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

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

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
« Previous1Next »