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’état 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.

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.

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.

more...

"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.

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.

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.

Truth in humor...

Liberal Blog Gives Kudos To Musgrave

(editors note: The following is a post from liberal blog site WideStreets. I love it when Democrats have to admit that Republicans did something good!)

Musgrave Tells About Earmarks
June 24, 2007 (News, Congressional District 4)


CD-4 Representative Marilyn Musgrave has actually released her list of earmarks in this year’s budget. So, in the interest of fairness, I’ll publish it below. I hate it when that woman does the right thing (rather than the right thing).

TRANSPORTATION

Colorado Dept of Transportation (CDOT) I-25 North of SH 66 $4,000,000
CDOT US 40 / US 287, Kit Carson $4,000,000
CDOT I-70, Burlington $4,000,000
Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority - Greeley-Weld County Airport - Air Traffic Control Tower $6,000,000
Fort Collins / Loveland Airport Runway Rehabilitation $3,000,000
Colorado Youth Outdoors Handicap Pathways for Education Center $200,000
Harvest Farm Drug Rehabilitation Program $1,000,000
North Range Behavioral Health Mental Health Services Outpatient Facility Construction $2,000,000
CDOT US 287, Lamar Relief Route $3,000,000
Northern Larimer County Health District Larimer County Acute Mental Health and Detoxification Facility $1,000,000
CDOT I-76, Colorado’s NE Gateway $4,000,000
AGRICULTURE

Colorado State University - Russian Wheat Aphid Resistance, Stress Tolerance, and Quality Enhancement of Wheat $425,000
Colorado State University - Program of Economically Important Infectious Animal Diseases (PEIIAD) $950,000
Central Colorado Water Conservancy District Northeast Colorado Surface Water/Groundwater Conservation $1,000,000
Colorado Sugarbeet Growers Association CRIS Project: Nonchemical pest control and enhanced sugarbeet germplasm via traditional and molecular technologies $300,000
Colorado Association of Wheat Growers USDA-ARS Central Great Plains Research Station at Akron, Colorado - Plant breeding for oilseeds, on-farm bio-diesel development, drought mitigation research in alternative dryland cropping systems (this is seeking an increase of $900,000 to the station) $900,000
U.S. Canola Association National Sclerotinia Initiative $2,000,000
National Barley Improvement Committee Regional Barley Gene Mapping Project $700,000
Colorado State University National Beef Cattle Evaluation Consortium (NBCEC) $1,800,000
American Veterinary Medical Association National Veterinary Medical Service Act $1,000,000
National Onion Association - Onion Iris Yellow Spot Virus / Thrips Research Initiative $1,500,000
Colorado State University Global Change/Ultraviolet Radiation $2,425,000
Banner Health / Northern Colorado Medical Center Colorado, Wyoming, Western Nebraska and Western Kansas Telemedicine Infrastructure Upgrades $1,000,000
Colorado Wool Growers Association USDA APHIS Wildlife Services Funding for Colorado $711,455
National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance National Forage Research Program $3,000,000
U.S. Canola Association National Canola Research Program (NCRP) $850,000
ENERGY & WATER

Colorado State University Sustainable Biofuels Development Center $1,000,000
Colorado Community Colleges Northern Hemisphere Pierre Auger Observatory $5,000,000
National Sorghum Producers Sorghum to Ethanol Research $1,000,000
Excel Energy Colorado IGCC Power Plant CO2 Sequestration $3,000,000
Colorado State University Smart Grid Simulation Laboratory $750,000
PureVision Technology Biotechnology Process to Manufacture Ethanol $3,750,000
COMMERCE - STATE DEPT. – JUSTICE

Eastern Colorado Plains Drug Task Force $350,000
Weld County District Attorney Weld County Gang Task Force $250,000
Larimer County Sheriff’s Department Specialized Prosecution Unit and Digital Recording Equipment $275,000
SHARE, Inc. Morgan County Domestic Violence Program $200,000
Crossroads Safehouse Advocacy for Domestic Violence Survivors $60,720
INTERIOR DEPT.

Town of Eckley - Town of Eckley Water Project $150,000
Central Colorado Water Conservation District NE CO Surface Water/Groundwater Conservation Program $1,000,000
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District Arkansas Valley Conduit $675,000
Colorado Forest Restoration Institute - CSU Colorado Forest Restoration Institute $1,700,000
University of Colorado Renewable and Sustainable Energy Initiative: Energy Transformation and Innovation $1,500,000
LABOR DEPT. - HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES

UNC National Center for Nursing Education $2,363,450
CureSearch Children’s Oncology Group $1,000,000
CSU PET/CT Imaging Scanner $1,200,000
Healing Tree Addiction Treatment Solutions Northeast Colorado Substance Abuse Collaborative $1,691,140
Advocates for Children in Therapy Attachment Therapy Educational Documentary $150,000
Plains Medical Center/Community Health Center Low-Income, Working Family, Healthcare Facility in Strasburg $250,000
Denver Rescue Mission Drug Rehabilitation/Homeless Literacy and Education Center $250,000
Hospice of Metro Denver Life Quality Institute (Palliative Care Education) $300,000
Colorado Youth Outdoors Conservation and Outdoor Education Pavilions at Swift Ponds $200,000
Aims Community College Specialized equipment for use in training health professionals $300,000
DEFENSE

Colorado State University & DoD Department of Defense Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research researching priority environmental problems and questions of concern to the Army, Navy and Air Force $3,000,000
Banner Health & Army Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center
Telehealth Access and Infrastructure Expansion telemedicine upgrades through the US Army Medical Research and Material Command $6,000,000
Colorado State University and Colo School of Mines Rapid Detection of Bacterial Pathogens bio-terrorism detection research technology $3,500,000
InPhase Technology & Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center
Medical Image Database Holographic Archiving Library Systems the storage, retrieval, distribution, analysis, and archive of medical imaging and related documents for soldiers and veterans $5,000,000
Center for Space Entrepreneurship an industry/university partnership to develop viable space technologies $2,000,000
FINANCIAL SERVICES

Colorado State University Sustainable Biofuels Development Center $1,000,000
Thanks for letting us pleebs know what you’re doing in Washington, Marilyn. We’ll chat about how you like to support business with tax dollars later.

SCOTUS loosens McCain-Feingold provision

From Politico.com

In a 5-4 decision that has emboldened opponents of campaign finance restrictions, the U.S. Supreme Court Monday added wiggle room to a key provision of the landmark 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

The decision dealt with a provision of the law preventing corporations or unions from airing certain types of ads in the run-up to Election Day. Though the Court upheld the provision, it narrowed the types of ads to which it could be applied -- and set the stage for a vigorous debate and possibly new federal rules about which ads can air when.

At a minimum, the ruling could pave the way for outside groups to air millions of dollars of hard-hitting ads, naming specific candidates, in the weeks leading up to Election Day 2008. It will also inspire further challenges to the provision as a whole, as well as other parts of McCain-Feingold, which is despised by the political parties because it hinders their ability to raise and spend large sums of money, and by activists at both ends of the political spectrum, who assert it infringes on their free speech.

"This is a step toward restoring the rights of citizens of every political affiliation to vigorously engage in political debate, whether the government agrees with them or not," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who had filed a brief supporting the Wisconsin anti-abortion group that challenged the provision.

Advocates for limiting the role of money in politics generally bemoaned the decision, though they noted the court left alone the core pillars of McCain-Feingold.

"It did open a significant loophole in the law. However, that inevitably will be exploited by moneyed special interests," said Laura MacCleery, of the nonpartisan group Public Citizen.

The provision in question barred ads paid for by corporations or unions and broadcast on television or radio within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election, if the ads named federal officeholders or candidates.

Wisconsin Right to Life sued the Federal Election Commission, asserting the rule violated the group's freedom of speech by preventing it from airing ads urging its members to lobby Congress on matters of interest to them.

A three-judge district court panel in Washington sided with the group and the Federal Election Commission appealed to the Supreme Court, making it the first significant federal campaign finance matter to come before the high court since the confirmations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito.

Roberts and Alito joined Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in upholding the lower court decision. The three justices also co-authored a concurring opinion urging colleagues to overturn part of the court's 2003 decision that upheld the constitutionality of the provision against a broad challenge by McConnell.

The main opinion, by Roberts and Alito, though, asserted the Wisconsin case was narrower and could not be used to revisit the McConnell ruling.

But Justice David Souter, writing for the four dissenting justices, said Monday's ruling effectively and "unjustifiably" overruled the 2003 decision in the challenge brought by McConnell.

The Wisconsin ads overstepped by naming Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), wrote Souter, whose opinion was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens.

The Wisconsin Right to Life ads, which began airing before the preelection blackout, implored state voters to call their U.S. senators, Feingold and Herb Kohl, also a Democrat, to urge them to end a Senate filibuster of President Bush's judicial nominees.

Since Wisconsin Right to Life -- like many interest groups -- is incorporated, it had to pull the ads during the blackout period. And it sued the FEC, claiming the blackout violated its members' freedom of speech by preventing them from airing their views while Congress was considering matters of interest to them.

The FEC could commence a rule-making process to define which types of ads would be exempted from the provision, though Chairman Robert Lenhard, a Democratic appointee, wouldn't commit to that.

"We're still looking through the decision and thinking through its implications," he said.

Without a narrow definition, former FEC Chairman Michael Toner said "the court's decision has the potential to open up an important new avenue of interest group advertising in the final weeks before an election."

Toner, a Republican appointee who started an election law practice at Bryan Cave after leaving the commission, said the decision could embolden narrowly defined challenges of other McCain-Feingold provisions, including its ban on soft money contributions to parties.

The ruling "further underscores the hostility of the new Roberts court toward congressional attempts to restrict core political speech," Toner said.

CCP Commentary: The whole thing needs to be gutted or there needs to be a special provision to stop 527's. This is a step in the right direction.

Lobbying isn't the problem; big government is

From MarkHillman.Com

"When buying and selling are controlled by the legislature, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." — P.J. O’Rourke.

Money spent on special interest lobbying at the State Capitol jumped 14 percent this year over last, despite measures like the so-called "Ethics in Government" Amendment 41.

Lobbyists’ contracts generated more than $11 million in just the first four months of 2007, according to a recent Denver Post report — the twelfth straight year that lobbying expenditures exceeded the previous year.

But before you fall prey to the common misconception that there’s too much money in government, take a step back.

If government didn’t control so much money and make so many laws that reach into our everyday lives, would these so-called "special interests" be spending so much money to influence lawmakers?

Of course not.

Most of us would prefer to keep our distance from government unless our families or livelihoods are threatened. However, the ever-expanding size and scope of government mean that far more people either rely on government or find that its creeping inconveniences are becoming increasingly intolerable.

Combining the coercive power of government with the corruptibility of human nature is a recipe certain to produce abuse. Any system that not only possesses the power to tax, but also to arbitrarily compel citizens to engage in certain transactions while forbidding others, has completely emasculated the disciplines intended to harness those excesses.

The way to take "big money" out of politics should be painfully obvious: reduce the size and scope of government.

In Washington, the federal government is now 250 times larger than it was a century ago. Without reform, inflation-adjusted spending will equal $26,000 per household in only ten years.

Here in Colorado, spending is on the rise and the tentacles of state and local government are expanding into the private lives and businesses of Colorado taxpayers in ways that were unfathomable even 10 years ago.

Neither the constitution nor the courts represent any meaningful protection against populist whims or political expediency. Even if government doesn’t seize your property, the Legislature seemingly has no compunction against micromanaging your business or dictating picayune details in the workplace.

In Washington, most politicians have abandoned the principle that Congress has only those powers specifically listed in the constitution. Instead, they prefer an expansion of Congress’s regulatory authority over interstate commerce to govern activities that never cross stateliness. Instead of adhering to federalist principles, they hijack education or health policy to pander to poll numbers. Instead of tending to the business of government, they "investigate" professional sports.

But it’s not politicians alone who shoulder the blame; they merely reflect what voters seem to want.

Candidates rarely exhibit Barry Goldwater’s courage when he said that his interest wasn’t to streamline government or promote welfare but to defend the liberty of citizens. Voters seem interested in liberty only when they perceive that their own is threatened — not when someone else’s liberty is at stake.

Too many of us have grown to believe that the purpose of government is to solve problems that we do not comprehend or cannot control – expanding government’s mission exponentially. Principles of limited government are virtually forgotten in public schools and, therefore, foreign to most voters.

John Adams warned, "Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people."

Limited government is a principle worth advancing – even at political cost. It’s principles, when adhered to, deter corruption and protect individual liberty against populist whims and political ambition.

Limited government promotes personal responsibility, self-reliance and tolerance by recognizing that not every problem demands a government "solution."
Thomas Jefferson noted, "The natural progression of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

As government grows, the temptation to misuse it for personal or political gain multiplies. Preserving meaningful limits on the size and scope of government protects taxpayers and protects politicians – from themselves.

More Brownback Humor

From PPH

Whenever it seems like there is nothing to report, we just fall back on the detectives at Blogs4Brownback. Up and coming Nancy Drew author Sisyphus exposed The World is Flat against all scientific reasoning. The Flat Earth Society’s website offered Sisyphus all the evidence necessary to throw out scientific fact, photos, and hundreds of years of science…one bizarre website as a matter of fact.

Blogs4Brownback reports:

Nothing that they say or do can change the Truth one jot or one tittle, however. The world is flat, my friends. God has made it thus, and Man cannot unmake it.

The post goes on to say:

What has any of this to do with the Brownback campaign, you ask? President Brownback will control our education department. Unless Brownback wins the election, and radically alters America’s course in favor of Christianity, Justice, and Truth, millions of children will continue to learn the lies and fallacies of the left: that the world is round; that scientists invent things without God’s guiding Grace; that the Earth orbits the Sun…

Kind of scary isn’t it. Reminds us of the Taliban.


(PPH totally nails it, any time I get bored I know I can always check and see what either Brownback or Cox supporters are up to!)

Musgrave is a Democrat???

Here is an interesting post I read from a liberal blog in Weld County.

Originally reported at WideStreets

Musgrave 2.0 is a Democrat

Alright, the headline is a bit of a stretch, but let’s look at a historical perspective, and then, I think you will agree, Marilyn Musgrave’s new persona is not that of a nasty, in-fighting, Republican. I also don’t think we’ll be seeing her pull a negative Nighthorse-Campbell.

For her entire time in the House prior to the 2006 election, it is generally agreed that Musgrave 1.0 did nothing except make things difficult for herself and, by extension, her constituents. Whether Rolling Stone was calling her one of the most corrupt congresspeople, or she was accepting contributions from Jack Abramoff, or buddying up to Tom Delay, she didn’t get a lot done. Hell, I’ve even heard a story of how she alienated the chair of Transportation, and made it difficult for her to get road money for CD-4.

But, that’s all over now, she would have us believe. Now she legislates with her hand across the aisle, and she walks about in her district, shaking hands and pouring coffee. Hell, she even voted against the Pinon Canyon army expansion. Not only that, but she voted for some things that passed unanimously. At the rate she’s going, she’ll have a walk in 2008, since she will be able to talk, for the first time in her career, about how she’s actually doing her job.

But, the most important thing that this demonstrates is not that Musgrave 2.0 is doing better, but how the new Democratic House is totally buggering things. The Republicans let some of the more political bills out of committee so that they could pin Democrats with their votes. I have been seeing a lot of uncontroversial bills going to the floor, but I haven’t been reading about many controversial Republican-sponsored bills getting any floor time.

At the end of the day, Nancy Pelosi is making it hard to get rid of Marilyn Musgrave.

NRA Sells Out Again

From PPH

The Rocky Mountain Gun Owners criticized the National Rifle Association for cutting a deal with the anti-gun advocates in Congress. In an email Dudley Brown, Executive Director for RMGO, exposed the NRA’s sell out of our 2nd Amendment rights.

According to the Post, "Senior Democrats have reached agreement with the National Rifle Association on what could be the first federal gun-control legislation since 1994, a measure to significantly strengthen the national system that checks the backgrounds of gun buyers."

The email goes on to say, This system, which assumes you are guilty and requires you to prove your innocence before exercising a God-given, Constitutional right, has delayed and denied countless Coloradans attempting to make legal firearms purchases.

If Congress and the NRA have their way, things are about to get a whole lot worse. In a deal the Post calls "a marriage of convenience for both sides," and NRA lobbyist Chris Cox calls "good politics," the failed National Instant Check system is poised to be expanded even further.

Too many people believe that whatever the NRA says is gospel, and nothing could be further from the truth. So we asked Dudley Brown to explain what separates the RMGO from the NRA.

“In short, it can be summed up that the NRA likes to kiss politician butt and RMGO likes to kick it.”

He went on to explain why the RMGO is a no compromise gun advocacy organization while the NRA is a political operation.

The NRA raises money by talking tough against gun control all the while they support it, and the candidates who vote for gun control.

Undoubtedly, there are good NRA programs. But their political division -- ILA, or Institute for Legislative Action – is the reason most people join the organization. That division, however, is one of the main reasons America has an expanding list of gun controls today.

Here are thethee main points some people call the NRA the "largest gun control organization in America":

1. The NRA supports Gun Control

The NRA, while being known as the flagship group to defend gun rights, has been involved in gun control at the margins for decades.

Of the major federal gun control legislation that controls/regulates firearms today, the NRA has openly or privately been involved in passing the legislation:

1934 National Firearms Act - Puts incredibly onerous restrictions on the purchase and possession of "machine guns", suppressors, etc. (which are now termed "NFA weapons"). The NRA actually wrote this legislation.

1968 Gun Control Act - Created the morass of paperwork a firearms purchaser must now undergo, as well as dug the ATF deeper into an area our constitution prohibited it from going. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3247 has quotes from NRA's own publication.

1986 McClure-Volkmer - Misnamed the "Firearms Owner Protection Act", this law stopped firearms manufacturers from transferring any fully auto weapons into citizens hands. To buy a machine gun in America (there are currently 366,000 legally owned select fire weapons in private citizens' hands in America), you must now pay a minimum of $10,000 (for an m-16), whereas previous to this supply limiting act you could buy one for $200. Again, this was an NRA-supported and created act.

1994 Brady Act - Some give Sarah Brady the credit, but they should chalk this Gun Owner Registration System to the NRA. http://www.rmgo.org/brady.shtml has a synopsis.

2. The NRA supports anti-gun candidates

In Colorado, this is as easy to prove as looking at the NRA's ratings each election. Former Republican State Senator Dottie Wham, who killed every concealed handgun bill she came across as chairman of the Senate Judiciary, received the NRA's "A" rating. In 1995 Republican State Rep. Russ George ran a bill (with Sen. Wham) to make carrying concealed without a permit a felony (it is now a class 2 misdemeanor). As a reward (for that gun control and for voting against the two concealed carry bills offered in 1995), George was given the NRA's highest rating and asked to carry their concealed carry legislation.

In recent elections, the NRA endorsed State Rep. Dale Hall in a primary against Scott Renfroe (now Colorado's most conservative State Senator) for St. Sen. District 13, despite Hall running a bill to give the federal ATF more power to make arrests based on state charges.

3. The NRA often opposes true pro-gun legislation

Then-State Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (now chairman of the Second Amendment Caucus in Congress) was threatened with lowering her legislative grade by an NRA lobbyist who didn't want a vote on Vermont concealed carry legislation (i.e. no permit
required, which is law in Vermont and Alaska).

Presidential Hopeful Jim Gilmore on Rocky Talk Live

Getting to this late, but Presidential hopeful Jim Gilmore will be on on Rocky Talk Live with Mark Wolf today at 11am MST. Click here to listen to the form Virginia Governor and don't forget to email Mark a question for the Governor at wolfm@rockymountainnews.com

While we at CCP will not endorse a candidate for the 08 GOP nomination, Mr. Gilmore is one fo the few conservatives in the race and would make a fine POTUS if he were elected.

Gazette against Big Brother, for self defense

Today's opinion from the Colorado Springs Gazette makes a great argument for what our Constitutional right to self-defense really means.

Restricting rights
Scotland edging toward knife control

The Declaration of Independence is perhaps the best summations of individual rights in history. It clearly lays out the colonists’ case against the tyranny of King George III in words anyone can understand. It also defines what the signers were laying claim to: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Most Americans are as familiar with these words as they are their own names. But do they understand the implications of the stated rights?

Take the right to life. That’s pretty straightforward; no one has the right to deprive you of your life except under the most extreme and specific circumstances. That implies a right to self defense. Restricting how you provide for your own defense is a limit on your right to life. That’s what gun control advocates either don’t understand or don’t care about.

They cloak their rhetoric in terms that make their goals seem acceptable; they don’t want to ban guns, just put “reasonable” restrictions on ownership, how often one can buy a firearm and what type it can be. That’s not unreasonable, is it? Let’s take a short trip abroad and see how this is playing out in one of the bastions of peace and tranquility the gun banners often point to as an example.

The United Kingdom has long had many restrictions on the type of firearms citizens may own. After the schoolyard massacre of 16 children and a teacher in Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996, private ownership of guns was restricted almost to the point of an outright ban. That should have reduced violence to the point where police could keep it in check, right? Not hardly.

Remember how gun-control advocates want “reasonable” restrictions? That’s just the first step. That’s how things started out in the UK, but that didn’t stop people from attacking and killing each other. Now, Scotland Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson is going after knives. But not all knives, of course, just the really dangerous ones. According to Jamieson, “Sharp items continue to be the most common method of killing in this country, consistently accounting for around half of all murders each year.”

We won’t argue with the minister’s statistics, they make sense in a society where firearms aren’t very common. But her rhetoric sounds familiar to people in this country who have heard similar arguments for restricting firearms.

Jamieson admits that banning knives outright would help solve her problem, but realizes that knives also have “legitimate” uses. “The vast majority of people use knives in the home responsibly and safely every day,” she notes. She’s going after “non-domestic knives,” those with “a blade or sharp point, and which is not designed only for domestic use, or only for use in the processing, preparation or consumption of food.” Those words are very similar to the language of several laws and proposed laws around the U.S. that seek to ban firearms that don’t have a “legitimate sporting purpose.” H.R. 1022, a bill that would reinstate the so-called assault weapons ban that expired in 2004, would give the U.S. attorney general the sole authority to decide which firearms fit the “sporting purpose” definition gun control advocates claim they don’t want to ban.

We worry about giving the government that kind of broad power. Jamieson doesn’t seem to believe self defense is a legitimate use of knives. She said in a statement, “Knives can be lethal weapons and to carry them for ‘protection’ or as a status symbol is not something which we can tolerate.” We’re don’t think government officials who don’t believe in basic rights is something the people can tolerate. [Emphasis Added]

New Family Group in Colorado

The group that originally passed Amendment 2 in Colorado, has been reformed to fight for family values.

Please check out Colorado for Family Values' website.

*Please note I've added them as a link under our "Defenders of Liberty" section.

Rudy faces resistence from real Republicans

From National Journal's Hotline, Rudy is beginning to feel the heat:

In Michigan:

...there are growing signs of push-back from conservative party elements because of his stand in favor of abortion rights and statements in favor of gun control and civil unions for gay couples."

The Conservative Declaration of Independence "announced the addition of 27 new signers from West Michigan." Group co-founder/party issues ctme chair Tom McMillin: "The debates removed any question that Giuliani is a pro-abortion candidate with a liberal agenda." [Emphasis added]

Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) "said he considered Giuliani's campaign 'dead' citing his stand on abortion and the fact he is twice divorced."

Even in liberal California:

Giuliani's "pro-abortion rights and pro-gay rights positions have some in the party looking elsewhere for a candidate." Yorba Linda resident Harry Shapiro: "Abortion is a deal breaker for me. I really feel (Giuliani) doesn't follow Republican policies and that if he wins he'll deviate from the Republican way."

and from Catholics:

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution blogs that Macon atty Steve Dillard, the 37-year old self described "grandfather of conservative Catholic bloggers," will launch a CatholicsagainstRudy.com website 7/4. Dillard was "a chief Internet advocate for Judge Wiliam Pryor." A convert to Catholicism, Dillard says "we need to tend to our own house. And we need to hold Republicans to the same standard that we did John Kerry." The site will be family friendly. Dillard: "You won't see the picture of Rudy in drag on my web site. You're not going to see the video of him kissing Donald Trump. I'm not even getting into the divorce stuff. I want it to be on his stated public policy. I don't want this to be a 'I hate Rudy' web site." Dillard said he currently leans toward supporting Fred Thompson (6/10).

...firefighters and unions:

The Westchester Journal News' Blain profiles Sept. 11 Firefighters and Families for the Truth, a group dedicated to dispelling the "myth of Giuliani's much-praised response to the attacks on the World Trade Center". Rosaleen Tallon, a leader of the group whose firefighter brother was killed on 9/11: "I think if they knew the truth (people) wouldn't vote for him. We haven't had a chance to go national, but we will. You can bet on that." Tallon and her group argue that Giuliani didn't do enough as mayor to fix longstanding radio communication problems. Ex-NYC Fire Commiss. Howard Safir, responding on behalf of the Giuliani campaign, "downplayed the protests" and said, "the fact is that nobody cares more about firefighters than Rudy does." More Safir: "the fact is that to this day there are not adequate radios. Radio signals do not go through steel and concrete." Although Tallon's group has "only a few dozen active members," Giuliani's troubles with firefighters extend to other groups including the Int'l Assoc. of Firefighters. IAFF officials "also faulted Giuliani for limiting the number of firefighters involved in the search for victims at Ground Zero and rushing the cleanup at the expense of finding human remains." The IAFF is "producing a six-minute video to distribute to its member unions around the country detailing Giuliani's failures," though a spokesman for the IAFF declined to comment when "asked about the organization's efforts concerning Giuliani." Qunnipiac's Maurice Carroll argues that it may be hard for outside groups to impact the well-established image of the ex-mayor. "Giuliani, he personificed what was going on that day for people who were home watching on television. Can they tear that down? I don't know"

...and African-Americans (this certainly does a lot to dispel the Rudy "elect-ability" myth):

Washington Post'sBacon writes about Giuliani's troubled relationship with African Americans as mayor of NYC. Giuliani "cites his achievements in turning around New York as one of the main reasons he should be elected, specifically highlighting a dramatic reduction in crime." Even so, his tenure was "marked by an almost toxic relationship with African Americans in the city." When he was re-elected in '997 with more than 55 percent of the vote, "he received just 20% of the black vote." Since few GOPers are African American "any lingering tension is unlikely to have any direct effect" on his ability to get the GOP nod. But, his reputation as a "polarizing force in his home town could undermine his image as a unifying figure in American politics" (6/10)

Musgrave getting national assitance

A ColoradoPols reader has posted the full text of a fundraising letter sent on Musgrave's behalf by NRCC chairman Tom Cole.

Read the full post here.

The letter:

From the Desk of:

TOM COLE, M.C.
Chairman, NRCC

Dear,

I have exciting news.

I just spoke with Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave and she has agreed to run for reelection in 2008 and is already laying the groundwork for a successful reelection campaign.

I have committed to Marilyn that I will support her re-election this cycle.

Ensuring proven candidates like Marilyn run for re-election is critical as we lay the groundwork to retake the Majority in the United State Congress.

One of my key tasks as Chairman is to support great, established candidates like Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave early this election cycle -- to dissuade formidable opponents from challenging our incumbent Members -- and to give our candidates a financial advantage if a formidable challenger steps forward.

That’s why I am so eager to help Marilyn Musgrave right now.

Re-electing Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave is absolutely vital to retaking our Majority in the House.

Today I’m asking you to make a major financial commitment to her campaign by contributing $500, $250 or even just $100 as soon as possible.

I hope you will look back at what you’ve invested in the past to help elect Congresswoman Musgrave and go ahead and do so again this quarter if at all possible.

Congresswoman Musgrave is one of our hardest-working Members at all aspects of her job: legislative, campaign and fundraising. The Leadership knows we can count on Marilyn to reliably and steadfastly support open markets, low taxes, smaller government and the other hallmarks of GOP economic policy.

Marilyn was reelected with a 3% margin in one of the worst political environments for the GOP I have ever seen. And despite the millions of dollars spent against her by the radical 527s and the DCCC, Marilyn’s hard work, determination and commitment to Republican principles won out over the negative ads and misrepresentations she endured.

Considering all the factors – I consider Marilyn’s re-election last year a remarkable accomplishment.

And helping re-elect Marilyn to Congress again is one of my top priorities.

Marilyn needs all of our support and I am asking for you to contribute $500, $250, $100 or whatever possible to the Musgrave for Congress campaign.

Marilyn needs to show a strong cash position to ward off potential liberal, Democrat opponents. With your help, we can make sure she is in a strong financial position.

Thank you in advance for your support and participation in this important event.

Best regards,

Tom Cole, M.C.
Chairman, NRCC