Posts Tagged ‘Politics’

Epic Fail obama throws a temper tantrum

January 30, 2010

The impostor in chief acted like a two year old when he showed up at a GOP retreat. Just what we need in a POTUS right?

WASHINGTON – President Obama dove headfirst into the belly of the GOP beast Friday – and left the not-so-loyal opposition bleeding on a Baltimore ballroom floor.

He skewered Republicans for obstructionist tactics, dubious facts and a lack of civility in opposing his domestic agenda, especially health care reform.

Let’s see Mister President. You can’t seemtofigure it out, so I will address just a few of the issues that have the people of America not just angry, but thoroughly ticked off at you, and your gang of thugs!
  • Health care is for us to decide about not you, or any of your czars!
  • Cap and trade is nothing but a money making scheme that will cripple our economy even further.
  • Man made climate change is a farce. Call it what it is and get on with business…
  • Your closet attempts at gun control will only lead to a full blown revolution. Molan Labe!
  • The American people are against illegal immigration as well as any sort of amnesty for those that broke our laws. Figure it out bright boy!
  • Taking over private business’s should be done through our quasi free market system, not by politicians.
  • We really are in a war on terrorism, and as of late most terrorist’s are muslims. Admit it, and do your job as CIC.
  • Americans do not bow to foreign leaders, ever!
  • The stealth approach to gun control via the U.N. isn’t so stealthy, read above.
  • You hired a pervert to be “safe schools czar?”
  • The economy will not be helped by more Keynesian socialism. Stop spending our grandchildren’s  heritage.
  • Lastly, stop blaming Bush, it’s your agenda now.

No Mister obama, it’s not the Republicans. It is the American People that are against you, your programs, and the thugs that you have working on your team…

Tax Increases Out the Wazoo‏

January 28, 2010
Thanks to Lakewood activist Natalie Menten for alerting us about these debilitating tax increases to be heard very soon…
“On Wednesday, January 27, multiple bills raising taxes (through eliminating tax exemptions) will be heard in the House Finance committee. I’ve listed the worst bills below. Click on the bill number to read the text.

These bills are being fast tracked and would become effective almost immediately. Please e-mail or phone the committee members to voice opposition to these tax increases. This is the BEST opportunity we have to kill these bills before they go to the House floor.

Alternaitvely, you can attend the committee meeting to voice opposition. The Finance committee will meet at 1:30 pm, in the Legislative Service Building at 14th & Sherman, room LSB-A, across the street from the capitol (Note that the “House Calendar” incorrectly reflects different meeting information).

HB 10-1189

Elimates Sales Tax Exemption on Direct Mail

HB 10-1190
Temporarily eliminates the sales tax exemption on storage, use or consumption of electricity, fuel and other energy products.

HB 10-1191
Eliminates the sales tax exemption on candy and pop.  By the definition included in this bill, even honey roasted nuts are candy.

HB 10-1192
Eliminates sales tax exemption on some software products.

HB 10-1193
Requires out of state retailers to collect sales tax on Coloradan’s purchases.

HB 10-1194
Eliminates sales tax exemption on non-essential items such as plastic ware, condiments, napkins, bags and other items.

HB 10-1195
Suspends sales tax exemption on products used to care for livestock and crops.

HB 10-1198
Suspends the Alternative Minimum Tax credit.

HB 10-1199
Reduces net operating loss carryover to $250,000 for businesses.

To contact the House Finance Committee, e-mail them using the e-mail address strings I’ve provided below. Just copy them into your e-mail address box:

repjoeljudd@joeljudd.com,debbie@debbiebenefield.org,
kjerryfrangas@earthlink.net,cheri.gerou@gmail.com,
repkagan@gmail.com,john.kefalas.house@state.co.us,
replabuda@yahoo.com,ellen.roberts.house@state.co.us,
ken.summers.house@state.co.us,spencer.swalm.house@state.co.us,
brian@briandelgrosso.com

Alternatively, you can call the committee members:
Rep. Joel Judd (D) 303-866-2925
Rep. Debbie Benefield (D) 303-866-2950
Rep. Jerry Frangas (D) 303-866-2954
Rep. Cheri Gerou (R) 303-866-2582
Rep. Daniel Kagan (D) 303-866-2921
Rep. John Kefalas (D) 303-866-4569
Rep. Jeanne Labuda (D) 303-866-2966
Rep. Ellen Roberts (R) 303-866-2914
Rep. Ken Summers (R) 303-866-2927
Rep. Spencer Swalm (R) 303-866-5510
Rep. Brian Delgrosso (R) 303-866-2947″

