Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Paccione Hurts America

Humorous post from PPH

Angry Angie Paccione has been blaming Congresswoman Musgrave for an awful lot of weird things lately. She’s even gone as far as to have a Big Bird make appearances protesting obscure votes. So we did our own research and found some strange coincidences regarding Angie Paccione and her past.

Angie Paccione graduated from college in 1983 and can’t seem to specify her whereabouts during the failed coup d’├ętat in Grenada around that same time. She suddenly reappeared and joined the Women’s American Basketball Association and two years later it crashed and burned. Again, Paccione vanished around 1986. Suddenly war broke out in Lebanon. The war seemed to be in stalemate. Suddenly Paccione reappears, this time in Colorado. Then our economy crashes. In 2002 Paccione took office. Coincidentally this was the exact time SARS broke out across the United States.

Ever since Angie Paccione was born, bad things happened across the globe. We don’t feel it’s a coincident because we use Paccione’s campaign’s logic.

Friday, July 27, 2007

Romney Wrong on Guns, AGAIN

From the National Association for Gun Rights:

“Wrong Again Romney” proves he doesn’t like guns or know anything about them

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney continues to display his contempt for gun owners. In yesterday’s Foster’s Daily Democrat, Romney made convulated statements about the Second Amendment, but reinforced his earlier positions that citizens can't be trusted with many types of firearms. To make matters worse, Romney clearly has no understanding of firearms or the basic firearms laws of this country.

"No one is suggesting that automatic weapons be made available to the public. No one is suggesting that automatic weapons be made legal," Romney said at a town hall meeting in a school gym. "I support the Second Amendment. I support the ban on (automatic weapons). They're not connected with a fundraising event where they're using weapons not available to the public."

Wrong again, Gov. Romney. Automatic weapons are legally owned by hundreds of thousands of citizens across the country, who have undergone extensive background checks from local and national law enforcement and are heavily -- and unconstitutionally -- regulated in their use, travel and possession. The 1934 National Fire Arms Act allows anyone who purchases a $200 federal tax stamp after passing a background check to possess a fully automatic weapon (often called NFA weapons ), which are all registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Currently, there are 366,000 of these firearms legally owned by Americans (Small Arms Review, Feb. 2007).

There is no documentation that a legally owned and registered NFA weapon has been used in the commission of a violent crime.

NFA weapons (legal machineguns) are different from the so-called "assault weapons" Gov. Romney banned in Massachussets in 2004, a fact lost on Romney as he stumbled through a legal briar patch in yesterday's comments.

"I've held the stick on an F-16 fighter jet. That doesn't mean I think the public ought to be flying F-16 fighter jets," Romney said.

Wrong again, Gov. Romney. The Constitution is clear: our right to keep and bear small arms “shall not be infringed”. That document explicitly protects citizen's rights to own firearms, with no "sporting use" requirement stated.

Romney apparently believes that the Second Amendment protection only applies to duck hunters.

Romney has a long history of supporting gun control. He signed the permanent Massachusetts assault weapons ban and was a vocal proponent of the Brady Gun Registration Act, the Feinstein Assault weapons ban, and many other infringements upon our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Romney claims to support the Second Amendment, but in the same breath calls for more gun control. You can’t have it multiple ways.

Read the e-mail alert here.

Visit NAGR's Presidential Watch page here.

Lemonade stand robbed

Have we truly sunk this low?

From Drudge: Well-wishers aid Oshkosh boy whose lemonade stand was robbed.

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Fred Thompson: Lobbyist

The Washington Post examines some of the ironies of the idea of Fred Thompson for President.

Unlike many Republicans during the 1990s, Thompson easily collected large sums of political donations from lawyers during his Senate career -- more than $1.5 million over eight years. The trial lobby's political action committee gave him maximum $10,000 donations during each of his two Senate campaigns.

Aligning himself with trial lawyers was another seeming contradiction in Thompson's varied career -- a Republican who succeeded in Hollywood, a former lobbyist who lives in Northern Virginia, now positioning himself to run for president as a Washington outsider.


"There will always be a concern that he wants to be the leader of the cobra party, and he was, for a while, a mongoose," said Grover Norquist, head of the Americans for Tax Reform, which supported tort reform and is influential in GOP circles. "He needs to articulate not where he was while practicing law under the tort laws at the time but where he think those laws should go now."

(Eds. Notes: Way to go Grover, compare the Republican Party to poisonous snakes.)
Even more...

Thompson challenged the right of government to compel testimony or search property, according to a review of hundreds of pages of court filings, transcripts and contemporaneous news accounts.

In August 1981, Thompson, on First Amendment grounds, urged the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down an Illinois village's ordinance designed to protect children from marijuana by requiring merchants to get a license to sell drug paraphernalia or pro-marijuana literature. His client was a trade association of merchants who sold smoking goods, novelty items and magazines.

Needless to say, I'm not joining the lemmings rushing to the Thompson band wagon.

Like rats from a sinking campaign...

The Wall Street Journal has a great piece about the further imposition of the disaster that is the McCain for President Straight Talk Express.

Do I hear the fat lady warming up?

I think we can stick a fork in McCain. Sentator McSquish is done.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Dems, Gun Control and YouTube

I was not one of the four CNN geeks that watched the recent CNN/YouTube Sponsored Democrat Presidential debate.

For those you, who like I have a real life, and may have missed this whole spectacle, here's what it was all about.

The Main Stream Media gods temporarily descended from their polyester thrones to allow the unwashed masses -- that's you and me -- to submits questions for the Presidential debate in the form of YouTube videos.

Among the many creative videos and questions was one by Michigan gun owner Jered Townsend. Jered's video included Jered asking the Democrats about their stand on gun control and pictures him holding a well equipped AR-15 rifle that he refered to as his "baby."

Here is video of Jered's question and the hysterical hand-wringing from the Democrat Candidates that followed.

Honestly, I am very dismayed by Jered's video. While I completely agree that we must hold politicians accountable for their actions, I think playing into the stereo-type of "fanatical gun owners" does nothing to advance the cause of freedom and liberty.

I own an Ar-15, and am very proud of it, but I refrain from PDA's and BCDA's (Basic Cable Displays of Affection) with it. Not only does that make the girlfriend jealous, it casts gun owners in an unnecessarily negative light. You may be crazy, but I, sir, am not!

Sadly I suspect that Jered was mostly in this for the publicity. Any one that is part of the gun culture understands that the Democrat party is the party of gun control. I could understand that Joe Colt might not know that Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani are strident anti-gun warriors, but Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton? Please.

Read more about Jered and the YouTube Debate here.

Michelle Malkin weighs in at National Review Online.

Monday, July 23, 2007

Hillman's Capitol Review

If you've ever been disappointed by a meal at a fancy restaurant or researched a major purchase, you know that a big price tag doesn't guarantee the best quality.

Careful consumers want the most bang for their buck - not the most bucks for their bang.

Unfortunately, big-government liberals seem to think that spending is the best benchmark to judge state government and that spending more is always better.

Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute's "Aiming for the Middle" whitepaper concludes that you, Mr. and Mrs. Colorado, are under-taxed to the tune of $3.3 billion a year - maybe more. That's $1,030 a year for every man, woman and child in the state.

And before you write off this outfit as a bunch of crackpots, notice that a former budget director for Gov. Roy Romer is behind this proposal.

Such a massive spending increase - triple the size of Referendum C - would require a 43-percent across the board increase in state income and sales taxes that currently produce about $7.5 billion a year.

Read the rest here.

Romney on Abortion: Reminder

"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country." Mitt Romney, 1994

"I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose." Mitt Romney, 2002.

Monday, July 16, 2007