Starting in March 2012, New York State conservative activists Raquel Okyay and Lisa Douglas teamed up to create Conservative-Women.com – a publication geared towards amplifying the female, conservative voice.

Visit Conservative-Women.com Today for Need to Know News and insightful commentary!

(Editor’s note: I’m sorry Greg, but you brought this upon yourself.)

By: Raquel Okyay

It’s going to be a “blood bath” insiders say in the 2012 Republican primary race Katz vs. Ball for New York State Senate.  First term incumbent, Senator Greg Ball is being challenged by State Assemblyman Stephen Katz for the seat representing District 40.

Since Katz made his announcement on March 19, prior Ball supporters (including me) are dropping their support faster than pennies thrown off the top of the Empire State Building to join the Katz campaign; and the Ball campaign are not pleased.

The Ball campaign is in attack mode, using every dirty trick at their disposal to smear Dr. Katz. Husband and father of four, Stephen Katz was born and raised in Jericho, New York.  He is a Veterinarian by trade and a popular State Assemblyman for the residents in Assembly District 99.

It was Stephen Katz who, in his first term, brokered a deal to rejuvenate the Jefferson Valley Mall, and reigned in $30 million in private investment funds to the community.  Thirty Million Dollars amounts to  a l o t  of jobs, thank you Mr. Assemblyman, and job well done.

But supporting Stephen Katz for State Senate is not just about Steve’s commitment to the well being of New York, his passion for smart reform, or his easy going manner with friends and constituents, that makes him so appealing, it is the fact that Senator Greg Ball, once the tea party hero in the region, is doing a horrible job representing the more conservative faction of the Republican Party for the residents in District 40; and all of us residing in New York State.

It was in August 2010, when then Assemblyman Greg Ball was endorsed here at Raquel’s Picks for State Senate being referred to as a “Mover & Shaker” “Republican Extraordinaire” in state politics.  That was then – this is now. Ball has been such a disappointment thus far, learning that Assemblyman Katz would challenge Ball in a GOP primary, had me – and many others – jumping for joy!

Senator Ball has failed us, here is why:

a.   Supportive of job killing Wicks Law that requires private construction companies to provide separate contracts for separate utilities has slowed the process for providing work down to a crawl.  Unions like this law and have compensated Ball for his support by making large donations to his reelection campaign.

b.   Introduced legislation to increase the salaries to State Legislators to a full time position from a part time one. This would cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars each year.  What is Greg thinking?

c.    Rumor is last year, before Gay Marriage became law; Ball was soliciting the gay agenda community for his vote in exchange for hard, cold cash, upward in the amount of One Million Dollars.  Apparently his offer proved to be too high, and the gay agenda recruited someone else at a lower price, namely; Republican State Senator Steve Saland, District 41, who would vote for the measure, while Ball voted against it.

d.    Greg Ball has a reputation for not returning messages.  Not from political party leaders, friends, supporters, media, conservative groups, and likely others.  This behavior is plain-old rude, and part of the reason why his like-ability is running on empty.

Actions or inaction have ramifications, and this race is a prime example.  Senator Ball has lost sight of the reasons why the voters elected him to public office, and Ball’s actions or inaction show what people have been saying for a while; Greg Ball is concerned with Greg Ball.

Assemblyman Stephen Katz has stepped up to the plate, not for his own sake, but for the sake of New York.  Dr. Katz understands that New York, particularly now in difficult economic times, needs a representative who truly adheres to Tea Party goals of less government, low taxes, and a constitutionally principled itinerary.

“Greg Ball is a career politician.  He hasn’t had a job in private industry, and he doesn’t know how to create jobs. Working in private industry, I have the experience to expand economic growth, rather than create hurdles. Elect me to the State Senate and I will get to work creating a business friendly environment.  I have an investment in my community; my wife, my daughters, and my friends, to persuade my colleagues in government to produce legislation that is effective in lowering taxes, reducing government repetition and corruption, and reflect the conservative principles we support.”  Assemblyman Stephen Katz

Garnishing the title of “Legislator of the Year 2011” from Westchester – Putnum Right to Life, is just one more good reason to support Stephen Katz for State Senate. Stephen Katz introduced a Bill to remove tax payer funding of Planned Parenthood, again, job well done, and thank you Mr. Assemblyman for being aggressive on this issue.

No regret, no doubt, no confusion, Stephen Katz is the best candidate for State Senate; and I respectfully urge you to jump to his campaign too.  (Good luck, Steve!)

[Disclaimer: These are the opinions of Raquel Okyay alone, and not in connection with any affiliated groups.   For the record, Senator Greg Ball has always returned calls to New York State Right to Life; and has been a consistent champion for children. So has Assemblyman Katz. NYSRTL are grateful for both men.  NYSRTL makes it a rule to endorse favorable, pro-life incumbents, in an election challenge, and are squarely backing Senator Greg Ball for re-election. ]

Good Lord, what would we do without the Second Amendment Foundation? SAF was created in 1974, currently having 650,000 members, to combat anti-Second Amendment crusaders who use “safety” as an excuse to restrict our Second Amendment rights. Consistently battling the opposition in the Courts and otherwise, thanks to them, a positive Court ruling has been issued by the Honorable Judge Benson E. Legg in the Maryland district court on March 5, in the case of Woollard v. Sheridan.

The main Plaintiff in this case Raymond Woollard, a Maryland resident and Navy veteran, attempted to renew his gun carry permit, but was denied renewal in February 2009 because, according to the Maryland State Police, Woollard’s application did not provide sufficient evidence “to support apprehended fear” and he did not demonstrate a “good and substantial reason” to carry a hand gun.

Shortly thereafter, Woollard requested and received an informal review, such application was denied. Woollard proceeded to appeal the decision to the Maryland Permit Review Board, who also upheld the decision of the Maryland State Police.

Subsequently, SAF, on behalf of Woollard, filed a Complaint with the District Court of Maryland praying for a reversal of the Maryland State Police decision.

The facts in this case reveal that on Christmas Eve 2002 an intruder broke into the Woollard home by shattering a window. Woollard retrieved his shot gun to subdue the burglar and a fight between the two ensued. Woollard’s son retrieved a second firearm and was able to control the volatile situation. Mrs. Woollard called 911, and the Police arrived approximately 2.5 hours later.

The intruder was convicted of First Degree Burglary, and received a three year probation sentence. Violating his probation for assaulting a police office and attempting to burglarize a second home that finally landed the criminal in jail.

Now, get this: The criminal gets out of jail in 2005 and resides approximately three miles from the Woollard home. This was around the same time that Woollard applied for renewal of his hand gun permit, in which Woollard was denied.

Who are the Maryland police protecting?  Woollard or the criminal? It seems they fear Woollard more than they fear a convict. Yet, the reality is the Woollard family did absolutely nothing wrong. In fact, they exercised their Second Amendment rights, and successfully protected themselves from the intruder. Surely, if the Woollard’s were not armed, the burglar would not have been subdued, and only God knows what destruction may have happened.

Judge Legg ruled in part:

“A citizen may not be required to offer a good and substantial reason why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.”—Judge Benson E. Legg

Bingo! Judge Legg hits the nail on the head. Of course, the Second Amendment’s mere existence is enough to secure the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” A right that “shall not be infringed.”

Judge Legg also said in part:

“In addition to self-defense, the (Second Amendment) right was also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. To secure these rights, the Second Amendment‘s protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and ‘self-defense has to take place wherever [a] person happens to be’.”—Judge Benson E. Legg

Bingo! Judge Legg hits the nail on the head, again. The ruling acknowledges the right of persons to be able to protect themselves wherever they are. This victory is monumental because it sets a precedent that says: a. The Second Amendment in and of itself is enough to honor our right “to keep and bear Arms”; and b. The Second Amendment applies to the person, not the venue.

After the Court’s decision, on March 5, SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb in a press release issued the following statement, in part:

“The federal district court has carefully spelled out the obvious, that the Second Amendment does not stop at one’s doorstep, but protects us wherever we have a right to be. Once again, SAF’s attorney in this case, Alan Gura, has won an important legal victory. He was the attorney who argued the landmark Heller case, and he represented SAF in our Supreme Court victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago.”

“Judge Legg’s ruling takes a substantial step toward restoring the Second Amendment to its rightful place in the Bill of Rights, and provides gun owners with another significant victory,” Gottlieb concluded. “SAF will continue winning back firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time.”

Hip, hip, hooray for the Second Amendment Foundation! Say a prayer because, guaranteed the Maryland State Police will appeal Legg’s ruling, and the case will continue onward.

Big Thank You to SAF and the Woollard family. May God bless you all.

* * APRIL TEA PARTY  * *

Celebrate With Us

It’s been Two Years since Ulster Orange Tea Party has been meeting monthly.

We have invited past speakers to say a few words

and invited a couple of new speakers too.

We hope you can make it!

When: Thursday, April 12, 2012

Time: 7:00 to 10:00 PM

Where: Home of Lorraine Morano

134 Barclay Road

Clintondale, NY

GUEST SPEAKERS:

George Marlin, Author of “The History of the Conservative Party” and “The Catholic Voter”; Former NY/NJ Port Authority Chief

Jay Townsend, Political consultant; Former GOP candidate for U.S. Senate

Michael Caputo, Political consultant; Former campaign manager to Carl Paladino, GOP nominee for NYS Governor 2010 (tentative)

Anthony Mele, Previous GOP nominee, and Candidate for Congress (NY-17)

Lisa Douglas, Founder of Hudson Valley Patriots; Producer of Hudson Valley Patriots daily newsletter

Raquel Okyay, Founder of Ulster Orange Tea Party, Writer for Human Events

Free copies of George Marlin’s new book “Narcissist Nation: Reflections of a Blue-State Conservative” [Paperback] will be distributed.

Thank you for your participation!

- Refreshments Served -

Admission is FREE

Thank you for your participation!

Lorraine Morano
Raquel Okyay

Coordinators

(Diane  Seneca is a “conservative leaning libertarian” college student and aspiring writer from New Jersey.)

We Can Support Ron Paul for President

by Diane Seneca

I recently saw a Facebook status that touched me deeply. A friend of mine shared a poem written by Siegfried Sassoon in 1917;

“Suicide in the Trenches”

I knew a simple soldier boy

Who grinned at life in empty joy,

Slept soundly through the lonesome dark,

And whistled early with the lark.

In winter trenches, cowed and glum,

With crumps and lice and lack of rum,

He put a bullet through his brain.

No one spoke of him again.

You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye

Who cheer when soldier lads march by,

Sneak home and pray you’ll never know

The hell where youth and laughter go.

This friend is one of the many veterans who support Ron Paul for president. Given that he served overseas as is a combat veteran, the very act of publicly sharing this poem should compel those who have never served to see war from the eyes of a soldier. The act demands an audience, to dismiss it is to do injury to the very people we claim to support. As an American, I love and support our troops; I cannot express my gratitude in words. There are no words that can convey the complexity of emotion I feel in my heart. But, I can show them my gratitude by supporting them. How can all of us express our gratitude and support? We can support the candidate who will bring them home to their families. We can support Ron Paul for president.

The idea of supporting our troops through support of Ron Paul will be rejected by many. After all, his foreign policy is crazy, right? We have been conditioned by the media and the government to believe that patriotism involves supporting our troops in conflict. Here, I will attempt to dismantle that idea, and I hope that you – the reader – will be willing to take the journey with me. I hope, at the very least, to leave the reader with lingering questions to explore; and maybe, in the exploration, a new perspective will be discovered.

There is a simple truth in life that requires no explanation, no teaching, and no learning: humans have an innate desire to be free. The idea was named by John Locke and others during the Enlightenment as “natural law.” But, this is a truth that did not need naming in order to be. As infants, we express the desire for freedom in its purest form as we develop mobility: from lying on our backs, to crawling, to walking. Watch the joy on a child’s face as he or she takes those first steps. Once a child tastes freedom, it is forever on the lips. The “terrible two’s” are just another expression of this innate desire; even at this early stage, we fight for the freedom to explore the world without restriction. Nobody told us about “natural law” or freedom, we intuitively strive for it.

As humans, we have other needs that run counter to individual freedom. We have social needs; the need for human contact, the need for community, the need to belong. We base our very identity on where we fit into this social structure. Who I am, can only be established when I compare my-self to the other. This is also known, and this is the place where we are susceptible to manipulation, where we can be persuaded to support values that are morally objectionable, given that they inhibit our innate need for freedom and oppress the freedom of others. For instance, the idea of patriotism at all costs is morally objectionable when patriotism leads us to defend and support crimes against humanity, crimes we would not commit under any other circumstance, crimes that enslave us to our government.

Patriotism can promote community; it can make us feel good about being a part of something greater than ourselves. We feel love and comfort knowing that we are part of a community with similar values and beliefs. But, patriotism can be perverted into something ugly and cause us to support manufactured community values: values that we are told to embrace.

Under the guise of patriotism, Americans have been indoctrinated to believe that we must support military action without question. As an American, I am “unpatriotic” if I express any dissention in the current policy of imperialism. They cry, “We are not imperialist! We are freeing nations! We are the sole defender of liberty the world over! It is our duty to defend it!” Any question of this mantra lands one in the category of traitor, radical, or lunatic – to name the thing is to put it into being – I am a radical once I am labeled such. The media, the government, the elitist, and the powerful, have assured our complete compliance by labeling those who dissent. We are “out” of the community that is America if we disagree.

Ron Paul has been named – labeled – by those who wish to squash his message. He’s a fringe candidate, an outcast. Anyone who supports him is also thrown into the role of outcast. Why is he being attacked from every angle? What is the message he delivers, and why is it considered an affront to American values? He is the lone voice in the field of presidential candidates who speaks the true message of liberty. What is liberty, if not to “live and let live?” Paul does not believe in pre-emptive military action, he does not believe that our military should be spread around the world fighting wars against countries that have not attacked us.

He sees the folly in supporting military action against a disembodied ideology: how do you fight a war that lies within the hearts and minds of people? With drones and bombs? No, the war of hearts can only be fought with love. The war of minds can only be fought with knowledge. We cannot bomb new belief systems into the hearts and minds of people! His “crazy” foreign policy stance is to protect the rights and liberties of Americans while respecting the rights of others to live as they choose. Some are under the false belief that Paul would not engage in war under any circumstance; this stance has come into existence through labeling Paul as “lunatic.” Paul would not allow an unanswered attack on America; he has vowed to uphold the Constitution and protect our lands. It is lunacy to believe otherwise, but we live in a fishbowl of messages that attack our sensibilities until we accept this false mantra.

Tensions between Iran and the West have become the focus of a global debate. There are competing messages that promote negotiation, sanctions, and/or military action. Some are pushing for military intervention as a pre-emption measure to a nuclear Iran; others do not believe Iran is capable of achieving nuclear status. It is vital that we evaluate these messages; the lives of millions of people are at stake. In order to do so, we must learn to look beyond the messages being conveyed by the media and both political parties. They are fighting for their very existence, an existence that depends upon an ignorant and submissive citizenry. We must examine these messages against what we know is true, intuitively.

Humans want to be free; humans want to belong. When we evaluate the message of pre-emptive war, it is in opposition to our innate desire to be free. We cannot, by sending our military to fight and kill Iranian citizens, be free. Can we belong? The answer, unfortunately, is yes. We can belong to the patriotic mass that supports the government’s militarism. This is how they got us. This is how we accept encroachments on our individual freedoms; if we object – we are out. This is where patriotism is perverted and used to control the masses. The question is, to what type of group do we wish to belong? Is our need for belonging so great that we accept admission to an immoral and unjust group? If we define patriotism by the citizenry, it is a love of country and our fellow citizens.

The government has an entirely different definition; it is loyalty to government – regardless if that government is moral or just. Government is God, and blind faith is required; they know what’s best for us, so just sit down and be quiet – they’ve got it covered. And, oh, you’ll have to hand them some of that much valued freedom; it is the price of patriotism. This should be reason enough to support Ron Paul for president. Paul has a healthy view of patriotism, a view that supports American values as embodied in the Constitution: personal liberty.

Under a Paul presidency, we will not have to support actions that directly insult our innate desire for freedom. Under a Paul presidency, we will not be asked to support a perverted patriotic stance that calls upon our sons and daughters; brothers and sisters; mothers and fathers to sacrifice their lives in order to spread “liberty” through blood and bombs.

His “isolationism” is merely an expression of the truth of individual freedom. This stance has been labeled radical, crazy – but, how can we justify support of denying others freedom? How free is the soldier stationed in the hills of Afghanistan? Should he decide to exercise his freedom and walk away, he will be labeled a “deserter,” and once found, he will be incarcerated. The very soldiers who fight for our freedoms are the least free of all. Yes, they volunteered their service; however, if we examine the messages we’ve heard since early childhood, can we say that they truly volunteered? We need only look at the commercials promoting military service, “Be all you can be,” to see that it is more of an indoctrination than an absolutely free act.

The hearts and minds of our troops are sincere; they love America and wish to defend her – at all costs. The problem is that our government is not sincere; politicians lure these good hearted men and women into belief that their service defends “liberty,” when our government is using their service to enslave. Citizens are enslaved to the tax burden it requires to support these wars. We have also been enslaved by legislation under the guise of protection: the Patriot Act and NDAA.

Paul sees these perversions, and he has vowed to dismantle them. Why is it that Paul has the greatest military support? I can only imagine that nothing opens the eyes more than seeing fellow servicemen and women being blown to bits by IED’s while fighting an undefined war against an invisible enemy: an ideology that lies within the hearts and minds of people. Maybe, they see the injustice of promoting “liberty” through death and destruction. Maybe, they do not want to enter yet another conflict.

Do we really wish to send our troops to Iran? How many dead soldiers will it take to open the eyes of the American citizens? How many dead women and children? We focus so much upon the cost of war in dollars, but what is the human cost? Over six thousand US soldiers have been killed in the Middle East since we began this “War on Terror.” It is time to bring the remaining troops home. It is time to take a look at Paul’s policy and decide; do we support diplomatic negotiations with Iran or do we wish to enter yet another bloody war? There are many who will not be convinced that war should be reactive instead of preventative; we have been conditioned to this stance.

So, I ask – you the reader – consider that there is another point of view. Consider that there are more than just two options with regard to Iran; war or sanctions. Consider that our government has continually lied to us; why should we now believe their findings on Iran? Consider that there are more than two options in government; why do we have a two-party system? Is there any difference between them, how so? Both parties want to grow government, it’s just that they approach it in different ways. Consider that Ron Paul has been attacked by all sides. Why? Is there something in his message that threatens their existence? What happens to the government “body” when liberty expands? Does it expand or shrink? The answer is simple. Government cannot grow when liberty is predominating in society. Paul wishes to starve the beast that the others want to feed. What better way to starve it than to bring our troops home? Under the guise of protection, we have allowed politicians to increase government. We spend billions promoting liberty through force. We have allowed the government far too much power in these times of endless war, where the “world is a battlefield.”

Look closely at the agenda: increasing government through war. Then, look closely at the young soldier who dies for this end and wonder, “The hell where youth and laughter go.”

Maybe, Paul isn’t so crazy, after all.

(Published at HUMAN EVENTS Guns & Patriots on 2/28/12.  Receive FREE weekly Guns & Patriots e-newsletter here.)

GOP hopeful supported 1997 Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban

by Raquel Okyay

Surely, Richard J. Santorum, candidate for the Republican Party nomination for President, 2012 is supportive of preserving “our constitutionally protected” Second Amendment rights as indicated by his sometimes articulate advocacy on the topic in the media, and on the Floor of the United States Congress where he spent a 16-year political career, representing the People of the State of Pennsylvania, until he was voted out of public office in 2007.

Advocacy for Second Amendment rights is good, but results are better, and when we compare Rick Santorum’s meaningful rhetoric to his legislative success rate in Congress, Rick’s powers of persuasion, fall all too short.

In fact, a 16-year public record shows a politician with conflicting credentials, with not much accomplished.

Supporting the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban proposal is probably Santorum’s worst offense. The gun ban, made law in 1997, makes it illegal for individuals convicted of misdemeanor charges of domestic violence to own, sell, ship, or carry firearms, for any kind of use, including individuals under a restraining order.

Domestic violence is a serious crime deserving of the public’s immediate attention, but “our constitutionally protected” Second Amendment rights cannot be infringed as a consequence.

Santorum and his colleagues, barking up the wrong tree with a good concept, actually trampled over the Second Amendment like a bull tramples over its pasture.

In this instance, Santorum’s influence was detrimental to the cause of gun rights.  Here is another example:

In 2005, Santorum voted to force gun manufacturers to make locks on all handguns produced.  And while the measure did not become law, it is worth noting, Santorum was in the company of two notable and extreme gun control addicted representatives in Congress, Dianne Fienstein of California and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, respectively.

Seriously, the Second Amendment says nothing about locks, why on earth would Santorum, or anyone else in their right mind, support it?

Looking on the bright side, OnTheIssues.org reports the following with respect to Santorum on gun rights:

• Lifetime A+ rating with the NRA; despite trigger lock vote. (Jan 2012)
• Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
• Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
• Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
• Voted YES on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
• Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
• Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)

Still, after 16 years in Congress, this is all Santorum could produce, my opinion is that it is just not enough.  It is also not enough to dress up in an orange suit, own seven rifles, and hunt once in a while, to be a true Second Amendment rights’ stalwart.

The proof is in legislative success or legislative failure.  You be the judge.

I used to be a GOP party girl. Like a good republican, I pulled the lever for the candidate in the “R” column without considering or investigating the candidate’s positions. After all, the Republican Party stands for family values, limited government, and individual responsibility, don’t they? What’s to question?

It’s no accident, with voters like me, that this country is imploding due to the weight of debt. We can’t continue with the same policies – both foreign and domestic – and expect to work our way out. We need a drastic change in leadership; I say, even a radical change.

Yes, I’ve changed my party affiliation to Independent, and I will no longer pull that lever without thoroughly investigating the candidate. I hate to admit that I was one of the “sheeple,” thoroughly convinced that Ron Paul was a nut. I bought the media mantra, I believed the party elites. He had to be crazy, because everyone said so. I dismissed him in 1998 as fringe, at least that’s what the media said. I glossed over him in 2008, because he didn’t have a chance to win – that is what the media told me. Thanks Hannity, I got stuck pulling the lever for McCain.

But, whom am I blaming? I owed it to myself, and this country, to investigate him on my own. I know most of us believe that the party leaders and MSN should be investigating – but, they don’t. The truth is, it’s one big party. It doesn’t much matter to Chris Matthews or Diane Sawyer who wins. Big business is in bed with the government; it’s the only non-partisan game in town.

We, as responsible citizens, must begin investigating the candidates on our own. From the local council races, right up to the presidential elections. We must be diligent and form our own opinions. Once we locate the best fit, we owe it to ourselves to back that candidate – regardless of what the pundits say.

After much investigating and frankly, a lot of soul searching, I am backing Ron Paul for president. It takes a shift in perspective in order to come to Paul’s vision, but once we see him from another perspective, it’s difficult to go back to our old views. Paul’s economic ideas have been well-received by many in the republican party; he is the only candidate who will reduce the deficit and cut spending. Paul’s plan includes a 10% reduction in the federal workforce and $1 trillion cut in spending during his first year. In fact, if you compare economic plans, Paul’s is the only one that comes close to those “limited government” republican values.

The economy is a top priority; people need jobs. However, the economy is not necessarily the most important issue. There is much more at stake: our freedom. The United States is becoming a police state. Our rights our being destroyed through unconstitutional legislation, brought to you by your republican party in the form of the Patriot Act. This egregious Act has been the catalyst for more government power, more presidential power, the TSA, the DHS, and a growing police state.

While the party and conservative electorate have been railing about Obamacare, both parties have signed away the rights of US citizens to due process through passage of NDAA, which was signed into law on December 31st, whilst the nation was partying. Of course, President Obama promised he would not use the power to indefinitely detain US citizens without charge, so what’s the problem? No worries – go back to sleep. He did win a Nobel Peace Prize, he’d never abuse that power. I am sure he had good reason to assassinate Anwar Al-Awlaki, without charge or trial. I’d like to know where the outrage is? How can any conservative, who believes in the fidelity of the US Constitution, back such an action? He was a “suspected” terrorist who was murdered for speech – there is no evidence whatsoever that he had any connection to any actual terrorist activities. Yet, our nation cheered.

Now, more than any time since the revolution, we need people to stand-up against the government violence that has been bestowed upon us by both the democrats and republicans. We need to back a candidate who will fight to secure our rights and restore our freedom. And I know that many out there say, “I like his economic plans, but his foreign policy is crazy.” Once voters realize that the endless wars are nothing but a mechanism for growing the government, they will begin to question why we have allowed the parties to conduct the endless and unconstitutional wars.

Ron Paul wants to bring our troops home. The military backs Paul over all the other candidates; maybe we should listen to what they have to say. Maybe, we should think about the men and women who are getting the limbs blown off in the hills of Afghanistan, fighting an ideology that will never cease to exist; and therefore, fighting a war that will never end.

On February 20th, President’s Day, a group of veterans marched on Washington, DC, to show their support for Ron Paul. In what was one of the most compelling displays of disgust with our government’s policies, the veterans got into formation, “All races, military branches, and ages marched together in one massive formation totaling eight ranks and sixty-three files equaling approximately 504 verified Veterans,” (rrspin.com). Then they turned their backs on the White House and saluted a folded flag. They stood in formation for one second for every soldier wounded or killed since Obama became president. At the end of the ceremony, the soldiers chanted, “President Paul.”

The bravery of these veterans cannot be dismissed. They turned their backs on the Commander-in-Chief, on President’s Day! If the veterans feel this strongly about Ron Paul, don’t you owe it to yourself, your family, and your country to learn more? Will it hurt to read about his vision, and listen to what average Americans are saying? If we allow the government to continue the course, we will have no freedoms left. When is enough, enough? When are people going to stop listening to the political elite and media, and start investigating on their own?

The time to wake is now! Find out more about Ron Paul’s candidacy at http://www.ronpaul2012.com/. Help spread the message of liberty and stop the erosion of our freedoms.

Reporting here a few weeks ago, I indicated that President Barack Obama pretends to support the Second Amendment, but really is working behind the scenes with Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder’s Justice Department to introduce oppressive gun regulations, with or without Congress, and despite Constitutional restraints.

Well, you know what?

I was right on target.

This all began with “Project Gunrunner” a law enforcement strategy designed in 2006 by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearm and Explosives to indentify, disrupt, and dismantle firearms and explosives-related violent crime associated with Mexican criminal organizations operating along the U.S. border and Mexico.

Still in operation today, with close to 4,500 ongoing investigations; referral of over 1,100 criminal cases for prosecution through 2010; the seizure of over 10,000 firearms, and nearly one million rounds of ammunition destined for Mexican criminal enterprises, indeed, the results have been successful, as long as the means and objectives stay on point – the reduction of violent crime associated with criminal groups along the U.S. border and Mexico.

Here’s where everything goes wrong. Enter Eric Holder in January 2009. Relying on the concept of Project Gunrunner, “Fast and Furious” was developed to broaden the scope of the project. Except the new design has a completely new objective: Enlist U.S. gun shop owners to illegally sell guns to known criminal traffickers directly, this way more guns could be tracked, and more criminals captured, so that the Justice Department could avail its anticipated success as a means to promote strict gun control laws, nationwide.

The scheme came to a screeching halt when Brian Terry, a U.S. Border Patrol Agent was killed in December 2010 by a known gun trafficker who – fell into Holder’s trap – and purchased the gun from a U.S. gun seller at the direction and approval of the Justice Department.

Now, under joint congressional investigations for developing a program designed to act in an illegal and unconstitutional manner, with a different and hidden agenda, Holder is refusing to produce relevant documents under oath, and has denied even knowing about the Fast and Furious project, prior to its downfall in late 2010.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration and Holder’s Justice Department devised a gun control policy that harasses federally licensed and innocent gun retailers across the Southern Border, to include California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas; by demanding that multiple sales of semi-automatic rifles be reported to the Federal government which is in violation of the Second Amendment.

Firearm retailers and the National Shooting Sports Foundation sued the federal government only to be rejected by a district court in Washington, who recently issued a ruling upholding the Obama administration policy.

The case is now being appealed and the National Rifle Association is calling on us to support a bill introduced in March by senator Jon Tester (D.-Mont.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.) S. 570 — “a bill to prohibit the Department of Justice from tracking and cataloguing the purchases of multiple rifles and shotguns.”

The connection here is clear as the sky is blue: Under the guise of successfully prosecuting Mexican criminals, the Obama administration working with the Justice Department is seeking to enforce aggressive federal gun control policies and produce a negative public-reaction to firearms, all based on a disingenuous template.

Sadly, this is the story of a very corrupt administration hell bent on “transforming America” from a Constitutional Republic to one in which big government dictates our lives; from which healthcare package we choose to purchase; to what kind of car we drive; to how many firearms we can sell;  Obama’s White house is jam packed with control freaks unable to comprehend that when the Constitution says no, it means We the People say no too!

Kieran Michael Lalor speaks at Ulster Orange Tea Party, Oct. 2011.

(This article is published at PoughkeepsieJournal.com on 2/25/12; reprinted here with permission.)

State’s political landscape drives away businesses

By: Kieran Michael Lalor (Kieran is a candidate in the proposed 105th Assembly District.  He is founder of Iraq Veterans for Congress; and author of the Empire State Compact and This Recruit.)

In the last decade 1.6 million people fled our state because Albany’s culture of corruption leads to bloated government and billions of tax dollars squandered. To feed the government beast and stay in office, politicians relentlessly take an ever-increasing share from the productive, hard-working taxpayers to subsidize the politically connected. The innovators and entrepreneurs who are the engine of job creation are forced to seek a more hospitable business climate elsewhere.

A quintessential example of how politicians in both parties put their political self-interest above the public interest and waste tax dollars has been playing out this winter. Rather than have just one primary election for presidential, congressional and state offices, New York state will have three primaries between now and September. According to the Poughkeepsie Journal, each primary costs taxpayers an astounding $50 million. Thus, over the next few months $100 million of your tax dollars will be squandered because incumbent politicians calculate that three separate primaries increase their reelection chances.

Making matters worse, New York legislators are more likely to be convicted of a crime than voted out of office. There are only 212 state lawmakers. Since 2000, five assemblymen and four state senators have been convicted of felonies. Another five senators have been convicted of misdemeanors. Three former senators and a sitting assemblyman face corruption charges. Those legislators who are not corrupt are unable or unwilling to expose those who are. Our reputation as a state run by a den of thieves has devastating economic consequences. Employers simply don’t want to do business in a state that isn’t on the level.

Only by sending to Albany a critical mass of legislators who will agree to end taxpayer abuse through the following five reforms can we again be the Empire State:

Reform 1. No pensions for state politicians: State lawmaker pensions are not necessary and we can’t afford them. Even California, which leads the nation in wasteful spending, has done away with state lawmaker pensions.

If lawmakers and judges would simply accept the Second Amendment as lawful and binding, a need for proactive measures to protect our natural and constitutional right to keep and bear arms, would not exist.

Forced to challenge existing Illinois laws that prohibited gun owners from carrying loaded handguns outside their home, the Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org), a legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right to own and possess firearms, sued the Attorney General of the State of Illinois for being in violation of the Second Amendment.

Gun control advocates claim victory when federal district Judge Sue Myerscough, an Obama appointee, on Feb. 3, turned a blind eye to the Second Amendment and ruled that citizens do not have a right to be armed outside of their homes.

“This Court finds that the Illinois Unlawful Use of Weapons’ and Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon’ statutes do not violate Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit have recognized only a Second Amendment core individual right to bear arms inside the home.”

However, the inherent and very real rights contained in the Second Amendment lies in our favor, still; and the SAF on February 6 filed an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb issued this statement:

“The Second Amendment does not say, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except outside your home or that it only applies inside your house. We don’t check our constitutional rights at the front door.”

Indeed, our Second Amendment right was never intended to place boundaries on our freedom to keep and bear arms.

“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.” — George Washington

Battling boundaries becomes necessary due to misinformed politicians, and the gun control lobby that support them, who blatantly place restraints on our freedom, in spite of the Constitution’s restriction to do so.

For example; the District of Columbia’s once, all out ban on hand guns, and other limitations on the use of firearms amounted to a lawsuit that questioned the legality of D.C.’s extreme gun control laws.

Gun rights advocates claimed victory when the issue, making its way to the United States Supreme Court, in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), was resolved by the court as follows:

“[T]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.”

So whether on offense or defense, the battle for firearm freedom continues because we acknowledge and are committed to protecting what our founding fathers figured out more than 220 years ago, the right of the people to keep and bear arms without infringement is key to the success of the Republic.

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government” — Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334