Please contact the members of the House Finance Committee and express your concern over these crippling tax increases.  Even John Hickenlooper said raising taxes during a recession “counter-intuitive.”  I on the other hand, would call it plain DUMB.
Thanks for listening,
Justin Longo
Legislative Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
“Whoever wishes peace among peoples must fight statism.” -Mises
==============================================
Please forward this e-mail to friends and family who are concerned about defending our freedoms!
Urge others to sign up to receive these free alerts at:
You can read past “LPCO Liberty Alerts” at:
Sign-up to receive free e-mails from the National Libertarian Party at:
Support the Libertarian Party of Colorado by joining the 1776 Club:
My contact information:
Justin Longo
Legislative Director, LPCO
Phone: (703) 994-7104

LegislativeDirector@LPColorado.org


Epic Fail obama: The State of dis-union

January 28, 2010

Last evening I wanted to puke as I listened to epic fail obama. What follows, by Mark Alexander sums it up better than I could ever call out the impostor in chief!

State of the Union: Obama v. Constitution

“The duty imposed upon him to take care, that the laws be faithfully executed, follows out the strong injunctions of his oath of office, that he will ‘preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.’ The great object of the executive department is to accomplish this purpose; and without it, be the form of government whatever it may, it will be utterly worthless for offence, or defence; for the redress of grievances, or the protection of rights; for the happiness, or good order, or safety of the people.” –Justice Joseph Story

The ObamaPrompter

In the wake of Barack Hussein Obama’s first State of the Union address, much of the critical analysis from Republicans posited that he should do “this” instead of “that.”

Unfortunately, when there is no more constitutional authority for a president to do this rather than that, Republicans fail to distinguish themselves from Democrats since both parties are then advocating unlawful extra-constitutional policies.

Obama’s SOTU teleprompters fed him a steady stream of poll-tested rhetoric, none of which comports with the authority granted the Executive Branch, unless, of course, one subscribes to the adulterated “living constitution” as amended by judicial diktat.

Predictably, Obama offered only Socialist solutions to all ills, and not a single suggestion that individual responsibility or the private sector economy should shoulder that burden, at least not without government “incentives,” a.k.a. centralized social and economic planning.

In 6,200 words (second longest SOTU after Bill Clinton — two narcissists who just can’t hear enough of themselves), Obama referred to himself repeatedly, and alleged that he was the anointed spokesman for “we,” the American people, more than 100 times.

On the other hand, he mentioned the Constitution only twice.

First, in his opening remarks Obama said, “Our Constitution declares that from time to time the president shall give to Congress information about the state of our union.”

Correct.

Second, he asserted, “We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution, the notion that we’re all created equal…”

As the Internet meme goes these days: FAIL! Uh, uh, uh, — that “notion” was enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, third paragraph, first sentence. One would think that this alleged professor of “Constitutional Law” at the University of Chicago Law School would have noticed such a simple, yet substantial, error.

Our Constitution is devoted to clearly delineating the limited role of the central government from the unlimited rights of the states and the people.

To that end, James Madison, author of our Constitution, wrote, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Accordingly, Obama mentions freedom only once, and made absolutely no reference to liberty.

Nowhere in our Constitution is there any authority or provision for these key proposals from Obama’s SOTU:

1. The power to further centralize regulation of our economy.

2. The power to completely regulate our national health care system. (Note: both the Democrat and Republican proposals lack constitutional authority). Obama even repeated his claim that the American people are just not smart enough to get on board: “I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people.”

3. The power to further regulate and tax the production of CO2.

Obama reiterated his claims that the current recession was caused by “Wall Street,” and then went on to insist that the only hope for ending the recession was government “investment,” a euphemism for taxing money out of the private sector, taking bureaucratic handling fees out, then giving it to political constituencies.

To correctly interpret Obama’s SOTU, you need only filter everything he says through his foremost pledge that the his administration’s charge is the “fundamental transformation of the United States of America.”

That is a line Obama lifted from the primary architect of his Socialist platform, Robert Creamer, who had earlier proclaimed, “If Barack Obama is elected president, then we have the opportunity to fundamentally transform American politics and the economy.”

It’s likely that you’ve never heard of Bob Creamer, because Barack Obama is very adept at concealing his association with his Marxist patrons.

In his younger days, Obama was not concerned about such associations: “I chose my friends carefully,” he wrote. “The more politically active black students; the foreign students; the Chicanos; the Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”

But when he announced his aspirations to become a U.S. senator in 2004, Obama began to cover his tracks. He stopped associating publicly with Leftist colleagues and mentors such as Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi, Bob Creamer and others.

