico, which is one of the official papers of Capitol Hill, reported yesterday that Reid still doesn’t have the votes — despite having a Democrat majority.

The Politico headline blared:  “Reid expected to Postpone Filibuster Rule Change:  May buy time for a bipartisan bill.”

This is somewhat good news, as it means that Reid still can’t cram a rules change down our throats, limiting the ability that pro-gun Senators have to filibuster (or kill) anti-gun legislation.

But here’s the bad news:  Reid is working on a “compromise” where certain RINO’s like John McCain will help Reid do his bidding.

What’s at stake?

Well, The Blaze reported yesterday that Vice President Joe Biden “guaranteed” to ailing Boston Mayor Tom Menino that sweeping gun control legislation would be passed by the end of January.

How sweeping?

A quick look at Feinstein’s semi-auto ban legislation suggests that up to 75% of all handguns currently in circulation would be banned, along with as much as 50% of all long guns.

Depending on its configuration, the AR-15 you already have would probably be treated like a machine gun.  You would have to be fingerprinted, background checked by the FBI, and undergo a six-month license application process to keep it.  And when you die, the government will seize it.

If you don’t get an NFA license, you can expect the SWAT teams to descend on your house.

But, you ask, how could such rabidly anti-gun legislation ever get past Congress?  Well, legislators could simply follow the path they took on the fiscal cliff, where they bludgeoned a minority of Senators into accepting several, coerced short-cuts in regard to the Senate rules.

However, these forced short-cuts would now become mandated and set in stone if Harry Reid & Co. get their way.

Under one new “compromise” being floated on Capitol Hill, the Senate would change its rules so that it could pass a gun ban with only 50 votes (plus the vote of Vice President Joe Biden).  Or legislators could write the gun ban in a House-Senate conference committee on a “must-pass” bill, employing a tactic that is frequently used to pass controversial legislation.  Democrats like West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, Nevada’s Harry Reid, and Pennsylvania’s Bob Casey — who will not have to run for reelection for a while — will cast “courageous” votes for this gun ban.

And it will hit the House with enormous momentum — momentum which House Speaker John Boehner (who has already called for a dialogue on gun control) may not have the courage to resist.

But the first step will be to demolish the Senate rules so that gun control only requires 50 votes — or so that gun control can be inserted in a House-Senate conference report on a must-pass bill.  And this is where John McCain comes in.

GOA working with Senator Rand Paul to preserve the filibuster

McCain was irritated at Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who worked with Gun Owners of America on a variety of pro-gun issues that slowed down his defense funding bill.   So McCain would not lose any sleep if his rules “compromise” diminished our ability to kill anti-gun legislation in the future.

McCain is now working with Leftist anti-gun Senator Carl Levin on a series of rules changes to make gun control a lot easier to pass.

The first McCain-Levin rules change would make it impossible to fight — what’s known in Washington as — the “motion to proceed.”  Remember ObamaCare?  Our last real shot to kill ObamaCare was by filibustering the “motion to proceed” to that anti-gun legislation.  Once the motion was adopted, the bill became amendable and Harry Reid could play “let’s-make-a-deal.”  So this change would eliminate our last real opportunity to set up a roadblock and keep anti-gun legislation from even being considered.

The second McCain-Levin rules change would make it easier to add gun control to a bill in conference.  Currently, senators can block a House-Senate conference from considering an anti-gun bill.  But if the McCain proposals are adopted, a “must-pass” bill could be sent to conference … amended in conference with a draconian gun ban … and then sent back to the House and the Senate on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

McCain will try to tell you that that inserting a gun ban into a bill that is sitting in a House-Senate conference would be outside the “scope of conference.”  But that would be a lie, because as any Senator knows, “scope of conference” rules are never followed.  For example, the Gramm-Rudman spending guidelines were written in conference from the ground up.

The third McCain-Levin rules change would block any amendments except for those offered by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell or Floor Manager John McCain.  All other senators would be left out in the cold.

This McCain-Levin package must be stopped.

We are currently working with Senator Rand Paul, who is planning to offer a GOA-originated amendment requiring a two-thirds vote in the Senate before any anti-gun measure can be passed.

We know.  We know.  If it were up to us, gun control would not be able to be passed with 100 votes.  But we need to propose something which will pass the Senate.

So we need your help in opposing the McCain package and supporting the Paul amendment.

ACTION:  Click here to contact your Senators.  Demand that they (1) oppose the McCain-Levin package to make gun control easier to pass, and (2) support the Rand Paul amendment to require a two-thirds vote to enact gun control.

 

“Blame Bush” With “Blame Romney” anything but blame where blame is due!

September 23, 2012

Has Mitt Romney sewed up the 2012 election and begun issuing policy pronouncements via the Office of the President-Elect?  That’s what you’d think to hear mainstream news commentators tell it.

Witness the media uproar over Romney’s absolutely true, courageously firm observation that President Obama’s State Department is more interested in sparing the feelings of Muslim terrorists than standing up for American values.

Rather than evaluating and refuting his charges; rather than critically reexamining Obama’s approach; rather than considering the repercussions of the President’s conciliatory stance toward our enemies; liberals… blamed the crisis on someone who doesn’t even work for the government.

Rachel Maddow cried that we were in the middle of a tense, hair-trigger confrontation requiring suave diplomatic prowess, and that Romney may just have sent rioting protestors over the top.

Newsflash, MSNBC hosts: Rioting protestors were already over the top—literally, in the case of the embassy walls they scaled and the black Al Qaeda victory banners they hoisted after tearing down and burning American flags in Egypt and Libya.

Fanatic Muslim savages don’t need an excuse to wreak havoc against the West.  A few boilerplate conservative statements by an American presidential candidate don’t rouse them from a stance of tranquil tolerance to one of prickly outrage.  They’re already perpetually in a state of prickly outrage.

Rioters didn’t require a shoddy 14-minute YouTube film trailer to cause mayhem on September 11.  They were already sufficiently motivated to murder American ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and drag his body through the streets.  Even the Obama administration now admits that Stevens’ murder was a terrorist attack, and new evidence suggests that Al Qaeda was behind it.

But by liberals’ calculation, the real policy-driver, the de facto Commander in Chief, the actual mover and shaker who’s screwing up the Middle East, is an unemployed father of five struggling to keep even with Obama in the polls.

Consider the essence of Democrats’ “Blame Bush” strategy, which they initiated at the height of the 2008 presidential campaign season and have continued right up through August’s lousy job numbers.  Remember that their approach did not merely take Bush to task for things he did wrong.  Most conservatives will happily rattle off a laundry list of complaints about Bush, from his expanding government entitlement programs to his failing to win the Iraq War early and decisively enough.

No, “Blame Bush” was the catchall excuse Democrats evolved to protect Obama from unflattering comparisons to the far more experienced Republican candidate Senator John McCain, and from criticism of his handling of the economy and international relations once President.

Obama wasted four years spending the country into oblivion; but when we failed to recover from the recession, Democrats blamed Bush for leaving him an economy much worse than was imaginable by anyone, including liberal economists we were supposed to trust regarding the restorative effect of Obama’s stimulus bill.

Obama spent four years bowing and scraping before our enemies; but when he pledged to sit down and talk with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions, and Iran responded by defying the international prohibition on continuing its nuclear weapons program, Democrats blamed Bush for creating a hostile negotiation environment.

If Mitt Romney is elected president, Democrats’ strategy will transition from blaming everything on Bush to blaming it on Romney, as though Obama’s four-year stint in the White House left no trace.

But I don’t know anyone who anticipated that Democrats would be desperate enough to start blaming the unelected Romney for Obama’s failures.

Of course the real culprit behind the foreign policy debacle in Libya and Egypt is not Romney but Obama.  It was Obama’s State Department that failed to adequately secure the breached embassies ahead of 9/11, despite warnings of attacks; failed to deploy Marines to secure the premises; released from Gitmo a detainee involved in the attacks; fell all over themselves to issue apologies for Americans’ trampling on Muslim sensibilities; harassed the director of the trailer for making the video, Pastor Terry Jones for promoting it, and Google and YouTube for hosting it; and spent four years denying that America stands for any particular virtues that are superior to those of any other country.

(Does Obama really think having a half-Indonesian sister so endears him to the Muslim world that his State Department doesn’t need to raise the security level a notch at Middle Eastern embassies every time 9/11 rolls around?)

Mitt Romney’s Libya statement—like his 47% “gaffe” earlier this week—provided a badly needed kick in the pants to a nation accustomed to four years of Obama.  Romney’s clarification of the situation in Libya and Egypt constituted the proverbial wakeup call: “The first step in realizing our country is weak under Obama is realizing we have a problem.”

But who will Democrats blame Obama’s failures on for the next four years if Romney loses?

Previously published in modified form at Red Alert Politics

Turncoats add more fuel to the fire: Republicans Jon Kyl and John McCain (AZ), Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander (TN), Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe (ME), Jeff Sessions (AL), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Scott Brown (MA), and Lindsey Graham (SC)

February 24, 2012

Last week, we alerted you to a radical anti-gun nominee President Obama named to the federal bench, Jesse Furman.

To no one’s surprise, Furman is cut from the same judicial cloth as other Obama nominees such as Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

For instance, in an article published a number of years ago—but from which Furman has not distanced himself—he writes that: “Probably the best explanation for the amount of violent crime in the United States is its fascination with guns.”

GOA members flooded the Senate with emails, and many Senators voted against Furman.  But Majority Leader Harry Reid kept every single Democrat in lock-step with the Obama agenda, and Furman was confirmed to a lifetime appointment to the bench on a vote of 62-34.

Republicans Jon Kyl and John McCain (AZ), Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander (TN), Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe (ME), Jeff Sessions (AL), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Scott Brown (MA), and Lindsey Graham (SC) joined all Democrats in voting for Furman.

This vote serves to highlight the difficulty in protecting the courts from anti-Second Amendment nominees who come before the Congress.  Obama will continue to nominate far left gun grabbers, and Harry Reid will be his go-to guy for confirmation votes.

And if Obama wins a second term, his agenda will become only more brazen.  That’s why a top goal of GOA in 2012 is to help elect as many truly pro-gun friends as we can to the U.S. Senate.

It is crucial that Harry Reid does not retain the gavel next year.  But it is not enough to just elect members of the opposing party.  We need to elect strong candidates who understand the Constitution and who will not bow to pressure from the White House—whoever the occupant may be—or from the leadership of either party in the Congress.

Thank you for standing with GOA as we fight these battles on a daily basis.\

Sincerely,

Tim Macy
Vice Chairman

 

PS  To support our ongoing lobbying efforts with a financial contribution, please click here.

We have simply got to remove these anti liberty and freedom big government authoritarian sycophants from positions of power. Look at that list, and remember when it comes time to vote.

SOURCE

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

Matt Mead: A clone of John McCain..?

August 31, 2010

The Republican nominee for Governor in Wyoming appears to be just another Republican in Name only. What the hell do we need that for?

CHEYENNE — Sen. John McCain says he is a supporter of the second amendment and proudly wears his endorsement by the NRA, even though he clearly joined gun grabber and Brady poster boy Mayor Bloomberg. You see, McCain was involved in a multi-state campaign against gun shows in an attempt to pass legislation he couldn’t get passed in his own state of Arizona.

Sadly and similarly Mead advertised he was a lifetime NRA member and gun collector and when questioned about fighting on the side of the feds in “BATF vs. Wyoming”, Mead shrugged it off as questionable information by “some blogger that refused to speak with him”. The truth is this is the first documented lie in his campaign.

As the Director of Wyoming Gun Owners I spoke with him not just once but two times. And so you know, Mead told me “he was just doing his job”. Certainly Mead wanted this withheld from the campaign trail and said anything but the truth to cover it up, so much for “integrity”.

When it comes to spending, Senator John McCain has out spent his rival spending more than $20 Million, that’s six times more than his opponent.

Again, similarly here in Wyoming Matt Mead spent a record amount of his money, a whopping 81% (that’s about $900,000) of his reported campaign finance came out of his own pocket. How do you spell D.C. style politics?

There are other similarities between Mead and McCain including statements that are designed to communicate to a more conservative base, even though past history reveals they were personally committed to a more liberal base.

Although widely unreported this moderate stance of Matt Mead is even more evident in how he was elected to office. There was an estimated “switch-voting” of up to nine thousand votes. In case you don’t know what this is, it is where Democrats changed their party affiliation at the polls so they could vote for the most liberal Republican candidate, in this case Matt Mead was the beneficiary. A Liberal state employee blogger mentions it here in – At the polls, Democrats are switching over in large numbers.

Another fact, the newspaper that endorsed Barack Obama went out of their way to stump for Matt Mead and after the elections many Democrat voters echoed the Casper Star Tribune endorsement saying, Mead would be most like Freudenthal.

Did I mention Obama-Care is now even closer?

I’m going to end with this, if the people of Wyoming want so much to keep Freudenthal and his policy of licking the boots of the federal government, why didn’t they suggest removing his term limits? I’m just saying….

Related Articles:

Matt Mead for governor, plagued by anti-gun past

Matt Mead for governor, the next liberal champion to be adored by the media

The NRA endorses anti-gun McCain

SOURCE

Be sure to check the comments at the sourced page folks!


%d bloggers like this: