Focusing on guns, politics, and news of interest, here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:
From Codrea's War on Guns:
*'Temple of the Gods'--ROFL!! Just wait till you see the backdrop for Obama's big speech on Thursday!
*'Olofson Appeal Filed'
*'Rejecting the Obvious'--the pioneers of the Civil Rights movement must be turning over in their graves!
*'Sebastian Knows Best'
Armed and Safe wonders what the VPC thinks of Joe Biden.
JR gets caught up on his blog reading after his Blackwater trip, and he has some good links to share.
Sebastian provides a response to the criticism of his comments on Appleseed training.
Speaking of Sebastian, he and Kevin Baker were guests on Gun Nuts--The Next Generation to give a wrap-up of the ParaUSA event at Blackwater. There is also another edition of the blog radio program HERE, where ammo is discussed via Tam.
Mike McCarville posts an analysis from The Hill that says the Democrats are off to a rough start at their Convention.
21 Guns Salute has Part 2 of his commentary on life in modern society. This is excellent reading, folks, so give it a look!
Alphecca presents us with 'Idiots for Obama.'
Speaking of Obama, Michelle Malkin says that Barack's Jim Ayers-terrorist connection problem is deepening. Malkin also live-blogged Hillary's speech last night at the DNC.
Western Rifle Shooters Association posts 'First Draft of the Obamanator's Speech.' A MUST-read!
Texas Fred comments on the latest raid on illegal aliens, this time in Mississippi. Read it all.
Walls of the City blogs about his experience of becoming accustomed to concealed carry of his firearm. A good read!
Squeaks has some great gun porn today, including the Mossberg Maverick among others.
Robb Allen writes about a personal experience with TSA security.
Uncle gives us his take on the Democratic Convention and the Hillary speech.
Freedom Sight posts his insight on the subject of Guns and Property Rights, an issue that is seeing continuing debate within the gun rights community.
Syd is a recognized authority on the M1911. Here he answers the question, 'What Defines a 1911 Pistol?'
Cap'n Bob and the Damsel have an EXCELLENT read on the hideous platform of the Democrats this year on the subject of gun rights and the 2nd Amendment. Don't pass this up!
Showing posts with label Democrat assault on rights of citizens. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrat assault on rights of citizens. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents
People who believe in liberty, the freedom of the individual, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights should swear off of the Democratic Party completely.
The Party has totally forsaken the founding principles of the United States of America and has sold out to Socialists, neo-Communists, and other statists who believe that government power should always trump the power of the individual. The fact that George Soros' gang of atheist neo-Commies runs the Party, along with those who fund Moveon.org, is ample proof that under no circumstance should conscientious Americans vote for a Democrat.
And this includes those who know how to sound like they support gun rights, the Bill of Rights, etc. during an election. The fact is that even though they may in fact support some of these ideals, their money is coming from those who will demand allegiance to the money source, and the money source is rotten to the core.
Take that dirt-bag in Virginia, Senator James Webb. What a dork. He rang all the right bells while he ran for office, but once elected he had to go as far as to lie about a gun his aide carried into the Capitol for the fear of reprisal by the Democratic Party bosses.
The gun belonged to Webb, which at first he denied, but then admitted months after the incident.
Countless other supposedly 'conservative' Democrats across the nation have fooled their constituents into believing they share the values of those who elect them to office, yet the record shows they routinely cut deals with the devil to survive in a Party where the real power rests with the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Little Chucky Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, and that lame-brain Howard Dean.
For this reason, conscientious American voters, that is, those who take seriously our nation's founding documents and its original ideals, and who hold as sacred the Founders who risked life and all they owned to give us this shining light of liberty, should forsake once and for all the Democratic Party and vote ONLY for Republicans, or Libertarians, or Independents.
This is by no means a membership drive for the GOP. Frankly, some within the GOP are just as bad as the Democrats. But at least the Party as a whole stands for the Founding principles of this nation.
And frankly, it doesn't interest me in the least as to whether or not you belong to the GOP officially. I certainly don't. I will not hesitate to vote for Libertarians or Independents if the circumstances are right.
The point, however, is that as conscientious voters we can no longer do business with a political Party that has clearly forsaken and scorned ALL of the precepts that true Americans hold dear.
I, for one, will under no circumstance vote for a single one of the bloody traitors. Gone are the days when I can in good conscience do business with even so-called 'conservative' Democrats.
The Party has totally forsaken the founding principles of the United States of America and has sold out to Socialists, neo-Communists, and other statists who believe that government power should always trump the power of the individual. The fact that George Soros' gang of atheist neo-Commies runs the Party, along with those who fund Moveon.org, is ample proof that under no circumstance should conscientious Americans vote for a Democrat.
And this includes those who know how to sound like they support gun rights, the Bill of Rights, etc. during an election. The fact is that even though they may in fact support some of these ideals, their money is coming from those who will demand allegiance to the money source, and the money source is rotten to the core.
Take that dirt-bag in Virginia, Senator James Webb. What a dork. He rang all the right bells while he ran for office, but once elected he had to go as far as to lie about a gun his aide carried into the Capitol for the fear of reprisal by the Democratic Party bosses.
The gun belonged to Webb, which at first he denied, but then admitted months after the incident.
Countless other supposedly 'conservative' Democrats across the nation have fooled their constituents into believing they share the values of those who elect them to office, yet the record shows they routinely cut deals with the devil to survive in a Party where the real power rests with the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Little Chucky Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, and that lame-brain Howard Dean.
For this reason, conscientious American voters, that is, those who take seriously our nation's founding documents and its original ideals, and who hold as sacred the Founders who risked life and all they owned to give us this shining light of liberty, should forsake once and for all the Democratic Party and vote ONLY for Republicans, or Libertarians, or Independents.
This is by no means a membership drive for the GOP. Frankly, some within the GOP are just as bad as the Democrats. But at least the Party as a whole stands for the Founding principles of this nation.
And frankly, it doesn't interest me in the least as to whether or not you belong to the GOP officially. I certainly don't. I will not hesitate to vote for Libertarians or Independents if the circumstances are right.
The point, however, is that as conscientious voters we can no longer do business with a political Party that has clearly forsaken and scorned ALL of the precepts that true Americans hold dear.
I, for one, will under no circumstance vote for a single one of the bloody traitors. Gone are the days when I can in good conscience do business with even so-called 'conservative' Democrats.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Second Amendment News Roundup for 7/27/07
Here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:
Alphecca blogs on blatant media bias when it comes to the AK-47:
The Bitch Girls have more on the questioner whose inquiry about gun possession led to Joe Biden's tirade against gun owners:
Say Uncle provides documentation on the ATF's questionable (to say that least) activity in recent months:
Red's Trading Post manager Ryan Horsley was featured on the NRA News Thursday:
Red's Trading Post also sets the record straight on a barefaced lie told by the ATF in its dispute with Red's:
The War on Guns says that the story of Ryan Horsley's dispute with the ATF over his shop, Red's Trading Post, has been making its rounds in the blogosphere (and I will add certain news reporting agencies as well):
The War on Guns also has information from Wayne Fincher's daughter about contact information and support:
Mike McCarville at The McCarville Report says a Congresswoman from Oklahoma, Rep. Mary Fallin, has been named by The Hill publication to the list of the 50 most beautiful people in D.C. When you see her picture, you will understand why:
Blogonomicon has been honored with the 'Blogger Reflection Award.' Congrats, Alan!
Snow Flakes in Hell blogs on the reports of Philadelphia's escalating crime problem:
Xavier Thoughts has a brief but poignant reminder of the importance of being armed within one's home:
A Keyboard and a .45 has a neat motivational poster:
Of Arms and the Law says that in the insanity of today's world of political correctness, bloggers may find themselves dropped by their web host due to their being 'too controversial.' As a means of addressing the problem, here is a list of web hosts that cater to those that others deem too controversial (this is a FIRST AMENDMENT issue!):
Nicki at the Liberty Zone reports that the master of contradictions, Mitt Romney, appears to be getting desperate:
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Second Amendment News Roundup for 7/26/07
Here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:
Red's Trading Post manager Ryan Horsley was featured on Larry Pratt's daily radio program on Wednesday. Pratt is with Gun Owners of America, which is an avid supporter of Horsley in his fight against the ATF:
http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/2007/07/listen-to-todays-show-with-larry-pratt.html
The War on Guns reports that the story of Ryan Horsley's fight against the ATF and the Feds was featured Wednesday on legendary conservative radio commentator Paul Harvey's broadcast:
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2007/07/batfudoj-reneged-on-deal-to-stifle-reds.html
Snow Flakes in Hell blogs that citizens have the right to photograph law enforcement agents doing their jobs, provided the agents are not working undercover. This fact is crucial given that the ATF is trying to prevent citizens from filming them while they conduct their harassment against Red's Trading Post:
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=1125
The Volokh Conspiracy has an interesting post on the firing of extremist professor Ward Churchill:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_07_22-2007_07_28.shtml#1185382585
Nicki at the Liberty Zone is on a roll since her return from a brief absence. She minces no words in this post concerning gun-free zones on college campuses:
http://libertyzone.blogspot.com/2007/07/who-killed-our-kids.html
Nicki also alerts us to a CBS News hit-piece against guns in a special report on the rising crime rate in Philadelphia:
http://libertyzone.blogspot.com/2007/07/objective-media-my-ass.html
One more from Nicki at the Liberty Zone. She weighs in on the Joe Biden slam against a questioner concerning his right to own and possess a gun:
http://libertyzone.blogspot.com/2007/07/i-dont-know-that-he-is-mentally.html
The Bitch Girls also opine on the Joe Biden comment. As bad as Biden was, let's not let Bill Richardson off the hook so easily. In his answer to the question, he is the one who initially broached the subject of mental instability, implying, though not directly, that the questioner was not mentally fit to own a gun:
http://www.thebitchgirls.us/?p=7186
Alphecca has the reaction of the questioner to Joe Biden's flippant remarks about gun owners:
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=302
Alphecca also provides information on a town in New Hampshire where the city GOP is holding a 'machine gun fund raiser':
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=303
Say Uncle reports that San Francisco is proposing new stringent gun control laws:
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/07/25/not_paying_attention/
The Buckeye Firearms Association posts a good op-ed written by NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3866.html
Red's Trading Post manager Ryan Horsley was featured on Larry Pratt's daily radio program on Wednesday. Pratt is with Gun Owners of America, which is an avid supporter of Horsley in his fight against the ATF:
http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/2007/07/listen-to-todays-show-with-larry-pratt.html
The War on Guns reports that the story of Ryan Horsley's fight against the ATF and the Feds was featured Wednesday on legendary conservative radio commentator Paul Harvey's broadcast:
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2007/07/batfudoj-reneged-on-deal-to-stifle-reds.html
Snow Flakes in Hell blogs that citizens have the right to photograph law enforcement agents doing their jobs, provided the agents are not working undercover. This fact is crucial given that the ATF is trying to prevent citizens from filming them while they conduct their harassment against Red's Trading Post:
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=1125
The Volokh Conspiracy has an interesting post on the firing of extremist professor Ward Churchill:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_07_22-2007_07_28.shtml#1185382585
Nicki at the Liberty Zone is on a roll since her return from a brief absence. She minces no words in this post concerning gun-free zones on college campuses:
http://libertyzone.blogspot.com/2007/07/who-killed-our-kids.html
Nicki also alerts us to a CBS News hit-piece against guns in a special report on the rising crime rate in Philadelphia:
http://libertyzone.blogspot.com/2007/07/objective-media-my-ass.html
One more from Nicki at the Liberty Zone. She weighs in on the Joe Biden slam against a questioner concerning his right to own and possess a gun:
http://libertyzone.blogspot.com/2007/07/i-dont-know-that-he-is-mentally.html
The Bitch Girls also opine on the Joe Biden comment. As bad as Biden was, let's not let Bill Richardson off the hook so easily. In his answer to the question, he is the one who initially broached the subject of mental instability, implying, though not directly, that the questioner was not mentally fit to own a gun:
http://www.thebitchgirls.us/?p=7186
Alphecca has the reaction of the questioner to Joe Biden's flippant remarks about gun owners:
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=302
Alphecca also provides information on a town in New Hampshire where the city GOP is holding a 'machine gun fund raiser':
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=303
Say Uncle reports that San Francisco is proposing new stringent gun control laws:
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/07/25/not_paying_attention/
The Buckeye Firearms Association posts a good op-ed written by NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3866.html
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Second Amendment News Roundup for 7/24/07
Scroll down for the news:
Here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:
Snow Flakes in Hell blogs on Senator Joe Biden's major faux pas during last night's Democratic debate in claiming that a questioner on YouTube who was holding his gun 'obviously needs help':
The Bitch Girls comment on a letter to the editor that expresses strong anti-gun sentiment:
Red's Trading Post has important information on the new INTERNET intimidation tactics used by the ATF in harassing gun owners and sellers, as well as those who publicly decry their gestapo-like operations:
Blonde Sagacity notes the widespread sense of entitlement that seems to have infected most Americans today:
The McCarville Report says that Newt Gingrich thinks that Fred Thompson could keep him from running for the Republican nomination:
John Lott writes about interesting comments by Virginia politician Charles Robb, his wife, and his mother in law. Apparently even Democrats respond to tax incentives:
Alphecca reports that liberals have given us a nation of mental cripples. Read this infuriating story of the arrest of two 13-year-olds:
Alphecca also points to a story about the unsafe handling of a gun, resulting in the shooting of a 9-year-old:
ATF Abuse is a website dedicated to exposing the danger of the rogue government agency. This is a MUST-read:
The Buckeye Firearms Association reports that yet another editorial board member of a newspaper in Ohio is publicly calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment:
Of Arms and the Law posts information on a recent court ruling concerning social security numbers on applications for CCW permits:
Say Uncle says that the Second Amendment Foundation isn't backing down a bit in going after Steve Bailey and the Boston Globe over the recent 'straw man' gun purchase flap:
The Ninth Stage posts a link to vital information on how to survive a gun fight:
Xavier Thoughts has a video and commentary on an armed robbery in St. Louis:
Monday Night's Democratic Presidential Debate
Charleston, SC (TLS). The Democratic Presidential candidates met on Monday evening for a forum in Charleston, SC at the military college called 'the Citadel.' CNN co-sponsored the forum with YouTube.
Citizens asked questions of the candidates via YouTube, moderated by Anderson Cooper.
The War in Iraq dominated the discourse during the forum. As William F. Buckley observed a couple of months back, the manner in which George W. Bush has conducted the War has the potential of burying the Republicans in November of 2008.
Democrats have wasted no time in jumping on this vulnerability, taking full advantage of public sentiment. They all wish to leave Iraq immediately, but the devil is in the details.
Not all would leave immediately, despite the rhetoric. There are nuances in the various plans for withdrawal offered by the candidates.
Hillary Clinton advocates for continuing an American military presence in the country even after most of the combat forces have been withdrawn. Dennis Kucinich, on the other hand, wants an immediate total withdrawal, including cutting off funds for the troops.
Democratic activists applauded wildly for Kucinich on that point.
It is most unfortunate, however, that the War dominates political discussion so far during this election cycle. By focusing on the War, the Democrats can avoid close scrutiny of their views on many other issues, which show that they are basically in one accord on social policy.
In short, they are all to one degree or another European styled socialists.
None of the Democratic candidates talk about the importance of Constitutional law, the Bill of Rights, or the necessity of appointing only those Judges to the bench who understand that strict adherence to the Constitution is the primary task of jurisprudence.
All of the candidates support abortion, including late-term 'partial-birth' abortions. All have a dismal record on supporting citizens' rights to self-defense as delineated in the Second Amendment. All have advocated dangerous limits on freedom of speech. All would dismantle the greatest healthcare system in the world in order to help a small minority of citizens gain access to medical care, rather than focusing on ways to fix the problem without killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
Therefore, using our exclusive 'Liberty Rating System'--which rates the candidates on the basis of their stance on abortion, healthcare, gun rights, national defense, immigration, taxes, the War on Terror, and U.S. foreign policy--The Liberty Sphere rates the Democratic candidates in Monday night's debate as follows, with 10 being the highest score and 1 the lowest:
Bill Richardson--3
Joseph Biden--2
Chris Dodd--2
John Edwards--1
Mike Gravel--1
Dennis Kucinich--1
Barack Obama--1
Hillary Clinton--1
As time progresses during this campaign cycle, we are increasingly appalled at how thoroughly the Democratic candidates have virtually discarded and ignored every single principle for which the Founders of this nation stood.
Citizens asked questions of the candidates via YouTube, moderated by Anderson Cooper.
The War in Iraq dominated the discourse during the forum. As William F. Buckley observed a couple of months back, the manner in which George W. Bush has conducted the War has the potential of burying the Republicans in November of 2008.
Democrats have wasted no time in jumping on this vulnerability, taking full advantage of public sentiment. They all wish to leave Iraq immediately, but the devil is in the details.
Not all would leave immediately, despite the rhetoric. There are nuances in the various plans for withdrawal offered by the candidates.
Hillary Clinton advocates for continuing an American military presence in the country even after most of the combat forces have been withdrawn. Dennis Kucinich, on the other hand, wants an immediate total withdrawal, including cutting off funds for the troops.
Democratic activists applauded wildly for Kucinich on that point.
It is most unfortunate, however, that the War dominates political discussion so far during this election cycle. By focusing on the War, the Democrats can avoid close scrutiny of their views on many other issues, which show that they are basically in one accord on social policy.
In short, they are all to one degree or another European styled socialists.
None of the Democratic candidates talk about the importance of Constitutional law, the Bill of Rights, or the necessity of appointing only those Judges to the bench who understand that strict adherence to the Constitution is the primary task of jurisprudence.
All of the candidates support abortion, including late-term 'partial-birth' abortions. All have a dismal record on supporting citizens' rights to self-defense as delineated in the Second Amendment. All have advocated dangerous limits on freedom of speech. All would dismantle the greatest healthcare system in the world in order to help a small minority of citizens gain access to medical care, rather than focusing on ways to fix the problem without killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
Therefore, using our exclusive 'Liberty Rating System'--which rates the candidates on the basis of their stance on abortion, healthcare, gun rights, national defense, immigration, taxes, the War on Terror, and U.S. foreign policy--The Liberty Sphere rates the Democratic candidates in Monday night's debate as follows, with 10 being the highest score and 1 the lowest:
Bill Richardson--3
Joseph Biden--2
Chris Dodd--2
John Edwards--1
Mike Gravel--1
Dennis Kucinich--1
Barack Obama--1
Hillary Clinton--1
As time progresses during this campaign cycle, we are increasingly appalled at how thoroughly the Democratic candidates have virtually discarded and ignored every single principle for which the Founders of this nation stood.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
GOA Issues New Warning on Fairness Doctrine
Washington, DC (TLS). Gun Owners of America (GOA) has issued a new warning about the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' and the damage it could do to the gun rights movement.
The GOA's success has been due in a large part to its access to talk radio, which has a sizable conservative audience. Democrats in Congress wish to silence conservative voices in the media by bringing back the old 'Fairness Doctrine,' which would allow liberals to demand 'equal time.'
Republicans in the House of Representatives were able to pass an amendment to an appropriations bill that prohibits the use of federal funds to implement the Fairness Doctrine.
This, however, is only a temporary measure.
When Senate Republicans attempted to add a similar amendment to a bill this week, that amendment was blocked by Senate Democrats. This means that should Democrats win the White House in 2008, and pick up a few more seats in Congress, you can kiss good-bye Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and even Paul Harvey for that matter.
Radio stations will be frightened into dropping these programs from the air for the fear that they would be forced to give Democrats and other leftists, even Communists, 'equal time.'
Funny how the government-run PBS radio and TV network has a liberal slant. Wonder if the Fairness Doctrine will be applied there? What about Chris Matthews on MSNBC? George Stephanopolis on NBC? Bob Sheiffer on CBS?
Believe me, if Democrats succeed in this attempt to thwart free speech, and in turn do damage to our 2nd Amendment rights by limiting access to talk radio, we will launch a massive public campaign to demand equal time for each and every statement Couric, Rather, Matthews, Blitzer, Sheiffer, and all the rest mouth off in favor of liberal public policies.
And then, if we are denied equal time, we will sue the pants off of them!
My friends, this will be war if the Democrats think they can get away with this ruse to silence free speech.
Read the GOA alert here:
http://www.gunowners.org/a072007.htm
The GOA's success has been due in a large part to its access to talk radio, which has a sizable conservative audience. Democrats in Congress wish to silence conservative voices in the media by bringing back the old 'Fairness Doctrine,' which would allow liberals to demand 'equal time.'
Republicans in the House of Representatives were able to pass an amendment to an appropriations bill that prohibits the use of federal funds to implement the Fairness Doctrine.
This, however, is only a temporary measure.
When Senate Republicans attempted to add a similar amendment to a bill this week, that amendment was blocked by Senate Democrats. This means that should Democrats win the White House in 2008, and pick up a few more seats in Congress, you can kiss good-bye Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and even Paul Harvey for that matter.
Radio stations will be frightened into dropping these programs from the air for the fear that they would be forced to give Democrats and other leftists, even Communists, 'equal time.'
Funny how the government-run PBS radio and TV network has a liberal slant. Wonder if the Fairness Doctrine will be applied there? What about Chris Matthews on MSNBC? George Stephanopolis on NBC? Bob Sheiffer on CBS?
Believe me, if Democrats succeed in this attempt to thwart free speech, and in turn do damage to our 2nd Amendment rights by limiting access to talk radio, we will launch a massive public campaign to demand equal time for each and every statement Couric, Rather, Matthews, Blitzer, Sheiffer, and all the rest mouth off in favor of liberal public policies.
And then, if we are denied equal time, we will sue the pants off of them!
My friends, this will be war if the Democrats think they can get away with this ruse to silence free speech.
Read the GOA alert here:
http://www.gunowners.org/a072007.htm
Friday, June 08, 2007
The Real John Edwards--A Dangerous Subversive (Video)
Washington, DC (TLS). The following excerpts from a John Edwards interview, video included, will shock you. Were Edwards not a very intelligent person, highly educated as an attorney--and a successful one at that--we would be tempted to say that the candidate is simply hopelessly misinformed.
But Edwards is no dummy. He knows the Constitution and its provisions. Yet he simply refuses to accept those provisions.
Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards actually stated on camera and on the record that basic human rights (inalienable is the term the Founders used) do NOT include the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, or any of the rights described in the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution.
Wanna know what Edwards considers a basic human right? There are only five.
1) American Citizenship
2) A College education
3) Healthcare
4) “Living” wages
5) Internet access.
It is very interesting (and highly disgusting) that Edwards never mentioned freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, the right to bear firearms, etc., etc....you know, like what we find in that totally irrelevant and unimportant document called THE CONSTITUTION?
I believe that each of the Democratic candidates should be asked the same questions that this interviewer asked John Edwards. I would be willing to bet we would get similar answers.
One Democrat who wrote in to the Huffington Post concerning the Republican debate described Ron Paul's defense of the Constitution as 'quaint.'
Excuse me? QUAINT?
Let me tell you something, you IDIOT, were it not for that Constitution you would not be able to write your B.S. in freedom on the Internet or anywhere else!
It is time for America to WAKE UP!! Democrats and the people who support them are subversives who have ZERO respect or regard for the U.S. Constitution.
It is more important to them for everybody to have Internet access.
Edwards and his ilk need to take a flying leap from the highest bridge they can find.
Read more about this disgusting interview, including the video of it, here (but keep your up-chuck pan handy):
http://www.thebitchgirls.us/?p=6915
But Edwards is no dummy. He knows the Constitution and its provisions. Yet he simply refuses to accept those provisions.
Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards actually stated on camera and on the record that basic human rights (inalienable is the term the Founders used) do NOT include the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, or any of the rights described in the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution.
Wanna know what Edwards considers a basic human right? There are only five.
1) American Citizenship
2) A College education
3) Healthcare
4) “Living” wages
5) Internet access.
It is very interesting (and highly disgusting) that Edwards never mentioned freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, the right to bear firearms, etc., etc....you know, like what we find in that totally irrelevant and unimportant document called THE CONSTITUTION?
I believe that each of the Democratic candidates should be asked the same questions that this interviewer asked John Edwards. I would be willing to bet we would get similar answers.
One Democrat who wrote in to the Huffington Post concerning the Republican debate described Ron Paul's defense of the Constitution as 'quaint.'
Excuse me? QUAINT?
Let me tell you something, you IDIOT, were it not for that Constitution you would not be able to write your B.S. in freedom on the Internet or anywhere else!
It is time for America to WAKE UP!! Democrats and the people who support them are subversives who have ZERO respect or regard for the U.S. Constitution.
It is more important to them for everybody to have Internet access.
Edwards and his ilk need to take a flying leap from the highest bridge they can find.
Read more about this disgusting interview, including the video of it, here (but keep your up-chuck pan handy):
http://www.thebitchgirls.us/?p=6915
Saturday, April 28, 2007
ALERT! H.R. 297 Gun Rights Ban on Fast Track
Washington, DC (TLS). Little Chucky Schumer was on Bill O'Reilly recently to talk about gun control. Since the Democrats took control of Congress, they have basically laid low on the subject of guns, with the exception of the introduction of the McCarthy bill. But the lack of support led McCarthy to state that gun control was dead in this Congress.
However, the Virginia Tech massacre has the gun-grabbers coming out of the woodwork, seizing the actions of one crazed madman to enact massive, sweeping gun control legislation upon law-abiding citizens. Little Chucky has a plan, and it ain't pretty.
In a bold move that has shocked even the most astute observers of Congress, Schumer and his colleagues are going to try to ram this legislation through Congress BY ACCLAMATION without even as much as a vote!
Clearly, this is an all-out attack on the rights of American citizens. The politicians in Congress do not even have the courage to go on the record with a 'yea' or 'nay' vote.
H.R. 297 will treat gun owners worse than terrorists. It is one terrible piece of legislation, introduced in the name of protecting us against mass murders such as Cho Seung-Hui. It is always interesting as to how politicians will use one single crazed idiot as a tool by which to hit ordinary citizens over the head and rob them of their rights.
GOA has issued yet another alert on this debacle. It is time to contact Congress about this foul scheme to ram through H.R. 297. This will be a major knock-down, drag-out fight that pits the NRA against 2nd Amendment rights, and Republican against Republican.
Perhaps we can garner the support of the so-called 'Blue-Dog' Democrats who have yet to prove they can stop the steam-roller of the ultra-liberal Democratic Congressional machine. If ever there were a time to stop them, the time is now.
Go here to the GOA website for complete information:
http://www.gunowners.org/a042607.htm
However, the Virginia Tech massacre has the gun-grabbers coming out of the woodwork, seizing the actions of one crazed madman to enact massive, sweeping gun control legislation upon law-abiding citizens. Little Chucky has a plan, and it ain't pretty.
In a bold move that has shocked even the most astute observers of Congress, Schumer and his colleagues are going to try to ram this legislation through Congress BY ACCLAMATION without even as much as a vote!
Clearly, this is an all-out attack on the rights of American citizens. The politicians in Congress do not even have the courage to go on the record with a 'yea' or 'nay' vote.
H.R. 297 will treat gun owners worse than terrorists. It is one terrible piece of legislation, introduced in the name of protecting us against mass murders such as Cho Seung-Hui. It is always interesting as to how politicians will use one single crazed idiot as a tool by which to hit ordinary citizens over the head and rob them of their rights.
GOA has issued yet another alert on this debacle. It is time to contact Congress about this foul scheme to ram through H.R. 297. This will be a major knock-down, drag-out fight that pits the NRA against 2nd Amendment rights, and Republican against Republican.
Perhaps we can garner the support of the so-called 'Blue-Dog' Democrats who have yet to prove they can stop the steam-roller of the ultra-liberal Democratic Congressional machine. If ever there were a time to stop them, the time is now.
Go here to the GOA website for complete information:
http://www.gunowners.org/a042607.htm
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA ISSUES ALERT!
Washington, DC (TLS). Gun Owners of America (GOA) has issued a special alert in the wake of the massacre at Virginia Tech. It seems the forces of anti-freedom have wasted no time in using this tragic situation to push their agenda of robbing the citizens of their rights.
Virginia Tech is a gun-free zone in the Commonwealth of Virginia, meaning that students, employees, and faculty are defenseless against lawless violent perpetrators, such as Cho Seung Hui. Had there been someone in that classroom building carrying a concealed handgun, dozens of lives could have been saved from the blood-bath.
But this point goes right over the heads of the gun-grabbers.
Read GOA's alert here:
http://www.gunowners.org/a041707.htm
Virginia Tech is a gun-free zone in the Commonwealth of Virginia, meaning that students, employees, and faculty are defenseless against lawless violent perpetrators, such as Cho Seung Hui. Had there been someone in that classroom building carrying a concealed handgun, dozens of lives could have been saved from the blood-bath.
But this point goes right over the heads of the gun-grabbers.
Read GOA's alert here:
http://www.gunowners.org/a041707.htm
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
The Jim Webb Gun Controversy
Washington, DC (TLS). U.S. Senator Jim Webb, D-Virginia, finds himself embroiled in a controversy involving firearms and a top personal aide. The aide was arrested by Capitol police for bringing a concealed handgun into the Senate office complex.
Upon his arrest, the aide claimed that Senator Webb had given him the weapon and that it belonged to Webb. Webb has permission to carry a concealed handgun into his office.
Wasting no time in going before the cameras, Webb held a brief news conference during which he denied giving the gun to the aide.
This controversy has raised several interesting, key issues revolving around the national debate on the right to carry, the D.C. law banning guns (which was recently declared unconstitutional by a federal court), and the problem with politicians such as Jim Webb.
Webb ran as one of the so-called 'blue dog Democrats,' who openly defied their Party's leadership by embracing conservative issues such as gun rights. Once elected, even Nancy Pelosi, the quintessential socialist of the People's Republic of California, embraced these conservatives, stating that they would not be pressured to vote for any issue that their constituents back home deplore. On the Senate side, Harry Reid echoed Pelosi's sentiments.
Yet no sooner had Pelosi and Reid took the gavel to open the session of the new Congress than the inexperienced freshman Democrats with a conservative bent found themselves totally overwhelmed by the 'big guns' of the Democrat Liberal Establishment. Bills were introduced to silence free speech. Another bill was introduced to scale back Second Amendment rights (this one, H.R. 1022, now has nearly 40 sponsors).
The 'blue dogs' suddenly found themselves under heavy peer-pressure. After all, how can a first-term conservative Senator from a largely rural state find the intestinal fortitude to go head-to-head with one of the Party's perennial stars, such as Ted 'Senator Blowhard' Kennedy?
The huffing and puffing of Senator Blowhard is enough to send inexperienced freshmen Democrats scurrying for cover.
So here is Jim Webb facing the cameras with the dilemma of his life. He clearly has a much more conservative viewpoint on the Second Amendment than most of his Democrat colleagues. Yet his top aide has been arrested for committing the unpardonable sin as far as some in his Party are concerned--he brought one of those evil, concealed weapons right into the Capitol!
Webb has yet to strongly defend the actions of his aide. Yet he has not condemned him, either. Walking this tightrope is the curse of being a conservative in a Party run by extremist Liberals and who get most of their money from those who are even MORE extremist than they are.
The flip side of this controversy has to do with the reaction, or lack thereof, by the Senate leadership.
Suppose this had been Trent Lott's aide. Or Orin Hatch.
I can just hear it now. The Democrats would have hit the airwaves that very day to condemn the practice and use it to showcase why we need more gun control in the United States of America. There would be calls for endless investigations into the incident, including why the top aide of a top Republican Senator would be bringing a concealed weapon into the Senate (probably even hinting that since Senator Lott and Hatch are religious conservatives, they were probably part of an evil fundamentalist Christian terrorist plot to blow up the Senate office building).
But because this is DEMOCRAT Jim Webb, what have we heard from the Senate leadership about this incident? Nary word.
And we won't.
The Democrats can ill-afford to further alienate that part of the voting base that values the Second Amendment yet holds a vague distrust for Republicans, and they can ill-afford to rattle a freshman Senator who hold a seat they sorely need to keep and who tends to blow his stack at the drop of a hat.
It is to be remembered that Webb has a penchant for volatility. This is the same man who refused to shake President Bush's hand in a serving line at a White House reception given in honor of the newly elected Congressmen. Set this guy off, and the Dems are likely to be the recipients of a stream of projectile venom aimed straight at the Party leadership.
Why, he may even whip out his gun.
The bottom line is that the blue dogs are in a precarious position in a Party that is clearly out of touch with most Americans. But they are not dumb. As much as the Democrat leadership despises the right of the people to keep and bear arms, they dare not make an issue out of Webb and his aide's views on guns.
Webb could help himself by coming clean about all of this. Let the country know that he backs his aide's right to carry. Let the country know that he backs Second Amendment rights, and that he finds the law banning guns in D.C. to be a travesty and a sham...particularly when one must break the law in bringing a gun through D.C. in order to legally hold it in the Senate office complex.
How much sense does that make?
Webb could do himself and all freedom-loving Americans a big favor by living up to the way he portrayed himself during the campaign. The problem is he would immediately become a pariah in his own Party, and frankly, I don't think he has the guts to do it.
Upon his arrest, the aide claimed that Senator Webb had given him the weapon and that it belonged to Webb. Webb has permission to carry a concealed handgun into his office.
Wasting no time in going before the cameras, Webb held a brief news conference during which he denied giving the gun to the aide.
This controversy has raised several interesting, key issues revolving around the national debate on the right to carry, the D.C. law banning guns (which was recently declared unconstitutional by a federal court), and the problem with politicians such as Jim Webb.
Webb ran as one of the so-called 'blue dog Democrats,' who openly defied their Party's leadership by embracing conservative issues such as gun rights. Once elected, even Nancy Pelosi, the quintessential socialist of the People's Republic of California, embraced these conservatives, stating that they would not be pressured to vote for any issue that their constituents back home deplore. On the Senate side, Harry Reid echoed Pelosi's sentiments.
Yet no sooner had Pelosi and Reid took the gavel to open the session of the new Congress than the inexperienced freshman Democrats with a conservative bent found themselves totally overwhelmed by the 'big guns' of the Democrat Liberal Establishment. Bills were introduced to silence free speech. Another bill was introduced to scale back Second Amendment rights (this one, H.R. 1022, now has nearly 40 sponsors).
The 'blue dogs' suddenly found themselves under heavy peer-pressure. After all, how can a first-term conservative Senator from a largely rural state find the intestinal fortitude to go head-to-head with one of the Party's perennial stars, such as Ted 'Senator Blowhard' Kennedy?
The huffing and puffing of Senator Blowhard is enough to send inexperienced freshmen Democrats scurrying for cover.
So here is Jim Webb facing the cameras with the dilemma of his life. He clearly has a much more conservative viewpoint on the Second Amendment than most of his Democrat colleagues. Yet his top aide has been arrested for committing the unpardonable sin as far as some in his Party are concerned--he brought one of those evil, concealed weapons right into the Capitol!
Webb has yet to strongly defend the actions of his aide. Yet he has not condemned him, either. Walking this tightrope is the curse of being a conservative in a Party run by extremist Liberals and who get most of their money from those who are even MORE extremist than they are.
The flip side of this controversy has to do with the reaction, or lack thereof, by the Senate leadership.
Suppose this had been Trent Lott's aide. Or Orin Hatch.
I can just hear it now. The Democrats would have hit the airwaves that very day to condemn the practice and use it to showcase why we need more gun control in the United States of America. There would be calls for endless investigations into the incident, including why the top aide of a top Republican Senator would be bringing a concealed weapon into the Senate (probably even hinting that since Senator Lott and Hatch are religious conservatives, they were probably part of an evil fundamentalist Christian terrorist plot to blow up the Senate office building).
But because this is DEMOCRAT Jim Webb, what have we heard from the Senate leadership about this incident? Nary word.
And we won't.
The Democrats can ill-afford to further alienate that part of the voting base that values the Second Amendment yet holds a vague distrust for Republicans, and they can ill-afford to rattle a freshman Senator who hold a seat they sorely need to keep and who tends to blow his stack at the drop of a hat.
It is to be remembered that Webb has a penchant for volatility. This is the same man who refused to shake President Bush's hand in a serving line at a White House reception given in honor of the newly elected Congressmen. Set this guy off, and the Dems are likely to be the recipients of a stream of projectile venom aimed straight at the Party leadership.
Why, he may even whip out his gun.
The bottom line is that the blue dogs are in a precarious position in a Party that is clearly out of touch with most Americans. But they are not dumb. As much as the Democrat leadership despises the right of the people to keep and bear arms, they dare not make an issue out of Webb and his aide's views on guns.
Webb could help himself by coming clean about all of this. Let the country know that he backs his aide's right to carry. Let the country know that he backs Second Amendment rights, and that he finds the law banning guns in D.C. to be a travesty and a sham...particularly when one must break the law in bringing a gun through D.C. in order to legally hold it in the Senate office complex.
How much sense does that make?
Webb could do himself and all freedom-loving Americans a big favor by living up to the way he portrayed himself during the campaign. The problem is he would immediately become a pariah in his own Party, and frankly, I don't think he has the guts to do it.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Conyers Introduces Bill to Muzzle Christians
Washington, DC (TLS). Well, he did it. He actually did it. Rep. John Conyers, who was appointed by Nancy Pelosi as Chair of the House Judiciary Committee in spite of his breaking of federal campaign laws, has introduced the long-awaited bill that would criminalize your Pastor if he reads from the Bible that homosexual behavior is a sin.
According to Conyers, this constitutes 'hate speech' and thus qualifies as a 'hate crime.'
As if this were not enough, the bill also would define hate speech (a hate crime) as writing or verbalizing a term that extremist Muslims find offensive, such as 'Jihadist,' or 'Muslim terrorist,' or 'Islamic Fascists.'
In short, telling the plain truth will be outlawed in the United States of America.
Many Congressional observers wondered if Conyers would actually have the audacity to introduce such extremist legislation, given that his Party is quickly becoming known as the haven for the most subversive, Leftwing nutcases in the world. Yet Conyers can hardly help himself since for the first time in over a decade the Leftists have a little power.
And make no mistake. The ones who have the power in the Democrat Party are the ones who are the most out-of-touch, extremist Leftists.
Barely had Pelosi been sworn in as Speaker of the House when the Dems began their assault on gun rights, free speech, freedom of religion, the right of bloggers to alert readers to contact Congress concerning pending legislation, and a host of other subversive legislation.
Thus, it is actually no surprise that Conyers wants to muzzle Christians and Jews, and most sane Americans, by passing federal legislation aimed at making a hate crime out of the exercise of free speech.
If there were ever any doubt that the Democrats would do this and thus show their true colors as extremist Liberal collectivists who want to rob the citizens of their rights, those doubts have now been permanently erased.
Remember this in 2008.
You want to charge me with a hate crime, Conyers? Try this on for size. You are a criminal slime-ball who has no business serving in Congress at all much less being the Chair of a committee. You are part of the forces of anti-freedom who wish to rob citizens of their rights, and thus, you are a disgrace to your country and to the ideals of the Founders.
Here is more info on Conyers' Commie-bill:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200703/CUL20070321a.html
According to Conyers, this constitutes 'hate speech' and thus qualifies as a 'hate crime.'
As if this were not enough, the bill also would define hate speech (a hate crime) as writing or verbalizing a term that extremist Muslims find offensive, such as 'Jihadist,' or 'Muslim terrorist,' or 'Islamic Fascists.'
In short, telling the plain truth will be outlawed in the United States of America.
Many Congressional observers wondered if Conyers would actually have the audacity to introduce such extremist legislation, given that his Party is quickly becoming known as the haven for the most subversive, Leftwing nutcases in the world. Yet Conyers can hardly help himself since for the first time in over a decade the Leftists have a little power.
And make no mistake. The ones who have the power in the Democrat Party are the ones who are the most out-of-touch, extremist Leftists.
Barely had Pelosi been sworn in as Speaker of the House when the Dems began their assault on gun rights, free speech, freedom of religion, the right of bloggers to alert readers to contact Congress concerning pending legislation, and a host of other subversive legislation.
Thus, it is actually no surprise that Conyers wants to muzzle Christians and Jews, and most sane Americans, by passing federal legislation aimed at making a hate crime out of the exercise of free speech.
If there were ever any doubt that the Democrats would do this and thus show their true colors as extremist Liberal collectivists who want to rob the citizens of their rights, those doubts have now been permanently erased.
Remember this in 2008.
You want to charge me with a hate crime, Conyers? Try this on for size. You are a criminal slime-ball who has no business serving in Congress at all much less being the Chair of a committee. You are part of the forces of anti-freedom who wish to rob citizens of their rights, and thus, you are a disgrace to your country and to the ideals of the Founders.
Here is more info on Conyers' Commie-bill:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200703/CUL20070321a.html
Friday, March 16, 2007
AGAIN, Dems Attack Free Speech--H.R.984
Charlotte, NC (TLS). Having failed in the attempt to stop bloggers from encouraging citizens to contact their Congressional representatives concerning pending legislation, the Democrats are trying again to attack free speech using a different tactic.
Commies never stop attacking free speech.
This time, Henry Waxman, D-CA, has introduced legislation that would require the Executive Branch of government to keep records of each and every contact that it has with private citizens, including the subject nature of that communication.
The bill, H.R. 984, named, 'The Executive Branch Reform Act,' would require the Executive Branch to keep tabs on you each time you contact them to express your opinion concerning the actions of government or pending legislation. Waxman claims that this would part of an overall effort to make government 'more open and honest.'
Sure, Waxman.
Don't you mean that your plan is to silence the citizens by making public the private communication with the Executive Branch?
Pelosi's House is at it again, the Commie-Nazis. Sieg Heil!
In addition, if the Executive Branch, i.e., the President, the White House, and all of its tributaries, are required to keep tedious records on every single communication they have with citizens, it will mean that the Executive Branch is likely to consider such communication more of a nuisance than anything else, thus making it less likely that the White House would listen to the views of the people.
There is a much darker motivation behind this bill, however. Sources inside Congress state that this legislation is actually aimed at keeping tabs on the supposed 'sinister communication' between the Executive Branch and the citizens. It doesn't take a rocket scientists to figure out that if the Legislative Branch considers some communication between the Executive Branch and the citizens to be 'sinister,' then this means that the Legislative Branch is afraid of the will and opinions of the people. 'Sinister communication,' then, is defined as any communication between private citizens and the White House that the Congress considers undesirable, i.e., citizens expressing their displeasure with the Legislative Branch.
In short, this is just one more example of Democrats trying to subvert the will of the people and insulate themselves against any outrage of the populace directed toward them.
My my, the Demo-Commies must really be getting scared of the citizenry.
In just two short months, Democrats have attempted to thwart free speech by introducing two different pieces of legislation, the first of which failed after the outcry of citizens was heard.
H.R. 984 is perhaps even more subversive than the first bill. This piece of trash needs to be discarded to the ash-heap of dead legislation even before it hits the House floor.
It is time once again to contact your Congressional Representatives in the House to express your desire to see H.R. 984 defeated.
Read the complete story here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54715
Commies never stop attacking free speech.
This time, Henry Waxman, D-CA, has introduced legislation that would require the Executive Branch of government to keep records of each and every contact that it has with private citizens, including the subject nature of that communication.
The bill, H.R. 984, named, 'The Executive Branch Reform Act,' would require the Executive Branch to keep tabs on you each time you contact them to express your opinion concerning the actions of government or pending legislation. Waxman claims that this would part of an overall effort to make government 'more open and honest.'
Sure, Waxman.
Don't you mean that your plan is to silence the citizens by making public the private communication with the Executive Branch?
Pelosi's House is at it again, the Commie-Nazis. Sieg Heil!
In addition, if the Executive Branch, i.e., the President, the White House, and all of its tributaries, are required to keep tedious records on every single communication they have with citizens, it will mean that the Executive Branch is likely to consider such communication more of a nuisance than anything else, thus making it less likely that the White House would listen to the views of the people.
There is a much darker motivation behind this bill, however. Sources inside Congress state that this legislation is actually aimed at keeping tabs on the supposed 'sinister communication' between the Executive Branch and the citizens. It doesn't take a rocket scientists to figure out that if the Legislative Branch considers some communication between the Executive Branch and the citizens to be 'sinister,' then this means that the Legislative Branch is afraid of the will and opinions of the people. 'Sinister communication,' then, is defined as any communication between private citizens and the White House that the Congress considers undesirable, i.e., citizens expressing their displeasure with the Legislative Branch.
In short, this is just one more example of Democrats trying to subvert the will of the people and insulate themselves against any outrage of the populace directed toward them.
My my, the Demo-Commies must really be getting scared of the citizenry.
In just two short months, Democrats have attempted to thwart free speech by introducing two different pieces of legislation, the first of which failed after the outcry of citizens was heard.
H.R. 984 is perhaps even more subversive than the first bill. This piece of trash needs to be discarded to the ash-heap of dead legislation even before it hits the House floor.
It is time once again to contact your Congressional Representatives in the House to express your desire to see H.R. 984 defeated.
Read the complete story here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54715
Monday, March 05, 2007
LIBERTY ALERT! Conyers Seeks to Criminalize Anti-Gay Religious Speech!
Washington, DC (TLS). The doomsday scenario The Liberty Sphere warned about if Democrats took control of Congress in November of last year is gradually coming to fruition. Ultra-liberal, gun-grabbing, speech-squelching John Conyers, who is head of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, in spite of his admission to violating federal election law, is pushing for a federal criminalization of anyone who speaks ill of a homosexual, even within the context of religious speech, such as in a sermon, Sunday School lesson, or general discussions of religious beliefs.
Conyers' plan has the blessing of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Many post-industrial countries around the world have such laws banning anti-gay speech. Church ministers, Sunday School teachers, and other lay persons have either gone to jail or faced stiff fines if convicted of even SPEAKING about homosexuality in negative terms.
The Conyers/Pelosi plan would place such speech under 'hate crimes' legislation.
Thus, in the United States of America, the one place in the world where a Bill of Rights supposedly protects individual rights such as free speech, to merely state that homosexuality is a sin in public would possibly subject one to the charge of a 'hate crime' if the Conyers/Pelosi plan goes through.
Congressional observers do not give the proposal much of a chance. However, they caution that this is not the end of the battle. Even if Conyers loses his bid to place such a speech ban in hate crimes legislation, he will try again under a different bill. The hope is that citizens' activist groups will be so protest weary by that time, they won't even notice when Democrats slip such a speech ban into other pieces of legislation.
My friends, I have attempted to remain as coldly objective as possible in the wake of the Democrat victory in November, not wishing to appear too much the alarmist. However, I can hold back no longer. With this blatant attempt by Liberal Democrats in the House to ban free speech simply to appease the powerful pro-gay lobby, it is clear that Nancy Pelosi's gang of thugs is the single biggest threat to human liberty outside of terrorism.
Yes, they are thugs.
If my Pastor wishes to read from the Bible that 'men lying with men' is an abomination unto the Lord, then he should have that right in the United States of America. If I wish to write on my blog that I think homosexuals are behaving in a sinful and unnatural manner, I should have that right in the United States of America. After all, any of you have the right to call me a closed-minded, homophobic bigot. I have the right to call you an idiot. This is called FREE SPEECH.
The fact that our Congress is controlled by a gang of thugs who wish to rob citizens of ALL of their rights is a personal afront to me and to any conscientious citizen.
Friends, let's get ready to fight. Let's show this bunch of extremist Leftwing wackos that we have not even begun to fight, and they assault our rights at their own peril.
Not only should there be investigations into Conyers and others for treason, high crimes and misdemeanors, and the like, but we need to start NOW to mount a national campaign to ensure that these parasites on our government never get elected to public office ever again.
Read all about Conyers' subversive plan here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54535
Conyers' plan has the blessing of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Many post-industrial countries around the world have such laws banning anti-gay speech. Church ministers, Sunday School teachers, and other lay persons have either gone to jail or faced stiff fines if convicted of even SPEAKING about homosexuality in negative terms.
The Conyers/Pelosi plan would place such speech under 'hate crimes' legislation.
Thus, in the United States of America, the one place in the world where a Bill of Rights supposedly protects individual rights such as free speech, to merely state that homosexuality is a sin in public would possibly subject one to the charge of a 'hate crime' if the Conyers/Pelosi plan goes through.
Congressional observers do not give the proposal much of a chance. However, they caution that this is not the end of the battle. Even if Conyers loses his bid to place such a speech ban in hate crimes legislation, he will try again under a different bill. The hope is that citizens' activist groups will be so protest weary by that time, they won't even notice when Democrats slip such a speech ban into other pieces of legislation.
My friends, I have attempted to remain as coldly objective as possible in the wake of the Democrat victory in November, not wishing to appear too much the alarmist. However, I can hold back no longer. With this blatant attempt by Liberal Democrats in the House to ban free speech simply to appease the powerful pro-gay lobby, it is clear that Nancy Pelosi's gang of thugs is the single biggest threat to human liberty outside of terrorism.
Yes, they are thugs.
If my Pastor wishes to read from the Bible that 'men lying with men' is an abomination unto the Lord, then he should have that right in the United States of America. If I wish to write on my blog that I think homosexuals are behaving in a sinful and unnatural manner, I should have that right in the United States of America. After all, any of you have the right to call me a closed-minded, homophobic bigot. I have the right to call you an idiot. This is called FREE SPEECH.
The fact that our Congress is controlled by a gang of thugs who wish to rob citizens of ALL of their rights is a personal afront to me and to any conscientious citizen.
Friends, let's get ready to fight. Let's show this bunch of extremist Leftwing wackos that we have not even begun to fight, and they assault our rights at their own peril.
Not only should there be investigations into Conyers and others for treason, high crimes and misdemeanors, and the like, but we need to start NOW to mount a national campaign to ensure that these parasites on our government never get elected to public office ever again.
Read all about Conyers' subversive plan here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54535
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)