Tuesday, April 20, 2010


As everyone here knows, Montana is one of several states rediscovering the good old 10th Amendment and passing bills such as the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming, South Dakota, Arizona, and Idaho have already passed similar acts and they are pending in more states and growing. The ATF has already told Tennessee their law is too Constitutional, thus illegal. Knowing the feds would throw a hissy fit, individual states...including those who haven't yet even actually passed such bills...are joining together in a lawsuit against the feds in defense of firearms freedom-type acts.

Conspicuously absent in all this wrangling for 2nd Amendment freedom, as in Iowa, is (surprise!) the good old National Rifle Association. From a story in Montana's Flathead Beacon.

Some supporters have grumbled that the NRA has been working quietly to scuttle the firearms freedom act in some states, while simply ignoring it in others. Backers in Louisiana just this week dropped the legislation, in part blaming the NRA's refusal to take a position on the issue.

Another national gun group, Gun Owners of America, has been enthusiastically backing the measure. Chairman Larry Pratt thinks it's a winner with their constituents and a growing coalition...

"There is an enthusiasm about this that is very unusual," he said. "I think we are rapidly approaching the point where the federal government is out of the mainstream."

But the bandwagon does not include the NRA, which warned members last year in its magazine not to test the firearms freedom act laws on their own. The article stated that "no one who puts himself in that situation should expect support from the NRA."

Like Jesse Jackson and government agencies too numerous to mention, the NRA no longer even wants to solve any problems. Solve them, and you lose all that money and power. But what can you expect from an organization whose Vice President, Wayne LaPierre, shuns the Nevada Tea Party so he can have lunch with (and kiss ass with) Harry Reid? Thanks for nothing, boys.

Meanwhile, as the state-run media and various leftist politicians continue to piss their pants over "violent" Tea Party "Hatriots", they have been conspicuously silent about stories such as the one in our last column.

And these:

Last Wednesday union thugs rammed their way through the Boston Tea Party Rally where Sarah Palin was speaking. They threw punches, insulted protesters, and screamed through a bullhorn. On Thursday, two democratic officials, Steve Belosi and John Durajczyk stood up, screamed and disrupted Lt. Governor Peter Kinder during his tea party speech in St. Charles, Missouri. One of the thugs screamed at an elderly woman until she started crying. At the Sacramento tea party rally Martin Francis Brown rushed the stage and started screaming until he was slammed down on the back.

Now, they are strangely silent about Democratic donor Erik Lawrence Pidrman. He was recently arrested by the FBI for death threats against GOP Representative Ginny Brown-Waite. “Just wanna let you know I have 27 people that are going to make sure that this [expletive deleted] does not live to see her next term. Good-bye.”

Realizing the importance of such incidents, including those of actual physical violence from the left, the Ministry of Truth quickly responded by accusing Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Rush Limbaugh of sedition. On PMSNBC's Whiffle Ball With Chris Matthews, aka The Tingly Leg Obama Worshipers' Hour, correspondents from Time and New York magazines did indeed make these accusations.

Time columnist Joe Kleine...consulting his "notes", crudely scribbled in crayon on a napkin, like a true journalistic professional...accused Beck and Palin of sedition, which he defined as "conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state." The other guest, John Heilemann, quickly levied the same charge against Rush Limbaugh for referring to the Obama administration as a regime and, with tiresome predictably, played the race card. The race card has become almost a reflex action for those with no sentient argument to present. As host, Chris Matthews was too busy dry-humping the leg of his life-size inflatable Obama doll to respond with anything more than a nod.

Speaking of definitions, boys, I dug out my old 1,230-page (it looks like a paperback romance novel compared to the health care bill) college copy of Webster's. Here's the definition of regime.

Regime: n. a system of rule or government
any systematic organizational control
the length of time during which a system or organization is in force
a recurring pattern of prevailing conditions, activity, etc.
the character of a river with respect to its rate of flow.

Rush is being far too kind to Obama's administration. I prefer:

Dictatorship: n. a form of government in which power is held by a dictator without effective constitutional checks.

No comments: