I though this was absolutely hilarious so I thought I would share.
The OBAMA Song! (Official Version)
Monthly Archive for March, 2009
January 30th the House Judiciary Committee passed an amended version of House Bill 228 otherwise known as the Montana Self-Defense Bill.
The original text of HB 228 contained the following provisions:
- No duty to summon help or flee. You can read about the Castle Doctrine here.
- Defensive display of a firearm. This states that you can open carry a firearm and cannot be charged with brandishing the weapon if you display it for harmless defensive purposes.
- Landlords and hotel operators may not restrict a tenants rights to defend themselves.
- Allows law abiding citizens to use reasonable force when executing a citizens arrest when such an arrest is allowed by law.
- Ensures that claims of self defense are given adequate consideration during investigation.
- If self defense is claimed in a criminal case then the state and not the defendant must bear the burden of providing evidence to validate or invalidate this claim.
- Attorney fees must be awarded if self defense is proved in a criminal case.
- Firearms seized during investigation of a self defense claim must be returned within the defined timelines.
- Firearms are not to be destroyed if they are not needed as evidence.
- Employers may not restrict you possessing the tools necessary to defend yourself.
House Bill 228 was amended prior to leaving the House Judiciary Committee and three of the provisions were removed. The removed provisions are:
- Attorney fees must be awarded if self defense is proved in a criminal case.
- Firearms seized during investigation of a self defense claim must be returned within the defined timelines.
- Employers may not restrict you possessing the tools necessary to defend yourself.
This bill ensures that both your natural rights as stated in the Declaration of Independence, and your 2nd Amendment Rights as stated in the Constitution are protected. It is imperative that this bill passes the senate without further amendments. The three removed provisions have already taken a bite out of the importance of this bill.
Your Liberties strongly urges you to contact your local representatives and urge them to protect our rights as American citizens by supporting HB 228. We also strongly urge you to contact your local representatives and advise them that this bill is essential to protect our constitutional and natural rights.
Thomas Lifson from American Thinker posted a great review of the much anticipated book Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin. Head over to American Thinker and read the review. You can pick up your copy on Amazon.
The birth of the first man and woman to roam the earth marked the beginning of the concept of natural rights. Regardless of your spiritual affiliation one truth remains constant - we are all created equal. Life is an individual gift that cannot and shall not be compromised by anyone. Natural rights are the rights we inherit with the gift of life, they are universal and fall outside the scope of legal rights.
Natural rights, also known as inalienable rights are not bound by the laws, customs, or beliefs of a given society. One of the first formal applications of natural rights is from Islamic law which denied a ruler
the right to take away from his subjects certain rights which inhere in his or her person as a human being.
In the 1600’s John Locke discussed natural rights. He defined life, liberty, and estate as your natural rights. Locke attached the following definitions to his concept of natural rights.
- Life - Everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
- Liberty - Everyone is entitled to do anything they want so long as it does not conflict with the first right.
- Estate - Everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it does not conflict with the first two rights.
Locke’s work argued that these natural rights could not fall to the theory of social contract. The social contract theory describes inalienable rights as those rights that cannot be relinquished to government.
As citizens of the United States we are afforded natural rights by the Declaration of Independence.
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. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The preamble expresses that if the government interferes with these rights that we have the right to “alter or abolish” said government. With the liberal trash that is polluting our government today the time is now to take a look at our current administration in relation to our natural rights. Obama’s big, pushy, socialist government will not, and cannot stand.
The presidential Messiah is mounting an attack on our natural rights. His political opinions teamed with those of his liberal counterparts interfere with your right to defend your life, your freedom, your home, and your funds. In the coming parts of this article we will look at why, and what you can do.
What is wrong with our administration when an upright, honest, brave, and experienced man is denied the ability to purchase a firearm for the purpose of defense. This story depicts the trials and tribulations of an Omaha, Nebraska man who was first denied his right to keep and bear arms because he suffers or had suffered from PTSD as a result of serving our nation in Iraq.
First of all, he answered the question regarding being treated for a mental disorder honestly. I would hardly classify seeing a counselor once every 3 months as being “treated”, I see my dentist almost as frequently as this guy sees his counselor, my dentist isn’t treating for any kind of condition, its more preventative maintenance.
He is a vet, he was trusted by our country to train new soldiers to safely fire their weapons in defense of our country. I don’t believe that an exception can be made based on this fact but we must acknowledge that our armed forces trusts his abilities to handle and operate a firearm.
I commend Mr. Mechaley, he had the determination to seek an appeal on the denial of his application. He made a very compelling argument relating to sworn duty officers, those who patrol our streets and keep us safe. Many LEO experience PTSD as a result of incidents that occur while in the line of duty, these officers are still allowed and even required to carry a firearm. Representatives from the police department did not reject this argument. Mr. Mechaley also made the suggestion that the permit be reworded to ask the applicant if they have ever been declared mentally impaired, or been comitted to a mental institution. I would agree that the question need to be revised to remove the vaugness.
I also commend the city of Omaha for overturning the denial.
The problem I really have here is that hoops are put in place and we are made to jump through them in order to obtain a firearm. I believe there is a hard line than can be drawn in the sand regarding who should and should not be allowed to own a weapon, and our applicant does not fall anywhere near that line. This is a half hearted attempt at supressing our 2nd ammendment rights and we shall not stand for it.
To quote Thomas Sowell
Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.
I find this very fitting today, all this liberal banter about equality makes me sick. The bailouts, the redistribution of wealth, the standardization of “quality of life”, socialized health care, blah blah blah … I get up every morning, work hard, and enjoy the fruits of my labor. What I do with my free time and money is just that … MINE. It is unconstitutional for the government to force me to provide a quality of life to those who were given the same opportunities I was, but chose to be lazy instead. If I choose to show compassion and share what I have worked for it is once again MY decision. I will decide who, how, and for what reasons.
Willis Player, another great mind is quoted as saying
A liberal is a person whose interests aren’t at stake at the moment.
Once again, couldn’t be further from the truth. I have many years of hard work on the table and from hard work comes both material and immaterial possessions. These belong to me and I will do what I see fit with them. Personal responsibility is at the helm, if you made your bed you lay in it.
I work hard to provide health insurance to my family. If you were too lazy to take advantage of our public schools in order to prepare yourself to be a contributing member of society that’s your fault.
I work hard to put a roof over the heads of my family. If you choose to milk the rest of us for your government funded housing then I hope you sleep well at night.
I work hard to put food on the table. If you abuse our welfare system because your too lazy to work then I really hope your happy with yourself, because I am not.
Get a job, work hard, be happy. It’s that simple.
1. Open a new file in your computer.
2. Name it ‘Barack Obama’.
3. Send it to the Recycle Bin.
4. Empty the Recycle Bin.
5. Your PC will ask you: ‘Do you really want to get rid of ‘Barack Obama?’
6. Firmly Click ‘Yes.’
7. Feel better?
GOOD - Tomorrow we’ll do Nancy Pelosi!
A few days ago Ron Paul on Bloomberg TV said in a few different words that it was immoral and unconstitutional to transfer wealth from productive to non productive members of society.
This opinion paired with the paragraph buried in Obamas Mortgage Modification Plan about forgiving second liens has got me all worked up. Dr. Paul is absolutely correct in thinking that it’s immoral and unconstitutional to force me pay higher taxes to fix a problem I did not cause.
I live within my means, I went to college, I own a home, I pay my bills on time every month. Sometimes I am not left with a whole lot to entertain myself with but such is life. I’ve struggled in the past - but I NEVER asked for a handout. I was given the same opportunities as a child that every American is given. I went to public school where I was not forced to learn but chose to learn. Hell … I even donate to charities and give unused household items to the salvation army to help those who are down on their luck.
The majority of mortgage fiasco has not been caused by people who are down on their luck, its been caused by ignorant citizens who over spent their means. Evolution is centered around the concept of survival of the fittest, same concept applies here. It is not my responsibility to bail your sorry ass out because you needed a 4800 square foot house for you and your dog, or because you needed that addition to your home for the indoor pool. Let them all fail, teach them a lesson. Don’t give them a clean slate, make them work for it. Have some money stashed away for a rainy day, don’t blow your savings on that fancy 70inch flat screen to hang above your twin bed.
Failure is recoverable, you will be back on your feet with some hard work, you can even be successful if you work hard enough. Look at Obama he failed at life and hes now the president. Turns out he is failing at that too but that’s neither here nor there.
On February 25th Attorney General Eric Holder was quoted as saying
As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to re institute the ban on the sale of assault weapons.
Well Obama can take his “assault weapon ban” and shove it up his liberal ass.
First of all lets define an assault weapons as used by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 which caries the subtitle of Federal Assault Weapons Ban.
A semi-automatic rifle that accepts detachable magazines, and two or more of the following is an assault weapon.
- A folding, or telescopic stock.
- A pistol grip.
- A bayonet mount.
- A flash suppressor, or a threaded barrel that may accommodate one.
- A grenade launcher.
A semi-automatic pistol that accepts detachable magazines, and two or more of the following is an assault weapon.
- A magazine that attaches to the pistols grip.
- A threaded barrel to attach a barrel extender, a flash suppressor, a handgrip, or a suppressor.
- A barrel shroud that could be used as a hand-hold.
- Has an unloaded weight of more than 50 oz.
- A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm.
A semi-automatic shotgun with two of more of the following is an assault weapon.
- A folding, or telescopic stock.
- A pistol grip.
- Has a fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds.
- A detachable magazine.
Now lets give an assault weapon a more valid definition.
An assault weapon has the following characteristics:
- It is a single weapon that has the ability to be fired from the shoulder.
- It must be capable of selective fire. Be that semi-automatic with the option of burst or fully automatic.
- It must chambered for an intermediate power cartridge being more than a pistol and less than a standard rifle.
- Its ammunition must be supplied by a detachable box style magazine.
The definition used by the government for the Federal Assault Weapons Ban is ridiculous at best. I will use one of my favorite rifles of all time for a couple of examples on why I think the feds definition has no substance. The Ruger 10/22 is a small caliber varmint rifle use for hunting small game and general “plinking”. This platform is highly customizable with the ability to add a folding or telescopic stock, a pistol grip, a suppressor, and with a little ingenuity a bayonet mount. All these items are currently legal and it needs to remain that way. Is this rifle any more dangerous to the overpopulated prarie dog towns that riddle our country? Not hardly, sure it can have a folding stock, a pistol grip, and a suppressor, but it still fires without any of the above. The same holds true for one of my other favorite rifles - the AR-15. It can accept all of the accessories that would classify it as assault rifle according to Obama. But once again without any or all of the items it still fires - one round per trigger squeeze.
My point is this … assault weapons as defined by the Federal Assault Weapons ban are no more dangerous than their non Assault Weapon counterparts. Its the assault weapons as defined by the second definition that scare the ever living hell out of me.
Is a rifle that can fire multiple rounds per trigger pull more dangerous than a rifle that can fire only one round per trigger pull? You bet your ass it is! These types of weapons have been strictly controlled since the National Firearms Act of 1934. You can still own and purchase NFA titled weapons manufactured before 1986 but because of the basic economic principle of supply and demand they are much more difficult to find, and they are very expensive. Economics will keep legal NFA weapons out of the hands of those who intend to do harm with them. An Assault Weapon Ban will not reduce or eliminate the undergound market for illegal NFA weapons which is the real problem, if you think it will then you really are more of a dumbass than you portray yourself to be.
These days we hear story after story of people defending themselves in their own homes. I want to take a look at our rights and responsibilities when confronted by an intruder in our own homes.
The Castle Doctrine, or the Defense of Habitation Law is a derived from English Common Law. The law defines ones home, or in some cases any place that you legally occupy, as a place where you have the liberty to be free from trespass. It also gives you the right to defend your life, or the life of another who legally occupies the “castle” with deadly force if the situation warrants it. In a legal proceeding your actions can be defended as justifiable under the Castle Doctrine.
The Castle Doctrine is currently enforced at the state level, and this is the way it should remain in order to limit the involvement of the federal government. However not all states have or support the right to defend yourself in your home. The opposition of the Castle Doctrine is termed the “Duty to Retreat”.
Each state with some form of Castle Doctrine requires that at least of one the following conditions is met (per Wikipedia):
- An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
- The intruder must be acting illegally — e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
- The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
- The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
- The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
- The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the “Duty to Retreat” and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of “Castle Doctrine” expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)
In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.
The list of states that have no Castle Doctrine are:
- Iowa
- New Mexico
- New York
- Oregon
- Virginia
- Wisconsin
- District of Columbia
If you live in one of these states, then forgive me, but I am sorry. According to our Second Amendment as described in the Heller Opinion not having a Castle Doctrine is a violation of this liberty. We each have the individual right to keep and bear arms for private use (including self-defense). With any form of Duty to Retreat in place this encroaches on our right to bear arms for the purpose of self defense. It is not as blatant a violation as the assault weapons ban but requiring you to retreat in any manner is preventing you for defending yourself. Self preservation is a natural instinct brought out by fear and pain. I have moral and ethical objections to any law that requires me to keep myself in the presence of a threat when the Second Amendment affords me the right to stop the threat.
As citizens we all have obligations to uphold our constitution. If you reside in one of the states listed above I urge you to express to your state that not having a Castle Doctrine is a violation of your Second Amendment rights.
I welcome information regarding active petitions to enact a Castle Doctrine in the above states.