Creamer is a member of Obama’s Chicago mob, a fellow “community organizer” and disciple of Saul Alinsky. Like all of Obama’s Chicago benefactors, Creamer believes that he is above the law, or, more appropriately, that he is the law in today’s age of the rule of men. But like Tony Rezko, another of Obama’s slick Chicago political backers, Creamer was caught with his hand in the till and was convicted of a felony (bank fraud) back in 2004 when Obama was a state senator. Creamer got a softball sentence, though: five months in a minimum-security facility for white-collar criminals and another 11 months of house arrest.

With all that time on his hands, Creamer authored a book, “How Progressives Can Win,” which, along with Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” serves as the template for Obama’s campaign to “fundamentally transform” America.

Obama didn’t use the word “transform” in his SOTU, but he did insist that government must “lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth,” under the pretense of “reform,” in order to “give our people the government they deserve.”

“I campaigned on the promise of change, change we can believe in. I know there are many Americans who aren’t sure if they still believe that I can deliver it. I never suggested that change would be easy … and when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy.”

And well, it should.

Though Obama’s efforts to nationalize the nation’s health care sector have been temporarily stalled, he has no intention of giving up, announcing that he is redoubling his efforts to expand central government controls over the private sector under cover of “economic crisis.” As White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”

Leading up to his SOTU, Obama endeavored to portray himself as a fiscal conservative: “We can’t continue to spend as if deficits don’t have consequences, as if waste doesn’t matter, as if the hard earned tax dollars of the American people can be treated like monopoly money, that’s what we’ve seen time and time again, Washington has become more concerned about the next election than the next generation.”

This is subterfuge.

Obama endeavors to portray himself as a constitutional conservative: “We will lead in the observance of … the rule of law. … Don’t mock the Constitution. Don’t make fun of it. Don’t suggest that it’s not American to abide by what the Founding Fathers set up. It’s worked pretty well for over 200 years.”

This is deception.

Obama endeavors to portray himself as a resolute commander in chief. Regarding Operation Iraqi Freedom he decreed, “Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31st, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.” On Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, he declared, “After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.” On the treatment of captive terrorists, he says, “I will restore America’s moral standing.” On the Long War with Jihadistan, Obama claims, “The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam.”

This is farce.

Obama is a dangerous neophyte in matters of national security, and he shows no signs of improving.

If Republicans really want to defeat Obama’s Leftist agenda, they need to adopt the tried and true conservative message founded on Essential Liberty. Only then can they truly take control of the debate.

And while Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell’s response to Obama’s SOTU address was encouraging, the current crop of Republican leaders continues to play by Democrat rules, attempting to sell a dangerous and debilitating elixir: “We don’t offend the Constitution as bad as they do.”

Bottom line: Republicans must refocus on First Principles and govern accordingly.

Republicans can best distinguish themselves from Democrats by, first and foremost, honoring their sacred oath to “support and defend” our Constitution.

To that end, Obama declared, “If you abide by the law, you should be protected by it.”

True, but on the other hand, if you are not going to abide by the law, you should be impeached.

P.S. If you are going to seat two police officers next to your wife in the gallery, the two who brought down the Ft. Hood jihadi terrorist, you might at least acknowledge them.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

Enumerated Powers Act: Answering Critics‏

January 26, 2010

The Enumerated Powers Act (EPA) requires that every bill must specify its source of Constitutional authority. Since our previous report in December, four more Representatives have signed on as sponsors of the EPA.

You can find the 60 House sponsors here.

And the 22 Senate sponsors here.

The problem is, many in Congress don’t want to be bothered with this simple requirement. They think that anything Congress passes must be Constitutional. Let’s persuade them to change their minds, with our arguments and our pressure.

You can use this letter as an example . . .

I think I know why so many in Congress want to ignore the Enumerated Powers Act (EPA). The attitude was expressed by Sen. Burris and Rep. Anna Eshoo in replies to constituents published at DownsizeDC.org. http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/enumerated-powers-act-some-congressional-responses

Sen. Roland W. Burris says, “I believe the genius of our Constitution rests in its timeless applicability. There is no better example of this than the Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the Elastic Clause. Instead of the powers of Congress being confined to outdated principles and issues, the Necessary and Proper clause expands the authority of Congress to all areas tangentially related to one of its enumerated powers.”

Burris’s position is scary. “Tangentially” means “Merely touching or slightly connected; Only superficially relevant; divergent.” http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tangentially

How can the “superficially relevant” be necessary and proper?

Indeed, the Necessary and Proper Clause does not give Congress the sweeping authority Burris imagines. It instead authorizes Congress “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing (i.e., “enumerated”) Powers.” The Enumerated Powers Act doesn’t overrule the Necessary and Proper Clause, it only demands that the appropriate “enumerated power” be cited in the bill.

Burris goes on: “As your Senator, I can assure you that Congressional power is only used to make decisions that are intended to benefit the American people.”

Sen. Burris believes that the Necessary and Proper Clause means Congress can do whatever it wants because its intentions are good.

If the federal government was to be unlimited in its powers as Burris suggests, then why didn’t the Framers give Congress absolute, unlimited powers to begin with?

Rep. Eshoo’s response isn’t much better. “H.R. 450 would require Congress to adhere to the perspective that unless something is specifically enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, it is prohibited. Based on my understanding of the Constitution . . . I disagree.”

But H.R. 450 doesn’t adhere to a “perspective.” It just requires a citation of the Constitutional clause that authorizes the new law.

In this sense, passing the Enumerated Powers Act is actually in Congress’s best interest. If Congress won’t explicitly state the source of the Constitutional authority for a law they pass, why should Congress expect the Supreme Court to uphold it?

She goes on: “America’s Constitution has often been described as a ‘living, breathing document,’ specifically designed by our forefathers to allow flexibility to manage our nation within the rule of law.”

I’m sorry, but this “living, breathing” business is code for “the Constitution gives us as much power as we want to have.” This is not “within the rule of law,” this undermines the rule of law. The Constitution is only supposed to change by amendment, not by Congressional dictate.

Rep. Eshoo asserts: “The original U.S. Constitution never anticipated industrial factories, let alone airplanes and the Internet.”

Actually, as written it did make room for such things. It gave Congress jurisdiction over *interstate* commercial air traffic. It gave Congress jurisdiction over the *interstate* shipment of goods.

And she says, “I assure you that I would never sponsor, cosponsor or support a bill that I considered unconstitutional in nature.  I also would not support legislation that weakened one branch of government in favor of another, thereby undermining the very premise of the “checks and balances” concept which was crafted so carefully by our forefathers . . .”

But by what other standard does she consider bills constitutional or unconstitutional, aside from the text itself? She doesn’t say.

The responses of Burris and Eshoo scare me. They believe they can do whatever they want with my life, liberty, and property, and they’ll call it Constitutional.

If you don’t sponsor and vote for the Enumerated Powers Act, then, frankly, you scare me too.

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System.

Don’t “fix” it, kill it!: Put obamacare in the crosshairs

January 23, 2010
Anti-gun ObamaCare on Life Support!
— ObamaCare needs one final stake through its heart

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

Friday, January 22, 2010

Congratulations on a tremendous victory on Tuesday!  And thank you all for your help in getting Scott Brown elected to the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts.

Gun Owners of America was the first national gun lobby to endorse Brown, and with your aid, he was receiving more than one million dollars a day in his comeback win over anti-gun Martha Coakley.

With your help, Massachusetts — the bluest of blue states — has sent a message to Washington:  take your ObamaCare bill and shove it!

By a vote of 52% to 47%, Massachusetts voters sent anti-ObamaCare candidate Scott Brown to the Senate — defeating liberal icon Martha Coakley.  And D.C. Democrats are beginning to understand that GOP victories in New Jersey and Massachusetts are merely a precursor to the electoral bloodbath still to come in November.

Obama-Pelosi still committed to passing socialized health care

But has the prospect of losing two hundred congressional seats caused Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi to back off of their efforts to shove this bill down the throats of the American people?

Amazingly, no.

It”s like you stepped in something.  And, as much as you scrape and scrape the bottom of your shoe, you just can”t get rid of the smell.

At first, Pelosi’s strategy was to get the House to pass the Senate version of ObamaCare — verbatim — so that the bill goes straight to the Oval Office, without having to break another filibuster in the Senate (which no longer has a filibuster-proof majority).

Thankfully, there are SO MANY rank-and-file Democrats who have revolted against this strategy (Democrats who are scared to death of losing their seats) that Rep. Pelosi yesterday said the Senate bill is not viable… WITHOUT CHANGES.

“I don’t see the votes for [the Senate bill] at this time,” Pelosi said.  But note the words “at this time.”

Despite huge obstacles, Pelosi trying to resurrect ObamaCare

Pelosi did say there’s a “foundation in that bill” they can work with.  So Pelosi may just try to pass one big fix-up bill — using a “reconciliation” bill that will only need 51 votes when it goes to the Senate — or simply break up the Senate bill into smaller pieces and send those parts to the President.

But remember that the Senate health care bill which Pelosi now seeks to fix contains the following problems:

* It will allow BATFE to troll a health/gun database in order to take away firearms from tens of millions of Americans;

* It is jam-packed with billions of dollars of bribes paid to buy the votes of sleazy senators;

* It will impose a host of new taxes, force Americans to buy expensive insurance which they can’t afford, and increase insurance premiums in the individual market by 10 to 13%; and,

* It will continue the bankrupting of our country by increasing the deficit by half a trillion dollars, when the underhanded accounting tricks are discounted.

