Posts Tagged ‘Joe Biden’

We need to cut off Obama’s escape routes

June 21, 2013
“The reason President Obama’s gun control proposals were killed [is] because hundreds of thousands of Americans began slamming the phone lines, and all of the Senators that were leaning towards supporting it suddenly said, ‘Holy cow, the folks back home don’t like this.’ [There] is nothing more powerful than the conservative grassroots when we are engaged and letting our voice be heard.”
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), June 19, 2013
 
Your grassroots efforts are making a world of difference on Capitol Hill.  But we need to keep the pressure on if we are going to defeat the anti-gun amnesty bill.
We’ve asked you repeatedly to focus your attention on the Senate bill; today, we take a brief look at the House.
But first, here’s a brief update on White House efforts to resurrect gun control.
Biden’s plug goes virtually ignored by media
 
If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?
We’ll never know.  Joe Biden’s Tuesday press conference to renew his push for gun control went almost completely unreported.  The notable exception was an MSNBC report that the NSA scandal made gun control less likely than before.
The liberal media, instead, spent the last couple of days lamenting that “the air had been take out of the push for [the anti-gun immigration bill].”
What will Boehner do on anti-gun amnesty?
While pro-gun House members held an anti-amnesty press conference, your calls and e-mails to “swing” senators lowered the chances that key members of the Senate GOP might go for a do-nothing sell-out “compromise.”
As Senator Ted Cruz told Rush Limbaugh yesterday, “[There] is nothing more powerful than the conservative grassroots when we are engaged and letting our voice be heard.”
All the while, House Speaker John Boehner told reporters, to their horror, that he wouldn’t bring an anti-gun amnesty bill to the floor over the objections of a majority of House Republicans.  According to anti-gun reporter Anne Kornblut of The Washington Post:  “That’s a real tough one.”
And California Congressman Dana Rohrbacher predicted that Boehner would lose his job if he violated that pledge.
So have we won yet?
Boehner was asked by anti-gun reporters whether he might send a conservative immigration bill to a House-Senate conference –- and allow the conference to turn it into an anti-gun monstrosity.  When asked whether he might rely on Democrats to pass an anti-gun conference report, Boehner replied:  “We’ll see when we get there.”
So that’s today’s task:  To make sure Boehner doesn’t use an anti-gun House-Senate conference to circumvent Republicans in the House.
ACTION:  Click here to contact your Representative.  Ask him to insure that no House-passed immigration bill be sent to conference with an anti-gun amnesty bill from the Senate.

 

Owning firearms is a First Amendment exercise, too!

February 8, 2013

By Alan Gottlieb

Following the hysteria generated by gun prohibitionists in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, a nationwide rush on gun stores began as citizens bought semiautomatic modern sporting rifles, handguns and ammunition, in effect “making a political statement” about proposals to ban such firearms.

Making political statements is what the First Amendment is all about.

The so-called “assault rifle” has become a symbol of freedom and the right of the people to speak out for the entire Bill of Rights. Banning such firearms, which are in common use today, can no longer be viewed exclusively as an infringement on the Second Amendment, but must also be considered an attack on the First Amendment.

Many people now feel that owning a so-called “assault rifle” without fear of government confiscation defines what it means to be an American citizen. Their backlash against knee-jerk extremism is a natural reaction to overreaching government.

What should one expect in response to this heightened rhetoric and legislative hysteria? Citizens in other countries react differently to government intrusion into their lives, but Americans are uniquely independent. Among firearms owners, talk of gun bans and attempts to limit one’s ability to defend himself or herself against multiple attackers by limiting the number of rounds they can have in a pistol or rifle magazine turns gun owners into political activists.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) did not intend her gun ban proposal to cause skyrocketing sales of semiautomatic rifles and pistols, but that’s what happened. She must live with the consequences of her shameless political exploitation of the Sandy Hook tragedy.

President Barack Obama never envisioned the rush to purchase rifle and pistol magazines, but telling American citizens they shouldn’t have something is like sending a signal they need to acquire those things immediately.

Vice President Joe Biden never imagined his efforts would result in a tidal wave of new members and contributions to gun rights organizations, making the firearms community stronger and more united in opposition to any assault on the Second Amendment.

Freedom of association is also protected by the First Amendment.

Perhaps they should take a day off and visit the monuments at Lexington and Concord, and reflect on what prompted those colonists to stand their ground. It was the first time in American history that the government moved to seize arms and ammunition from its citizens, and it went rather badly for the British.

Beneath the surface many Americans are convinced that we may be approaching a point when the true purpose of the Second Amendment is realized. Underscoring this is a new Pew Research Center poll that, for the first time, shows a majority (53 percent) of Americans believe the government is a threat to their rights and freedoms.

Exacerbating the situation is a perceived indifference from the administration toward the rights of firearms owners who have committed no crime, but are being penalized for the acts of a few crazy people.

It is time to lower the rhetoric and allow cooler heads to prevail. The demonization of millions of loyal, law-abiding Americans and the firearms they legally own must cease. If we are to have a rational dialogue about firearms and violent crime, we must recognize that the very people who could be most affected have a First Amendment right to be heard.

Recall the words of Abraham Lincoln, who cautioned us more than 150 years ago that “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” A half-century before him, Benjamin Franklin taught us that “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Their spirits are calling to us now.

Alan Gottlieb is founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation.

Democrats at Feinstein press conference lie to Americans: Of course, that’s what they do best…

January 29, 2013

Congress and the American people:

Today, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) pulled out all the stops in holding a press conference to introduce her long-anticipated ban on modern rifles and magazines, including universal registration of all gun sales. And today, you have been fed lies by the same politicians who have been trying to confiscate guns since at least the early 1990’s.

At the conference, Democrats, including Sens. Feinstein, Richard Durban (D-IL), Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) , recycled virtually every cynical distortion used by gun ban advocates in their effort to divide and defeat not only Second Amendment supporters, but all freedom-loving Americans.

 

Lies you are being told

“We don’t want your guns”

Durbin and Schumer appealed to hunters and sportsman, saying: “We don’t want to take your guns.” But their histories and the history of the gun control movement say otherwise. These cynical manipulators of tragedy hope you don’t remember 1994, when passage of the Brady Act, and then the ban on semi-automatic firearms, was immediately followed by “Brady II,” a draconian gun ban which would have given the BATF power to search the homes of law-abiding Americans and would have banned most common self-defense handguns and magazines.

In the present proposal, the “one feature” test for semi-automatic firearms could ban even a .22 caliber rifle if it has a “thumbhole” stock. More importantly, the arbitrary magazine capacity limit will apply to defensive handguns, limiting your ability to protect yourself and your family.

The legislative history of Sens. Feinstein, Schumer and Durbin is that they will take what they can get, and they will not stop in going for the rest. If they pass this ban, more will follow and they will go after your hunting rifle or shotgun. These people have been consistent and clear, they want to prohibit law abiding citizens from owning any type firearm.

 

“No right is absolute”

Schumer said these are “reasonable limitations” to your Second Amendment rights because, after all, “no right is absolute.” He argued that our First Amendment right to freedom of speech doesn’t allow you to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Apparently, however, this Harvard-educated lawyer is unfamiliar with the concept of “prior restraint.” Prosecuting someone for wrongly yelling “fire” represents prosecution of those who abuse their rights. By contrast, gun control is a restraint on the rights of the law-abiding. If the gun control model were applied to freedom of speech, you would be bound and gagged before entering the theater on the premise that you might yell “fire.”

 

“Only the ‘Gun Lobby’ opposes reasonable measures”

As much as those who would restrict your freedoms want you to believe “the NRA” and the “gun manufacturers” are the only ones opposing restrictive gun control, understand that the National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban represents a grass roots movement of millions of law-abiding gun owners, the vast majority of whom don’t earn a dime from this effort, and take time from jobs and families to fight for your civil rights. Ironically, it is the “anti-gun lobby” which actually comprises a small number of well-funded gun ban activists and their paid lobbyists.

 

“You don’t need an AR-15 to go hunting”

Regurgitated by several anti-gun politicians at the press conference, it was most completely expressed by Philadelphia Police Chief Charles Ramsey, who pointed to an AR-15 and said, “You can’t go hunting with something like that…there would be nothing left to eat.”

But the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. In drafting the Bill of Rights, the Framers intended it as the last in a series of checks and balances against abuse of government – perhaps, indeed, the sort of abuse President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Feinstein and others are determined to thrust on the American people.

 

“These ‘assault rifles’ are weapons of war”

The guns being targeted by this ban are not “assault rifles,” which are military machine guns virtually unavailable to the public since 1934. Yet Schumer and others repeatedly called the guns “assault rifles” in order to confuse you about the guns they want to ban which, in reality, differ from common hunting guns only by cosmetic features.

 

“If the magazine ban had been in effect, kids would be alive in Newtown today”

So claimed Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy (both D-CT), in a complete absence of any evidence to that effect. Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho was reported to carry one hundred magazines, and most active shooters carry multiple firearms, making magazine capacity moot. Moreover, contrary to claims by gun ban advocates, the rate of violent victimization in schools during the period from 1994 to 2004, when the last semi-auto ban was in effect, increased by five-fold.

 

Coalition members reject these lies

The thirty-seven (37) participating organizations of the National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban, representing millions of Second Amendment supporters, reject the lies being told to the American people in order to pass the Feinstein ban.

Some will urge you to “compromise.” The Coalition, however, regards “compromise,” as our opposition defines it, to be a process in which we lose slightly fewer of our rights than under the original proposal. Consequently, any legislation which registers or bans firearms; limits magazine capacity; registers private transactions through NICS; or restricts time, place or manner of self-defense is unacceptable.

Members of Congress who support gun owners by opposing all gun control will, in turn, benefit from support by Coalition organizations. Members of Congress who support gun control by any means, procedural or substantive, will be targeted for defeat by Coalition members. They will be subject to picketing, leaflet drops at events in their districts, phone and mail campaigns, and political action committee opposition. NRA ratings and endorsements will have no impact on Coalition actions.

Do not believe lies promulgated by politicians who exploit tragedy to further their pre-ordained agenda to follow the disarmament path of Britain and Australia. Unlike other countries, the Framers designed our Republic to keep Americans free, and freedom means keeping arms in the hands of the people.

Respectfully,

The National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban

Signatories

 

Also
The latest Knox Report column has been posted at WND.org.
This week Jeff takes a look at the reality of “Assault Weapons.”
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/deadly-assault-weapons-what-are-they/
Deadly “Assault Weapons” – What are They?
These “scary-looking” guns are the very type referenced in the Second Amendment
By Jeff Knox

There’s been a lot of talk recently about “Assault Weapons,” but it seems that many of the people doing the talking don’t know anything at all about guns, and that’s causing confusion.

As an Army-certified Small Arms Repairman and a lifelong firearms owner and enthusiast, I know a little bit about guns and assault rifles, so I’d like to set the record straight about a few things.

First off, the term “Assault Weapon” is a made-up name.  There really is no such thing.  The term was coined by some firearm marketers back in the 1970s to describe military-looking, semi-auto firearms.  Anti-gun extremists recognized it as a catchy and scary term and exploited it for all it was worth.  The term was a play on the valid label “Assault Rifle,” which is a lightweight, selective fire rifle or carbine.  The key there is that term “selective fire,” which means the operator can select either single shot or multi-shot modes of fire.  In other words, a true assault rifle can fire one shot for each trigger pull, or it can fire a burst or string of shots for each trigger pull – machinegun mode.

What Feinstein, Obama, and Holder are calling “assault weapons” are not selective fire.  They are not machineguns, and are not capable of selective fire.  Nor are they easily modified to be able to fire like machineguns.  These guns are semi-auto firearms that fire one round each time the trigger is pulled, just like a typical revolver or semi-auto pistol, or the 100-year old Winchester Model 1907.

Read the full article by clicking here.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/deadly-assault-weapons-what-are-they/ 
This Update was sent from The Firearms Coalition to our friends and supporters.
Please forward to others concerned about retaining their rights.
*** Please make sure we have your ZIP Code so we can better alert you to important issues in your state! ***
*** Just Reply to this message with your ZIP in the Subject line.  Thanks for your help. ***
Your elected servants need to hear from You!
Please contact your elected representatives now – by phone, email, letters, and faxes – and contact them every few days until they get the message.
STOP ALL Infringements on our rights – No gun bans.  No magazine bans.  No government interference in private firearms transactions.
Tell them that Violent Crime – including “gun crime” – has gone down by more than 50% in the past twenty years – while gun ownership and guns in circulation have gone through the roof.  Tell them to stop trying to control guns and instead do a better job of controlling criminals and the criminally insane.
If you agree with the work we’re doing and you’d like to help, there are three things we ask you to do:
First, stay informed and contact your representatives on a regular basis.
Second, join your local grass roots rights organization and help them in protecting your rights.
Third, join The Firearms Coalition for news, updates, and to add your voice to our efforts.  Contributions – of any amount – are  appreciated.
  
You can contribute online with PayPal or a credit card at www.FirearmsCoalition.org, or you can drop us a check – or just a $5 bill at PO Box 1761, Buckeye, AZ  85326.  If you see value in the work we do, please help us out.  We’ll do our best to give you a good return on your investment.  — Jeff
Please forward, post, and circulate this Update.

Biden Proposals Include Framework for Gun Registry and Confiscation… Go figure!

January 15, 2013
Up to 50-80% of all guns in circulation could be covered
Press reports now make it clear what Vice President Joe Biden’s gun control package will look like. Biden wants to impose:
* A Feinstein-like semi-auto ban which, according to experts who have done the counting, could ban up to 50% of all long guns currently in circulation and up to 80% of all handguns. Incidentally, if you wanted to keep the AR-15 you currently have, you would have to have a 6-month FBI background check, be fingerprinted, and get a machine gun-type license.
* The framework for national gun registration and confiscation by requiring every gun transaction to have a Brady Check.
* Supposed “toughening” of anti-gun trafficking measures, but without doing anything about the man responsible for allowing more gun trafficking than any other American — Attorney General Eric Holder (with his Fast and Furious program).
Let us backtrack and explain a couple of things: Increasingly ATF is going into gun dealers and xeroxing all of the 4473’s. This is illegal under McClure-Volkmer, but, in case you hadn’t noticed, Obama is increasingly ignoring the law when it inconveniences him.
Thus, if every gun transaction in America must have a Brady Check, every gun in America could presumably be fed into a national registration system by ATF by simply copying the 4473’s.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo -– a man who gives you a pretty good idea of where gun control is going -– said, on the front page of the New York Times, that “confiscation” of firearms is an option. Obviously, having a registration list makes such a task much easier.
But what about so-called large-capacity magazines? Well, Republicans like Georgia’s Phil Gingrey have talked about the possibility of banning them. However, there are many problems with this.
First of all, millions of gun owners own these magazines for defensive purposes. To take away a homeowner’s right to choose these devices will simply make honest citizens less safe — especially, when they are facing multiple attackers.
Moreover, police have sometimes had to fire 20-30 rounds to finally stop just one drug-crazed individual from shooting. This just underscores why, quite often, good guys will need more than just six-shooters.
Second, there are tens of millions of high-capacity magazines in circulation. What are you going to do about them?
Third, changing magazines (or switching guns) is not a big deal for people like Adam Lanza.
Fourth — and perhaps most important –- this is a game the anti-gun zealots have played before: They threaten to kill the Second Amendment, and then negotiate their way back to “merely” eviscerating it.
Fifth this, in addition to the lifetime ban for less than felony’s that includes ex post facto law is an assault on the American people!
Or put another way, they threaten to shoot us in the head to get us to agree to cutting off our fingers.
The only way that America’s gun owners are going to have peace over the next decade is to stop ALL gun control -– as we did after Columbine –- and then defeat compromising legislators running for reelection in 2014.
ACTION: Click here to contact your Senators and Congressmen. Demand that they oppose ALL gun control — including magazine limitations and universal background (registration) checks — being proposed by the Biden commission.

McCain may be working to stab us in the back, and what else is new..?

January 4, 2013
Whether the Semi-Auto Ban Passes May
Depend on What Happens to the Senate Rules

McCain may be working to stab us in the back

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is still trying to rig the Senate rules so that President Barack Obama can get his anti-gun and anti-Constitution agenda passed.

But first, here’s some good news.

GOA activists like yourself are having an impact!

Prior to the New Year, the reports coming out of Washington, DC indicated that Senator Harry Reid was going to nuke the filibuster on the first day of the new Congress (which would have been yesterday).

But Politico, which is one of the official papers of Capitol Hill, reported yesterday that Reid still doesn’t have the votes — despite having a Democrat majority.

The Politico headline blared:  “Reid expected to Postpone Filibuster Rule Change:  May buy time for a bipartisan bill.”

This is somewhat good news, as it means that Reid still can’t cram a rules change down our throats, limiting the ability that pro-gun Senators have to filibuster (or kill) anti-gun legislation.

But here’s the bad news:  Reid is working on a “compromise” where certain RINO’s like John McCain will help Reid do his bidding.

What’s at stake?

Well, The Blaze reported yesterday that Vice President Joe Biden “guaranteed” to ailing Boston Mayor Tom Menino that sweeping gun control legislation would be passed by the end of January.

How sweeping?

A quick look at Feinstein’s semi-auto ban legislation suggests that up to 75% of all handguns currently in circulation would be banned, along with as much as 50% of all long guns.

Depending on its configuration, the AR-15 you already have would probably be treated like a machine gun.  You would have to be fingerprinted, background checked by the FBI, and undergo a six-month license application process to keep it.  And when you die, the government will seize it.

If you don’t get an NFA license, you can expect the SWAT teams to descend on your house.

But, you ask, how could such rabidly anti-gun legislation ever get past Congress?  Well, legislators could simply follow the path they took on the fiscal cliff, where they bludgeoned a minority of Senators into accepting several, coerced short-cuts in regard to the Senate rules.

However, these forced short-cuts would now become mandated and set in stone if Harry Reid & Co. get their way.

Under one new “compromise” being floated on Capitol Hill, the Senate would change its rules so that it could pass a gun ban with only 50 votes (plus the vote of Vice President Joe Biden).  Or legislators could write the gun ban in a House-Senate conference committee on a “must-pass” bill, employing a tactic that is frequently used to pass controversial legislation.  Democrats like West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, Nevada’s Harry Reid, and Pennsylvania’s Bob Casey — who will not have to run for reelection for a while — will cast “courageous” votes for this gun ban.

And it will hit the House with enormous momentum — momentum which House Speaker John Boehner (who has already called for a dialogue on gun control) may not have the courage to resist.

But the first step will be to demolish the Senate rules so that gun control only requires 50 votes — or so that gun control can be inserted in a House-Senate conference report on a must-pass bill.  And this is where John McCain comes in.

GOA working with Senator Rand Paul to preserve the filibuster

McCain was irritated at Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who worked with Gun Owners of America on a variety of pro-gun issues that slowed down his defense funding bill.   So McCain would not lose any sleep if his rules “compromise” diminished our ability to kill anti-gun legislation in the future.

McCain is now working with Leftist anti-gun Senator Carl Levin on a series of rules changes to make gun control a lot easier to pass.

The first McCain-Levin rules change would make it impossible to fight — what’s known in Washington as — the “motion to proceed.”  Remember ObamaCare?  Our last real shot to kill ObamaCare was by filibustering the “motion to proceed” to that anti-gun legislation.  Once the motion was adopted, the bill became amendable and Harry Reid could play “let’s-make-a-deal.”  So this change would eliminate our last real opportunity to set up a roadblock and keep anti-gun legislation from even being considered.

The second McCain-Levin rules change would make it easier to add gun control to a bill in conference.  Currently, senators can block a House-Senate conference from considering an anti-gun bill.  But if the McCain proposals are adopted, a “must-pass” bill could be sent to conference … amended in conference with a draconian gun ban … and then sent back to the House and the Senate on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

McCain will try to tell you that that inserting a gun ban into a bill that is sitting in a House-Senate conference would be outside the “scope of conference.”  But that would be a lie, because as any Senator knows, “scope of conference” rules are never followed.  For example, the Gramm-Rudman spending guidelines were written in conference from the ground up.

The third McCain-Levin rules change would block any amendments except for those offered by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell or Floor Manager John McCain.  All other senators would be left out in the cold.

This McCain-Levin package must be stopped.

We are currently working with Senator Rand Paul, who is planning to offer a GOA-originated amendment requiring a two-thirds vote in the Senate before any anti-gun measure can be passed.

We know.  We know.  If it were up to us, gun control would not be able to be passed with 100 votes.  But we need to propose something which will pass the Senate.

So we need your help in opposing the McCain package and supporting the Paul amendment.

ACTION:  Click here to contact your Senators.  Demand that they (1) oppose the McCain-Levin package to make gun control easier to pass, and (2) support the Rand Paul amendment to require a two-thirds vote to enact gun control.

 

“They stood and they watched and our people died.”

October 22, 2012

Unforgivable, that is what the current administration is. Read about this episode of “The obama follies.”

HERE

Then there is the ongoing saga of “Let’s kill Americans and Mexicans so that we can get our way!”

Fast & Furious is in the news again.  The Obama Administration this week filed court papers to get the lawsuit filed by the House of Representatives against Attorney General Eric Holder thrown out.
The House lawsuit asks the court to reject a claim of executive privilege by the President, who sealed thousands of documents relating to Fast & Furious, a Justice Department operation that facilitated the smuggling of thousands of U.S. weapons south of the border.
The administration calls the House lawsuit a mere “political dispute” between the branches of government.  But this is much more than a political dispute.  People died as a result of Fast Furious, which makes it much worse than even Watergate where no one died.  Fast & Furious has led to the deaths of more than 200 Mexicans and at least one U.S. federal agent.
On a somewhat positive note, GOA asked you last week to urge Paul Ryan to bring up Fast & Furious in his debate with Vice President Joe Biden and to send your request through the Romney-Ryan website.
Well, Ryan didn’t bring up the point, but Mitt Romney did this week during the presidential debate as he told the American people — some who were probably hearing this for the first time — that Fast & Furious guns were used to kill people on both sides of the border.  “They [drug lords] used those weapons against – against their own citizens and killed Americans with them,” Romney said. “And this was a … program of the [U.S.] government.”
Romney then went on to challenge the President for using executive privilege to cover up the administration’s role in Operation Fast & Furious:  “[I]t’s one of the great tragedies related to violence in our society which has occurred during this administration. Which I think the American people would like to understand fully, it’s been investigated to a degree, but [the] administration has carried out executive privilege to prevent all of the information from coming out.”
There it is — the invoking of executive privilege by the Obama Administration, which was simply an attempt to cover up details as to why the U.S. government would help send guns south of the border.  Of course, we in the gun-owning community know why.  It was an attempt to justify support for new gun regulations.
As stated by Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News:  “[Justice Department] emails show they discussed using the sales, including [Fast & Furious] sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called ‘Demand Letter 3.’ That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or ‘long guns.’”
In other words, Operation Fast & Furious was intended to help the administration justify calls for a new gun registration scheme, which was eventually implemented (illegally and without Congressional authority) in four southwestern border states.
Thanks again for your activism last week in encouraging the presidential ticket to bring up Fast and Furious, so that it doesn’t get lost in all the campaigning.  GOA is currently traveling across the country and joining with pro-gun candidates to draw attention to Fast & Furious, as well.

The Farce called a debate…

October 12, 2012

Stolen from my friend and fellow conservative blogger. Fred expresses my own sentiments quite well.

Joe Biden was argumentative, rude, he interrupted, he was a disruptive force and he had an ally in Martha Raddatz.

Joe Biden came off as an oafish ass, in other words, Barack Hussein Obama got his wish, Joe was just being Joe.

Joe Biden had NO real argument, nothing that made sense, so he ranted and laughed a lot, he came off as highly unprofessional and NOT as someone that would make you feel the least bit confident if he were to have to take up the mantle of President.

Paul Ryan was trying very hard to use facts and figures but he was allowing Joe Biden to interrupt. Ryan was interrupted and challenged by Martha Raddatz on several occasions and he was far too polite for MY taste.

BUT … Ryan was far more professional, and gave a fine showing of himself.

It was VERY obvious, at least to me, that Martha Raddatz was a *partner* for Biden, a tag-team partner on several occasions. When Ryan was making a telling point Raddatz would interrupt, question Ryan herself, actually challenge him or change the topic and move back to Biden.

Much was made about Raddatz and her Obama Connection and many had hoped that she could put that aside and assume at least some degree of journalistic integrity.

That was NOT to be the case.

To Ryan’s credit, he didn’t get into any heated exchanges with Joe Biden, maybe this was running through his mind: If a wise man contends with a foolish man, whether the fool rages or laughs, there is no peace. Proverbs 29:9

I heard one of the FOX talking heads say that this debate was not terribly important because no one ever votes based on who the #2 was on the ticket.

THAT is pure BULLSHIT!

I know quite a few people that claimed they didn’t vote for McCain in ’08, they said their vote was for Palin, and that is the most STUPID thing they could have EVER said.

Not to be bashing Palin, but to vote for a particular candidate because you don’t like him but you love his running mate? Seriously?

If McCain has won HE would be POTUS and Sarah Palin would have been the Joe Biden of McCain’s administration, the Palin GAFFE machine.

OK, so I bashed her a little. :P

I don’t believe Paul Ryan WON the election for Mitt Romney; it will take Romney totally eviscerating Obama in the next 2 debates to make that happen.

I also don’t believe Biden did Obama any real favors. The VP Debate was a chance to see what the #2 guy was made of, and frankly, I liked what I saw in Paul Ryan a lot more than ANYTHING I saw from Joe Biden.

SOURCE

 

Democrats Help Themselves to More of Your Money

May 29, 2010

“We have new ideas about how to spend government money wisely.” So said Vice President Joe “BFD” Biden this week while discussing the $787 billion “stimulus” passed by Congress last year. He continued, “I’m very proud to say that there’s been virtually no — knock on wood — virtually no fraud associated with the $787 billion program overall.” Unless you consider that most of the money spent so far has gone to Democrat constituents, that is.

The occasion of Biden’s comments was a Middle Class Task Force roundtable discussion on Wednesday with the aim of pushing the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010. The bill would extend the Sept. 30, 2010 expiration date of the Emergency Contingency Fund, which in turn is part of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program created by The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. (Say that three times fast.) The extension would cost $2.4 billion over 10 years, but, hey, it’s all about “jobs,” which is apparently why we’re stuck at 9.9 percent unemployment.

The price tag for the overall bill could be as high as $190 billion, the bulk of which Democrats aren’t concerned about how to pay for. Paygo rules don’t apply because, of course, this is another “emergency,” a tune that will change before November as Democrats crow about their fiscal responsibility. The Wall Street Journal calls it a “grab bag of political payoffs, corporate welfare and transfer payments,” including $65 billion for Medicare physician payments, $47 billion for unemployment insurance, $24 billion in Medicaid payments to the states (though this provision may be removed), and $1 billion for summer jobs for teens, to name a few.

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) recently bragged on the House floor that such payments are “one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus” because “every unemployment dollar spent returns $1.64 of economic benefits.” Sounds like we should be cheering higher unemployment.

Speaking of spending, Barack Obama sent legislation to Congress this week seeking a new kind of line-item veto. The Associated Press reports, “The legislation would award Obama and his successors the ability to take two months or more to scrutinize spending bills that have already been signed into law for pork barrel projects and other dubious programs. He could then send Congress a package of spending cuts for a mandatory up-or-down vote on whether to accept or reject them.”

Though this serves to make Obama look tough on spending, toothpaste is pretty hard to put back in the tube.

As for the private sector, thanks to Democrat spendthrifts, it’s shrinking while the public sector grows. “Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year,” according to USA Today. “At the same time, government-provided benefits — from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs — rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010.”

“The truth of the matter is that the Recovery Act is working,” Joe Biden declared. All too well, as a matter of fact.

SOURCE

Joe Biden, the gift that keeps on giving!

May 24, 2009

The next time that a Vice President needs a hidy hole the terrorist will know exactly where to find him…

Joe Biden is at it again. Known for his loose lips, Biden is constantly in the position of issuing clarifying statements regarding some off-the-wall comment. The VP has outdone himself this time, though. At the recent Gridiron Club dinner in Washington, Biden informed his companions of the secret bunker where the vice president remains if he needs a secure location — it’s under the old U.S. Naval Observatory, which is now home to the vice president. A spokesperson did clarify later that Biden meant the “upstairs workspace.” Sure. We can only imagine that Biden was thinking, “I’ll show Cheney. I’ll tell everyone where he was hiding, that slime ball.” The only problem is the next time the vice president — which would be Joe Biden — needs a secure location, everyone knows the first place to look. For his slack jaw, Biden was sent on a super secret mission to the Balkans, where he claimed that he came under sniper fire in 1993. The gift that keeps on giving…

SOURCE

Endorsements you don’t want

October 22, 2008

“It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy… Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate… And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you—not financially to help him—we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.” —Joe Biden **It won’t be apparent because you won’t be right.

What about the law?: “I will look for those judges who have an outstanding judicial record, who have the intellect, and who hopefully have a sense of what real-world folks are going through.” —Barack Obama

Getting it exactly backwards: “John McCain has been a party to the most significant redistribution of wealth in American history and it has been all the wrong way… [McCain believes in] trickle down, government is bad, markets are right [economics].” —Joe Biden

Speaking of redistribution: “Yes, I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money.” —Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)

From the Head Cheerleader: “One hundred percent Barack Obama is going to win! He’s going to be our next president and a great president at that. We’re all excited to work with him.” —House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Thanks for clearing that up: “What I said, that indicted everybody, that’s not what I meant at all. What I mean is there’s still folks that have a problem voting for someone because they are black. This whole area, years ago, was really redneck.” —Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) “apologizing” for calling Western Pennsylvania racist **“I never said most of the things I said.” —Yogi Berra

Then, there is this:

“Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason.”Benjamin Franklin

source

Makes you wonder if they will ever just shut up sometimes…


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 196 other followers

%d bloggers like this: