Archive for January, 2012

NAGR’s 2012 Executive Summary: New Threats

January 31, 2012

Here is NAGR’s 2012 Executive Summary:

*** Hillary’s UN Gun Ban AND the Obama administration’s Election-Year gun control push:

Hillary Clinton and the United Nations are putting the finishing touches on their “Small Arms Treaty” this summer, and President Obama is ready to push a new “Assault Weapons Ban,” a Magazine Ban and Bloomberg’s “Catch All Gun Control Scheme” in order to win left-wing support.

*** Dozens of CRUCIAL U.S. House and Senate races, with our gun rights hanging in the balance:

Holding the politicians accountable has NEVER been more important.  Not only must we defend true gun rights heroes like Congressman Paul Broun through our Political Action Committee, we also have the opportunity to hold accountable long-standing anti-gun Republicans like Senators Dick Lugar and Orrin Hatch.

*** Leading the fight for REAL Right-to-Carry in states all across the nation:

After passing Constitutional Carry in Wyoming in 2011, NAGR has a tremendous opportunity to move forward with this vital legislation in up to a dozen more states.  If we are successful in raising the resources, this could result in a rout of the gun-grabbers unlike anything seen in decades.

These threats and opportunities are why I’m hoping you will stand strong with your support for the National Association for Gun Rights and our battles ahead.

These threats and opportunities are why I’m hoping you will stand strong with your support for the National Association for Gun Rights and our battles ahead.

Your generous support will help pay for direct mail and online alerts to help turn up the heat on politicians.

And you’ll be paying for our hard-hitting radio, newspaper, internet and TV ad campaigns it will take to make each one of these efforts a resounding success, as well.

To help the cause please click HERE

 

Comparision / Contrast: AKA holding your nose when you vote

January 29, 2012

We Americans are about to yet again have to hold our collective noses when we vote in the coming election.

One thing is clear, and that is that Obama must go. His attempts at undermining American sovereignty. His just plain lousy choices for advisers and people in high office such as Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder being the best examples. His idiotic handling of energy and economic issues, crony capitalism, and the list just goes on forever make his removal from office a no brainer. His inexcusable use of the military as an election tool just tops off the cake.

So, what are we left with? Yet another chorus of decidedly poor choices. Let’s take an observation  them through the looking glass of the Bill of Rights.

Mitt Romney

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

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

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

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

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

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

“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,” he said during a gubernatorial debate. “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”[1]

Even worse, Romney signed a law to permanently ban many semi-automatic firearms. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense,” Romney said in 2004. “They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”[2]

Romney also spoke in favor of the Brady law’s five day waiting period on handguns. The Boston Herald quotes Romney saying, “I don’t think (the waiting period) will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.”[3]

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

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

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


[1] Mitt Romney in the 2002 Massachusetts Gubernatorial debate.  Part of the quote can be read in this article at Scot Lehigh, “Romney vs. Romney,” Boston Globe (January 19, 2007) at:

http://mittromney4potus.blogspot.com/2007/01/context.html

“Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons ban,” July 8, 2004, at: http://www.iberkshires.com/story.php?story_id=14812

[3] Mitt Romney, quoted by Joe Battenfeld in the Boston Herald, Aug. 1, 1994.

Newt Gingrich

Prior to the “Republican Revolution” of 1994, Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia had earned an A rating with Gun Owners of America.  But that all changed in 1995, after Republicans were swept to power and Gingrich became Speaker of the House.

The Republicans gained the majority, thanks in large part to gun owners outraged by the Clinton gun ban.  And upon taking the reins of the House, Speaker Gingrich said famously that, “As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no further erosion of their rights.”

His promise didn’t hold up, however, and his GOA rating quickly dropped to well below the “C-level.”  In 1996, the Republican-led Congress passed the “gun free school zones act,” creating criminal safe zones like Virginia Tech, where the only person armed was a murderous criminal.  Speaker Newt Gingrich voted for the bill containing this ban.[1]

The same bill also contained the now infamous Lautenberg gun ban, which lowered the threshold for losing one’s Second Amendment rights to a mere misdemeanor.[2] Gun owners could, as a result of this ban, lose their gun rights forever for non-violent shouting matches that occurred in the home — and, in many cases, lose their rights without a jury trial.

While a legislator might sometimes vote for a spending bill which contains objectionable amendments, that was clearly NOT the case with Newt Gingrich in 1996.  Speaking on Meet the Press in September of that year, Speaker Gingrich said the Lautenberg gun ban was “a very reasonable position.”[3] He even refused to cosponsor a repeal of the gun ban during the next Congress — despite repeated requests to do so.[4]

Also in 1996, Speaker Gingrich cast his vote for an anti-gun terror bill which contained several harmful provisions.  For example, one of the versions he supported (in March of that year) contained a DeLauro amendment that would have severely punished gun owners for possessing a laser sighting device while committing an infraction as minor as speeding on a federal reservation.[5] (Not only would this provision have stigmatized laser sights, it would have served as a first step to banning these items.)  Another extremely harmful provision was the Schumer amendment to “centralize Federal, State and Local police.”[6]


Final passage of H.R. 3610, Sept. 28, 1996 at:  http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml . Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) warned his colleagues about the hidden dangers in H.R. 3610, and in regard to the Kohl ban, noted that it would “prohibit most persons from carrying unloaded firearms in their automobiles.”

See Gingrich’s vote at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml .

[3] Associated Press, “Gingrich Favors Handgun Ban for Domestic Abuse Convicts,” Deseret News, Sept. 16, 1996.  The full quote reveals how much Speaker Gingrich had adopted the anti-gunners’ line of thinking:  “I’m very much in favor of stopping people who engage in violence against their spouses from having guns,” the Georgia Republican said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I think that’s a very reasonable position.”  But the fact that this gun ban covers misdemeanors in the home is primary evidence that NON-violent people have been subjected to lifetime gun bans for things like:  shouting matches, throwing a set of keys in the direction of another person, spanking a child, etc.

[4] See H.R.1009, “States’ Rights and Second and Tenth Amendment Restoration Act of 1997,” introduced by Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-ID).

H.R. 2703, March 14, 1996 at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll066.xml .

S. 735, April 18, 1996 at:  http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll126.xml .

Both the above assessments are from Gun Owners of America

Clearly, neither candidate is a real friend of the Bill of Rights, and especially of the Second Amendment. Both are hell on taxes after all the whitewash has been removed. Both support the taking of fundamental rights away from people forever for less than felonious behaviors. Both believe in government running your personal day to day lives. Both are supporters of big government authoritarianism. Both are unacceptable, period…

“No Confidence” in Holder Resolution

January 28, 2012

Attorney General Eric Holder — recently caught lying under oath concerning his knowledge of his department’s Fast and Furious program — may be moving a step closer to the inside of a jail cell.

On Thursday, February 2nd, Chairman Darrell Issa’s Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will hold another hearing on the disastrous Fast and Furious operation.

Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar, a member of that committee, is also pushing a resolution of “no confidence” in Holder’s management — or lack of management — of the Justice Department.

That resolution, H. Res. 490, provides a course of action for the momentum generated by that hearing.

H. Res. 490 finds that, as a result of “Holder’s failure to properly control, monitor, or establish Operation Fast and Furious, it is likely Mexican nationals were killed or wounded by weapons sold through this scheme” — and that the victims of Holder’s incompetence included U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

It goes on to resolve that the House has “lost confidence” in Holder, which is, basically, a call for him to resign.

Clearly, the Justice Department believes it can stonewall Issa’s inquiry and bull its way through questions concerning its criminal malfeasance. Adoption of the Gosar resolution would make it much, much more difficult to do so.

ACTION: Contact your Representative and urge him or her to cosponsor H.Res. 490. Click here to send a prewritten message to your Rep.

 

 

All politics are local…

January 24, 2012

It has been said time and time again that all politics are local. While that may be true to a certain extent it’s not necessarily true across the board. Just take a look at the dog and pony show that is the ongoing Republican process for the nomination for President

There is nearly always some sort of dirt going on at the local levels of government, and it is virtually always by establishment types to ensure that they maintain control. Here in Wyoming right now there is a move underway to remove voter supported gadfly’s via the redistricting. That means cutting the districts up so that only “approved” people will get elected.

Sure, the law requires things to be reassessed every ten years. However, this is often used by one faction or another to further their particular agenda. One example might be a faction that favors more taxation in this or that application. Remember, The Taxed Enough Already movement was started with local control in mind, and that didn’t simply mean keeping a tight rein on our Congressmen. Think about the discussion at the federal levels right now about tax rates. Then take a look at all your local taxes, including the local and state taxes that are thinly disguised as “user fees.”

