SIG Sauer 556 Arms Forum banner

Will you contact YOUR senator(s) to thank them for voting against Holder or tell them you are disapp

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,727 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Copied and pasted from a GOA email...

Anti-gun Eric Holder Sworn In As Attorney General
-- See who stabbed you in the back

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

GOA wants to thank all of you for your hard work in opposing the extremely anti-gun Eric Holder for Attorney General.

While we lost the battle on Monday (by a vote of 75-21), you guys registered your opposition loud and clear.

There is no doubt that your activism truly made gun rights THE issue in this nomination battle. Every Senator who spoke against Holder mentioned Second Amendment fears. And even among many of the Senators who voted for him, there was tremendous concern regarding Holder's stance on gun rights.

As stated by The Washington Post yesterday, "Holder overcame concerns by a small but vocal group of GOP lawmakers about his position on national security and GUN RIGHTS, as well as his recommendations in two controversial clemency decisions by President Bill Clinton."

This was truly a battle worth fighting. In fact, the man who was being deified two weeks ago is now the very same President who is widely seen as not being able to shoot straight in selecting cabinet members and is already starting to lose public support. The battle over Holder was certainly central to taking the bloom off this rose.

So thank you for helping magnify our voice on Capitol Hill. GOA spent many hours lobbying against Holder, as we were the only gun rights group in Washington to tell Senators we would be rating this vote in our end-of-session grade report.

With Holder in office, you can expect to see renewed efforts to drive gun dealers and manufacturers out of business -- similar to the efforts he supported while in the Clinton administration.

Expect also to see attempts to classify more guns as "not suitable" for sporting purposes. And don't be surprised to see attempts to use the No Fly List to disqualify gun owners from exercising their Second Amendment rights. (Bureaucrats can add innocent Americans to the No Fly List -- and have done so -- without any due process of law being followed.)

With Eric Holder at the helm, the list could easily become a No Gun List, as there are already discussions in Washington about doing this.

All the above horror scenarios are policies that could conceivably occur without ANY legislation being passed in Congress. That is what makes Holder's confirmation as Attorney General so dangerous. Through the use of Executive Orders or by prosecuting gun owners, Holder can inflict much damage upon the Second Amendment -- even apart from lending his support for legislation, such as renewing the semi-auto ban.

So what can we do now? Is the battle over Holder finished?

No, not yet. There's one more action item that needs to be taken.
There are 75 Senators who ignored your pleas to vote against Holder.
They need to hear from you and know that you're upset.

They need to be reminded again and again that voting for gun control is what cost Bill Clinton's party the control of Congress in 1994... and Al Gore his election in 2000... and John Kerry the presidency in 2004.

And don't forget, there are the 21 Senators who voted right. They need to be thanked. So please don't file this alert until you've taken the action item below.

ACTION: Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators a pre-written e-mail message. You will be prompted to input your zip code, which will then bring up the correct letter for your Senators.

The pre-written letter will differ according to whether your Senator voted in favor or against Eric Holder. (Three Senators missed the vote entirely. GOA is treating their absence as an anti-gun action.)

NOTE: GOA's pre-written letters are usually editable by the sender. In this instance, they are not for the sake of avoiding confusion, so that Senators who voted wrong are not thanked (and vice versa).





---------------------------------------------------------------

SENATORS WHO VOTED FOR ERIC HOLDER (AN ANTI-GUN VOTE):

Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

SENATORS WHO VOTED AGAINST HOLDER (A PRO-GUN VOTE)

Barrasso (R-WY)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johanns (R-NE)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

SENATORS NOT VOTING

Begich (D-AK)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Martinez (R-FL)

BOTH of my senators from MS voted against that gun grabber!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
803 Posts
GOOD POST! A big pat on the back to you Restoring! I am not really familiar with GOA, but I soon will be. Why don't I see the NRA doing important things like this. Look at how few voted against Holder. Some of those states without many large metropolitan areas cant even use crime as an excuse. Shame on them
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
The Dark Times are Upon Us

Since both Senators from my state voted against Holder, I wrote them both personally to thank them for their support of liberty. Like many Democrats, Holder fears and mistrusts the citizens of this country and believes a safer America is one where its people have no right or opportunity to protect themselves or their families and property. We now enter an era where good Americans are the enemy of the Federal Government and foreign terrorists and criminals become a protected class. It is a dark time for law abiding American citizens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
372 Posts
It is my misfortune to have both of my senators vote for his nomination. I was rather shocked to see that they did.

Georgia is a very pro gun state and to see that from two Republican Senators just tells me we have some idiots in goverment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
hylander said:
It is my misfortune to have both of my senators vote for his nomination. I was rather shocked to see that they did.
Write them and tell them how you feel. Here is the thank you I sent Kay and John:

I just wanted to thank you for your vote against Eric Holder in his confirmation hearing for Attorney General. Mr. Holder is a proven enemy of gun owners, but beyond that he is a proven enemy of all law abiding Americans. Holder represents a paradigm shift in the basic tenants of justice in America where law abiding citizens exercising their rights of free speech, assembly, and to act to protect their homes and family will become his targets through Justice Department policies and executive orders. Meanwhile terrorists and criminals will receive unprecedented support from his office as proven by his clemency and pardon recommendations for members of the Boricua Popular Army, who are known terrorists and criminals.

We now enter an era where good Americans are the enemy of the Federal Government and foreign terrorists and criminals become a protected class. Like many Democrats, Holder fears and mistrusts the citizens of this country and believes a safer America is one where its people have no right or opportunity to protect themselves or their families and property. Holder’s appointment represents one of the darkest days for personal liberty and the rights of the law abiding, and I appreciate your valiant, if futile, efforts to stop his appointment. I know you will continue to work to represent the interests of law abiding citizens and the Constitution, and for that you have my thanks and appreciation into the future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
372 Posts
here is what I received back from Saxby Chambliss.


Thank you for contacting me regarding the nomination of Eric Holder to become Attorney General under the Obama Administration. It is good to hear from you.

President Obama nominated Mr. Holder to be the Attorney General on December 1, 2008 and he was confirmed by the Senate on February 2, 2009. I believe the President deserves great deference in filling his Cabinet. While Mr. Holder and I have differences on policy and judicial theories, I supported Mr. Holder because of his great experience and because I believe he can competently fill the role for which he has been nominated. Mr. Holder has previously been unanimously confirmed to judicial positions by the United States Senate on three separate occasions. In 1988, he was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to be associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. In 1993, President Clinton nominated Mr. Holder to be the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, and in 1997, President Clinton nominated him to be Deputy Attorney General of the United States.

Although I continue to have concerns with some of Mr. Holder's policy views, particularly his view of the Second Amendment, after speaking with him, I am convinced he recognizes that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment right to be an individual right, to be the law of the land.

Moreover, I believe that if any changes will be made to our country's gun policies, they will be made by Congress or the court system, and not the Department of Justice. I also had serious concerns about the role Mr. Holder played in the pardons of Marc Rich and members of the FALN group when he was at the Department of Justice. These pardons have been nearly universally condemned by the entire legal community. In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Holder fully recognized his mistakes in those pardons and stated if he had to do it again, he would have done things differently. I believe he will take that learning experience with him into his role as Attorney General.

I have closely scrutinized Mr. Holder's nomination by reviewing his testimony from the Judiciary Committee and personally questioning him. I believe Mr. Holder is qualified for the position of Attorney General. Again, although I do not agree with a number of the positions Mr. Holder has taken in the past, I believe that Presidents, including President Obama, should be given deference in filling their Cabinet.

------------------------------------------------------------

This is where I have to disagree with the Senator. Just because He is the President, he should not be given deference in filling his cabinet. Presidents make mistakes. Look at what Obama has done so far. How many of his nominees have failed to pay taxes and only started paying them when they were nominated? Several have already had to withdraw their names due to issues.

The Senator is flat out wrong. A President needs to be held accountable for his nominees and the nominee needs to be held accountable. These are the people who will be making policy for you and me for at least the next four years. This will be affecting our lives. No one should be given deference in filling anything. Everything should be question and if it contradicts the values or infringes on the rights of the citizens of the United States, then that individual should not hold office. Plain and simple.

Chambliss simply skirted the issue like a politician does and left it at that. I regret voting for him now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
hylander said:
Chambliss simply skirted the issue like a politician does and left it at that. I regret voting for him now.
While I am surprised that Chambliss voted for Holder, especially since he could have voted against him (along with all the Republicans) and Holder would still have been confirmed, I'm sure Chambliss believed there was some political advantage to be gained by supporting Obama's nominee, but voting for someone like Holders sends a bad message and I think Chambliss made the wrong choice.

Nevertheless, to your point about regretting your vote. What choice did you have? Other than this stain, Chambliss has a very good record on Second Amendment issues and his opponent, Jim Martin, is a Democrat and a wild card on his Second Amendment position. Despite this mistake, you voted for the right man.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
372 Posts
foX said:
hylander said:
Chambliss simply skirted the issue like a politician does and left it at that. I regret voting for him now.
While I am surprised that Chambliss voted for Holder, especially since he could have voted against him (along with all the Republicans) and Holder would still have been confirmed, I'm sure Chambliss believed there was some political advantage to be gained by supporting Obama's nominee, but voting for someone like Holders sends a bad message and I think Chambliss made the wrong choice.

Nevertheless, to your point about regretting your vote. What choice did you have? Other than this stain, Chambliss has a very good record on Second Amendment issues and his opponent, Jim Martin, is a Democrat and a wild card on his Second Amendment position. Despite this mistake, you voted for the right man.
I just don't agree with his view on that a President should have deference to choose his nominees and Congress should respect it and support it. Just because someone is President does not mean they make the right choice.

Obama has pushed already 3 or 4 individuals who did not pay taxes. So, we should respect Obama for that? He puts a man over the CIA with no intelligence background. That should be respected? He puts a man as Attorney General who believes the 2nd Ammendment does not mean citizens have the right to own guns. And Chambliss in not so many words says Obama should be trusted in his picks.

That is what concerned me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,727 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
hylander said:
foX said:
hylander said:
Chambliss simply skirted the issue like a politician does and left it at that. I regret voting for him now.
While I am surprised that Chambliss voted for Holder, especially since he could have voted against him (along with all the Republicans) and Holder would still have been confirmed, I'm sure Chambliss believed there was some political advantage to be gained by supporting Obama's nominee, but voting for someone like Holders sends a bad message and I think Chambliss made the wrong choice.

Nevertheless, to your point about regretting your vote. What choice did you have? Other than this stain, Chambliss has a very good record on Second Amendment issues and his opponent, Jim Martin, is a Democrat and a wild card on his Second Amendment position. Despite this mistake, you voted for the right man.
I just don't agree with his view on that a President should have deference to choose his nominees and Congress should respect it and support it. Just because someone is President does not mean they make the right choice.

Obama has pushed already 3 or 4 individuals who did not pay taxes. So, we should respect Obama for that? He puts a man over the CIA with no intelligence background. That should be respected? He puts a man as Attorney General who believes the 2nd Ammendment does not mean citizens have the right to own guns. And Chambliss in not so many words says Obama should be trusted in his picks.

That is what concerned me.
Well said!
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top