Posts Tagged ‘student loans’

Liar-In-Chief Obama Demagogues Congress On Student Loans (Fact: House GOP PASSED Student Loan Interest Rate Fix OVER OBAMA’S VETO THREAT)

June 12, 2012

Meet Barack Obama, the liar in chief, from several days ago:

Obama to UNLV crowd: Student loan legislation a ‘no-brainer’
By Sun Staff (contact)
Published Thursday, June 7, 2012 | 12:15 p.m

President Barack Obama, welcomed to the stage at UNLV’s Cox Pavilion with chants of “four more years,” used his speech today in Las Vegas to push Congress to approve legislation to keep student loan interest rates at their current level and push colleges to keep tuition from rampantly increasing.

Everybody’s got to do their part, colleges, students… and Congress, the president said in his lunch-hour speech that ended about 1:20 p.m.

During the talk, he said Congress must act to keep student loan interest rates at their current level. To neglect to do so, he said, would cost the average student an extra $1,000 to attend college.

“This is a no-brainer,” Obama said, “so, I’m telling Congress, get this done.”

Apparently, it’s either not a “no-brainer” or Obama doesn’t have any brains.  Because what he’s claiming flies in the face of the facts.

When Obama demagogued student loan interest rates and claimed it was a “no-brainer” to fix the issue, he in fact was at that very moment BRAINLESSLY threatening to veto a Republican-passed bill that in fact fixed the student loan issue.

From over two full weeks ago:

GOP ignores veto threat, passes student loan bill
Published April 26, 2012

The GOP-led House passed a bill Friday to keep interest rates on millions of federal student loans from doubling this summer, ignoring a White House veto threat and setting up another likely election-year battle.

The House approved the bill by a 215-195 vote, also amid pressure from conservative groups that essentially said the government cannot afford the $5.9 billion cost right now.

President Obama also wants to keep down the interest rates, but the White House doesn’t agree with House Republicans’ plan to pay the costs, by cutting a preventive health fund created under the president’s health care overhaul law of 2010.

Democrats argued on the House floor the fund mostly benefits women. Republicans call it a loosely controlled slush fund.

Nobody wants to see student loans go up,” House Speaker John Boehner said before the vote. “Now were are going to fight over women’s health. Give me a break. This controversy was created by my colleagues across the aisle for political purposes.”

The White House called the proposed cuts politically motivated and not a serious response to the problems students face.

Despite the bill passing, it will likely go nowhere in the Democrat-controlled Senate. Democrats want to pay for the measure by boosting payroll taxes paid by high-earning owners of some private firms.

Both parties essentially support the basic plan — extending the 3.4 percent rate for one year on the undergraduate Stafford Direct Loans. The rate would revert back to 6.8 percent without intervention.

The GOP’s Student Interest Rate Reduction Act would, more specifically, take money from the health care law’s Prevention and Public Health Fund for prevention, wellness and public-health activities. It is administered by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, who has full discretion on how to spend the money.

Sebelius testified Thursday on Capitol Hill that the GOP plan to strip the fund would “doom future generations to pay higher and higher health bills and get mediocre results.”

Republicans also have called on the president to reimburse taxpayers for this week’s college tour, where he touted his student loan plan.

Boehner said the president’s trip to three big universities in swing states were obvious campaign stops and that his efforts to make the loan rate a campaign issue is “pathetic.” He said it makes the most powerful office in the world look “smaller.”

“The emperor has no clothes,” Boehner, R-Ohio, said.

Republicans have also argued Obama’s economic policies have resulted in roughly 50 percent of recent college graduates in America either unemployed or underemployed — in part because the health care law is making it harder for small businesses to hire new workers.

Boehner’s suggestion that the president reimburse his travel expenses followed a similar letter Wednesday from the Republican National Committee to the Government Accountability Office.

“Throughout his administration, but particularly in recent weeks, President Obama has been passing off campaign travel as ‘official events,’ thereby allowing taxpayers, rather than his campaign, to pay for his reelection efforts,” committee Chairman Reince Priebus wrote.

The White House, though, described the trips as part of Obama’s “official responsibility” to hear from students and discuss how to stop interest rates from doubling in July.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Meet the Republican Party – the only people who have actually passed legislation to keep student loans at their present rate.  Democrats have done nothing but slander, lie and threaten to veto that Republican-passed legislation.

There’s only one man who will be completely responsible for the student loan interest rate hiking up: and Barack Hussein Obama is wearing that man’s underwear.  Barack Obama is lying.  As usual.

I hope you kids who voted for Obama can dig deep in your pockets to pay this huge interest rate your party and your messiah are going to force you to pay.  You rancid little punks deserve it.

Meanwhile, this weasel-in-chief who has now ATTENDED MORE FUNDRAISERS THAN THE LAST FIVE PRESIDENTS COMBINED is constantly campaigning at taxpayer expense.

Barack Obama is a liar, pure and simple.  If student loan interest rates go up, it will be because this lying turd demonized and demagogued and lied and slandered on this issue.

Advertisements

Liar-in-Chief Obama Continues To Document That He Is A LIAR With His Student Loan Demonization

April 27, 2012

We have to add a fourth category to the “liar progression chain”: there are lies, damn lies, statistics – and then there are Obama lies:

Posted on April 24, 2012 by John Hinderaker
Obama Lies to Students

Barack Obama is on a pandering tour of college campuses, trying to generate enthusiasm for his re-election campaign by warning that interest rates on student loans will rise if Congress doesn’t act by July. That is true; the Democratic Congress wrote the legislation that way, and Obama signed it. Coincidentally, no doubt, Obama’s campus appearances will all be in swing states like North Carolina, where he spoke today. Whether it is a good idea to subsidize the higher education bubble is highly debatable, but it is not a point of differentiation between Obama and Mitt Romney, who also favors extending the existing legislation.

But what I want to focus on is another instance of the dishonesty that so consistently distinguishes Obama from more reputable politicians. Katrina Trinko has the story at The Corner:

In a speech today, President Obama misquoted Tea Party congresswoman Virginia Foxx (R., N.C.), omitting certain words of a comment she made to give a very different impression of what she had said.

Obama did not name Foxx, referring to her as “one Republican congresswoman.”

“She said she had ‘very little tolerance for people who tell me they graduate with debt because there’s no reason for that,’” Obama told the students at UNC Chapel Hill. “I’m just quoting here, I’m just quoting.”

“She said students who rack up student loan debt are just ‘sitting on their butts having opportunity dumped in your lap,” he added. “I’m reading it here. So I didn’t make this up.”

But the full Foxx quote is very different.

“I have very little tolerance for people who tell me that they graduate with $200,000 of debt or even $80,000 of debt because there’s no reason for that,” Foxx said last week, per the Huffington Post.

What a liar Barack Obama is! And, like many liars, he has certain “tells.” Note how he compounds his offense by assuring his readers that he is telling the truth: “I’m just quoting here, I’m just quoting…I’m reading it here. So I didn’t make this up.” Sure, it’s on his teleprompter, so it must be right. Any time Obama goes out of his way to assure his audience that he is telling the truth, you probably can assume that he is lying. Again.

For the factual record, if George W. Bush had tried to do something this outrageous, the mainstream media would have crawled up his rectum and stuck sharp probes into his insides.

There is more than one way to lie: you can lie by selectively editing out mitigating parts – the way Obama’s NBC News propaganda recently did to falsely label George Zimmerman as a racist with it’s selective editing of the 911 call – for instance:

The Today show’s segment, which included an ellipsis on screen to indicate omitted text, ran as:

Zimmerman: ‘This guy looks like he’s up to no good …’

Zimmerman: ‘He looks black.’

The full conversation ran as:

Zimmerman: ‘This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.’

Dispatcher: ‘OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?’

Zimmerman: ‘He looks black

That is exactly what the most deceitful demagogue who has ever sat in the White House did here: the half-truth that amounts to a whole lie.  He just took out the part that he didn’t like and then warped the truth with the rest.

What Virginia Foxx was VERY CLEARLY describing was students who use their college loan money the same damn way that homeowners who use their third and fourth mortgages did: you can party it up and buy whatever strikes your fancy until the bill comes due when you start whining about it or you can show a little responsibility.

I saw the above frequently as a student, and I also saw it as a professor: dirt-poor students living high on the hog with the thousands of extra dollars they get from their student loan checks – which often significantly exceed the cost of tuition and books.

If you’re even the $80,000 in debt that Foxx described as her low figure, and you aren’t in a high-paying career field (engineer, etc.) with a well-thought-out plan for repayment, you are an idiot.  And the only idiot more idiotic than you was the government that subsidized your Harvard lesbian studies degree in the first place.

The thing is that Barack Hussein is a serial liar and slanderer without shame, virtue or honor.  So lies for him are a dime a dozen:

Obama and Akin tangle on socialism and student loans
Posted on April 25, 2012 by Deirdre Shesgreen

President Barack Obama used Rep. Todd Akin as Exhibit A in his case portraying Republicans as extremists today.

Obama didn’t mentioned Akin—a St. Louis County congressman who is running for U.S. Senate—by name. But the president quoted—or misquoted—Akin (depending on who you believe) in a speech on student loans at the University of Iowa.

“You’ve got one member of Congress who compared these student loans — I’m not kidding here — to a ‘stage-three cancer of socialism’,” Obama told the crowd.

“Stage-three cancer? I don’t know where to start,” Obama continued. “Come on. Just when you think you’ve heard it all in Washington, somebody comes up with a new way to go off the deep end.”

Obama was referring to comments Akin made at a recent debate with his two GOP rivals in the Senate contest, John Brunner and Sarah Steelman.

Akin said at that forum that the government should not be involved in the student loan business.

“America has got the equivalent of the stage three cancer of socialism because the federal government is tampering in all kinds of stuff it has no business tampering in,” he said, according to media reports.

Today, Akin said the president was misquoting him. “With all due respect… I was not saying that student loans are a cancer. I referred to the policies where there is a government takeover of private industries,” such as health care and student loans.

The thing about the very real fact that there has been a federal government takeover of student loans comes down to this: we are at a state of crisis with our student loan debt.

I want you to understand: I warned about what Obama was doing with student loans two full years ago.  I also pointed out:

The universities are dominated by leftists and unions, through and through. And they don’t give a damn about the students. Want to know why tuition keeps going up and up? Because the university leftists and the government leftists are on the same page. Every single time the tuition goes up, the government-backed student loans go up – which allows colleges to raise tuition further. The only way to get an education today is to go massively in debt.

Imagine if the government wasn’t interfering in the system. Few students would be able to afford the ridiculous tuition. And so guess what would happen? The tuition would go down.

Which is to say the government – interfering with the private market – is artificially screwing it up. Just like they always do.

The college tuition program began as a noble idea: to help returning WWII veterans integrate and assimilate into the American workplace via the G.I. Bill.  But that noble program was used to justify subsequent extensions and additions that over time simply became THE PROBLEM.

This is simply another example of a crisis that Obama himself created just so he could demagogue it.

So, to expand on Rep. Akin’s point, if the government WEREN’T interfering in the student loan system, universities would be forced to look at a reality that they are protected from considering now.  They would have to consider the fact that their clientele – students – cannot possibly afford to pay for their product.  And they would have to make their product – education – less expensive or go out of business.  And if the government just got the hell out of the student loan industry – expect for our veterans and a few specific targeted careers that directly benefit the nation – you would begin to see the cost of education drop precipitously as competition worked its magic.

And, yes, liberals did the same thing with mortgages.  They forcibly subsidized the mortgage market and forced the banks to make ridiculous loans and artificially created a bubble of inflated housing prices that eventually had to crash to the massive detriment of the economy.  And then they blamed Republicans – who tried in vain to stop the disaster from happening – for their mess.

And yes, they did it with health care, too.  We’re now facing costs that DEFY the outrageous lies that Democrats sold us to push a socialist takeover of our health care system representing a full sixth of the US economy.

But liberals viscerally despise the free market almost as much as they viscerally despise religion and babies.  Their goal is to kill all three.

As we speak, we have a $1.7 trillion hidden tax on the American economy that ALL Americans are paying for in the form of regulatory compliance costs.  And, yes, it is in fact a stage three cancer of socialism.

Obama Wants To Force You To Surrender ‘Money You Don’t Need’

July 15, 2011

At the center of his tiny, shriveled little cockroach soul, Barack Obama is a Marxist.

Allow me to recite the central tenet of Marxism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  And please, PLEASE someone explain to me how Barack Obama and the modern Democrat Party are NOT Marxist given that they believe the SAME garbage.  Liberals constantly huff at the suggestion that they are socialists as though it is the silliest damn thing they have ever heard.  The thing is that they don’t want their ideology identified with socialism merely because it is a bad word.  BUT “IT” IS A BAD WORD FOR A REASON, AND “IT” IS IN FACT PRECISELY WHAT THEY ARE.

The shoe fits, and Obama and his socialist Democrats need to wear it.

Obama Aims for the Money You Don’t “Need”
Mike Brownfield
July 13, 2011 at 9:55 am

Over the past several weeks, America has seen on grand display in Washington a singular mindset emanating from the White House: We must raise taxes so that we can keep on spending. This week, though, America was treated to something different—a glimpse inside President Barack Obama’s mind, a roadmap of his economic worldview. And what was revealed was a philosophy that is fundamentally at odds with America’s job creators.

That insight came during the President’s press conference on Monday in which he broached the subject of raising taxes as part of the debt limit deal:

“And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.”

If you read between the lines, which doesn’t take much decoding, President Obama effectively believes that any income you have which you don’t “need” belongs to the government, as writer John Steele Gordon explains in Commentary. And, Gordon writes, Obama’s statement “demonstrates an astonishing economic illiteracy”:

To be sure, someone earning a great deal of money has an income greater than what he spends. . . But, unlike Scrooge McDuck, the rich do not put the excess in a vast money bin and frolic about in it. They invest it. What a concept! Where does Obama think new capital comes from, the tooth fairy?

How much income is too much? It’s hard to say, and the President doesn’t put a number on it. But that high-tax policy is so important to the President that he is willing to personalize the issue, offering up the fact that he has made a boatload selling books and can afford to pay taxes on it, as he did in his Twitter town hall when he remarked:

“But what I’ve also said is people like me who have been incredibly fortunate, mainly because a lot of folks bought my book . . . for me to be able to go back to the tax rate that existed under Bill Clinton, to pay a couple of extra percentage points so that I can make sure that seniors still have Medicare or kids still have Head Start, that makes sense to me.”

On top of personalizing the issue, the President is pulling out all the stops in a take-no-prisoners demagoguery campaign, ranging from the subtle to the explicit. His criticisms of tax loopholes for corporate jets and oil and gas companies are legion, his calls for millionaires and billionaires to “pay a little bit more” are anything but subtle, and his threats over the failure to reach a tax-soaked debt limit deal are frightening.

The President’s “your money is the government’s money” mindset is having an impact on the mind’s of America’s job creators. A new survey of small business owners and executives prepared for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce shows how the U.S. political environment has impacted the business environment, and the insights are troubling.

According to the survey, a vast majority of small business owners (84 percent) say the U.S. economy is on the wrong track. Tellingly, the threat of regulation and taxes are the two issues in Washington posing the greatest threat to their business, while economic uncertainty, America’s growing debt and deficit and Obamacare are top challenges as well. And when asked whether they’d like Washington to lend a hand or get out of they, 79 percent choose the latter.

And therein lies the difference. When President Obama sees successful businesses, he sees green. And when they look back, they see red. The President wants to take more so he can spend more and do more, whereas those who are the engine of America’s economy just want the government to do less so they can thrive. Unfortunately, a meeting of the minds seems a long way off.

Democrats are at their hearts Marxists and fascists who believe that you and everything you produce belongs to the government – and that the government should belong entirely to THEM so that they have the power to decide who wins and who loses.  I’ve written about this fact at length before.  Again, this is a central tenet of Marxism and socialism, but for some reason we’re not supposed to be able to call these people what they clearly are.

Mind you, this disgraceful little turd Barry Hussein is a HYPOCRITE Marxist, as the following evidence of what a stingy, selfish, greedy little swine Obama was with his own money just a few short years ago when he was a rich liberal who didn’t think anyone was watching.  Amazingly, the facts show that Obama didn’t seem to think there was such a thing as “money he didn’t need” then:

Did you know, for instance, this about Barack Obama?

Prior to his run for President, Barack and Michelle Obama were in the top 2% of income earners, but actually gave less than the average American in charitable giving.

Obama gave .4% of his income.  In spite of being rich, and being in the top richest 2% of Americans, Obama gave only $1,050 to charity.  When the average American household (that’s mostly us in the bottom 98%) gave $1,872, which was 2.2% of their incomes.

For the record, Barack Obama was 450% more selfish, more stingy, more greedy and more self-centered than the average American.  Even though the average American had nowhere NEAR Obama’s wealth.  And that is a documented fact.  And let’s also consider how much Michelle Obama earned by receiving lavish political patronage because of her husband’s career.

Obama seemed to “need” every penny of his money when he was selfishly refusing to give basically ANYTHING to the poor that he now so hypocritically and self-righteously claims he cares about.  And that is a FACT.  So when this vile little hypocrite weasel self-righteously lectures us on how much we should be willing to give more in taxes to Big Brother, just realize it is coming from the very worst kind of demagogue and liar.

Then there’s the fact that if these rich liberals want to give more money, THEN THEY CAN AND SHOULD GIVE MORE MONEY.  They can give to charity; they can give to a government fund that uses the money to pay down the debt when they do their taxes.  They keep talking about how generous they should be but they never seem to be generous with their own money.

Let me go on quoting from the same article on liberals and “paying their fair share”:

And then you find that as cheap and chintzy and stingy and selfish as the redistribution of wealth president (a.k.a. Barry Hussein) was before he decided to run for president, his vice president was even STINGIER.  Because Joe Biden gave less than one-eighth of one percent of his wealth to charity.

And, of course, Democrats who lecture us on “paying our fair share” while they either welch on their debts, refuse to contribute to charity, cheat on their taxes, or all damn three are a dime a dozen.  Let’s have a few prominent examples: Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have largely welched on Hillary’s campaign debts.  There’s Charlie Rangel, the man who chaired the committee that wrote the tax laws while not bothering to pay his own damn taxes.  There’s “Turbo Tax” Timothy Geithner, the man in charge of the Treasury and I.R.S. who didn’t bother to pay his own taxes.  There’s former Democrat candidate for president John Kerry, a millionaire, who tried to wriggle away like the worm he is from paying the taxes he should have paid on his yacht.  There’s Kerry’s wife and fellow Democrat Teresa Heinz-Kerry, who in spite of inheriting the Heinz fortune actually pays less in taxes than the median American family.  And then there’s a bunch of more garden variety cockroach Democrats such as Eric Holder, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, and Claire McCaskill.  And don’t forget the vile putrid bunch of Democrats running Bell, California.

And let me throw in “San Fran Nan” Nancy Pelosi into the mix.  Here’s an already filthy rich woman who increased her wealth by 62% last year while millions of Americans are suffering.  She’d certainly be one who would say, “Screw America, screw the American people and screw the unemployment rate; I’m getting MINE.

These people just make me want to lose my lunch into a bucket.  That’s something I wouldn’t mind donating to the government.

I once quoted Burton Folsom in his great book “New Deal Or Raw Deal?”  It’s time to quote that passage again:

Throughout American history, right from the start, charity had been a state and local function.  Civic leaders, local clergy, and private citizens, evaluated the legitimacy of people’s need in their communities or counties; churches and other organizations could then provide food, shelter, and clothing to help victims of fires or women abandoned by drunken husbands.  Most Americans believed that the face-to-face encounters of givers and receivers of charity benefited both groups.  It created just the right amount of uplift and relief, and discouraged laziness and a poor work ethic.

The Founders saw all relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution gave no federal role for the government in providing charity.  James Madison, in defending the Constitution, observed, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.”  In other words, if relief, and other areas, were made functions of the federal government, the process would become politicized and politicians and deadbeats could conspire to trade votes for food” (New Deal or Raw Deal, page 76-77).

Prior to FDR, the American people took care of their OWN, family by family, town by town, county by county, state by state.  They had NEVER had welfare, and in fact found the very concept of welfare distasteful.  And I’m going to tell you right now that they were better, stronger people than we are as a result of that moral superiority and that faith in THE PEOPLE and not the GOVERNMENT.

Barack Obama – who gave virtually NOTHING to charity when giving would have demonstrated the character he proved he DIDN’T have – doesn’t trust the American people, or much care about them, for that matter.  He doesn’t want to help people; he wants to grow the size of government.  He wants only to make the state bigger and bigger and more and more powerful and controlling.  Obama is angry because he doesn’t believe people should have the right to decide for themselves how much of their own money they “need”; HE wants to make that decision for them and then impose it on them so he can seize their money and redistribute it to people who will vote for him and for his party.

Whenever a Democrat calls for more taxes, understand that what they are really saying is that they believe that the government is too small and needs to become larger.  And whenever they call for more taxes for the sake of helping people, what they are really saying is that you are a bad and immoral person who can’t and shouldn’t be trusted to help people in need and that it is better to take your money away from you and put it into the coffers of a big government socialist redistributionist agency which will piss it away on boondoggle programs that benefit the politically connected far more than they do the poor.  And the fact that even as Barack Obama and the overwhelming Democrat majority that had dictatorial control of both branches of Congress made government bigger than it has ever been and yet blacks are now worse off than they’ve been for generations and women are being set way back is the icing on the cake of the proof of that fact.  Liberals hurt the people they cynically and falsely claim to be helping – and then demagogically use the misery that they themselves created to accumulate even more power for themselves and their failed agenda.

But let me be even more specific and address Obama directly.  Obama says rich people – who already pay a massive share of the income taxes in America – should have more of their money seized so it can be redistributed in the form of student loans.  What is interesting is that this massively subsidizes the university system that has been almost entirely hijacked by the ideological left.  The more money becomes available in student loans, the more these supposedly “caring” liberals increase the cost of college tuition (the price of which has inflated FAR more than the price of ANY OTHER good or service).  So what happens?  Obama takes money OUT of the private economy, and OUT of the hands of the people who actually create jobs, and puts it into the pockets of liberals in universities who then turn around and raise the cost of tuition to screw college students.  And this “progressive” boondoggle has been going on for YEARS.

THAT’S what liberal compassion looks like: it bascially looks just like the hypocritical, self-righteous face of Barack Obama.

Obama Backlash Beginning: Montana Defies Administration With In-Your-Face Gun Law

May 7, 2009

The state of Montana has drawn a line in the sand by passing a new gun law that virtually thumbs its nose at the federal government’s encroachment on state and individual rights.  If the tea parties were the first shot across the bow of liberal fascism, this is surely the second – and it’s being done with heavy artillery.

Liberals have been employing “sanctuary cities” across the nation that flouted federal immigration laws.  Now conservatives are taking that same idea to have “sanctuary states” to protect their citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights against liberal tyranny.  And Montana, Utah, and Texas are leading the nation in standing up to the federal government’s unconstitutional laws in direct violation of states’ rights.

Montana Governor Brian D. Schweitzer, for what it’s worth, is a Democrat.

Montana fires a warning shot over states’ rights
State is trying to trigger a battle over gun control — and make a point

updated 4:54 p.m. ET April 29, 2009

HELENA, Mont. – Montana is trying to trigger a battle over gun control — and perhaps make a larger point about what many folks in this ruggedly independent state regard as a meddlesome federal government.

In a bill passed by the Legislature earlier this month, the state is asserting that guns manufactured in Montana and sold in Montana to people who intend to keep their weapons in Montana are exempt from federal gun registration, background check and dealer-licensing rules because no state lines are crossed.

That notion is all but certain to be tested in court.

The immediate effect of the law could be limited, since Montana is home to just a few specialty gun makers, known for high-end hunting rifles and replicas of Old West weapons, and because their out-of-state sales would automatically trigger federal control.

Legal showdown
Still, much bigger prey lies in Montana’s sights: a legal showdown over how far the federal government’s regulatory authority extends.

“It’s a gun bill, but it’s another way of demonstrating the sovereignty of the state of Montana,” said Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who signed the bill.

Carrie DiPirro, a spokeswoman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, had no comment on the legislation. But the federal government has generally argued that it has authority under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution to regulate guns because they can so easily be transported across state lines.

Guns and states’ rights both play well in Montana, the birthplace of the right-wing Freemen militia and a participant in the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s and ’80s, during which Western states clashed with Washington over grazing and mineral extraction on federal land.

Montana’s leading gun rights organization, more hardcore than the National Rifle Association, boasts it has moved 50 bills through the Legislature over the past 25 years. And lawmakers in the Big Sky State have rebelled against federal control of everything from wetland protection to the national Real ID system.

‘Made in Montana’
Under the new law, guns intended only for Montana would be stamped “Made in Montana.” The drafters of the law hope to set off a legal battle with a simple Montana-made youth-model single-shot, bolt-action .22 rifle. They plan to find a “squeaky clean” Montanan who wants to send a note to the ATF threatening to build and sell about 20 such rifles without federal dealership licensing.

If the ATF tells them it’s illegal, they will sue and take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if they can.

Similar measures have also been introduced in Texas and Alaska.

“I think states have got to stand up or else most of their rights are going to be buffaloed by the administration and by Congress,” said Texas state Rep. Leo Berman.

Critics say exempting guns from federal laws anywhere would undermine efforts to stem gun violence everywhere.

Hot Air has the text of the law, titled:

AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

This is defiance as a thing of art:

defiance_mouse_eagle

It is a determination to keep fighting for one’s freedom no matter how hopeless things might look:

defiance_frog_stork2

And why is this level of defiance necessary? An image worth a thousand curses suffices by way of explanation:

obama_yes-we-can_1st-amendment

Don’t think this isn’t a direct response to Barack Hussein.

Gun and ammunition sales have soared out of naked fear of Obama.

And for good reason: Obama is pushing a treaty to ban reloading. Liberals are trying to regulate the components of ammunition as explosives and thus restrict ammunition. Liberals in California are nakedly attempting to circumvent the 2nd Amendment by regulating ammunition, hence making guns useless.

And the liberal campaign to deprive Americans of their 2nd Amendment guarantees (even as they discover “penumbras and emanations” in the Constitution that let them kill babies) is only a distant side issue in the massive government takeover of American society. Obama’s massive spending – more than every president from George Washington to George W. Bush COMBINED – will leave this country with an insurmountable national debt that would exceed 82 percent of the overall economy by 2019 and threaten this country’s very survival. We are now on the hook for $12.8 TRILLION dollars in government spending and commitments in the brave new world of the Obama economy.

We’ve got a president who is firing CEOs, stacking boards of directors, changing the rules for the auto manufacturers’ bankruptcy filings in order to favor the unions that supported him over the secured creditors. And if they don’t like it, they are met with frightening threats from the administration and death threats from union members. If that isn’t bad enough, we’ve also got card check on the horizon, which would allow union thugs to intimidate workers into unionizing with the union allowed to know exactly how each worker voted.

We’ve got a president who won’t let banks repay bailout loans (which in many cases were literally forced on them in the first place) so he can continue to impose onerous terms and conditions on them and control what they do and how they do it.

We’ve got a president who is planning to nationalize health care – and the one-sixth of our economy that it represents – even as he moves to impose costly and burdensome cap-and-trade regulations that would (in Obama’s own words) necessarily cause energy prices to soar.

And we’ve got a president who is attempting to nationalize student loans such that private lenders are phased out altogether. If Obama gets his way, the government will loan directly to families and students, making them directly indebted to the federal government. The government will necessarily get to decide which students, which schools, and which academic programs get loans.  An option for students is to repay their loans by means of “national service,” which already precludes any type of religious service whatsoever. The potential of liberal big government harnessing student labor to staff liberal organizations such as ACORN is becoming all-too real.

We have a new administration that moved to criminalize political differences by targeting Bush officials as war criminals, even as returning veterans and pro-life Americans are labeled as “rightwing extremists” in a DHS report sent out to the nation’s law enforcement agencies and police departments.

not-fascism-when-we-do-it3

I’ve been saying something over and over in different ways. What the liberals are doing now will ultimately result in a “rightwing” backlash. What is true in physics is true in politics: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Liberals are pushing and pushing and pushing through one new massive spending program and one new policy after another that will change and undermine this country forever afterward.

Under Obama, terrorism is now called an “overseas contingency operation” and terror attacks are now nothing more than “man-caused disasters.”  In attacking the CIA as a means to attack Bush, Obama has created a depressed, sullen, and angry morale which promises to transfer into “cover your ass” caution and bureaucratic gamesmanship.  He has undermined our security to a shocking degree.  If we are attacked, this country will swing so far to the right so fast it will be absolutely unreal.

But even if we are not attacked, our country will likely implode under its own weight: trillions of dollars of reckless spending will have that effect as our dollar devalues and our interest payments on the debt begin to soar when inflation begins to take its toll.  Ultimately our taxes will skyrocket due to all of this spending.  CBS News has an article from March entitled, “If China Stops Lending Us Money, Look Out.”  Well, guess what?  They’re doing exactly that.  They’re canceling our credit card.

In a poll of chief executive officers taken prior to the election, 74 percent of the executives said they feared “that an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country.”  And some of the CEOs predicted that “some of his programs would bankrupt the country within three years, if implemented.”  And with the Congress in nearly total Democratic control, they ARE being implemented.

When Obama and the Democrats bankrupt the country and undermine our entire social structure with massive spending programs and massive bureaucracies that cannot be undone, which direction will the country turn?  And how complete will that turnaround be?

Liberals are ignoring one ominous warning of popular outrage after another, claiming that conservatism and the Republican Party are dead.  And they will likely ignore what is going on in Montana – which is led by a Democrat governor – as well.  They are doing so to both their party’s and their country’s peril.

Montana, you’ve done a great thing for liberty, which is freedom from the growing tyranny of the smiley-face-fascist nanny state.

The backlash against big government liberal tyranny is beginning.  And it will become larger and hotter as Obama’s policies take their toll.  Let us hope that the spark turns into a fire before – rather than after – Obama has done too much damage to recover from.