Then take a look at the locally elected folks, and just what they really stand for? How many really stand up for the State or Federal Constitution? How many have proposed the lifting of one law when ever another law is placed on the books? How many have proposed any law that places more freedom and liberty in the hands of those that have to live with these laws..? How many of them think that a citizen is going overboard, or being a threat when all they are doing is acting according to their rights under the law, and then act to change the law so that they “feel” better about things? The recent fiasco about carrying a gun in Casper at the council meetings is a great example of things along those lines.

Wyoming has been called the equality state, and for good reason. However, creeping misandry / mysandry, hoplophobia,and political correctness are changing the face of things here, and not for the better. What can be done about this change of the states social and political personality?

People need to become more involved, period. Putting your name out front, and calling out your local representatives when they go over to the dark side. At meetings, on the internet, and even on the sidewalks when the occasion presents itself. Get active, publicly with those organizations that really do stand up for all of our rights, and call out those that only pretend to do so on their hypocrisy.

We need a “Tar & Feather Brigade” so to speak that simply will not back down or compromise away our deepest values.

A Victory for Individual Privacy in the Supreme Court

January 24, 2012

 

The Supreme Court yesterday unanimously sided with Gun Owners of America in finding that the placement of a Global Positioning Device on an automobile constitutes a “search” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.
The majority opinion in U.S. v. Jones was written by Justice Antonin Scalia and follows GOA’s reasoning to throw out the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test which has been thought to be the dominant Fourth Amendment standard in recent years.
The Obama Administration argued that because the police could theoretically follow Antoine Jones’ car, he had no “reasonable expectation of privacy,” and thus, placing a GPS device on his car was justified. GOA argued, however, that this constituted an “unreasonable search and seizure” which violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
This decision will have dramatic ramifications for gun owners. Indeed, the Court looked to the Founders’ intentions with respect to the Fourth Amendment, which, until the latter part of the 20th Century, was understood to restrict the ability of police to “trespass” upon the persons or property of Americans.
“This is no less than a fundamental transformation of American jurisprudence concerning searches and seizures,” according to GOA’s Executive Director Larry Pratt. “And it is a transformation which throws out fake modern jurisprudence and restores the Founders’ intent.”
The “reasonable expectation of privacy” test flowed from a Justice Harlan concurring opinion in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). Gun Owners of America had argued that the Supreme Court should jettison that decision by an activist court, and a majority of the justices agreed.
“The ‘expectation of privacy’ test for searches and seizures arose without support in the text or historical context of the Fourth Amendment, and has proven wholly inadequate to protect the American people from their government,” argued GOA.
Four members of the court — led by Samuel Alito, and joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan — argued for the continuation of the “reasonable expectation of privacy test,” but concluded that planting a GPS device on a car for 28 days constituted a Fourth Amendment “search” under that standard as well.
The Obama administration, which had argued that planting a GPS device on a car was not a “search” under the Harlan standard, was unanimously repudiated by the High Court. And the case is being cited by the mainstream media as a defeat for Obama and his Justice Department, which is led by Attorney General Eric Holder.
Said Pratt: “This is yet another failure by Eric Holder, the most corrupt and incompetent Attorney General in the history of the Republic.”
Gun Owners would like to thank its activists for their support. Your contributions helps GOA to assist in future cases like this at the Supreme Court.

SOURCE

“arbitrary or capricious,” without any doubt!

