Tag: Politics

I Repeat, if You Criticize Obama You are Racist

From Says Uncle we have another example of the Obamessiah’s critics being labeled racists. This time the word socialist is being redefined by an Obamessiah follower to mean nigger. That’s right he claims when you say socialist are actually being derogatory to the president’s race not his financial policy to bankrupt save the economy through printing trillions of dollars. Here is the video:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3dFh8YYd70]

This is an effective way to stop people from using their first amendment right. All you have to do is attach a pariah label to your critics. For the connivence of those who hate the freedom to criticize here is a list of the proper label to use on those who don’t agree with you:

    If your opponents is…

  • white call them racist.
  • if a man and you are a woman call them sexist.
  • isn’t willing to pass your law increasing government powers to spy on citizens call them terrorists.
  • isn’t willing to pass your law to “protect the children” call them pedophiles.
  • is using anything off of this list call them assholes.

Hopefully that clears things up.

Another Person who Claims not Agreeing with Obama is Racist

Via Says Uncle we have a link to a Washington Post piece where the author claims that poster depicting Obama as the Joker is racist. He’s not even pussy footing around this one:

So why the anonymity? Perhaps because the poster is ultimately a racially charged image. By using the “urban” makeup of the Heath Ledger Joker, instead of the urbane makeup of the Jack Nicholson character, the poster connects Obama to something many of his detractors fear but can’t openly discuss. He is black and he is identified with the inner city, a source of political instability in the 1960s and ’70s, and a lingering bogeyman in political consciousness despite falling crime rates.

Yes because Obama’s face in the poster is painted similar to the “urban” paint of the latest Dark Knight file it ties to the inner city which, according to the author, implies black people are violent. Now i’ve contrived some really bad bullshit before but this guy deserves an aware. Hence he is the latest recipient of this site’s world of fame asshole award. Congratulations Philip Kennicott.

Oh and just to add insult to insult here is that picture again:

Congress Slipped in a Book Ban, Clever Girl

As with many things I find Snowflakes in Hell has a link to an article on the book ban Congress passed. I know what you’re thinking, how could Congress pass a ban on books? The first amendment protects the freedom of speech.

Although that’s true Congress didn’t base the ban on a book’s content but on the ink. Remember last year when there was a panic over Chinese toys that contained lead? As a knee jerk reaction Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. This act in essence banned any amount of lead from childrens’ items and it was retroactive. We’re not talking simply lead paint on toys but lead in any products aimed for use by children.

So how does this ban books? Well before 1985 there was no law regulating the use of lead in dyes and inks used in children’s books. This means any children’s book printed before 1985 must first be tested for lead before it can be sold. Failing to to this means you a used book you sell can be an illegal item for resale and you could face up to a $100,000 fine or even prison time.

This law was appalling to begin with but is doubly so to me since I’m an avid reader with books printed before 1985. If I should allow a child to read such a book I can be brought up on charges. And this is how the government works people. If they can outright ban something they do it through regulations. Granted I don’t believe banning childrens’ books was the intention of this law but due to its poor wording that’s what it has accomplished.

But government does use regulations to ban items directly. The assault weapon ban of 1994 a perfect example. The government knew it would be hard to flat out ban specific guns so they regulated the features hoping that would accomplish the ban. They made a list of features which were not illegal when a certain number of them were on a single gun. Everything from bayonet lugs to pistols grips fell on this list. Furthermore any magazine with a capacity beyond 10 cartridges was now illegal to produce. Unlike the law this article primarily aims at the assault weapon ban was not retroactive.

The scary thing is anything can be regulated so long as it can be found to be bad in some way. Lead ammunition is being restricted more and more in the Peoples’ Republic of California because it’s “harmful to the environment.” The federal government could pull the same thing. Being you can still get ink poisoning it is possible to regulate anything that uses ink period. Granted that’s an extreme case but it is meant to be to show the extent unregulated government to reach.

This is why we need to fight pointless and knee jerk laws. They never accomplish solving anything and always accomplish harming people whom were not criminals before the passing of the law.

Further Research

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. (PDF)

Dissidence isn’t OK when It’s Against Obama

A short by excellent post over on the Smallest Minority sums up something that’s been bothering me since the election.

Back when Bush was in office everybody was making fun of him. Let’s be honest nobody liked him and he did nothing good for the country. Many people were using the old phrase, “Dissidence is the highest form of patriotism.” Fast forward to the new president. All of the sudden it’s not OK to question of criticize the president. Once again he’s, so far, done nothing good for the country. In fact as much as his supporters hate to hear this he’s promoting the same idea as Bush, which is to say we need to print tons of money to insert into the economy in order to avoid another situation like the Great Depression.

Furthermore Obama has been breaking promises left and right. I remember him clearly stating that he would sign no bill into law until there was a five day review and comment on it. I remember during his campaign he was talking about how he would abolish warrantless wire tapping? He then turned around and supported FISA. But my absolute favorite was how he said the new administrator wouldn’t have lobbyists and then turns around and hire lobbyists.

Of course whenever this is pointed out to a worshipper of the Obamessiah you get a deluge of insults ranging from being a Republican (Apparently that’s somehow an insult while being called a Democrat is considered a compliment. I don’t get that.) to, the insult that appears to be the favorite among his devoted followers, a racist. Back when he was running for the Democrat nominee I was already being called racist because I wasn’t supporting him (In fact I was supporting Ron Paul.). Likewise Hillary’s supporters would call me sexist so they had their own emotionally derived label for me that had nothing to do with why I wasn’t supporting their nominee.

The bottom line is Obama isn’t God even though you can’t tell when talking to his most devoted followers. He’s human and he fucks up just like the rest of us. And when you fuck up it’s best to be corrected so you don’t fuck up again. I always say if I were to purchase a company I’d get a list of all the whiners, bitchers, and moaners. Once this list was in hand I’d bring them into a meeting and make them my advisory board with the idea that they will complain about things that need to be looked at. Of course to avoid pointless bitching I’d tell them if they guide me right they get a bonus but if they guide me wrong there would be consequences. The reason I say and believe this is because I like criticism. Criticism is the only way I know how to correct my fuck ups.

Being our elected officials are our employees I feel it is not only our right but also our duty to let them know when they do something right and when they fuck up. Obama is in this same boat. You have a right to free speech period so make it useful. Criticize Obama and the rest of the administrator when you don’t agree with their actions. It’s a patriotic to want the best for your country and you can only get the best for your country if you work for it. And remember anybody who tries to call your ideas dangerous or you a racist is somebody who lacks any real arguments or facts to go against you with. These are the ones who argue emotionally instead of through facts. Don’t take it, let them know they are fucking up.

And now I leave you with the picture that started this new firestorm:

Irony Defined

For some time now the Mexican gun canard has been raging across the gun rights scene. Mexico claimed the cartels were getting guns from American gun shows since we have such an abundance of fully automatic AK-47s in this country. Well it appears as if the BATFE is now worried that weapons from Mexico are coming into the United States. This story specifically covers grenades which apparently can cross the border as well as illegal immigrants. An interesting quote from the story:

The weapons are preferred by drug hitmen because they are cheap and easy to find. Many are left over from Central America’s civil wars and sold on the black market to drug cartels.

Something tell me that grenades aren’t the only weapons left over from those civil wars. And the same thing that is telling me that is also telling me that it’s possible those other weapons are also being sold to the Mexican drug cartels.

Louisiana Congressman Introducing Bill to Limit Gun and Ammunition Tax Hikes

In Louisiana congressman Rodney Alexander is planning on taking away one of the anti-gunners hopeful weapons. As it sits right now one of the most effective forms of gun control has been through taxation. Proof of this is in the National Firearms Act which at the time states certain weapons, most notably machine guns and short barreled long guns, required a $200.00 tax stamp. At the time $200.00 was a considerable amount of money and the thought was through making such guns exorbitantly expensive criminals wouldn’t be able to afford them.

That obviously didn’t work but the anti-gunners never let logic stand in the way of restricting a right. They are often talking about making massive taxes on guns and ammunition in order to curb gun ownership violence and make money for that government to boot. It looks like Louisiana may have a change of dodging this issue all together, unless of course a federal law enters the books.

No Firearms for Foreign Felons Act of 2009

Seriously doesn’t senator Feinstein ever quit? From Snowflakes in Hell comes this story.

Senator Feinstien is pushing a new piece of legislation called the “No Firearms for Foreign Felons Act of 2009.” The law if enacted would prohibit anybody who has been convicted of a felony in a foreign country from obtaining a gun in this country. There are some good examples of so called felons in foreign countries such as Francis Gary Powers who was the pilot in the U2 that was shot down over the Soviet Union.

This legislation has bad written all over it since it’s basing an American citizen’s rights on events that occurred in another country with a different set of rules. Can you imagine being a woman from the Middle East who escaped here after being convicted of indecent behavior (in other words not covering every inch of her body) who wants to buy a gun now that he has a new citizenship? Oh too bad and so sad since she’s been convicted of a high crime in another country even though this country doesn’t recognize the crime.

I’m sure the next piece of legislation will say anybody who could be convicted of a felony in another country can no longer purchase guns in America. That would effectively ban guns in this country since many things we do in our daily lives is felony material in some country or other.

So far it doesn’t appear as if the bill has many sponsors:

The legislation, introduced late Tuesday, is co-sponsored by Senators Richard Durbin (D-Ill.); Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.); Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.); Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). This bill was originally introduced in the 110th Congress.

That’s a good sign obviously and after getting a majority vote for inclusion of the national carry reciprocity amendment I think not only is congress skittish with anti-gun laws but they appear to be willing to support pro-gun laws. Either way we need to keep our eyes on this one.

Disappointment in Senator Klobuchar

I’m not a very difficult man to make happy. It’s really quite simple in most cases, especially if you’re one of my representatives. All you have to do is either pick up the phone when I call or reply to any e-mail or letter I send with something along the line of content.

So here’s the fiasco. I wanted to let my representatives know that I would like them to vote yes on the Thune amendment that would allow national reciprocity for carry permits. Of course being time was very constrained I was unable to use the old snail mail system. In it’s place I sent an e-mail first. To send her an e-mail you need to use a form on her website as she doesn’t publish her e-mail anywhere (although I did get it eventually from the reply that was sent). Of course I didn’t get a response e-mail that night, I figured this was expected since I believed they would need staff there to send the reply.

I then called her office in D.C. At that late of an hour nobody was there to pick up so I left a message with my name, city, phone number, and what position I wanted her to take on the Thune amendment.

Yesterday around noon I also called her office, this time the local one. Again I was greeted with a machine saying nobody was there to pick up. This I found really odd being it was the middle of the day and their office is open until 17:00. Once again I left a message expecting some kind of return call.

Well I never received a return call and nobody is picking up the bloody phone. I did however receive an e-mail which read as the following…

Dear Christopher:

Thank you for taking the time again to contact me about guns. I realize the importance of this issue, and I appreciate hearing from you.

To keep track of what I am doing both in Washington and in Minnesota, please visit my website at http://www.klobuchar.senate.gov. You may also like to track legislation through the Library of Congress legislative information website at http://thomas.loc.gov.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. One of the most important parts of my job is listening to what the people of Minnesota have to say to me. I am here in our nation’s capital to do the public’s business and to serve the people of our state. I hope you will contact me again about matters of concern to you.

Sincerely,

Amy Klobuchar
United States Senator

Wow. Just wow. This is the ultimate form letter of form letters. It had to be generated automatically as there is no content in it that would imply it was a response to what I sent. No where does it state her position for or against, well, anything. I don’t ask for much but a response to the message I sent would be nice. A simple yes or no answer to by request with some reasoning is all I’m looking for. I just want to know some human looked at what I sent and at least let my senator know where I stand.

I’m very disappointed with her office and her. She should be stomping on her staff for not responding to her constituents. Every other one of my representatives has no issue at all responding to my communications. Usually these responses aren’t even form letters or e-mails but actual thought out responses.

Since I was only able to find contact information for our new senator, Franken, I’m giving his office a couple days to give me the courtesy of a reply.

S.1390 Amendment for National Conceal Carry Reciprocity

I heard rumors that an amendment was going to be made to S.1390, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, to allow national concealed carry reciprocity. I see the amendment was made…

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s1390/show

Amendment 1680…

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State.

The amendment was introduced by Senator John Thune of South Dakota. The text of the amendment is available here…

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=111&amdt=s1618

And for those of you who don’t want to open another link here is the text…

SEC. 1083. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) Findings.–Congress finds the following:

(1) The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.

(2) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.

(3) Congress has previously enacted legislation for national authorization of the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

(4) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance of permits to carry concealed firearms to individuals, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without need for a permit.

(5) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.

(6) Congress finds that the prevention of lawful carrying by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.

(7) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(8) Congress therefore should provide for the interstate carrying of firearms by such individuals in all States that do not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by their own residents.

(b) In General.–Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following: Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof–

(1) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that–

(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes;

(2) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides otherwise than as described in paragraph (1), may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that–

(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

(b) A person carrying a concealed firearm under this section shall–

(1) in a State that does not prohibit the carrying of a concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes, be entitled to carry such firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern the specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a resident of the State; or

(2) in a State that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, be entitled to carry such a firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a person issued a permit by the State in which the firearm is carried.

(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license of or permit issued to a resident of the State.

(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to–

(1) effect the permitting process for an individual in the State of residence of the individual; or

(2) preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.”.

(c) Clerical Amendment.–The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.”.

(d) Severability.–Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(e) Effective Date.–The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

It seems well written to me. Normally I’m against any bill that would mandate rule from the federal government over the states. But in this case the federal government is doing their job and enforcing the Bill of Rights by further saying, “the right to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed.”

It still leaves the ability for states without any means of conceal carry to keep people from legally defending themselves so don’t think this will give you constitutional rights in Illinois. Hopefully this passes as it will further strengthen the constitution and help people exercise their right of self defense.

Rights Still Hold Around Obamessiah

Good news for John Noble the man brought up on charges for carrying a legal firearm too close to the Obamessiah…

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09199/984795-57.stm

He’s been acquitted. Apparently we still have some rights as citizens even if we are within an unspecified range of the president. Of course the judge still had some words…

In my lifetime, there have been a number of assassinations of presidents and presidential candidates. A number of presidents were shot at. I’m very cognizant of that the defendant’s actions were very foolish. But not all foolish actions are criminal acts.

I don’t see how doing a peaceable demonstration is foolish myself. The man was simply standing outside of the rally with a bible and a legal firearm stating how he felt about the Obamessiah’s remark about people clinging to their guns and religion. He made no threats to anybody and didn’t disrupt the rally in any way. I’m sure if he had done the same thing while carrying a hammer nobody would have cared.

It is nice to see that you can be found innocent if you haven’t broken any laws.