You can be sure that most, if not all, of these problems will be left untouched.

ACTION: So please contact your Representative.  Tell him or her to vote against the bribe-filled Senate ObamaCare bill, and that no amount of “fixing” will make this bill acceptable.  The Senate already tried to fix the gun problems in the bill but failed miserably.

You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send a pre-written message to your Representative.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Representative:

You are being urged by Nancy Pelosi to dive into the Senate’s moral cesspool and pass its ObamaCare bill — either cut up in pieces or, as a whole, accompanied by a “fix up” reconciliation bill.

If you do this, the Massachusetts results are just the faintest of forebodings of the electoral bloodbath which will erupt in November.

The American people have made it clear they do not want Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to cram this bill down our throats.  And yet, Pelosi delusionally concludes that the path to electoral success is to keep cramming and cramming and cramming and cramming.

In case you have forgotten, the Senate ObamaCare bill:

* Will allow BATFE to troll a health/gun database in order to take away firearms from tens of millions of Americans;

* Is jam-packed with billions of dollars of bribes paid to buy the votes of sleazy senators;

* Will impose a host of new taxes, force Americans to buy expensive insurance which they can’t afford, and increase insurance premiums in the individual market by 10 to 13%; and,

* Will continue the bankrupting of our country by increasing the deficit by half a trillion dollars, when the accounting tricks are discounted.

Please tell me now that you oppose this bill and that no amount of “fix up” will make it acceptable.  The Senate already tried to fix the gun problems in the bill but failed miserably.  It’s time to pull the plug on ObamaCare.

Sincerely,


Second Amendment March

Check out the Second Amendment March speakers lineup.  In addition to GOA’s Larry Pratt, confirmed speakers include: Former Texas state Representative Suzanna Hupp (a survivor of the Luby’s massacre), Sheriff Richard Mack, Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers and many others.

Find out more at: http://www.secondamendmentmarch.com

U.N. Gun Ban is still out there

January 22, 2010

The various whack jobs are at it again, and yes, I include the potty mouth Hillary Clinton. Good luck getting this treaty signed off on by the Senate though. Senators like their plums and such, and that means staying in office.  Association with such historical maniacs leads to a short political life. Read on…

LAS VEGAS — In the parallel world where the likes of Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi live, the enlightened govern the ignorant masses by applying one set of universal rules, and it’s not the Constitution of the United States.

In Hillary’s world, radical ideas progress at first with baby steps that ultimately become great strides to harness the destructive forces in society. That’s why the current Secretary of State and the other Hillarys in her world are drawing a bead on gun owners, mainly those in the United States.

SHOT Show

Colin MooreSteve Sanneti, president and CEO of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, says “anti-hunters will do or say anything to curtail hunting, and they’ll settle for winning small battles and advancing their cause in incremental stages.”

In 2012, the United Nation’s will push for the Arms Trade Treaty, which, among other things, will establish goals regarding the ownership and disposition of firearms on a global basis. This new world order is apt to take various forms, but none of them are likely to be good for gun owners in this country.

The Arms Trade Treaty, along with attempts to reconstitute the so-called “assault weapons ban,” and efforts to ban lead-based ammunition are among the biggest challenges facing the shooting sports industry in the coming years, according to Steve Sanneti, president and CEO of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Full Story

FEDS RESPOND TO FIREARMS FREEDOM ACT

January 21, 2010
FEDS RESPOND TO FIREARMS FREEDOM ACT LAWSUIT MOTION TO DISMISS “EXPECTED”
MISSOULA – The United States has made its first response to a lawsuit filed in federal district court in Missoula to test the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA), passed by the 2009 Legislature and signed into law by Governor Schweitzer.

The MFFA declares that any firearms, ammunition or firearms accessories made and retained in Montana are not subject to federal regulation under the power given to Congress in the U.S. Constitution to regulate commerce “among the several states.” The MFFA is a states’ rights challenge on Tenth Amendment grounds, with firearms serving as the vehicle for the challenge.

This lawsuit to validate the MFFA was brought by the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). The suit names U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder as defendant, and is referred to as MSSA v. Holder.

The first response to the lawsuit by the United States is a Motion to Dismiss, submitted January 19th and considered to be a standard procedural maneuver in lawsuits against the U.S government . This motion seeks to avoid the legal merits by asserting that the Plaintiffs lack standing to sue, that a justiciable controversy does not exist, and that prevailing case law is against Plaintiffs.

MSSA President Gary Marbut, also a Plaintiff in the lawsuit explained, “The first import of this response is that the legal game is now on. There was some concern that the defendants would forfeit the game with no response in an effort to prevent this important issue from being adjudicated properly. We are now beyond that hurdle.” However, the Motion to Dismiss by Washington also seeks to sidestep proper adjudication.

SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb said, “We are disappointed but not surprised that the government would try to kill this suit on standing, rather than arguing about the merits of the case.”

The MFFA concept has gained traction across the Nation since its passage in Montana. Tennessee has enacted a clone of the MFFA, and other clones have been introduced in the state legislatures of 19 other states, including: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. . Ten or more additional states are expected to introduce yet more MFFA clones in the next few weeks. (See: http://www.FirearmsFreedomAct.com)

The U.S.’s Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support are viewable at: http://FirearmsFreedomAct.com/montana-lawsuit-updates/

MSSA and SAF have assembled a litigation team for this effort consisting of three attorneys from Montana, one from New York, one from Florida and one from Arizona. Lead attorney for the Plaintiffs is Quentin Rhoades, partner the Missoula firm of Sullivan, Tabaracci and Rhoades. Other interested parties from both in and out of Montana are preparing to weigh in on this issue of national interest and national importance as amicus curiae (friends of the court).

Marbut commented, “The FFA concept has created a firestorm of interest nationwide. Lots of people and other states are watching carefully to see how Montana fares in this challenge to overbearing federal authority and to Washington’s attempt to control every detail of commerce in the Nation, especially including activity wholly confined within an individual state. That level of micro management certainly was not the intent of our founders when they gave Congress limited power in the Constitution to regulate commerce ‘among the states’.” (See: http://FirearmsFreedomAct.com/what-is-the-commerce-clause/)

MSSA is the primary political advocate for gun owners and hunters in Montana, having gotten 54 pro-gun and pro-hunting bills through the Montana Legislature in the past 25 years. SAF is a pro-gun foundation in Bellevue, Washington, established to press the rights of gun owners primarily in judicial fora. SAF has been a party to numerous lawsuits to assert the rights of gun owners across the Nation.

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

State of Disunion : Epic Fail Obama

January 21, 2010

Mark Alexander hits out of the ballpark again, please see the blogroll for the link to The patriot Post.

Alexander’s Essay – January 21, 2010

State of Disunion

“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” –Article II, Section I, U.S. Constitution

On Wednesday, 27 January, Barack Hussein Obama will deliver his first “State of the Union” speech as president, a self evaluation of his first year’s achievements.

Sprinkled between his infamous “let me be clear” or “make no mistake” introduction to his lies, he will, characteristically, attempt to spin a plethora of failures into something including these phony fallback phrases: back from the brink; signs of recovery; restored our reputation; achieved some successes; more work yet to do; fiscal restraint; greed on Wall Street; affordable health care; relief for working families; job creation.

He’ll also use the word “inherited,” as in “I inherited this mess.” He’ll speak of “unprecedented” reforms or achievements or challenges. And he’ll mention “those who seek to do us harm,” but he won’t dare utter the term “Islamic terrorists.”

In advance of his teleprompted propaganda, then, let’s take a reality check on Obama and his first year.

Never before in the history of our great nation has any sitting president held so much disregard and outright contempt for our Constitution and Rule of Law.

Perhaps the operative words in his oath were, “to the best of my ability”?

Of course, what were we to expect from a Marxist, whose views on government and economy were shaped by his surrogate father and communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis; whose first campaign for political office was launched by Maoist anarchists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn; whose political career has been stewarded by the likes of Leftists Richard Daley, Michael Pfleger, Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi, et al.

And don’t forget his religious mentor, Jeremiah Wright, who married Barack and Michelle and baptized their children.

Wright preached hate, plain and simple: “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government gives [black people] drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strikes law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, g-d d— America. G-d d— America for treating our citizens as less than human. G-d d— America.”

Wright sermonized that our great nation is in fact the “U.S. of KKK-A” and is “controlled by and run by rich white people. Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in god. And god has got to be sick of this sh-t!”

How did Obama respond when asked about his pastor’s perennial anti-American tirades? “It sounds like he was trying to be provocative,” concludes Obama.

At a foundational level, Obama’s ability and his agenda have been shaped first and foremost by his condition as a pathological narcissist, a young man driven by a blinding need for acceptance and its coefficient, power — the result of a childhood characterized by his father’s, and then stepfather’s, rejection.

It should be noted that the young Barry Obama did not ask for or deserve the hardship he suffered as a child any more than millions of other children abandoned by their fathers today. In that respect, he deserves our compassion.

However, Obama’s insatiable pathological need for power renders him a very dangerous person in power.

He was elected on a promise that should have served as a warning sign: “This is our moment, this is our time to turn the page on the policies of the past, to offer a new direction. We are fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

He ran his charismatic campaign on a promise of “hope,” but in the words of Patrick Henry, “It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth — and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts.”

As for “fundamentally transforming” our nation, that is a thinly veiled reference to an outright assault on our Constitution and our Essential Liberty, one that thrusts an ever more powerful central government upon us.

Not since 1860 has the Union been at such odds with the fundamental rights of the States and the People.

Obama’s effort to endow the central government with absolute authority follows his Socialist political playbook, Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”

Obama was elected just weeks after an economic collapse which can be tied directly to Leftist economic policies.

His effort to “Reclaim America” involves taxing and borrowing more than a trillion dollars from the private sector, sifting it through the bureaucracies of his political appointees, then “investing” it into the public sector to grow government and pay off his special interest constituencies and other benefactors.

He is plundering private sector resources under the pretense of private sector “job creation.”

He has attempted, with some success, to nationalize, by way of regulation, coercion or “investment,” the major industrial and service segments of the economy — including energy, banking, investment, education, insurance, automotive and real estate — and he has supplanted free enterprise with Socialism.

He is endeavoring to nationalize our nation’s largest single economic sector, health care, and he laughs off any suggestion that there is no constitutional authority for such folly. Moreover, the House version creates 111 new oversight bureaucracies. (1)

He has attempted to advance his domestic agenda on a global scale under the guise of “climate change.”

Further, Obama’s national security failures present even greater peril to life and liberty.

Coddling Islamic extremists, bowing to Saudi kings, apologizing to the world, politicizing terrorist interrogation methods at Gitmo, treating terrorism as “criminal activity” and moving the trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York, using Operation Enduring Freedom as campaign fodder and setting a timeframe for withdrawal from Afghanistan — these and many more grossly errant policy decisions served only to hinder and demoralize us and our allies while empowering and emboldening our enemies, thus enabling jihadi attacks such as the murder of 12 soldiers, one civilian, and an unborn baby at Ft. Hood, and the narrowly averted bombing of a U.S. airliner this past Christmas Day.

Of course, there were other ridiculous gaffes, like the one at his last public press conference (six months ago), when he offered his impromptu assessment of the arrest of his friend, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, by claiming that the Cambridge Police “acted stupidly.” His subsequent “beer summit” was a forced and feeble attempt at damage control.

And then there was the Nobel Peace Prize, a ridiculous Euro-leftist albatross of an award that was bestowed upon Obama just days after he ascended to the presidency.

Were it not for the threat of unbridled laughter, Obama’s SotU address might also reflect on some of the most egregious prevarications from his brief tenure.

On his plans for massive government expansion: “Not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t.”

On his grand Socialist schemes: “I’ve never bought into these Malthusian, woe, Chicken Little, the earth is falling — I tend to be pretty optimistic.”

On the so-called “stimulus package” (i.e., record debt): “Less than one month after taking office, we enacted the most sweeping recovery package in history, and we did so without any of the earmarks, pork-barrel projects that are usually accompanying these big — these big bills.”

On bailouts for behemoth auto producers: “Let me be clear. The United States government has no interest in running GM. We have no intention of running GM.”

On his friends at ACORN: “You know, it’s — frankly, it’s not really something I’ve followed closely. I didn’t even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money.”

On blame shifting: “You haven’t seen me out there blaming the Republicans.”

On taxes: “I will tax just the rich. I want to give a tax cut to the middle class.”

On the cost of ObamaCare: “It won’t add to the deficit. And I mean it! … It’s designed to lower it!” And how about this one: “I have not said I am in favor of a single-payer system.”

On the transparency of his health care “reform” deliberations: “It’s going to be on C-SPAN.”

On jobs (record unemployment): “My administration has created or saved… [ad nauseam].” (2)

On the political influence of grassroots Tea Party participants: “Those people waving their little tea bags around…”

Clearly, Obama has underestimated the influence of those who support America’s First Principles. In addition, he has also grossly misread his mandate as the heir of the once-noble Democratic Party.

These miscalculations were manifest in the recent Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial elections, and again this week in Massachusetts.

Who woulda thunk it — that in the most liberal state of the union, whose legislature hastily amended laws so the governor could immediately appoint a Demo replacement for the seat vacated by the U.S. Senate’s most liberal member, Ted Kennedy, who had occupied the seat for 47 years since the departure of his brother, JFK, and whose life ambition was to nationalize health care, whose designated replacement, Martha Coakley ran on his platform — who woulda thunk that a Democrat who just weeks ago held a 30-point lead in the polls would be defeated by Scott Brown, a moderate Republican state legislator of the Mitt Romney variety, who ran on a platform against nationalized health care?

Clearly, the loss of a Senate seat in Massachusetts is a major reality check for Obama. When asked about the rising rejection of his “vision” for America, Obama responded, “I think the assumption was if I just focus on policy, if I just focus on this provision or that law or if we’re making a good rational decision here, then people will get it.”

In other words, “The people are just too dumb.”

And speaking of “the people,” when Scott Brown was asked in his last debate with Coakley if he would be willing to “sit in Teddy Kennedy’s seat” and vote against the health care bill, he responded, “Well, with all due respect, it’s not the Kennedy seat, and it’s not the Democrats’ seat, it’s the people’s seat.”

Every Republican and Independent running for election or re-election in 2010 should, first, take that cue from Brown — the seats they seek belong to the people. Second, they should take a cue from Ronald Reagan, who left a timeless template for success: Run on a platform that, first and foremost, insists on the re-establishment of constitutional Rule of Law, and then governs accordingly.

For too long, too many Americans have been complacent about liberty, believing it to be their birthright and the birthright of generations to come. They have enjoyed the fruit of liberty defended by others, taking rights for granted and knowing nothing of the obligations for maintaining that blessing.

Most Americans have never had to fight for liberty and, thus, have little concept of its value or any sense of gratitude for its accumulated cost — a cost paid by generations of Patriots who have pledged their Lives, their Fortunes and their Sacred Honor.

The election of Barack Hussein Obama was an egregious affront to our legacy of Essential Liberty, and a clarion call to action for the many good citizens who honor the rights and obligations of citizenship.

As was the case with the first American Revolution, we now face a crucial battle for liberty. The upcoming elections, more than any other in recent history, are about the restoration of constitutional integrity.

Indeed, fellow Patriots, this is our time. The road to recovery is long, but the momentum is with us.

Footnotes: 1. With the election of Brown, ObamaCare in its present form is dead, but expect Obama to call for passage of revised legislation, which has support of both Republicans and Democrats. Once passed, it can then be readily amended.

2. Credit where credit due — Obama’s recovery plan has not created any real jobs, but it did secure new employment for at least three Republicans: One in Virginia, one in New Jersey and now one in Massachusetts.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

Supreme Court Hands Down Key Campaign Finance Decision

January 21, 2010

While this is good news there is still McCain Feingold out there that needs to be destroyed. Along with the political careers of the sponsors… Partial overturns are meaningless.

Fairfax, Va. – The National Rifle Association praised the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, removing unconstitutional restrictions on the NRA’s ability to speak freely at election time.

The late Sen. Paul Wellstone had said during the original debate over this legislation that it was his intention to silence groups like the NRA. While the author of this measure had singled out the NRA, this law delivered a clear message to all American citizens: “Keep your mouths shut and stay out of our political debates.”

Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, said, “This ruling is a victory for anyone who believes that the First Amendment applies to each and every one of us. The majesty of free speech is that any American can roll out of bed and speak as freely as The New York Times, NBC or politicians. This is a defeat for arrogant elitists who wanted to carve out free speech as a privilege for themselves and deny it to the rest of us; and for those who believed that speech had a dollar value and should be treated and regulated like currency, and not a freedom. Today’s decision reaffirms that the Bill of Rights was written for every American and it will amplify the voice of average citizens who want their voices heard.”

The case originally centered on the FEC’s denial of Citizens United’s attempt to broadcast a film about Hillary Clinton through on-demand cable services in January 2008, but had broader implications in protecting the First Amendment rights of organizations like the NRA during election time.

Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA chief lobbyist, said, “This decision today returns sanity to our political system. The First Amendment does not allow Congress to make laws denying Americans the right to speak out on issues, the right to assemble or organize on public policy issues, or the right to petition our government for redress of grievances.”

SOURCE

Wyoming Senator Cale Case introducing a fix to conceal carry reciprocity

January 20, 2010

By Anthony Bouchard
Originally posted on examiner.com

Thumbs up to Senator Cale Case, he has introduced legislation to fix the conceal-carry blunder from earlier this year. SF 26 – Eligibility concealed weapons permit, will fix what Freuedenthal’s appointee decided was a problem.

Ultimately, WyGO / Wyoming Gun Owners supports legislation that lets anyone with a permit from any state carry in Wyoming. If an individual has a concealed carry permit from their own state, no matter what we interpret from their state law, who are we to say they cannot carry in Wyoming? Even if that state doesn’t reciprocate, we must lead by example.

Full Story