Friday, March 30, 2012

John Kerry Complains That Obama Is Being "Swiftboated"

Another request for donations arrived in the inbox today. The messages supposedly are from any of a number of Obama people such as Michelle, Joe Biden, or the campaign manager. 

John Kerry is the “author” of the latest solicitation complaining that Bob Perry, who contributed to the organization, "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," that helped expose the more than lackluster Viet Nam "Service" of John Kerry just donated $3 Million to the Republicans.

He critically says, "One man. Three million dollars.  And that's just the start." But, a million from Bill Maher is no problem.

Could this be because Obama's fundraising is way down? The DNC raised 45 million in February, and it isn't known how it will be split among all candidates. Obama himself raised about 34 million dollars in February compared to 55 million in 2008. His super PAC Priorities USA Action spent $684,489 against Mitt Romney, but only took in $59,000 in January. Half as many big donors are writing him checks than at this point in 2008.

He is making an assertive effort to get $2 and $3 donations. Emails requesting that amount come one or two times a day. And, he has just unleashed a massive text message contribution solicitation where the text message says, ““Support Pres Obama in less than a minute using our new secure system. Just reply with the amount you want to give and we’ll charge your saved credit card.”

Some, like Bruce Springsteen are complaining that Obama has acted too slowly in job creation, and that he hasn't stopped foreclosures "somehow." He also says that he is "too friendly" to corporations. Obama held a $38,000 a plate fundraiser for Wall Street on March first.

Other big Democrat pocketbooks are dropping out. Some wealthy liberals and Wall Street executives have done that. That is the case of Susie Thompkins Buell, who has given some $25 Million to Democratic political causes in the last 10 years and raised another 10 million for candidates has closed her purse to Obama. She complained that Obama does not understand the "urgency" of climate change. 

Billionaire, Peter Lewis, founder Progressive insurance and of the Democracy Alliance that includes George Soros committed $25 Million to oust George Bush in 2004, probably won't be contributing to Super PACs for Obama this time around. George Soros contributed 50 Million against Bush in 2004. Imagine that, all from just one man. What astronomical sum will he be contributing this year? 

And, the Obama campaign is complaining about a 3 million dollar donation to the Republicans from Bob Perry. Yes, yet another example of how the rules are certainly different for Democrats.

Here’s Kerry’s “Message.”

“Friend --

When I was the Democratic nominee for president in one of the closest and toughest elections in history, a group of billionaires did something unprecedented:

They wrote million-dollar checks to fund lies about my service on what were called "Swift Boats" in Vietnam -- and in so doing, they turned the boats my crewmates and I served on into a new political shorthand for the most vicious smears imaginable: "swiftboating."

I wish like hell that the term was retired from the American political lexicon, and returned to its real meaning.

But guess what: Bob Perry, the deep-pocketed funder of the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," just gave $3 million to Mitt Romney's Super PAC.

One man. Three million dollars. And that's just the start.

I know all too clearly that these guys will do or say anything to win. They'll stop at nothing. But forewarned is forearmed. Their multi-million dollar smear tactics were new in 2004; in 2012 we know their playbook, and shame on us if we don't tear it into shreds. Join me and we will stop the "swiftboating" of President Obama.

Fight back by donating $3 or more today at this critical deadline moment.

It takes someone with no shame and a lot of money to get the public to believe a total lie.

Unfortunately that's what we're up against.

Let's be ready for it -- let's fight back.

Please donate $3 today:



Senator John Kerry

And, here's the second plea for $3.00 today around noon.  This time from "Michelle" offering a chance to have dinner with Obama for just a $3.00 contribution. 

"There's one thing I forgot to mention:

If you chip in to support the campaign before the big deadline tomorrow, you'll also be automatically entered to have dinner with my husband.

I had the chance to go to one of these "Dinners with Barack" just a few weeks back -- and trust me, you don't want to miss out on it.

Make a donation of $3 or whatever you can here:

Thank you,



Stand Your Ground Law Is Not What We Are Being Told - Its A Pack Of Lies

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

What Obama Really Means When He Talks - An Easy Translator To Basic English

Man Caused Disaster - This used to be when a kid didn't make it fast enough to the boys room in grade school...Now its what the administration calls terrorism
Mideast Peace Process - Israel should move back to its 1967 borders, or even better, all the way back to Europe
Countering Violent Extremism - Apologizing for America
Hope And Change -  Yes, but not the Hope and Change you want
Change You Can Believe In - Socialism or what's left in your pocket after Obama takes the rest
Economic Uncertainty - I don't know what in the hell I am doing
Beer Summit - I don't know how else to handle this, so lets's all sit down together and get wheezered
Kinetic Military Action - Don't call it a war. Liberals don't participate in those
Overseas Contingency Operation - A vacation to Hawaii, Spain, or other places Michelle has visited or will visit across the ocean
Fundamentally Changing America - Tossing the Constitution
Spreading the Wealth -Recycling your bank account
Small Business - What will be left after Obama finishes crushing large ones
Greedy Corporations - Companies that operate at a profit
Outliers - Rogue States, those in fly over country,  and Republicans
I Believe We Are Better Off  Now Than We Were 4 Years Ago - You are definitely saving money on gas, food, and other previously available necessities because you can't afford them anymore
Special Interests - Anyone Obama dislikes, or companies, or organizations he doesn't believe in
Under Priviliged - Those who haven't had enough government programs created for them yet
Stimulus Packages - Lets keep blowing money until we get it right
Oil Company Subsidies - Commonly known as Income tax deductions and tax credits for us - but, its free money for oil companies
Common Sense Gun Laws - Anything that keeps you from owning guns or ammunition
Teachable Moment - An example of why Socialism is preferable
Economic Recovery - Our Country's complete conversion to Socialism
Open Mike Gaffes - Saying what he really means such as, "I have to deal with him every day,"or misreading teleprompters as when he thanked himself for having a St. Patty's day party for Ireland's P.M in 2009.
Fair Share - Higher taxes
Investments - Government spending
Shared Sacrifices- higher taxes for the 53% of Americans who actually pay income taxes
Balanced approach - New spending and higher taxes
Revenue Enhancements - Higher Taxes
Deficit Reduction - Increased Spending
Change Is Never Easy - Trust me four more years
Extremists - Not Islamic extremists, but all Republicans
Massive Ordinance Disposal - Bye Bye Nuclear Deterrent
Green Energy Companies - Companies that take our green, create no energy, and promptly fold
Green Energy Jobs - Living on Unemployment after being fired from failed Federally subsidized
solar panel companies - After all, Pelosi says Unemployment Payments build the economy.
Shared Values - Saul Alinsky and Cloward and Piven Socialist Tenets
Annnnnd, Thennnnnnnn ( Interchangable- I haven't a clue what to say next without my teleprompter

And, here are some definitions that have been making the internet rounds:
In California:
Means in Texas:
Diversity/Lifestyle Choice
Sinful and Perverted
Arsenal of Weapons
Gun Collection
Delicate Wetlands
Undocumented Worker
Illegal Alien
Cruelty-Free Materials
Assault and Battery
Attitude Adjustment
Heavily Armed
Rain Forest
The Jungle
Commonsense Gun Control
Gun Confiscation Plot
Illegal Hazardous Explosives
Fireworks or Stump Removal
Nonviable Tissue Mass
Unborn Baby
Equal Access to Opportunity
Multicultural Community
High Crime Area
Fairness /Social Progress
Upper Class or "The Rich"
Progressive, Change
Big Government Scheme
Homeless or Disadvantaged
Bums/Welfare Leeches
Sniper Rifle
Scoped Deer Gun
Investment For the Future
Higher Taxes
Healthcare Reform
Socialized Medicine
High Capacity Magazine
Standard Mag
Religious Zealot
Fair Trade Coffee
Overpriced Yuppie Coffee
Exploiters or "The Rich"
Employed/Land Owner
The Gun Lobby
NRA Members
Assault Weapon
Semi-Auto (Grandpa's M1 Carbine)
Fiscal Stimulus
New/Higher Taxes
Same Sex Marriage
Legalized Perversion

Friday, March 23, 2012

Stand Your Ground Self Defense Laws Under Ferocious Attack

The Liberty Bell's old home, before 1976.
The latest shooting "crisis"  has put Stand Your Ground Laws under attack after the Sanford, Florida incident. Anti gun groups claim that the law needs to be eliminated or changed. Nothing could be further from the truth. Whether Mr. Zimmerman acted correctly is a matter of speculation, and it will be until it is resolved by the County’s Grand Jury.

Stand Your Ground laws have saved more lives than have been taken by its misuse. Vocal opponents of the law are not aware that Florida’s Stand Your Ground “Castle” Law only creates a rebuttable legal presumption in the law that the person who acted in “self defense” had a right to do so.  Al Sharpton doesn’t know what that means, or even care. The law gives no absolute right to use deadly force. Generally, when a person uses deadly force to defend himself or another, there has to be an honest and reasonable belief that the person using that force has a fear of immediate death or serious bodily injury from the person he has used that force against.

Here’s where the rebuttable presumption in Florida comes into play. If the Prosecutor believes and has evidence that the killing or injury inflicted was done with malice, or that immediate fear of injury or death was not present, then the Prosecutor is free to charge the person with any applicable crime up to murder. The Prosecutor must also prove that the person charged is guilty of violating that law beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, in some states there is also the same type of rebuttable presumption that when a stranger is in your home and has no right to be there, that he is there to do you bodily harm. That is also rebuttable by the Prosecutor.

In both instances, it is the Prosecutor’s burden of proof to rebut the presumption that the person defending himself acted illegally. The defendant does not have to prove anything. If Stand Your Ground Castle laws are repealed we will be like England, where the joke is that homeowners’ televisions are actually stolen while they are being watched.

Here are actual examples of self defense that won’t be allowed if anti gun rights organizations are successful in repealing Castle Laws, and what has already actually happened on New Hampshire when there’s no Castle Law.

Mobile Alabama’s Mayor, Sam Jones is a member of Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns group. But that didn’t stop him from pulling his own gun on a man who was inside his garage and said he was sent from God. Hizzoner held the man at gunpoint until police arrived.

In New Hampshire, where there is no Castle Law, Dennis Fleming found that his home had been burglarized when he entered his home. He went outside with a handgun and saw a man walking down the road with a back pack. Fleming did nothing then. Shortly after that he saw the same man walking from a neighbor’s home after a loud crash was heard. He was allegedly on a burglary spree.
Fleming fired his gun into the ground to get the man’s attention and stop him. When the man stopped, it was apparent that the man broke a bone when he allegedly jumped from a window at Fleming’s home. Fleming found his personal property in the man’s backpack.
Fleming was subject to up to three years in prison for his actions. A local attorney volunteered to defend him for free. The intense public outcry against prosecuting Fleming caused the Prosecutor to dismiss charges.

Also in Mobile, Eddie Richardson was met by two armed men last month when he arrived home in his car. They told him to give it up. What he gave up was a bullet to the trigger finger hand of the man who pointed a gun at him. They ran off during a running gunfight. The wounded man was arrested after surgery.

Fort Lauderdale gold buyer, Oleg Flyaster and his partner were confronted by two men who demanded cash and gold from them in the alley behind their shop after closing. One of the criminal duo was shot. They were both captured shortly after running off.

A Milwaukee Aldi store concealed hand gun permit holding employee stopped two men who were in the process of a robbery by shooting one of them late last year. It was the first instance of defense of self and others under Wisconsin’s new concealed permit law.

An elderly Cleveland, Ohio man shot and killed a teenager as the young thug broke into his home in February.

Last month in Lakeland, Colorado, a check cashing store owner fired on two robbers after he was pepper sprayed. He wounded one. The other one who wore “Air Jordans” and a black and grey “hoodie” ran off.

A shopper at an Orlando Walmart was attacked by two men this last week as he reached for shaving razors there. He was pushed to the store’s floor as he shopped. He was being punched by the pair as he pulled his handgun from concealment. The duo was fortunate that their “victim” didn’t shoot. He began to pistol whip them instead. That put a stop to the attack.
Instead of cash, one of the thugs ran away sporting a large bleeding gash on his head that he received from a hit by the firearm. The store was temporarily evacuated.

A Temple, Texas Homeowner shot at two men who were inside his home during an alleged home invasion attempt in early February. One of the alleged burglars showed up at a local hospital after the shots were fired.

visit our other blog

Starbucks Boycotters Are Like Fleas Biting An Elephant

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Montana's Congressman Slams Obama's Refusal To Enforce Gun Rights Law

In Congress, July 4, 1776, a declaration by the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled. 

Barack Obama has a penchant to enforce laws he likes and ignore ones he doesn't. One good example is the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage as one between one man and one woman. He has decided that is is unconstitutional, and his administration would still "enforce it," but no longer defend it in court.  No defense of the law is the same as no enforcement of it. Late last year, Obama told his his Tail Wagging Lackies at the Justice Department to not enforce that law.

He recently signed a law that prevents using tax dollars to promote gun control. But, in what is one of those "Under the radar" anti gun rights activities that he promised Sarah Brady that he would be doing to strip us of gun rights, he added a "Signing Statement" stating that he would ignore that law. Obama believes he is the sole judge as to what is "Necessary and Expedient." Tax money has been used previously to fund National Institutes of Health  "studies" that paint Firearms use as a "Health" issue.

These studies have long been pushed as a useful tactic by anti gun rights organizations. The NIH activities fall under the oversight of his House subcommittee.

And, gun ban groups cannot understand why gun and ammo sales are again starting to soar like before his 2008 election win.

Several days ago, Montana's sole U.S. Representative, Denny Rehberg, outraged at this typical Obama arrogance, sent a terse letter to the Dear Leader demanding that he obey and enforce the law as he is sworn to do

Here's his press release

Rehberg Urges President Not to Break the Law in His Efforts to Advance Gun Control Measures

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Montana's Congressman, Denny Rehberg, today sent a letter with House colleagues that asks the President to enforce a law he signed preventing the use of tax dollars to advocate or promote gun control.  Rehberg, the Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, was the lead author of the letter in which Congress asks the Administration to respect Section 218 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 (P.L.112-74) which Rehberg authored and included in the legislation.  Division F of Section 218 states that “none of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or part, to advocate or promote gun control.”

“It’s not terribly surprising that, in his efforts to subvert the Second Amendment of the Constitution, President Obama thinks he’s above the law,” said Rehberg, who has an A+ rating with the National Rifle Association and an A+ rating with Gun Owners of America.  “You don’t need to look much further than the anti-gun activist Supreme Court Justices Obama and his Senate allies confirmed to see this Administration’s insidious favor of gun control.  That’s why checks and balances are so important.  In this country, no one is above the law, especially when the law is the Constitution.  Legislative authority belongs with the legislative branch, and the President is bound to abide by the laws he signs.”

Since 2002, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which falls under Rehberg’s subcommittee oversight responsibilities, spent nearly $5 million on research designed to advocate or promote gun control. For example, in one study that tried to determine why parents chose to own a gun, the NIH characterized parental gun ownership as a “hazard” to their children’s safety, and aimed to solidify the notion that a “home free of hazards” was essential to a child’s well-being.  The clear insinuation is the federal government telling citizens that if they have a gun in the house they are not a good parent.

As a result, Rehberg added language to his subcommittee’s appropriations bill to prevent these studies from being funded.  Specifically, Section 218 of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education title (Division F), states that “none of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or part, to advocate or promote gun control.”

In his signing statement, of the underlying law, President Obama indicated that he did not intend to enforce this provision of the law.  In his statement he wrote: “Additional provisions in this bill, including section 8013 of Division A and section 218 of Division F, purport to restrict the use of funds to advance certain legislative positions. I have advised the Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress's consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient.”

In response, Rehberg crafted the letter below:

Dear Mr. President:

On December 23, 2011, you signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 into law (P.L.112-74).  This critical piece of legislation provided funding for the operation of our nation’s government through the 2012 fiscal year.  The bill also contained a number of funding restrictions designed to protect the American people from policies and regulations which hinder our economic recovery, imperil our national security and threaten our constitutional freedoms.

One of these funding restrictions, contained in Section 218 of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education title (Division F), states that “none of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or part, to advocate or promote gun control.” This provision prevents agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from using federal funding to promulgate research designed to paint legal gun ownership as a public health hazard.  Since 2002, the NIH has spent nearly $5 million on this research, including a study that tried to determine why parents who possessed a firearm chose to own a gun.  The study characterized parental gun ownership as a “hazard” to their children’s safety, and aimed to solidify the notion that a “home free of hazards” was essential to a child’s well-being.  As millions of American gun owners will tell you, it is more than possible to exercise your Second Amendment rights while maintaining a safe home environment in which to raise children.

Our committee chose to restrict this funding because this study and others like it utilize taxpayer dollars to advance the false notion that legal gun ownership is a danger to public health instead of an inalienable right.

Section 218 was specifically crafted to prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to bolster gun control efforts that infringe on the 2nd Amendment.  We urge you to enforce the law you signed and Congress passed.


Open Carry Makes You As Dangerous as John Wilkes Booth, Tim McVeigh, Sharon Angle, and Ted Nugent?