McCain Throws Election With More Anti-Right’s Demands!
May 18, 2008
On more than just shaky ground with all Americans already, Juan McCain has just thrown the election by coming right out and saying that he would sign illegal legislation to end all private sales of firearms at gunshows which is the precursor to ending all private sales. Ask Gore what single issue destroyed any chance he had of winning the presidency and he’ll tell you it was his anti-right’s positions. ( He might refer to it by a disloyal name. )
Senator McCain! The ONLY time criminals are stopped in their tracks is when the law abiding are armed…there is no other effective way nor will there ever be.
Write, Call and Fax McCain to publicly denounce his own ludicrous assumptions or we will be suffering Barack “Ban all semi-autos” Obama.
McCain Courts NRA, Makes Gun Shop Visit by Glen Johnson http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4871443
“… McCain said the only gun controls he favors are limits to keep guns from people with criminal backgrounds or indications of mental problems.
He added that, as president, he would sign a law that prohibited individuals from buying guns at a gun show without going through the same checks as those buying guns at regular stores.”
What McCain thick-headedly and obviously still doesn’t understand even after twenty plus years with the evidence available to him at his beck and call is that the evil and insane buy guns much more cheaply from other criminals or just outright steals them for themselves. It is therefore irrelevant whether they buy them ‘legally’ or not for just the purchase of the firearm for the purpose to use in any criminal act is also and already illegal.
NO ILLEGAL LAW against law abiding citizens will ever stop criminals from getting their hands on guns or any other tool to commit their crimes. This fact in life can not be prodded or otherwise coerced by the despicably frightened and cowering towards making themselves ‘feel’ better.
Therefore, one more illegal law on top of the some 20,000 already on the books is just more infringement on the law abiding making it more difficult or impossible to have in their own defense when they need it. Those who have and would still pass any such illegal legislation is just as guilty of any and all violent crimes committed on the innocent inwhich the innocent would have otherwise provided for their own defense and therein the chance to survive.
The Final Word On Our Inalienable Right of Self Defense and The Second Amendment Right To Bear Arms;
When a law enforcement firearms instructor and his instructors tell you that the most important thing you can do in your entire life is to protect the Second Amendment then you better stop worrying about what anyone else thinks or says and protect it as if your freedom depends on it, because it certainly does….consider yourself so informed.
“[T]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).” -Parker V. DC, Senior Justice Silberman
Willard Mitt Romney Caught Pandering To Both Sides Again
May 17, 2008
Mitt Romney Weighs In On Gay Marriage by Reynold Joseph from WBZ Radio, Boston http://wbz.com/pages/2206416.php?contentType=4&contentId=2066779
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — Former Governor Romney says he’s disappointed California’s Supreme Court has followed the Bay State in legalizing gay marriage.
The former Republican presidential contender said he was disappointed “to see one more time a one-vote majority of a state Supreme Court overturn the will of its people.”
He made the comments yesterday at the National Rifle Association’s convention in Louisville.
In November 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court approved same-sex marriages, which began taking place the following May. Romney supported an amendment to the state constitution to ban gay marriage, but the Legislature thwarted that effort.
Now California’s high court also has struck down laws barring gay marriages.
Unfortunately for both Willard and Reynold Joseph, we have the internet and nothing slips past us for very long. The following is what Willard has also said on this subject of homosexual “marriage”;
( I don’t know whether Reynold Joseph is attempting to rewrite history or simply didn’t bother to research Romney’s flip-flopping before he wrote this article but, … )
Activists Remember a Different Romney
Advocates for gay and abortion rights and the environment say the GOP candidate misled them on his positions. by Peter Wallsten http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/25/78/
When Romney huddled with dozens of gay activists for an endorsement meeting in 2002, at the restaurant attached to the gay bar, some of his appeals were similar to those he had made on abortion.
As with the abortion-rights activists, Romney promised the Log Cabin Republicans he would push against social conservatives on such issues as domestic partnerships for gays.
And, as with the NARAL meeting, some activists left the room thinking that Romney was closer to their position on key issues than he now says he was.
Romney was quoted in the media that year opposing same-sex marriage and same-sex civil unions. Still, after talking to Romney, some at the Log Cabin meeting thought he was sympathetic to their views on that issue, though clearly trying to navigate its touchy semantics.
“He said, ‘Call it whatever you want. Just don’t use the M-word,’ ” recalled businessman Richard Babson.
Babson also recalls Romney being asked at the meeting about a newly adopted Vermont law permitting civil unions. “It seemed to me that he was sympathetic on civil unions, that he was not quite there on marriage, but that he was also sympathetic on same-sex adoption and on gays and lesbians having families,” Babson said.
Patrick Guerriero, a prominent Log Cabin member, told the Bay Windows newspaper immediately after the meeting that Romney showed he was in agreement with the community on every major issue. “If you go down his list, it’s pretty much a check-off of the real hot-button concerns for gays and lesbians,” Guerriero said. “I do believe that, and as you know I’m a supporter of gay marriage.”
Romney won the Log Cabin endorsement.
In seeking the Republican nomination for president, Romney strikes a different posture on issues important to gays.
When addressing social conservatives, Romney makes fighting same-sex marriage and the 2003 Massachusetts court ruling that legalized it a cornerstone of his appeals. And on the campaign trail, he has portrayed same-sex parenthood as a danger to children, saying that “every child deserves a mother and a father.”
Madden, the Romney campaign spokesman, said Romney had consistently opposed same-sex marriage and civil unions. Madden said the campaign did not want to comment on why anyone in the meeting would have thought otherwise….
Romney’s thoughts on gay marriage, circa 1994 Posted by David Dahl 12/8/06 http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2006/12/romneys_thought.html
“…On why the gay community should support Romney over Kennedy, given Kennedy’s record of supporting both civil rights and the gay community:“Well, I think you’re partially right in characterizing Ted Kennedy as supportive of the gay community, and I respect the work and efforts he’s made on behalf of the gay community and for civil rights more generally, and I would continue that fight.“There’s something to be said for having a Republican who supports civil rights in this broader context, including sexual orientation. When Ted Kennedy speaks on gay rights, he’s seen as an extremist. When Mitt Romney speaks on gay rights he’s seen as a centrist and a moderate. It’s a little like if Eugene McCarthy was arguing in favor of recognizing China, people would have called him a nut. But when Richard Nixon does it, it becomes reasonable. When Ted says it, it’s extreme; when I say it, it’s mainstream.”
“On whether he would have supported Helms’s amendment to the 1994 Elementary and Secondary Education Act to ban federal funding to public schools that encourage or support “homosexuality as a positive lifestyle alternative”:“I would have opposed that amendment. I don’t think the federal government has any business dictating to local school boards what their curriculum or practices should be. I think that’s a dangerous precedent in general. I would have opposed that. It also grossly misunderstands the gay community by insinuating that there’s an attempt to proselytize a gay lifestyle on the part of the gay community. I think it’s wrong-headed and unfortunate and hurts the party by being identified with the Republican party.”
Willard Mitt Romney http://willardromney.blogspot.com/
The Mitt Romney Report Largest Compilation of Willard Mitt Romney’s Record ( Constantly Updated. )
http://massresistance.org/romney/
Will the Supreme Court Clarify Concealed Carry?
March 18, 2008
Judging by most reports of today’s proceedings the Supreme Court is very likely to agree with the majority of Americans that the Constitution does guarantee an individual right to gun ownership. The next question is how far will the court go in interpreting the 2nd Amendment?
Will they severely pacific poker comtorneos de poquerplay poker texasdescarga de juego de poker5 card studtexas holdem no limitvideo poker onlinejuego poker texasjugar card stud en lineajuegos de poker gratuitos,de juegos de poker,juegos de pokerwww.pacific poker.com,pacific poker com,pacific pokerstrip poker onlinejuego poker online gratispoquer on linestrip poker pc gamejuegos de poker onlinepoker descubiertopoker de dadosjuego al instante pagina internetjuegos de polly pokerpoker 2 cartas7 card stud gratispoquer lineaonline poker gamejuego poker casinopoquer onlinejugar poker on linereglas juego pokerbonos poquercrack rebel pokerpoker pc games,poker games download,poker gamesdownload games poker gratisset de pokerjuego dados pokercard gamblingstrip poquerbajar juego pokerpoquer internetpoquer texaspoker dinero gratisjugar poquer lineaonline pokerjugadas pokerpoker gratis descargarseven card studjuego al instante portal webbunny pokertexas holdem gratisparty poker bonus,poker bonus,no deposit bonus pokerjuego de poker para pc limit the government’s ability to regulate firearms, will they reach out and clearly outline under what circumstances government can restrict gun ownership, gun usage? Will they not only overturn the DC ban but will they force DC to allow concealed carry? These are very interesting questions. The court today certainly seems open to clearly defining the 2nd Amendment, many members of the court seemed to understand the awesome responsibility they have.
In the past other courts have tried to take very narrow views of issues and not try to change precedent. There is no precedent to change here and there are many issues around the 2nd Amendment that need clarity. I doubt this court will clarify all of them but hopefully they make it clear how they view the 2nd Amendment so as to open the door to address many of these other peripheral issues.
Nearly seventy years have gone by with gun owners being under assault from liberals in control of the courts and congress. Even when Republicans ran congress they did so only with the permission of liberals it seemed. We can only hope that the Supreme Court takes the occasion to reverse the tyranny that gun owners have been subjected to for the last sixty plus years.
The Supreme Court and the 2nd Amendment
March 17, 2008
I don’t think anyone really knows for sure what will happen when the Supreme Court makes its decision in the Heller case. For me the question isn’t so much about whether or not the court will affirm individual right to gun ownership, no for me the question is how far will the court go in defining the limits for congress and the states in terms of legislating 2nd amendment restrictions. I think there is an outside chance of Justice Souter would join conservatives on the court and affirm the right to individual gun ownership if the opinion was very narrow in defining those rights and leaves the door open to existing legislation that allows for individual gun ownership but with limits.
However, if Thomas and Scalia are able to influence Chief Justice Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy to take this opportunity to more thoroughly interpret the 2nd amendment then we may see a 5-4 decision that more drastically limits governments ability to restrict gun ownership. There are not many places in the constitution where other courts have not already had a significant impact, some good, some not so. It has been nearly 70 years since the court has had an opportunity to interpret the 2nd amendment, then they abdicated their responsibility we can hope that this court doesn’t do the same.
Technorati Tags: 2nd amendment,supreme Court,Heller
It’s time to send OPEC a message
March 5, 2008
Now for a while I have railed against the loony left in this country because they have made us more dependent on foreign oil and more dependent on foreign refined gasoline. We don’t have the refining capacity in this country to meet the demand we have and our economy is paying for it.
I think that it is time to send a message to OPEC; it is time that we start telling OPEC countries to either increase their output to help us meet our demand and lower the price or we’ll stop importing. I know it sounds like a hollow threat but if we actually followed through with it the move would insure adequate supply for many years to come and here’s how.
We import roughly 5.5 million barrels of oil per day from OPEC countries, 1.4 million barrels from Venezuela. First we stop importing anything from Venezuela, and we tell the remaining OPEC countries that they will be increasing production to make up the difference of what we don’t import from Venezuela. If they refuse then we will cease all oil imports from Algeria, Angola, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, and Qatar. They will view this as a move to break up OPEC, which it is, and refuse. This leaves us importing oil from Iraq and Saudi Arabia, Iraq needs to finance their country’s future so they will not be able to do much except increase their production to as high a level as they can. Saudi Arabia is in the difficult position. They are the largest OPEC exporter to the US, but they will be fighting the remaining OPEC countries who want to make the deal so they can get back into the good graces of the world’s largest oil customer. These are smaller countries and they can’t afford a standoff like this.
A Judicial Branch out of Control
September 1, 2007
A federal activist judge in San Francisco, Maxine Chesney, granted a temporary restraining order blocking new rules that enable the Social Security Administration to send out the so called “no match” letters. These letters go to employers advising them that the Social Security number filed by the employer for a specific employee doesn’t match the Social Security database.
This gives the employer 90 days to fix clerical errors that may have created the problem, employee put down the wrong number, etc. If they don’t clear it up within 90 days then Homeland Security may impose fines, or if it is determined that the employer is knowingly employing illegal aliens then criminal prosecution may follow.
So again we have an activist judge, a Clinton appointee which is no surprise, that is preventing two government agencies from enforcing the laws of this country. This is what the immigration debate was all about last May-June. Enforce the existing laws on the books, build the wall on the southern border, etc. More laws, comprehensive or not, do not fix the problem of these liberal activists that seek to ignore our laws and weaken the security of this country.
If congress wants to do something they should begin impeaching federal judges that ignore the law or just flat make it up as they go.
Recent Comments