Latest baseball scores, trades, talk, ideas, opinions, and standings

Archive for the ‘ban on guns’ Category

>Bush Was A Damned Liberal, Let’s Face It!

>I made a comment after reading columnist Byron York’s fine article found in the Washington I said Bush was a “damned” liberal on Constitutional freedom, the economy, and the borders. He was only conservative when it came to attacking the people who knocked down the Trade Centers in New York. Or was he, because if he was he should have attacked Saudi Arabia and looked for WMDs there. Don White

The following Noah Webster quote is even better:

Wise Words: 2nd Amendment

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”. Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

Bush 43: Conservative movement is inconsequential

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
September 15, 2009

Former President George W. Bush addresses a Fourth of July crowd at the Let Freedom Ring 2009 festival at Crystal Beach Park Arena in Woodward, Okla., Saturday, July 4, 2009. (AP Photo)

How many times during the last eight years did you hear that George W. Bush was a dangerous right-wing extremist? Probably too many to count.
What you heard less often were expressions of the deep reservations some conservatives felt about Bush’s governing philosophy.
Conservatives greatly admired Bush for his steadfastness in the War on Terror — to use that outlawed phrase — and they were delighted by his choices of John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. But when it came to a fundamental conservative principle like fiscal discipline, many conservatives felt the president just wasn’t with them.
You saw that throughout the 2008 Republican presidential primaries, when GOP candidates, while not mentioning Bush specifically, got big applause from conservative Republican audiences by pledging to return fiscal responsibility to the White House.
Those cheering conservatives will find a revealing moment in a new book, scheduled for release next week, by former White House speechwriter Matt Latimer.
Latimer is a veteran of conservative politics. An admirer of Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, for whom he worked for several years, Latimer also worked in the Rumsfeld Pentagon before joining the Bush White House in 2007.
The revealing moment, described in “Speechless: Tales of a White House Survivor,” occurred in the Oval Office in early 2008.
Bush was preparing to give a speech to the annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC. The conference is the event of the year for conservative activists; Republican politicians are required to appear and offer their praise of the conservative movement.
Latimer got the assignment to write Bush’s speech. Draft in hand, he and a few other writers met with the president in the Oval Office. Bush was decidedly unenthusiastic.
“What is this movement you keep talking about in the speech?” the president asked Latimer.
Latimer explained that he meant the conservative movement — the movement that gave rise to groups like CPAC.
Bush seemed perplexed. Latimer elaborated a bit more. Then Bush leaned forward, with a point to make.
“Let me tell you something,” the president said. “I whupped Gary Bauer’s ass in 2000. So take out all this movement stuff. There is no movement.”
Bush seemed to equate the conservative movement — the astonishing growth of conservative political strength that took place in the decades after Barry Goldwater’s disastrous defeat in 1964 — with the fortunes of Bauer, the evangelical Christian activist and former head of the Family Research Council whose 2000 presidential campaign went nowhere.
Now it was Latimer who looked perplexed. Bush tried to explain.
“Look, I know this probably sounds arrogant to say,” the president said, “but I redefined the Republican Party.”
The Oval Office is no place for a low-ranking White House staffer to get into an argument with the president of the United States about the state of the Republican Party — or about any other subject, for that matter. Latimer made the changes the president wanted. When Bush appeared at CPAC, he made no mention of the conservative movement. In fact, he said the word “conservative” only once, in the last paragraph.
Bush veterans are going to take issue with some of Latimer’s criticisms in “Speechless.” As an observer of it all, I certainly don’t agree with his characterizations of some Bush administration officials. But looking back at the Bush years, the scene in the Oval Office adds context to the debate that is going on inside conservative circles today.
Right after the Republican Party’s across-the-board defeat last November, there was a wave of what-went-wrong self-analysis. Republicans were divided between those who believed the party had lost touch with conservative principles and those who believed it had failed to adapt to changed political and demographic circumstances.
Bush’s words in the Oval Office speak directly to that first group. You can argue whether Bush was a fiscal conservative at any time in his political career, but he certainly wasn’t in the White House. And some real fiscal conservatives, with their guy in charge, held their tongues.
Now, with unified Democratic control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, we’re seeing spending that makes Bush’s record look downright thrifty. Republicans have again found their voice on fiscal discipline. And some of them wish they had been more outspoken when a president of their own party was in the White House.
Byron York, The Examiner’s chief political correspondent, can be contacted at His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts appears on


>Obama Is Trying To Abolish Debate

>Obama’s Reichstag Fire and The Coming Enabling Act
Don White

The Republican National Party has called the Democrats’ $787B “stimulus” plan rushed through Congress last week and signed by the president four days later “Barak Obama’s Reichstag Fire.”

Obama and his gang are students of history. Historians point to the Reichstag Fire that gutted the German Parliament house in Berlin on February 27, 1933 as the turning point for the Nazis in gaining enough power to pass what was called an “Enabling Act” or the power to suspend parliament.

The Enabling Act allowed for the establishment of Nazi Germany. When will things be bad enough for Obama to get his enabling act to suspend our freedoms?

Have you noticed that Obama hasn’t smiled much since coming to power? It’s all a ploy. He has done his best to make the financial crisis look insoluble by normal means. His purpose is to, first, spend as much money as possible to pay back campaign promises. That’s where the “bums rush” $787B is going.

He doesn’t want the problem to get solved too soon because a recovering country would spoil everything – his chance to enslave American taxpayers and generations to come. Have you noticed, he has held back a real stimulus bill – one Treasury Secretary Timoth Gaithner promises is still to come? There will be a second – and maybe a third — so called “stimulus” bill of trillion-dollar proportions. That will be the real bill that should have been passed first, because only then will it address the core problems of getting America back on its feet.

When you have a hostage congress, like the Democrat congress, you may not need “an enabling act” to pass freedom-stifling bills.

But Obama wants to serve more than two terms. He wants three or four or five, and that will take an enabling act, because right now we have term limits for presidents. His next act has to be to eliminate term limits. That will come when terrorists are at our door, after they fire some missiles at Washington or other American cities.

So it isn’t in Obama’s interest to fight terrorism like Bush did. He wants porous borders with Mexico, despite the fact that Mexico is near a state of total political collapse, with the drug cartel about to take over. When that happens, as it surely will, how do you keep drug cartel terrorists out of our country? You don’t, not with the cavalier way Obama, has reacted to our border emergency. Expect the Democrats to ask for an additional trillion dollars to bail out Mexico’s drug cartel government.

Whether the Reichstag fire was caused by the Nazis themselves or by the Communist Party which at that time had 17% of the German vote is unimportant for this discussion. But history repeats itself. Just as Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Omanuel called the financial meltdown an opportunity to do things not otherwise possible, Hitler’s words echo the same sentiments in 1933. Hitler called the fire a “sign from heaven”, and claimed the fire was a Fanal (signal) meant to mark the beginning of a Communist Putsch (coup).
Hitler was the Chancellor. His aim was first to acquire a National Socialist majority in order to secure his position and eliminate Communist opposition. Obama’s aim today is to create a one-party system in America and to remove the Republican Party opposition. Hitler hoped to abolish democracy in a more or less legal fashion by passing the Enabling Act. The Enabling Act was a special law which gave the Chancellor the power to pass laws by decree without the involvement of the Reichstag
The fire was used as evidence by the Nazis that the Communists were beginning a ‘plot’ against the German government. Historians disagree as to whether van der Lubbe acted alone or if the Nazis were involved. The responsibility for the Reichstag Fire remains an ongoing topic of debate and research.
Governments love to declare their countries in a “state of national emergency.” That, alone, eliminates much political opposition. But the money the U.S. is spending on the first of Obama’s rescues is meant to cement support for his re-election. The only way to get a two-thirds majority to declare a national emergency is to have 60 Senate votes. This time Obama bought off three vulnerable and very liberal Republicans, Susan Collins and Olympia Snow from Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Specter got what he wanted out of the deal, $6 Billion for stem cell research, which conservatives and others oppose. Once again, our Constitutional rights of debate in chambers were circumvented.
Watch out, more funny business is coming. Soon, Obama will find a way to get around the Constitutional provisions making us a free people, including freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. Our voting rights have been severely jeopardized with the $3 billion going to ACORN for more Democrat style ”community organizing.” Owning guns will be next, and that will be where citizens stand in large numbers openly rebel.
The day after the fire, Hitler asked for and received from President Hindenburg the Reichstag Fire Decree, signed into law by Hindenburg using Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. The Reichstag Fire Decree suspended most civil liberties in Germany and was used by the Nazis to ban publications not considered “friendly” to the Nazi cause. Obama has said he will not invoke the so-called :”fairness doctrine”, but don’t believe him. He won’t initiate it, but you can believe the Democrat Congress will and he will make it look like they forced him to administer this law against his will. Watch out, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hanity, Glenn Beck, Michael Medved, Neal Boortz, and Bill O’Reilly. It’s coming.

>Obama: The Country’s Greatest Gun Salesman

>In a Deseret News story out of Salt Lake City, Utah by Lee Benson we learn that gun dealers out west are experiencing a booming gun business since November.

It comes because people are afraid Obama may do one of his famous executive orders — this time banning gun sales. So people are buying guns and ammunition not only for their own protection, but as a hedge on the liberal in the White House.

Guns are a protected right, but this clever new president may find a way to circumvent the Constitution about bearing arms, defining what constitute a legal gun or limiting gun sales. Anyway, Obama turns out to be a blessing in disguise for the gun sellers. At least temporarily. Read the story