The Daily Conservative

Gunmakers Remington and Colt may move West thanks to new legislation

2012-08-29T08:59:00.001-04:00

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/28/microstamping-legislation-may-lead-remington-colt-to-relocate/

Remington and Colt executives have made it clear to both New York and Connecticut lawmakers that a new piece of legislation, if enacted, will force the two companies out of those states. The CT and NY Congresses are considering legislation that would require gunmakers to employ Microstamping technology in their designs. Microstamping is a process by which laser etching is used to engrave the make, model, and serial number of a firearm on the spent brass casings ejected when the weapon is discharged. The technology is costly, unreliable, and completely unnecessary.

First of all, I want to point out the fact that lawmakers have a tendency to assume that they are suddenly experts at everything they write laws laws for. Every Senator or Representative will profess a profound knowledge of Healthcare, the environment, business practices, agriculture, international trade, international politics, warfare, and just about anything else for which Congress has ever passed a law. Now, I suppose lawmakers are trying to tell us that they have sufficient knowledge for, understanding of, and proficiency with firearms to adopt legislation that greatly affects the way they are manufactured.

I would put a great deal of money on the claim that many of our elected officials have seldom even held a firearm, let alone fired one or extensively studied their design. In addition, not only do lawmakers believe they have this transcendent knowledge as members of the government, but they never listen to the experts that do these things for a living when they say that whatever Congress is considering won't work. This is precisely the case here; our government officials are ignoring the statements from gun experts who understand why microstamping is ineffective and hugely expensive.

As an avid shooter and firearm enthusiast, I would almost guarantee I have enough knowledge of the physics and mechanics of a firearm to explain why the extreme conditions that exist inside the chamber of a gun when a round is fired make a tiny, laser-etching pin an impracticality. Our government overseers do not. They hear the idea that we might be able to make a firearm that stamps this information on rounds it fires and they say, "great, now let's just make it a requirement by law and crime will decrease." Sounds ludicrous to me.

But, then again, crime prevention is not what our lawmakers are after. This, to them, is just another opportunity to control the American people. People often say "Americans are arrogant". Well, we are. We are arrogant to assume that we are immune from the corrupting infestation of government and that we are the exception to the rule that government will inevitably attempt to control those whom it governs. We are not. Government, in its purest form, is a mechanism for control. That is its purpose, its goal, its reason for existing. We in America dangerously view government as the dispenser of freedom, when in reality, it is freedom's worst enemy.

Arizona Governor Blocks Illegals from Obtaining Public Benefits

2012-08-16T08:36:00.003-04:00

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/16/brewer-blocks-undocumented-immigrants-from-receiving-benefits/
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer ordered state departments in Arizona to deny public-funded benefits to undocumented immigrants who would qualify for certain programs under the new Obamacare law. Calling these new provisions "backdoor amnesty", Governor Brewer has remained very adamant about ensuring these taxpayer-funded benefits are reserved only for legal, documented US citizens.

I once again commend Arizona's latest effort to combat illegal immigration in the US. I have said it many times over and I certainly have no qualms about saying it again: the Obama administration is going to do everything it can to bring amnesty and citizenship to illegals. Why? In February of 2011, the Pew Research Center estimated that there were as many as 11.2 million illegal immigrants living in the United States. I wouldn't doubt for one minute that if the Obama administration were to grant amnesty to a good deal of these immigrants, they would happily return the kindness in the form of fresh, new votes for the administration in November. I have suspected such intentions from the current administration ever since they so passionately challenged Arizona's "show me your papers" law back in 2010. To Obama, illegal immigrants are just another untapped resource that he wishes to exploit in order to stay in power, when instead he should be focusing on protecting our borders - as is REQUIRED of him under Federal law. But then, when was the last time Federal Law has ever stopped Obama from doing anything he wanted?

Linda McMahon Wins Republican Nomination Over Chris Shays

2012-08-15T08:58:00.001-04:00

Linda McMahon Clinches CT Republican Senate Nomination

Yesterday, Linda McMahon won the Republican Nomination for CT's Senate seat currently held by Sen. Joe Lieberman who decided to retire this year instead of seeking reelection. Linda is an accomplished Connecticut businesswoman who was instrumental in the development and success of the World Wrestling Federation (WWF) and later World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (WWE) along with her husband Vince McMahon.

Linda ran for the CT Senate seat formerly held by Chris Dodd in 2012, but was beaten out by former Attorney General Richard Blumenthal by 12 points. This year, McMahon faces off against Chris Murphy who won the Democratic nomination over Susan Bysiewicz.

Linda is reportedly trailing Murphy in the polls, but only by a few points in most cases. The numbers are showing a much narrower margin then was seen in the 2010 election. Blumenthal, in my opinion, was a far more accomplished, more well-known, and more popular opponent than Chris Murphy. That being the case, I am very excited to see how Linda fairs in the 2012 election. Connecticut has witnessed some serious job deterioration and a great deal of inflation over the past several years. Perhaps the people of CT, who have appeared in the past to be a heavily democratic group, are ready for a change of pace in Washington. McMahon's race is one of many that republicans are hoping to win in order to gain the majority in the US Senate this year.

City Government Shuts Down 13-year-old's Hot Dog Stand

2012-08-14T10:30:00.000-04:00

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/08/12695-13-year-olds-hot-dog-stand-shut-down-boy-now-homeless/

Great story about a true hard-working American trying to make ends meet for his family - and he's only 13. The boy opened a hot dog stand to help pay for his parents' medical bills, but the city shut him down. Government dishes out free-bees to people who don't want to work, but tells a 13-year-old kid he can't operate a hot dog stand to help his needy family. What's wrong with that picture?

The local restaurant owners complained that the boy was competing with their sales. Let me tell you something: if you have a full-fledged restaurant that's being showed-up by a 13 year old and his hot dog stand, you deserve to fail miserably.

Tell you what, if the government comes a-knockin' one day to shut down my kid's lemonade stand or hot dog hut, they're getting a formal introduction to Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson.

Criminal Illegals to Remain Free in the US

2012-08-14T08:53:00.000-04:00

Criminal Illegal Immigrants in the US

You heard right. Thanks to a 2001 Supreme Court ruling, if an illegal alien is convicted of a crime in the US, immigration officials are only allowed 60 days maximum to hold a prisoner before having to release them. That means, if an illegal immigrant's home country refuses to take him/her back, they are released from custody and are free to commit new crimes. Texas Representative Ted Poe has introduced legislation that would effectively end the loophole and impose sanctions on foreign nations that refuse to take back their criminal citizens. These sanctions include restricting the issuance of new visas for immigrants from the country in question.

As expected, the Obama administration has condemned the legislation and stated that they want to leave this one up to the State Department, which is trying to pursue more diplomatic means for resolving the issue. In response, Rep. Poe stated, "I don't know why the State Department seems to take the side of foreign countries over our own American interest in the United States. Look, you take these people back or the consequence is going to be no visas for your nation." At least someone has the fortitude to tell foreign nations that we will not tolerate violence on the part of illegal aliens.

Normally, I would suggest that the nations in question (namely Cuba, China, India, Pakistan, and Vietnam) be held responsible for the acts committed by their citizens who are in our country illegally, but the Obama administration has made it abundantly clear that it has neither the care nor the interest in preserving our border security, so obviously we are partially responsible for these crimes.

I have said this a million times and I'll say it again: there is no politically-correct substitute for the term "illegal immigrant". It is a felony to be in this country without proper documentation, and granting amnesty to immigrants who commit violent acts in the US is nothing more than government-approved criminal behavior. If the Obama administration refuses to protect our national sovereignty as required under the law, then I commend states like Arizona that have taken the necessary precautions to keep our borders safe.

Romney and Ryan's Un-aired Interview

2012-08-13T21:17:00.000-04:00

Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney Defend Medicare

Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney were interviewed on 60 minutes and when asked about their plans for Medicare, the two delivered a perfectly acceptable, coherent, and respectable description of their plans to reform the bankrupt program while still preserving essential benefits. Sounds like the answer we've all been looking for, but there's only one problem: CBS refused to air Paul's response!

The liberals who are falsely accusing Romney and Paul of wanting to remove Medicare in its entirety are asking for an explanation. Romney and Paul seem to be more than happy to clear up any misinformation about their intentions with the program. However, it would seem the liberal news media was not happy to realize that Paul and Romney have a better plan than originally thought. Perhaps the GOP plan for Medicare is too good to contest, so instead the liberal news media's only defense is to not report anything that may actually make the GOP look competent. Therefore, I ask anyone who supports Romney and Paul in this election to spread this further. If the mainstream media refuses to report substantive news, then I guess it's up to us to do their job for them.

Rep. Paul Ryan Named Mitt Romney's Runningmate

2012-08-13T08:45:00.001-04:00

This weekend, Mitt Romney announced that the Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan will be his running mate and VP choice for the 2012 Presidential Election. Ryan and Romney delivered a welcomed speech in Ryan's home state of Wisconsin to an energized crowd of Romney supporters. As was expected, Democrats were quick to jump on the VP pick and criticize Paul Ryan's budget plan introduced in the House of Representatives, which no doubt will be the center-piece of the 2012 election. But, why Paul Ryan? Well for one, he's no Sarah Palin. But beyond that, there are a few reasons:

First and perhaps most importantly, Ryan is a young, promising, energetic, and articulate member of the Republican party and is considered by many to be one of the future leaders of the GOP. Ryan is ready and willing to speak his mind and he strikes me as a character that finds dodging the major issues to be reprehensible. I have no doubt Ryan will stick to his guns on his convictions, that he will call out the Obama administration on the economy, and that he will remain focused and alert from the day he was chosen until the day the polls close in November.

Second, Ryan is one of the only politicians to actually deliver a respectable budget plan - and a particularly specific one at that. Ryan's budget plan has detailed instructions on what government programs need to be reformed, cut, eliminated, or expanded in order to reduce the size of government and, most importantly, the size of the deficit. Republicans have proven in the past time and again that they have what it takes to balance a budget that had been sinking into the red, and I certainly think Paul Ryan is no exception. Ryan now has real, tangible plans he can fire back at the Obama administration, which has far too long been getting away with ambiguous and misleading messages of "hope" and "change".

Third and finally, Paul Ryan isn't boring. He has a name we haven't heard day after day in this election. He's entirely refreshing from the Tim Pawlenty and Chris Christie advocates. I have a feeling that once the Romney Camp puts Ryan into the spotlight for a little bit, he is really going to shine and this election is going to turn right in Romney's favor. The public is going to realize that this guy isn't messing around. He has the drive to say things that desperately need to be said, even when Romney is too shy or leery to say them himself. And what's better: he's got a PLAN. The Obama administration just cannot dodge the fact that their policies haven't fixed a single problem - at least, not while Paul Ryan is around!

Romney's Tax Plan Explained

2012-08-10T09:06:00.000-04:00

Romney's Tax Plan

This is a link to the Brookings Institute's Tax Policy Center in which Gov. Mitt Romney's tax plan is described in detail. I am writing about this in response to claims from the President that Mitt Romney plans on RAISING taxes for the middle class to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. So there is no confusion, Obama's "Romney-hood" comment can be found here.

First, I find it absolutely necessary to state here and now that the President's claim that Romney wants to RAISE taxes on the middle class is a complete LIE. When has Romney ever once suggested that he plans on raising middle class taxes? When has the suggestion of raising taxes for ANYONE even come out of Romney's mouth? Romney has, from day one, planned to cut taxes for THE ENTIRE NATION by an average of 20%.

Now, let's do a little arithmetic. You will notice that the highest tax bracket would decrease from 35% to 28%, while the lowest tax bracket would only decrease from 10% to 8%. Liberals will look at this and say, "Wait a minute! He's really only cutting taxes for the wealthy!". False; this is simple math. Taking 20% away from 35 equates to a much greater decrease than taking 20% away from 10. To further explain this phenomenon, I have a link here that explains the US tax system in beer for those who are arithmetically challenged.

Now, the Democrats will look at this and say, "Romney wants to cut taxes for the wealthy. That must mean he needs to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for it." WRONG! I have yet to discover what it is about Democrats and their thought process, but they just cannot comprehend the concept of cutting taxes across the board. Why does it always have to be that when taxes are cut for some, it MUST logically follow that they are raised for some others? I really don't think a liberal mind has the capacity to process the words "we are cutting taxes for everyone". This is Romney's plan. Suggesting that he will raise ANY taxes is a complete lie, so don't believe it. But of course, you know better than that because you are capable of performing simple math, right?

No "Fair Play" From The Obama Campaign

2012-08-09T08:52:00.000-04:00

Obama Political Ad Ties Romney to Death of Worker's Wife
In what I am certainly considering the most low-ball political move I have ever seen, the Obama campaign released an attack ad a few days ago that featured Joe Soptic, a former GST Steel worker. He lost his job following the takeover by Bain Capital and is shown in this ad suggesting that the take-over by Romney's company left him and his family without healthcare. He takes his claim further and states that his wife took ill with stage 4 cancer "a short time after that" and then died 22 days later. In essence, Soptic and the Obama Camp. are directly suggesting that Romney is responsible for this woman's death.

Let's break this down piece by piece:

1) "When Mitt Romney and Bain closed the plant, I lost my healthcare..." FALSE: Mitt Romney left Bain Capital in 1999 to tend to the Olympics in Salt Lake City to pull them out of financial trouble. The GST Steel Plant closed in February 2001 following a 10-week long strike by the workers. Mitt Romney was not even on the board of directors at the time the plant closed, which means he had no connection to, and certainly no direct involvement in, the closing of the plant.

2) "...and my family lost their healthcare." FALSE: Joe Soptic's wife had her own coverage at a job she was working at and lost it in 2003 following an injury before she left that job - 3 YEARS before she was even diagnosed with cancer.

3) "A short time after that, my wife became ill." FALSE: Soptic's wife was diagnosed - diagnosed, mind you - with very late-stage lung cancer in 2006 (remember that Romney left Bain 7 years prior and the plant closed 5 years prior). In addition, the cancer she had - cancer that had been developing for years - was found to be incurable at that point.

4) "I don't know how long she was ill, and maybe she didn't say anything because she knew we couldn't afford the insurance." FALSE: How could Soptic's wife have known that she had cancer when she wasn't even diagnosed until 2006? There is no way for a person to "just know" that they have lung cancer. When doctors found the cancer, it had metastasized to a lethal and incurable level.

There is no way for Soptic or anyone to rightfully claim that Mitt Romney is responsible for the GST Steel plant closing OR for the death of Soptic's wife. Soptic's claims are baseless, false, and incredibly low-brow. It is becoming apparent that Obama and his campaign managers are willing to perform whatever dirty, iniquitous tricks they can to gain the upper hand in this election. Unfortunately for the Obama Camp., the facts in this matter point in the opposite direction, and as John Adams once said, "Facts are stubborn things."

U.S. Senate Votes Down Tax Cuts for Wealthy

2012-08-08T09:02:00.000-04:00

Senate Votes on Bush-Era Tax Cuts

This is somewhat old news by now, but I never had the chance to talk about it in detail. A couple weeks ago, the Senate voted on a bill that would extend the Bush-era tax cuts for middle class families, but would allow the cuts to expire for those making over $250,000 per year. I am going to make two important contentions about why the Senate should have approved the tax cuts across the board.

First, the tax bill as approved by the Senate is going to damage small businesses. Most small business owners (a good number of whom gross over $300,000 per year) will fall in the category of "remarkably wealthy" according to the Obama administration. In a time where jobs a scarce, our economy is in a recession, and our growth was a dismal and concerning 1.5% last quarter, the last thing we should be doing is raising taxes on ANYONE, particularly small businesses - who, by the way, create the vast majority of jobs in the United States. Even to an average middle class American like me, $250,000 per year is not much money at all when you factor in all of the expenses required to run a business (employee wages, overhead for office sites, employee benefits, state/federal income tax, corporate gains tax, etc.). For the Obama administration to consider $250,000 to be a "wealthy American" is inaccurate and will undoubtedly cause further economic damage in a time when we should be facilitating job creation, not stifling it.

Second and finally, when has it ever been considered a bad thing to cut taxes for anyone? The Obama administration had a perfect opportunity to cut taxes across the board and keep more money in the hands of the people. If you are going to cut taxes for working Americans, why not cut taxes for the ones who put those Americans to work, while you're at it? Why go out of your way to make it a point that you WANT the wealthy to pay more taxes? There is only one explanation I can see: class warfare. The Obama administration is doing everything it can to punish successful Americans and turn the rest of the country against them. I don't really want to use the word "Communism" here, but in all honesty, the only place I have ever seen class warfare of this nature used as part of a political philosophy is in Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. Marx believed it was the engine of change in a Communist society - that eventually, the lower class would turn on the upper classes and the wealth would be redistributed.

Milton Friedman once said, "I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible." I could not agree more. The problem we are having is not that the people are paying too little, it is that government is spending too much. Money is far better used and more carefully guarded in the hands of those who earned it than in the hands of those who have taken it from someone else.

President Obama to Visit Connecticut for Fundraising Event

2012-08-06T08:41:00.001-04:00

President Obama in Stamford, CT

Today, President Barack Obama is scheduled to visit Stamford, Connecticut for a campaign fundraising event. Personally, I am actually excited to hear that the President will be making a quick stop in my home state; perhaps I will even make it a point to go see him speak! Finally, I may have an opportunity to actually meet the President of the United States in person! Now, if only I can get my parents to lend me a quick $35,800 so I can buy myself a ticket...

Yeah, you heard right. The President's fundraising event in CT today has a $35,000 price tag tied to it. But wait - I thought the President has been running on a campaign staple of being just like any average working man, that he is able to appeal to regular old middle class Americans like you and me - something Mitt Romney couldn't possible claim about himself. Well, it may appear that Obama is ready and willing to throw the upper 1% of the United States under the bus - that is, unless he needs their money for his own personal endeavors. The President stands fast on his proposal that the richest amongst us have the capacity - and the duty - to "pay a little more" than everyone else. It seems as though that logic applies to political campaigns as well.

I hope it has occurred to the President that the folks who can afford a $35,000 dinner have such wealth because of the economic freedom we enjoy in this country. Is the president going to stand up in the middle of this dinner, raise his $200 glass of Dom Pérignon, flash that Presidential smile of his, and say "thank you all for coming. But, none of you actually did any of this. Someone else made it possible. Your wealth is not the result of your own personal laboring and years of determination. However, I still thank you all for the $35,000 you have each graciously invested in my campaign here tonight." If he does, I can say I will be shocked, dumbfounded, and will renounce my conservative views and political aspirations for the rest of my life because at that point, I really don't think there will be any hope whatsoever in salvaging what little dignity we have left as a nation.

The President can talk all he wants about how the wealthy are out of touch with the general population, about how they need to contribute more and more to what is "their fair share" of the common expenses, and about how he doesn't believe they are the primary job creators in the country. But, he will never escape the unwavering truth that even he needs the top 1% to keep his job.

IRS Apparently Has a Taste for Gold

2012-08-03T10:12:00.001-04:00

IRS to Claim Piece of Olympic Prizes

CBS: IRS Wants It's Share of the Prize Money

That's right. The Internal Revenue Service is waiting at the gates of the Olympic Village in London to claim it's share of the prize money awarded to US Olympic medalists. In addition to the medal itself, athletes are awarded a monetary prize as well: $25,000 for gold, $15,000 for silver and $10,000 for bronze -- and that prize money is completely TAXABLE.

Florida Senator Marco Rubio has introduced legislation that would eliminate the piece of the US tax code that applies to US Olympic prize money - a tax code that Rubio suggests "too often punishes success."

I most certainly share Rubio's sentiment, particularly when it comes to the hard work, dedication, patriotism, and talent of our amazing American athletes. The government will do anything and everything it can to take a piece of what you earn as an individual. I hope it is starting to become clear to the left why we Conservatives are so passionately opposed to bigger government.

To the IRS, I say this: "You didn't earn that. Someone else made that happen!" That someone is a young man or woman whose countless hours of labor and determination were rewarded in plain view of the entire world with an American flag flying high in the background - and for the IRS to think they have a rightful claim to a single penny of that prize money is insulting not only to the athlete, but to the American people as well.

2012 London Olympics Medal Spread

2012-08-02T11:46:00.000-04:00

2012 London Olympics Medal Spread

A little off the topic of this blog, but I felt it necessary to point out that the US has OVERTAKEN China in number of medals won so far in the 2012 Olympic Games! However, we are still behind in number of gold medals: the most important category. Let's go USA!

Chick-Fil-A Facing Controversial Political Pressure

2012-08-02T08:54:00.002-04:00

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/01/nyc-council-speaker-christine-quinn-asks-nyu-to-evict-chick-fil/

Christine Quinn, the New York City Council Speaker, is not particularly happy with the opinion and comments of Chick-Fil-A President and COO Dan Cathy. Last week, Cathy released a statement that affirmed his belief in the traditional, or "biblical" definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. In response to his statement, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino sent a scathing letter to the fast-food president assuring him that Boston would not be welcoming of a Chick-Fil-A franchise being opened in the city.

It appears that officials in other cities reacted with similar distaste...but perhaps with a bit more political momentum. Christine Quinn sent a letter to NYU President John Sexton urging him to end their contract with Chick-Fil-A, who has an operating franchise on the NYU campus. Making it perfectly clear exactly who she was and what political power she possessed, Quinn stated that "NYC is a place where we celebrate diversity" and that she "[does] not want establishments in [her] city that hold such discriminatory views."

There are a number of alarming problems that come to mind as I read Quinn's letter. But, the first and most probing question I have is, since when does a government official have the power to use political pressure in order to coerce the termination of a particular business in a city? It seems to me that there is little doubt that Quinn was using her political power in a threatening manner, even though she came out publicly after the letter was released and denied claims that she attempted to pressure the university president with her title. This is the exact same kind of improper use of power that we saw in Boston from Mayor Menino last week. It is truly a sad day in the United States when a Mayor or a City Council Speaker or otherwise believes it is within their governmental jurisdiction to control the flow of business on a near-micro level.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees Dan Cathy his right to speak his mind without fear of governmental suppression, coercion, threatening, or demeaning. Regardless of Qunn's personal feelings on gay marriage, she has just as much right to advocate for it as Cathy has to advocate against it. Both can contribute private donations to organizations that share their views thanks to the economic freedom afforded us by our foundational document. However, the difference between Cathy and Quinn must be recognized in some fashion, and this fashion is in political power. Quinn has the power to effect political change in the government of New York City. Cathy does not. Christine Quinn, in this case, is in possession of the "monopoly on power"; power that Cathy does not have. This is precisely why such action on the part of a government official cannot be allowed or tolerated in ANY manner. In fact, I dare say Quinn should be rightfully punished for her acts.

Finally, this issue of Gay Marriage has again become a hot-button issue for the United States in the wake of Dan Cathy's comments. I am not going to disclose how I personally feel about it here, but I will make one very important recognition. The gay marriage debate is NOT over. There does not exist any sort of common sentiment or consensus on the matter in one direction or the other. In fact, most research will show the country is almost exactly split in half on the social issue. Therefore, for Quinn or Menino or anyone else to claim that Cathy's opinion is bigoted, socially unacceptable, or is so audaciously contrary to an overwhelmingly popular and uniform societal perspective that it undoubtedly warrants a public flogging by a government official is a complete falsehood and a travesty.

Make no mistake; I have no qualms about elected officers voicing their opinions in public, even if I disagree with them. However, I have a very pronounced and passionate opposition to allowing politicians to single out individuals and threaten them to the point of silence or fear with the use of their lawmaker-status. That is a government right that I am willing to leave for the Communists and Dictators.

UN Gun Treaty "Out of Arms Reach"

2012-07-30T08:58:00.001-04:00

http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/un-gun-grab-treaty-dead-libs-shoot-at-obama/

This past Friday, the US backed down from the high-profile United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) that would have curbed a large market of international arms trade and may require member nations to enact stricter gun control laws within their borders in order to better comply with the treaty.

In what gun rights advocates are certainly calling a "Second Amendment victory", the treaty, which President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had planned on signing last week, appears dead in the water, at least for now. The US, Russia, Indonesia, and India withdrew from the treaty agreement to rethink their position. But why the sudden change of heart? The way I see it, there are three primary reasons why the US made this move after both the President and Secretary of State had announced such a passionate support for the treaty:

First, as I pointed out in a blog post the other day, a bi-partisan group of 51 Senators wrote a letter to President Obama in which they threatened to vote against the treaty if they felt it unconstitutionally infringed upon the Second Amendment. The Senators cited their concern that our national sovereignty would be threatened if global laws were enacted that controlled arms trade to this extent and urged the President to back down from the draft treaty if it didn't expressly recognize and protect our Second Amendment rights. You can find a more detailed article about this here.

A second reason for the wide spread opposition to ATT is the provision that states no treaty can directly alter or overrule the US Constitution. As the article here-linked points out, Thomas Jefferson made it blisteringly clear that if international treaty powers were unlimited, there would be no Constitution. Therefore, a treaty such as ATT could have the potential to seriously undermine our Constitution.

Finally, in the wake of the tragic massacre in Colorado and with the upcoming election, I hardly think the President wants to be seen as politicizing such an event for his own personal gain. President Obama and Governor Romney are locked in a dead heat race for the White House and I am sure the President is aware that this treaty is far less than "unpopular" amongst the American People. Bi-partisan groups of citizens have already come forward illustrating their distaste for the exportation of our national sovereignty. That being said, this is just another reason why the election in November is so very important. If the President is reelected, I have absolutely no doubt that he will try to revive the UN Gun Treaty.

Being a Second Amendment supporter and practitioner, I am elated to hear this great news and it makes me proud (finally) that our Congress is showing their support for our Constitution. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about some of their actions in the past, but this is something I feel more strongly about than most other things.

For now the United States has made it clear to the rest of the world that we answer to no foreign power, organization, or otherwise when it comes to the rights and liberties we enjoy within our borders. I am once again as proud as ever to be a citizen of the United States of America.

"This we'll defend."

Large Group of Senators May Oppose UN Gun Treaty

2012-07-27T17:58:00.000-04:00

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/26/group-51-senators-voice-concerns-with-arms-treaty/

For the first time in a while I can actually say "Let's Go Senate!" I really hope the Senate makes me proud and shoots down this UN arms treaty that would severely compromise our national sovereignty when it comes to protecting the Second Amendment.

Q2 of 2012 Shows 1.5% Economic Growth Rate

2012-07-27T11:10:00.000-04:00

In Q2 of 2012 the economy slowed to a dismal 1.5% growth rate.

When George Bush took office, the economy was clocked at an annual growth rate of 1.1%. Once Bush passed his tax cut policy, between 2001 and 2005 the economy began growing at an average annual rate of 2.8% and job growth was 6.5% on average. During these years, the US outperformed ALL other comparable nations in GDP growth, investment, industrial production, employment, labor productivity, and price stability.

Standard growth goals are somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.5% - 5%. Anything higher is unsustainable and anything lower shows signs of a RECESSION. Obama's economic policies are crippling the economy and there are no 2 ways about it.

Anti-Gun Senator Uses Second Amendment to Protect His Family

2012-07-27T10:34:00.002-04:00

http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/group/tennesseesgp/forum/topic/show?id=2488056%3ATopic%3A590826&xg

This just goes to show you what's wrong with the anti-gun rights advocates in Congress. I think this is a perfect example of how these Senators and Representatives think they are exempt from what they preach. There's just simply something wrong here: a Senator PASSIONATELY advocates for very stringent gun laws that would PROHIBIT a citizen to lawfully do EXACTLY what this Senator did to protect his family. Perhaps Soles believes he has the right to self-defense, but the remainder of "the masses" do not.

Could this be that the liberals in Congress are trying to arm themselves while simultaneously disarming the public? First signs of a police state is what I say.

Mr. Romney Goes to London

2012-07-27T09:20:00.001-04:00

https://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/world/2012/jul/26/mitt-romney-olympics-blunder?fb_source=other_multiline&post_gdp=true

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/mitt-romney/9431064/Mitt-Romneys-Olympics-gaffe-overshadows-visit-to-London.html

These are two interesting articles that detail Mitt Romney's visit to London this week during which he made some controversial comments about the way he felt preparations for the Olympic Games were going. In a meeting with Government Leaders, Romney mentioned that he heard of “a few things that were disconcerting" about the security measures being taken in the midst of the biggest world athletic event in 4 years. Romney's comments sparked a bit of a backlash from David Cameron and other high profile characters here in the US, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. One of the articles suggests that Romney's "gaffe" in London was a gift for President Obama in what is surely turning out to be a very close and heated Presidential campaign.

I have mixed feelings on the former Governor's comments. First of all, I am not at all surprised that what he said made London officials somewhat angry. Imagine how some of us Americans would feel if Prime Minister Tony Blair came to Salt Lake City in 2002 and made similar comments. "What the heck does he know", we would say. "This is America, not London." However, I can understand Romney's sentiment. The British officials in charge of conducting security for the Games have decided to use, almost exclusively, private security teams to maintain order. That being a bit different than how we would handle things here in the US, it could reasonably prompt some mixed responses. But, the fact of the matter is that the London police force is not necessarily equipped in a way that makes them effective enough to handle this type of high-profile event. Anyone who has ever been to London knows that the common police force doesn't even carry firearms. Without getting into it here, I am not particularly fond of privatized security in combat situations like Afghanistan or Iraq, but I see no reason to believe that they can't handle this type of security.

Another thing that didn't at all surprise me was the Democratic response to Romney's London visit. It seems to me that in the past and in particular with the current administration, the Democrats have been remarkably concerned with America's "insulting" of foreign leaders with our "arrogant attitude". I really don't see how this case is any different for them. It's not at all a shock that they would condemn Romney's remarks as distasteful and out of place. After all, when was the last time Harry Reid had anything good to say about Romney. Personally, I too am concerned about security given all the arrests they have been making in the UK due to suspected terrorist plots.

I would hardly call Romney's comments a "gift for the Obama campaign". Nevertheless, I still think the London Olympics will go well with no major bumps in the road.

So, go USA!

2012-07-26T12:59:00.000-04:00

http://www.wistv.com/story/19112018/gun-toting-89-year-old-sc-widow-scares-burglars
This is a great story. Always good to hear about regular folks who can put an end to trouble before it happens. I guess these guys will think twice next time they try to pick on the elder community!

2012-07-26T08:47:00.002-04:00

Here is a link to a letter written by Boston Mayor Thomas Menino to Dan Cathy, the President of Chick-Fil-A fast food restaurant. http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/downtown/2012/07/boston_mayor_thomas_m_meninos.html

The letter is in response to a comment made by the Chick-Fil-A President in which he stated that he supports the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. The letter outlines Mayor Menino's opposition to the opinion and makes it clear that Chick-Fil-A's effort to open a location in Boston is being considered by the Mayor's Office to be "an insult" to the gay community of Boston.

This is far beyond an issue of equal marriage rights. Even being a practicing Catholic, I have mixed opinions about the matter. Instead, what concerns me is the Mayor's blatant opposition to the opening of new business in his city. In a time when our nation suffers from an astonishingly high unemployment rate, this is not the time to be stonewalling business leaders because of a mere childish disagreement on social matters.

Furthermore, the United States is a pridefully free nation where businesses are afforded the opportunity to grow and expand without the strangling control of government. What the Mayor of Boston is doing is sending a message to job creators that any who may disagree with his social agenda will experience an environment hostile to business expansion. Our economy has it bad enough without the politically-charged propaganda of city officials driving away job creation. Our country is in desperate need of employment opportunity and this not the time to be inhibiting job growth in the name of politics.

My Thoughts on the Colorado Massacre

2012-07-25T18:51:00.001-04:00

Put this on my Facebook wall this past Friday.

I write about gun rights each and every day of the week, and today is certainly no exception. It's no secret that anyone who writes about such a topic on a day like today will be denounced as being insensitive to the tragedy at hand on the basis that we are manipulating the suffering of others in an attempt to gain greater political footing. Quite the contrary; the critics of gun rights advocates who speak out today are the ones practicing politics. They speak out against our cause not in the name of sensitivity or political correctness or some higher moral ground, but rather because they believe that today, they have more of a right and reason to silence us.

The way I see it, it is even more relevant and important to advocate today more than any other. The massacre in Colorado is a demonstration of how important responsible gun owners can be. One person skilled in the use of a firearm could have prevented the deaths of a dozen people. One lone individual with the capacity for self-protection may very well be the only fighting chance that a crowd of hundreds of helpless people have to avoid tragic death. We are, to an extent, responsible for our own safety. Through our efforts to protect ourselves, we are in turn protecting those around us from tragedies like this.

My heart goes out to the Colorado victims and their families; they'll all be in my thoughts and prayers for weeks to come. But bear in mind: as human beings, we all have the capacity, the right, and the responsibility to preserve our own security when the powers that be cannot preserve it for us.

First Post...Here Goes Nothing

2012-07-25T18:32:00.001-04:00

Hey folks,

So I just started this blog a few days ago because of my tendency to write about a variety of different political issues for which I have passionate convictions. Until now, I have pretty much exclusively used my Facebook account for my political ranting, but I decided to give this whole blogging idea a try. So, for those of you who are interested in listening to people write about political issues, I have created this blog called Freedom Central for your entertainment. Beyond that, the purpose of this is more to provide me with a place to vent my political steam when things get a little too heated on Facebook. Not sure how popular this blog will get, nor do I really even know how this kind of thing works, but like I said, this is more for me than anything.