Posted on 01/21/2005 9:26:27 AM PST by Iconoclast2
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
This may be a first.
I, Joseph Farah, am joining with an informal coalition that includes the Communist Party USA, People for the American Way and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund to block confirmation of the Alberto Gonzales as attorney general.
Granted, my reasons for opposing this guy are a bit different that the groups named above. But I agree with them that he must be stopped.
I never had much use for Gonzales, but the last straw came this week when he told the U.S. Senate he supports extending the expired federal assault weapons ban.
First of all, let me speak plainly: There is no such thing as an "assault weapon." The guns included in this ban, and previous misguided legislation passed by federal and state governments, are not automatics. They are not machine-guns. They fire one round at a time, like hundreds of other firearms that people use to hunt deer, shoot skeet or simply to protect themselves and their families from those who would take their lives, their liberty or their property.
I have challenged my colleagues in the press – time and time again – to define the term "assault weapon." They can't do it. There is no definition. They are firearms defined not by what they do, but by how they look – scary. Nevertheless, the press continues this subterfuge. It is disinformation and propaganda that is leading to the erosion of our inherent rights as Americans and our ability to preserve those rights.
What is an "assault weapon"?
I can define it for you: It's any weapon that looks mean. It's any weapon government officials want to take away from you. Taking them is the first step toward disarming all U.S. citizens in direct defiance of the U.S. Constitution.
Let's be clear on something: The Founding Fathers didn't write the Second Amendment to protect deer hunters or skeet shooters.
Deer hunting was not on the minds of the framers of our Constitution. They understood that without arms the people would be no match for the kind of powerful government we have in Washington, D.C., today.
So often, the gun grabbers portray themselves as crime fighters. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even in a representative republic, when civil order breaks down, as it inevitably does, law-abiding citizens are not safe without adequate firepower. The image of Korean store owners perched on top of their businesses during the L.A. riots is indelible proof of that simple fact.
Just a generation ago, nearly every politician in America understood the purpose of the Second Amendment and defended it vigorously.
The late Hubert H. Humphrey, a man who defined liberal Democratic politics in the mid-1960s had this to say on the subject: "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
Today, even so-called "constitutional scholars" like Gonzales – President Bush's nominee for attorney general of the United States, the highest law-enforcement position in the country – don't get it.
Or maybe he does. Maybe he just doesn't care. Maybe he's one of those lawyers who will twist and bend the Constitution to support his own political agenda. And maybe that political agenda is opposition to firearms in the hands of law-abiding Americans.
The gun grabbers understand they can't win the debate today by revealing their true intentions – taking all firearms away from law-abiding citizens as they have in some cities in America. So they wage their war on guns incrementally – banning classifications of weapons, dividing and conquering the opposition and softening up the people on the idea that the government has a legitimate power to ban guns.
Humphrey was right. So were the Founding Fathers. Tyranny is always possible. In fact, without a vigilant, armed civilian populace, it is inevitable.
There's only one ultimate defense against the imposition of tyranny here – 300 million well-armed Americans.
So, count me in opposition to Gonzales – along with the Communists, People for the American Way and MALDEF.
But wet panties make them feel good, like they are accomplishing something. (SARCASM)
I think he is probably just pandering to the Democrats and since he won't be in a position to propose or vote for legislation, I can't see any reason to get my panties in a wad over his appointment. Besides, after the Democrats finish with a Republican A.G., his chances are somewhere between zilch and none to get confirmed to any court which suits me just fine as far as Gonzales is concerned.
Ask your wife to slap you. What he is saying is that in this one instance he and those groups see the same outcome. He wants Gonzales OUT as AG.
Of course, Gonzales will enthusiastically enforce the "law" (actually there is no "law") for biological diversity in college admissions. He went to the mat to oppose Ted Olsen on this issue.
Just like he "pandered" when he successfully opposed Ted Olsen to get the Bush administration to endorse biological diversity in college admissions in the University of Michigan case?
Because the AWB is nothing more than a Trojan horse, and Bush administration officials refuse to call a spade a spade.
Why not blame Bush instead of Gonzales? He's not acting on his own when he is counsel to the president. Must be Bush was happy with the stand Gonzales took or he would not be the nominee for A.G.
I'll just consider you an adjunct of the Communist Party USA, People for the American Way or the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund ...
What you and your wife do in your house is your private affair ...
I hope ...
"I, Joseph Farah, am joining with an informal coalition that includes the Communist Party USA, People for the American Way and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund to block confirmation of the Alberto Gonzales as attorney general. Granted, my reasons for opposing this guy are a bit different that the groups named above."
"But I agree with them that he must be stopped.
I never had much use for Gonzales, but the last straw came this week when he told the U.S. Senate he supports extending the expired federal assault weapons ban."
______________________________________
af_vet_1981 wrote:
This is all I ever want to know about Joseph Farah.
Poof! All gone!
LOL I had never thought of making videos. But you know, two old people aren't very exciting, I don't think.
Um, the BATF JBTs didn't have the warrant in their possession when they stormed Waco. They weren't there to arrest anyone, they were there to kill people. Koresh could have been picked up in town if an arrest were necessary, but he even invited BATF in earlier to inspect whatever it was of his/theirs they wanted to inspect. (The BATF refused. "We've got other plans.")
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Will he enforce that law?
I believe he will.
These are your (new) friends and allies in your campaign of hate against President George W. Bush, who will leave you in the dust bin of history along with the rest of the DU crowd.
In both cases, government goon squads went to commit murder on the flimsiest of pretenses.
One case under Klinton, one under Bush the first.
But that's all right with you, isn't it?
Got your nice, shiny Black Magnums on right now, don't you?
"I, Joseph Farah, am joining with an informal coalition that includes the Communist Party USA, People for the American Way and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund to block confirmation of the Alberto Gonzales as attorney general. Granted, my reasons for opposing this guy are a bit different that the groups named above."
"But I agree with them that he must be stopped.
I never had much use for Gonzales, but the last straw came this week when he told the U.S. Senate he supports extending the expired federal assault weapons ban."
______________________________________
af_vet_1981 wrote:
This is all I ever want to know about Joseph Farah.
He may not be able to create a law, but he can direct the BATFE to make the lives of dealers and owners of military sytled semi-automatic anti-assault weapons a living hell. He could also get them to regulate them out of existance. He could also write a legal brief (administrative finding like Ashcrofts's) that the 2nd amendment does not give people the right to own them. There are many ways to ban them without Congress being involved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.