Archives

BOOM! The Marxist In Chief Just Played The Osama bin Laden Card!

The question was about appeasing Islamic countries politically. You know, countries populated by the Good Muslims, the overwhelming majority of Muslims who adhere strictly to the peaceful part of the Religion of Peace. So didn’t Obama just equate them all with terrorists? With the adherents of the pedophiliac, barbaric, behead-at-the-drop-of-a-turban wing of Islam? Tsk tsk Obama. At least we have some transparency from that cretin’s administration now though. They know full well that Islamic countries are a terrorist threat to us and our allies, and they appease them anyway. Not in spite of their threat, but because of it. Obama can’t wait for the destruction of this country. It’s his #1 goal.

CC

What Really Happened With MF Global? Ann Barnhardt Lays It Out.

I claim no expertise in any aspect of financial matters. The stock market, Wall Street, how all that stuff works is close to a total mystery to me. As such, I rarely participate in discussions about those topics, opting instead, generally speaking, to just read and try to keep up. That gets harder when the discussions go much deeper than a basic level. The technicalities, legalities, and terminology all kind of turns me off, even though I should work harder to understand it all because our personal shot at a reasonably early retirement is wrapped up in a 401K that the following interview with Ann Barnhardt would suggest is an extreme risk for us to be counting on at this point.

I appreciate Barnhardt’s delivery for its directness and her way of distilling it down to simplified terms that even a financial ignoramus like me can understand. I suppose some who disagree with her take might say the reason an ignoramus like me feels he understands her so well is that she herself is a simplistic ignoramus. Maybe, but recognizing my own ignorance on the matters she discusses on financial matters, I have to pick those whose logic, assertions, and accusations make the most sense to me, and nothing I’ve heard from the Corzine or MF Global apologist side comes close to making sense to me. So with that, take it Ms. Barnhardt:

Tennessee Family Home Burns While Firefighters Watch

I just copied and pasted the title of this thread from the article I’m using to introduce the topic. The title seems to me to imply a leaning by the author against the decision not to fight the fire. I am purposely refraining from saying whether or not I share that leaning for the time being. I would prefer to see the facts as presented discussed/debated before I give my take.

For the record, I happen to know that this is not the first story of its kind to come out of the South Fulton area of Tennessee. Last September, an almost identical story got quite a bit of news, forum and blog coverage, and I participated in quite a bit of the banter on another very busy forum. That’s the main reason I don’t want to give my take as of now. I feel I have kind of a head start in thinking about the issues at hand as they relate to government responsibilities/authorities, personal responsibilities and conservatism. I am hoping this will spark discussions similar to that one, where many folks ended up seeing it differently than their initial reactions dictated. For me, it was a good “test” of sorts of my beliefs, ideology and instincts, and my ability to adhere to them, and/or justify them within myself.

Also for the record, I happen to live in a jurisdiction served exclusively by a volunteer fire department. If you don’t live in such a jurisdiction, and never have, it might be hard for you to understand how they are funded, which varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. South Fulton, TN has what I perceive to be a rare form of funding in that residents outside the City Limits “subscribe” to the service for an annual fee of $75. No “subscription fee” paid, equals no fires at your home being fought, with one important caveat; the fire department will save lives within fairly standardized policies of risk to themselves, but once people are out of danger, the structure is left to burn. However, though the subscription scheme may be rare, volunteer fire departments are almost always funded by residents of the response-area, whether in the form of donations, local property taxes, bake sales, community garage sales or some combination thereof.

I also live right on the line between two counties. There is a large city-operated fire station about 1/4 mile from where I’m sitting right now, but that city is in the county I don’t live in. Our volunteer department is only about a mile away, staffed entirely by volunteers (no paid positions at all, but supervised and trained by paid officials who work in the County Seat, about 12 miles away), so response times are still very low to our neighborhood. But it’s no exaggeration to say that the staff at the city-operated station just up the road would literally be able to see the flames and smell the smoke if my house was on fire, but would not be able to respond. Point being, in jurisdictions across this country, there are limits imposed on firefighters concerning what locations and people get the benefit of their expertise and equipment, and close-in proximity to a given fire is not a mitigating factor to those limitations. Just something to consider. I’m still not saying how I feel about that circumstance though.

CC

On The Night Liberty Died, I Held Her Hand…..

This is tangentially about the SCOTUS hearing on ObamaCare that’s coming up in the first quarter of next year, but it’s not the crux of the subject I wish to comment on.

On March 20 – 22 of last year, I was in Washington D.C. for the vote to pass the health care bill. I had heard a few people suggest a gathering of some sort. Bachmann and some Tea Party notables mostly. For me it was different though. It wasn’t at anyone’s behest that I went, it was an irresistible draw. Think: Richard Dreyfuss in “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” as he, along with all the others who had been affected by some extraterrestrial force, somehow knew that their presence was required at Devil’s Tower in Wyoming, and nothing was going to stop them from getting there. I woke up on Friday, March 19th, and told my wife I had to go. She got it, and gave me her blessing (and started making food that would keep in a cooler to try to save money – I was unemployed at the time).

I have no idea if the old regulars here at Right Thinking had any fellow members who went to D.C. that weekend, who could provide you with a first-hand account of the event, but I do know that I was either the only one, or one of only a couple who went, on the other sites I frequented at the time. As I hear the punditry about the upcoming SCOTUS challenge, I keep getting a familiar feeling in the pit of my stomach that many commentators just aren’t/weren’t getting what this was all about. Which Justices are going to recuse themselves, will SCOTUS uphold or overturn or some compromise in-between, will certain politicians’ careers rise or fall on the outcome of the case……blah blah.

It is my firm belief that ObamaCare goes well beyond a simple debate over the finer points of constitutional law. It’s about what force of nature will triumph, the natural yearning of humans for freedom, or the raw evil of despotism and tyranny. While it is my belief that if America falls to the latter, so too will follow the entire world, that belief doesn’t really influence my committment to dedicate what remains of my life to preserving the former. The forces of the latter are global in nature, while the mindset that created the former is still, generally-speaking, only found here in America as a collective force to be reckoned with, diminished and weaker than needed though that force may be.

On the day I got back in town from the health care vote, I posted my take on where we stood as a country at Survivalist Forums, and you could see the epiphany that occurred within me that the above articulates in its first incarnation in that post. After giving my take, I summarized it thusly, which I used a part of to title this post:

“That’s why I went. I watched the grandmother I was raised with die. I watched my favorite aunt die. I watched my mother die. I held all of their hands in their final death throes and witnessed their final breaths. Last night I did the same thing with American Liberty. And I did it with a family of about 2,000 or 3,000 Brother & Sister Patriots who stayed till the end. Last night wasn’t about politics. It was about the death of American Liberty.”

I feel stronger about it now than I did then, some 20 months hence. This SCOTUS ruling will tell us, The People, if the rule of law, wholly inspired by the aforementioned natural yearning for human freedom, still holds any sway against the forces of despotism. And even if it does and the ruling goes against ObamaCare, will this chapter in American jurisprudence be enough to wake The People up to the fact that the fight is never-ending? Or will they give a collective sigh, saying to their collective self, “Shwew! That was close!” and go on about their work-a-daddy lives taking for granted the freedoms and immunities from government intrusion that court victories over highly controversial, important issues tend to mask as even being threatened? Are we collectively peering through the eye-holes of that mask? I think not.

Win or lose at SCOTUS on ObamaCare, it, in and of itself, is not the threat to our liberties that many describe it as. Apathy, complacency, and lack of civic participation are much more deadly enemies to freedom, that allow the rich environment in which travesties to liberty such as ObamaCare, the Patriot Act, and myriad examples of constitutional usurpations that have riddled this country for decades without so much as a whimper from the masses to proliferate, than any one piece of legislation even has the potential to be, no matter how egregious against liberty its provisions are.

So that’s what I felt compelled to say. Of course I hope ObamaCare is overturned, but I implore my readers not to take it as the end-all, be-all of victories over tyranny if it is. The American Revolution started in 1776, but it is a never-ending struggle, and neither the ratification of the Constitution itself, nor the passage, or upholding, or overturning of ObamaCare, can or will portend its conclusion. The precepts of the American Revolution can only be maintained and nurtured, never concluded. But it can be defeated. One entity can prevent its defeat; We, The People. Your participation is required.

CC

Not Enough, But An Encouraging Start….

On Oct. 22, 2011, Sheriff Jon Lopey of Siskiyou County, CA hosted seven other sheriffs from CA and OR in a meeting for the purpose of stating their intentions to their constituents to make a united push against the federal government in matters mostly surrounding property rights, but inclusive in their declarations was the underlying meme that the federal government is, and has been for several years, infringing on the sovereign rights of their respective states. The following is the short speech Sheriff Lopey gave to open the meeting. The whole 1 hour and 8 minute meeting is linked in the description where all eight sheriffs can be heard from.

Now, the title of this post says this meeting is a good start, but not enough. The reason I say that is that these sheriffs need to stand up to the .fedgov concerning all the unconstitutional laws that they are “obligated” to enforce, such as federal gun control laws, the failure of Congress to limit the scope of the federal courts’ jurisdiction concerning abortion, when doing so would return the issue where it belongs, to the states to decide for themselves, the idiotic and utterly failed “war on drugs” and many other issues where the .fedgov intrudes and unconstitutionally usurps upon the states’ authority to direct their own destinies. I put “obligated” in quotes because it is my firm belief that no sheriff is obligated to enforce an unconstitutional law, nor is any citizen obligated to abide by it. When sheriffs band together on that premise, and hold meetings such as the one in the video to seek support of their county’s citizens in furtherance of it, then I will happily remove the quote marks when describing their obligations, as only then will they truly be living up to them.

That said, this is indeed a good start. I am going to email a link to the whole meeting video to my sheriff, and follow that up with sending him a DVD of it. I worked fairly closely with my sheriff during the tornado cleanup, and though I don’t know him well, my impression is that he will be receptive to the message these Patriots are trying to get out there by being so public about their organization. Receptive or not though, every county sheriff should be exposed to this video, as well as others like Pinal County, AZ Sheriff Paul Babeu:

I encourage anyone reading this who believes these people are attempting to assert rights and authorities that were intended to be reserved to them and their state legislatures for perpetuity under the Constitution, to forward a link to this video to your own sheriff. It is my belief that these people are doing everything they can to avert the chaos that will surely follow a more complete collapse of constitutional protections than the stage of decay we are suffering under at the moment.

CC

Does Obama’s Bromance With Black Panther Party Leaders Explain Philly Intimidation Case Drop?

Gotta love Breitbart. I do anyway. Inquiring conservatives have been trying to direct attention to Obama’s disgustingly imprudent relationships throughout his life. At every turn though, we were told that slammin’ his preacher was out of bounds, or his relationship with domestic terrorists from 25 years ago was stale and insignificant to his life now that he’s all grown up. We aren’t allowed to know anything about his education records or even anything he wrote for his thesis or for the Law Review, the origin of a Social Security number that he started using as an adult and issued from a state he’d neither lived or worked in ever is maintained as an inviolate state secret to this day, his medical records are off-limits, and the only long-form birth certificate that the WH has ever released has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt to be a forgery.

Enter Andrew Breitbart with another revelation about Obama’s past, only this one is just four years old. Might the fact that Obama was pictured with both the National Chief of the New Black Panther Party, Malik Zulu Shabazz, and the NBPP “Minister of War,” Najee Muhammed, have anything to do with the dismissal of the Philly voter intimidation case, of which Shabazz was one of the defendants? Nah, not our America-loving, law-abiding, natural-born-citizen, Barry Soetero, AKA Barack Hussein Obama. You decide:

 

Shock Photos: Candidate Obama Appeared and Marched With New Black Panther Party In 2007
by Andrew Breitbart

New photographs obtained exclusively by BigGovernment.com reveal that Barack Obama appeared and marched with members of the New Black Panther Party as he campaigned for president in Selma, Alabama in March 2007.

The photographs, captured from a Flickr photo-sharing account before it was scrubbed, are the latest evidence of the mainstream media’s failure to examine Obama’s extremist ties and radical roots.

In addition, the new images raise questions about the possible motives of the Obama administration in its infamous decision to drop the prosecution of the Panthers for voter intimidation.

The images, presented below, also renew doubts about the transparency of the White House’s guest logs–in particular, whether Panther National Chief Malik Zulu Shabazz is the same “Malik Shabazz” listed among the Obama administration’s early visitors.

Tomorrow, J. Christian Adams, the Department of Justice whistleblower in the New Black Panther Party case, will release his new book, Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department (Regnery).

The book exposes Obama administration corruption far beyond the Panther dismissal, and reveals how the institutional Left has turned the power of the DOJ into an ideological weapon.

Adams’s book also describes, in detail, the Selma march at which then-Senator Obama was joined by a group of Panthers who had come to support his candidacy.

Among those appearing with Obama was Shabazz, the Panther leader who was one of the defendants in the voter intimidation case that Attorney General Eric Holder dismissed. Also present was the Panthers’ “Minister of War,” Najee Muhammed, who had called for murdering Dekalb County, Georgia, police officers with AK-47’s and then mocking their widows in this video (7:20 – 8:29).

Injustice includes a disturbing photo of Shabazz and the Panthers marching behind Obama with raised fists in the “Black Power” salute.

There are even more photographs.

I have learned that Regnery initially received approval from a person who took pictures of the events in Selma to publish these additional photographs in Injustice.

After the photographer wrote Regnery reversing his permission to include the photographs in Injustice, the images were removed from the photographer’s Flickr account.  Yet we were able to capture them before they disappeared.

The photographs show Obama sharing the same podium at the event with the Panthers.

In the first image, Shabazz stands at the podium, surrounded by uniformed Panthers, including Muhammed. In the second photograph, Obama commands the same podium.

Here are the images:

The First Amendment allows photographs of such enormous public importance to see the light of day. Cases, including one involving skimpy photographs of Miss Puerto Rico, have established that fair use and the First Amendment allow publication of these photos.

It is true that then-Senator Hillary Clinton and Al Sharpton were also in Selma at the same event. But the Panthers explicitly came to Selma to support Obama, as Adams details in Injustice.

They spoke with Obama at the podium shown above, and departed together with Obama for the main march itself, as shown by this grainer image captured from YouTube:

Obama seems not to be reviled by the Panthers in any of the video or photographs. And Obama’s own campaign website would post an endorsement by the New Black Panther Party in March 2008.  As Adams writes in Injustice:

Somehow, the fact that the future President of the United States shared a podium with leaders of the New Black Panthers, marched with them, and received a public, formal greeting from their party has vanished from the history of Obama’s campaign. Apart from [Juan] Williams’ single dispatch, no other media outlets ever reported it.

After NPR initially reported that the Panthers were present at the event with Obama, subsequent reports from Selma omitted any mention of the hate group appearing with the future President.

Had any of Obama’s opponents appeared at an event with the KKK or Aryan Nation, The New York Times would have had to double its ink buy.

Obama’s appearance does much more than expose mainstream media hypocrisy. It also exposes an association between a vile racist organization and a future President of the United States. Only the degree of association is subject to debate.

And only a few voices outside the mainstream media have continued to press the Obama administration about its past and present ties to fringe groups.

I have been calling for the White House to disclose which Malik Shabazz visited the private White House residence on July 25, 2009, two months after the DOJ voter intimidation case was dismissed.  So far, the White House has refused to do so, leaving open the question of which “Malik Shabazz” appears in visitor logs released to the public.

To reiterate: nobody, including Adams, is suggesting that Obama is a secret member of the New Black Panther Party. At a minimum, however, the events in Selma expose the media double standard that has buried this story until this week.

The mainstream media should ask Obama a few questions before they rush to his defense:

What did he and Malik Zulu Shabazz say when they conversed that day–something that Shabazz has said happened?

Did the Obama campaign play any role in having the Panthers travel to support his presidential ambitions?

Who posted the Panthers’ endorsement on the Obama campaign’s website, and at whose instructions?

Who–finally–was the Malik Shabazz who visited the White House residence on July 25, 2009?

Somewhere in Kenya a village is missing its Dear Marxist Leader.

CC

The Ever-Expanding Definition of “Extremism”

I am going to quote an article below that, when you read the second to last paragraph, you might believe was prompted by the recent killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki, but as you can see from the date in the title, it was written a little over a year ago. Because of that, I thought it better to start a new post, rather than take the Awlaki thread too far afield, but it is tangentially related in the context of the issues raised, even if not because of any specific relation to Awlaki.

Not surprisingly to me, my concerns/objections to the Awlaki killing were greeted with mixed reviews. I understand the reactions that were/are supportive of the drone attack in Yemen, as it wasn’t all that long ago that I would’ve shared them. A lot has transpired in America since 9/11/01 that has caused me to reevaluate my relationship to my government though. Mostly having to do with an “official” hostility towards conservatism, the government has set about an effective propaganda program intended to create the illusion that words such as, “conservative, rightwing, racist, hate, violent, militia, Tea Party” etc. are synonymous in the minds of easily-led, unthinking drones. This is evidenced by the DHS report entitled, “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment”  which began with the words, with my emphasis added:

The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.

They start out by saying there is no basis for this report, while using nothing but bureaucrat-arrived-at conjecture that racism is among “unique drivers” for rightwing terrorism. The asterisk doesn’t ameliorate the conjectural nature of the first paragraph either, as it refers the reader to the following note:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

So, according to this brainless conjecture, a person who believes that the 10th Amendment means what it says, and who supports its verbiage in a vocal, legal manner, may well be a rightwingernutjobracisthatemongerwannabeterrorist. It reads more like a Jeff Foxworthy rendition of “You Might Be A Rightwing Terrorist If….” than any kind of intelligence-gathering effort by a law-abiding law enforcement entity, as does the rest of the “report.”

The “report” cited above was troubling enough on its own, but many conservatives matched their outrage at being so vilified by their own government, with employing their investigative abilities in trying to figure out where the data underlying the “report” came from. Americans For Limited Government was among the most successful in uncovering the sources that DHS used for the “report,” and this is where it gets personal for me.

I have been active on many forums over the years. I have a wide variety of interests, from politics to music to motorcycles to survivalism to guns and knives. One look at my Bookmarks file would immediately verify this fact, as I frequent multiple forums related to all of those interests. On a forum devoted to the shooting sports, collecting knives or learning useful survival techniques, the issues of politics will always overlap to a degree, but it never occurred to me that participating at various sites where 95% or better of my participation had zero to do with politics, would put me on the radar of my government as a potential “extremist.” But it did. Twice. From two different sources who contributed “data” to the above-referenced DHS *conjecture* on rightwing extremism and “recruiting.” Americans For Limited Government gives most of the sources that DHS used, and late last year I was notified by “friends” from a couple of my regular internet haunts that quotes by me, quoted by two different far-left organizations, were included in the “data” that were part of the “basis” for the DHS “report.” Oh, did I forget to mention that the “basis” for tagging pro-gun, pro-life, returning vets and anti-illegal-immigration folk as *potential* terrorists was nothing more than a bunch of DHS hacks and the leftist organizations they enlisted to help them surf the web for extremism? That’s right. Popping off in disgust or anger or even just pining for the good ol’ days in opposition to Obama landed many an otherwise thoughtful, law-abiding Patriot in the underlying “data” of that DHS “report,” myself and several of my internet “friends” included.

