69 Percent of Americans Say Cities Do Not Have the Right to Prevent Citizens from Owning Handguns

Some good news in the recent Rasmussen gun polls.   It would seem that our efforts to educate the masses about Gun Rights  is starting to pay off.  Keep up the good work, everyone:

50% Oppose Stricter Gun Control Laws
RasmussenReports

Just 39% of Americans now say the United States needs stricter gun control, as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to review the constitutionality of state and local anti-gun laws.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 50% are opposed to stricter gun control laws, and 11% are not sure.

In March, 43% favored stricter gun control laws. In previous surveys, voters have been narrowly divided on the question.

Men by 23 points oppose stricter gun control laws. Women are evenly divided. Sixty-five percent (65%) of Democrats favor tighter control of guns, but 69% of Republicans and 62% of adults not affiliated with either party disagree.

The Supreme Court starts a new term today, and one of the most important cases on its docket looks at whether the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution takes legal precedence over state and local anti-gun laws.

[As Patrick Henry once declared, “I smell a rat…” ]

Only 20% of adults believe city governments have the right to prevent citizens from owning handguns.

Sixty-nine percent (69%) disagree and say city governments do not have that right. Eleven percent (11%) are undecided.

Eighty-seven percent (87%) of Republicans, 52% of Democrats and 72% of unaffiliateds say cities do not have the right to ban handgun ownership.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of Americans continue to believe that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of an average citizen to own a gun. Thirteen percent (13%) do not think gun ownership is a constitutional right. Fifteen percent (15%) aren’t sure.

For those 28% who are obviously Libtarded products of the public school’s indoctrination system and don’t know or “don’t think…”(contemplate those last two words) that the Constitution guarantees We the People the right to own a gun, consider this a public service announcement:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

This can be found in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights;  as is also the right to open your mouth and show everyone what a complete and unmitigated Libtardian you really are…

Help Wanted for Daughter’s Halloween Costume

Well, Halloween is almost upon us, and, as usual, Mrs. Bulldog and I are doing our Right-Wing political costuming motif.  My wife is dressing up as a prostitute, and I am dressing up as her pimp—complete with a video camera and a large ACORN medallion (Our costumes are an homage to Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe III, for those of you who have been living in a bomb shelter, or something).

The problem is, we can’t figure out how to fit our 2-year-old daughter’s Halloween costume into the theme.

I thought about dressing her as a pregnant child with a toy camera and a Planned Parenthood hat, or something like that, but that might be pushing things and many would not get the joke  (in the past, Planned Parenthood has been exposed in a similar manner).  Anyway I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts as to what we could dress her up as that would complete the ACORN motif.

Cheers,

Dr. Bulldog

James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles in Washington D.C.

Glenn Beck on the Death of the Dollar

This was on Glenn Beck’s show, today.  It pretty much sums up the current situation we find ourselves in:

FCC Says They Will Not Allow “Diversity” Czar to be Interviewed.

More “transparency” inaction:

FCC Won’t Allow ‘Diversity’ Chief Mark Lloyd to be Interviewed about Public Policy Views
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
By Matt Cover

(CNSNews.com) –The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) won’t allow its Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd to be interviewed by the news media about his views and past statements on federal communications policy.

Lloyd, who cites the radical author Saul Alinsky as an inspiration, has argued that public broadcasting outlets in the United States should be funded on a level equal to the funding of private broadcasting companies–with the money coming from licensing fees levied on private broadcasters by the government.

The FCC says it does not allow any commission staffers to be interviewed.

CNSNews.com attempted to interview Lloyd Friday at a public forum held by the FCC. CNSNews.com wanted to ask the FCC diversity chief about policy recommendations he made in his 2006 book Prologue to a Farce and in papers written for the liberal Center for American Progress about changing media ownership rules in the United States, the role of public broadcasting, and the influence of 1960’s radical Saul Alinksy on his views.

FCC Communications Director David Fiske said that like any other federal agency, the FCC does not allow its staff members to be interviewed about themselves or their views, past or present, because it might compromise their ability to make recommendation to policymakers.

[Cite the regulation.  Where is it?  C’mon, I’ll wait.  In the meantime, if the Press wants to interview a “staff member” in the Federal Government and that “staff member” is agreeable to it, there isn’t anything to stop it.  This is just a bunch of BS to deflect from the obvious:  Lloyd doesn’t want to be interviewed and has been forced into hiding!]

[…]

Lloyd wrote in Prologue that the “communications marketplace” should change dramatically, with private broadcasters competing against a nationwide, well-financed public broadcasting corporation funded by the sale of the broadcast licenses Genachowski mentioned in his letter.

“The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) must be reformed along democratic lines and funded at a substantial level,” Lloyd wrote. “Federal and regional [public] broadcast operations and local [public] stations should be funded at levels commensurate with or above those spending levels at which commercial operations are funded.”

“This funding should come from license fees charged to commercial broadcasters,” wrote Lloyd.  “The FCC should be fully funded with regulatory fees from [private] broadcast, cable, satellite, and telecommunications companies.”

Lloyd also wrote that the protests of private broadcasters, who might view such policies as a limitation on their First Amendment rights, were simply exaggerations, saying that the First Amendment had been “warped” to serve international corporations.

“[A]ll too often Americans use the First Amendment to end discussions of communications policy,” wrote Lloyd. “This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of communications policies.”

“[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance,” said Lloyd.

As CNSNews.com has previously reported, Lloyd believes that to combat the control of international business and restore government to what he sees as its rightful place in managing public communications, a “confrontational movement” must be launched to protest the present order and organize a political movement that could force government to rein the businesses in. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53055

“If our republican form of government is perishing because communications – the infrastructure of that republic – is under the yoke of international business how, at last, do we save it?” he asks. “We must build a confrontational movement to reclaim our democracy, a movement committed to active and sustained protest against the present order.”

To do this, Lloyd draws on his experience lobbying the FCC during the Clinton administration, counseling would-be revolutionaries to follow the tactics used by other left-wing movements, such as the followers of Saul Alinsky and the people who ran the campaign to block Republican Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.

“We understood at the beginning, and were certainly reminded in the course of the campaign,” wrote Lloyd, “that our work was not simply convincing policy makers of the logic or morality of our arguments. We understood that we were in a struggle for power against an oppenent, the commercial broadcasters ….”

“We looked to successful political campaigns and organizers as a guide, especially the civil rights movement, Saul Alinsky, and the campaign to prevent the Supreme Court nomination of the ultra-conservative jurist Robert Bork,” wrote Lloyd. “From those sources we drew inspiration and guidance.”

The Differences Between Conservatives and Liberals

This was sent in to us by AZ_Conservative.  It certainly has a good bead on the subject:

Right/Left Differences

KFYI

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
If a liberal doesn’t like guns, then no one should have one.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants to ban all meat products for
everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat this
enemy.
A liberal thinks about how to negotiate some kind of peace treaty and still
look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly enjoys his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic is conservative, they see themselves as
independently successful due to hard work and talent.
Their liberal counterparts see the conservatives as sell outs because they
don’t claim to be victims of discrimination.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to improve his
situation.
A liberal looks for welfare programs to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches stations.
Liberals demand that those talk show hosts they don’t like be muzzled or
shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal who is a non-believer wants any mention of God or religion removed
from public discourse.

If a conservative needs health care, he shops for it, or chooses a job that
provides it.
A liberal believes that government should provide his healthcare. (He
doesn’t realize that the governmment has no money
except what it taxes away from him and all his neighbors)

Democrats Fight Against Posting Bills Online

More of that “transparency” inaction:

Congressional leaders fight against posting bills online
By: Susan Ferrechio
Chief Congressional Correspondent – Washington Examiner
October 6, 2009

As Congress lurches closer to a decision on an enormous overhaul of the American health care system, pressure is mounting on legislative leaders to make the final bill available online for citizens to read before a vote.

Lawmakers were given just hours to examine the $789 billion stimulus plan, sweeping climate-change legislation and a $700 billion bailout package before final votes.

While most Americans normally ignore parliamentary detail, with health care looming, voters are suddenly paying attention. The Senate is expected to vote on a health bill in the weeks to come, representing months of work and stretching to hundreds of pages. And as of now, there is no assurance that members of the public, or even the senators themselves, will be given the chance to read the legislation before a vote.

“The American people are now suspicious of not only the lawmakers, but the process they hide behind to do their work,” said Michael Franc, president of government relations for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

At town hall meetings across the country this past summer, the main topic was health care, but there was a strong undercurrent of anger over the way Congress rushed through passage of the stimulus, global warming and bank bailout bills without seeming to understand the consequences. The stimulus bill, for example, was 1,100 pages long and made available to Congress and the public just 13 hours before lawmakers voted on it. The bill has failed to provide the promised help to the job market, and there was outrage when it was discovered that the legislation included an amendment allowing American International Group, a bailout recipient, to give out millions in employee bonuses.

“If someone had a chance to look at the bill, they would have found that out,” said Lisa Rosenberg, who lobbies Congress on behalf of the Sunlight Foundation to bring more transparency to government.

The foundation has begun an effort to get Congress to post bills online, for all to see, 72 hours before lawmakers vote on them.

“It would give the public a chance to really digest and understand what is in the bill,” Rosenberg said, “and communicate whether that is a good or a bad thing while there is still time to fix it.”

A similar effort is under way in Congress. Reps. Brian Baird, D-Wash., and Greg Walden, R-Ore., are circulating a petition among House lawmakers that would force a vote on the 72-hour rule.

Nearly every Republican has signed on, but the Democratic leadership is unwilling to cede control over when bills are brought to the floor for votes and are discouraging their rank and file from signing the petition. Senate Democrats voted down a similar measure last week for the health care bill.