Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (31702)	1/27/2009 11:06:11 AM
From: Peter Dierks	1 Recommendation Respond to of 71588

Stop This Man by Ted Nugent 01/27/2009 One sector of the American economy that is booming is the absolute orgy of guns and ammunition sales. I am pretty certain President Obama will not say anything positive about this economic news. I have read more than one report that shows how the surge of civilian firepower sales began back when it appeared that Obama was likely to be elected. The already-brisk guns and ammo market blew up another 25% once he was elected. Reason: freedom lovers do not trust liberal President Obama. His nomination for Attorney General, Mr. Eric Holder, proves that distrust is justified. Continued Both President Obama and Mr. Holder are avowed gun-control zealots--typical of the loony, anti-freedom wing of the Democratic Party. Do not believe President Obama's or Mr. Holder's thinly veiled statements about supporting an individual's right to own guns, but rather review their previous career long, freedom-restricting, gun-grabbing statements. Mr. Holder has a long, ugly record of attacking freedom. He has consistently supported gun bans, raising the age that someone can purchase a weapon, supporting registration and licensing, waiting periods, and his all-time favorite-the felon's dream of gun-free zone sheeple. Fact: Mr. Holder has never met a socialist gun control measure he did not like. Just last year, Mr. Holder signed an amicus brief in support of Washington DC's ban on all handguns and the use of a gun for self-defense in DC homes. He stated, "the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms" and that the Second Amendment was only intended for government militias. The Supreme Court found otherwise and found that DC's anti-freedom and pro-crime gun control law was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court voted for freedom. The good guys won, President Obama and Holder lost to the Supreme Court. Go figure. Mysteriously, when Mr. Holder worked for President Clinton and in charge of the instant background check system, the system was routinely broken and off-line. Miraculously, when the Bush administration took over in 2001 the system rarely broke down. Is that a coincidence? Maybe. And maybe not. I’m in the “maybe not” camp. Truth is, what Mr. Holder really supports is more law-abiding citizens being victimized by recidivistic, violent punks on parole. If enacted, his anti-freedom views will create more innocent victims and Mr. Holder knows it. While Mr. Holder is personally protected by heavily armed law enforcement officers, he does not believe you and I have a right to protect ourselves and our loved ones with a gun. He is a hypo-hypocrite who deserves to be exposed, and I challenge our senators to vote against his confirmation. To those who tried to expose his views in the confirmation hearing, I say “attaboy.” But Holder bobbed and weaved and really didn’t answer the questions. So now the ONLY thing conservative senators can do is vote against his confirmation. Every one of our founding fathers supported an individual's right to own guns. Unlike President Obama and Mr. Holder, these vanguards of freedom understood that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can not be achieved without being able to protect yourself and your loved ones from human scum who would deny you these fundamental God-given rights. Our founding fathers were also very distrustful of any government that would restrict its citizens from owning guns. Clearly, Mr. Holder and President Obama disagree with our founding fathers. It matters not to Mr. Holder the tens of thousands of innocent law-abiding citizens who are victims of violent thugs in America each year. Mr. Holder does not care that law-abiding citizens use guns roughly two million times each year to stop crime and save innocent lives. These facts, however interesting, fall on the deaf ears of Mr. Holder and President Obama. Makes one wonder just who's side they are on, doesn't it? What President Obama and Mr. Holder obviously want is control. Instead of citizens, they want to make us their Fedzilla subjects. Studying other gun-grabbing regimes of the past, they know the first thing that needs to be done to turn us from citizens to subjects is to disarm us. My advice to American freedom lovers is to continue to buy more guns and more ammunition and to join the National Rifle Association. If Mr. Holder's anti-freedom views are not reprehensible enough, as the number two guy at the Department of Justice Mr. Holder worked to commute the jail sentences of unrepentant FALN terrorists in 1999 so that Mrs. Clinton could gain political points with Puerto Rican voters while she was campaigning for the US Senate in New York. And this is the guy President Obama wants to be the chief law enforcement officer of the United States? God help us all. Mr. Holder is no friend of freedom or the Second Amendment. He is not worthy to be your city's dog catcher much less our Attorney General. humanevents.com

To: longnshort who wrote (31702)	3/10/2009 9:52:55 AM
From: Peter Dierks	1 Recommendation Respond to of 71588

'A Time-Honored Procedure'--Oh,Wait! That Was Last Term! Four years ago, when Republicans had a majority in the Senate and Democrats were using filibusters to block votes on President Bush's judicial nominees, the editorialists at the New York Times were aghast at the threat to "a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod." They also faulted the GOP for hypocrisy, since during the Clinton administration Republican senators had filibustered some presidential nominees (though not for the bench). Now the Democrats are in the same position as the Republicans then: They hold the White House and a Senate majority shy of 60 votes. Predictably enough, the New York Times is now aghast that the Republicans may use a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod: Republican senators have fired off an intemperate letter threatening--you got it--filibusters if Mr. Obama's nominees are not to their liking. Mr. Obama should not let the Republicans' saber-rattling interfere with how he chooses judges. Arguments about procedure are often made cynically, and there are times when that is appropriate: The job of a lawyer in court, for instance, is to further the interests of his client; it is up to the judge to safeguard the integrity of the court's procedures. One could argue that the Times, as an advocate for liberal ideology, is not obliged to be overly concerned with procedure. But imagine if a lawyer asked a judge to show favoritism toward his client in procedural rulings "because, your honor, my client is just right." Any competent judge would laugh at such a silly argument. Yet that is exactly the approach the Times takes here: A filibuster can be an appropriate response when it is clear that a particular nominee would be a dangerous addition to the bench. So a filibuster is fine to block a judge the Times doesn't like, but outrageous to block one it does like. There is nothing more to this argument than that the ends justify the means--in which case why bother making an obviously phony argument about the means? online.wsj.com