So my bumper sticker that I had on my car when I went to Washington D.C. to protest the passage of ObamaCare was not nearly as tongue in cheek as I thought it was, as just one month later the DHS report was leaked to the public. The bumper sticker said simply, “Proud Member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.” I went alone and carried a small, hand-made sign that said, “I Am The Mob.” I guess the sarcasm would’ve been lost on any DHS “protector” of the republic who might’ve seen that too.

So OK, with that anecdotal example in mind of how one goes about becoming an *official* potential rightwing terrorist without ever having engaged in a single illegal anti-government act or conspired to foment same, and keeping in mind my view of the Awlaki killing and legal questions it raises, here comes the point of this post, an article from a year or so ago that I ran across while surfing one of those websites from which a quote of mine was culled and considered “evidence” of a burgeoning rightwing terrorist threat. It hit home for me.

April 22, 2010
What About the Government?

The Slippery Definition of Extremism

by JAMES BOVARD

Americans are once again hearing of the perils of extremism. But the definition of this offense is slippier than a politician’s campaign promise. The definition of extremism has continually been amended to permit government policies that few sober people previously advocated.

Prior to 2000, anyone who asserted that the Census Bureau was deeply involved with the roundup of Japanese-Americans for internment camps in 1942 was considered an extremist. The Census Bureau spent 60 years denying its role but finally admitted its culpability ten years ago after academics uncovered undeniable proof. Regardless of the Census Bureau’s past abuses or perennial deceit, only extremists believe that their answers to this year’s census could ever be used against them.

Prior to September 2001, anyone who suggested that the U.S. government lead a crusade to “rid the world of evil”would have been labeled both an extremist and a loon. But when George W. Bush promised exactly that three days after 9/11, the media cheered and his approval ratings soared.

Prior to November 2001, anyone who suggested that the president had the power to suspend the right of habeas corpus and perpetually detain anyone he accused of serious wrongdoing would have been considered an extremist. But Bush’s executive decree on enemy combatants made this the law — or at least the policy — of the land.

Prior to 2002, anyone who suggested that the U.S. government create a Total Information Awareness database of personal information on tens of millions of Americans would have been considered an extremist. But federal spy agencies rushed forward with exactly such plans, and the feds have stockpiled far more data on citizens.

Prior to April 2004, anyone who asserted that the U.S. military was torturing detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan was seen as an anti-American extremist. The leaking of the Abu Ghraib photos and official reports on abuses at Guantanamo and elsewhere proved that the extremists’ worst fear had become national policy. And when Congress effectively ratified Bush’s torture policies in the 2006 Military Commissions Act, “extremists”came to connote people who believed that American democracy had utterly disgraced itself.

Prior to the war on terror, anyone who advocated using tortured confessions in judicial proceedings would have been considered an extremist and perhaps also a medievalist. But the Justice Department and Pentagon effectively claimed a right to use confessions regardless of how they were acquired.

Prior to late 2005, anyone who asserted that the National Security Agency was routinely and massively illegally wiretapping Americans’ phone calls and email without a warrant was considered paranoid — as well as an extremist. Within weeks of the New York Times’ exposing the government’s warrantless surveillance apparatus, Republican congressmen stood and cheered during Bush’s State of the Union address when he boasted of his intrusions.

Prior to recent years, anyone who suggested that Uncle Sam should be able to take naked snapshots of all airline passengers would have been considered a lunatic, as well as an extremist. But the Transportation Security Agency, with its Whole Body X-ray systems, is doing exactly that in many airports around the nation. And the TSA’s promises that such photos will not be stored or abused are as credible as TSA’s earlier promises that no one would be delayed more than 10 minutes waiting in airport checkpoint lines.

Prior to the post-9/11 era, if someone suggested that the federal government should bloat its Terrorist Watch List with more than a million names, the person would have been considered a fool and an extremist. But this is exactly what the feds have done — and that is part of the reason why the watch lists have become almost useless as well as a peril to scores of thousands of innocent Americans.

Prior to this decade, only extremists believed that the president should be permitted to order the assassination of American citizens — with no attempt to arrest or try the suspected wrongdoer. Yet, President Obama recently officially made this the national policy.

Time and again, the U.S. government has adopted policies that only extremists advocated a few years earlier. And yet, no one is supposed to think that the government has become the biggest extremist of them all.

JAMES BOVARD serves as a policy advisor for The Future of Freedom Foundation and is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy, The Bush Betrayal, Terrorism and Tyranny, and other books.

So who here either is now, or has ever been, an extremist? Because no matter what, you either were at some time in the past, or are now, as the shifting and ever-expanding definition of the word purposely gets us all in its clutches just because it is shifting and ever-expanding. If you don’t understand my “slippery slope” arguments in light of this indisputable fact, well, I don’t know what to say. You might when you realize that your name, your family, maybe even your freedom, are all at risk due to nothing more than expressing opposition to the government whose duty and responsibility it is to protect your right to do so.

CC

Gun Owners of America Not Happy With Romney

I’m a member of GOA. Decided that the NRA long-ago stopped representing my best interests in favor of serving their own political and corporate interests, so I took my money elsewhere. As a member of GOA, I get email alerts at least a couple of times a week about specific legislation or candidates that threaten 2nd Amendment rights, which always have a link to their “Political Action” page that automates writing your Representatives and Senators. I don’t remember ever getting an alert that didn’t have such a link…..before today.

The following is an email I just got from GOA. No action required or requested. It’s just informational. Take it with however many grains of salt you wish. I take it with a couple of shovels-full myself.

Mitt Romney and Gun Control

Thursday, 29 September 2011 13:12
Written by Tim Macy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I could not agree any more strongly. Romney is the Second Coming of McCain, and if Republicans choose this RINO after McCain being the main reason we have Obama now, then all pretense of a distinction between the left and right wing of the establishment bird will be completely blown out of the water.

I, personally, am not thrilled with any of the choices currently presented on the Republican slate, but none carry so much non-conservative baggage as Romney in my estimation. Doesn’t matter what letter follows the name of any candidate or elected official, the establishment arm of both parties has nothing less than the destruction of the American fabric that has made this country great for over two centuries. Don’t be a part of it. Keep Romney, or any candidate that you perceive as a RINO or less than committed to preserving what is left, and restoring what’s already been stolen, from our constitutional, federalist, republican birthright, on the roles of the unemployed next November.

CC

Alabama’s Strict Immigration Law Upheld In Large Part

Judge upholds key parts of Alabama immigration enforcement law

Ah, I can feel the construction jobs coming back to Alabama as I type, reserved for Americans and/or legal residents.

One of the provisions upheld by Judge Blackburn is the section requiring that the immigration status of students be checked. While I personally don’t regard this as the most important provision, I put it at the top of this post specifically to draw a distinction between the kinds of Republicans who wrote, passed and signed this law into effect, and the kind, like Rick Perry, who think illegal aliens ought to not only be allowed to enroll in state colleges, but should enjoy the same discounts as Texas residents do by paying in-state tuition rather than the higher out-of-state prices that non-Texan American citizens and legal residents must pay. Our new law, for as long as it survives the appeals, will prevent, or at least vastly reduce, illegals from enrolling in state colleges at all.

Just for a little background for those who don’t know, this law is the direct result of Alabamians putting the legislative and executive branches of state government in the hands of Republicans for the first time in 136 years in last year’s election. Generally-speaking, the Republicans elected here are reasonably described as true conservatives, and not RINOs. I think this law is the first of many more to come that reflects that bit of smart scrutiny applied by our citizenry last November.

From the Michelle Malkin piece linked to above:

Also upheld: The provisions authorizing local police to inquire about detainees’ immigration status.

Alabama didn’t wait for the feds to do the job they should be doing. Before the ruling, they implemented “AL-Verify:”

Monday Governor Robert Bentley unveiled a new development in the illegal immigration debate. It’s a state-developed computer system that can verify citizenship as quickly as you can show your driver’s license.

It’s called AL-Verify. Some say this isn’t needed until a judge rules on Alabama’s new immigration law.

John McMillan, with the Alabama Commission of Agriculture and Industries says he will definitely be watching.

“Some of our farmers have been in talks with legislators. I have been involved in some of those meetings, and my role is going to be keeping legislators informed of what I see out there on the ground,” said McMillan.

McMillan, and many others are waiting to see what an up or down vote for Alabama’s immigration law means, or if there will be any provisions.

While many people wait, the governor and his cabinet members are moving forward, and they’re doing it through the AL-Verify program.

“We provided an automated way to be compliant so the process for getting a title or a tag hasn’t really changed but because of the immigration bill we had a compliance issue. Now with this technology we’ve solved the compliance issue,” said Julie Magee, the Commissioner for the Department of Revenue.

Magee said she didn’t know how much the technology cost, but the program is live, and here’s the way it works: You put your driver’s license info in and AL-Verify tells you whether it’s valid.

Cries of “heartless!” in 3, 2, 1…

First time since we moved here 20 years ago that we’ve had a friend in the Department of Revenue!

Meantime, Mr. Irascible — our thin-skinned commander-in-chief — gets peeved over an illegal alien student’s carping about lack of DREAM Act passage…and then doubles down by telling Latino leaders to quit complaining.

Heal thyself, whiner.

Here’s the only place I disagree with Michelle in this piece. No, Michelle, we do not need to count on Obama or his ilk to heal thyself, we need to heal the country ourselves by ousting every last one of them. Even if we did that in one fell swoop, true healing is still a long-shot. Still, Alabama has shown the way towards restoring the ideal of America being  for Americans. It’s a good sign. I just hope other states and the .fedgov follow suit in 2012 the way us Alabamians did in 2010.

CC

City Demands Christians Buy Permit For Home Bible Study

 

Already fined $300, facing potential penalty of $500 per meeting

I realize there’s a pretty strong aversion to fundamentalist Christian orthodoxy around here, but surely no one can think this is a good idea….. Can they?

Chuck and Stephanie Fromm already have been fined $300 for holding Bible studies for their friends at their home, and they face the potential for additional fines of $500 for each study held, according to a legal team taking their case to court.The newest conflict over Bible studies in homes in America arose in San Juan Capistrano, Calif., where city officials say city code section 9-3.301 prohibits religious organizations in residential neighborhoods without a conditional-use permit, a sometimes very expensive procedure.

The code cites “churches, temples, synagogues, monasteries, religious retreats, and other places of religious worship and other fraternal and community service organizations.”

But a Bible study in a home?

That’s pretty much what I’m thinking. How on Earth can any city believe this intrusion not only into a citizen’s home, but into their religious practices as well, is constitutional? Do any Americans here believe it is?

“Imposing a heavy-handed permit requirement on a home Bible study is outrageous,” said Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, which is working on the case on behalf of the Fromms.

“In a city so rich with religious history and tradition, this is particularly egregious. An informal gathering in a home cannot be treated with suspicion by the government, or worse than any other gathering of friends,  just because it is religious. We cannot allow this to happen in America, and we will fight as long and as hard as it takes to restore this group’s religious freedom.”

…..

Pacific Justice said it has represented larger churches that have been required to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars as part of the permit process on such items as engineering and traffic studies, architectural designs. The process includes public hearings and ultimately can result in a rejection by the city.

Catch that? Even if they jump through the city’s unconstitutional hoops, their application (and payment) for a permit can be rejected. Welcome to Amerika.

The organization points out that the city was founded as a Christian mission in the 1700s and is home to California’s oldest building still in use, a chapel where Father Junipero Serra celebrated mass.

Pacific Justice said it is appealing the city’s demands to California Superior Court in Orange County.

Well, let’s hope the Superior Court in Orange County has at least as much sense, and courage, as the Illinois judge who recently ruled that preventing citizens from recording cops doing their jobs was unconstitutional, though in this case, I have a hard time attributing courage to a judge who simply reads and understands English at a rudimentary level. To wit:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

CC