Related articles

• GOP Veteran Faces Tea Party Challenger in Senate Race (newsy.com)
• Indiana Senate duel both nice, nasty (politico.com)
• Richard Mourdock challenges RINO Dick Lugar in Indiana’s Republican Primary (examiner.com)

Accomplished bully, and, oddly enough, paid spokesperson for the anti-bullying movement, Dan “Attack Dog” Savage , is just the latest example.

Savage, “famous” for a sex column and grabbing headlines for such brave and unbully-like acts such as naming gay-sex effluvia after Senator Rick Santorum, and statements about how much he wants to F**k Santorum, and how he wants all Republicans dead recently gave a Sheridan apology for his bullying of high school students at a recent conference in which he launched into a tirade on the Bible, and then call the students who chose to remove themselves from his 15 minutes of hate by calling them “pansies” as they departed from his expertly rendered discussion against bullying.

Now, for those who like some justification with their assertions, you’ll note that he cites little to support his claims of the Bible containing “bullshit”.  The Bible supports slavery, and was used to justify slavery?  Tell it to the abolitionists who were waiving it with equal committment, Mr. Savage.  Christians eat shellfish, and therefore are hypocrites, Mr. Savage?  Tell it to Jesus, who said

¹⁴ When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear Me, everyone, and understand: ¹⁵ There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. ¹⁶ If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!”¹⁷ When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. ¹⁸ So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, ¹⁹ because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?” 

^{Mark 7:14-19}

 There are also 6 other New Testament references that make it clear to anyone capable of reading and understanding, that this would be one of those taboos that isn’t taboo to a Christian, meaning, of course, that Mr. Savage was not correct when he decided to belittle the beliefs of a captive audience who did not have the opportunity to respond…much like bullies often do.

Missing the opportunity for demonstrating any real understanding, he recently apologized on his website, displaying the same tact and wisdom that has so recently put him back in the spotlight in an uncomfortable way:

I didn’t call anyone’s religion bullshit. I did say that there is bullshit—”untrue words or ideas”—in the Bible. That is being spun as an attack on Christianity. Which is bullshhh… which is untrue. I was not attacking the faith in which I was raised. I was attacking the argument that gay people must be discriminated against—and anti-bullying programs that address anti-gay bullying should be blocked (or exceptions should be made for bullying “motivated by faith”)—because it says right there in the Bible that being gay is wrong. Yet the same people who make that claim choose to ignore what the Bible has to say about a great deal else. I did not attack Christianity. I attacked hypocrisy. My remarks can only be read as an attack on all Christians if you believe that all Christians are hypocrites. Which I don’t believe.

No, Dan.  When you attack the basis for someone else’s beliefs, you are attacking those beliefs, and the difference between those whom you mocked when they shook the dust off their heels and departed, and you, is that they have read and understood that which clearly eludes you.  But then, with a plank in your eye that is the size of a redwood, I’m surprised that you can drive a car without running into anything.  But then, since people still hire you to talk about fighting back against bullying, my surprise is tempered with resigned disappointment.

Yes, that extremist fringe exists. Just as there is an extremist fringe on the left (yes, I realize it is becoming more mainstream by the day), there is an extremist fringe on the right. Those are the people who fuel militant gay liberals like Dan Savage who wish all Republicans were dead, name filthy sex acts after politicians and Christian kids, and call Christians who disagree “pansy asses” (there will be a video to address that in a few days). Most conservatives are the kind of people who would rather live and let live; we have seen, however, where the truly far-right groups have fought to edge out gay groups who wish to participate in CPAC.

That flies in the face of everything that is politically conservative. Being conservative means three things to me: 1) limited government; 2) personal responsibility; 3) fiscal prudence. Everything I believe falls under those three ideas. I believe religion should be kept to the confines of the First Amendment, which carries the only mention of religion in the whole of the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free expression thereof.”

On that note, here is what I have to say about a few things that have come up in my debates recently:

Christianity: none of us have anything against the faith or its followers. I am a Christian myself. I don’t go to my old church because I always feel everyone’s eyes on me, but I won’t go to the “gay-friendly” churches because all I hear are liberal politics being preached from the pulpit and I don’t have the stomach for it. I will never support any law that could possibly be construed to force churches to perform gay weddings in the name of stopping discrimination, and will ardently oppose any movement that targets Christians and their beliefs, no matter how much I may disagree with some of them. Their rights are my rights, and I will fight to my last breath for their rights.

Discrimination Laws: we’re beyond them. We don’t need anti-discrimination laws. In the modern age, word-of-mouth travels at the speed of a 4G network and stories about actual discrimination can destroy a business in 140 characters. I don’t want to be part of any protected class; only those who can’t make it on their own want that kind of status. Progress will happen. It needs no help from silly legislation that does little more than create resentment.

Gay Marriage: I have said before and will say it again – most of us want to marry, but we have the good sense to realize that now isn’t the time for that debate. Our country is falling apart and if we don’t do something to stop the decline into socialist hell, our rights to marry our same-sex partners will mean absolutely nothing. We’re all sick to death of listening to liberals use this as a weapon to try and make us hate ourselves (which is pathetic, really).

Size of Government: it’s too damn big and way too damn powerful. How is it the government has so much power to regulate TV programming? How does the government have the power to decide which laws it will acknowledge and which laws it won’t? How does the government have the power to tell the states that they can’t aid in the enforcement of immigration law? The Tenth Amendment was pretty clear that the federal government isn’t allowed to take on powers not specifically granted to it by the Constitution and the Articles of Amendment. The current size and scope of the federal government needs to be dealt with, and harshly so.

Economy: free market. Taxing the rich is a fantastic way to send unemployment rocketing into the stratosphere when it costs those rich people who build businesses that create jobs send those jobs overseas to save money. And don’t give me this BS about “the greater good” – the Constitution doesn’t support such notions. The greater good often rapidly turns into “what’s yours is mine,” and that has no place in a free country.

Extremism: it exists on both sides. I’m sure every gay liberal who has picked a fistfight with me or threatened my life thinks they are perfectly justified, but that doesn’t make them right. There is an extremist fringe on the right no matter how offended some conservatives act when you point out that it exists. You have every right to believe that my sexual orientation is a sin, but you do NOT have the right to write your personal religious belief into the law. If you cannot base your beliefs on justifiable legal terms (this also goes for the liberal Christians who believe in socialized healthcare and endless welfare), then you have no business trying to pass a law based on that belief. And when there are religious leaders in your ranks who openly call gay people every slur they can think of for the express purpose of making it different and humiliating those who refuse to convert (no, not that kook from Kansas…I’m talking about Damon Thompson), then yes, you have a problem with extremism. You cannot claim that the fringe doesn’t exist when those extremists call me a “homo-nazi” simply because I’m a lesbian, despite the fact that we agree on the issue we’re talking about. THAT is the extremist fringe Jimmy LaSalvia was talking about when he pointed out that Dan Savage is doing nothing but feeding the “extremist fringe who oppose gay rights.” We’re talking about the extremists who would see Lawrence v. Texas undone so that we can be sent to jail just for being gay. Just because the lefties will call you an extremist for holding a Bible doesn’t mean we’re agreeing with them, and you’ve got the intellectual depth of a puddle in Death Valley if you don’t question the differences.

I’m a member of GOProud. I have disagreed with some of the things that Jimmy and Chris have said in the past; then again, I’ve never been part of a group I didn’t have disagreements with at some point. I disagreed with Jimmy LaSalvia outing Tony Fabrizio the way he did. Chris has said things that I’ve disagreed with, too. What makes a group like GOProud – or even us here at gayconservative.org or our friends at gaypatriot.net – click is that we can disagree on something, air our misgivings, and move on. We still agree on nearly everything else. At the same time, I have felt their frustration at being sniped at unfairly by some conservatives who either refuse to accept that social conservatism is hurting the cause or fail to ask a few questions before they assume they know what we’re thinking or what our reasons may be for something and spit out an emotional comment that sounds an awful lot like something a loony liberal would say. One such conservative whom I have supported regardless of what my friends have said made the comment that GOProud was only mad at Dan Savage because he ripped on the Christian kids before they could, something I and every other gay conservative takes serious offense to. Never once has GOProud attacked Christians, nor has any gay conservative I know EVER supported anti-bullying legislation or the emotional conniptions that liberals go into when the subject comes up. Making that remark wasn’t speaking truth, no matter how much you’d like it to be. It was a baseless accusation against the character of every gay conservative who supports GOProud.

Now…why are we gay and conservative? Why can’t we just be conservative and keep our orientation to ourselves? Well, for starters, anyone who knows me personally knows there ain’t no keepin’ my orientation a secret. I was the last one to know I was a lesbian. I’m also not much for the closet – if my parents are going to hold hands, I’m going to hold hands with my partner. Joking aside, though, there are two reasons: one, we want the world to know that not all gay people march in lock-step with the liberal SS. Two, we want other gay people who are politically conservative to have a safe place to go for support when their liberal friends get angry (and inevitably, sometimes violent). We’re not out to convert anyone to being gay and we wholeheartedly oppose indoctrination in schools, but we believe it is important that we’re seen.

Are we clearer on the issues now (ahem…Brooks Bayne)? Fan-damn-tastic.

Dear Mr. President,

You have undoubtedly now heard the buzz about one of your campaign websites featuring a post entitled “Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney’s donors.”  As you are no doubt aware, this piece calls out 8 Romney donors who are private citizens, and proceeds to smear them.  You are probably also aware of today’s opinion piece about it the Wall Street Journal, which starts as follows:

Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.

Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for “betting against America,” and accuses you of having a “less-than-reputable” record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.

Are you worried?

No.  I am infuriated.

HOW.  DARE. YOU.

HOW DARE YOU attempt to intimidate private individuals who are exercising their First Amendment rights by donating to candidates who they believe will do better than you.  As a “consitutional scholar”, I’m sure you can articulate why it is that this isn’t a reprehensible practice.

After you do that for us, perhaps you can explain how it is that this is an appropriate practice for someone who was elected to serve ALL AMERICANS, not just the ones that you like, or the ones who like you.  How is the denigration of PRIVATE CITIZENS, whose participation in the political process is confined to contributing money a legitimate exercise of Presidential power?

Then, I’d like for you to perform a little thought exercise of your own.  I would like for you to ask yourself  “If someone who was so thin-skinned and insecure that he was willing to abuse a public trust and the power that goes with it, to call out and attempt to intimidate private citizens for exercising their fundamental Constitutional right to support his opponent, is that demonstrating the kind of character that Americans who are electing a leader of the entire country wants or should want?

Thanks for your time.  Tell the IRS to be gentle when they come to play proctologist with me.

Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere.

One of the statements made by Delbert Burkett, father of convicted murderer Jason Burkett – whose partner in crime was executed by the State of Texas in 2010 – was, “killin’ Michael Perry isn’t gonna bring those people back. It’s not gonna raise anyone from the dead.” That’s a comment made by every anti-death penalty celebrity in the world, particularly in the US. Capital punishment is useless because it doesn’t bring back the victims, they say. It’s cruel and unusual punishment. We never have the right to take a human life.

(The same group of people will demand abortion rights in the name of a woman’s right to choose and find ways to dehumanize a human fetus to rationalize murder to their so-called consciences. Go figure.)

That argument is emotional at best. It carries no truth. If our aim was to bring back the dead, then there would be no point to punishment at all. Why sentence someone to life in prison? I mean, it’s not going to bring their victims back from the dead. Why would we send a man to prison for kidnapping and raping his ex-wife? It’s not going to stop her nightmares or put a stop to her fear of quiet parking lots. Why should we send a man to prison for stealing cars and breaking into homes? It’s not going to replace the lost sense of security that his victims deal with now.

See how silly that argument is? If we’re not using the death penalty at least in part for punishment, then there would be no point – and punishment is half of the point. The other half is deterrence. Those who oppose the death penalty claim that it doesn’t deter anything. I wholeheartedly disagree, and the numbers prove that argument wrong.

According to the numbers, when the Supreme Court halted the death penalty for a few years in the early 1970′s, murder rates skyrocketed almost overnight. It took time for the death penalty to be re-instituted, and once it began to gain traction again in the 1990′s murder rates dropped by nearly half. During a long portion of time, many murderers confessed and later said they did so because they knew they wouldn’t be executed for their crimes. As for complete deterrence, nobody has any illusion that the death penalty will put an end to murder; if elimination were our standard for punishment, we still wouldn’t be putting people in prison. Capital punishment has been proven to deter murders, but we’ll never really know how many people have been stopped from committing murder for pecuniary gain because nobody in their right mind will admit that they considered committing a murder. Those who would admit it are likely in dire need of regular phenobarbital treatments, anyway.

It’s not as if I have never struggled with my belief in the death penalty. Because I carry a gun, I have considered at length whether I would be willing to take a life if the situation called for it (I don’t think you should carry a gun unless you ARE willing to kill, and you’d best know how you feel and what you think about doing it before you end up needing to in self-defense). I won’t know until and unless I ever have to commit the act, and I hope like hell that I never have to, but I’ve also been faced with death in my duties as an EMT and I have given death a lot of consideration – both my own death and that of others. My faith tells me I should forgive. My faith also tells me I should be able to balance justice and mercy, and know when the greatest lesson will be learned from one or the other.

So many criminals in our society depend on the faith-based mercy of others. That dependence has been fulfilled so often that it has morphed into expectation. I have met so few inmates who actually intended to change their behavior that I have a hard time believing that any of them care to change. I have met many, however, who struck me as being so evil that their very presence in the room made the hair stand up on the back of my neck. I’ve worked with inmates whose self-serving behavior and subsequent excuses screamed “PSYCHOPATH!”

Our justice system will never be perfect, but we have to be willing to accept that there is evil in this world and there always will be no matter what we do. As long as human beings are running the show in this world there will be imperfection. Evil will persist no matter how much we wish we could reason everyone into being good. We have to be willing to accept being uncomfortable once in a while to make sure evil doesn’t win. That means that we have to accept that not all life is indispensible; those who have made the choice to objectify others and make victims out of innocent people forfeit their lives, even to the point of execution.

As for the argument that it’s cruel and unusual punishment…horsefeathers. Ask the victims about the fear and extreme pain they experienced before they died. Ask their surviving friends and family what they experience every day after losing their loved one.

Wrong. Romney is alienating Latinos based on his stance on illegal immigration. The more I think about this, the less sense it makes. Every country has a right, no, an obligation to secure its borders. Every country has a right to set in place procedures that govern who comes and goes in that country. Illegal immigration has been a thorny issue in the United States because we can’t figure out first, how to protect our borders and second, what to do with those folks who have already entered illegally. The problem is how to handle this in a manner that tips the hat to human dignity. The problem is NOT the virtue of the illegal immigrant. The illegal immigrant has committed a crime by entering the country illegally. Dealing with the criminality with some semblance of decency is our challenge but ignoring it is not an option.

Do Latinos want the situation ignored? Does dealing with a Latino who entered our country illegally somehow reflect on law-abiding Latinos? I think not. Law abiding Latinos should support efforts to humanely deal with folks who are here illegally. Some of our attempts to deal with the problem, such as the Arizona law now under review with the Supreme Court, are missteps in my opinion but that doesn’t mean we should do nothing. In fact, I find Mr. Romney’s notion of “self deportation” one of the best ideas going. If we make conditions intolerable for illegal immigrants (i.e. deny employment for starters) then they will want to go home.

The bottom line is Mitt Romney does not have a problem with Latinos. Latinos have a problem with Latinos and with facing up to their responsibility to support an effective immigration policy in the United States.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Throughout the entire documentary, he never once asks, “why does God allow evil people to live and commit murder?”

I remember going home to Houston for Thanksgiving in 2001 and seeing news that the body of a woman had been found in a lake. That woman turned out to be 50-year-old Sandra Stotler. In her home several days after she had actually been killed, police found a grisly scene. Lights and the TV were still on, having never been turned off by the killer. Stotler had been baking cookies; a bowl of raw cookie dough and a half-finished sheet of unbaked cookies still sat out where she’d left them. Blood had been splattered all over the door frame and wall. Blood on the floor showed that after she’d been shot once, she had hit the floor and tried to scoot away, but the gunman shot her a second time where she lay. A red Camaro convertible was missing and a blood trail showed that the body had been dragged out through the garage on the side of the big ranch-style house in the upscale Highlands Ranch subdivision of Conroe, Texas.

Conroe isn’t far from where I grew up. About an hour and a half due North of Houston, right on I-45, sits this quiet little town that I remember driving through during the summer when my youth group would go up to Huntsville for camp. That a murder like this would happen in such a quiet, well-guarded neighborhood was very rattling to a lot of people I know. What’s most chilling of all is that the crime that turned into a triple homicide later on was all over a car.

Michael James Perry and Jason Aaron Burkett were best friends. They had lived together for a stretch in a camper, then later in an apartment in Conroe. For a time they had a racket going with Burkett’s girlfriend where one would steal checks, one would forge them, and the girlfriend would then cash them. As children, they both had serious issues. Burkett’s father was a raging alcoholic and drug addict, and as of this year is on his fifth prison sentence (back in 1973 Dennis Burkett was a high school football star and landed a full scholarship to the University of Texas to play college ball but he dropped out and went his own way – which is why I sincerely disliked the turn of events in the final season of Friday Night Lights). Burkett’s older brother is also in prison for a dangerous felony, making criminal behavior a family profession. Burkett has issues; Perry is worse.

As a child, Perry was diagnosed with “oppositional defiant disorder”, which is the childhood diagnosis of sociopathy. Perry grew up to be a psychopath (for those who never took psych classes in college, a literal psychopath is a person diagnosed as a sociopath – basically a person who views people as objects and has absolutely no conscience). He ran away from home frequently, pawned his parent’s valuables, stole their van and wrecked it, and broke into a neighbor’s home for the sole purpose of doing damage. His parents sent him to “Outward Bound”, an outdoors rough-it camp for troubled kids; he quit after a few days. His parents filed charges against him and had him sent to Boys Town in Nebraska, where he promptly told one of the “house parents” that he was one of the people “trying to rape and murder your kids.” He ended up being locked in the secure section of Boys Town for four months, later being sent to a “secure school” in Mexico. As soon as he turned 18 he went homeless; he refused to hold down a job and tried to forge prescriptions to get pills to sell for dope money. Somewhere in the midst of that was when he fell in with Jason Burkett.

Two days after the murder, Perry was pulled over in the red Camaro and presented an ID bearing the name and info of Adam Stotler – the 16-year-old son of Sandra Stotler. He was arrested, booked and released. Three days after his arrest, he and Jason Burkett were spotted in Adam Stotler’s stolen Isuzu Rodeo. They ran over a deputy and had a shoot-out with police; officers later testified that Perry was shouting, “balls to the wall!” They were arrested, and almost immediately Jason Burkett told them where to find two additional bodies. Police discovered the bodies of Adam Stotler and his best friend Jeremy Richardson next to another home in Highlands Ranch. Evidence included cigarette butts with Perry’s DNA on them. The shotgun used in the murders was stolen from a relative of Burkett. On top of all of this, the pair went to a bar in the two vehicles they’d stolen and claimed to everyone in the bar that they’d won the lottery, cashed the tickets at a gas station and went out to buy two supposedly brand-new vehicles. They took several people for a spin in the cars and even showed off the shotgun they’d used – and Perry later pointed the shotgun at Burkett’s girlfriend and threatened to kill her.

Perry confessed, and during the confession he gave facts that only the perpetrators would have known. He later claimed that a detective pointed a gun at him and forced him to confess, then even later claimed that evidence had somehow proven that the murders had happened on the 27th. The problem with that? Stotler’s body was found on October 27th, three days after the murders – and she had been there for some time, wrapped in the comforter and top sheet from her bed. Some of the crime scene footage is shown in the documentary, and I can tell just by the video footage that the blood on the floor was OLD.

Perry had an excuse for everything. During the interviews, he never referred to the victims as the true victims; he only talked about how he’s been wronged. It didn’t help that, as soon as he sat down and started talking, Herzog said, “I respect you and I believe that what’s been done to you is wrong.” Not once does Perry ever acknowledge that several people’s lives were irrevocably changed by what happened. In fact, it’s revealed that in his final statement before his execution, Perry said, “Yes, I want to start off by saying to everyone know that’s involved in this atrocity that they are all forgiven by me.”

Never does Herzog ever question Perry to his face on his claims that he, the convict, has been wronged. He never asks Perry about his long, storied history of sociopathic behavior. All he does is try to present the case against executions.

I’m tired of hearing people ask why God allows capital punishment. Life is precious, but when the person in question has made the choice to live their life in such a way that they have done nothing but victimize people for their own gain, justice must be done. Perry is guilty as hell, as is Burkett. Just once I’d like to hear one of these foreigners who bag on us for using the death penalty ask why God allows violent sociopaths to continually victimize innocent souls – and stop defending the killers.

Related articles

• Trayvon Martin: Bloomberg starts campaign against ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws: Please folks, do not defend yourselves, your government has everything under control ! (wyldgoose.wordpress.com)
• Bloomberg Blasts NRA Over ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws (abcnews.go.com)

What she [Rosen] meant to say, I think, was that Ann Romney has never gotten her ass out of the house to work.

No one is denying that being a mother is a tough job. I remember that I was a handful. Okay, but there is a big difference in being a mother, and that tough job, and getting your ass out of the door at 7am when it’s cold, having to deal with the boss, being in a workplace, and even if you’re unhappy you can’t show it for 8 hours, that is a different kind of tough thing.

via Maher’s comments on Ann Romney spark outrage – POLITICO.com.

Now, I won’t get into whether or not Maher’s (or Hillary Rosen’s) comments actually apply to Ann Romney. I don’t know enough about Ann Romney to discuss her work history. But if we take Ann out of the picture, what Maher said is 100% dead on accurate.

As this debate about “working” women has gone back and forth there has been a politically correct bit of foolishness that has bothered the crap out of me.

Work in common parlance is defined as an effort that is rewarded with remuneration from another party, typically called an employer or a boss. By that definition women who earn money doing something at home, work at home. My wife works at home. Women who are not compensated for what they do at home, do not work at home. Do they expend lots of effort? Sure they do. Is raising kids, cooking and keeping a house clean hard “work”? Of course it is. But it ain’t a job and it doesn’t pay the rent and no amount of politically correct talk will make it any different.

So why do we tie ourselves in knots talking about what used to be called housewives, working at home? The feminist movement is largely to blame for this. They fought for equal access to the workplace and equal pay, both lofty and righteous goals, but along the way they passed judgment on women who did not want to enter the “rat race”. By the way, that is a concise way of describing the world Bill Maher referred to. It’s the rat race. Women who chose to stay at home and devote most of their effort toward raising children and “keeping house” were judged sell-outs, or not living up to their potential. This of course, is nonsense. Being a housewife is as valid a choice as sitting in the corner office sixty hours per week.

So now, when housewives hear that they don’t work, it is equivalent to hearing that they don’t contribute and that understandably gets them angry. Well let’s set the record straight. Housewives don’t work, in the sense of earning a living. They do contribute beyond measure. In fact I think it’s high time the old-fashioned word housewife returned to its former prominence. Women who steer the family ship deserve a title that rightly distinguishes them.

Working women and housewives are not the same. One is not better than the other. They are simply different. Why can’t we acknowledge that difference without a volcano of debate erupting?

Postscript: We won’t even touch the fact that most working women must pick up the housewife role at the end of the work day, adding to the complexity and resentment attached to these issues. That is for another post on another day.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

Image: Stuart Miles / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Related articles

• GOA Alert: Reid to Push Gun-Grabbing Judge for Nevada (maddmedic.wordpress.com)
• Sen. Heller Appears To Block Judge Because She Is Insufficiently Activist On Guns (thinkprogress.org)
• Political races run hot on energy (politico.com)
• Seniors For Junk Mail: Harry Reid Leads The Fight To Protect Senior Citizens’ Access To… Junk Mail (tarpon.wordpress.com)

In fact, Congresswoman McCarthy’s bill would turn widows into instant FELONS if their late husbands possessed a 12-round magazine!

Without the petitions from pro-gun Americans like you, it is impossible for the National Association for Gun Rights to keep the pressure on fence-sitting members of Congress in order to defeat gun control.

So please, click here to sign your petition right away.

BUT… even with your petition, defeating this bill won’t be easy — it will take more than just National Association for Gun Rights members alone.

I need to reach out to millions of pro-gun Americans all over the country.

And that isn’t cheap.

So in addition to your signed petition, will you make a generous contribution of $75, $50 or $%%CF_HPC1% to reach more people?

If you didn’t read my letter from earlier this week, I’ve attached it below for your convenience!  It explains just how important it is we DEFEAT H.R. 308 immediately.

When it comes to RAMMING new gun control schemes into law, President Obama believes he has some unfinished business to attend to.

But instead of standing up and FIGHTING BACK, I’m afraid some House Republicans could prove all too willing to “cut a deal.”

That’s why it’s vital you sign the petition below IMMEDIATELY.

As you’ll see, this petition DEMANDS your Congressman and Senators vote NO on the gun-grabbers’ Magazine Gun Ban Bill (H.R. 308) — or any similar bill.

If passed, Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy’s (D-NY) Magazine Ban Bill would OUTLAW the sale or transfer of firearm magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds.

Already own a handgun, rifle or shotgun with a magazine that holds more than ten rounds?

You’re “legal” for now. But you can’t ever sell it, give it away or pass it down to your kids.

In fact, Congresswoman McCarthy’s bill would turn widows into instant FELONS if their late husbands possessed a 12-round magazine!
Worse, some Capitol Hill insiders are telling me — should H.R. 308 reach the Senate — gun-grabbers are preparing to load the Magazine Ban Bill down with dozens of amendments, including the following:

*** Mandatory waiting periods and expensive, drawn-out “psychological screenings” designed to force ALL law-abiding citizens to get government approval before purchasing a firearm;

*** A TOTAL ban on all private sales under the guise of “closing the gun-show loophole”;

*** A new so-called “Assault Weapons” Ban, targeting ALL semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.

That’s why I’m counting on your IMMEDIATE action.

You see, President Obama knows this fall’s Presidential campaign is going to be a knock-down, drag-out FIGHT.

But he also knows many grassroots Republicans aren’t exactly “enthusiastic” about their candidates.

So even with his approval ratings hovering around all-time lows, President Obama has a strong chance of winning another term — IF he can turn out his left-wing base this November.

That’s why, with gun control activists like Sarah Brady and Michael Bloomberg DEMANDING action, you can virtually guarantee President Obama is going to do everything in his power to RAM H.R. 308 into law.

And sadly, I’m afraid some House Republicans will fall in line . . .

Remember, after the Arizona tragedy how several high-profile Republicans like U.S. Senator Dick Lugar (IN), Dick Cheney and Homeland Security Chairman Peter King (NY) all began pushing for new gun control schemes?

If President Obama has the audacity to trot out a still-recovering Gabrielle Giffords before his pals in the anti-gun national media, do you really believe you can count on weak-kneed House Republicans to oppose H.R. 308?

Sure, some will. Perhaps even most House Republicans will vote to DEFEAT H.R. 308.

But President Obama knows he won’t need every Republican vote. He just needs a handful to pass the McCarthy Magazine Ban.

Not only that, but with more and more news reports saying anti-gun Democrats could gain control of the U.S. House this November, many House Republicans are going to be afraid of losing their seats.

Under the white-hot spotlight of anti-gun media scrutiny, more than a few could end up thinking their very political survival depends on selling out and voting to pass H.R. 308!

The bad news is, support for H.R. 308 is gaining steam. In the House, it already has 111 House cosponsors!

Should this bill reach the Senate, all bets will be off.

That’s why your signed petition is so critical.

You see, the only way you and I can WIN this fight is to PROVE to Congress that passing H.R. 308 WILL mean political pain at the polls this November.

In short, we’ll send the message to Congress that they can either vote to DEFEAT H.R. 308 — or they can begin looking for another job.

Since President Obama was first sworn in, you and I have defied the odds and have beaten back the very worst of the gun-grabbers’ schemes.

But McCarthy’s Magazine Ban could be our toughest test yet.

So please sign your petition along with your most generous contribution of $75, $50 or $25 IMMEDIATELY.

For liberty,

Dudley Brown
Executive Vice President

P.S. With Republicans less than enthusiastic about their presidential candidates, President Obama believes he can win reelection if he’s able to mobilize his left-wing base.

That’s made H.R. 308, Carolyn McCarthy’s Magazine Ban Bill, a TOP priority for President Obama. He MUST rally his anti-gun supporters.

If passed, this legislation would OUTLAW the sale or transfer of firearm magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds, turning widows into instant FELONS if their late husbands possessed a 12-round magazine!

That’s why it’s vital you help STOP this dangerous scheme.

After years of saying that tax cuts never needed to be offset by spending cuts, Republicans changed their tune last fall and demanded that the extension of the payroll tax cut had to be offset by budget reductions elsewhere. It was a new position for the GOP, and it lasted as long as it took for them to propose their next tax cut for millionaires.

Despite calls from some conservative members of the party, GOP leadership won’t demand spending cuts to offset the “small business” tax cut that is being proposed by Majority Leader Eric Cantor… (Think Progress)

I know! It’s just so hard to believe.

What’s so different between cuts to help the average American worker and cuts to help small businesses (the “engine of American job growth!”) ? Two things:

1. The payroll tax break was something President Obama (a/k/a “the enemy”) wanted.
2. Who cares about the average American worker or small business? Unless, of course, “small business” happens to include hedge funds, professional sports teams, private equity firms, high-end law and lobbying firms, and millionaires of various stripes… (Which, in fact, is true: 50% of Cantor’s cuts would go to millionaires.)

Every now and then I search for something nice I can say for the Republican Party. The best I can do today is: they’re very consistent about being inconsistent.

Photo Credit: Miss Moneypenny

Romneycare has increased private insurance costs by $4.3 billion, increased federal spending by $2.4 billion on Medicaid, and Romneycare is estimated to cost $2 billion more than was budgeted over 10 years.

Eventually, RomneyCare like ObamaCare will collapse under the weight of its own costs and inefficiency(1).

In 2006, Governor Mitt Romney claimed that “the costs of health care will be reduced” after signing his health reform package into law on April 12th. Romney’s Remedy of “cost-effective” health care has increased Bay State health-care premiums by “108 percent higher than the U.S. average in 2006, 112.1 percent higher in 2008, and 113 percent higher in 2009 (no data is available for 2007).”

Due to the efforts of Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, the growth rate dropped to 109.6 percent of the national average in 2010.

Romney’s Remedy or Big-Government health care scam failed to be “cost-effective” health care. According to the NY Times, Romneycare’s “popularity has given state leaders added incentive to make it financially sustainable.”

Romney’s Remedy is “a Model for the Nation?”

“There are a lot of reasons not to elect me.” – Neocon RINO Romney

Are Romney’s RINOs singing Sweet Little Lies, You can’t disguise Romneycare?

@moneypenny008
Miss Moneypenny

flic.kr/p/bnNmG4 #RINO @cybersly believes the Romney Mandate is different from the Ø Mandate bit.ly/Hy4Yhd #WhatsRomneyHiding

4:09 PM Apr 1o, 2012

twitpic.com/86kaxj Jonathan Gruber helped write Romneycare and Obamacare youtu.be/WxZK0spa1yI #WhatsRomneyHiding #Sgp #twCot

1:55 PM Apr 12, 2012

twitpic.com/6vo2yx The Double Failure of #Romneycare bit.ly/7TQorP #WhatsRomneyHiding #Sgp #twCot

2:40 PM Apr 12, 2012

twitpic.com/86kaxj #Romneycare increased federal spending by $2.4 billion on Medicaid bit.ly/qdozAA #WhatsRomneyHiding #twCot

11:34 PM Apr 12, 2012

twitpic.com/6vo2yx #Romneycare increased private insurance costs by $4.3 billion bit.ly/qdozAA #WhatsRomneyHiding #Sgp #twCot

5:08 PM Apr 12, 2012

twitpic.com/6vo2yx #Romneycare cost the Bay State 18,313 jobs bit.ly/wCRBeH #WhatsRomneyHiding #Sgp #twCot

6:16 PM Apr 12, 2012

flic.kr/p/bbWRTx #Romneycare will cost $2 billion more than was budgeted over 10 yrs bit.ly/7TQorP #WhatsRomneyHiding #twCot

11:45 PM Apr 12, 2012

For your reading pleasure, you may also like these related posts…

• The Magic of Mitt 6.0
• Barack Hussein Obama has Friends in Low Places
• ObamaCare: Runaround Universal Healthcare
• ObamaCare: Your Butt is Mine
• American Lie: The Day ObamaCare Dies

Footnotes:

(1) The Death spiral or ‘Adverse Selection Spiral’ describes any insurance plan whose costs are rapidly increasing due to the adverse changes (from low-risk healthy individuals to high-risk least-healthy people) in health of the covered group.

In addition, an individual mandate (forcing people to purchase plans or face penalty like Romneycare and Obamacare to increase the risk pool) does not decrease insurance costs. Mandates only increase the moral hazard where individuals can game the system by dropping their high cost coverage and paying the individual mandate penalty since you can buy health insurance the same day for any pre-existing condition under Romneycare and Obamacare.

Like this post?
Share this with others…

Tweet This Post

Miss Moneypenny reporting for the Undercover Times