Google Custom Search

Saturday, August 04, 2007

The Bush Betrayal of Gun Owners

A popular political phrase that was dropped into the modern vernacular in the last 30 years of the 20th century was, 'It took Nixon to go to China.' The concept behind the phrase, of course, is that it took an avowed anti-Communist to open the door of capitalism to a Communist nation.

Had a Liberal Democrat attempted such a thing, such a summit probably would not have been successful. Critics would have decried the whole thing as a Communist love-fest initiated by Liberals who tend to be apologists for Communists to begin with.

Fast forward to the first decade of the 21st century. It has taken a gun-friendly Republican President to trample on the firearms and ammunitions industry in this country.

We would have expected this from a Liberal Democrat. We were not expecting it from the Bush Administration, and perhaps this is precisely the reason we have been thus far ill-prepared to handle the onslaught of an out-of-control, rogue arm of the Justice Department--the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

Caught totally by surprise, and thus woefully unprepared for an effective and swift defense, the firearms and ammunitions industry has found itself in a fight for its very survival.

The statistics will reveal just how devastating the attacks of the ATF have been.

Since 2002, a whopping 85% of firearms manufacturers in America have been forced to close their doors for good.

Note that the alarming rate of shut-downs of gun manufacturers by the ATF coincides with the election of George W. Bush.

However, the Clinton Administration is every bit as culpable. From 1994-2005, 80% of gun dealers were forced out of business. Eight of those years were under the Clinton Administration.

Nonetheless, the Bush Administration has done absolutely nothing to stem the tide of this alarming persecution, and if anything the ATF has actually turned up the heat in the last few years.

The statistic that nails the Bush Administration is that from 2001 until 2006, the number of gun dealers who have had their licenses revoked by the ATF has risen by 6 times the number of revocations in the previous six years.

In short, the Bush Administration has been no friend to gun owners.

One of the reasons why Richard Nixon was forced out of office is not simply because he lied about covering up the Watergate Scandal but that he betrayed many of his closest friends in the Congress. Nixon in many ways represented a betrayal of the very values that put him in office.

It was Nixon who implemented a wage-and-price freeze to deal with inflation--an anathema to libertarian, free-market Republicans. Instead of focusing on winning outright in Viet Nam after he inherited Lyndon Johnson's mess, Nixon instead brought an end to the conflict and pulled out our troops, resulting in one of the most cruel and heartless blood-baths in the history of the world, perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge.

Thus, when he needed help the most, Nixon had no friends left to come to his defense over Watergate.

Like Nixon, in many ways George W. Bush has represented a betrayal of the very values that got him elected. This is not entirely true, for there have been some triumphs, such as the tax cuts.

Yet Mr. Bush suffers from the same disease that seemed to plague Nixon, i.e., talking and acting like a conservative while supporting measures that fly in the face of every known conservative principle.

The gun issue is but one example. This Administration has presided over massive government expansion and spending, meddling in local schools by the Feds through the 'No Child Left Behind Act,' failing to fight the War in Iraq to win, and of course, the immigration amnesty fiasco.

One has to wonder if Mr. Bush believes in the Second Amendment as much as he says he does. Perhaps he actually thinks that governments are the only ones who should have guns. We can only base our conclusions on what we observe.

Many Americans, this writer being one of them, had high hopes in 2001 that Mr. Bush could be another Reagan. Sadly, unless major changes are made, it appears he will be more like Nixon.

SHOCKER! Only 3% Approve of Congress on the War

Zogby International released a new poll on August 1 which shows that public approval of Congress when it comes to handling the War in Iraq has dipped to a shocking low of 3%.

President Bush received a 24% approval rating on the War in the same poll.

Thus, the one issue that Democrats used to beat Republicans over the head in the 2006 elections has come back to haunt them. At no point during the War in Iraq was the Republican controlled Congress treated to such contempt.

This news is bound to strike fear in the hearts of the Democratic nominees for President, as well as Congressional and Senate Democrats. The Democrats were counting on the War to catapult them into the White House in 2008 and increase their slim majorities in the House and Senate.

Not so fast.

The public, according to the Zogby poll, has 21% more confidence in President Bush' handling of the War than in that of Congress.

And this is not the only bad news for the Democrats. The public overwhelmingly favors supporting our troops by keeping funding at current levels. 42% believe that Congress should continue to fully fund the War, 34% would attach requirements for gradual withdrawal to such funding, while a mere 18% support cutting all funding and bringing the troops home immediately.

The polling data comes on the heels of a series of op-eds in major newspapers last Sunday that quote vehement critics of the War as saying that there has been a distinct turn-around in the past month in Iraq and that the U.S. is certainly capable of winning outright.

These critics were considered close allies in the Democrats' fight to pull the troops out. Now that there has been a marked improvement in Iraq, many believe that the plug has just been pulled on the Democrats' 'slam-dunk' issue.

Thus, my friends, it is way too early to give up hope on the 2008 elections. Not only is there a better than 50-50 chance we will keep the White House, but our prospects for retaking control of Congress get better by the day.

Here is the full report on the Zogby poll:

Friday, August 03, 2007

UK Doc: 'Don't Treat Greedy Fat People'

If you are considered clinically obese, perhaps you should think twice before moving to Great Britain. Or if you are already there, perhaps you should seriously consider leaving. One of the top physicians in the U.K. says that overweight people are lazy, greedy, and should not receive medical treatment.

Remember that the U.K. operates under a government-run healthcare system. Socialized medicine is a system in which medical decisions are not made between a patient and his/her doctor. The system is based upon several factors, such as need, available resources, and the approval of the government before treatment is given.

If, for example, you are 70 years old and in need of coronary by-pass, you may well be deemed too old for the system to pay for your surgery.

These types of decisions are reached by considering the patient's age, overall health, risk factors, likelihood of recovery, and 'available resources,' i.e., the amount of tax dollars allocated for such procedures.

Within such systems of healthcare, the populace is more often than not herded into compliance with government-set standards for weight, diet, exercise habits, etc., so that taxpayers will not feel that they are helping subsidize those lazy, good-for-nothing sloths who refuse to acquiesce to the accepted standards for the society.

To some degree such a mindset already exits in the U.S., though not to the extent that one finds in places like the U.K. or Canada. One emergency room physician in the U.S. was overheard complaining to nurses about a patient who sustained massive head-trauma while riding a motorcycle.

He was not wearing a helmet.

The physician in question sanctimoniously suggested that he should not have to pay for a loser like this patient, who didn't have the common sense to wear a helmet, and that taxpayers should not have to pick up the bill for it.

In other words, so much for the Hippocratic Oath. This is the age of making value judgments on human life based solely upon how much money taxpayers have to fork over to care for smokers, the obese, people who ride without helmets, and the like.

Luckily, the physician who made the remark was operating under a system not yet fully seized by government. The people in the U.K. are not so lucky.

Given that taxpayers foot the bill for everyone's medical care, who is to say that at some point healthcare will be refused to those who smoke? Or those who are overweight?

After all, the good doctor in the U.K. thinks that fat people are by definition lazy and greedy. The bastards! Let them fend for themselves! Refuse to give them treatment for diabetes, heart disease, circulatory problems, etc. After all, the dirty rotten human vermin brought it on themselves!

And this is precisely one of the core problems with socialized medicine. Everyone has a stake in everyone else's healthcare. This is not a good thing.

In fact, one of the salient features that highlights the superiority of private healthcare is that what I do is my business, and what you do is yours. I don't care whether or not you smoke or eat all the 'correct' foods. That is your business.

And, in like manner, it is simply none of your damn business what I eat, how much I weigh, how much I choose to smoke, or if I decide to ride a motorcycle without a helmet to the Philip Morris plant, light up a good smoke, drink an entire keg of beer, and eat a dozen Big Macs.

In a PRIVATE healthcare system, as long as I have a doctor who is willing to treat me, I will get medical care. And if I should need coronary by-pass surgery, I will probably get it immediately.

But in Canada or the U.K. I may well be dead by the time my name comes up on the waiting list.

As for the physician in Great Britain with his condescending attitude, sorry, Doc. I don't need you, your healthcare system, or your attitude. I wouldn't bring my dog to be treated in the U.K.

And woe be unto the poor little thing if he were overweight.

Should dog owners in the U.K. be fearful that you may begin to systematically euthanize all overweight dogs?

Second Amendment News Roundup for 8/3/07

Here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:

A Keyboard and a .45 notes that while gun grabbers like to blame guns for violence, the real culprit is the revolving door justice system:

Alphecca has news from 'the People's Republic of California.' San Francisco has now enacted new gun control ordinances:

Blonde Sagacity has a must-read on the question of the legality of media bias:

Gun Law News reports on the fact that the Senate experienced some movement Thursday on the McCarthy-NRA bill, H.R. 2640, about which there is widespread disagreement in our community. Either way, it's time to let your Senators know where you stand. Personally, I am with the GOA on this one. I think it is a terrible idea:

John Lott says that the Philadelphia Enquirer has a story on a rather odd reaction by a former concealed carry owner to the violence in Philly:

Say Uncle blows the lid on the dirty little secret of gun-grabbing cities like Los Angeles, where the affluent and famous get 'permission' for concealed carry while ordinary citizens do not:

Snow Flakes in Hell blogs on the constant flip-flopping, back and forth, by the ATF, which never seems to live up to its promises, breaks the deals it makes, and takes opposite stances on issues from day to day....what an 'organization':

The Bitch Girls report that Republican Presidential contender Sam Brownback, R-KS, got in some good shooting time with one of those 'black rifles' recently:

Nicki at The Liberty Zone opines on the notion that 'only governments should have guns':

Traction Control invites us to participate in a firearms pricing experiment. He says, 'Do your research and name your price.' Remember, he has a commercial site, so be sure to check that out as well:

Xavier Thoughts sent a letter to eBay protesting their latest actions in jumping over to the ranks of anti-gun. He got a response too. Read it all here:

Heartless Libertarian reminds us in stark detail that Barack Hussein Obama is a gun-grabber of the worst sort:

The War on Guns posts this commentary on the fact that the ATF reneged on its agreement with Red's Trading Post to drop the harassment charge against Red's:

Of Arms and the Law has more information on the still-developing story of how the Sheriff in the Los Angeles area is liberal with handing out concealed carry permits to famous persons, but stingy with the general population:

Thursday, August 02, 2007


NOTICE! This is the corrected version of the original story, which contained a factual error.

Incensed by the inclusion of 'Jihad Watch' director Robert Spencer on the list of speakers for the annual conference of the Young America's Foundation, CAIR has threatened to sue the organization unless YAF cancels Spencer's appearance.

Spencer is a noted expert on the global jihad and has often drawn fire from terrorist front-groups, such as CAIR, for his willingness to report the covert activities of Islamic terrorists.

CAIR often portrays itself as a 'mainstream, moderate' Muslim organization. However, they are known to channel funds to overseas terrorists, and they have recently been named by the U.S. Government as an unindicted co-conspirator in a money scheme to benefit terrorist organizations in various countries around the world.

Below you will find the link to the news story about CAIR's threat. Note carefully YAF's swift, decisive, and bold response to CAIR.

Senate Debates Government Child Healthcare

Under the guise of 'providing uninsured children with access to healthcare,' two bills have been introduced in Congress, one in the House, the other in the Senate, that would renew and expand the government child healthcare program.

The Senate debated their version of the plan today. Senators sparred over the necessity of such a massive socialized system for a tiny minority that does not have health insurance.

Senator Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, questioned the wisdom of such a plan when at least half of the estimated 9 million children who would be covered already have private health insurance.

Indeed, this is the key question.

If this plan is what the Democrats claim it is, then why are they seeking to cover millions of persons who already have private health insurance?

The fact that Congressional Democrats do such things is the smoking gun that proves their true intent. They wish to dismantle America's premier healthcare system, which is the envy of the world, and replace it with socialized medicine.

The only problem is that Americans would resist such a massive upheaval if it were done all at once. Thus, the Democrats' plan is to do it in increments.

Their program to 'provide access to healthcare for children who are not covered' is but a ruse, a small step in the direction of the ultimate goal to place all of our healthcare system under the control of the federal government.

Four important considerations must be addressed before the country goes marching headlong into this ill-advised program.

First, if the plan is designed to give uninsured children access to healthcare, then why are upwards of 14 million children covered under this plan, when only 9 million at most need it?

Democrats even conceded today that some adults are covered under this plan.

So much for the so-called 'children's healthcare plan.'

Second, if this plan is designed, as the Democrats claim, to provide access for uninsured children, then why are an estimated 4.5 million out of the 9 million targeted for coverage ALREADY covered under private insurance plans?

Obviously, somebody is lying about the true intent of this plan.

Third, there is a vast difference between 'access to healthcare' and 'healthcare insurance.' Every single human being in the United States of America has access to healthcare through the nearest hospital emergency room, free clinics, and other support services.

The mere fact that someone may be lacking health insurance does not mean they do not have 'access' to healthcare.

Most private hospitals must donate a portion of their services to the poor each year in order to stay in business. And publicly funded hospitals are forbidden from denying care to those who need it.

Thus, the Democrats' carefully chosen terminology for their plan, i.e., 'providing access,' is highly misleading. Their plan is not about providing something that is already available. Rather, their plan is for the concept of government-run, socialized medicine to seize one more segment of the U.S. healthcare system.

Fourth, does anyone know how many of the estimated 9 million children targeted under this plan are illegal aliens?

So far, we have not been informed of any estimates on the number of illegals this program is designed to benefit. But we know this is part of the equation.

It is estimated that there are upwards of 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S. today. We know for a fact that a sizable portion of these 20 million are children, given the high birth rates within that sub-group.

This being the case, is this 'children's healthcare program' simply another giveaway program, implemented by Democrats, to appease one of their core constituencies--illegal aliens?

Senator Sessions pointed to many other problems with this program in his remarks before the Senate today, not the least of which is funding and the inequities that allow higher-income states, such as Massachusetts, to spend more federal funds on the program than poorer states, such as Mississippi.

In fact, Sessions 'outed' the Democrats' dirty little secret, that in Massachusetts children living in households with an income of $60,000 per year can be covered under this plan.

SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS? The poverty level is a fraction of that, and besides, we have been told by the Democrats that this program is for poor children who 'do not have access.'

Apparently, this is yet another lie.

As we have stated many times before on The Liberty Sphere, we are all for programs designed to provide health coverage to those who do not have it. But we are vehemently opposed to government doing it.

We are even more opposed to these programs covering those who already have insurance.

Second Amendment News Roundup for 8/2/07

Scroll down for the news:

Here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:

The War on Guns has the latest good news about Red's Trading Post:

World Net Daily News sent the full story about Red's fight with the ATF to their worldwide audience:

Speaking of Red's, Manager Ryan Horsley has this to say about the ATF's attempt to shut down the firearms industry:

Of Arms and the Law has evidence that we are winning the battle to protect Second Amendment rights in this country. Now, if we can just defeat the jackbooted thugs of the ATF for good, perhaps we can get back to Constitutional law in this nation:

Of Arms and the Law also has this on a new Title II prosecution:

Snow Flakes in Hell posts a very informative piece on the types of FFLs:

Mike McCarville reports that Oklahoma's new star in the U.S. House of Representatives, Republican Mary Fallin, is back home from a recent trip to Iraq, and she has a very positive report:

Blogonomicon says that the real opiate of the masses is the government nanny-state rather than religion (hope this makes Karl Marx turn over several times in his grave):

Alphecca makes a VERY important distinction between a right and a privilege. According to the gun-control freaks and anti-gun bigots, the Bill of Rights should be renamed 'The Bill of Privileges':

John Lott points to an interesting story out of Florida, where a man used a gun to prevent two attacking pit bulls from killing his dog:

The Buckeye Firearms Association gives another example of how the present American culture of 'sheep' who have been hypnotized to simply rely on law enforcement for all things, has resulted in yet another death:

Nicki at the Liberty Zone sarcastically taunts Chicago Mayor Daley for his views on those 'evil, wicked guns':

A Keyboard and a .45 has the interview of Robert Levy, the man who initiated the original lawsuit against D.C. over its violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution:

For the record, The Bitch Girls present the difference between the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign:

Wednesday, August 01, 2007

Media Bias in Reporting Thompson Fundraising

The mainstream media, relying on the skewed opinions of a few pundits with a vested interest in negative spin, have shown remarkable bias in reporting Fred Thompson's fundraising. The former U.S. Senator from Tennessee raised 3.5 million dollars in the month of June alone.

Yet Katie Couric and CBS News put a negative spin on the story, as did the pundits at Even Fox News reported the story with a negative slant.

Couric emphasized that Thompson did not reach the stated goal of 5 million in June. Fox pointed to supposed turmoil in the Thompson camp, leading to the failure to build on the momentum the Senator had originally exhibited. Politico said that the 3.5 million is an indication that Thompson's appeal is turning lackluster.

First, the goal of raising 5 million dollars in one month by a former Senator who has not even announced his candidacy admittedly was a lofty goal. Perhaps the rationale was to deliberately set the bar high so that everyone would try harder.

Second, the failure to reach that lofty goal is not the issue. The amount raised is the issue.

3.5 million in one month is no failure by anyone's estimation. It took Ron Paul, for example, two quarters (six months) to gather a warchest of 2.5 million in cash.

Thompson is now number four among the Republicans in total funds raised and number three in available cash, now that we know McCain has already spent most of his available funds.

Third, the thing that is entirely remarkable about these facts is that Thompson was able to accomplish this feat in only one month as compared to six months for everyone else. The pundits and talking heads of the mainstream media totally missed this point.

Fourth, it would appear that not only are the Democrats afraid of Thompson, but so is the mainstream media. Anyone who is viewed as the one candidate who can derail the Clinton-Obama bandwagon is to be viewed with fear and trembling as far as the socialists are concerned.

We think their fears are well-founded.

And thus, we can expect the media establishment and the Democrats to hurl mud and accusations at a frantic pace.

The Fox News spin is the one that is the most surprising of all. Fox pointed to grumbling among Thompson's campaign staff as an indication things are falling apart.

As it turns out, Thompson's wife, who is a political consultant and campaign expert, is the target of the staffers' grumbling. It is well-known among those who cover political campaigns that candidates' spouses are normally vilified by staffers for their intrusiveness. So this is nothing new.

The difference in Thompson's case is that the spouse is probably more qualified and skillful than 99% of the staff. Thompson's staff will either have to find a way to live with that fact, or else they will have to leave. This is the candidate's wife, and she is considered a formidable force when it comes to political strategy.

The bottom line? The story about Thompson's 'failure' at fundraising is pure spin and nothing more.

But then, what did you expect? Couric and all of the others at CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN are in the hip-pockets of the Democrats. I suspect that Fox supports Rudy Giuliani.

Our opinion is that by the time this is all said and done, Fred Thompson will have some big surprises in store for Fox and the Democrats' mouthpieces at the other networks.

Second Amendment News Roundup for 8/1/07

Scroll down for the news:

Here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:

The Bitch Girls have a very interesting post on the NRA. As a very large and historically very effective organization, the Girls say the NRA probably gets too much credit for the good, and too much blame for the not-so-good:

A Keyboard and a .45 has some bad news about the University of Toronto's discontinuation of its sports shooting range. Just wait till you see their reason:

Xavier Thoughts reports that eBay is the latest to defect into the ranks of the anti-gun organizations. Read all about it here, as well as Xavier's reasons for never again buying anything on eBay:

Now for some good news. Snow Flakes in Hell has evidence that the gun control movement in America is in full retreat. This is really great news:

Heartless Libertarian has provided us with some examples of hot women with guns. As I have always said, our women are the sexiest, most desirable women on earth:

The Jet Pilot shows off a new t-shirt he bought that debunks the notion that senior adults are easy prey for thugs:

The War on Guns has a disturbing report on the failure to enact reforms on the BATFE, which means the citizens are the losers:

Say Uncle posts this example of the liberal mindset, which maintains that guns are evil, bad, and cause crime--except when THEY want one!:

The Buckeye Firearms Association makes public yet another example of a citizen placed in mortal danger by the Sandusky Register's decision to publish the names of concealed carry handgun owners:

Alphecca weighs in on columnist Richard Cohen's 'logic' that maintains that being defenseless is sane:

The Volokh Conspiracy explains why the Democrats are short-sighted when they speak of blocking all further Bush nominations for the courts:

Nicki at The Liberty Zone points to several analysts who have been very critical of the War in Iraq, but who now state that progress is being made and that we now have a very good chance at winning the thing outright:

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Appropriations Bill May Force Agents' Release

Congressional Republicans have succeeded in attaching an amendment to an important appropriations bill. The amendment cuts off federal funds from being used for the incarceration of Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean.

The withdrawal of funds for the imprisonment of the two falsely accused Border Patrol agents will mean their release from prison.

Congress is expected to pass the appropriations bill containing the amendment.

One Republican Congressman observed that President Bush will likely sign the bill, in spite of the fact that it contains a provision aimed at doing what he has yet refused to do--release the two Agents.

The Congressman suggested that the President has more to lose by refusing to sign the appropriations bill than he would by vetoing the measure because of the amendment. The President has been under enormous political pressure, most of it from members of his own Party, to release the two Agents.

By signing the appropriations bill containing an amendment that will lead to the Agents' release, the President can save face. He doesn't have to say a word about the amendment. But those who have been adamant about the Agents' release get what they want.

The problem is what happens afterwards. Will investigations by Congressional Republicans simply dry up due to the fact that Ramos and Compean are set free?

What about their reputations which have been soiled by the lies of the DOJ and the DHS, which painted the two men as 'bad cops'?

What about the lies to Congress?

What about the systematic suppression of law enforcement at our southern border perpetrated by a rogue U.S. Attorney who apparently wishes to appease the Mexican government more than he wishes to obey the law?

Will Congress simply try to sweep the entire fiasco under the rug by the release of Ramos and Compean, hoping that the citizens forget that both the Bush Administration and Congressional Democrats have been grossly negligent in enforcing U.S. laws concerning illegal aliens and in making our borders secure?

We can only hope that statesmen like Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Dana Rohrabacher, and many others, including conservative Democrats, will never stop digging until they discover the ugly truth behind the Border Patrol scandal, and then take pertinent steps to clean out the corruption.

Second Amendment News Roundup for 7/31/07

Scroll down for the news:

Here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:

The Volokh Conspiracy has a timely article on the perils of so-called 'hate crimes' legislation:

Speaking of hate crimes, A Keyboard and a .45 shows evidence that censorship is involved in the debate over hate crimes legislation, which is a First Amendment issue (and this eventually impacts Second Amendment issues as well):

Alphecca reports that the Los Angeles Times thinks that the notion of the Second Amendment being an 'individual right' is a radical idea. ROFL!! I suppose the imbeciles never read the Federalist Papers or the writings of Jefferson or any of the Framers! Read this, but be ready to get boiling mad:

Alphecca also reports that the nation of England is having a hissy fit over the fact that Olympic shooters are being granted a temporary exemption from the country's anti-handgun laws (I am continually embarrassed by the home country's incessant irrationality about such things):

The Buckeye Firearms Association says that the Castle Doctrine bill is gaining support in Ohio:

Say Uncle reports that yet another gun dealer has been targeted by the ATF:

Snow Flakes in Hell has more on the demise of the Brady Campaign's blog:

The Bitch Girls have a few choice words for Hillary Clinton's proposal to take tax dollars to create a national academy to 'train young people for public service'--which is Hillary-speak for taking kids and making them socialists who wish to expand big government:

Nicki at The Liberty Zone provides excellent commentary on Switzerland's new proposal for gun control--the first attempt at such a thing in the nation's history:

The McCarville Report states that Congress recently pulled a fast one on its supposed attempt to 'pass earmark reform legislation,' as it promised to do during the 2006 election cycle. Apparently, the Democrats were all talk, for now the new legislation does absolutely nothing to address earmarks, much to the chagrin of Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn:

Red's Trading Post provides information on several ways we can help with the costs of his legal defense against the ATF, which will exceed $90,000.00. As you can see, unless a person is independently wealthy, there is no way one can afford such an expense. And the ATF apparently has no plans on letting up on their relentless and LAWLESS persecution of Red's:

Speaking of the ATF, The War on Guns reports that the oppressive, jackbooted thug unit of the Justice Department has shown absolutely no signs of backing down on its war against gun owners and dealers:

Of Arms and the Law says that Bill Richardson has flip-flopped on his views on gun shows. As I have said all along, that weasel is no more trustworthy than Hillary Clinton:

Open Carry has a thread on their forum you are going to love. It concerns the ATF and its vendetta:

Monday, July 30, 2007

South Carolina and the Presidency

South Carolina normally would not be considered a powerhouse in national politics--a least not in terms of perception. That is about to change.

The state will host one of the earliest primaries in the nation in 2008, and thus, candidates in both Parties have already been frequent visitors to the Palmetto state.

Sensing that the state is crucial in garnering the required number of delegate votes at the political Conventions, candidates are not leaving anything to chance. Republican Duncan Hunter announced his Presidential bid here. Ron Paul has been here twice. So have Hillary and Obama.

Yet South Carolina is actually more crucial to the Republican candidates than that of the Democrats. The state is now thoroughly Republican. Both of its U.S. Senators are Republicans. So is the Governor. The state legislature is controlled by Republicans.

Thus, this is a test state for the Republicans. Whoever wins here will more than likely win the Party's nomination for the White House.

Although S.C.'s U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint belong to the same Party, the two are actually as different as night and day. Graham is solidly behind McCain and has been rumored to be a potential running mate for the Arizona Senator, should he win the nomination.

Graham has also created some enemies for himself among the Party faithful here, with his front-lines support of the McCain-Ted Kennedy-George Bush immigration amnesty plan.

Rumors are that the Senator may be in trouble during his next re-election campaign, and he already has some opposition from two Republican candidates who are intent on wresting the nomination away from Graham.

Jim DeMint, on the other hand, has become a favorite of the Party faithful in S.C. with his staunch opposition to the amnesty bill that Graham supported. DeMint also supports Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination, although his backing has not helped the candidate move to the top of the pack.

Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, and Rudy Giuliani have strong support in the state, but polls have shown that South Carolina will probably go to Fred Thompson, assuming that Thompson will declare his candidacy.

On the Democratic side, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have shown solid support among Democrats in the state. Despite John Edwards' strong ties here and his upbringing in neighboring North Carolina, he has not been able to create very much excitement for his campaign.

In all likelihood, the candidates who win South Carolina will be their Party's nominee for the Presidency. At this point it would appear that those candidates will be Fred Thompson and Hillary Clinton.

And thus, South Carolina will have a large hand in choosing the next President.

Second Amendment News Roundup for 7/30/07

Here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:

Syd at Front Sight, Press is back after a brief absence, and he posts this list of links to stories of interest to the gun rights community:

The Bitch Girls blog that gun-grabber Carolyn McCarthy, D-NY, inadvertently gave the NRA one of the biggest endorsements they could ask for:

Blonde Sagacity has some well-chosen and poignant words for the gun-grabbers in city government in Philadelphia:

Nicki at The Liberty Zone provides some interesting analysis of the D.C. gun case and its chances of resulting in a major Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment--which would be the first such ruling by the high court in over 70 years:

The Jet Pilot shares his personal story on why he carries a gun:

The Jet Pilot also shares this riveting news item about a 93-year-old man who defended himself with his gun from a violent attack that left him unconscious:

Snow Flakes in Hell comments on armor-piercing ammo:

John Lott was published last week by one of my all-time favorite magazines (for 35 years), National Review. The article explores the growing difficulty in defending property rights:

Say Uncle points to some ill-chosen words by a CNN analyst who described gun owners as 'Second Amendment literalists' and 'gun nuts,' which CNN tried to hide by altering the transcripts of the program:

The Volokh Conspiracy notes that former Duke lacrosse player Reade Seligmann, who nearly had his life ruined by a corrupt scoundrel of a prosecutor, Mike Nifong, is now playing for Brown University (Duke treated the three falsely accused students like crap):

Volokh also has an interesting piece on Fred Thompson's recent comments on the ominous creeping crawl of federal laws (something you won't hear many Presidential candidates opine about!):

Volokh nails supporters of The Fairness Doctrine by posing some key questions that get to the heart of the matter:

Xavier Thoughts points to the story of four citizens in Charlotte, North Carolina who were forced to use deadly force to defend themselves against criminals:

A Keyboard and a .45 says that the Daley gun buy-back in Chicago actually helped purchase rifles for the youth of the state of Illinois! You will love this one:

The War on Guns reports that Maryland is getting ready to tighten restrictions on the use of firearms:

My, my. I suppose when you are one of the chosen few the laws against firearms simply do not apply. The War on Guns has this story of a Judge who brought a loaded gun to the airport, but was released by TSA officials:

Take a look at Blogonomicon's latest post entitled, 'Gunslinger':

Red's Trading Post has a MUST-READ about how the ATF has gone about attempting to make a criminal out of someone who isn't:

Sunday, July 29, 2007

Smoking Gun Leads to Oval Office

Important and shocking facts have surfaced within the last few days that may indicate high level corruption at the Bush White House. These facts may well lead straight to the Oval Office itself.

This major scandal has nothing to do with 9/11. The 9/11 attack was not an 'inside job' no matter what wackos such as Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell have to say.

More importantly, it also has nothing to do with the present Democratic hissy-fit over the firing of eight U.S. prosecuting attorneys. The President was well within his Constitutional authority to fire those attorneys at will.

The scandal that may well lead to the unraveling of the Bush White House revolves around the prosecution and imprisonment of the two Border Patrol agents who were sent to jail for over a decade for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler in the buttocks.

We know, for example, that the two men are not guilty of the charges brought against them. Their supervisors were present when the incident took place. We also know that U.S. Attorney and Bush crony Johnny Sutton hid evidence from the court and charged the two men under statutes that were not appropriate for their alleged crimes, for the single purpose of putting them away for a long, long time.

Why was Sutton so determined to get these men out of the way for over a decade?

We know, further, that members of the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security lied to Congress about this case. Republican Representative Dana Rohrabacker, R-California, can recount in minute detail each time a member of the Administration lied to him and his committee that was charged with investigating this case.

These Administration officials even admitted to that committee that they had lied.

What were their lies intended to hide?

People do not lie to Congress unless they are engaged in a cover up of some sort.

In addition, when Rep. Rohrabacker attempted to get the White House to agree to release the two Agents on bond pending the appeal of their sentence, even then the White House refused.


Part of the answer lies in formerly classified documents that were released under the Freedom of Information Act. Not only did Johnny Sutton grant the Mexican drug smuggler immunity in exchange for providing testimony against the two Agents, but he provided him with unlimited border pass privileges, even though Sutton knew he had engaged in more drug smuggling AFTER the incident in which he was shot in the buttocks by the Agents.

My friends, this kind of gross malfeasance occurs only when there is more beneath the surface than one can readily observe. Johnny Sutton, President Bush, and others involved in this case would not engage in such activity unless there were much more to hide.

The two Border Patrol agents were merely the tip of the iceberg. Under the surface lies a massive cauldron of corruption involving the Mexican government, the Bush administration, shady deals with criminals to appease Mexican government thugs, and heavy-handed attempts to suppress law enforcement at our southern border, while publicly claiming that 'we need to make sure our borders are secure.'

Sutton and others like him in the DOJ and the DHS would not be conducting these kinds of dirty deals unless they were part of an overall policy implemented by the Administration.

Rep. Rohrabacker has stated repeatedly that he is not 'out to get President Bush.' He has made it clear that he is not the enemy, even going as far as personally inviting the White House to come clean about the situation so that steps can be taken to correct it without soiling the President's reputation.

Yet at each and every juncture, Rohrabacker has been met with rudeness and stonewalling. Not even holding out an olive branch could sway the Bush White House.

As we have stated many, many times before on The Liberty Sphere, the President made what could be a politically fatal mistake when he refused to cooperate with Rep. Rohrabacker, Rep. Duncan Hunter, Rep. Tom Tancredo, and others within the Republican Party who were never the President's enemies.

Now he is facing a totally hostile environment in the Senate as the President's sworn political enemies are clearly attempting to grab at straws--anything to destroy him.

The President has refused to cooperate with the very people who have supported him through thick and thin. Now he must face hostile enemies who smell blood.

If the Democrats find out that the investigation of the firing of eight attorneys gets them nowhere, and that the dozens of other investigations they have opened all lead to dead-ends (and this most definitely WILL be the outcome), then they will gradually hop on the issue of the two innocent Border Patrol agents with a vengeance.

Of all of the investigations the Democrats hoped would lead to the demise of the Bush White House, this is the ONLY one that has the facts to back up the suspicions.

Dianne Feinstein has already sniffed out a coup. She has sent the President a memo calling for the release of Agents Ramos and Compean.

But the President is highly naive if he thinks she and her colleagues will stop there.

They will simply keep snooping around until they uncover the vast corruption involving our southern border and the country of Mexico--and the President's stubborn refusal to deal with it.

Whoever has been giving the President advice on this issue should be fired and sued for the return of their government salaries. It is obvious they are about three cards shy of a full deck and have done nothing but allow the President to become vulnerable to political suicide. In fact, their ineptitude is alarming.

Any political advisor who allows this to happen is nothing but a numbskull.

Even so, the President still has a chance to salvage his reputation, his Administration, and his Party, by coming clean, clearing out the sleaze that has infested the DOJ and the DHS, and setting the two Border Patrol agents free.