About Me

Name: W. Austerman
Email: wausterman@aol.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

I say vote no; Vote No; Vote against Sotomayor

Posted by W. Austerman on Friday, July 24, 2009 3:08:18 AM
You know me; The most important issue that matters to me is my right to bear Arms. If you agree with me on this at least halfway, and the right to bear Arms is in your "fave five", then understand why President Obama's pick for the Supreme Court, Madam Justice Sonia Sotomayor, is a treat to you and me.
 
Care of the National Rifle Association:
Other than declaring war, neither house of Congress has a more solemn responsibility than the Senate's role in confirming justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Senate considers the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Americans have been watching to see whether this nominee - if confirmed - would respect the Second Amendment or side with those who have declared war on the rights of America's 80 million gun owners.

From the outset, the National Rifle Association has respected the confirmation process and hoped for mainstream answers to bedrock questions.  Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor's judicial record and testimony clearly demonstrate a hostile view of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of self-defense guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

It is only by ignoring history that any judge can say that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states. The one part of the Bill of Rights that Congress clearly intended to apply to all Americans in passing the Fourteenth Amendment was the Second Amendment.  History and congressional debate are clear on this point. 

Yet Judge Sotomayor seems to believe that the Second Amendment is limited only to the residents of federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C. and does not protect all Americans living in every corner of this nation.  In her Maloney opinion and during the confirmation hearings, she deliberately misread Supreme Court precedent to support her incorrect view. 

In last year's historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual's right to own firearms and recognizes the inherent right of self-defense.  In addition, the Court required lower courts to apply the Twentieth Century cases it has used to incorporate a majority of the Bill of Rights to the States.  Yet in her Maloney opinion, Judge Sotomayor dismissed that requirement, mistakenly relying instead on Nineteenth Century jurisprudence to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States.

This nation was founded on a set of fundamental freedoms. Our Constitution does not give us those freedoms - it guarantees and protects them. The right to defend ourselves and our loved ones is one of those. The individual right to keep and bear arms is another. These truths are what define us as Americans. Yet, Judge Sotomayor takes an opposite view, contrary to the views of our Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, and the vast majority of the American people.

We believe any individual who does not agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of self-defense should not serve on any court, much less the highest court in the land. Therefore, the National Rifle Association of America opposes the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
-Wayne Lapierre, Executive Vice President, NRA 
Chris W. Cox, Executive Director, NRA Institute For Legislative Action
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

From Homeland Security, care of The Washington Post

Posted by W. Austerman on Thursday, May 07, 2009 10:16:00 PM
If you haven’t heard about it yet, our Department of Homeland Security is labeling me and people like me as a dangerous, “rightwing extremist”. Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, is a bunch of misleading crap that insults gun owners, military veterans, and Christians. I have personally read every page and let me break this 9 page report down for you with the 100% honesty that I always provide, straight from the horse’s mouth. 
 
Page 2: 
“Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into … those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority … It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.” 
   In other words if you believe in state’s rights, guaranteed by the 10th Amendment, if your pro-life, or if you place the responsibility of keeping illegal immigrants out of this country, as is required by law, on the Federal Government you are a “rightwing extremist”. 
 
Page 3: 
“Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning
veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities” 
   So our troops when they come home are ticking time bombs??? What a slap in the face to our men & women in uniform serving our country overseas. 
“Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures.” 
   So when Joe Somebody simply comments in his blog, as most in the country are doing these days on the internet, about how he lost his job or his home is in foreclosure that makes him and the rest of those people like him a “rightwing extremist”??? 
 
Page 4: 
“From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on … political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.” 
   The only “propaganda” I’ve ever heard if the leftwing created Moveon.org and how it referred to Gen. David Petraeus as
Gen. Betrayus. 
“Antigovernment conspiracy theories and “end times” prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition, and weapons. These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past” 
   So people who were prepared for the looters who broke into homes and stores, rioters that set things on fire at night, attackers that chased woman down the streets and raped them in broad daylight, and snipers, who stole rifles from looted sporting good stores, that fired on Hospitals in the middle of evacuations during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina are “extremist”??? 
 
Page 5: 
“Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.” 
   Unless your going to say gunfire that occurs during Mexican Drug Cartel engagement with the U.S. Border Patrol is protected by the First Amendment and that said engagement is “anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor”, protection of our country, with border “enforcement” is a must. 
 
Page 7: 
“rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists” 
   So any one who is trained to defend themselves while serving our country is potentially dangerous??? Why don’t you just call our troops monsters??? Again, what a slap in the face to our men & women in uniform serving our country overseas. 
“lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States. Information from law enforcement and nongovernmental organizations indicates lone wolves and small terrorist cells have shown intent-and, in some cases, the capability-to commit violent acts.” 
   Yeah, we know that. That is what made 9/11 possible, only it was Al-Qaeda not “domestic”. 
 
So to finish off this incorrect assessment, 2 points. First, Homeland Security has banned the use of the word terror or any way you can spin it with the same spelling like terrorism. Yet the word terror comes up in this report 14 times (15 if you include counterterrorism). Seconded, the people at Homeland did not want you to see this. At the bottom of page 1, “No portion of the LES information should be released to the media, general public” “This document … contains information that may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).” “not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need-to-know” How is it that we don’t have a “valid need-to-know” about this BS??? Big thanks to the Washington Times for making this public. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Don’t be fooled

Posted by W. Austerman on Monday, April 06, 2009 11:54:00 PM
We have been hearing about Mexican Drug related violence on the U.S. border for the last few years now and lately we are hearing that we are the major supplier of the Mexican drug cartel’s supply of weapons. The liberal media was quick to run, with the full blessing of U.S. State Secretary Hillary Clinton, and U.S. Senator Dianna Feinstein, D-California, B.A.T.F. (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives)Assistant Director for Field Operations, William Hoover’s testimony to the House of Representatives that “there is more than enough evidence to indicate that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States.” Even the San Antonio Express Newspaper’s front page story on Mach 31st was about “the largest seizure of guns in Mexico’s history, and authorities have now traced much of it to Texas” “and that 80 percent of those weapons came from licensed firearms dealers”. But don’t be fooled by that 80-90% because it’s really 80-90% of X. What is X, you might ask??? X is the actual number of the Mexican drug cartel’s guns. Fair and Balanced Fox News looked into the “90 percent” figure and has confirmed not only is the number lower but also why is it misleading in 
myth of 90 percent. The liberal media was so quick to put it out there and A.D. Hoover was so quick to please his bureau’s political party that the entire Left-wing did not disclose the total number of guns because Mexican officials won’t turn over all the guns they seize. So while Assistant Director Hoover is saying it “90 percent” there are other ATF agents singing a different tune at a lower pitch, lower like 17%. ATF Special Agent William Newell is on record saying that from 2007-2008 Mexico turned over 11,000 firearms to the U.S. for tracing, and of those, exactly “5,114” (90%) were from the U.S., the same “90 percent” AD Hoover was referring to. However in that 2 year timeframe, Mexico stated they collected 29,000 guns leaving 68% of the total collection unavailable to be traced. So what about the rest of the guns that Mexico won’t share??? They won’t hand them over because they know that they can’t be traced to the U.S. We know this because our own border patrol is picking up what guns the cartel leaves behind after scrimmages. Based on what weapons they do have logged into evidence, the Border Patrol knows that the cartels are also armed with weapons not sold in the U.S. that could be traced back to places like Russia, South America, China, and Guatemala. Interpol acknowledges that the Russian Mafia has been supplying Mexico with drugs and guns. The Library of Congress has on record a Federal Research Division report documenting Columbian guerrillas supplying the Tijuana Drug Cartel arms and drugs during a partnership in the 1990’s in South America. In Asia, the universal ACLU (Amnesty International) reported in 2006 that China provided weapons to Latin America, the same kind that were found in Mexico along with Korean explosives. As for Guatemala, our own Intel has picked up on immigrants, stolen vehicles, guns & explosives, and drugs, specifically cocaine that ends up here, being trafficked along the Mexican-Guatemala border. Also local Guatemalan newspaper, La Hora, ran a story on March 27 about police taking control of a Mexican drug cartel transport of 500 grenades and a supply of AK-47’s out of the border town of Ixcan. Of course Mexico can’t seem to clean up its own mess of corruption. The U.S. Border Patrol will tell you it has documented Mexican Military transports as part of drug cartel convoys engaging them along the border, and Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo is on record saying that in the last 6 years over 150,000 soldiers deserted from the Army and took their weapons with them, weapons like recovered Belgium made M-16 machine guns. Corruption also must have played a role since some of the small amount of guns from the U.S. that fell into drug cartel hands were given to Mexico thru legal channels. According to Ed Head, a 24 year veteran of the U.S. Border Patrol, some guns “are legitimately shipped to the government of Mexico, by Colt, for example, in the United States. They are approved by the U.S. Government for use by the Mexican military service.” So don’t be fooled by ATF’s high ranking agents, the liberal media, or the Democrats on Capital Hill. They are all gun-haters who want to take away your basic right of self-defense. Mexico also hates guns and wants to put the blame on us. Although some people here are buying guns and smuggling them to Mexico’s drug dealer it’s goes to show you that our border is not secure, and why??? Because President Obama and Congress won’t do all they can to solve this problem. The responsibility of stopping any kind of illegal trafficking along the U.S. Mexican border is our responsibility as much as it is Mexico’s, but Mexico is crooked and the Democrats see this as an opportunity to advance their agenda, with U.S. Senator John Kerry, D-Mass. calling for a return of the so called “assault weapons ban” instead on providing a solution like put the military on the border, as he put it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Off to a great start???

Posted by W. Austerman on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:55:00 PM

Last week the new leader of the GOP, former Lt. Governor Michael Steele of Maryland, made his position clear on gay marriage, abortion, and the party’s legacy in his his interview with GQ Magazine issues of life and family. Before saying “We are a party; we are the conservative party of this country. We are a party that values life, born and unborn. We value hard work, individual rights, and liberties. We value the individual-to go out and carve out a dream for themselves. We value free-market and free-enterprise solutions. We value smaller government. We think the less government in your life, the better off you are as an individual and a family.” he was asked why “so few nonwhite Americans support the Republican Party”. His response however seem contradictory to his description of the GOP saying “Cause we have offered them nothing! And the impression we’ve created is that we don’t give a damn about them or we just outright don’t like them. And that’s not a healthy thing for a political party. I think the way we’ve talked about immigration, the way we’ve talked about some of the issues that are important to African-Americans, like affirmative action… I mean, you know, having an absolute holier-than-thou attitude about something that’s important to a particular community doesn’t engender confidence in your leadership by that community—or consideration of you for office or other things—because you’ve already given off the vibe that you don’t care.” There’s a difference, Mr. Steele. The GOP’s position on immigration is necessary in securing our country. A country of different races, including your race that the enemy would not hesitate to kill because. Affirmative action has nothing to do with the keeping the War on Terror out of our own backyard. Conservatives are not here to offer something to all parties concerned. We are here to do what is necessary for our country. “offered them nothing”??? How about keeping “them” safe from terrorist attacks in the last 7 years, or cutting taxes for “them”??? And that’s not all. When the issue of abortion came up he was asked point blank “Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?” The answer, “Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.” So much for “We are a party that values life, born and unborn”. So to sum it up in one word, SAD. This is why I don’t give money to the party directly. We’ve got Republican governors like Bobby Jindal of Louisiana talking about getting back to the basic principles of the GOP and its leader is talking like this??? HELLO???

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Glorifying Gay Marriage instead of Desperate Housewives

Posted by W. Austerman on Monday, February 23, 2009 2:10:00 AM

Yesterday I was forced to make do with final winners of the Academy Awards, since it replaced ABC’s Desperate Housewives, CBS’s The Unit was a rerun, and NASCAR Racing replaced FOX’s American Dad. Usually I don’t watch the Oscars because I think it’s rigged. I mean dose a piece of white-trash like rap artist Eminem really deserve such a high honor for the trash he calls music??? My opinion for the Oscars were once again confirmed with the Oscar for Best Actor going to Mr. Sean Penn for his role of glorifying gay marriage as a homosexual. Excuse me while I take a moment to vomit … anyway in his acceptance speech he glorified gay marriage and made it a point to say shame on people like me who are against a "civil right" as he put it. Well Mr. Penn, allow me to show you where you are wrong. A civil right is basically what you will find in the first 10 Amendments, that’s why it called the Bill of Rights, and although there have been some additions made with the changing times you will not find “marriage” or the union of a couple mentioned once in any amendment of the Constitution. So where is gay marriage or the actual ceremony of marriage a civil right??? The Liberals would have you believe that it is protected by the 14th Amendment and that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates that, so let’s look at that.

The 14th Amendment:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or the property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ”

By this, a gay person can be gay, alive, and own property. Being married is not listed there. The DOMA of 1996 is a federal law that defines marriage as traditional and goes to allow states to deny another state’s homosexual marriage. Sounds like a violation of the 14th Amendment and the 10th Amendment too. However Article 4 of the Constitution gives the States the “Credit” of “public … Records” such as records of marriage and by that same article allows Congress to “prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved and the Effect thereof.” So in closing, although Marriage itself is not protected by the Constitution by name, the DOMA is Constitutional, as is states passing laws and amending their state constitutions to ban this disgusting, un-American, and unholy union because people don‘t want it. Hence California passing a law against it and voting in favor of a state constitutional ban.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Who is Eric Holder???

Posted by W. Austerman on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 12:10:00 PM
The National Rifle Association wants you to believe that with the Democrat’s hold in Congress stronger than it was 2 years ago and with the most liberal Senator now President our right to bear Arms is in the most danger it has ever been in. Taxes on gun purchases to drive the prices too high up, repealing of federal laws that protect gun makers from frivolous lawsuits, another ban on specific firearms, and that’s just to name a few. We should all be afraid of this and not just for the next 2 or 4 or God forbid 8 years, but always. It is a constitutional right to own a weapon of our choosing to ensure our own safety as the last line of defense. It should not matter how long the barrel is, how many rounds of ammunition the magazine holds, or how many rounds it can fire per trigger pull. It should not even matter if it is a firearm, a knife, a baton or nightstick, et cetera. So with this liberal sided government, one must wonder about what is going to happen. I consider the right to bare Arms more important than any, and I mean any, other right. That is why I felt so srongly on the issue to address my concerns about President Obama’s nomination of Mr. Eric Holder, an anti-gun federal attorney from the Clinton Administration, as Attorney General to my representaion in the Senate. Last week I recived the following e-mail form my favorit Texas Senator,
John Cornyn.
 
Dear Mr. Austerman:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the confirmation of Eric Holder as Attorney General of the United States. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this issue.

After carefully studying Mr. Holder’s record as Deputy Attorney General, I remain doubtful regarding his judgment and ability to operate independent from political influence. Additionally, I have concerns that Mr. Holder’s record demonstrated a failure to understand the profound threat posed by radical Islamic terrorism. And I remain troubled by his apparent hostility to the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

During Senate Confirmation, Mr. Holder’s answers to the questions posed by the Senate Judiciary Committee failed to alleviate my concerns. During his testimony, Mr. Holder avoided giving a full and candid account of his actions regarding former-President Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich, the clemency offered to 16 terrorists, and other matters that gave rise to my concerns about his judgment and independence.

My utmost concern, however, is that Mr. Holder fails to fully understand the unique challenges and threats posed to our country by radical Islamic terrorism. I fear that Mr. Holder is not prepared to lead the Justice Department at a moment when this nation is waging an asymmetric war whose battlefield extends across the globe and onto U.S. soil. While I was pleased that Mr. Holder testified that protecting America from attack would be his most important job as Attorney General, his public statements regarding the War on Terror often betray a willingness to advance ideological rhetoric without fully appreciating the sensitivity and complexity of a particular issue.
For these reasons I opposed the confirmation of Eric Holder as Attorney General by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Although I am disappointed that on February 2, 2009, Eric Holder was confirmed by the full Senate to be Attorney General of the United States, I hope that he will study the important issues facing his Department carefully and independently, and will use power responsibly—and not simply cater to the extreme voices on the left.

I appreciate the opportunity to represent Texans in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator
 
So I not the only one who questions our new President and his cabinet choices and neither should you.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Bush-Cheney Legacy

Posted by W. Austerman on Monday, February 09, 2009 11:14:00 PM

As the country rings in our new president we say goodbye to the Bush-Cheney Administration, if that’s what you call booing the outgoing President of the United States while he’s wishing fair well and good luck to the crowd on Inauguration Day. The lack of respect the American people have for a man who has done more good than harm is completely unpatriotic and at times criminal. The people have accused Mr. Bush of criminal wrongdoing. They have even gone to say he is a constitutional violating racist and murder. However that is not true, the real problem is the Left-wing Liberals who have spent the last 2 years twisting every word, every problem, every issue, until it fits their way and the American people bought it on Election Day. Has George Bush violated the Constitution??? The answer is yes. Like every president in the past several years, he along with Congress has violated the 10th Amendment with so many acts of legislation that takes the power away from the states. Take this stupid TV transfer to digital act that is about to take place later this month. Where in the Constitution dose it say anything about public broadcasting rights??? Why should the federal government be allowed to force all public (not government provided) TV stations across the country to change how they produce their signal??? Dose it in any way make our country safer??? Dose it affect how our government operates??? No, that is why it’s a matter for the state governments which are better able to tailor their TV stations for their unique region and populace. Just like the No Child Left Behind Act. Congress and the White House again violated the 10th Amendment by setting federal government standards for state government school. So that’s it. That is the big constitutional violation you will find in the history of the Bush Administration. The War on Terror is an actual war, as declared by Congress, and has been carried out as required by sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution. How we treated terrorist we caught in the last 8 years dose not violate the constitution because they are enemy combatants in an actual war, not the common felon as outlined in the 5th Amendment. The Supreme Court would have you believe otherwise but one thing they forget is this is WAR. So let’s be honest, President Bush and Dick Cheney have kept our country safer, they went after a foreign threat to America that had the time to move their arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction before we invaded, and just like war, troops died. That is what you people are really upset about, you think Bush lied to us about the weapons, but we know that at one point in time those weapons did exist in Iraq so obviously they were relocated before we could get them, and in the course a lot of troops died. But no troop in Iraq has died in vain, we have brought democracy to Iraq and we are catching al-Qaeda terrorist there which makes it part of the War on Terror. This has not been a pointless war and for those who say differently you dishonor the memory of those who have died in service. George Bush has been a good president, not the greatest, but better then his predecessor and better than his father, but the Left-wing Liberals have twisted every word, every issue, and every choice he has made to blind you from the good he has done. We were lucky to have him and Dick Cheney. They left behind a legacy that we should dare not judge until the real liars and the real racist are gone.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What now???

Posted by W. Austerman on Tuesday, December 16, 2008 1:05:00 AM

Obviously we conservatives are unhappy with the way things have turned out this election year. Some of us might wonder if there was something more we could have done. The truth is we all made mistakes, even me. I underestimated the voters of our country when I said this country will never pick the most liberal candidate there is, the party made the mistake of choosing John McCain as our candidate, and America made the mistake or keeping the “Do Nothing” Congress in power and stronger. But I tell you this, if I had to do it all over I would not change a thing. I have never in my voting life ever regretted casting a single vote for a candidate. So at least I can sleep at night knowing I did all I could and I did it for all the right reasons and that earns me the right to complain about any upcoming changes in the next 4 years. So inclosing, all I can say is, enjoy President Bush’s last days in office, stock up on guns & ammo, pray for our country, and have a Merry Christmas. May God bless you all.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A letter to John McCain

Posted by W. Austerman on Tuesday, November 11, 2008 2:46:21 AM
Dear Senator McCain,
   In March you got the last primary you needed. In September you got the nomination. So why, for the Love of God, in November did you not get the votes??? Is it because of your so cool “Maverick” style that you mentioned every where you went during the campaign??? The same “Maverick” style that has been in support of Abortion by choice, free speech violating campaign finance reform, Gay Marriage, and Amnesty. Is it because you attack your Republican colleagues who vote against your bills, like when you dropped the F-Bomb on Sen. Cornyn after he voted against your “Amnesty” bill??? Or is it because you put so much of your campaign’s time and money into lost causes Pennsylvania and New Hampshire that it cost you Ohio and Florida at least??? The answer is all the above. By rallying the party around you to put you into the White House, you put fear into some of the party’s most Conservative candidates, and fear is contagious. It spread from the party to the voters and led to people voting for the other guy. Further more, in states where voters could just mark on their ballot straight party, people voted straight Democrat just to avoid voting for you, and in doing so may have cost other Republicans their seats in Congress, state legislatures, or even local office. Lucky for you, however, you still have your seat in the Senate. But you don’t get all the blame, oh no sir. While your only saving grace was picking Sarah Palin as your running mate, a portion of the blame goes out to the Republican voters of the states that you won during the primaries. While there were other, more Republican, choices to choose from, our party nominated the one who was approached by John Kerry in ‘04 and asked to be his running mate. After the ‘92 election we had signs that said “Don’t blame me, I voted for Bush”. You don’t deserve that little bit of honor. I’ll be spending the next 4 years saying “Don’t blame me, I wanted Fred” thanks largely to you.
 
Respectfully,
Warrington Lee Austerman
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Dangers of an Obama Presidency

Posted by W. Austerman on Sunday, October 26, 2008 6:38:00 PM

What would be so bad about an Obama Presidency??? I’ll let Fred Thompson answer this question.

An Election Message from Fred Thompson

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Austerman's Endorsements

Posted by W. Austerman on Monday, October 20, 2008 10:30:00 PM

I don’t know about you, but I think endorsements are important. They allow us to see where some famous actor stands or what company gets the most business from a candidate. It also allows us to see how conservative or liberal politicians are. For instance, I’m a big fan of my Republican Governor, Rick Perry. The man is a hero to me, but when he endorsed Rudy Giuliani for president I was surprised. Mr. Giuliani was clearly the most liberal republican choice and Gov. Perry is quite the conservative. However I learned something from his choice. There is no doubt that Mr. Giuliani is a go-getter and tough on crime and that is exactly the kind of attitude that Gov. Perry wanted for President. However I feel that endorsements should be reserved for the ones you agree with on what is most important to you and not just party politics. That’s why at the start of this I endorsed Fred Thompson for president. Mr. Thompson and I agreed on so many issues that I learned a lot form his policies and from his political career, not just in his campaign for president but from his years of service in the Senate. So I present to you my endorsements for the 2008 Election Year.

On the Federal Level, I continue to have reservations about Senator John McCain as President. The one reservation that sticks out most is on the issue, as I said before, what is most important, and it is important to me that our border with both Mexico and Canada are secure and that we remove those who are here illegally without amnesty. John McCain wants amnesty for those who are here illegally. Oh sure, he dose not call it that, but in his mind the job would be a whole lot easier if we just granted them legal status instead of having the INS do its job by finding any potential terrorist already here on our soil. Mr. McCain also has not been clear about making tax cuts permanent, banning abortion or protecting the sanctity of marriage. That is why I can not in good conscience endorse John McCain but I am 100% against Barack Obama becoming president. However I do endorse Governor Sarah Palin for Vice President. Gov. Palin is more conservative than Senator McCain. She is strong and a go-getter. She will shake up Washington and I expect she will keep McCain on his toes. Most importantly, as a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association she will protect our right to bear Arms.

Now to the Great State of Texas. In the race for U.S. Senate I endorse the incumbent, John Cornyn. Sen. Cornyn is one of the truest conservative republicans serving in the Senate. As Senator he speaks for the conservative cause defending the War in Iraq, the troop surge and the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. Cornyn also defends the tactics we use to find terrorist, and techniques necessary for use to get life saving information out of terrorist. He is also for making tax cuts permanent and my personal favorite abolishing the Estate Tax. On the issue of immigration Sen. Cornyn stood up to President Bush by voting against the same amnesty plan that both the President and Sen. McCain want. However he dose want the border secured with more men, technology, and a fence. Before becoming senator he held positions in the Texas Justice system including the state supreme court and then defended the state as Attorney General, making him the ideal choice for a seat on the federal bench. Finally John Cornyn has an A rating from the NRA with his record votes of defending gun owners and gun manufacturers. You can trust John Cornyn, I do.

Now I would like to extend my approval of ballot initiatives I support occurring in other states. To the people of California, I hope you will approve Proposition 4 to prohibit a minor from having an abortion with out proper and timely approval from the minor’s parents. It is important to protect the sanctity of life and in doing so protecting our children. I also hope you will approve Proposition 8 to reverse your state supreme court’s ruling allowing gay marriage. By passing this proposition you will protect the sanctity of marriage and prove your high court legislated from the bench. I also extend the same wishes to the State of Florida in passing proposition 2 and the State of Arizona for proposition 102. Finally, I call on the State of South Dakota to pass your proposed ban on abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or where the unborn child becomes a threat to the mother’s health. I hope you do become the first state since Roe v Wade to force this issue beck before the Supreme Court.

In closing I would like to say to all, Vote Freedom, Vote Life, and Vote NRA. God Bless
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Colin Powel goes Liberal.

Posted by W. Austerman on Sunday, October 19, 2008 10:30:00 PM

Last night while looking at the latest headlines on Matt Drudge’s Drudge report, I came across a surprise headline that I thought was bound to be a mistake (Not faulting the Drudge Report). The headline read that former Secretary of State Colin Powel, a strong Republican, would be endorsing Barack Obama’s Campaign. So you can imagine my surprise when I got up this morning to read on the Drudge Report that it was true. During Mr. Powel’s interview today on NBC’s Meet the Press he said he think Obama is a “transformational figure“ and, “He is a new generation coming ... onto the world stage and on the American stage. And for that reason, I'll be voting for Sen. Barack Obama.” Powel continued his defend his choice saying “I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court” and criticized Republican Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin saying “I don‘t think she’s ready to be President of the United States”. He also based his decision on the changes of the Republican Party saying “the party has moved even further to the right” and he “would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court”. He didn’t even point out any flaws in Obama. Now let’s break this down.

Colin Powel says Barack Obama “speaks with great insight into the challenges we're facing of a military and political and economic nature.” HELLO, he wants to pull our troops out of Iraq as soon as he takes office and by doing so undermines exactly what they are doing and ensures that every soldier who gave their life for the freedom of the Iraqi People and the safety of our country will have died in vain. I would expect someone like Colin Powel, who served in a war where our troops were brought home before the job was done, like Vietnam to understand that.

Colin Powel says, “I think that [Obama] has a definite way of doing business that will serve us well,”. Is it going to “serve us well” when he raises the taxes of the rich forcing companies to charge more and that in turn forcing his precious middle class to pay more for gas, food, and clothing??? Is it going to “serve us well” when a universal health care plan goes into effect forcing everyone to have their medical treatment limited and controlled by the government instead of themselves???

Colin Powel said he “would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court”. Yeah, God forbid we have another conservative justice or two who will make decisions according to the constitution and not legislate from the bench and do something constitutional, like ban abortion or not undermine the War on Terror.

This is not about race. This is not about a change in Washington. This is about doing the right thing for the good of the country. Neither candidate wants to do that. So we are stuck with who is going to come close to doing that. Raising taxes, forcing universal health care down our throats, making us look weak to both our allies and our enemies by withdraw from Iraq, and denying our right to bear Arms IS NOT in the best interest of this country. Now Colin Powel has a history of service to our country. Served in Vietnam, commanded a battalion of 101st, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a national security adviser, and secretary of state, and to top it all off he is a Republican. Now here we are with him endorsing the most liberal member of the US Senate. Just last week Powell gave the McCain Campaign the $2300.00 maximum contribution allowed by law and now he’s giving Obama the one thing that matters most, his vote. I had great respect for Powel, but today I have lost my respect. I’m hurt, and I’m sure there is at least one man or woman serving in the Army, Air Force, Navy, Maries, and Coast Guard who feels the same way.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What is the most important issue???

Posted by W. Austerman on Monday, October 13, 2008 1:44:00 AM

As a gun owner I feel the Second Amendment is the most important political issues of all. As a proud member of the National Rifle Association I receive, on a regular basis, information on this issue that could affect the safety of this country. For my Second Amendment blog issue, once a week I will bring you the latest on your right to bear Arms. I’ll kick off my first pro-gun post with a victory just in from New Orleans, Louisiana. For those of you who may not know the story about gun confiscation during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, because the big media networks didn’t broadcast. After devastating punch by Mother Nature in August of 2005, Hurricane Katrina left New Orleans in a mess. The city was flooded with Sewage, confused survivors, and looter. These looters, organized and armed with stolen weapons from the stores they looted (a local Walmart, to name one) put the city into chaos. From chasing girls in the middle of empty streets and raping them out in the open, to taking up sniper positions around a hospital in the middle of evacuating and opening fire, to looting flooded homes. Common sense dictated that if you were ignoring the city’s recommendation to leave town and staying to defend your property then you better own a gun. Most of the people who did stay behind did just that, but most of these people soon learned that the looters were the least of their worries compared to the government. City leaders handled the situation in so many wrong ways. One of which was the city’s position of forcing people out of their homes and disarming them. Democrat Mayor Ray Nagin as an anti-gun mayor had no problem with the New Orleans police on mission to disarm any person they could get there hands on and then lie about the city confiscating guns. When the chief of police went on TV and said “No one will be armed, we will take all weapons.” From that point city police, parish sheriff deputies, state patrolman, and even national guardsmen focused their attention on those they could find huddled up in their homes as opposed to armed looters running around the streets shooting into the air. Gun owners were harassed, some assaulted, forced out of there homes, and thrown on a bus out of town. There guns were confiscated illegally, some even deliberately damaged or destroyed by police right in front of the owner. Don’t believe me??? Watch this video by the NRA care of you tube. When the owners made attempts to get their guns back they got nowhere. That’s when the NRA got involved. After getting lawyers down to New Orleans to hear from these victims and securing video evidence necessary to prove the lies of the city government, the NRA filed motions and eventually sued the city. On Friday it came to an end. The City agreed to settle the lawsuit, and a permanent injunction was issued against the city, Mayor Ray Nagin, and current Police Chief Warren Riley. Judge Carl J. Barbier presiding over the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, signed the permanent injunction against New Orleans. The city admitted the firearm confiscations carried out by Nagin and Riley was unconstitutional and illegal. Under the terms of the injunction, Mayor Nagin, Police Chief Warren Riley, and any agents or employees of the City must, among other things, cease and desist confiscating lawfully-possessed firearms from all citizens; make an aggressive attempt to return any and all firearms which may have been confiscated during the period August 29 to December 31, 2005; post on the City website the procedure for the return of confiscated firearms; and mail notices to all individuals who are identified on the property tags of firearms in the City's possession which were confiscated during the aftermath of Katrina. Now I want you to think about what you just read. Government sanctioned gun confiscation in America. This is the basic reason why there is a Second Amendment and the NRA, for times like Katrina’s aftermath and to fight a government that would take away your basic right to defend yourself against Katrina’s aftermath. God Bless the NRA. Now in closing I’d like to remind you that one of the ways to fight anti gun government is at the polls this November by electing the pro-gun candidates who will uphold your right to bear Arms. You can find out who that is at the National Rifle Association Political victory Fund. This web site uses your zip code to find out what election races are happening in your area and gives the candidates a grade on their position of the Second Amendment and indicates who is being endorsed by the NRA. On this site you will see that the NRA just endorsed John McCain and Sarah Palin for President and Vice President. Sen. McCain has maintained a pro-gun record during his years in Congress and Gov. Palin is well known in her state as a moose hunter, gun owner, and she is a Life Member of the NRA. So if you want to maintain your right to bear Arms Vote NRA on Nov. 4.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Listen to Polls???

Posted by W. Austerman on Friday, October 10, 2008 1:12:00 AM

I’ll start off my first official blog entry with a piece for Campaigns & Elections topic. As I spent the last few days in bed felling under the weather, my only connection to the outside world was my TV on Fox News all day long, and if you can tune out the financial crisis news, you can hear about the election polls that will say either the race is tide or in Barack Obama's favor in battleground states. Some of these polls maintain that Sen. Obama will win my native state of Colorado, Virginia, and North Carolina. Strong Republican Presidential Election States. Now I ask you is this possible??? I say NO! Polls scare us with their outcome that we forget, they are just "opinion polls". A Small group of people in target areas that are suppose to provide an answer to a question that is too big for them alone to answer on behalf of the rest of the country. We also forget that polls represent popularity not the actual electoral process for president. How do I know this, you might ask. In all my 20 + years of answering the phone, checking the mail, or walking in public areas were opinion takers operate, I have never once been asked to take part in a presidential poll. So if at least my voice has not been heard once in some silly sample poll in over 20 years how can I trust said poll. There is only one real poll that can give the correct answer. It’s on November 4th and all you have to do to take part is be a registered voter and go exercise your constitutional right to vote at your polling precinct.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Welcome

Posted by W. Austerman on Wednesday, October 01, 2008 1:08:42 PM

Welcome to Austerman's Conservative Voice. This blog was created for those who wish to read about my views on political issues as A Hard Core Right-Winged Conservative Republican from the South. It is for all those who started reading my original blog "A Conservative Voice" with America on Line. Sadly AOL is permanently closing their journal program, putting an end to all their members’ blogs. But it is said when one door closes another one opens usually for the better, and I expect this will be for the better. I welcome my AOL readers to this new blogging environment where I feel it is a more appropriate area with my writings. I hope my readers will enjoy reading hear and pick up on some of the other great bloggers and columnist here at Townhall. In closing I would like to thank our provider Townhall.com for giving me this place to contribute to the conservative cause. God Bless you all.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »