This Democrat Governor’s Anti-Gun Record May Have Just Cost Him The Election

Photo credit:

Anyone wishing to explore the workings of the hoplophobic mind needs only consider the actions of the 2013 Colorado legislature. First-time violators of the state’s new gun legislation face up to one year in prison. Yet a real life criminal who commits a felony while in violation of the law is subject to only 18 months. This makes an armed robber just 33% more worthy of punishment than the law abiding citizen who also happens to own a 20 round magazine. Disgraceful.

Yet Colorado politicos couldn’t have been happier with their knee-jerk attempts to intimidate Centennial State gun owners after the 2012 killings in Newtown, Connecticut. Included in the 2013 gun control legislation signed into law by Democrat Governor John Hickenlooper were requirements for universal background checks, new demands for mental health reporting, and prohibitions against “large capacity” magazines—that is, of over 15 round capacity.

Although it’s been a year since the law went into effect, Gov. Hickenlooper has spent the last few months running from his signature on it, not wanting to join 2 Democrats recalled from office and another forced to retire as a result of their own anti-gun ways. Last month, at an Aspen forum, Hickenlooper told sheriffs’ representatives that he had no idea that the overwhelming majority of their peers were so strongly opposed to the then-proposed legislation. It was news to Hickenlooper that these same representatives wanted to meet with him prior to his signing the legislation into law.

He also had “no idea” that the overwhelming majority of the state’s sheriffs had publically vowed to NOT enforce the terms of the legislation. As Colorado’s Milwaukee county sheriff David Clark Jr. put it to FOX News host Jeanine Pirro: “I wouldn’t enforce those laws because I don’t want to get shot, because the American people are going to put up with so much before they’re going to push back.”

Hickenlooper also claimed that rumors of conversations between himself and anti-gun loon Michael Bloomberg just prior to the legislation becoming law were simply not true. However, records of 2 calls to Hickenlooper from Bloomberg were discovered after the filing of an open records request.

Besieged with questions, the governor finally “…admitted his office did not research the gun legislation until after it was passed. Governor Hickenlooper said he didn’t realize it was going to cause such controversy and had he known he would not have endorsed the new gun laws without more research.”

Apparently, the governor MISSED those endless days of autos circling the state capitol with horns blaring as the people of Colorado registered supreme displeasure with the gun-grabbing intentions of their liberal legislators. The assault against and reaction by gun owners had been THE television news story for months. But it was all news to Hick.

And now, as a result of apparently having spent the past year under a rock, Hickenlooper faces the political fight of his life as a Rasmussen poll shows Republican candidate Bob Beauprez in a 44%-44% tie with the absent minded governor. It took Beauprez just one week to catch Hickenlooper after winning the nomination from a crowded field of GOP contenders.

Keep the lies coming, governor. Maybe you’ll take a few more Democrat legislators down with you.

Photo credit: Roy Barnett Jr. (Flickr)

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Another Left-Wing Mistress Of Hypocrisy Is Unhappy With The Supreme Court


We have all seen the antics of a placard-toting liberal as she tearfully protests the upcoming, state sponsored execution of a triple murderer. And when this same purple-haired progressive celebrates a new Planned Parenthood record in abortions performed, is anyone really surprised?

After all, liberalism couldn’t exist without these mind-numbing displays of shameless hypocrisy. Frantic challenges to the deserved execution of a merciless killer followed with squeals of delight at the death of some 334,000 infants during the 2011-2012 hunting seasons of America’s abortion titleholder–all in a day’s work for the compassionate left.

When the Supreme Court decided in the Hobby Lobby case that owners of a closely held corporation may not be forced to provide abortion drugs to employees contrary to their religious beliefs, New York Daily News contributor Linda Stasi couldn’t rest without providing a praiseworthy example of liberal hypocrisy.

Like other liberal females, Stasi is no doubt a strong, capable, and self-sufficient woman who demands respect for America’s strong, capable, and self-sufficient women. Yet 48 hours after the Court’s decision, Stasi claimed that disaster awaited her female peers because they are too weak, inept, and dependent upon a FREE, employer-provided abortion drug to avoid the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy.

Stasi laments the inevitable catastrophe awaiting women employed by heartless outfits like Hobby Lobby, women “… who can’t afford birth control in the first place, and [who] may end up with children they also can’t afford, forcing them onto the welfare rolls.”

Stasi then launches into a frantic claim that the Hobby Lobby decision has somehow mutated into a law “…that takes away women’s rights to affordable contraception of their choice, while protecting men’s right to free erection drugs, so they can impregnate more women.” That would be the weak, inept, and dependent types, right?

In one fell swoop, 5 callous MEN (of course) have banished the strong, capable, self-sufficient flower of American womanhood to lives of perpetually pregnant, unavoidable despair.

I wonder if Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia will spend the next few nights bar-hopping, offering drinks to their court-ordered victims?

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Last Week, The Left Revealed Their Colossal Fear Of Religion…

Photo credit: Ken Teegardin (Flickr)

In spite of having mastered the frequently demanding practice of deceit, once in a while, genuine motivation breaks through the left’s façade of compassion and caring. Though not widely recognized, it happened in the Hobby Lobby case decided by the Supreme Court last Monday.

In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993, Congress provided the option of going to court to anyone who sought religious–based exemption from a federal law. In providing this statutory right to religious objectors, Congress wrote that “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability…”

Among other things, Hobby Lobby attorneys argued that imposing massive fines against their client for not providing “abortion drugs” to employees must obviously represent the sort of substantial burden addressed by Congress in the statute. The Supreme Court agreed.

Concerned that the substantial burden language in the RFRA might at least in part derail Barack Obama’s efforts to subordinate religious freedom to the commands of the state, a number of the Government’s amici—friends of the Court arguing on behalf of the government case—advised justices that there would be no “burden” if Hobby Lobby “…simply terminated health insurance for all of its employees.” That is, “…terminating health insurance and compensating employees with additional wages would be no burden.” Hobby Lobby would no longer face the threat–that is the BURDEN–of government fines for the company’s Christian refusal to supply abortion drugs to its employees.

The Court rejected this argument in its 5-4 finding for Hobby Lobby.

But hold on. Wasn’t the overarching purpose of ObamaCare to provide health insurance–affordable, quality health insurance, that is—to the uninsured? Weren’t these the premier talking points of the left? So why are government amici suggesting that a closely held corporation providing insurance coverage to some 15,000 employees suddenly deny those people coverage? Shouldn’t Obama’s forces congratulate employers of this sort?

Could there be a better example of the contempt in which the practice of religion—especially Christianity—is held by the far left? Contempt and fear, that is. For the left believe it must be their exclusive right—the right of government–to teach people the difference between right and wrong; that is, teach and demand that the behavior mandated by those “teachings” be executed without question or refusal!

But the lessons provided by 2000 years of Christianity put a big hole in government’s dreams of being the owners and purveyors of absolute moral authority. The Hobby Lobby case made it clear that the left is far more interested in curtailing—preferably destroying—the practice of religious freedom than in making sure everyone has health insurance.

Once again, the left allows the mask to slip, showing us who and what they are.

Photo credit: Ken Teegardin (Flickr)

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Liberals Were Expecting a Fight, But In Just 18 Words The NRA Ended It

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)

Although liberal Democrats have little appreciation for the spiritual meaning of Christmas, events of December 2012 would bring Joy to the Political World of every avid, gun-hating politician in Washington D.C.

For on December 14th, twenty children and six adults responsible for their care were shot to death at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Their killer ended his own life minutes later with a round to the head.

Understanding the importance of disarming the American people, gun confiscation advocates like Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, and Barack Obama almost undoubtedly wished the death toll had been higher. But as children were involved, even 20 dead would have the American public ready to accept—however unwillingly– a raft of new, anti-gun edicts. Democrats and the national media would see to that. For neither the NRA nor pro-gun Republicans would have the gall to stand in the way by quoting chapter and verse of the 2nd Amendment. Not this time. After all, never had the left been blessed with such a delicious level of exploitable carnage! It would be a legislative gimme!

Then, four days after the killings, the NRA offered its eagerly anticipated response to the left’s set-up story of evil “assault weapons” and the ease with which they can be acquired. But refusing to be cowed by liberal Democrats or their equally anti-gun proponents in the national media, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre told the American public that “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” The next psychopath intent upon taking advantage of the defenseless victims of “gun free zones” will only be stopped by the armed response of good people, not a new layer of ineffective legislation.

The media was stunned. Liberal Democrats were taken aback, feigning disgust at the brazen, unfeeling nature of LaPierre’s remarks. Of course, the unexpressed media/Dem Party response was really one of: “Damn, what happened!” This collection of dedicated gun grabbers had expected a contrite, almost apologetic NRA. They would relish the unconditional surrender of an NRA that had for some years displayed a less confrontational side, one that earned the contempt of members across the country. The NRA had endorsed Harry Reid, for God’s sake!

But far from apologizing for a history of oft times rigid, pro-gun positions, LaPierre hit the left right between the eyes. And guess what?! The American people–gun owners and non-owners alike–stood 4-Square with the NRA. DC Democrats were apoplectic. All of their plans of gloating over the defeated carcass of the once feared gun group went up in smoke. Visions of mandatory gun registration, confiscation of “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines, SWAT teams intimidating American citizens with midnight raids, and the ultimate manufacture of subjects from what had once been free citizens—it had all gone to Hell. The NRA had picked the right time to be tough. It had defined the problem of gun free zones and offered the only solution for the defense of unarmed innocents.

There is no question that NRA higher-ups have sometimes displayed weakness, stupidity, and even lunacy. How can the premier American gun-rights organization endorse Harry Reid?

But one very courageous statement offered at exactly the right time did more to derail a dangerous, liberal assault against gun owners than the combined efforts of DC Republicans for the past decade. As gun owners, we owe the NRA a lot.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Obama Regime Settles Criminal Abuse-Of-Power Lawsuit With Taxpayer Dollars

Photo credit: Dave Delay (Flickr)

“It’s good to be King,” said Mel Brooks as Louis XVI in the director/actor’s “History of the World, Part 1.” No question Brooks was onto something as the Internal Revenue Service–one of the principal organs of Barack Hussein Obama’s 2012 reelection Campaign—just paid $50,000 to settle a lawsuit brought against the Service by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). Of course, the settlement was paid with taxpayer dollars.

During the 2012 presidential campaign, NOM accused the IRS of leaking information concerning the group’s contributors to Joe Solomese, head of the far-left Human Rights Campaign (HRC). The Huffington Post then used the leaked information provided by Solomese to accuse Mitt Romney of having donated $10,000 to NOM.

If Romney had been the conservative candidate hoped for by the Party base, he might have answered the HuffPo charges with an unreserved, “Yes, I DO support traditional marriage, the union of two homosexuals being a farce entered into by practitioners of aberrant behavior.”

But like most spineless, liberal Republicans, Romney was frightened to death of the inevitable attacks from people like Solomese, who accused Romney of “funding…a hate-filled campaign designed to drive a wedge between Americans.” And when the media launched its all-out assault, Romney spent his time looking for the nearest desk to dive under, ashamed of looking NORMAL and being caught supporting centuries of traditional human behavior.

One day after taking advantage of the IRS leak, Solomese resigned his position with the HRC and became a co-chair of the Obama campaign.

In 2013, NOM filed a lawsuit against the IRS, accusing the Service of having leaked the documents and not a “whistleblower”–as claimed by the HuffPo’s Sam Stein and the HRC.

It seems that when the HRC published the leaked information, it “…failed to conceal the source of the documents.” So when NOM removed certain layers “obscuring the document[s],” it became evident that they “came from the Internal Revenue Service.” “The top of each page says, ‘THIS IS A COPY OF A LIVE RETURN FROM SMIPS. OFFICIAL USE ONLY,’” revealed NOM. “On each page of the return is stamped a document ID of ‘100560209.’ Only the IRS would have the Form 990 with ‘Official Use’ information.”

The documents had obviously been leaked to aid the Obama campaign.

The question is, why did the National Organization for Marriage accept such a miniscule settlement for such a serious breach of IRS policy?

Also, why has no one been charged? Why will no one be tried? Why is no one facing time in a federal penitentiary? Why can IRS officials illegally work for the benefit of a campaign, yet face no repercussions as the whole matter disappears thanks to American taxpayers?

It’s good to be King? Brooks had no idea just how right he was.

Photo credit: Dave Delay (Flickr)

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom