The Heller decision put the Supreme Court in support of the
Constitutional protection of the individual right to keep and bear arms. Sotomayor, a politically correct lover of centralized government power (as long as she is part of the power elite), immediately went into counter-attack mode against the Heller decision.

Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel earlier this year which ruled in Maloney v. Cuomo that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. As she and her cohorts claimed, the Supreme Court has not yet incorporated the states under the Second Amendment. Until then, she believes, the Second only applies to the District of Columbia.

This is pure judicial arrogance — something Sotomayor relishes (as long as she is one of the ruling judges). In fact, protection of the right to keep and bear arms was a major objective for enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, as recently freed slaves were being disarmed and terrorized in their neighborhoods.

But Sotomayor disdains this important right of individuals, as indicated by an earlier opinion from 2004. In United States v. Sanchez-Villar, she stated that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”

Sotomayor has held very anti-gun views, even as far back as the 1970s. Fox Cable News reported yesterday that in her senior thesis at Princeton University, she wrote that America has a “deadly obsession” with guns and that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to
firearms ownership.

Sotomayor’s Second Amendment views go hand in hand with her politically correct views on the law and the role of judges.

In a speech given at Duke University in 2005, she made it abundantly clear that judges are involved in making policy. Realizing that this did not sound very judicial (even though most judges act on this basis), Sotomayor tried to laugh off her brazen admission: “I know this is on tape and I should never say that, [audience laughing], because we don’t
make law — I know. Um, okay. I know, I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it.” The audience continued to laugh. They got the joke.

But Sotomayor’s joke will be on us and our liberties if she gets confirmed to the Supreme Court. And that is why we need to start contacting our Senators early and often, urging them to vote against this dangerous nomination.

ACTION: Please contact your two Senators and urge them to oppose the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. You can go to the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators a pre-written e-mail message.

The VPC dares not look at the bottom seven states instead of the arbitrary five. That is because, lo and behold, New Hampshire ranks seventh from the bottom in per capita gun deaths. New Hampshire is undeniably a strong pro-gun state that greatly respects the individual right to keep and bear arms.

New Hampshire is beaten only by sixth-place Connecticut, the home of “Gun Valley,” a major area of gun making in the United States. For that matter, all of New England is in the bottom 12. Low rates of gun deaths in New England are more attributable to the culture and character of the region than to the availability of firearms. By contrast, the West is still somewhat wild and the South has not fully lost its rebel yell.

The VPC also has to purposely limit its selectively picked data to states rather than cities. This is because the one jurisdiction with the strictest gun control in the entire nation is the District of Columbia. In D.C., all handguns are banned, long arms must be stored disassembled, locked and unloaded, and law-abiding citizens have no right to carry guns. According to the same 2005 CDC data relied upon by the VPC, D.C. has the highest rate of shooting deaths of any place in the United States! The district has well over double the national average.

The VPC also conveniently fails to mention that the total number of shooting deaths in the entire United States is ever so slightly over one hundredth of 1 percent — .0103 percent to be exact, and that is with approximately 250 million guns in the country. Additionally, those are all firearm deaths, including police shootings, justifiable self defense and suicide.

The reason for the VPC’s new propaganda push is obvious, and the group unknowingly reveals it in the news release. The group is scared “to death” of the very real possibility of a Supreme Court victory in June for the Second Amendment in the celebrated Heller case.

Ironically, the Heller case is a challenge to the very D.C. anti-gun law ignored by the VPC. VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand states, “Blind allegiance to the Second Amendment comes at a deadly price. Many residents in pro-gun states cheer the possibility of a June Supreme Court ruling that could place gun controls across the nation at risk, never realizing that those states stand as proof of the need for such laws.”

Well, unfortunately for the VPC agenda, the District of Columbia torpedoes its glorification of anti-gun laws; and New Hampshire stands as granite counter-proof that there is no need for such laws.

http://www.unionleader.com/

Obama is now pushing a gun control treaty INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST THE ILLICIT MANUFACTURING OF AND TRAFFICKING IN FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, EXPLOSIVES, AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS

If ratified and the U.S. is found not to be in compliance with any provisions of the treaty — such as a provision that would outlaw reloading ammunition without a government license — President Obama would be empowered to implement regulations without Congressional approval.

As Wyoming Senator John Barasso pointed out in a recent trip to El Paso, Texas: “Why would you disarm someone when they potentially could get caught in the crossfire?… The United States will not surrender our second-amendment rights for Mexico’s border problem.”

President Obama disagrees and he continues to spread the myth about how many guns recovered in Mexico come from the U.S. “More than 90% of the guns found in Mexico are not bought [in Mexico], but in the United States,” he said.

William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott set the record straight and debunked “the 90% number” in a FOXNews.com report: “It’s just not true,” they said. According to their report, the real number is closer to 17%.

In other words, the Obama administration is pushing to disarm law-abiding Americans based on a massive misinformation campaign.

So how are the cartels armed if firearms are not pouring across the U.S. border? Keeping in mind that the cartels control BILLIONS of dollars, La Jeunesse and Lott shed some light on how they obtain the overwhelming majority of their guns:

– The Black Market. Mexico is a virtual arms bazaar, with fragmentation grenades from South Korea, AK-47s from China, and shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc manufacturers.

– Russian crime organizations. Interpol says Russian Mafia groups such as Poldolskaya and Moscow-based Solntsevskaya are actively trafficking drugs and arms in Mexico.

– South America. During the late 1990s, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) established a clandestine arms smuggling and drug trafficking partnership with the Tijuana cartel, according to the Federal Research Division report from the Library of Congress.

– Asia. According to a 2006 Amnesty International Report, China has provided arms to countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Chinese assault weapons and Korean explosives have been recovered in Mexico.

– The Mexican Army. More than 150,000 soldiers deserted in the last six years, according to Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo. Many took their weapons with them, including the standard issue M-16 assault rifle made in Belgium.

– Guatemala. U.S. intelligence agencies say traffickers move immigrants, stolen cars, guns and drugs, including most of America’s cocaine, along the porous Mexican-Guatemalan border. On March 27, La Hora, a Guatemalan newspaper, reported that police seized 500 grenades and a load of AK-47s on the border. Police say the cache was transported by a Mexican drug cartel operating out of Ixcan, a border town.

In addition, despite efforts to clean up the system, corruption in the Mexican government is rampant. An article in the New York Times late last year noted that, “One of Mexico’s most notorious drug cartels made huge cash payments to officials in the Mexican attorney general’s office in exchange for confidential information on anti-drug operations… the cartel might have had an informant inside the American embassy.”

The bribes ranged from $150,000 to $450,000 each. Clearly, these gangs have the resources not only to buy firearms by the planeload, but they can buy the planes, too! Politicians on both sides of the border seem to ignore that they’re dealing with multi-billion dollar criminal organizations that will always be able to get firearms.

One would think that Mexico President Felipe Calderón and Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora would have their hands full cleaning up a huge mess in their own country, but they’re not too busy to meddle in U.S. affairs.

As the Times noted in an article that coincided with Obama’s Mexico trip, “Mexican officials have repeatedly called on the United States to clamp down on the flow of weapons and are likely to bring it up again with President Obama on Thursday.”

Mr. Mora even lectured that “The Second Amendment was never meant to arm foreign criminal groups.”

American office holders should be more concerned about upholding their oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution than kowtowing to “blame America first” foreign politicians.

See full story.

But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.

In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.

So, instead of 90% of guns traced to the US, it’s 83% NOT traceable to the US.

You’ve heard this shocking “fact” before—on TV and radio, in newspapers, on the Internet and from the highest politicians in the land: 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it to reporters on a flight to Mexico City.

CBS newsman Bob Schieffer referred to it while interviewing President Obama.

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said at a Senate hearing: “It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico and used to shoot judges, police officers and mayors … come from the United States.”

William Hoover, assistant director for field operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, testified in the House of Representatives that “there is more than enough evidence to indicate that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States.”

In fact, it’s not even close. The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.

False Fake data has been generated by the Obama government to push gun control,

So instead of 90% of the guns having come from the US the truth is 83% did not come from the US.

In a year when trillion dollar bailouts have become routine, many Americans have become almost numb to our acceleration towards socialism.

But gun rights activists aren’t in that crowd, and so GOA has to inform you of yet ANOTHER threat to your privacy, the Second Amendment, and even your wallet.

It is called an “individual mandate” or, alternatively, the
“Massachusetts plan.” And over the weekend, both the Washington Post and the New York Times worked hard to build momentum for it.

First, a little history.

We alerted you a few weeks ago to the gun control provisions in the stimulus bill that President Obama signed in February. Our government will now spend between $12 and $20 BILLION to require the medical community to retroactively put our most confidential medical records
into a government database — a database that could easily be used to deny veterans (and other law-abiding Americans) who have sought psychiatric treatment for things such as PTSD.

Currently, gun owners can avoid getting caught in this database by refusing to purchase health insurance or by purchasing insurance with a carrier that has not signed an agreement with the government to place your records in a national database.

But that’s all about to change. A budget resolution — to be voted on this Friday in the Senate — will be the first domino in a process that could FORCE you to buy government-approved insurance, thus making it impossible to avoid the medical database.

Put another way: If you do not have health insurance — or,
potentially, if you do not have the TYPE of health insurance the government wants you to have — the government will force you to purchase what it regards as “acceptable” health insurance. And, in most cases, you will have to pay for it out of your own pocket.

What would all this cost? Based on comparable insurance currently on the market, it could cost $10,000 a year — or more.

If you were jobless, the socialists would probably spot you the ten grand. But if you are middle class and can’t pay $10,000 because of your mortgage payments, your small business, or your kids’ college education, you would be fined (over $1,000 a year currently in Massachusetts). And, if you couldn’t pay the confiscatory fine, you could ultimately be imprisoned.

Scary, you say. But why is this a Second Amendment issue? Under the Massachusetts plan, your MANDATED insurance carrier has to feed your medical data into a centralized database — freely accessible by the government under federal privacy laws.

So… remember when your pediatrician asked your kid if you have a firearm in the home? Or when your dad was given a prescription for Zoloft because of his Alzheimer’s? Or when your wife mentioned to her gynecologist that she had regularly smoked marijuana ten years ago?

All of this would be in a centralized database. And all of it could potentially be used to vastly expand the “prohibited persons” list maintained by the FBI in West Virginia.

How serious a threat is this?

If it gets into the budget resolution the Senate will consider on Friday, it will be almost impossible to strip out later. It will be as much of a done-deal as the stimulus package was.

We have asked senators to introduce language to prohibit such an individual mandate for socialized medicine that would violate the privacy of gun owners. In the absence of such an amendment, we are asking senators to vote against the budget resolution.

ACTION: Write your U.S. Senators. Urge them to vote against the budget resolution if it does not contain language prohibiting a mandate that Americans buy government-approved health insurance against their will.

Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

A budget resolution that could end up requiring Americans to purchase expensive health insurance policies against their will is truly frightening.

And equally alarming is the fact that such mandated health care coverage could easily become a shill for gun control.

Potentially, anyone who does not have health insurance– or does not have the TYPE of health insurance the government wants them to have — will be forced to purchase “acceptable” health insurance and pay for it
out of our own pockets.

Based on the cost of comparable insurance currently on the market, that could cost $10,000 a year — or more.

That’s bad enough. But far worse, such a “Massachusetts Plan” would MANDATE that an insurance carrier feed medical data into a centralized database — freely accessible by the government under federal privacy laws.

Hence, a kid’s statement to his pediatrician about his parents’ firearms… or a dad’s prescription for Zoloft because of his Alzheimer’s… or a wife’s statement to her gynecologist about her regular use of marijuana ten years ago… could all turn up in a federal database and unconstitutionally expand the list of “prohibited persons.”
Individuals would have no ability to opt out.

For all of these reasons, if the budget resolution does not contain language prohibiting an “individual mandate” regarding health care, I would ask that you oppose the budget resolution.

Sincerely,

Turns out that years before we knew him as the local junk man he taught industrial arts in Natchitoches.

Alfred J. Brock drove to DC after taking up money from locals and as he says got stopped at a road block and when he was asked if he had a gun said yes. Turns out he never listened when I tried to warn him abut liberals and gun control back in the 90s. And had his 22 with him.

He claims to have invented the “hydroelectric venturi.” and wanted to show it to Obama as the solution to Obama’s energy plan. He has even made a sign to hold up “200,000 jobs, Mr. President, I have your energy plan.” With Your spelled with Yo above ur.

He has now taken up money from people ‘investors’ to get this thing patented. Kind of feel sorry for this old guy he is likely going to get riped off by the patent attorney.

So local man reinvents hover dam loads it in his PU and drives to DC to show Obama. Gets arrested for not knowing about gun laws, Gets Psychiatric exam and comes back to Winnfield still thinking he will get to see Obama.

More here

Brock said, “When the president came in, he had campaigned on energy conservation, and I knew I had it. I always had this idea, and I knew it would work. I didn’t get to talk to anyone, But the defense attorney I had — he was a court-appointed lawyer — he told me to send it to him and he would see that it got to the right people.”

Brock said another lawyer has been engaged to prepare an application for a patent on the invention.

The venturi idea simply increases the force of flowing water by funneling the flow into a narrow outlet, he said. Power would be generated by a series of paddles arranged in a manner similar to a windmill and set in the venturi canal.

http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/20090316/NEWS01/903160315

The easiest way to prove that the USA is not the source of the weapons is to look at what kinds of weapons are being found. Fully automatic AK-47s are extremely rare in the USA but common in much of the Third World. Rocket propelled grenades (RPG)are also made outside of the USA. Both of these weapons were developed in Russia and licensed to Soviet client states such as China (PRC), North Korea, North Vietnam, the Warsaw Pact, and others.

If these weapons are being trans-shipped through the United States in quantity, then we have an abject failure of agencies such as ICE and Homeland Security. That would be an Administration failure.

This Big Lie should not be used as an excuse to reenact the worthless and ineffective “Assault Weapon Ban” of 1994. Dianne Feinstein admitted that the 1994 bill would not make a real difference but would serve as a first step toward the total elimination of privately held firearms, or in her own words, “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them in, turn them ALL in.”

Remember, “Gun Control” is really about Control as in controlling our citizens.

Orginal posted here :Jerome C. Borden Layton

Wesely Clark was just on Geraldo pusing this scam that AK-47 machine guns needed to be banned in the US because the were being smuggled into Mexico.

Full story showing where the guns really come from. South America is here.

Attorney General Eric Holder said today that the Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.

Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

This is a known lie because the weapons used in Mexico are fully-auto and not the same guns the president would be banning.

Mexican government officials have complained that the availability of sophisticated guns from the United States have emboldened drug traffickers to fight over access routes into the U.S.

A State Department travel warning issued Feb. 20, 2009, reflected government concerns about the violence.

“Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades,” the warning said. “Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico, but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez.”

Someone explain how fully auto weapons and grenade’s should require a ban on semi auto guns in the US. the 2 are not related in anyway those guns did not come from the US its just another excuse.

During his confirmation hearing, Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee about other gun control measures the Obama administration may consider.

“I think closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I also think that making the assault weapons ban permanent, would be something that would be permitted under Heller,” Holder said

No word from him on what this non existence cop-killer bullet is. In the past we have found that its really a dear riffle bullet they want to ban.

So much for the claims that Obama will not ban guns. Based on prior Obama bills we will have no hearings and it will be added to some bill that we can not live without.

MEXICO CITY (AP) — More than 50 U.S. lawmakers sent a letter to President Barack Obama urging him to enforce a ban on importing assault weapons, saying many such guns are later smuggled south to arm Mexico’s ruthless drug cartels.

“They come to the United States from Europe and other places, and they make their way down to Mexico,” Rep. Eliot Engel, a New York Democrat, told reporters in Mexico City on Wednesday.

The ban was implemented under the administrations of President George H.W. Bush and President Bill Clinton, and the U.S. government can enforce it under provisions of the 1968 Gun Control Act.

That ban was on semi-auto guns just like the ones built in the US there was never any reason to stop imports that were identical to those made in the us. They were not fully auto machine guns.

On Tuesday, federal police fighting gunmen in the northern border city of Reynosa had to call the army for help. After the fighting, which left five gunmen dead and seven police injured, authorities seized several assault rifles and even a 60 mm mortar.

In a recent report, the federal Attorney General’s Office said Mexican authorities have seized the most weapons from the Gulf drug cartel and its gang of hit men, known as the “Zetas.” Members of the cartel have been found with rocket launchers, grenade launchers, and weapons capable of piercing armor.

Who is this author the ban he is talking about has nothing to do with rocket launchers, grenade launchers, and mortars. And as far as armor piercing any standard hunting gun will do that.

From what I understand the Mexicans have fully auto machine guns and none of the guns they have were imported into the US and then exported to Mexico.

The fact that these US lawmakers do not know this shows how inept the gun control movement is in the US

It was a day that will live in infamy.

President Obama traveled to Denver, Colorado yesterday to sign the multi-billion dollar, pork-laden, so-called “stimulus” bill into law.

But forget the $787 billion price tag you heard on TV. Forget the $12 TRILLION debt limit which the bill created.

By the time debt services and other frills of the “socialism bill” are accounted for, the cost will be over $3,000,000,000,000 (yes, three TRILLION).

This makes the bill the biggest government spending grab in human history.

But what about the details? The hundreds and hundreds of pages in the bill were not made available until less than 18 hours before the final passage vote. But here’s what we know in relation to the gun-related provisions:

* The final bill continues to spend between $12 and $20 BILLION on requiring your doctor to retroactively put your most confidential medical records into a government database. Based on our experience with veterans, we would expect the government to try to use computerized psychiatric records to impose gun bans on people who have sought (or will seek) treatment.

* The final bill continues to fund liberal community action groups like ACORN, which has been convicted in previous elections for voter fraud and is now under investigation in several states for having engaged in massive criminal election fraud on behalf of Barack Obama’s presidential
candidacy. Not only that, they have also been involved in anti-Second Amendment activism in New Jersey.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was at least honest when he said it would be a shame to let a crisis like the current recession “go to waste.” Like vultures picking on the nation’s carcass, the White House has used the nation’s pain to lavish largesse on its political supporters, at the expense of the nation’s economic survival.

And, in the end, this act of ethical depravity was made possible by every Democrat Senator who voted for the bill, plus the defections of three Republicans: Arlen Specter (R-PA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Susan Collins (R-ME).

Socialism is the phantastic younger brother of despotism, which it wants to inherit. Socialism wants to have the fullness of state force which before only existed in despotism. … However, it goes further than anything in the past because it aims at the formal destruction of the individual … who … can be used to improve communities by an expedient organ of government.
– Friedrich Nitzsche

Marxists believe that a non-socialist society is to blame for what is wrong with people and therefore, change has to begin with those who are responsible for society, mainly “the rich.” Others, not they, have to change, and the others are in the end all those who oppose socialism. People are either forced to comply or they are killed, as happened in Nazi Germany. If you put right what is wrong in society, so goes Marxist theory, you will heal injustice and people, products of a hostile society, will become their good selves. Healing is created by installing more and more socialists in office, socialist immorality and socialist programs.

Barack Obama has not touched corruption and moral issues. His plans for dealing with issues are of economic nature and are pure Marxism – blaming the non-socialist enemies and distributing money to bribe poor voters, making them dependent on government and cementing its power. Marxism’s concepts lead to the welfare state – and on to a totalitarian system built on lies where government is central. There is no real concern for people; power is at the heart of all their projects.

The Democratic Party, with the leadership of Obama, the Clintons, Reid, Pelosi and comrades, is an illegitimate party that is destroying the Constitution – which leads to spiritual, political and economic disaster. It is illegitimate because of policy principles like abortion and also Darwinism being taught in schools. Instead of protecting life, this party promotes killing life. The Republican Party, on the other hand, is legitimate in principle with a majority that wants to do what is right but is lacking a national and personal purpose and therefore so often appeases what is wrong. Nobody wants to risk his position. It is the Appeaser’s Party. There are too many who are looking after themselves first and their country second.

One central theme is enough to clarify why I say that the socialist Democratic Party is illegitimate. Their policies are Marxist and not American, and they promote immorality. It was the Soviet Union, for instance, that was the first state to make abortion legal, already at the beginning of the ’20s. Having grown up in the godless totalitarian Nazi society, it is appalling for me to watch that in America, politicians can speak of their “Christian faith” and at the same time make abortion, same-sex marriage and homosexuality their party policy. Democrats are not fit for American constitutional government.

No government or parliament across the globe has the authority to overrule God. The godless national Socialists, called Nazis, did it, and my family, Jewish people, all Germans and Europeans paid dearly for it, because millions of us did not see our own evil inside. American soldiers shed their blood to liberate us from Nazi power. It pains me to see America today on the same track. Not only those who actively promote the godless programs allowed by our government establishment but also those who for personal reasons or lack of backbone appease them. They will pay for it, here and when they face their Creator. I know the consequence of a godless government. America must have a God-fearing government. The abortionists are closer to the Nazis than to our Founding Fathers. Both base their philosophy and action on lies.

More Here

“HR 1 is about more than just pork. Millions of gun owners stand to
lose their gun rights without any due process.” — Larry Pratt, GOA
Executive Director

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

The Obama administration is putting a lot of pressure on Congress to
slam through the most recent $800+ billion bailout package before anyone
has an opportunity to read it.

The Obama administration intones that the details are unimportant. The
only thing that matters is the “bigness.” And, by shipping a bill of
nearly $900 billion (plus interest) to our children and grandchildren,
the package is really, really big — bigger, in fact, than the budget of
our entire government for the first 170 years of our country’s
existence.

But now that some of the details are finally starting to leak out of
Washington, Gun Owners — and a lot of other analysts — are beginning
to look at the fine print. And some of it is particularly scary.

Of particular concern to gun owners are sections 13101 through 13434 of
HR 1, which would set up the infrastructure to computerize the medical
records of ALL AMERICANS in a government-coordinated database.

True, the bill doesn’t mandate that the data will be in a giant computer
under the Oval Office. But it does mandate that your medical records be
reduced to a computerized form which is available to it in a second.

This it would do by establishing a National Coordinator for Health
Information Technology — tasked with, among other things, “providing
information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of
care.”

It should be scary enough that a government bureaucrat is directed by
statute to try to influence your doctor’s decisions with respect to your
medical care.

But of even greater concern to gun owners is the fact that a
government-coordinated database (which government can freely access)
will now contain all records of government-provided and private
psychiatric treatment — including, in particular, the drugs which were
prescribed.

Remember last year’s “NICS Improvement Act” — otherwise known as the
Veterans Disarmament Act? This law codified ATF’s attempts to make you
a prohibited person on the basis of a government psychiatrist’s finding
that you are a “danger” — without a finding by any court. Well,
roughly 150,000 battle-scarred veterans have already been unfairly
stripped of their gun rights by the government.

But people who, as kids, were diagnosed with Attention Deficit
Disorder… or seniors with Alzheimer’s… or police with Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder… or people who are now theoretically covered by the
new law… these people have, generally, not suffered the consequences
of its sanctions — YET. And the chief reason is that their records are
not easily available to the government in a central, easily retrievable,
computerized form.

The bailout bill would change all of that. It would push increasingly
hard to force your private psychiatrist or government-sanctioned
psychiatrist to turn over your psychiatric records to a massive
database. This would be mandated immediately if your doctor does
business with the government.

This would supposedly save Medicare money in connection with medical
treatment. And, the sponsors insist, they would work very hard to
protect your privacy.

But this turns the concept of “privacy” on its head. The privacy which
is MOST important is privacy from the prying eyes of government — not
privacy of government data against the prying eyes of others. After
all, many government data bases have been hacked in recent years, with
mountains of information stolen.

So, once the government has access to these computerized psychiatric
records, the stage will be set for using that database to take away the
gun rights of those with Alzheimer’s, those with ADD, and those with
PTSD.

ACTION: Write your two senators. Urge them to vote against the bailout
bill (HR 1) until it is stripped of provisions which would turn your
psychiatric records over to a central government-coordinated database
against your will — without you getting your day in court.

You can go to the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the
pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Prewritten Letter —–

Dear Senator:

I am particularly concerned about sections 13101 through 13434 of the
new bailout bill (HR 1). These sections would set up the infrastructure
to computerize the medical records of ALL AMERICANS in a
government-coordinated database, including psychiatric records.

It is scary enough that a government bureaucrat is directed by statute
to try to influence my doctor’s decisions with respect to my medical
care.

But of even greater concern to gun owners is the fact that a
government-coordinated database will now contain all records of
government-provided and private psychiatric treatment.

Last year’s “NICS Improvement Act” codified ATF’s attempts to make a
person a prohibited person on the basis of a government psychiatrist’s
finding that he is a “danger” — without a finding by any court. Well,
roughly 150,000 battle-scarred veterans have already been unfairly
stripped of their gun rights by the government.

Now, this new government-coordinated database threatens the gun rights
of people who, as kids, were diagnosed with Attention Deficit
Disorder… seniors with Alzheimer’s… police with Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder… and many other law-abiding Americans.

Please vote against cloture on HR 1 until this provision is removed.

Sincerely,

****************************

Lost in all the news of the massive bailout bill that just passed the Senate is another enormous bill, one that increases federal control of public and private land.

Of particular concern to gun owners is that the bill, S. 22, will greatly expand the amount of land controlled by the National Park Service. NPS land is currently subject to a gun ban.

While President Bush took steps in the waning days of his presidency to reverse the ban, the new regulations apply to persons who carry a concealed firearm with a permit. Non-permit holders and open carry are not explicitly addressed.

Another eyebrow-raising aspect of this bill is that it is actually a compilation of over 150 separate pieces of legislation that never passed out of Congress on their own merits.

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) successfully held up over 100 of these bills, until anti-gun Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rolled all of the bills into one so-called Coburn Omnibus and forced it through the Senate in January on a vote of 73-21.

As the House prepares to take up the bill, the Democrat leadership has taken procedural steps to ensure that the measure cannot be amended or altered in any way. That means that if it passes the House, it goes right to President Obama’s desk, where it will be signed into law.

Here are a few of the more troubling aspects of the bill:

* It authorizes the federal government to buy private land adjacent to national parks and trails. Such land would be controlled by the NPS, and thus be subject to the gun ban.

* The bill federalizes the Washington-Rochambeau Route, a 650 mile trail that stretches from Rhode Island to Virginia and includes sections of major thoroughfares such as Interstate 95 and U.S. Route 1, and passes through cities like Boston and Philadelphia. The entire trail would fall under the NPS and the gun ban.

* The National Landscape Conservation System groups together millions of acres of federal land and places it under one new umbrella agency. The NLCS was created during the Clinton administration and run administratively since then. S. 22 will codify the system, which raises concerns for hunters and sportsmen. Much of this land is consolidated
from the BLM and the Forest Service, which have always allowed hunting and recreational shooting. It is unclear what rules will be promulgated by the new agency and if gun owners’ rights will be protected.

* S. 22 strips out small concessions won by pro-gunners in the House last year that would allow state and local law to govern firearms possession and hunting on certain land.

* S.22 allows for NO amendments. Pro-gun members who want to offer an amendment to fully repeal the NPS gun ban are prevented from doing so by the anti-gun leadership.

The full House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the bill this Wednesday or Thursday.

Unless the NPS gun ban is repealed and the rights of gun owners are protected, Gun Owners of America opposes the bill in its entirety.

ACTION: Please urge your Representative to repeal the NPS gun ban in S. 22, or to vote against the entire bill. You can go to the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://capwiz.com/gunowners/home/ to send your Representative the pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Prewritten Letter —–

Dear Representative:

I urge you to oppose S. 22, a bill that will greatly expand the amount of land controlled by the National Park Service (NPS).

NPS land is currently subject to a gun ban. While President Bush took steps in the waning days of his presidency to reverse the ban, the new regulations apply to persons who carry a concealed firearm with a permit. Non-permit holders and open carry are not explicitly addressed.
Which is why S. 22 raises so many concerns:

* It authorizes the federal government to buy private land adjacent to national parks and trails. Such land would be controlled by the NPS, and thus be subject to the gun ban.

* The bill federalizes the Washington-Rochambeau Route, a 650 mile trail, and places it under the NPS gun ban.

* S. 22 will codify the National Landscape Conservation System, which raises concerns for hunters and sportsmen. Much of this land is consolidated from the BLM and the Forest Service, which have always allowed hunting and recreational shooting. It is unclear what rules will be promulgated by the new agency and if gun owners’ rights will be protected.

* S. 22 also strips out small concessions which were won in the House last year that would allow state and local law to govern firearms possession and hunting on certain land. But the anti-gun House leadership is preventing any amendments to fully repeal the NPS gun ban.

If these concerns are not corrected in S. 22, I would strongly urge you to vote against it.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Cass Sunstein, the Harvard University Law School professor tapped by President-elect Obama to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has a secret aim to push a radical animal-rights agenda in the White House. Sunstein supports outlawing sport hunting, giving animals the legal right to file lawsuits, and using government regulations to phase out meat consumption.

In a 2007 speech at Harvard University, Sunstein argued in favor of entirely “eliminating current practices such as … meat eating.” He also proposed: “We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It’s time now.”

Sunstein wrote in his 2004 book “Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions” that “animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives … Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian-like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients’ behalf.”

Sunstein’s work could spell the end of animal agriculture, retail sales of meat and dairy foods, hunting and fishing, biomedical research, pet ownership, zoos and aquariums, traveling circuses, and countless other things Americans take for granted.

Cass Sunstein owes Americans an honest appraisal of his animal rights agenda as America’s top regulator. Americans don’t realize that the next four years could be full of bizarre initiatives plucked from the wildest dreams of the animal-rights fringe. Think about every outrageous idea PETA and the Humane Society of the United States have ever had, and imagine them all having the force of federal law. This doesn’t look good for hunters, ranchers, restaurateurs, biomedical researchers, or ordinary pet owners.”

Firearms may only be owned by those possessing a valid license issued by the federal Attorney General. This license will contain the licensee’s photograph, thumb print, address, and a unique license number. Possession of a firearm without a license would constitute a federal crime.
Firearms may only be sold by federal firearms licensees to other license holders. This would put an end to person-to-person firearm sales.
Firearms must be stored locked in a safe. If you have children, you may not be allowed to store weapons loaded, even in a safe. Failure to comply with guidelines on storage would result in the loss of your license.
You must purchase the license for $25, payable with your application, directly to the Attorney General. There is no time limit or “shall-issue” clause. The Attorney General can simply ignore your request (and take your money).
The bill is ex-post facto; this means that once the bill is passed and enacted, the laws will apply to guns you already own, as well as ones you will purchase in the future. This means that if you are a law abiding gun owner today, you will still have to get a license in order to avoid having your firearms confiscated.
The law establishes a national database which tracks all firearms sales. This creates a national database of gun owners.
Failing to update your address information, or otherwise notify the issuing office of your firearms license when you move, would constitute a felony
In addition to the current requirement for background checks with the NCIS when purchasing a firearm on an ATF form 4473, there would be an additional requirement to check with the Attorney General’s office to ensure that your license was still valid
Possession of a firearm by a minor, being anyone under 18, even under your supervision, would become illegal
I would advise that after reading the law - cited in its entirety below - you also research the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938. They bear a striking resemblance.

Full text here.

(a) Findings- Congress finds that–
(1) the manufacture, distribution, and importation of firearms is inherently commercial in nature;
(2) firearms regularly move in interstate commerce;
(3) to the extent that firearms trafficking is intrastate in nature, it arises out of and is substantially connected with a commercial transaction, which, when viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce;
(4) because the intrastate and interstate trafficking of firearms are so commingled, full regulation of interstate commerce requires the incidental regulation of intrastate commerce;
(5) gun violence in the United States is associated with the majority of homicides, over half the suicides, and two-thirds of non-fatal violent injuries; and
(6) on the afternoon of May 10, 2007, Blair Holt, a junior at Julian High School in Chicago, was killed on a public bus riding home from school when he used his body to shield a girl who was in the line of fire after a young man boarded the bus and started shooting.
(b) Sense of the Congress- It is the sense of the Congress that–
(1) firearms trafficking is prevalent and widespread in and among the States, and it is usually impossible to distinguish between intrastate trafficking and interstate trafficking; and
(2) it is in the national interest and within the role of the Federal Government to ensure that the regulation of firearms is uniform among the States, that law enforcement can quickly and effectively trace firearms used in crime, and that firearms owners know how to use and safely store their firearms.
(c) Purposes- The purposes of this Act and the amendments made by this Act are–
(1) to protect the public against the unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with the unrecorded sale or transfer of qualifying firearms to criminals and youth;
(2) to ensure that owners of qualifying firearms are knowledgeable in the safe use, handling, and storage of those firearms;
(3) to restrict the availability of qualifying firearms to criminals, youth, and other persons prohibited by Federal law from receiving firearms; and
(4) to facilitate the tracing of qualifying firearms used in crime by Federal and State law enforcement agencies.

You see congress can not regulate anything but interstate commerce so they just declare the guns in our homes interstate commerce and now they can require them to be licensed.

`(aa) Firearm Licensing Requirement-

`(1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to possess a qualifying firearm on or after the applicable date, unless that person has been issued a firearm license–

(a) In General- In order to be issued a firearm license under this title, an individual shall submit to the Attorney General (in accordance with the regulations promulgated under subsection (b)) an application, which shall include–
(1) a current, passport-sized photograph of the applicant that provides a clear, accurate likeness of the applicant;
(2) the name, address, and date and place of birth of the applicant;
(3) any other name that the applicant has ever used or by which the applicant has ever been known;
(4) a clear thumb print of the applicant, which shall be made when, and in the presence of the entity to whom, the application is submitted;
(5) with respect to each category of person prohibited by Federal law, or by the law of the State of residence of the applicant, from obtaining a firearm, a statement that the individual is not a person prohibited from obtaining a firearm;
(6) a certification by the applicant that the applicant will keep any firearm owned by the applicant safely stored and out of the possession of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;
(7) a certificate attesting to the completion at the time of application of a written firearms examination, which shall test the knowledge and ability of the applicant regarding–
(A) the safe storage of firearms, particularly in the vicinity of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;
(B) the safe handling of firearms;
(C) the use of firearms in the home and the risks associated with such use;
(D) the legal responsibilities of firearms owners, including Federal, State, and local laws relating to requirements for the possession and storage of firearms, and relating to reporting requirements with respect to firearms; and
(E) any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate;
(8) an authorization by the applicant to release to the Attorney General or an authorized representative of the Attorney General any mental health records pertaining to the applicant;
(9) the date on which the application was submitted; and
(10) the signature of the applicant.

So you have to apply to the new Obama anti gun att general to get permission to keep your gun.
So much for Obama not being anti gun Hu. I don’t see Obama saying he won’t pass this new democrat party bill.

This law is unconstitutional because guns in our homes are not interstate commerce 1 and 2 even if they were it violates your 2nd amendment right to have a gun if you can not pass the permit rules not to mention the huge fees they will charge to prevent you from applying.

SEC. 202. FIREARM RECORDS.

(a) Submission of Sale or Transfer Reports- Not later than 14 days after the date on which the transfer of qualifying firearm is processed by a licensed dealer under section 922(bb) of title 18, United States Code (as added by section 201 of this Act), the licensed dealer shall submit to the Attorney General (or, in the case of a licensed dealer located in a State that has a State firearm licensing and record of sale system certified under section 602 of this Act, to the head of the State agency that administers that system) a report of that transfer, which shall include information relating to–

(1) the manufacturer of the firearm;
(2) the model name or number of the firearm;
(3) the serial number of the firearm;
(4) the date on which the firearm was received by the transferee;
(5) the number of a valid firearm license issued to the transferee under title I of this Act; and
(6) the name and address of the individual who transferred the firearm to the transferee.
(b) Federal Record of Sale System- Not later than 9 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall establish and maintain a Federal record of sale system, which shall include the information included in each report submitted to the Attorney General under subsection (a).
(c) Elimination of Prohibition on Establishment of System of Registration- Section 926(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the second sentence.

So just to make it worse the bill creates a national firearm database of all guns to be stored with the Attorney General.

ACORN a group accused of election fraud , is fighting for a new law it says will save lives.
They say “Stop the Bullet” is a campaign that would make it harder for felons to buy ammunition from stores.

This law would require a background check to buy ammunition. And require bullet permits.

Community organizer for the local NC ACORN group, The Rev. Melvin Whitley, says it’s too easy for criminals to buy ammo, and he plans to close that loophole.

ACORN’S initiative would expand the law to include ammunition, and may even include a requirement for bullet permits.

“The problem with the law is that it allows criminals to have access to bullets. And it’s the bullets that’s killing us,” according to Whitley.

But gun shop owners disagree.

They feel it’s just another way organizations are trying to take away their Second Amendment rights.

“We have to make it clear we are not talking about gun control, we’re talking about bullets,” said Durham City Council Member Howard Clement III.

Whitley stated his case before the Durham City Council Thursday in hopes that the council will add it to its legislative agenda. The council’s legislative committee will determine whether the initiative has legs.

Whitley hopes to get the bill passed in a year.

Just what we need an Obama stooge group pushing gun control. Smells fishy perhaps a guncontrol test by Obama to see what happens.

more comments here

Mychal Bell’s latest problems — being charged with shoplifting, resisting arrest and simple battery and attempting to commit suicide — say something tragic about Bell

Bell is one of six youths charged in the 2006 assault on Justin Barker, a student at Jena High School. Bell pleaded guilty and did his time; the others are awaiting trial.

But Black bloggers said it was not his fault that he was the victim. This is clearly now not the case.

On Christmas Eve, Bell was arrested at the Pecanland Mall in Monroe and charged with shoplifting clothes, simple battery and resisting arrest, Monroe Police Lt. Jeff Davis said

Bell was released on $1,300 bond, and the case was assigned to city court.

The high school senior’s mother and his grandmother also told an investigator that he’d indicated “he did not feel like he could live anymore” because of media coverage of the shoplifting allegations, according to the report.

A officer responded to a 911 call from his grandmother’s Monroe, Louisiana, home, where Bell lives. The grandmother, Rosie Simmons, told the officer that she had hidden the gun after the shooting “for Mychal’s safety so he did not try to shot [sic] himself again,” according to the report. Bell, suffered a wound to the upper right chest.

Simmons and Bell’s mother, Melissa Bell, told investigators they heard a gunshot from the teenager’s room and found him on the bed, according to the police report.

“Rosie and M. Bell stated Mychal had made comments over the past two days that because of the current media attention he had because of a shoplifting arrest he did not feel like he could live anymore,” the police report says.
Bell’s Christmas Eve arrest came after security guards at the shopping center were told Bell and a male friend were seen stuffing clothing into a bag in a menswear section of Dillard’s, according to the investigative report.

Once spotted, the men split up, police said. Bell, chased by security guards, ran from the store to a parking lot, where he tried to hide under a car, Davis said. As a store security officer tried to pull Bell out, “Bell swung his arms wildly” and hit the guard with his elbow, the report says. Davis said the guard was hit in the face.

Bell admitted to the thefts, which police said included four shirts and a pair of jeans, Davis said. The merchandise was photographed by store security and returned to stock, he added. Bell was taken to jail and booked. Davis said the second man escaped.

Packing a holstered pistol on his belt, Santa Claus opposes President-elect Barack Obama over gun rights on an original Christmas card sent to members of Congress and others by right to self-defense advocate John M. Snyder of Telum Associates, LL.C.

“Although Obama said recently that, ‘lawful gun owners have nothing to fear’ from his administration, the fact is that firearm owners are not so sure,” said Snyder. “Obama’s public record as a staunch advocate of repressive gun control measures belies his attempt to tamp the concerns of lawful gun owners. So does his appointment to his administration of anti-gun politicians Eric Holder as Attorney General and Rahm Emanuel as White House Chief of Staff. America’s 90 million law-abiding firearm owners oppose extremist gun control proposals emanating from Washington, D.C. This includes any extremist anti-gun proposals which Obama tries to label ‘common sense gun safety laws,’ a phrase he used recently to characterize the kind of laws he would support.

“Obama’s record includes support for a handgun ban and a ban on concealed carry firearm permits, as well as hyper-restrictive measures regarding the acquisition and possession of rifles and shotguns. Holder has stated that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. Emanuel worked at the White House for passage of the Clinton Administration ban on certain semiautomatic firearms, which President Clinton himself later admitted led to Democrat loss of the House in the 1994 elections. It expired in 2004. Although Obama said recently that, ‘people can take me at my word,’ gun owners wonder, ‘which word?’ Lawful firearm owners do not trust him and are gearing up for a real battle.”

Snyder added that, “Americans hope an incoming administration will be able to deal effectively with the economic problems confronting our nation, but gun owners are wary of Obama’s record on firearms regulatory and prohibitive proposals, and concerned about Obama’s possible connection with officials involved in public scandals being reported from Illinois. Firearms owners are ready to fight for the preservation of the civil right to keep and bear arms, the right to self-defense, the right to life itself.”

The card depicts Santa and Obama in caricature tugging against each other on opposite ends of a rope. Gun owners support Santa and gun grabbers support Obama.

An image of the Supreme Court appears in the background, recalling the Court’s holding last summer in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Initially, both Obama and Holder opposed the individual rights position which the Court later adopted.

“The tug of war continues,” notes the card. A high resolution image of the card is available on request by email to gundean@gmail.com.

There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything. At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, “Shoot them, they’re sitting ducks!” but they just didn’t shoot back. I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera

“I only wish I had a gun,” a statement that echoes one of the biggest failures of Indian democracy. The state has actively prevented law-abiding citizens from owning the tools with which to protect their lives!

It wasn’t supposed to be this way, in fact throughout the freedom struggle our leaders actively campaigned for gun rights, including M.K. Gandhi himself. In it’s 1931 Karachi session the Congress party, which was at the forefront of our freedom struggle, adopted a 20-point resolution on fundamental rights, this included the right to keep and bear arms. However, when India finally became independent in 1947, this right was missing from the new constitution that was finally adopted.

Instead the Indian parliament made noises about weapon “regulation” and eventually replaced the British time Arms Act with the new Arms Act of 1959, which boldly promised to make it easier for citizens to own guns, but in essence was a rehash of the old legislation.

But the Indian government has not merely used legislation and licensing to keep guns out of the hands of civilians. It has also used state policy to ensure that firearms and ammunition prices are probably some of the highest in the world. Domestic production of rifled firearms is a state monopoly, churning out crude products that are priced at 7 (or more) times their cost of production. Similarly domestic production of ammunition is a state monopoly with inconsistent supplies, poor quality, and very high prices. This combined with the fact that imports have been virtually banned since 1986 means that an ordinary snub nosed .357 Colt revolver will sell (legally) for a mind boggling US $20,000 or more.

A tight licensing regime combined with the high price of acquiring a legal gun has meant that very few Indians own weapons. Unsurprisingly these restrictions have also meant that there is a thriving black market for arms and ammunition, ensuring a steady supply to all manner of criminals — people who don’t bother about the niceties of remaining within the purview of the law.

Citizens must jump through several hoops to get an arms license and then pay crazy prices for ordinary products. But black market firearms are available at a small fraction of the cost of legal firearms. A country-made single shot handgun can cost as little as US $ 20, imported handguns go for US $ 500- $1,000, and AK-47’s (like the ones that were used in this attack) cost about US$ 1,500 or thereabouts on the black market. There never was a clearer real life example of how gun control takes guns out of the hands of decent law-abiding folk and puts them right into the hands of criminals.

At the Jewish outreach centre, bystanders pelted the terrorists with stones in a vain attempt to ward off the attack, but had to retreat when the terrorists opened fire with automatic rifles. Our citizens were trying to ward off the terrorists with stones! I cannot think of a more extreme example of how helpless the government has rendered it’s own citizens. In the absence of guns, and thus incapable of offering any resistance, they were simply like lambs to the slaughter. On that fateful day, this was a story repeated again and again all over Mumbai: unarmed civilians, slow & inept emergency services, and mindless slaughter of innocents.

But we live in a democracy; hence at the end of the day it is each one of us who is to blame. It is we the people who must ask our representatives hard questions; it is we who must bring the right to bear arms to the forefront of the political agenda. We have the power to effect change through our votes and with elections just a few months away, let us not forget the lessons of Mumbai, let us not forget those that lost their lives there, many of who could have been saved if just a few of us were armed.

As citizens it is incumbent on us to make sure we don’t allow another tragedy like Mumbai to take place. As free men and women it is our responsibility to take measures to protect ourselves as best we can, using the best available tools and it’s high time we demanded them as a right!

full story here.

The new regulation allows individuals to carry concealed firearms in federal parks and wildlife refuges to the same extent they can lawfully do so under state law. The previous regulation required that firearms be unloaded and placed somewhere that is not easily accessible, such as in a car trunk.

The National Rifle Association has hailed the rule change, which will take effect next month before President-elect Barack Obama takes office. NRA officials say the new rule is more consistent with federal law and it eliminates confusion.

The park rule will be published in the Federal Register early this week and take effect 30 days later. Federal officials say overturning the rule could take months or even years, since it would require the new administration to restart the lengthy rule-making process.

So will Obama live up to his promise he made last week or will he reverse this rule?

Obama said Sunday that lawful gun owners have “nothing to fear” from his incoming administration so there is no reason for Americans to stock up on guns.
“I believe in common sense gun safety law, and I believe in the second amendment,” Obama said at a press conference Sunday. “And so, lawful gun owners have nothing to fear.
“I’ve said that throughout the campaign. I haven’t indicated anything different during the transition, and I think that people can take me at my word.”

Now come on thats a outright lie his his websites have clearly stated the following.

…would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information. ..support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. .. also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

And he has hired pro guncontrol nuts to run the Justice department. Who is he trying to fool? Whats the deal is he smoking Crack or what?

Is this the change you voted for? A president who post something on his website and then tells you you did not see it.

Gun owners will not be fooled by this lame remark.

A solution to the problem of modern day piracy
The world’s navies can’t be everywhere at once. Even staying hundreds of miles away from the coast of Somalia is no longer enough to keep merchant ships safe. But firearms in the hands of the law abiding merchant sailors could make all the difference. Ideally, the pirates could be stopped before boarding the ship, with long range fire. The pirates would also be particularly vulnerable to self defense gunfire as they climb rope ladders to get from their small craft to the decks of large ships. Failing that, an armed crew aboard its own ship should still have an advantage over pirates that have to make their way through an unfamiliar ship’s passageways.
I am not suggesting that every single act of piracy could be stopped by arming the crews of ships - but I bet that armed merchant sailors would have a better chance of staying alive and free from captivity. Armed crews would also act as a deterrent, as pirates don’t tend to attack targets that can fight back (think about how rarely if ever pirates try to seize a warship!)

UN type gun control that has spread around the world has caused this piracy problem because it has kept the ships disarmed. Now is the time to arm all ships with mounted guns to protect them from pirates.
The people running the ships have to wake up and admit that gun control doesn’t work Gun Control Kills.

To quote a UK blog about the UK min wage.

in a period of recession a minimum wage is likely to deepen that recession by preventing labour markets from clearing. Firms will be unable to take on new employees willing to work for relatively low wages in order to escape unemployment; if firms cannot take on new employees and people cannot exit from unemployment, then the route out of recession becomes much slower and more arduous.
Sadly, rather than reducing or abolishing the minimum wage, in March this year the government announced that next month it will increase to £5.73 per hour. In the present economic climate this is, frankly, lunacy.

The truth is that we need to abolishing the minimum wage and let people bargen for a going wage. But people voted for a president who wants to raise it so its clear to me that when it increases again in Jan 09 that things will only get worse. And when Obama ads his on raise onto that we will dive deeper into a depression.

Is this the change you voted for?

The MSM has mentioned Craig’s role as Bill Clinton’s impeachment lawyer, but mostly has omitted mention of Craig’s role as chief facilitator for Fidel Castro’s shanghaiing of Elian Gonzalez

Officially Craig served as attorney for Elian’s father, Juan Miguel Gonzalez. He went to Cuba and broght him back under gard so he could not escape. Using him in mock CBS interviue with actors used as fake translators. Full story here

Perhaps this explains why Obama offices in Texas flew the Castro flag.

another-flag-issue-obama
Is this the change we need?

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

What this means is that a member of Congress cannot take an appointment for which the pay has gone up during the time he/she held office in Congress. Since the pay for the Secretary of State has gone up in the last year that would appear to preclude Hillary from getting appointed.

And even if the pay were reduced, by a strict reading of the text (which may or may not even matter to the powers that be these days given how little respect there is out here for what the Constitution actually says) that still wouldn’t be enough.

Hillary may want to be Secretary of State, but it doesn’t look like she can be.

Update I: More from Volokh, an email from Constitutional Law expert Prof. Michael Stokes Paulsen

Thanks for alerting me to this fascinating (and fun) issue! I’ve played in this particular sandbox before [as to Lloyd Bentsen], and am amused to see it return in slightly different form.

So, “Is Hillary Clinton Unconstitutional?” In a word, Yes — or, to be more precise, a Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be unconstitutional.

The Emoluments Clause of Article I, section 6 provides “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time.” As I understand it, President Bush’s executive order from earlier this year “encreased” the “Emoluments” (salary) of the office of Secretary of State. Last I checked, Hillary Clinton was an elected Senator from New York at the time. Were she to be appointed to the civil Office of Secretary of State, she would be being appointed to an office for which “the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased” during the time for which she was elected to serve as Senator. The plain language of the Emoluments Clause would thus appear to bar her appointment … if the Constitution is taken seriously (which it more than occasionally isn’t on these matters, of course).

http://belowthebeltway.com/2008/11/23/is-hillary-ineligible-to-be-secretary-of-state/

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/11/24/hillary-ineligible-for-cabinet-post/42

Obama’s has nominated Eric Holder for attorney general.
deputy attorney general in the Bill Clinton administration from 1997 to 2001

He advocated federal licensing of handgun owners, a three-day waiting period on handgun sales, rationing handgun sales to no more than one per month, banning possession of handguns and so-called “assault weapons” by anyone under age 21, a gun show restriction bill that would have given the federal government the power to shut down all gun shows, and national gun registration.

Now do you understand why gun sales are up?

“He also promoted the lie that ‘Every day that goes by, about 12, 13 more children in this country die from gun violence’ — a statistic that is only true if you count 18-year-old adult gangsters who shoot each other as ‘children,’”

After 9/11 Holder wrote that a new law should give “the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale.” He also said prospective gun buyers should be checked against secret government “watch lists” .

Earlier this year, Holder was on the wrong side of the DC case — co-signed an amicus brief in support of the District of Columbia’s ban on all handguns and on the use of any firearm for self-defense in the home.

Holder played a key role in the gunpoint, night-time kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez. The pretext for the paramilitary invasion of the six-year-old’s home was that someone in his family might have been licensed to carry a handgun under Florida law. Although a Pulitzer Prize-winning photo showed a federal agent dressed like a soldier and pointing a machine gun at the man who was holding the terrified child, Holder claimed that Gonzalez “was not taken at the point of a gun” and that the federal agents whom Holder had sent to capture Gonzalez had acted “very sensitively.” If Mr. Holder believes that breaking down a door with a battering ram, pointing guns at children (not just Elian), and yelling “Get down, get down, we’ll shoot” is example of acting “very sensitively,” his judgment about the responsible use of firearms is not as acute as would be desirable for a cabinet officer who would be in charge of thousands and thousands of armed federal agents, many of them paramilitary agents with machine guns.

These policies match Obama’s anti gun history and show that Obama supportors who thought he was pro gun were wrong.

Eric Holder was also involved in the Waco raid that killed US children.

About two weeks before the raid, Tim Russert asked Holder, “You wouldn’t send a SWAT team in the dark of night to kidnap the child, in effect?”

Holder answered, “No, we don’t expect anything like that to happen.”
Then after the raid Holder was asked “Why such a dramatic change in position?” “I’m not sure I’d call it a dramatic change,” Holder answered. “We waited ‘til five in the morning, just before dawn.”

So ask yorself going back to Jack booted thugs. Is this the change people wanted? This man should be no wehere near government he is not qualified.

Meleanie Hain alleges in a suit filed in a Harrisburg federal court that Lebanon County Sheriff Michael DeLeo violated her Second Amendment rights and prosecuted her maliciously when he took away her permit in September.

Hain, 30, successfully appealed the revocation last month, although the judge who restored her permit questioned her judgment and said she “scared the devil” out of others who attended the Sept. 11 soccer game.

Hain said Monday her home-based baby-sitting service has suffered, her children have been harassed, and she has been ostracized by her neighbors because of DeLeo’s actions. In one instance, she said, a neighbor who saw Hain in a local store had the manager ask her to leave because she was carrying her handgun.

“I fought for my right, and now I’m still being punished,” she said.

DeLeo said at Hain’s Oct. 14 appeal hearing he pulled her license after fielding the parents’ complaints. He said he based his decision on a section of state law that prohibits concealed-weapons permits from being given to people whose character and reputation make them a danger to public safety.

Hain has said she previously carried her handgun openly to soccer games and practices and other public places without any problem. Her attorney, Matthew Weisberg, said DeLeo had no legal right to take away her permit.

You may ask why American individuals are buying so many firearms per person. Simple. Some will be used, others will be hidden… concealed. If anyone asks about them they will have been lost, stolen, or destroyed in some kind of catastrophe such as a fire, etc.

Americans are scared witless that the democrats, under the Obama leadership, will make a determined effort to seize their guns. The democrats, including Obama, say they are for “Common sense” gun control. The definition of “Common sense” is what scares gun owners. I mean, when a Congress, so devoid of knowledge about firearms, outlaws an entire type of rifle because it LOOKS scary,” that tells you all you ever need to know about their “common sense.”

Remember those scary weapons? No amount of talking or demonstrating could convince the Congress that the weapons they outlawed were simply weapons designed merely to look militaristic, to look scary. Many hunting rifles carry the same ammunition as those “scary” weapons. The only difference is in the appearance of the weapons. But the “girlie” men in the Congress, and some of the “girlie” girls in the Congress were frightened by the appearance of those weapons… thus… they outlawed them. Talk about “common sense.”

There is a very real concern they will go after concealed weapon laws in the various states that have concealed carry permit laws such as my state, North Carolina. Here in the Tar Heel state one can obtain a concealed carry permit after you have completed a course in handling your firearm and in firearm safety. However, you don’t need a permit of any kind if you carry the weapon in plain sight. Yes, dear reader, you can carry your pistol in a holster, on your belt, in plain sight, and be legal in this state.

We gun owners are not relying on the Supreme Court to preserve our 2nd amendment rights. True, they did just rule that the 2nd amendment means what it says… but… and this is a big BUT… Obama is going to have the opportunity to replace at least two of those justices and, frankly, I cannot see him, or the Senate, approving anyone for the court who is a solid believer in the 2nd amendment. Thus, the fear that soon, our right to guns will be curtailed.

Another thing they have apparently not considered is… a cottage industry springing up in the manufacture of firearms. They are relatively easy to produce in most home workshops.

The majority of Americans now understand, at some level, that America now has a socialist government in power in Washington, DC. They also understand that socialism resembles a whited sepulcher. It may be beautiful on the outside but inside it is filled with the corpses of the dead. Socialism’s outside is layered with promises of all things beautiful but inside there resides the dead bodies of truth. Most Americans know that our new leaders cannot be trusted. That means that the American citizen is vulnerable. That vulnerability is the key to the insecurity that is driving the purchase of weapons.

We are entering a perilous time IN America and FOR America. Already our traditional enemies are moving and positioning their armed forces to areas and positions strategic to their plans for expansion. They know America’s new government will not have the will or the fortitude to stop them and they will have a free hand, especially in Eastern Europe. In the Middle East the Arabs are positioning troops for another onslaught against our only real friend in the area, Israel. Without America’s assistance, Israel will rely on her nuclear arsenal to defeat those age-old enemies. Israel has stated, unabashedly, she will employ her nukes to preserve her freedom, indeed her continued survival.

As US troops begin leaving through Iraq’s front door Iranian troops will likely begin entering the back door. Soon after all US troops are out of Iraq, Iran will, most likely, invade and easily conquer Iraq before another strongman regime can be instituted by the Iraqi people themselves.

Afghanistan will bleed our treasury dry while we have another try at “Nation Building” in a country with a people who have no concept of a nation, only tribes. The Afghanis will simply wait for us to give up and go home before they resume their centuries old way of life groveling in the dirt before the meanest man with the biggest gun.

And these are just the bright spots.

Yes, Americans are arming themselves because they fear what is coming… and with good reason.

So Obama and his top people are so ignorant that they do not know we don’t have gun registration in the US? That only some cities have it.
This question is an insult to gun owners. It shows how ignorant of guns laws the top Obama people are.

As a US gun owner we are not required to hold any ‘complete ownership registration information’ and we demand an apology from the Obama on this pro gun-control wording in his official documents.

Are you legally eligible to hold the Office of President?

Dear Mr. Obama:

On October 24, 2008, a federal judge granted your request to dismiss a lawsuit by Citizen Philip Berg, who challenged your eligibility under the “Natural Born Citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution to legally hold the office of President of the United States of America.

Mr. Berg presented factual evidence to the Court in support of his claim that you are either a citizen of your father’s native Kenya by birth, or that you became a citizen of Indonesia, relinquishing your prior citizenship when you moved there with your mother in 1967.

In your response to the lawsuit, you neither denied Mr. Berg’s claims nor submitted any evidence which would refute his assertions. Instead, you argued that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to determine the question of your legal eligibility because Mr. Berg lacked “standing.”

Astonishingly, the judge agreed, simply saying, “[Mr. Berg] would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory.”

Unfortunately, your response to the legal claim was clearly evasive and strikingly out of character, suggesting you may, in fact, lack a critical Constitutional eligibility necessary to assume the Office of President: i.e., that you are not a “natural born” citizen of the United States or one who has relinquished his American citizenship.

Before you can exercise any of the powers of the United States, you must prove that you have fully satisfied each and every eligibility requirement that the Constitution mandates for any individual’s exercise of those powers.

Regardless of the tactics chosen in defending yourself against the Berg lawsuit, significant questions regarding your legal capacity to hold this nation’s highest office have been put forth publicly, and you have failed to directly refute them with documentary evidence that is routinely available to any bona fide, natural born U.S. Citizen.

As one who has ventured into the fray of public service of his own volition, seeking to possess the vast powers of the Office of President, you should expect to produce evidence of your citizenship to answer the questions and allay the concerns of the People. Indeed, as the one seeking the office, you are under a moral, legal, and fiduciary duty to proffer such evidence to establish your eligibility as explicitly mandated by Article II of the Constitution.

Should you proceed to assume the office of the President of the United States as anything but a bona fide natural born citizen of the United States that has not relinquished that citizenship, you would be inviting a national disaster, placing our Republic at great risk from untold consequences. For example:

· Neither the Electoral College on December 15, nor the House of Representatives on January 6 would be able to elect you, except as a poseur - a usurper;

· As a usurper, you would be unable to take the required “Oath or Affirmation” of office on January 20 without committing the crime of perjury or false swearing, for being ineligible for the Office of the President you cannot faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States;

· Your every act in the usurped Office of the President would be a criminal offense as an act under color of law that would subject the People to the deprivation of their constitutional rights, and entitling you to no obedience whatsoever from the People;

· as a usurper acting in the guise of the President you could not function as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and of the militia of the several states, as such forces would be under no legal obligation to remain obedient to you;

· No one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch would be required to obey any of your proclamations, executive orders or directives, as such orders would be legally VOID;

· Your appointment of Ambassadors and Judges to the Supreme Court would be VOID ab initio (i.e., from the beginning), no matter what subsequent actions the Senate might take as well as rendering any such acts by such appointed officials void as well;

· Congress would not be able to pass any new laws because they would not be able to acquire the signature of a bona fide President, rendering all such legislation legally VOID;

· As a usurper, Congress would be unable to remove you from the Office of the President on Impeachment, inviting certain political chaos including a potential for armed conflicts within the General Government or among the States and the People to effect the removal of such a usurper.

As an attorney and sitting U.S. Senator, I’m sure you agree that our Constitution is the cornerstone of our system of governance. It is the very foundation of our system of Law and Order – indeed, it is the supreme law of the land. I’m sure you also agree that its precise language was no accident and cannot be ignored if Individual, unalienable, natural Rights, Freedoms and Liberties are to be protected and preserved.

As our next potential President, you have a high-order obligation to the Constitution (and to those who have fought and died for our Freedom) that extends far beyond that of securing a majority of the votes of the Electoral College. No matter your promises of change and prosperity, your heartfelt intent or the widespread support you have garnered in seeking the highest Office of the Land, the integrity of the Republic and Rule of Law cannot, — must not — be put at risk, by allowing a constitutionally ineligible person to sit, as a usurper, in the Office of the President.

No matter the level of practical difficulty, embarrassment or disruption of the nation’s business, we must — above all — honor and protect the Constitution and the divine, unalienable, Individual Rights it guarantees, including the Right to a President who is a natural born citizen of the United States of America that has not relinquished his American citizenship. Our nation has endured similar disruptions in the past, and will weather this crisis as well. Indeed, it is both yours and the People’s mutual respect for, and commitment to, the Constitution and Rule of Law that insures the perpetuation of Liberty.

As a long time defender of my state and federal Constitutions, and in consideration of the lack of sufficient evidence needed to establish your credentials as President, I am compelled to lodge this Petition for Redress of Grievances and public challenge to you.

Make no mistake: This issue IS a Constitutional crisis. Although it will not be easy for you, your family or our Republic, you have it within your ability to halt this escalating crisis by either producing the certified documents establishing beyond question your eligibility to hold the Office of President, or by immediately withdrawing yourself from the Electoral College process.

With due respect, I hereby request that you deliver the following documents to Mr. Berg and myself at the National Press Club in Washington, DC at noon on XXday, November XX, 2008:

(a) a certified copy of your “vault” (original long version) birth certificate;
(b) certified copies of all reissued and sealed birth certificates in the names
Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham
and Barry Dunham;
(c) a certified copy of your Certification of Citizenship;
(d) a certified copy of your Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of maturity;
(e) certified copies of your admission forms for Occidental College, Columbia
University and Harvard Law School; and
(f) certified copies of any court orders or legal documents changing your name
from Barry Soetoro.

In the alternative, in defense of the Constitution, and in honor of the Republic and that for which it stands, please announce before such time your withdrawal from the 2008 Presidential election process.

“In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 469-471.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

Robert L. Schulz,
Founder and Chairman, We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc.

Over turning Lautenberg will not be easy. We know better, but the opposition will claim that we favor domestic violence. The concepts of ‘ex post facto’ and reasonableness are violated by this law. What we really favor is the Constitution.

http://www.petitiononline.com/658104/petition.html (open as of 08)

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/Lautenbergrepeal (closed)
http://www.gopetition.com/online/7723.html (closed)

Orginal date nov05   Updated nov08

(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 11/07/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States filed a Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on October 30, 2008, requesting review of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Surrick’s Dismissal of Philip J. Berg’s lawsuit against Barack H. Obama, Jr., the DNC and the other co-Defendants. Accordingly, the U. S. Supreme Court has set dates in which Barack Obama, the DNC and all co-Defendants are to respond to the Writ, which is on or before December 1, 2008.

Mr. Berg remarked today, “I look forward to receiving Defendant Obama’s response to the Writ and am hopeful the U. S. Supreme Court will review Berg v. Obama. I believe Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally-qualified natural-born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of President of the United States.”

Mr. Berg’s case, Berg vs. Obama was dismissed from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Docket # 08-cv-4083 for lack of standing. Mr. Berg filed a Writ of Certiorari for review of the case and an injunction to stay the election pending review. Justice Souter denied the injunction. It is expected that the Court will decide whether or not to review Berg v. Obama after the Defendants file their response, and Mr. Berg has replied to the Defendant’s response.

The Defendants’ response is due by December 1^st and Mr. Berg’s reply will be submitted thereafter.

Strict gun control laws do nothing to prevent violent crimes

It’s scary to go dress shopping in Illinois these days. After all, it has been 11 weeks, and still no arrest has been made in the tragic Tinley Park Lane Bryant store massacre. All we know is that the perpetrator was attempting to rob the Brookside Marketplace clothing store on a cold Saturday morning. He forced six women into the store’s back room, tied them up and made them lay on the floor. Lying there, the heroic store manager secretly dialed 911 for help. Audio tapes of the 911 call indicate the robber heard the operator’s voice, panicked and began shooting each defenseless victim in the back of the head.

After shooting all six, the killer escaped through the store’s back door, just as the 911 operator alerted a Tinley Park police officer in an adjoining parking lot. Before the officer could respond, the devastation had taken place. Just yards away from him, five women were killed, and one, shot in the neck instead of the head, lay critically wounded.

To this day, a dangerous man with nothing to lose from killing again remains on the loose.

Illinois women are some of the few in America banned by law from protecting themselves. Forty-eight other states allow their citizens to carry concealed firearms.

And it’s even more scary in Chicago. There, law-abiding women are completely defenseless, even within their homes. Chicago women are not allowed to register handguns and keep them in their homes for protection against intruders.

On top of that, the state has an active moratorium on the death penalty.

If you were a cold-blooded murderer, where would you go to find your next victims?

Updated after election

FULL STORY HERE

Last week President-elect Obama’s Web site had posted his administration’s agenda for curtailing the Second Amendment rights of law abiding Americans, thereby validating the concerns of gun owners, sportsmen and firearms enthusiasts all across the country. Curiously, the Obama-Biden gun control agenda was taken down from the Web site after just two days.

We are not really surprised at the changing website Obamas webmasters have done this before on Obama websites. But this time they have been caught. Because the new website is a gov website it is PD unlike the old campain one that was copyrighted. A archived copy of the old website has been posted here so Obamas webmasters can no longer hide what they posted. Guncontrol is listed under Urban Policy
To allow the Obama camp to pretend their words never existed is unacceptable.

President-elect Obama’s Web site stated he would make permanent the expired “assault weapons” ban of 1994, a ban on firearms that was based on cosmetic appearance, such as the type of stock on the gun, and not functionality. The expired ban did nothing to reduce crime while it was in place. President-elect Obama’s Web site intentionally misled the American people by referring to these firearms as “weapons that belong on foreign battlefields.” These firearms are not machine guns. In reality, these commonplace firearms that President-elect Obama wants to permanently ban are used in shooting competitions and are found in homes and hunting lodges all across the country. They fire only once with each trigger pull, no spray firing, and they shoot the same ammunition as other firearms of the same caliber.

President-elect Obama has also promised to repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, a law which restricts public access to sensitive, law enforcement — only firearms tracing data. Public release of gun trace data outside law enforcement has and will continue to jeopardize ongoing criminal investigations, putting the lives of law enforcement, witnesses and others at risk. This is why Congress, ATF, and law enforcement, including the nation’s largest police organization, the Fraternal Order of Police, agree on the importance of securing this sensitive data. Access to gun trace data should only be available to law enforcement taking part in a bona-fide investigation, and law enforcement already has the access it needs for this purpose. No law enforcement agency has ever been denied access to trace data as part of a criminal investigation.

The Obama-Biden Web site also called for “childproofing” all firearms, despite firearm-related accidents being at their lowest levels in history, including a 60 percent decrease over the last 20 years, and a federal law that requires firearms dealers to provide a lock with each handgun sold and to have locks available for consumers to purchase. Firearms industry members have a long history of supporting the safe and responsible use and storage of firearms through programs such as Project ChildSafe, a campaign developed by the NSSF that has distributed over 35 million free gun lock safe storage kits throughout the United States. For years, manufacturers have voluntarily provided a free locking device with each new firearm. Thankfully, the National Safety Council reports that childhood firearms accidents now comprise less than 1 percent of all fatal childhood injuries.

Finally, the appointment of Rahm Emanuel, the strident chief architect of the Clinton-Gore gun control agenda, as President-elect Obama’s chief of staff sends an unambiguous message to gun-owners and members of the firearms industry.

Is this the change you voted for? Perhaps next time someone says they have change but wont tell you what it is you won’t vote for them.

“I believe we can reconfigure our civilian national-security force. We still have a national security apparatus on the civilian side, in the way the State Department is structured and USAID, that harkens back to the Cold War,” Obama said.

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded,” he said.

Under the plan, all middle and high school students would be required to do 50 hours of community service.

Will your kids be drafted into the new brown shirt Obama police?

Is this the change we need?

The document that is most often involved in “gotcha” injustices is the Form
4473 which all customers must fill out when buying from a licensed federal
firearms dealer — a requirement that is yet another unconstitutional
imposition by the feds.

One of the favorite tricks of the BATFE has been to pounce on trivial
customer errors such as writing “Blto” instead of “Baltimore” on the 4473
Form. One dealer supposedly showed his willfulness in breaking the law when
his clerks missed some sixty-plus instances when customers tried to “sneak”
Blto past those eagle-eyed inspectors from The Gang.

While this does nothing to fight crime, it has allowed The Gang to reduce
the ranks of dealers by some 85 percent since the Clinton presidency.

The genius of Coloseum’s software is that it allows a dealer to walk a
customer through the Form 4473 without making a single mistake. With an
electronic signature, the computer’s form can be printed, providing a
perfect 4473 available for The Gang to inspect.

A foolproof way of filling out the 4473 would reduce the number of dealers
put out of business. That’s the advantage of using the Coloseum software.

So Coloseum approached the BATFE several months ago to discuss its plans to
release the first eForm 4473. The company wanted to make sure that it was
complying with all applicable federal laws and get the agency’s approval for
the product.

The BATFE wanted to see the details of the program, which left the directors
at Coloseum a bit hesitant, as companies are reticent to expose the details
of a product before it’s released to the market place.

No problem, Coloseum was told. The agency would protect the details of
their product.

Well, that was a lie.

The Gang assigned a liaison, Ms. Melinda Whitworth, to work with Coloseum.
She dealt with the company for several weeks, asking many detailed
questions. Again, Coloseum was led to believe that, if they worked with Ms.
Whitworth, they would get approval for their product.

Well, one of the Gang’s representatives called for a meeting with Coloseum
– a meeting which took place earlier this month. It was at that meeting
that Coloseum was told by an ATF agent that, “The BATF is in the process of
creating our own technologies.”

Coloseum asked for clarification — did that mean that BATFE was developing
its own software, similar to Coloseum’s? “Yes” was the response.

James LaMonte, the CEO and founder of Coloseum Software Corp. was
dumbfounded. “As a small business owner, I never would have thought that
our biggest competition was the United States Government,” he told Gun
Owners of America.

After all, the IRS does not publish a “government version” of Turbo Tax.
It’s private companies that produce such products for public use. The Gang,
as it is so apt to do, was once again trampling on the little guy.

Oh, and what about their “liaison,” Ms. Whitworth? At the recent meeting,
Coloseum found that Ms. Whitworth — who was supposedly helping the company
get ATF approval of its software — was in charge of the team that is
developing the copycat software at ATF.

Ms. Whitworth even had the effrontery to apologize for not having developed
a product as good as Coloseum’s.

Here is the bottom line. If The Gang gets their software out to dealers
(probably for “free”) before Coloseum gets to market, then the government’s
stolen version of the software is public domain. No one would ever need to
buy Coloseum’s intellectual property.

Coloseum is sending a free copy of its product to dealers so they can
install the software on their store computer. If dealers need additional
copies for a second or third computer, they can buy additional copies, as
well. Hopefully, dealers will pounce on this opportunity.

What Coloseum is doing is unprecedented. And so, it seems, is the blatant
thievery brazenly carried out by The Gang.

If dealers decide they just want to use the Bureau’s software, they should
first consider that they will be getting a much inferior product. Moreover,
The Gang’s software means that the government will have unrestricted access
to all of the dealer’s business records because it will allow “back door”
access by the ATF. This kind of untrammeled access of all dealer records
would not be possible with Coloseum Software.

It is long overdue that President Bush clean house at the BATFE. He needs
to fire the Acting Director of the Bureau and command that employees destroy
their stolen property.

Democrats are awaiting their Election Day sweep that will give their party a veto-proof and filibuster-proof majority in Congress and total, unstoppable power to enact whatever laws they want.

One of their first targets will be gun-owners. That’s no surprise, since virtually every gun-control scheme that has been perpetrated against the citizens of this country at the local, state, and federal level has been hatched by Democrats.

Yet Democrats falsely claim to be the true champions of the Constitution and our rights thereunder.

Barack Obama, despite his lip service to the Second Amendment, is an arch-enemy of gun-owners. His record as an Illinois legislator and a U.S. senator is proof of that.

Obama is documented as voting for every piece of anti-gun legislation that has come before him. He is on record as stating that handguns should be outlawed, for banning the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic firearms, for banning concealed carry, banning firearms kept in the home, banning most types of hunting rifle ammunition, and for favoring a federal law to nullify state laws that permit concealed carrying of handguns.

Obama can run from his record, but he can’t hide from it. Listen not to what he says, but examine his actual record instead. That’s where you will find the truth about Obama, and it’s ugly.

link

A plan by Barack Obama to redistribute American wealth on a global level is moving forward in the Senate. It follows Marxist theology — from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

His legislation refers to the “millennium development goal,” a phrase from a declaration adopted by the United Nations Millennium Assembly in 2000 and supported by President Clinton.

It calls for the “eradication of poverty” in part through the “redistribution (of) wealth of land” and “a fair distribution of the earth’s resources.” In other words: American resources.

During a time of economic uncertainty, the plan would cost every American taxpayer around $2,500.

If you’re worried abut gasoline and heating oil prices now, think what they’ll be like when the U.S. is subjected in an Obama administration to global energy consumption and production taxes. Obama’s Global Poverty Act is the “international community’s” foot in the door.

The U.N. Millennium declaration called for a “currency transfer tax,” a “tax on the rental value of land and natural resources,” a “royalty on worldwide fossil energy production — oil, natural gas, coal . . . fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for the airplane use of the skies, fees for the use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on the carbon content of fuels.”

Co-sponsors of S. 2433 include Democrats Maria Cantwell of Washington, Dianne Feinstein of California, Richard Durbin of Illinois and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. GOP globalists supporting the bill include Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Richard Lugar of Indiana.

Lugar has worked with Obama to promote more aid to Russia to promote nuclear nonproliferation. Lugar also promotes the Law of the Sea treaty, which turns over the world’s oceans to an International Seabed Authority that would charge us to drill offshore and have veto power over the movements and actions of the U.S. Navy.

Obama has called on the U.S. to “lead by example” on global warming and probably would submit to a Kyoto-like agreement that would sock Americans with literally trillions of dollars in costs over the next half century for little or no benefit.

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama has said. “That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.”

In an Obama White House, American sovereignty will become an endangered species. The Global Poverty Act is the first toe in the water of global socialism.

Barack Obama tells a plumber in Ohio he wants to “spread the wealth around,” eliciting criticism that his economic recovery plan is socialist in nature.

Barack Obama told a tax-burdened plumber over the weekend that his economic philosophy is to “spread the wealth around” —

“Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed “more and more for fulfilling the American dream.”

“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too,” Obama responded. “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

A $500 welfare check ($1,000 a couple) to “make work pay” that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 welfare check for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest welfare check (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A “savings” welfare check of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year welfare check, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 welfare check if they are paying child support.

- A child care welfare check of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable “tax credits” would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as “tax credits,” the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” — Unknown

Can this not be any clearer. If Gun Control Inc (ie Brady Campain) likes him he has to be anti gun.

As part of its endorsement the Brady Campaign says it will contact members across the country and ask them to volunteer and help get out the vote in support of Obama. The group also plans to continue its efforts to lie about advertisements and literature released by the NRA.

Once the senator is served, Berg will be able to move the suit forward in court. The case is still “very alive and active,” according to an e-mail message from his office.
The lawyer plans to file another motion for a temporary restraining order once Obama has been served.

Berg said he was encouraged that Judge R. Barclay Surrick did not dismiss the lawsuit. The litigation also sought “expedited discovery.” “We’re still waiting to serve the senator,” Berg said in a telephone interview Wednesday.
Discovery would include examining the candidate’s birth certificate and adoption papers, among other documents, Berg said.

In the motion’s supporting memorandum, Berg charges that the DNC failed to verify Obama’s eligibility to run for president.
In order to be eligible, presidential candidates are required to be “natural born” citizens and may not hold dual or multiple citizenship from foreign countries, according the suit’s legal memorandum.
According to Obama’s birth certificate, which his campaign posted on its Internet site in June to quell rumors, the senator was born in Hawaii on Aug. 6, 1961.
The lawsuit, however, questions the Democratic candidate’s claim that he was born in a Honolulu hospital.
The candidate’s late father, Barack Obama Sr., was a native of Kenya, and Berg claims the 47-year-old presumptive presidential candidate’s Kenyan relatives say he was born in the African country.
Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, grew up in Kansas, and his parents met at the University of Hawaii when Dunham was a student there, according to the Obama campaign.
Eventually, Obama’s father returned to Kenya, and his son grew up in Hawaii with his mother and for a few years in Indonesia after Dunham married an Indonesian man, Lolo Soetoro. As well, Obama lived with his maternal grandparents in Hawaii.
Dunham reportedly traveled to Kenya during her pregnancy, and she was prevented from boarding an airline flight from Kenya to Hawaii because of the late stage of her pregnancy, the lawsuit alleges. She reportedly gave birth to Obama in Kenya, then flew home to Hawaii and registered his birth there.
Under U.S. law at the time of the Illinois lawmaker’s birth, if he had been born abroad, and one parent was a U.S. citizen, his mother would have had to live 10 years in the U.S., five of which after she reached 14 (years of age), according to court papers.
However, Dunham was only 18 years old when she gave birth to her son, not 19, Berg says, and Obama therefore would not have met U.S. citizenship requirements.
Berg concludes that the Democratic candidate is a Kenyan citizen. And because he never renounced his Kenyan citizenship, he is ineligible to run for president.

“Six days later (after the suit was filed), there’s not been one word from the Obama campaign, which tells me I’m on the right track,” he said.

http://www.timesherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20095084&BRD=1672&PAG=461&dept_id=33380&rfi=6

Washington Post Claim—500% Tax on Guns
It is unclear from the article exactly what weapons would have been covered by the proposed tax. … Even if Obama did support a big tax increase on the sale of certain types of assault weapons back in 1999, that is hardly evidence that he will move as president to tax the “guns and ammo” most commonly used by hunters.

Facts:
The Post quotes Obama out of context, claiming that he only wanted to tax “certain types” of guns in 1999. But the full sentence in the 1999 article reads, “Obama is also seeking to increase the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic] — weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths.” Chinta Strausberg, Obama unveils federal gun bill, Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999, at 3. (emphasis added). Contrary to the Post’s assertion, the statement makes no distinction as to what type of guns Obama proposed to tax.
The Post is far too eager to let Obama off the hook just because he hasn’t mentioned the idea lately. Obama has supported the idea and has never repudiated that support. Therefore it is fair to say that the statement reflects his views on the issue.

Washington Post Claim—Ammunition Ban
Contrary to [NRA’s] claim, the Kennedy proposal of July 2005, SA 1615, was not aimed at “virtually all deer-hunting ammunition.” Instead, it would have authorized the attorney general to define types of illegal ammunition capable of penetrating body armor commonly used by law enforcement officials. During the Senate debate, Kennedy said that his amendment would “not apply to ammunition that is now routinely used in hunting rifles,” a point contested by the NRA.

Facts:
NRA contested the point for a simple reason: The Post is wrong.
The Kennedy Amendment would have expanded the current ban on manufacturing “armor piercing ammunition” other than for sale to the government, 18 U.S.C. ‘ 922(a)(7), by banning any “projectile [i.e., bullet] that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines … to be capable of penetrating body armor.” The amendment called for testing of projectiles against “body armor that … meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers.” S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397, July 29, 2005.
Body armor is rated in different classes based on the level of protection it provides. The “minimum” level of body armor under Department of Justice standards that were in effect in 2005, Type I armor, only protects against the least powerful handgun cartridges; only Type III and higher armor protects against high-powered rifle cartridges. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Ballistic Resistance of PersonalBody Armor: NIJ Standard-0101.04 2-3 (June 2001).
However, there are many “projectiles that may be used in a handgun” that can also be used in a rifle. Handgun hunting is increasingly popular, and handgun hunters often use handguns that fire common hunting rifle cartridges such as the .30-30 Winchester. See, e.g., http://www.tcarms.com/firearms/g2ContenderPistols.php#spec_charts. A ban on “projectile[s] that may be used” in these handguns would have the effect of banning the same cartridges for rifle hunters. It would even ban rifle cartridges not commonly used in handguns, because any bullet may be fired in a barrel of the correct diameter, regardless of whether the barrel is installed on a handgun or on a rifle.
Finally, it is true that Sen. Kennedy denied his 2005 amendment would ban hunting ammunition. However, in a floor debate on a substantially identical amendment the previous year, Kennedy specifically denounced a hunting rifle cartridge:
Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 [sic] caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers’ armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.
It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America.
Cong. Rec. S1634 (daily ed. Feb. 26, 2004). The relatively low-powered .30-30 Winchester was introduced in 1895 and “has long been the standard American deer cartridge.” Frank C. Barnes, Cartridges of the World 52 (8th ed. 1997). As noted above, the .30-30 may be fired in a handgun.
Even apart from the Kennedy Amendment, Obama also said, on his 2003 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, that he would “support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons.” See Lynn Sweet, Obama’s 2003 IVI-IPO questionnaire may be getting closer scrutiny, Chicago Sun-Times, Dec. 11, 2007 (available at http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/12/sweet_column_obamas_2003_iviip.html). The rifles that were banned as “assault weapons” under the 1994 Clinton gun ban fire cartridges such as the .223 Remington and .308 Winchester—the same ammunition used in common hunting rifles. See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30) (repealed Sept. 13, 2004). Therefore, this statement also supports a ban on hunting rifle ammunition.

Washington Post Claim—Gun Ban
The … claim refers to semiautomatic rifles and pistols covered by the assault weapons ban, which expired in March 2004.

Facts:
While Obama does support the ban (which actually expired in September, not March, of 2004), the statement in the advertisement is based on Sen. Obama’s vote for much broader legislation and his public statement in favor of banning all semi-automatic firearms.
On March 13, 2003, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee for a bill that would have enacted a much broader gun ban. (The vote tally sheet is available at http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/sb1195_obama.pdf).
The bill under debate that day, SB 1195 (available at http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/93/SB/PDF/09300SB1195lv.pdf), would have made it illegal to “knowingly manufacture, deliver, or possess” a “semiautomatic assault weapon.”
The bill defined a “semiautomatic assault weapon” to include “any firearm having a caliber of 50 [sic] or greater.” See SB 1195, page 2, line 10 (emphasis added). Under this bill, a firearm did not actually have to be semi-automatic to be a “semiautomatic assault weapon.”
Shotguns 28-gauge or larger (by far the majority of shotguns owned in the United States) are all “.50-caliber or greater.” See National Rifle Ass’n, Firearms Fact Book 183 (3d ed. 1989). SB 1195 did exclude any firearm that “is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action” and “any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.” SB 1195 p.3, lines 12-23. However, the bill did not exclude firearms with hinge or similar actions, such as single-shot or double-barreled shotguns used by millions of hunters.
Anyone who possessed one of these firearms in Illinois 90 days after the effective date would have had to “destroy the weapon or device, render it permanently inoperable, relinquish it to a law enforcement agency, or remove it from the state.” SB 1195, p. 5, line 33. Anyone who still possessed a banned gun would have been subject to a felony sentence. SB 1195, p. 5, line 15. This “seizure and surrender” provision was much more severe than the former federal “assault weapons” ban, which had a “grandfather clause” to allow current lawful owners to keep their guns. See 18 U.S.C. 922(v)(2) (repealed).
Obama also supported banning a large class of popular hunting firearms on a 1998 Project VoteSmart survey. One of the questions, and the relevant part of Obama’s responses, were as follows:
Indicate which principles you support (if any) concerning gun issues.
X a) Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
X b) Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
See Illinois State Legislative Election 1998 National Political Awareness Test (available at http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=9490#826:) (emphasis added). Millions of American hunters have used semi-automatic rifles and shotguns for over a century.
Finally, of course, a ban on hunting rifle ammunition (such as the Kennedy amendment Obama supported) would have been a very effective ban on the use of hunting rifles.

—cut—
Obama Campaign Threatens Legal Action Over NRA Ads

Friday, September 26, 2008

Campaign and DNC Launch Assault On First Amendment!
Earlier this week, NRA-PVF released a series of radio and television spots to educate gun owners and sportsmen about Barack Obama’s longstanding anti-gun record. In response to the NRA-PVF ads, a clearly panicked Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are doing everything they can to hide Obama’s real record by mounting a coordinated assault on the First Amendment.

They have gone to desperate and outrageous lengths to try to silence your NRA by bullying media outlets with threats of lawsuits if they run NRA-PVF’s ads. They have sent intimidating cease and desist letters to cable operators and television stations, threatening their FCC licenses if they run the ads.

Obama and the DNC have been using strong-arm tactics reminiscent of Chicago machine politics to try and cover up the truth and silence NRA by forcing the stations to assist them in hiding Obama’s radical anti-gun record.

And now, Obama and the DNC have opened a new front in their assault on your First Amendment rights by calling on their followers to contact these station managers to demand that the stations not run NRA-PVF’s ads.

NRA stands behind the accuracy of these ads, and NRA attorneys have responded to the Obama campaign’s despicable and abusive attempt to trample on the First Amendment by sending a thorough rebuttal to station managers. This rebuttal clearly and conclusively refutes the Obama campaign’s fallacious claims that the ads are inaccurate. For more information, and to see the letter, please click here.

To learn the truth about Barack Obama’s anti-gun record, please visit www.GunBanObama.com. This website is loaded with features and information that you, as a gun owner, need to know. This is a must-see website that you will want to pass along to anyone you know who loves freedom and supports the Second Amendment. While you’re there, don’t forget to take the “OMatch,” compatibility quiz to see if you and Barack are a match.

Judging from the Democratic Party platform, remarks from presidential nominee Barack Obama and his selection of anti-gun Sen. Joseph Biden as a running mate, the long, transparent courtship of gun owners by Democrats is over and instead of a goodbye kiss, there was a slap in the face; the political approximation of a domestic assault.

The party platform tries to patronize gun owners by claiming to “recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ continued Second Amendment right to own and use firearms.” But then the document quickly reveals that Democrats have changed their tune but not their agenda: “We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons ban…”

Gun owners know that the ten-year “ban” on so-called “assault weapons” – which included more than 200 types of commonly-owned firearms – had no measurable impact on violent crime, and that reinstating it is all about symbolism rather than substance. They know that gun shows are the source of less than one percent of guns used by violent criminals. They know anti-gunners believe “common-sense laws” include licensing, registration and a surrender of the “right to carry” to the discretionary whims of police chiefs and sheriffs.

The party chose Obama as its standard-bearer. He once served on the board of the vehemently anti-firearms civil rights Joyce Foundation. During his first run for public office he supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns and semi-automatic rifles. He supports mandatory waiting periods on all gun purchases. He told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review in April that “I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” insulting millions of armed citizens who care about self-defense in the process.

Gun owners know Biden as an anti-gun extremist. He consistently earns “F” ratings from gun rights organizations. He claimed credit for writing the original legislation to ban semiautomatic sport-utility rifles that are owned by millions of Americans who have harmed nobody.

The proverbial last straw for the firearms community was Obama’s remark during his acceptance speech that “The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.”

The “reality” is that gun rights are the same for everyone, no matter where they live. And gun owners know from experience that Democrats falsely believe that the only way to keep guns away from criminals is to oppressively regulate gun ownership for everyone.

Mr. Obama told his faithful that Sen. McCain “doesn’t get it.” Actually, Democrats “don’t get it.” You do not woo people by treating them like criminals, and you cannot “support” someone’s civil right at the same time you regulate it to irrelevancy.

It is now clear to gun owners that Democrats only asked them to the dance just to get through the door.

The meltdown of Fannie and Freddie should be a transformative moment in American politics. It should discredit the whole Democratic economic agenda. It is too bad that it happened in the middle of the most interesting Presidential election in a generation because there are lessons to learn from it. Several points.

Let’s start with some numbers. Contributions since 1989(!) to ALL members of Congress. Note that this is an aggregate over time. Note how a guy who has been in Congress for 3 years manages to come in 3rd on the list.

Name
Office Party/State Total

1. Dodd, Christopher J
S D-CT $133,900

2. Kerry, John
S D-MA $111,000

3. Obama, Barack
S D-IL $105,849

4. Clinton, Hillary
S D-NY $75,550

5. Kanjorski, Paul E
H D-PA $65,500

First, this is a Democratic scandal. In yesterday’s WaPo Al Hubbard and Noam Neusner ask “Where was Senator Dodd?” The answer is clear. On the take. Open Secrets notes who gets money from these guys:
“Fifteen of the 25 lawmakers who have received the most from the two companies combined since the 1990 election sit on either the House Financial Services Committee; the Senate Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee; or the Senate Finance Committee. The others have seats on the powerful Appropriations or Ways & Means committees, are members of the congressional leadership or have run for president. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate banking committee, has received the most from Fannie and Freddie’s PACs and employees ($133,900 since 1989). Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.) has received $65,500. Kanjorski chairs the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs.”

But they miss the important point. The GSEs give to Democrats primarily.

And this is the second point. These are partisan instituttions. Republicans tried to reform it, but got out lobbied every time. Hubbard and Neusner described how this works:

“The administration did not accept half-measures. In 2005, Republican Mike Oxley, then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, brought up a reform bill (H.R. 1461), and Fannie and Freddie’s lobbyists set out to weaken it. The bill was rendered so toothless that Card called Oxley the night before markup and promised to oppose it. Oxley pulled the bill instead.”

When there was a Republican Congress, Congressional leadership tried to do the right thing, but Fannie and Freddie’s lobbyists picked off some weak Republicans. With a Democratic Congress, Fannie and Freddie just feed at the trough.

Third, these guys are some of the most powerful figures in the Democratic lobbyist-operative firmament. Obama was forced to fire James Johnson, his first VP Vetter. Johnson had been CEO of Fannie Mae. But it doesn’t stop there. Johnson, while a consultant for Fannie and Countrywide, was passing out below market loans to Senator Dodd, among others.

The recent CEO of Fannie was Franklin Delano Raines. (what do you bet his parents politics were?) Raines was a Clinton OMB Director and worked in the Carter White House. Raines was replaced with an actual business guy.

Fourth, it doesn’t stop there. Not only that, but the affordable housing racket is also used as a way to launder government money into corrupt Democratic voter registration practices. One of the organizations pushing subprime loans and other “affordable housing” financial vehicles… ACORN, which got a sweet deal in the Housing Bill.

What is the upshot of all of this? The housing meltdown has both causes and effects that are ideologically aligned with Democratic objectives. While gutting the regulatory apparatus for a huge segment of our economy, leading Democrats were receiving contributions and below market loans from the very people whose regulations their were gutting. It was used to move money into Democratic grassroots campaign vehicles. And it moved substantial parts of the economy into government control. According to financial analyst Barry Richoltz, “socialism for the rich.”

This should be a long-term stain on the credibility of Democratic Party’s economic management. Too bad no one has the attention span to notice.

story from -here-

The most memorable line of Sarah Palin’s wildly successful speech at the Republican convention was ad-libbed. After identifying herself as “an average hockey mom,” she joked:

You know what they say the difference is between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick!

Barack Obama has issued his response:

You can put lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig.

In other words, Sarah Palin is not a pit bull but a pig

Moonbate says

Quickpost this image to Myspace, Digg, Facebook, and others!

No matter how much of an ass this punk makes of himself, he’ll still get the votes of Whitey-hating blacks, belly-scratching communists, and phony liberal elite snobs. That leaves the other 80% of the country for McCain and Palin.

Here’s another saying about pigs: you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Likewise, not even the mighty mainstream media can make a credible presidential candidate out of Barack Hussein Obama.

But the Heller decision has also signaled the beginning of a new major
assault by the anti-gun left.

Make no mistake, the anti-gun lobby is not going quietly into the night.
They are absolutely rabid over this decision — and their friends in
Congress are in a strong position to legislate away those gun freedoms which the Supreme Court has affirmed.

In the meantime, agencies like the federal BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) appear to have no intention, whatsoever, of stopping their attacks on law-abiding gun owners, gun dealers and manufacturers.

In GOA’s newsletter which recently landed in mailboxes (The Gun Owners, August 18), we detailed the lengths to which the BATFE is going to trample the rights of gun owners and dealers.

From using paid “informants” to provide false testimony, to physically
altering firearms to turn them into “machine guns,” to abusing and harassing mom and pop gun shops who cannot afford to legally defend themselves, this agency appears not only to have little or no regards for the rights of citizens, but is clearly willing even to ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court.

As you know, Gun Owners is helping to defend David Olofson, a recent victim of BATFE abuse who has been sentenced to 30 months in the Federal Correctional Institute at Sandstone, Minnesota for the alleged crime of knowingly transferring an unregistered machine gun.

GOA submitted an appeal on August 25, 2008, to get him released from prison, and our brief is viewable at Here on the GOA website.

We took on the case when we learned that the so-called “machine gun” that Olofson owned was, in reality, one of thousands of ordinary semi-automatic rifles made by Olympic Arms. It happened to misfire a few extra rounds when a friend was using it at a range — thus drawing the attention of the feds.
However, it only became a machine gun when the BATFE, behind closed doors, mechanically tampered with the rifle.

Getting guns to malfunction is a favorite technique of the BATFE as it gives them a great opportunity to rack up convictions on the possession or selling of “machine guns,” which requires a special type of license.

As a result, David Olofson has been robbed of all his freedom, not just his right to keep and bear arms. He has lost his liberty, his family, and his life outside of prison.

It is just a turn of fate that it is David Olofson — not you or any other
semi-auto owner you know — who is rotting away in prison.

Marcus Jones is alleged to have confronted Carol Powell-Lexing in an elevator right after she finished in her “official capacity on behalf of his son” at the Louisiana High School Athletic Association building in Baton Rouge. The association on Wednesday morning denied Bell athletic eligibility to play football during his fifth year of high school.

Reading from a report filed by Lexing, Baton Rouge Police Cpl. L’Jean Mckneely said via telephone that a “very upset” Jones began blaming Lexing for the hearing’s outcome. Jones then spat in Lexing’s face after pointing his finger and “yelling profanities,” Mckneely said, quoting the report.

Jones then pushed Lexing down, although a witness reported seeing only the spitting incident, Mckneely said.

Lexing said Thursday that she visited a doctor’s office after the altercation, but she did not elaborate on the type or extent of any injury

What an insulting comment and its the second time he has degraded anyone who does not live in a city. Its now clear that this is not a mistake he hates small towns and will only support the city people.

This is the second disparaging remark I’ve seen come from his campaign about small towns. Not everyone comes from a big city.

First people from small town america cling to their guns and religion and now someone from a small town (i.e. not an elitist) isn’t good enough to be vp.
from Sean Hanity site

What to make of Michelle Obama’s use the terms, “The world as it is” and “The world as it should be?” From whence do they originate? Try Chapter 2 of Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals. In last night’s speech, Michelle Obama said something that peeked my curiousity. She said:

“Barack stood up that day,” talking about a visit to Chicago neighborhoods, “and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about “The world as it is” and “The world as it should be…”

And, “All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do – that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be.”
Here’s an excerpt from Chapter 2 of Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals:

“The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means… The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be.”

Full story

The Mississippi raid is one of several nationwide in recent years.

On May 12, federal immigration officials swept into Agriprocessors, the nation’s largest kosher meatpacking plant, in Iowa. Nearly 400 workers were detained and dozens of fraudulent permanent resident alien cards were seized from the plant’s human resources department, according to court records. In December 2006, 1,297 were arrested at Swift meatpacking plants in Nebraska and five other states.

About 100 of the 595 detained workers were released for humanitarian reasons, many of them mothers who were fitted with electronic monitoring bracelets and allowed to go home to their children, officials said.

About 475 other workers were transferred to an ICE facility in Jena, La. Nine who were under 18 were transferred to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement.

Those detained were from Brazil, El Salvador, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, and Peru, said Barbara Gonzalez, an ICE spokeswoman

Locals in Miss are complaining about how traumatic it was and illegals have taken students out of school and may be skiping town out of fear. This is great news but some are against it.

“We have kids without dads and pregnant mothers who got their husbands taken away,” said Velez’s son, Robert, youth pastor at the church. “It was like a horror story. They got handled like they were criminals.”

Well you stupid youth pastor they were criminals.

If you think this raid was a great ideal then you had better not vote Obama because he is against the raid. Obama beleives that we should treat illegals with respect and not scare them and not raid and deport them. What a load of bull, Obama knows nothing about how to run the US.

Old school records for Obama show that he was a indonesian citizen and a muslem. This jives with him using a indonesian pasport to travel in the 80s.
This page now updated to include a photo of the records.

Techdude delivers a final report that exceeds my wildest expectations. It is irrefutable, empirical evidence - Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery. Why? Why a COLB (certificate of live birth) forgery? That is the question.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/

Since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, in order to serve as President, one must be a “natural born citizen” and may not hold dual citizenship or multiple citizenships with foreign Countries. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1.

There appears to be no question but that Defendant Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a U.S. citizen. It is also undisputed, however, that his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a citizen of Kenya. Obama’s parents, according to divorce records, were married on or about February 2, 1961.

Defendant Obama claims he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and it is uncertain in which hospital he claims to have been born. Obama’s grandmother on his father’s side, his half-brother and half-sister all claim Obama was born not in Hawaii but in Kenya. Reports reflect that Obama’s mother traveled to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of

pregnancy (which, apparently, was a normal restriction, to avoid births during a flight). By these reports, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew home and registered Obama’s birth. There are records of a “registry of birth” for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii.

Upon investigation into the alleged birth of Barack Hussein Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama’s birth is reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital. Wikipedia English Version, under the subject “Barack Obama,” states Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital. Wikipedia Italian Version, under the subject “Queens Hospital,” states Barack Obama was born in Queens Hospital.

There are further references circulating on the internet claiming examination of the hospital’s records in Hawaii show no birthing records for Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama), Obama’s mother. However, there are records of a “registry of birth” for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961, in the public records office in Hawaii.

Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal as a contributing writer and published an article on June 9, 2008 stating that a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen.
————–

Investigation further showed that, in 1981, Obama traveled to Pakistan, using his Indonesian passport. At the time of his travels to Pakistan, Obama was twenty (20) years old. He certainly knew that he retained his Indonesia citizenship, and it is implausible that he could not have known that he had failed to regain his United States citizenship (if, again, he had been born in Hawaii). Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship. Had Obama regained his United States citizenship, he would have been traveling on a United States Passport.

—————

Further investigation led to Obama’s State Bar Registration and Public Disciplinary Record. On the Illinois State Bar Registration and Public Disciplinary Record, it specifically asks for “Full former name(s). Obama put “None”, when in fact he went by the name Barry Soetoro, and Barry Obama. It is further believed Obama has used the name Barry Dunham. Obama lied on the State government form that he signed under the penalty of perjury.

Even if Obama had and maintained United States citizenship (which Plaintiff believes he failed to do) he also holds citizenship in Kenya and Indonesia. Obama has divided loyalties with foreign countries. Thus, Obama carries multiple citizenships, and is ineligible to run for President of the United States. United States Constitution, Article II, Section I.

See more here.
FINAL REPORT ON OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE FORGERY CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN

Now known as Act No. 684, the law reaffirms the rights of law-abiding Louisianans to transport and store lawfully possessed firearms in locked, privately-owned motor vehicles, including while traversing or parking in any parking lot, parking garage or other parking area. Property owners, tenants, public or private employers, and businesses may not prohibit the transportation or storage of firearms in motor vehicles in their parking lots or garages if those areas are accessible to the general public. These entities may only regulate the transportation and storage of firearms in secure parking areas if they meet certain conditions

For a summary of the provisions of Act No. 684, please click here. Please report any violations of this law to NRA-ILA’s Grassroots Office.

Also see

International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) backed by Pro-Gun Control Institutions

Why does a new report from the International Association of Chiefs of Police read like every gun-ban strategy we’ve heard for the last 10 years? I’m going to describe a group that recently demanded enactment of a sweeping federal gun control agenda.
Let’s see if you can guess who it is.

The group has 22,000 members in more than 100 countries. Membership categories include “city managers, highway safety specialists, psychologists, attorneys, coroners and management analysts,” among others. The group has offices in Europe and the Caribbean, and the group’s website describes its governing board in your choice of English, Spanish, Portuguese and French.

Why does a new report from the International Association of Chiefs of Police read like every gun-ban strategy we’ve heard for the last 10 years? To find out, all one has to do is follow the money.

Is it a new United Nations disarmament agency? No, the group is the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), headquartered in the nation’s capital. And the story behind the report is a shadowy web of huge donations, made by an activist foundation in the Midwest, leading straight to puppet strings that control the agenda of gun ban groups, the IACP and even New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

The IACP report, called “Taking a Stand: Reducing Gun Violence in Our Communities,” is nothing more than a rubber stamp, bought and paid for, of the pre-existing agenda for gun ban groups. It is a blueprint the enemies of freedom plan to pursue after the 2008 elections–if they win total control of the White House and Congress.

What compelled the IACP to issue this sweeping report? Follow the money. A note on the cover proudly declares that the report was issued “with support from the Joyce Foundation.”

That’s a familiar name to longtime readers. The Joyce Foundation has pumped tens of millions of dollars into the coffers of gun ban groups over the years. The Violence Policy Center (VPC), an unashamed promoter of a total ban on handguns, collected more than $1 million of Joyce money just in 2005 and 2006. In 2000, the Joyce Foundation paid a VPC advisor and former Handgun Control, Inc. board member to edit a “Second Amendment Symposium” issue of the Chicago-Kent Law Review. That slim volume contains nearly half the anti-individual rights articles ever published on the Second Amendment.

The IACP newsletter proudly notes that the Joyce Foundation has “made more than $30 million in grants to groups seeking public health solutions that offer the promise of reducing gun deaths and injuries in America.”

This year, the Joyce Foundation invested heavily in IACP. They paid IACP over $500,000 to host “The Great Lakes States Summit on Gun Violence,” and then to issue the report from the conference. That comes out to nearly $11,000 per page, but the Joyce Foundation got what it paid for–no surprise given the report’s thank you to Joyce Foundation Communications Director Mary O’Connell for “her editing, writing and consistent work to produce this report.”

BELLEVUE, WA – The 2008 Democratic Party’s draft platform confirms that the party still “doesn’t get it” about Second Amendment gun rights versus the Utopian fantasy that gun control laws will somehow make neighborhoods safer, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

“While promising to preserve our Second Amendment rights,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “the party platform demonizes semiautomatic sport utility rifles and wants them banned, calls for anti-gun show legislation and proposes so-called ‘common-sense’ gun laws. Many Democrats believe bans on most guns are ‘common sense’ and they still support the handgun ban in Barack Obama’s hometown of Chicago. Boiled down, all it really means is that the Democrats are still the party of gun control no matter how they try to re-package the rhetoric, and they know it.”

Gottlieb, co-author of a new book called These Dogs Don’t Hunt: The Democrats’ War on Guns, said the party is shamelessly telling American gun owners that they embrace the rights of millions of shooters, hunters and gun collectors, “but there’s a caveat.”

“The party’s gun control platform plank puts the lie to everything they say,” he added. “As Democrats descend on Denver to nominate a candidate who is on record in opposition to sensible concealed carry laws, we encourage gun owners across the country, and especially in Colorado, to remind the party that the Supreme Court in June held that gun bans are unconstitutional. Yet here they are, calling for a ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ even after years of experience tells us that Bill Clinton’s ban accomplished nothing, and cost the party control of Congress in 1994.

“Democrats want to regulate gun shows out of business,” he continued, “even after a study done for the Justice Department found that gun shows are rarely the source of firearms used by criminals. Gun shows provide a forum, a gathering place for law-abiding gun owners to discuss ideas and issues, and share constitutionally protected freedoms of speech, assembly and the right to keep and bear arms. Increasingly, Democrats seem averse to the exercise of these rights by anyone who does not share their philosophy. And this is the party of inclusion?

“Democrats have an opportunity to reject and repudiate this platform,” Gottlieb concluded. “If they do not, that tells American gun owners everything they need to know about Democrats as November approaches.”

http://www.ccrkba.org

For example, though the Court ruled specifically that the city’s ban on
handguns violated the Second Amendment, most handguns still
cannot be registered because D.C. bureaucrats classify
semi-automatic pistols as “machine guns.”

Even Dick Heller, who brought the case against Washington’s gun
ban, was rejected when he tried to register his handgun because any
“bottom loading” firearm is a “machine gun” according to the D.C.
police.

Similarly, while the Court found that “the requirement that any lawful
firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a “trigger lock” is
unconstitutional, the city kept in place the “lock up your safety” law
unless the resident is in immediate danger.

The D.C. Council is thus rendering the Supreme Court victory for gun
rights meaningless, while leaving residents defenseless.

Congress needs to repeal the District’s gun control law to ensure that the
Supreme Court decision is not a hollow victory.

According to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has
the authority and responsibility to govern the District. It can simply
repeal the District’s onerous gun law.

Not surprisingly, however, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has no
intention of allowing the D.C. gun ban repeal legislation to come to the
floor, even though it is cosponsored by more than half of the members
of Congress.

To free the bill from the Speaker’s death grip, Representative Mark
Souder (R-IN) has filed a discharge petition to bring the bill directly to
the floor. Rep. Souder needs 218 cosigners for the petition to be
successful. There are currently 109 signers.

There are not many days left in this legislative session, so it is vital that
the discharge petition moves quickly. Please contact your representative
and urge him or her to support the repeal of the D.C. gun ban and to
sign the Souder discharge petition. You can visit the Gun Owners
Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to
send your Reps. the pre-written e-mail message.

Acknowledging that public opinion is against them and that a loss in the Supreme Court of the United States is likely eminent, gun control groups are regrouping and preparing to try new tactics to accomplish their unpopular goals.

“We’ve lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means,” campaign president Paul Helmke told ABC News. “Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it’s an individual right. Why are we arguing a theory anymore? We are concerned about what we can do practically.” He later went on to say, “We’re expecting D.C. to lose the case, but this could be good from the standpoint of the political-legislative side.”

See story here.

At the same time another guncontrol nut is asking for mexico style random gun trafic stops to search for guns because as he says guns are illegal and if we can have random trafic stops for drunks we can do random gun checks.

On May 10, Mychal Bell — who pleaded guilty Dec. 3, 2007, to a juvenile charge of second-degree battery — was stopped in Olla on U.S. Highway 165 and cited for speeding and having no vehicle insurance, Olla Police reported. The vehicle was towed, as it wasn’t properly insured.
Authorities said Bell had received a weekend pass from his Monroe foster family — part of his sentence — but was to stay in Monroe and have his mother visit him there.

Court documents allude to recent probation violations for juvenile defendant Jesse Ray Beard, although details about the incidents aren’t public record. One filing says Beard wanted to go to a “strict boarding school” at his own expense as a consequence for alleged probation violations and that the Office of Youth Development supported the placement.

In February, Bryant Purvis was charged with assault causing bodily injury after an incident at his new school, Hebron High in Carrollton, Texas.

According to the police report, Purvis walked up to another student from behind, grabbed his neck with one hand, choked him and pushed his head into a bench.

LaSalle Parish District Attorney Reed Walters has filed a motion requesting that he be able to bring the Texas arrest into Purvis’ trial here.

Carwin Jones, 19, of Trout was arrested May 10 and charged with simple battery, a misdemeanor, in connection with a May 7 incident in which, according to the LaSalle Parish Sheriff’s Office, Jones was alleged to have hit a 21-year-old man from behind as several other men came toward the man and his friends with baseball bats. Jones remained jailed at the LaSalle Parish Jail until May 12, when he was released on $1,000 bond.
This isn’t the first arrest for Jones since his arrest in connection with the Dec. 4, 2006, attack on Justin Barker. On Jan. 24, he was arrested and charged with remaining on the premises after being forbidden, a misdemeanor.

As part of its Asset Forfeiture training program for agents, the
BATFE ordered 2,000 Leatherman tools inscribed with the words
“Always Think Forfeiture.” The program urges agents to focus
on seizing private property.

Rep Sali believes the agency should be thinking ‘Freedom,’ not
‘Forfeiture.’ The Idaho Republican complained about the program
and recieved a letter from Acting ATF Director Michael Sullivan,
who apologized for the “confusion” over the issue.

While Rep. Sali appreciated the apology, he said that, “My
constituents deserve to know the truth about this marketing program,
which has been interpreted by many Idahoans as anti-gun and
anti-private property.”

The agency halted distribution of the tools in the face of public
outcry, but “[t]he fact remains that the ATF thought it was OK to
think ‘Always Think Forfeiture’ instead of focusing on
protecting our constitutional rights,” Sali said.

In a letter to his fellow Congressmen, Sali noted that “the inscription
raises serious concerns to law-abiding citizens as to the intent of an
ATF agent who is performing investigations, particularly with
respect to law-abiding gun owners.”

Rep. Sali plans to introduce the ‘Always Think Freedom’ bill
sometime next week. The bill will prohibit the agency from
making purchases of tool kits “on which any reminder of
forfeiture appears.”

Action: Please urge your Representative to become an original
cosponsor of the “Always Think Freedom Act.”

You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Rep. the
pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Representative:

I urge you to become an original co-sponsor of Rep. Bill Sali’s
“Always Think Freedom” bill, which will be introduced shortly.

As part of its Asset Forfeiture training program for agents, the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
ordered 2,000 Leatherman tools inscribed with the words
“Always Think Forfeiture.” The program urges agents to focus
on seizing private property.

The agency, which has been the frequent subject of
congressional inquiry into its heavy-handed law enforcement
tactics, should focus on protecting our Constitutional rights.

Rep. Sali’s bill will simply prohibit the agency from making
purchases of tool kits “on which any reminder of forfeiture
appears.”

Please support this bill by signing on as an original
cosponsor.

Sincerely,

While Running For President, Obama Claims To Support Gun Rights:

During Debate, Obama Claimed Respect For Gun Rights. Obama: “You’ve got the tradition of lawful gun ownership, that all of us saw, as we travel around rural parts of the country. And it is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot.” (Sen. Barack Obama, 2008 Democrat Presidential Debate, Las Vegas, NV, 1/15/08)

BUT OBAMA HAS A LONG ANTI-GUN RECORD

Before Running For President, Obama Expressed Support For Banning Many Types Of Firearms:

On 1996 Questionnaire, Obama Answered “Yes” To Question About His Support For Legislation To “Ban The Manufacture, Sale And Possession Of Handguns.” Question: “Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? [Obama's Response:] Yes.” (Independent Voters Of Illinois Independent Precinct Organization 1996 General Candidate Questionnaire, Barack Obama Responses, 9/10/96)

Scholar John Lott Recalls Obama Stating: “I Don’t Believe That People Should Be Able To Own Guns.” John Lott: “In fact, I knew Obama during the mid-1990s, and his answers to IVI’s question on guns fit well with the Obama that I knew. Indeed, the first time I introduced myself to him he said ‘Oh, you are the gun guy.’ I responded ‘Yes, I guess so.’ He simply responded that ‘I don’t believe that people should be able to own guns.’” (John R. Lott Jr., “Obama And Guns: Two Different Views,” Fox News, www.foxnews.com, 4/7/08)

In 2003, Obama Voted In Support Of Legislation That “Would Have Banned Most Of The Privately Held Hunting Shotguns, Target Rifles, And Black Powder Rifles” In Illinois. “[I]n 2003, Obama voted in support of SB1195, which, if passed, would have banned most of the privately held hunting shotguns, target rifles, and black powder rifles in the state. If the ban was enacted, law enforcement officials would have been authorized to forcibly enter private homes to confiscate newly banned firearms.” (Illinois State Rifle Association, “ISRA Blasts Candidate Obama On His Record Of Hostility Toward Law-Abiding Firearm Owners,” Press Release, 8/24/04)

SB 1195 Caused Furor; Would Have Banned Shotguns, Muzzleloaders. “The gun furor basically revolves around Senate Bill 1195, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Antonio Munoz. It would ban shotguns with a bore of .50 caliber or more, the net result, according to numerous interpretations, being to outlaw a variety of shotguns, and even muzzleloaders.” (Lew Freedman, Op-Ed, “Hunters Need Not Worry-Yet,” Chicago Tribune, 4/19/03)

Now, Obama Believes D.C. Gun Ban Is Constitutional:

Obama Believes The D.C. Gun Ban Is Constitutional. “[T]he campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama
said that he ‘…believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local
communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is
constitutional.’” (James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins, “Court To Hear Gun Case,” Chicago Tribune, 11/20/07)

NOTE: The D.C. Gun Ban Bars Handguns, Operable Rifles And Shotguns In The Home. “The D.C. law, like laws in Chicago and New York City, doesn’t explicitly bar handguns; it requires that all residents register them with the city. Since the city stopped registering handguns in 1976, no one who hadn’t registered by then can have a handgun at home. The result, effectively, is a ban. D.C.’s law also bars residents from keeping any other firearm, such as a rifle or a shotgun, loaded or assembled.” (Emma Schwartz, “The Right To Bear Arms,” U.S. News & World Report, 3/6/08)

OBAMA HAS TAKEN A NUMBER OF ANTI-GUN POSITIONS

Before Running For President, Obama Came Out In Support Of Many Anti-Gun Policies:

Obama Was Director Of Anti-Gun Joyce Foundation, Which Spent Millions On Gun-Control Causes. “Adding even further skepticism to Obama’s claim of support for the 2nd Amendment is his previous service as a director of the Joyce Foundation. Since 2000, the Joyce Foundation has provided over $15 Million in funding to radical gun control organizations such as the Violence Policy Center and the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. The Joyce Foundation is tightly linked to the Soros Open Society Institute — an extremist group that advocates a worldwide ban on civilian firearm ownership.” (Illinois State Rifle Association, “ISRA Blasts Candidate Obama On His Record Of Hostility Toward Law-Abiding Firearm Owners,” Press Release, 8/24/04)

In 2004, Obama Voted Against Legislation “Drafted To Protect Homeowners From Prosecution In Cases Where They Used A Firearm To Halt A Home Invasion.” “[O]bama cast a total of 4 votes in opposition to SB2165. SB2165 was drafted to protect homeowners from prosecution in cases where they used a firearm to halt a home invasion. Once again, Obama found himself on the wrong side of the issue as overwhelming majorities of both the House and the Senate voted in favor of this important legislation. Obama’s steadfast opposition to SB2165 is indicative of his misplaced priorities on issues of self-defense
and personal firearm ownership.” (Illinois State Rifle Association, “ISRA Blasts Candidate Obama On His Record Of Hostility Toward Law-Abiding Firearm Owners,” Press Release, 8/24/04)

The Bill Was In Response To Homeowner Who Shot Burglar Who Had Broken Into His Home - Twice. “The state handgun bill Obama voted against was a response to the case of a suburban Chicago restaurant owner who shot a burglar who had broken into his home twice.” (Mike Robinson, “Keyes Rips Obama Over Opposition To Gun Bill,” The Associated Press State & Local Wire, 8/24/04)

In 2004, Obama Called For Federal Legislation To Pre-empt State Concealed Carry Laws. “In a February survey of Democratic primary candidates for the U.S. Senate by the Tribune, Obama said he opposed allowing ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons and that a federal law banning concealed carried weapons except for law enforcement is needed.” (Liam Ford, “Keyes Backs Law On Concealed Guns,” Chicago Tribune, 8/25/04)

Obama Recently Spoke Out Against Concealed Carry. Obama: “I am not in favor of concealed weapons … I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.” (Mike Wereschagin and David M. Brown, “Candidates’ Gun Control Positions May Figure In Pa. Vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 4/2/08)

In 2001, Obama Voted Against And Helped Defeat Bill To Allow Individuals To Carry Concealed Weapon When They Have Valid Order Of Protection Against Another Person. (S.B. 604, Senate Floor Third Reading, Failed, 29-27-0, 4/4/01, Obama Voted Nay)

“After Extensive Debate On The Senate Floor … State Sen. Barack Obama (D-13) Helped Defeat A Bill That Would Allow People Who Receive An Order Of Protection To Possess And Carry A Concealed Firearm.” (Todd Spivak, “Sen. Obama Helps Defeat A Concealed Firearm Bill,” Hyde Park Herald, 4/11/01)
Obama: “Concealed-carry laws would only increase the problem of handgun violence and ultimately make the streets less safe everywhere … It was a bad idea and I’m glad it failed…” (Todd Spivak, “Sen. Obama Helps Defeat A Concealed Firearm Bill,” Hyde Park Herald, 4/11/01)

In The U.S. Senate, Obama Voted Twice To Hold Manufacturers, Distributors, Dealers And Importers Of Firearms And Ammunition Liable For The Acts Of Criminals. (S. 397, CQ Vote #206: Motion Agreed To 66-32: R 53-1; D 13-30; I 0-1, 7/26/05, Obama Voted Nay; S. 397, CQ Vote #219: Passed 65-31: R 50-2; D 14-29; I 1-0, 7/29/05, Obama Voted Nay)

Obama Has Received “F” Ratings From The National Rifle Association: In 2004, 2002 And 1998, Obama Received “F” Ratings From The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund. The NRA has given Obama 3 “F’s.” (National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund Website, www.nrapvf.org, Accessed 1/8/08; National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund Website, www.nrapvf.org, Accessed 1/8/08; 1998 Illinois National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund Political Preference Chart, p.2)

From this URL

See story here “US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war “

The smaller, steel-penetrating M855 rounds continue to be a weak spot in the American arsenal. They are not lethal enough to bring down an enemy decisively, and that puts troops at risk, according to Associated Press interviews.

Designed decades ago to puncture a Soviet soldier’s helmet hundreds of yards away, the M855 rounds are being used for very different targets in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of today’s fighting takes place in close quarters; narrow streets, stairways and rooftops are today’s battlefield. Legions of armor-clad Russians marching through the Fulda Gap in Germany have given way to insurgents and terrorists who hit and run.

Fired at short range, the M855 round is prone to pass through a body like a needle through fabric. That does not mean being shot is a pain-free experience. But unless the bullet strikes a vital organ or the spine, the adrenaline-fueled enemy may have the strength to keep on fighting and even live to fight another day.

What the AP doesn’t understand that this is the same shell used by the domestic assult rifles that the media said was only designed to kill.

So when you are a liberal reporter its a bad killing gun if I have one but if it makes the Army look bad then its a weak gun that wont kill.

“They are not lethal enough to bring down an enemy decisively, and that puts troops at risk, according to Associated Press interviews.”

also see this story here

Hello double standard
Michelle (the smart one, not the bitter one), has a post up today pointing to this PowerLine piece detailing yet another gaffe made thus far by Barack Obama:

Barack Obama must be the most gaffe-prone politician in memory. Today, he delivered a Memorial Day speech in New Mexico. After greeting the local Democratic Party dignitaries, he began:

On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes — and I see many of them in the audience here today — our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.

Memorial Day honors those who have died in our nation’s military service. Is it possible that Obama does not know this? Sometimes the things that come out of his mouth defy understanding.

Imagine, if you would, the hullabaloo if any Republican, much less one already a President or one running for the same, had been making the same mistakes, time and again. Just imagine.

Full story here

Why does the Courier-Post insist on promoting gun control? I’m convinced the news media, print and TV, are clueless. Mao-Tse-Tung said, “power comes from the barrel of a gun.” Gun control is not about controlling guns. It is about controlling people.

Remember the Brits sailed into Boston Harbor in 1775 and immediately occupied the city and disarmed the populace. The American war of independence started when Gen. Horatio Gates marched his troops to Lexington and Concord to seize the powder magazines, aka guns. The guns go away and the government will start telling the media what to print and say.

Wake up

Gun control is the first step to control by a tyrant. When is the news media going to wake up and realize that eliminating guns only means more control over all of us by the government? Does the media really think people in power answer to a higher calling? That they have some lofty ideal that they want to keep?

Gun violence is crap, gobbledegook, garbage and double-speak. Why don’t the police do their jobs? Why are they always looking for another way to control people instead of hunting down criminals?

Disarmament

Reasonable gun control? What’s reasonable? Total disarmament of the populace? Does that mean when the police and only the criminals have guns and the criminals are having a shootout, the police will herd all the nonshooting citizens into a safe building to protect us while the criminals shoot it out. Or will the politicians and police stand in front of the cameras and tell us they need more laws to control crime?

The police are not doing their job. They and the politicians keep looking for more ways to control people. People are getting more irresponsible because they are being lulled into a false sense of security over the people-control laws that have been enacted over the last 40 years.

Not effective

How effective are the laws just passed that forbid people from using hand-held cell phones? Not too effective. Every day, I see people on their cell phones on local roads and Interstate 295. The people don’t care. They will use their phones.

But, and here’s the big but, now the cops have a way of harassing people when they have no real reason to bother them. Gun control is about controlling people. How about the cops controlling the criminals?

The writer lives in Magnolia.

The April 30 op-ed column by Ethel Jenkins was based on a misguided interpretation of the Second Amendment. The framers of the Constitution were not as nervous about states’ rights as they were about tyrants rendering populations defenseless against their predations.

Throughout history, there have always been men eager to abuse the power entrusted to them. The tyrant’s pattern is always the same: demonize arms and their owners; agitate for regulation and ban and confiscate all arms. Once innocent citizens are disarmed, quash the defenseless population. Individuals like Ms. Jenkins seem to be genuinely concerned about public health and safety, but her arguments for common sense gun control play into the hands of those who seek to forcefully control people.

The times may have changed but the real issue remains the same. If I am a free man, I should be able to purchase any commodity I desire as long as I bring no harm to another’s life or property. If I do bring harm, then there are universally recognized laws already on record that may be used to bring me to justice.

If Ms. Jenkins wishes to control gun violence, let her devise a method of changing the real cause of violence, the criminal intent in the minds and hearts of violent people. In the meantime I will not object if she wishes to leave herself defenseless, but the freedom implicit in the Bill of Rights demands my right to self protection must not be infringed upon.

Donald Harris