January 23, 2012
Federal Court Supports Illegal Obama Multiple Sales Regs
First, the good news: Fox News is reporting that due to an amazing outpouring of opposition, the vote on the so-called anti-piracy legislation — which could muzzle websites like GOA’s — has been postponed. Thank you all for your activism … and please stay tuned to further updates on this issue.
Now for the bad news: You know what they say about Friday the 13th.
Well, this past Friday, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a setback to gun owners. The issue involved a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s illegal multiple sales regulations. [NSSF v. Jones, Acting Director, BATFE.]
Through those regulations, Obama has demanded, by regulatory fiat, that firearms licensees in four southwestern states report multiple sales of certain long guns to the federal government.
In upholding this action, Judge Rosemary Collyer -– a Bush appointee! –- ignored the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case, and the clear language of federal law.
Of course, this once again underscores the danger of putting all our eggs in the “court basket.” It’s not a bad idea to challenge unconstitutional measures in the courts, but it’s problematic if we look to them as being the ultimate defenders of our gun rights. Clearly, they are not.
Among other things, Judge Collyer ignored the obvious language of the 1986 McClure-Volkmer Act, which prohibits the ATF from demanding any information on gun owners other than information explicitly allowed by statute.
Specifically, the section states: “Such [licensees] shall not be required to submit to the Attorney General reports and information with respect to such records and the contents thereof, except as expressly required by this section.” (18 U.S.C. 923(g)(1))
Paragraph (g)(5) allows the Attorney General to demand information by issuing a “demand letter,” but participants in the drafting of McClure-Volkmer affirm that this was not intended to trump the paragraph (1) limitation, in order to statutorily mandate reporting requirements.
To interpret paragraph (g)(5), as Obama and Attorney General Holder have interpreted it, is to say that there are NO limits on the information the Attorney General can demand -– up to and including every 4473 in the country.
In opening this door, Collyer cited much narrower decisions in the Fourth and the liberal Ninth Circuit, but expanded them beyond any judicial precedent. Citing a test that looked at whether the ATF’s action constituted a “clear error of judgment” or was “arbitrary or capricious,” Collyer gave all of the benefit of the doubt to Obama -– and none to the Second Amendment, which wasn’t even considered in her 21-page opinion.
The decision will presumably be appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals -– a supposedly “conservative” circuit that nevertheless upheld ObamaCare.
But the larger issue is this: Congress can block these regulations by simply cutting off the money to implement them. Last fall, we demanded that the House include such a prohibition in its giant money bill. But congressional leaders ignored the Second Amendment community on this and a variety of other pro-gun issues, including defunding ObamaCare.
It is late in the game. But there is still an opportunity to prohibit funding for the multiple sales regulations on the annual Department of Justice Appropriations bill and the “continuing resolution” which will inevitably follow around September 30.
True, a lot of damage will have been done by that point. But we cannot allow to stand the precedent that the Attorney General can seize any and all gun-related information, simply by saying he wants it.

A History Lesson, so to speak…

January 19, 2012

I have a very good friend. His name is Leo, and I will leave it at that. he follows the blog, and will reveal his full name if he so chooses to do so.

Leo, is a genuine all American BAD ASS.  In the Viet Nam War Leo did his duty, and then some. Three, count them three Bronze Stars with “V” Device, as well as a Silver Star. He also picked up a couple of Purple Mary’s along the way. He pulled a woman and her two kids out of a canal in Georgia I think it was. That had run off the road, and were in danger of drowning. He took a hit in the lower leg from a Water Moccasin in the process. That tagged him with “The Soldiers Medal.” He’s also got a Combat Infantry Badge with? Three stars for God’s sakes! Leo, is / was an AIRBORNE RANGER!

Which brings me too the point of this post. Leo and I were talking one day and the subject of slavery came up. I received one hell of an education that day. Oh, I somehow forgot to mention that Leo, is a Black Man…

What follows, is stolen from my good friend Texas Fred. It is a review of the dressing down that I received from Leo that day.

Here in Texas we take our holidays, traditions and heritage quite seriously.

Confederate Heroes Day in Texas

Confederate Heroes Day is a Texas State Holiday created by Chapter 221, Senate Bill 60, of the 63rd Texas Legislature. Approved June 1, 1973 and Effective August 27, 1973, this bill deleted June 3rd as a holiday for Jefferson Davis’ birthday and combined it with Robert E. Lee’s Birthday, January 19th. It is the last holiday in the State of Texas dedicated to Confederate Veterans. We as “Sons of Confederate Veterans” are dedicate to the preservation of this holiday, the defense of the Confederate soldier’s good name, the guardianship of his history, the emulation of his virtues, the perpetuation of those principles which he loved and which we love also, and those ideals which made him glorious. We celebrate this day in remembrance of those gallant individuals who bravely defended their families and their homeland in the war for southern independence. SOURCE

350x314px

Some say we fly the Confederate Flag because we are racists and haters. Those people are what I like to call WRONG. Hatred and racism have NOTHING to do with pride and our heritage.

I grow frustrated by those that insist the War Between the States was a war fought over the issue of slavery, it was not. Many still refer to it as The War of Northern Aggression.

So, let us examine some Confederate history, MYTH vs FACTS, and a bit of REAL history concerning those many myths as they are properly taken to task in the following:

History books, the media, the school systems, etc abound in falsehoods and inaccuracies of Confederate and Southern history. This fact sheet will help to clarify and dispel some of these rampant inaccuracies.

MYTH – The War of 1861 – 1865 was fought over slavery.

FACT – Terribly untrue. The North fought the war over money. Plain and simple. When the South started Secession, Lincoln was asked, “Why not let the South go in peace?” To which he replied, “I can’t let them go. Who would pay for the government?” Sensing total financial ruin for the North, Lincoln waged war on the South. The South fought the War to repel Northern aggression and invasion.


MYTH- Only Southerners owned slaves.

FACT- Entirely untrue. Many Northern civilians owned slaves. Prior to, during and even after the War Of Northern Aggression.

Surprisingly, to many history impaired individuals, most Union Generals and staff had slaves to serve them! William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865.

U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865. When asked why he didn’t free his slaves earlier, Grant stated “Good help is so hard to come by these days.”

Contrarily, Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves (which he never purchased – they were inherited) in 1862!!! Lee freed his slaves several years before the war was over, and considerably earlier than his Northern counterparts. And during the fierce early days of the war when the South was obliterating the Yankee armies!

Lastly, and most importantly, why did NORTHERN States outlaw slavery only AFTER the war was over? The so-called “Emancipation Proclamation” of Lincoln only gave freedom to slaves in the SOUTH! NOT in the North! This pecksniffery even went so far as to find the state of Delaware rejecting the 13th Amendment in December of 1865 and did not ratify it (13th Amendment / free the slaves) until 1901!


MYTH- The Confederate Battle Flag was flown on slave ships.

FACT- NONE of the flags of the Confederacy or Southern Nation ever flew over a slave ship. Nor did the South own or operate any slaves ships. The English, the Dutch and the Portuguese brought slaves to this country, not the Southern Nation.

BUT, even more monumental, it is also very important to know and understand that Federal, Yankee, Union ships brought slaves to America! These ships were from the New England states, and their hypocrisy is atrocious.

These Federals were ones that ended up crying the loudest about slavery. But without their ships, many of the slaves would have never arrived here. They made countless fortunes on the delivery of slaves as well as the products made from raw materials such as cotton and tobacco in the South.

This is the problem with Yankee history. History is overwhelmingly portrayed incorrectly by most of the Federal & Yankee books and media.


MYTH- The Confederate Battle Flag represented the Southern Nation.

FACT- Not true. While the Southern Battle flag was carried into battle, the Southern Nation had 3 different National flags during the course of the war.

The First National flag was changed due to a resemblance of the US flag.

The Second National flag was subsequently modified due to the similarity to a flag of truce.

The Third National flag was the adopted flag of the Confederacy.

The Confederate Battle Flag was never a National Flag of the Confederacy. It was carried into battle by several armies such as the Army Of Northern Virginia and the Army of Tennessee. Was also used as a Naval Jack by the Confederate Navy.


MYTH- The Confederate Battle Flag is known as the “Stars & Bars”.

FACT- A common misconception. The First National Confederate Flag is correctly known as the “Stars & Bars”. The Confederate Battle Flag is known as the “Southern Cross”.


MYTH- The Confederate Battle Flag represents racism today.

FACT- The Confederate Battle Flag today finds itself in the center of much controversy and hoopla going on in several states. The cry to take this flag down is unjustified. It is very important to keep in mind that the Confederate Battle Flag was simply just that. A battle flag. It was never even a National flag, so how could it have flown over a slave nation or represented slavery or racism? This myth is continued by lack of education and ignorance. Those that vilify the Confederate Battle Flag are very confused about history and have jumped upon a bandwagon with loose wheels.


MYTH- The United States Flag represented freedom.

FACT- No chance. The US flag flew over a slave nation for over 85 years! The North tolerated slavery and acknowledged it as a Division Of Labor. The North made a vast fortune on slavery and it’s commodities. It wasn’t until the South decided to leave the Union that the North objected. The North knew it could not survive without the Southern money. That is the true definition of hypocrisy.


MYTH- Abraham Lincoln was the Great Emancipator.

FACT- While Lincoln has went down in history as the Great Emancipator, many would not care to hear his real thoughts on people of color. Martyred President Abraham Lincoln was fervently making plans to send all freed slaves to the jungles of Central America once the war was over. Knowing that African society would never allow the slaves to return back to Africa, Lincoln also did not want the slaves in the US. He thought the jungles of Central America would be the best solution and conducive to the freed slaves best interest. The only thing that kept this from happening, was his assassination.


MYTH- The South revered slavery.

FACT- A very interesting fact on slavery is that at the time the War of 1861 -1865 officially commenced, the Southern States were actually in the process of freeing all slaves in the South. Russia had freed it’s servants in 1859, and the South took great note of this. Had military intervention not been forced upon the South, a very different America would have been realized then as well as now.


MYTH- The Confederate Army was comprised of rich slave owners.

FACT- Very far from true. The vast majority of soldiers in the Confederate Army were simple men of meager income. Most of which were hard working farmers and common men. Then, as now, very few rich men ever fight a war.


MYTH- Only the North had men of color in their ranks.

FACT- Quite simply a major falsehood of history. Many blacks, both free and of their own will, joined the Confederate Army to fight for their beloved Southern home. Additionally, men of other ethnic extraction fought as well. Oriental, Mexican & Spanish men as well as Native American Indians fought with pride for the South.

Today, many men of color are members in the heritage group SCV – Sons Of Confederate Veterans. These men of color and pride rejoice in their heritage. The continued attacks on the Southern Nation, The Confederacy, and her symbols are a terrible outrage to these fine people. These attacks should be denounced with as much fervor as those who denounce the South.


MYTH- The Confederate Flags are an authorized symbol of Aryan, KKK and hate groups.

FACT- Quite the contrary. These despicable organizations such as the KKK and Aryans have taken a hallowed piece of history, and have plagued good Southern folks and the memories of fine Confederate Soldiers that fought under the flag with their perverse agenda. IN NO WAY does the Confederate Flag represent hate or violence. Heritage groups such as the SCV battle daily the damage done to a proud nation by these hate groups. The SCV denounces all hate groups, and pridefully boast HERITAGE – NOT HATE.


MYTH- The SCV – Sons Of Confederate Veterans are a racist, hate group.

FACT- This is a blatant attack on one of the finest heritage groups ever. The SCV – Sons Of Confederate Veterans are a historical, patriotic and non-political organization comprised of descendants of Confederate Soldiers and sailors dedicated to insuring that a true history of the 1861 -1865 period is preserved and presented to the public. The SCV continues to educate the public of the memory and reputation of the Confederate soldier as well as the motives for his suffering and sacrifice.

The SCV – Sons Of Confederate Veterans are in NO WAY affiliated with, nor does it recognize or condone the terrible legacy of hate groups such as the KKK. SOURCE

You can’t get a much more comprehensive, in-depth explanation than that.

Photobucket

Additional Reading: Gen. Robert E. Lee: January 19, 1807 – October 12, 1870

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
 
This entry was posted in Confederate Heroes Day and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

“Constitutional Carry” (SB 25) for Colorado

January 19, 2012
State Senator Tim Neville, R-Littleton, has agreed to sponsor “Constitutional Carry” (SB 25) as his first bill in the 2012 Colorado state legislative session. What happens next is up to RMGO supporters like you.

If you haven’t done so already, please sign the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners petition in support of Constitutional Carry. Then, please forward this message to friends, family, and other like-minded citizens and ask them to sign the petition as well.

With the start of the 2012 session just days away it’s absolutely vital we turn up the heat on every member of the state legislature.

As you may know, this critical legislation will ensure honest gun owners their constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun without having to fight through the expensive government red tape of the permit process.

But will your State Senator and Representative stand up for your second amendment rights? Or will they bow down to the radical anti-gun lobby?

You see, with a liberal majority in the Colorado State Senate getting this bill out of committee won’t be an easy task.

That’s why Rocky Mountain Gun Owners is unveiling an ambitious program to promote Constitutional Carry in 2012.

With nearly 20 years in the fight to preserve our right to keep and bear arms at both the state and federal level, I will be the first to tell you, I can’t do this alone.

It takes patriots like you to continue the fight to allow every honest gun owner the ability to protect him or herself at all times.

This is why I’m asking you to stand up for our Second Amendment rights and sign the RMGO Constitutional Carry Petition.

Your signature will help us in the first part of our plan to collect at least 20,000 signed petitions to deliver to your State Senators and Representatives demanding that they support the Constitutional Carry bill.

Then, in a few weeks, we will introduce our candidate pledge; demanding that each and every member of the General Assembly — and every candidate — pledge to support Constitutional Carry in Colorado.

After you’ve signed RMGO’s Constitutional Carry Petition, please forward this message to as many Second Amendment supporters as possible, and encourage them to sign the petition, too!

And if you can, please consider chipping in $15 or $20.

Your generous contribution will help us really turn up the heat — through letters, phone calls, emails and internet ads . . .

. . . And if funding permits, RMGO will launch hard-hitting newspaper, radio and TV ads urging specific elected officials, by name, to vote to pass Constitutional Carry in Colorado.

You and I both know the gun grabbers and their leftist allies in the state legislature will pull every dirty trick.

Please do not delay signing the petition, and if you can please consider chipping in $15 or $20 to help RMGO fight to pass Constitutional Carry in Colorado.

Of course, if you can and want to contribute more, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners will be careful stewards of your trust.

As always, thank you for your support in the fight to preserve our Second Amendment Rights.

Only together can we do what can’t be done alone.

For freedom,

Dudley Brown
Executive Director, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners

P.S. State Senator Tim Neville is introducing Constitutional Carry in the 2012 Colorado state legislative session.

This critical legislation will ensure honest gun owners their constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun without having to fight through the expensive government red tape of the permit process.

From an email received from RMGO

Legislation could potentially shut down gun websites; Big Brother knows best…

January 18, 2012

Yet another attempt to control the free flow of information. Or is it the legitimate government function of enforcing laws against theft..?

I happen to agree with the principles involved, as far as theft of intellectual property goes. However, these laws, as proposed? No damned way period! Read on…

By now, you are no doubt aware that several websites have either gone totally or partially “dark” today in protest of the pernicious internet legislation that will be coming to a vote next week.  Wikipedia and Google are just two of the websites which are protesting in this manner.

And while you may have not paid much attention to this story, you need to know that the “muzzle the web” legislation these sites are protesting could also affect your ability to get gun-related information on websites like GOA’s.

The reason is that S. 968 could, in its final form, allow the Brady Campaign to partially shut down our GOA website and our organization (plus many other pro-gun websites) with a series of factually accurate, but legally frivolous complaints.

The Senate bill and its House counterpart have accurately been called “a direct attack on the underpinnings of the web.”

True, many of the most serious “gun problems” are in the House counterpart.  But the reality is this:  We are within a few votes of killing the whole concept next week in the Senate with only 41 Senate votes.

But if we allow the so-called “anti-piracy” bill to go forward on the HOPE that the worst provisions will not make it into the final version -– and we fail to eliminate them -– the bill may be unstoppable.

Here are the “gun problems,” as we see them:

Section 103(b)(1) of H.R. 3261 allows any “holder of an intellectual property right” to demand that PayPal and other payment and advertising services stop providing services to organizations like ours, thereby shutting off our income.

How would they do this?  Perhaps by arguing that we were stealing their intellectual property by quoting their lying misrepresentations in our alerts.

Is this legally frivolous?  Sure it is.  But the Brady Campaign is the King of Frivolous Complaints:

* Remember when the Brady Campaign asked the Federal Election Commission in 2007 to shut down GOA’s ability to post its candidate ratings on the Internet?  They claimed that we were in violation of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act.  Thankfully, the FEC ruled in GOA’s favor, thus enabling us to continue posting candidate ratings without restraint.

* Remember when the Brady Campaign got 36 state and local jurisdictions to bring frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers –- not in the expectation of winning, but to drain the resources of the manufacturers in order to halt the manufacture of guns in America?

This “muzzle the web” legislation will throw the doors open to even more frivolous complaints.  Could we defend ourselves?  Yes, we could.  We could file a counter notification under section 103(b)(5) and spend years defending ourselves.  But the one thing we did learn during the 36 frivolous lawsuits is that the anti-gun forces in America have very deep pockets.

And the other problem is that, under section 104, our Internet providers would be insulated from liability for shutting us down.  But they would receive no comparable insulation from legal liability if they refused to cut us off.

The Senate version, S. 968, has been amended, at the behest of Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley and others, to provide many protections which were not in its initial form.

Under section 3, the Attorney General would go to court and would have to claim that, because of a hyperlink to an offending site, we were “primarily” engaged in the theft of intellectual property.

We would feel a lot better about these protections if the Attorney General were not Eric Holder, a ruthless ideologue who has demonstrated that he will go to any lengths to destroy the Second Amendment.

So the bottom line is this:  H.R. 3261 and S. 968

would potentially empower the Brady Campaign and Eric Holder to go after our Internet site.  To do so, they would have to make the same frivolous arguments and engage in the same lawless activity that they have done so often in the past.

But -– given that we’re within a few votes of snuffing out that risk by killing the bill in the Senate -– we believe it’s the better course of action to do so.

Click here to contact your senators.

SOURCE

* Here’s something to think about.*

January 15, 2012

Got this from a friend.

 

What others see plainly, we often ignore.

* Here’s something to think about.*

I remember asking dad about Castro when I was about 9 years old. I asked, “Is Castro a good guy or bad?”

Dad said…he couldn’t tell!! This was about 1955. We were living in Louisiana …at the time. Dad was in the Army there.

Cuba was fairly close and in the news a lot. The Cubans were asking the same question! Ike was president.

This past July, we had the pleasure of sharing a summer barbecue with a refugee from Cuba . Our dinner conversation was starkly different than most.

This refugee came to the United States as a young boy in the early 1960′s. His family was more fortunate than most, as they were able to
bring a suitcase…and $100 when they fled Castro’s newly formed revolutionary paradise.

Our dinner consisted of all-American fare: hamburgers, potato salad, watermelon and fresh ears of sweet corn. This is a menu shared with family and friends nationwide…while celebrating the birth of our beloved America …on the Fourth of July.

We began with a simple discussion about our country, and the direction it has taken since Barack Obama came to power. We shared the usual complaints about the sour economy and liberal social engineering emanating from the rulers in Washington .

But then he said it. The sentence came naturally. I assume it was unplanned. But it carried the weight of a freight train. “You know when Castro took power, none of us knew he was a Communist”.

We sat stunned. He continued, “Yes, we all thought he was a patriot, a nationalist. Before the revolution he didn’t sound like a radical.”

The comparison at this point was easy, and I interjected, “You mean just like Barack Obama?”

He responded; “Yes, just like Barack Obama.”

He continued, “We were all shocked as the government just continued to grab more power. First they said the revolution is over, so please turn in your guns. We all complied.”

I remember my uncle saying after it started; “Castro will only nationalize some of the big industries. He will never come and take our family hardware store!!” But that is exactly what happened. Castro started with the sugar mills and the large industries, but they eventually came and knocked on the door of our family hardware store. My family had run this store for generations. They said we now own the hardware store, you work for us. And that nice, large four-bedroom home you own…it is now our property also, and…you can move yourself and five children into two rooms of the house, because others are moving in with you.”

The lesson learned from this discussion, is a lesson most Americans refuse to hear. Political leaders can lie about their agenda and once in office…they can take totally unexpected turns.

If you had asked us three years ago if we thought General Motors would be nationalized, we would have never believed it. We could never contemplate a country where the rule of law, the most fundamental building block of a justice society…would be evaporating, just like it did in Castro’s Cuba in the early 1960′s.

But the news of injustice keeps increasing. Black Panthers are not charged with wrong doing by the U.S. Department of Justice…because their crimes are against whites. The bondholders of GM are stripped of their assets…without due process by the government! Governmental leaders are bribed in full daylight…only to have all investigation of the crimes stifled…by the Attorney General.

The U.S. borders are over run with crime and illegal activity, and the leaders in D.C. act as if it is important to protect the lawbreakers…while the innocent are killed and over run. When local communities attempt to enforce the law, they are ridiculed…and threatened as racists and bigots. They are sued by the very administration…entrusted with enforcing the law.

Without the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution is a sham!! Without the rule of law, our beloved America is swiftly becoming a country where only the well connected and politically powerful will be safe. As Michelle Malkin has so eloquently explained in her recent book…a culture of corruption has replaced honest government.

The only way this problem will be fixed, is by massive citizen action. All honest citizens that want to be treated equally, must come together…and demand that the favoritism, the bribes, the uneven enforcement of law…end now!! And yes, it can happen here…


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 168 other followers

%d bloggers like this: