Bobusnr

Uncatagorized

Archive for the category “Federal Assault Weapons Ban”

Hillary Clinton Faces Criminal Charges In Egypt


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:

http://www.westernjournalism.com/

 

Posted by:B. CHRISTOPHER AGEE

Photo Credit: Aaron Webb Creative Commons

According to a recent report by World Net Daily, expected 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is embroiled in yet another international scandal. Still reeling from what many perceive as a botched response to the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, reports indicate the former secretary of state is being investigated by Egypt’s attorney general.

Hisham Barakat’s criminal complaint against Clinton alleges she conspired with the wife of former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi – and the Muslim Brotherhood – to encourage rebels in the nation.

According to a translator, Morsi’s wife, Naglaa Mahmoud, reportedly claims to have a “treasure trove of secrets from the White House,” indicating Clinton “fears my wrath.”

Mahmoud goes on to confirm she “will not speak about Huma Abedin,” a former aide with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Sources indicate Mahmoud works with Abedin’s mother, Saleha, as a leader of the Muslim Sisterhood.

As Morsi heads to trial, the actions of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will likely be central themes. As the lamest of all presidential ducks, Obama’s sullied reputation can’t suffer much more as a result of charges filed against him.

The added controversy, however, is the last thing a fledgling Clinton campaign needs.

Mahmoud seems convinced Clinton will be “looking for the support of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood” in her pursuit of the Oval Office.

“Hillary depends on us tremendously to help her succeed in the coming presidential elections,” Mahmoud reportedly confirmed, “just as we helped Barack Obama win twice.”

Clinton is obviously desperate to retain power despite the frequent missteps she made during her short tenure as secretary of state. Millions of outraged Americans will not let her scandalous behavior be forgotten in the years approaching 2016.

With the stage set for another big midterm win for Republicans, the continued derailment of the Democrat Party’s presidential frontrunner only makes the conservative cause that much more attractive to voters.

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/hillary-clinton-faced-charges-egypt/#Fxjt7mKXhmAdmv3k.99

Advertisements

Obama Must Be Forced to Resign


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://canadafreepress.com

 

Posted by:Alan Caruba

Author

A December 17 Reuters article was titled, “Obama’s Current Approval Rating Is The Ugliest Since Nixon.”

President Barack Obama is ending his fifth year in office with the lowest approval ratings at this point in the presidency since President Richard Nixon, according to a new Washington Post/ABC poll released Tuesday.”

Nixon was forced to resign on April 22, 1974, after two long years that followed the revelations about Watergate, a break-in of the Democratic Party offices in Washington, DC. The backlash against the horrors of ObamaCare, concerns about the “deal” with Iran, and a succession of scandals from Fast and Furious to Benghazi, have raised fear and anger over his judgment, competence, and behavior in office.

Having lived through the years that led to Nixon’s resignation, I am seeing the same national resistance that Obama’s five years in office have led to. Nixon was never a “popular” President, widely seen as “Tricky Dick”, but, like Obama, he was twice elected to the office. His Vice President, Gerald Ford, who assumed the presidency, was defeated by Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and, four years later, an unhappy electorate defeated Carter and elected Ronald Reagan who would serve two terms. Even the popular Bill Clinton faced impeachment.

Not since the days of the Great Depression in the 1930s have Americans endured an economy that has failed to overcome slow growth despite Obama’s full first term in office and another year in his second term.

Ignoring the central role of a free market prolongs bad economic conditions and high taxation to maintain an ever-expanding central government led to big problems for European nations and promises the same—or worse—for the U.S.
When you add in the increased debt imposed in Obama’s first term you are looking at the road to ruin.
Blaming “millionaires and billionaires” or “income inequality” is the very essence of communism. It is a rejection of our capitalistic economic system.

Financial ruin for America is embedded in its huge debt, its deficits, and its multi-trillions of dollars in unfunded debt that already insolvent Social Security and Medicare programs represent. And Medicare was looted to fund ObamaCare!

The destruction of our healthcare system, one sixth of the nation’s economy, is widely regarded as a disaster and it bears the President’s name. Passed late at night prior to Christmas in 2009 and signed into law by Barack Obama, ObamaCare is distinguished by the lies the President told all Americans about their right to keep their healthcare insurance plans, retain their personal physicians, and see their costs reduced. It has done the opposite and it is impossible to believe the President did not know this would occur.

The nation has reached a point when the President must be told to resign.

Whether a Congress, also held in extraordinary low esteem, can or will do this is unknown. While I have said in the past that Obama cannot be removed by impeachment, I now believe that if the House would initiate impeachment proceedings that in itself would focus public attention, for example, on the President’s excessive use of executive orders to by-pass Congress and his unconstitutional altering—tweaking—of the ObamaCare law.
His first term was filled with scandals that included using the IRS for political gain. His role in dragging down the nation’s international position as an exemplar and protector of freedom has made the world less safe. These and other issues need a review and discussion that would not occur in the mainstream press in any other way.

This isn’t about a President who authorized a break-in. This is about a President who is a current and future threat to the Constitution, the nation’s military strength, and the restoration of its economy.

This is about a President who can use existing laws to declare martial law based on a manufactured crisis. Existing law would permit him to seize control of all aspects of life in America.

The nation’s mainstream print and broadcast media is showing signs of disillusionment, but not enough to abandon a President they have supported with deliberately biased reporting.

Complicating a demand for his resignation is a divided Republican Party whose elites have rejected the Tea Party movement that has already elected a number of members to Congress. Many find little to differentiate the GOP from the Democratic Party, but there are differences and the House of Representatives is proof of that.

Many Americans sense that the nation is at a very dangerous point.

Dramatic action is needed. A demand for Obama’s resignation via petitions and other measures is needed to save America from the worst President ever elected to that office.

 

 

Allen West warns Obama’s ‘backdoor gun control is moving forward’


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.washingtontimes.com

 

Posted by:Cheryl K. Chumley

  • ** FILE ** Former Rep. Allen B. West, Florida Republican, speaks at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference at the Gaylord National Hotel in National Harbor, Md., on Thursday, March 14, 2013. (Andrew Harnik/The Washington Times)

Come 2014, all ammunition sold to civilian gun-owners in America will have to be imported, a result of President Obama’s crackdown on sulfur dioxide and lead emissions and accompanying harsh Environmental Protection Agency regulations, said former Florida congressman, Lt. Col. Allen West.

And for defenders of the Second Amendment, that means higher ammo prices are likely on the way — a situation Mr. Allen writes on his blog, AllenBWest.com, is akin to a federal power-grab on guns, albeit through the backdoor.

He said the situation stemmed from the shutdown of The Doe Run Lead Smelter in Missouri, a business that’s been around since 1892 but due to close at the end of this month. Mr. West said it’s due to new air standards placed on the company that would have cost $100 million to achieve.

“[This] will surely increase the price and possibly come under government control,” Mr. West warned, Breitbart.com reported. “It seems this is fully in concert with the U.S. Military and Homeland Defense recent purchase of large quantities of ammunition.”

He said the “chilling effect” is that while the closure of the smelt plant doesn’t take guns out of the hands of Americans, it does put in jeopardy ammunition supplies.

“You can own all the guns you want, but if you can’t get ammo, you are out of luck,” Mr. West wrote, on his blog. “Remember when President Obama promised his minions that he was working on gun control behind the scenes? Welcome to it. The result is that all domestically mined ore will have to be shipped overseas, refined and then shipped back to the U.S.”

Mr. West warned: “Not only will ammo be even harder to come by, the demand and the process of supply will cause the price to skyrocket even more. And ponder this, there is an excellent chance that Obama will rig the market to where all ammo has to be purchased from the government, instituting an ammo registration. … So America, back door gun control is moving forward … [and] our Second Amendment rights are undergoing an assault by clandestine infiltration.”

The gun grabbers are always using any means they can to hurt the American hunters and home defense folks!

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/2/allen-west-warns-obamas-backdoor-gun-control/#ixzz2mM1a3aky

Obama’s Military Purge


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://canadafreepress.com

 

Posted by:Arnold Ahlert 

usa-nazi-banner

Author

Is the Obama administration in the midst of a military purge? This year alone, nine senior commanding generals have been fired by the administration, and retired generals and current commanders who have spoken to TheBlaze believe that political ideology is the primary impetus behind the effort. “I think they’re using the opportunity of the shrinkage of the military to get rid of people that don’t agree with them or not toe the party line,” a senior retired general told website. “Remember, as Rahm Emanuel said, never waste a crisis.” The general spoke on the condition of anonymity because he still provides the government with services and believes this administration would retaliate against him.

The terminations have a distinctly political odor surrounding them in at least three cases. In all three of these cases, Benghazi is at root. U.S. Army Gen. Carter Ham was heading the United States African Command when our consulate came under attack on September 11, 2012. Ham told Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) he was never given a “stand down” order preventing him from securing the consulate. Yet the Washington Times, citing sources in the military, said he was given the order and immediately relieved of command when he decided to defy it. The Times further noted that Ham “retired” less that two years after receiving the command when all other commanders of similar stature have stayed on far longer. Sources told TheBlaze Ham was highly critical of the Obama administration’s decision not to send reinforcements to Benghazi.

Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette, Commander of Carrier Strike Group Three for the Navy, was relieved of duty for allegedly using profanity and making “racially insensitive comments.” Though he was cleared of criminal violations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, administrative penalties have effectively ended his career. In testimony regarding Benghazi, Gaouette, who was in charge of Air Craft Carriers in the Mediterranean Sea on the night of the attack, told Congress there may not have been time to get flight crews to Libya. But under cross examination, he admitted he could have sent planes to that location.

Major General Baker, a two-star general who served as commander of the Joint Task Force-Horn at Camp Lamar in Djibouti, Africa, was fired for alcohol and sexual misconduct charges. The U.S. reportedly runs counter-terror operations out of Djibouti, and once again, military officials told TheBlaze Baker was involved in some aspect of Benghazi.

The other six were terminated for a variety of alleged offenses. Army Brigadier Gen. Bryan Roberts, commander of Fort Jackson beginning in 2011, was fired for adultery. Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Gregg A. Sturdevant, director of Strategic Planning and Policy for the U.S. Pacific Command and commander of the aviation wing at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan, was terminated over a successful attack on that facility by the Taliban, resulting in two American deaths and the destruction of eight American planes. Sturdevant claims British forces were responsible for security at the base prior to the attack.

Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Charles M.M. Gurganus was terminated for questioning the “winning hearts and minds” policies that led to “green on blue” murders of American officers by “trusted” Afghan recruits. Other Afghan recruits led a platoon into an enemy ambush. Army Lt. Gen. David Holmes Huntoon Jr was “censored” for “an investigation” into an “improper relationship,” according to the Department of Defense. A blog written by a 26-year-old cadet medically discharged from West Point claims the three-star general was under investigation because a West Point Superintendent “improperly used” his office, and because of an insufficient investigation of a lewd email chain perpetrated by the men’s rugby team. Nothing was officially released by the DoD regarding any of the charges.

The last commanders, three-star Vice Admiral Tim Giardina, and Major General Michael Carey, were fired within 48 hours of each other. Giardina was the deputy commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, an entity that oversees all nuclear-armed missiles, bombers and submarines. He was commander of the Submarine Group Trident, Submarine Groups 9 and 10, which comprise all 18 of our nuclear-armed submarines. He was fired for the alleged use of counterfeit gambling chips at an Iowa casino. Carey, commander of the 20th Air Force, a role that put him in charge of 9,600 people and 450 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles at three operational wings, was fired “due to a loss of trust and confidence in his leadership and judgment,” said Air Force spokesman Brig. Gen. Les Kodlick. The decision to fire Carey was made by Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, the head of the Air Force Global Strike Command. Obama fired Giardina.

The firing of military leaders goes much further than top generals, however. On its Facebook page, Breitbart.com compiled a list of more than 197 military commanders, mostly at the rank of Colonel or above, who have been purged by the Obama administration since 2009.

According to military.com, allegations of sexual misconduct account for the firing of 30 percent of military commanders over the past eight years. That figure that increases to 40 percent when “ethical lapses” such as sexual assault and harassment, pornography, drugs and drinking are lumped together. But there are other dubious reasons why these commanders have been terminated, ranging from unspecified dereliction of duty, to improper saluting.

One of the largest purges occurred on the last day of November in 2011, when the administration terminated 157 Air Force Majors, a move the Chapman University of Military Law and its associated AMVETS Legal Clinic characterized as illegal. They noted that the Department of Defense specifies that absent extenuating circumstances, service members within six years of retirement would ordinarily be retained, and allowed to retire on time and collect benefits.

The Air force cited budget shortfalls as their primary reason for the terminations. Yet as institute director Maj. Kyndra Rotunda explained, based on the Defense Department’s Instruction 1320.08, “derogatory information” is the only reason officers can be terminated. “The defense department’s own regulation does not authorize what the defense department is doing,” Rotunda contended at the time. “The Airmen relied on the law when they entered service and now the Secretary wants to change that law, without authority.”

Earlier that same month, two-star Major Gen. Peter Fuller was relieved of his command in Afghanistan, after he told Politico that Afghan President Hamid Karzai and other government officials in that country were “isolated from reality.” Ironically, Fuller was fired by Gen. John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, who was himself the subject of an FBI investigation a year later, for his role in the sex scandal that led to the resignation of CIA Director and retired general David Petraeus. Despite the FBI informing the Pentagon it had uncovered thousands of pages of emails between Allen and Florida socialite Jill Kelley, President Obama subsequently expressed “faith” in Allen’s ability to continue doing his job. It is impossible to determine whether Allen’s ideology played a role in maintaining that faith.

2012 also saw several terminations of officers based on questionable rationale. In May, Commander Derick Armstrong, commanding officer of the guided missile destroyer USS The Sullivans, was relieved of duty by Vice Adm. Frank Pandolfe “as a result of an unprofessional command climate that was contrary to good order and discipline,” according to a Navy news release. A week earlier, the Navy relieved Cmdr. Dennis Klein of command of the submarine USS Columbia, citing a loss of confidence in his ability to serve effectively.

Stars and Stripes listed several other Navy commanders relieved of duty in 2012. While some on the list were terminated for seemingly legitimate reasons, a curious lack of specificity applied to others. They include Capt. James CoBell, commanding officer of Oceana Naval Air Station’s Fleet Readiness Center Mid-Atlantic, who was let go for “leadership issues”; Cmdr. Franklin Fernandez, commanding officer of Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 24, for a “loss of confidence” in his ability to command due to allegedly “driving under the influence”; Capt. Marcia Lyons, commander of Naval Health Clinic New England, for problems with her “command climate”; and Capt. Sean McDonell, commander of Seabee reserve unit Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 14 in Jacksonville, FL, for mismanagement and unspecified “major program deficiencies.” Several others were fired for “inappropriate personal behavior” or “personal misconduct.”

Theories for these purges run the gamut. One posits that anyone associated with Benghazi had to go. Another states that many of these firings are an effort to clean up “operational failures,” most notably a 2007 incident in which six nuclear-tipped missiles went missing for 36 hours. Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, who has been an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, believes it is part of the president’s strategy to reduce America’s standing in the world. “[Obama is] intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon, and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged,” he contended.

Vallely’s assessment was echoed by a source at the Pentagon who wished to remain anonymous because the source was not authorized to speak on the subject. He or she contended that “young officers, down through the ranks, have been told not to talk about Obama or the politics of the White House. They are purging everyone and if you want to keep your job—just keep your mouth shut.”

This theory finds validation when one considers the Obama administration’s larger assault on the military. The military is the last organized bastion of conservative values, due in large part to the nature of the military itself. Yet, in recent years, the push to embrace progressive values, such as openly gay servicemen, women in combat and diversity worship have been pursued with vigor. Even the aforementioned effort to “win the hearts and minds” of Islamists in Iraq and Afghanistan, as opposed to pursuing victory, marks a sea change from traditional military values.

Not only is the Obama administration apparently on a mission to undermine the integrity of the military in this way, but it has also revealed itself to be entirely intolerant of dissent of any kind. Whether it is reporters or domestic opposition groups such as the Tea Party, Obama has made clear he will aggressively pursue anyone who defies his agenda. Now it seems that chilling message his been sent to the military as well.

 

 

 

Liberals in Retreat


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from http://www.nationalreview.com 

Posted by John Fund

Three elections across the globe deliver an unpleasant shock to liberal ideologues. Recall supporters walk the line in Colorado. John Fund   Three elections in the last week have challenged long-held liberal premises about how elections are fought and what the public wants. It’s worth examining those results in such widely separated places as Australia, Norway, and the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. In Colorado, liberals are already in denial about the fact that two Democratic state senators were recalled from office in districts Barack Obama carried by some 20 percentage points only ten months ago. The recalls were organized by citizens upset with the lawmakers’ votes in favor of a gun-control measure. The two senators also helped pass bills perceived as being against the interests of rural areas and helped push through a fraud-prone election law that shifted the Centennial State to all-mail voting.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic National Committee’s chairwoman, said the results simply reflected voter suppression, pure and simple.” Matt Vespa of Red State scoffed at her flimsy explanation: More Democrats and independents signed the two recall petitions than did Republicans, he noted, which “only further discredits DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s insane claim that her side lost due to voter suppression.”

Liberals are also claiming that the black arts of the National Rifle Association skewed the results. But the gun-rights group came very late to support the recalls, and the Denver Post reports that pro-gun-control groups spent some $3 million versus only $540,000 by recall supporters. Grover Norquist, a board member of the National Rifle Association, claims once again that liberals mistook “position for passion” on an issue. In the wake of the Newtown massacre of last December, the Left believed public opinion had finally turned in favor of gun control; in support of this view, they cited surveys showing overwhelming support for background checks and limits on ammunition magazines. As Michael Tomasky of the Daily Beast wrote, “You cannot oppose the will of 90 percent of the public and expect no consequences.” But in terms of intensity, the advantage goes to those who oppose restrictions on gun rights and believe that even the most modest of them will only embolden those who ultimately aim to restrict access to guns even further.

As Norquist explains it: “The polls showed many people wanted some new gun-control laws at the same time they told pollsters they didn’t think they would prevent future Newtowns. Understandable outrage at murders accompanied by an acknowledgement it won’t make things better doesn’t make a passionate voter. Gun-rights supporters are always passionate, which is why more laws expanding gun rights have passed since Newtown than laws restricting them.”

What should worry Democrats is that the two Colorado districts that recalled their senators last Tuesday represent the two sides of their electoral coalition. The district in downtown Colorado Springs was urban, trendy, and filled with upper-income social liberals; it voted 59 percent to 38 percent for Obama. The other district in nearby Pueblo and its suburbs was Hispanic, moderate-to-lower income, blue-collar, and more culturally conservative; it voted 58 percent to 39 percent for Obama. “The recall in Pueblo was started by two plumbers and an electrician,” notes Jon Caldara, head of the pro-recall Independence Institute. “Hispanics and blue-collar voters resented interference in what they regarded as their local rights.” And as for the NRA, the Democratic survey firm Public Policy Polling found voters in Pueblo had a positive view of the group. If the Colorado results showed the limits of liberal paternalism’s appeal, voters in prosperous Australia and Norway rebelled against liberal governments they perceived as incompetent and too focused on peripheral issues. In Australia, conservative leader Tony Abbott made opposition to the Labor government’s carbon tax the signature issue of his campaign. Polls showed that the public expressed general concern about global warming, but Abbott knew the polls also showed voters didn’t believe a carbon tax could do much about the climate and would probably serve as an excuse to extract more money from taxpayers. “Labor forgot about the basics of how to practice competent economic policy and went off on wild tangents to appeal to its special-interest backers,” Tim Andrews of the Australian Taxpayers Alliance told me. In Norway, after the 2011 massacre of dozens of teenagers by a white-separatist madman, the ruling Labor government was convinced that their conservative opposition would be discredited and that they could retain power in an economic climate where growth fueled by the nation’s abundant oil reserves was averaging over 3 percent a year. But an independent investigation of how the killer was able to evade capture for hours pointed out incredible bureaucratic incompetence in the national police bureaucracy, and even called into question rules banning almost all policemen from carrying guns. In addition, the leaders of the Conservative party and the libertarian Progress party succeeded in persuading voters that high taxes and suffocating regulations were preventing Norwegians from creating non-oil entrepreneurial ventures that employed people. “As rich and generous as Norwegians are, they want their children to inherit a real economy, and they demand better accountability from their government for the taxes they pay,” Jan Arild Snoen, a Norwegian political analyst, told me last August when a National Review cruise visited Norway. Michael Barone, the co-author of The Almanac of American Politics and an analyst of international elections, tells me that many people driven by ideology often feel elections should revolve around their concerns and reflect their priorities. “That can happen on the left or on the right,” he says. “But liberals are especially prone to not recognizing the public does care if their policies actually work in practice and are in sync with their everyday concerns.” In all three elections held in the last week — from Australia to Norway to Colorado — liberals forgot that their priorities aren’t often those of the average voter. In each case, they were punished for it. — John Fund is national-affairs columnist for NRO.

Colorado’s Gun-Control Meltdown


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

Posted by Michelle Malkin

Democratic legislators made their contempt for the people clear.

 

State senator John Morse concedes defeat in the recall election, September 10, 2013.

You voted for him and you took him out the way it is supposed to work!

Michelle Malkin

Colorado Springs — Quick, call the CDC. We’ve got a Rocky Mountain outbreak of Acute Sore-Loser Fever. After failing to stave off two historic recall bids on Tuesday, two delusional state legislators and their national party bosses just can’t help but double down and trash voters as dumb, sick, criminal, and profligate.

The ululations of gun-grabbing Democrats here in my adopted home state are reverberating far and wide. Appearing on cable TV Thursday to answer the question “What happened?” Pueblo state senator Angela Giron sputtered that she lost her seat due to “voter suppression.” Giron whined to CNN anchor Brooke Baldwin that voters “weren’t able to get to the polls” and that there was “voter confusion.”

“Voter confusion”? My goodness. You’d think there were no public libraries, local television stations, talk radio, newspapers, blogs, Facebook, Twitter, or government websites to get information about the elections. (Oh, and pay no attention to the massive six-to-one spending advantage that Giron and her fellow recall target John Morse, formerly the president of the state senate, enjoyed.)

Voter suppression”? Dios mio! You’d think there were New Black Panther Party thugs standing outside the polls shouting racist epithets and waving police batons!

But no, there was no “voter confusion” or “voter suppression.” In fact, as the Colorado Peak Politics blog pointed out, the “majority of turnout in [Giron’s] district was Democrat, by a large margin. And she still lost. Voter suppression [is] not even believable.”

Giron lost in her Obama-loving Democratic third senate district by a whopping twelve points. The only significant complaint about voter suppression came after the polls closed — and not from anyone in the district, but from out-of-state Democratic National Committee chairman Debbie Wah-wah-wah-sserman Schultz of Florida. The majority of constituents who signed the recall petitions against her were, um, Democrats. Would Giron care to argue that voters from the same party that put her in office are too dumb and confused to comprehend her state’s own constitution and election process?

Giron was defeated not by elite Republicans and nefarious NRA bigwigs, but by a former Clinton supporter/police chief/campaign neophyte and a couple of upstart citizen activists who make a living as plumbers.

Grassroots organizers in both Pueblo and El Paso Counties with little to no previous electoral experience researched the state constitution’s recall provisions and put in the hard nose-to-the-grindstone work of gathering thousands of petition signatures in a brief period. They did their homework, adhered to the law, and made their voices heard. As I’ve reported in my column over the past several months, it was a David vs. gun-grabbing Goliath battle from the start.

Only after the local citizens got the ball rolling — catching flak from establishment-GOP types who initially opposed the disruptive process — did national organizations weigh in with help. And the campaign cash they provided was still no match for nosybody Bloomberg, Vice President Joe Biden (who personally lobbied state Democratic legislators), and their gun control-freak company.

The significance of this unprecedented battle cannot be overstated. Self-government won. Demagoguery lost. All the Bloomberg bucks in the world couldn’t buy immunity for his water-carriers in Colorado. The role of Second Amendment–supporting, limited-government-advocating local women in pushing back against false smears was invaluable. The “reproductive rights” fear-mongering failed. And the use of social media to organize echoed other successful tea-party efforts.

The problem for the gun-grabbers wasn’t that the voters were uninformed. It was that they were too informed. Voters paid close attention when state Democrats rigged the game during the legislative debate over extreme gun and ammo restrictions that will do nothing to stop the next Aurora, Columbine, or Newtown. They watched fellow citizens being blocked from testifying, pushed aside for out-of-staters. They heard Morse accuse gun owners of having a “sickness in their souls.” They heard him brag to liberal zealots that he was ignoring their “vile” e-mails.

They rejected Giron’s sneering at grassroots organizers as “special interests.” They didn’t buy that their birth control would disappear. They weren’t swayed by shooting victim Gabby Giffords’ husband’s emotional appeals or distracted by Bill Clinton’s last-minute robocalls.

“What happened?” The reasons these petty tyrants lost are as simple as ABC: arrogance, bitterness, and contempt for the people. As more and more self-empowered citizens are learning, you can’t fix this stupid hubris. But you can vote it out.

Michelle Malkin is the author of Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies. © 2013 Creators.Com.

The Obama Stasi Rolls On


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1)  I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from http://downtrend.com 

Posted by Donn Marten 

9072661855_d26c05b19e_n

This video was posted by Glenn Beck over 4 months ago. Boy was he right to sound the alarm!

NSA’s Utah Data Facility

When former Booz Allen employee Edward Snowden blew the whistle on NSA operations just remember that he warned that all that was missing for “turnkey tyranny” to ensue would be a change of policy. That of course would be public policy, this government works under the veil of secrecy and this has been ongoing for quite awhile while Americans tuned out of  working to be informed and tuned into Dancing With the Stars or some other televised crapfest. The real policies were birthed from the still smoldering ruins of WW II with the creation of the National Security State and the CIA (formerly OSS) and NSA (formerly Armed Forces Security Agency). Riding high after whipping up on the Germans and Japanese the powers that be were out to make damned sure that unlike the Third Reich the American Empire would last for a thousand years and with the right kind of luck for eternity.  Largely comprised of the Wall Street elite such as Allen Dulles, Frank Wisner and others the CIA would along with the military component NSA make the planet safe for big American money no matter what the consequences were. The methods did not matter and morality was never a consideration as it was all done under the pretense of fighting communism, a reliable bogeyman until the USSR collapsed. Whether it engaged in propaganda campaigns, funding foreign right-wing groups and death squads, assassinating leaders who refused to come to terms with the capitalist mafia, overthrowing regimes to install U.S. friendly despots who reveled in murdering their own people and to wage war, a very lucrative business indeed.

The Massive NSA Facility Under Construction in Utah

Utah Data Facility

The metastasizing of the National Security State and it’s components throughout American society would be a gradual process, and again, the ability to conduct anti-Constitutional spying on its own citizens was critical for any of it to work. Challenges had to be eliminated, be it the infiltration of domestic leftist groups, blackmailing of aspiring politicians and even termination with extreme prejudice were just tools in the box, all dependent on the situation at the time. The advent of computer technology, especially over the past quarter century has rapidly accelerated the process. Former NSA whistleblower Russell Tice recently gave an interview where he confirmed that reporters, lawyers, judges and aspiring politicians were spied on by the agency  including then Senator Barack Obama. This revelation like all other inconveniences to the establishment never made it into big media (they are too busy sniffing the royal baby turd as of late) instead being relegated to internet talk shows and alternative media sites. Now the pocket media can just invoke the magical talisman of “conspiracy theorists” and it all goes away. Move along, nothing to see here.

Years before Snowden’s exposure of NSA criminality, Tice came out during the Bush years and eventually revealed that journalists were being spied on. He did so most notably in an interview on the since cancelled MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann Another Bush era whistleblower named Thomas Tamm gave his account in an interview with Newsweek that exposed NSA activities, notably a program called Stellar Wind.  September 11, 2001 would prove to be fortuitous in that it provided justification not only for an eternal “War On Terror” but also ensured that the growth in surveillance, policing, military and propaganda funding would be unlimited and the oversight virtually nonexistent, further more it provided the impetus for the reconfiguration of America into the ominously sounding Homeland. Now communism, the Manichean Devil that justified all evils perpetrated by the United States government finally had an official replacement in terrorism. Not that the construction of the all knowing surveillance and police state ever took a break, it has been a progressive construction project. Before PRISM there was PROMIS, ECHELON,REX 84, COG (Continuity Of Government) and TIA (Total Information Awareness) and no public debate was ever held on any of this yet it fundamentally changes our entire society. You see the policy has always there but only as a component of the secret government that functions outside of the public sphere and transcends presidential terms, it never sleeps. The real horrors along with the final descent of this country into all out fascism will be when that which has been constructed in private becomes the official public policy of the United States of America. I suspect that we will see that in our lifetime and probably sooner rather than later if it can’t be slowed.

Obama is just doing his part in providing the official cover for these programs by defending the indefensible and making damned certain that his Justice Department will go after any leakers with hammer and tong in order to make examples of them as is being done with Bradley Manning who is now undergoing a show trial, Ed Snowden when captured will face much worse than Manning and  sadly a good amount of the public will actually cheer on the persecutors as they destroy him physically, mentally and legally. Obama just keeps the machine running and provides a happy face until the rest of the work that really matters  is done. He is a presidential placebo and anyway, the real  details are way above his paygrade and he already has his golden parachute. Obama just like his loathed predecessor who have both been instrumental in building the coming tyrannical system are set for life now. He is a part of the club (the one that you are I are not in) and he recently signed off on lifetime Secret Service protection for himself and George W. Bush. Both of them will be sitting pretty when the shit finally does hit the fan which will likely be sooner rather than later and they will not have to bother with hearing the screams from inside their fortified homes, elitist vacation resorts and exclusive golf courses.

The enemy in the event there was ever any doubt is US.

Coming on the jack-booted heels of Friday’s rubber-stamping of the NSA’s extension to vacuum up all Verizon customer phone data, a bi-partisan effort yesterday beat back an attempt by insurgent Congressman Justin Amash. Joining Amash was longtime thorn in the side of the establishment John Conyers who tried in vain to reign in the civil liberties shredding surveillance colossus. Amash, a Tea Party Republican from Michigan has now offered proof that zany cultural populist nonsense when replaced with a serious defense of the very real invasion upon civil liberties will allow for stronger alliances with libertarians and progressives to slow the juggernaut while there is still a sliver of time left in which to do so. That sliver however gets tinier by the day and the forces arrayed against the destruction of the tattered remnants of a free society only get bolder and further consolidate their already dangerous positions of power. The Obama administration has proclaimed that it is above the law when it comes to spying on Americans and that their divine right of kings shalt not be challenged in court. In the same sort of twisted legalese that the Bush administration used to justify torture the Obama mob pushed back against the recent anti-spying lawsuit by the ACLU, claiming that it is in the “public interest” and cannot be challenged in a court of law.

The aforementioned pro-civil liberties amendment to a Defense Department appropriations bill (the country may be broke but there is always money for more war) went down in defeat 217-205 with such staunch and strident opponents of big government as John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Michelle Bachmann right along with the insipid and shrill Nancy Pelosi in defending the American Stasi. I suppose that there should something of merit in the amendment even being brought up, something that would have been inconceivable earlier in the post 9/11 era of fear, loathing and the extortion of taxpayers to fund their own enslavement. However, there have been some changes in attitude since Edward Snowden’s leaks but the defeat of the bill only provides more evidence that the system it rigged and that greed, war and oppression are the real things that bring Republicans and Democrats together. In a rare preemptive strike, El Presidente Obama even came out and had his flacks and shills issue a press release urging the defeat of the Amash amendment. NSA Commandant Keith Alexander also called for an emergency private briefing to rally the troops on the hill against the amendment lest his grossly perverted amassing of power take a hit. The whole rank process once again proved that in this rapidly decaying system there would be no challenge brooked nor the governed to be asked for their consent. The Alexander private decree is just like those secret courts that are the antithesis to any serious concept of democracy. Alexander is the strutting epitome of a military dictator salivating over the coming crackdown.

It is by now brutally evident to pretty much anyone who has bothered to read this far that we have a huge problem right now in America. It is a problem that dwarfs all others simply because the ability to collect and store information on all citizens is the primary lynchpin of a full-blown fascist state. But such a state also needs a propaganda spewing media machine, a desperate and poorly informed public, a paramilitary police and a myth of a constant outside threat that is used to justify the need for increasingly radical measures. The mass collection of the data is absolutely crucial in that it will be used when the ubiquitous outside threat is formally changed to an internal one.  That will be the time that the state will ruthlessly crush all perceived threats that may one day work to organize, inform, challenge and reverse the tide. As has been reported the NSA is now capable of conducting three hop data queries which as explained by Philip Bump at Atlantic Wire:

Think of it this way. Let’s say the government suspects you are a terrorist and it has access to your Facebook account. If you’re an American citizen, it can’t do that currently (with certain exceptions)—but for the sake of argument. So all of your friends, that’s one hop. Your friends’ friends, whether you know them or not—two hops. Your friends’ friends’ friends, whoever they happen to be, are that third hop. That’s a massive group of people that the NSA apparently considers fair game.

Theoretically anyone who is currently reading this website and about the entire country would be fair game for future pickup, interrogation, detention, torture and possibly even more extreme measures. This is not hyperbole either, as history has repeatedly proven, power always corrupts and in an end stage capitalist system such as the United States in the 21st century where the elite continue to gorge themselves at the expense of the vast majority and to do so with impunity and the full sanction and protection of the state it is inevitable that a backlash is coming. The backlash will not be tolerated under any circumstances as those who are elite will have no mercy or pause if their ill-gotten gains are ever threatened. When that does occur the pickup lists will be massive and generated instantaneously and that for profit prison system that rivals Stalin’s gulags will provide wonderful temporary housing for the enemies of the state. Programs have already been rolled out encouraging citizens to watch and rat each other out for any type of vaguely “suspicious” behavior so the conditioning is already in the minds of Americans. Decades of movies and television programs have cemented into the consciousness a reverence bordering of worship of the police while the police have subsequently become armed to the teeth and transformed into paramilitary forces. This began with advent of SWAT teams late in the last century and now even Dogpatch USA likely receives war zone grade equipment from the government for their local cops. Radley Balko, author of Rise of the Warrior Cop writes in his article A Decade After 9/11, Police Departments are increasingly Militarized that:

Over the last several decades Congress and administrations from both parties have continued to carve holes in that law, or at least find ways around it, mostly in the name of the drug war. And while the policies noted above established new ways to involve the military in domestic policing, the much more widespread and problematic trend has been to make our domestic police departments more like the military.

The main culprit was a 1994 law authorizing the Pentagon to donate surplus military equipment to local police departments. In the 17 years since, literally millions of pieces of equipment designed for use on a foreign battlefield have been handed over for use on U.S. streets, against U.S. citizens. Another law passed in 1997 further streamlined the process. As National Journal reported in 2000, in the first three years after the 1994 law alone, the Pentagon distributed 3,800 M-16s, 2,185 M-14s, 73 grenade launchers, and 112 armored personnel carriers to civilian police agencies across America. Domestic police agencies also got bayonets, tanks, helicopters and even airplanes.

AND

The September 11 attacks provided a new and seemingly urgent justification for further militarization of America’s police departments: the need to protect the country from terrorism.

Within months of the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, the Office of National Drug Control Policy began laying the groundwork with a series of ads (featured most prominently during the 2002 Super Bowl) tying recreational drug use to support for terrorism. Terrorism became the new reason to arm American cops as if they were soldiers, but drug offenders would still be their primary targets.

In 2004, for example, law enforcement officials in the New York counties of Oswego and Cayuga defended their new SWAT teams as a necessary precaution in a post–September 11 world. “We’re in a new era, a new time,” here,” one sheriff told the Syracuse Post Standard. “The bad guys are a little different than they used to be, so we’re just trying to keep up with the needs for today and hope we never have to use it.” The same sheriff said later in the same article that he’d use his new SWAT team “for a lot of other purposes, too … just a multitude of other things.” In 2002, the seven police officers who serve the town of Jasper, Florida — which had all of 2,000 people and hadn’t had a murder in more than a decade — were each given a military-grade M-16 machine gun from the Pentagon transfer program, leading one Florida paper to run the headline, “Three Stoplights, Seven M-16s.”

And according to Balko, the Obama administration is actually accelerating the militarizing of the police.

So what exactly do you think is going to happen when the interrogations begin? And another question, are you the type who wallows in denial by reassuring yourself that – I have nothing to worry about if I’m not doing anything wrong? Well you should worry and worry like hell because the probability that you are already linked to someone is pretty much a certainty. Oh, and there is an NSA fortress in Utah that will ensure that there is more than enough storage and computing power to see just what those “three hop” queries may turn up on you. The inquisitors as they always do, will be able to cut deals and people will gladly tattle on just about anyone to save their own asses because this is the way that it works in any closing society where the authoritarians are in total control. During the Nazi transformation of Germany such a system, albeit limited by the lack of high-technology existed and was used not only by the state but by enemies looking to settle scores and others to provide tips that did not exactly lead to enemies of the regime. As Richard J. Evans wrote in his book The Third Reich in Power:

So many denunciations were sent in to the Gestapo that even fanatical leading Nazis such as Reinhard Heydrich complained about them and the district Gestapo office in Saarbrücken itself registered its alarm at the ‘constant expansion of an appalling system of denunciation’. What dismayed them was in particular the fact that many denunciations appeared to be made from personal rather than ideological motives. Leading figures in the Party might have encouraged people to expose disloyalty, grumbling and dissent, but they wanted this practice to be a sign of loyalty to the regime, not a means of offloading personal resentments and gratifying personal desires. Thirty-seven percent of 213 cases subsequently studied by one historian arose out of private conflicts, while another 39 per cent had no discernible motive at all; only 24 percent were clearly made by people acting primarily out of political loyalty to the regime. Neighbors often denounced noisy or unruly people living in the same building, office workers denounced people who were blocking their promotion, small businessmen denounced inconvenient competitors, friends or colleagues who quarreled sometimes took the final step of sending in a denunciation to the Gestapo. School or university students even on occasion denounced their teachers.Whatever the motive the Gestapo investigated them all. If the denunciation was without foundation, they usually simply relegated it to the files and took no further action. But in many cases, denunciation could lead to the arrest of the person denounced, torture, imprisonment and even death.

But if you see something, say something, Homeland Security commands it and it is all for your own safety and happiness.

 

What The Hell Just Happened? ‘Tyranny By Executive Order’


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1)  I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from http://www.redflagnews.com 

Posted by Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly, J.D. 

What the hell just happened? That is the question that many Americans should be asking themselves following the news conference where Obama unveiled his plan for destroying the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. At first glance it appeared to be a case of Obama shamelessly using the deaths of innocents, and some live children as a backdrop, to push for the passage of radical gun control measures by Congress. Most of these have no chance of passing, yet, Obama’s signing of Executive orders initiating 23 so called Executive actions on gun control seemed like an afterthought.

Unfortunately, that is the real story, but it is generally being overlooked. The fact is that with a few strokes of his pen Obama set up the mechanisms he will personally use to not only destroy the Second Amendment to the Constitution, but also the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. It will not matter what Congress does, Obama can and will act on his own, using these Executive actions, and will be violating both the Constitution and his oath of office when he does it.

Here are the sections of the Executive Order that he will use:

“1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background-check system.”

What exactly is relevant data? Does it include our medical records obtained through Obamacare, our tax returns, our political affiliations, our military background, and our credit history? I suggest that all of the above, even if it violates our fourth Amendment right to privacy will now be relevant data for determining if we are allowed to purchase a firearm.

“2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background-check system.”

This should be read in conjunction with section 16 of the order that says:

“16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.”

One of the few amendments successfully placed in Obamacare by conservatives does appear to prohibit doctors from asking such questions. Yet, with these two Executive actions, Obama is illegally amending an act of Congress and setting up a procedure for him to force doctors to gain information from patients about gun ownership, and to get our medical history.

Section 3 of Obama’s order states:

“3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background- check system.”

Once again, what does this mean? What information does the Federal government want from the states? Copies of state personal and business income tax returns or court records of divorce and child custody cases are possibilities that come to mind as well as our voter registrations showing our party affiliations. How does any of this figure into our right to purchase a firearm?

One of the most dangerous and troubling sections of the Obama order in Section 4 that states:

“4. Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.”

This section directs Eric Holder, the architect of Operation Fast and Furious that illegally transferred several thousand semi automatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexican citizens and several U.S. border patrol agents, to now add people indiscriminately to the list of Americans ineligible to purchase firearms. Who might be added to the list?

Well, let’s look at the record of the Obama administration. Shortly after being appointed as the Director of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano sent a list of potential domestic terrorists to law enforcement agencies around the country. The list included individuals who were pro-life, who supported the Second Amendment, who had Ron Paul bumper stickers on their cars, and most disturbing, all members of the military returning from combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The list has recently been supplemented to include individuals who hoard more than a week’s supply of food and water, and those who support individual liberties and oppose big government. I belong on most of these lists and I suspect that Eric Holder will be adding all of us to the list of dangerous people not qualified to own guns. In other words, you will no longer have to be a convicted felon or mentally ill to make the list; you will qualify simply by being an American patriot.

This is not a conspiracy theory, at the United States Justice Foundation we are seeing increasing evidence that military veterans are being specifically targeted by the Obama administration when it comes to prohibitions against purchasing firearms. Any veteran diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is in danger of being banned from owning a firearm. Even those veterans suffering from mild depression are being added. None of these conditions constitute a mental illness that makes them a danger to themselves or others.

However, in Obamaland veterans who took an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, are definitely considered a threat to the new Fuehrer and must not be allowed to own firearms.

If we skip to Section 6 of the order we get a good idea of Obama’s real intentions when it comes to gun control. That sections states:

“6. Publish a letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.”

This is particularly interesting because one of the legislative proposals is to require universal background check requirements for any firearm transfer even between private citizens. In other words, you can’t sell your firearm or even give it to someone s a gift without Federal government approval. It is doubtful that this proposal will pass in the House of Representatives, yet Obama is already setting up the mechanism for enforcing the requirement. That is a clear signal that he doesn’t care what Congress does, he is going to violate the Constitution and bypass the Legislative branch in order to push his agenda to disarm the American people. I suspect he will ultimately use Executive orders to ban many weapons including most rifles and pistols.

There are numerous other actions dictated in the Obama order, but I think you get the idea. Our Second Amendment right is going to be taken from us for whatever reasons Obama decides. The simple act of opposing these actions can cause the Attorney General to place you on the list of “dangerous people”. Our privacy will be violated and all of this will be done without due process of law. That is what just happened.

 

More Gun Lies From Gabby Giffords


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1)  I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from http://townhall.com 

Posted by Kurt Schlichter 

 

Kurt  Schlichter

Gabby Giffords and her still-weightless astronaut husband are like a gun-grabbing Foghat, eternally playing the state fair circuit of American politics. Now they are literally going on tour again, hoping that their audience will forgo the old favorites and welcome a track off their new album.

She’s really just a one-hit wonder hoping to match the airplay of her power ballad “I Suffered a Tragedy So I Have Special Moral Standing (To Advocate Stripping You of Your Fundamental Rights).” The sad truth is that she is the Psy of liberal advocacy, far past her 15 minutes yet valiantly trying to recapture the glory of her gun control Gangnam Style.

Her new tune is apparently entitled “Patriotbecause her latest op-ed uses some form of that term four times in about 750 words. I guess it’s now “patriotic” to want to impinge on the constitutional rights of fellow Americans. She doesn’t explain why.

She also warbles about how gun rights come with “responsibilities,” using some version of that term eight times. Except the point of a “right” is that it isn’t contingent upon fulfilling “responsibilities.” It is a foundational element of our social contract and is not subject to infringement by leftists simply because they cloak their oppression with focus group-erriffic labels like “responsibilities.”

If you misuse a gun, the judicial system deals with you afterwards. But you have to misuse a gun before the government gets to limit your rights. Clichés about “responsibility” that sound like they were cribbed from Spiderman movie dialogue are not a meaningful statement of basic Constitutional principles.

Giffords is just the latest leftist trying to speak “Conservative” to us mindless yokels to sucker us into signing on to their petty fascism du jour. You remember the Soros-funded, simpering evangelist woman shilling for the immigration scam whose ad buy on conservative talk radio exceeded even LifeLock’s? They truly think if someone says “Jesus” and leaps off a cliff, we’re going to follow, lemming-like, along behind.

So now the magic words are “patriotic” and “responsibility.” But “patriotism” was déclassé to Giffords’s fellow liberals before President Obama got sworn in, and liberals embracing “responsibility?” Give me a break. Liberalism isn’t a coherent ideology; it’s a collection of lame excuses for the sloth, laziness and lifestyle chaos of Democrat voters.

It’s always amusing to hear a liberal like Giffords babbling about “responsibility.” Perhaps Alec Baldwin can lecture us on tolerance, patience, and fatherhood. Too bad the Democrats’ beloved icon, noted KKK kleagle Robert Byrd, can’t share his insights on racial harmony.

There’s more. Now Giffords and her husband are super-duper believers in the Second Amendment who even have guns themselves! Convenient, since the conservative media caught Astro-Giffords himself buying one of those evil, awful assault rifles he and his wife are trying so hard to keep out of the hands of lesser Americans like you and me.

Liberals really do think we’re stupid.

In fact, we’re apparently so dumb they don’t even need to acknowledge obvious facts. Gifford writes that, “in New Hampshire, 93% of Democrats, 79% of Republicans, 82% of gun owners and 60% of NRA households support background checks.” But of course, we already have background checks – the issue is the wisdom of mindlessly expanding them. That’s like saying 95% of Americans support generic drunk driving laws as a specific argument to drop the DUI limit to .01% (well, except for illegals).

Nor does she bother to address our actual concerns. The Toomey-Manchin bill, like every other jammed-down “bipartisan compromise,” was poorly drafted and filled with loopholes that utterly failed to secure the promises of the sponsors. It purported to prevent a national gun registry but the actual language did not – for some wacky reason, people who take the Second Amendment seriously don’t trust bureaucrats. It also acted to, at best, inconvenience and, at worst, criminalize the innocent behavior of law-abiding citizens.

No, apparently we oppose all background checks because we hate children or something. Maybe we just aren’t “patriotic” or “responsible” enough.

Now, as her “We Love Guns Except When People Like You Have Them” tour begins, look for Giffords’s new tune to not even chart. We’re just not falling for it. And when she realizes she’s getting no traction, look for more whining about how people are being mean to her by actually assessing the form and content of her arguments instead of simply surrendering to her policy preferences because some creep shot her.

Your ideas about how to prevent a tragedy do not become better because you suffered a tragedy. Nor does the fact that you suffered a tragedy insulate you from harsh criticism of the bad ideas you choose to submit into the public debate.

Gabby Giffords has a right to pretend to change her tune on gun control. And we have a right not to listen.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons license.

 

The Gun Control Paradox


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and

advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information

and my rules:

 

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to

the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my

blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all

comments.

 

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to

different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

 

This is a reblogged from http://www.americanthinker.com.

posted by Daniel Payne

As the new and improved Assault Weapons Ban is debated, it is instructive to study the strange circular logic used by gun control proponents to justify the banning of certain weapons for civilian use.

At the heart of most gun-control efforts is a desire to ban so-called “weapons of war,” based upon the premise that such things have no place in civil society. And perhaps they’re right, at least about actual “weapons of war.” There are few people arguing for the legalization of rocket launchers for civilian use, and nobody wants to see people building nuclear weapons as a cottage industry. So the restriction of some types of weapons seems perfectly reasonable and necessary.

The problems arise when legislators attempt to classify firearms as “weapons of war” when such firearms do not warrant the label in the slightest. Many legislators and pundits have described rifles such as the AR-15 as a “weapon of war,” but of course no competent army would ever outfit its soldiers with such a weapon, which is merely semiautomatic. Modern armies use rifles that are capable of fully-automatic fire, a feature which is more or less banned for civilian usage. The United States armed services, for instance, use variants of the M16, a more powerful version of the AR-15. Thus it is nonsensical to classify a civilian version of a military weapon as “military-style.” Style does not equal substance, and an AR-15 is not substantive in the face of its military cousin.

This fact, however, is what gun-control proponents seize upon when making their case. After all, if the military is armed with M16s, and an AR-15 couldn’t possibly hope to compete with the military’s armaments, then why does any civilian need the latter firearm, given that it would prove effectively useless against a tyrannical government? Hence the call to ban these and other weapons on the basis of their inability to protect against tyranny.

Pause to consider that line of thought for a moment: because current civilian weapons are unable to forestall or defeat a tyrannical government, we must ban them. Does not something seem off about this kind of twisted logic?

It is true to state that all the weapons to which modern American civilians have access would very likely be ineffective were the military to truly mobilize against the citizenry. The armed forces have the above-mentioned fully-automatic weapons, along with tanks, grenades, gasses and, most ominously, drones. Civilians have some semiautomatic rifles and pistols, along with shotguns and revolvers. Three guesses as to who would win that fight.

And yet it is still nutty to insist that the answer is more restrictions on more types of weapons. Of course, gun- control advocates are calling for such bans in part to protect civilians from each other — to stop the next Sandy Hook or Aurora, for instance. There is both nobility and reason in such a rationale. Yet when gun rights advocates point out that the Second Amendment was created to protect against tyranny, and that we should thus be cautious in banning the weapons it guarantees us, we are once again treated to a host of claims as to how the Second Amendment is now irrelevant because the government is inarguably more powerful than the citizenry could ever hope to be. So the argument becomes at once both rational and confusing: we cannot compete against the military, but we can and should strip the populace of many firearms in order to protect ourselves from ourselves. Say what?

The other side of the coin, however, is equally thorny and problematic: if private citizens are not equipped to take on the modern U.S. military, should we give citizens more armaments — allow the sale of surface-to-air missiles, say, and make it easier to purchase fully automatic weapons? The answer is almost certainly no; were these weapons easily accessible to the populace at large, and fell in the wrong hands, the destruction wrought could be catastrophic on a scale no single firearm could create.

So we are left with a great philosophical condrundrum: on the one hand, people shouldn’t have access to hyperpowerful weapons with which they could easily kill hundreds or thousands of people, while on the other hand, it seems bizarre to conclude that a people’s lack of adequate armaments as a defense against tyranny justifies a further stripping of Second Amendment rights.

While there is no easy answer to this quandary, one thing is clear: we should not be so easily seduced by the strange circular logic of gun control advocates; their crusade creates questions about civilian disarmament that should be answered before any bill is passed.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/the_gun_control_paradox.html#ixzz2QVqBrFSf
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

Alex Jones on CNN: ‘1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms’


Alex Jones

An angry Alex Jones warned CNN’s Piers Morgan Monday night that a revolution would break out if the government tries to take guns.

“Britain took the guns…Hitler took the guns, Stalin took the guns, Mao took the guns, Fidel Castro took the guns, Hugo Chavez took the guns,” Jones said, raising his voice and pointing a finger at Morgan.

“And I’m here to tell you. 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms,” he yelled. “It doesn’t matter how many lemmings you have out there on the street begging for them to have their guns taken. We will not relinquish them. Do you understand?”

Jones “melted down” several times in the segment, at one point calling Morgan a “hatchet man for the New World Order.” He also challenged Morgan to a boxing match.

Alex Jones to Piers Morgan:

Alex Jones to Piers Morgan: “1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!”

“[A]nd those were two of the most coherent things he said all night,” Twitchy reported.

“On one hand, it was sad. However, it was funny to watch Piers Morgan desperately barking, ‘Alex … Alex … Alex … calm down!’ to no avail,” Twitchy added.

Jones was a co-creator of the petition to deport Piers Morgan for his attack on the Second Amendment. That petition now has over 100,000 signatures.

“At many times throughout the segment, Jones got heated and began hollering about the seriousness of the threat to the Second Amendment. He said he created the petition to bring attention to the fact that we have ‘all these foreigners’ arguing for gun control while the government stockpiles guns,” The Blaze added.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney responded to the petition on Monday.

“The White House responds to all petitions that cross the threshold and we will respond to this one,” he said. “In the meantime, it is worth remembering that the freedom of expression is a bedrock principle in our democracy,” he added.

On Monday, however, the White House yanked a petition dealing with freedom of expression on Facebook, saying the petition violated the site’s Terms of Participation.

 

VP Joe Biden Confirms Assault Weapons Rarely Used In Crime


Joe-Biden

On January 24, 2013 PBS News Hour with Hari Sreenivasan hosted a Hangout with VP Joe Biden. This interview in my opinion is a priceless work of art and speaks loud and clear about the true agenda at hand.

Biden has continued to spin falsehoods in the main stream media about so called assault weapons since the Sandy Hook Massacre in Newtown. He has worked very hard with other politicians and the president to instill fear into the hearts of the public and parents hoping this will help them to push the agenda of this administration.

The Vice President openly admits in this interview that assault weapons are rarely used, violent crime is down, that the real reason for assault weapons ban is to keep police safer, and that most gun related crime is attributed to gangs/drug related violence.

During this interview Mr. Biden states that shotguns are much more dangerous than “assault rifles.” My question for this logic is if that were the case Mr. Biden why aren’t our police officers, DHS, FEMA, CIA, Secret Service, ATF, etc… being armed with shotguns instead of the AR-15′s and other “assault rifles” for their protection?

Many do understand the larger agenda some are not aware of the larger Gun Control issues that we are facing internationally. On March 18-28 the UN Arms Trade Treaty and Small Arms Trade Treaty is scheduled. If this treaty is ratified by the United States Senate, American citizens will be subject to international law under the UN.

While many people may think that Diane Feinstein’s gun grabbing bill is off the chart and she has lost touch with reality, nothing could be farther from the truth. She, as well as, President Obama’s 23 executive orders go hand in hand with what is listed in the UN ATT and UN Small Arms Trade Treaty. This is their way of pushing in the before the March meeting, where Obama has already said he intends to sign the treaty.

These treaties, should they be ratified by a vote of two-thirds of the U.S. Senate, would allow for severe limits to the importation of weapons into America from international sources. It could also be a foot in the door to the United Nations in order to help maintain the treaty by putting troops on the ground here in the U.S. as they have done abroad. This, theoretically could lead to those found violating the standards of the treaty being held under the National Defense Authorization Act.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/vp-joe-biden-confirms-assault-weapons-rarely-used-in-crime/#ixzz2PThu9zio

 

NRA gains upper hand on Obama


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

 

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

 

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

 

This is a Reblogged from: thehill.com.

 

Posted by Mike Lillis

usa-nazi-banner

After a series of missteps that gave President Obama the early advantage in this year’s gun-violence debate, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has struck back.

The powerful gun lobbying group had stumbled in the immediate wake of December’s Newtown, Conn., grade-school massacre, launching a blistering attack on opponents that alienated even some NRA supporters and upped the odds of Obama moving tougher gun laws through Congress.

But three months later, the NRA has regained its footing, rallying gun owners and lawmakers against new gun controls in a fierce lobbying effort that appears to be paying dividends on Capitol Hill.

Indeed, over the last 100 days, Democrats have grown more divided over Obama’s proposed reforms. 

An assault weapons ban is on life support and Senate Democrats have failed to entice a single Republican to back universal background checks. Congress also this week solidified four gun-friendly laws as part of legislation to fund the government through September.

To some observers, the shift in momentum comes as no surprise at all.

“[NRA CEO] Wayne LaPierre made terrible mistakes early on. They took two very bad spills,” Ross Baker, political scientist at Rutgers University, said Friday in a phone interview. “But they quickly recovered and they assumed their usual position of dominance.

“They may do poorly in the first quarter, but they rally and they’re usually ahead by halftime,” he added. “They’ve been at it a long time. They know what buttons to push.”

Adam Winkler, a constitutional expert at the UCLA School of Law, offered a similar explanation this week, arguing that even when the NRA is on the ropes, it “still sways a lot of voters.”

“The NRA didn’t become the political powerhouse it is by losing high-profile battles,” Winkler, the author of “Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America,” said Friday in an email.

“Even though the NRA had a poor showing in the November elections, the people whose job it is to know who sways voters — members of Congress — still think it can deliver.”

Those dynamics were laid bare this month during a series of gun-control hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) pushed through four separate bills, including a universal background-check proposal and a ban on scores of military-style semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

Not only were panel Republicans united against those proposals, but Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) walked away from negotiations with Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) over background checks, denying the bill the bipartisan support it will need to pass the full Senate.

Additionally, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he won’t include the assault-rifle ban as part of the package he brings to the chamber floor for fear it will doom the other provisions — a move that all but ensures the ban will die as an amendment to the larger bill.

“I think the worst of all worlds would be to bring something to the floor and it dies there,” Reid, a long-time opponent of the assault weapons ban, said this week.

Gun-control advocates — pointing to public opinion polls that show overwhelming support for Congress to enact tougher laws — insist they’re still on track to do just that.

“I do not believe that the momentum has stopped,” Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), Congress’s loudest gun-control advocate, said Friday in a phone interview. “People have not forgotten what happened in Newtown.”

A Democratic strategist familiar with the issue echoed that message, arguing that the more controversial elements of Obama’s gun-control wish-list —particularly the assault weapons ban — were never expected to pass Congress.

By pushing hard for that ban, the strategist said, Democrats were simply negotiating from the left, always with the idea they could cash in that chip to get the universal background checks that stand at the core of their effort to keep violent people from buying guns.

“For once, the Democrats actually did things in a smart way. Instead of starting by giving in, they started by asking for more,” the strategist said. “You could call it a momentum change, but this was always the way this was going to play out.”

Baker, of Rutgers, offered a different forecast, giving even the expanded background check provision “considerably less-than-even” odds of passing Congress this year.

The NRA raised plenty of eyebrows in the weeks immediately following the Newtown massacre when it staged a defiant press conference calling for more guns in schools, then launched a provocative web ad that featured Obama’s young daughters. The moves were condemned by a number of prominent Republicans, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Florida Rep. Joe Scarborough, who accused the group of being extremist. 

“What’s wrong with these people?” Scarborough asked in January on his “Morning Joe” program on MSNBC. “Their leadership has dragged them over the cliff, they are now a fringe organization.”

Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), a vocal supporter of tougher gun laws, accused the NRA Friday of “manipulating the debate” by “preying on the worst fears” of gun-owning Americans — people who, polls say, support many of the gun controls Obama is urging. He said the NRA’s blanket opposition to tougher laws won’t prevent reformers from fighting for those changes this year.

“We’re going to get one shot at the apple here, one bite,” Quigley said Friday by phone, “and it would be legislative malpractice for us not to try to take it as far as we possibly can.”

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/289955-the-nra-strikes-back#ixzz2OVzPxyba
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

 

PETITION URGING CONGRESS TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

 

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

 

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

 

This is a Reblogged from WND.

 

Posted by

 

PETITION URGENTLY REQUESTING THAT CONGRESS LAUNCH AN INDEPENDENT AND COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION INTO UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES ON THE PART OF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

 

To: All members of the U.S. Congress:

Whereas, top constitutional attorneys from across the political spectrum now agree that Barack Obama has committed certain specific offenses that unquestionably rise to the level of impeachable “high crimes and misdemeanors”;

Whereas, one of these offenses – that of illegally conducting war against Libya – has been deemed by a bipartisan panel of constitutional experts to be “clearly an impeachable offense” and “gross usurpation of the war power”;

Whereas, Obama’s policy of targeted assassinations of U.S. citizens without any constitutionally required due process – including the drone assassination of an American-born 16-year-old as he was eating dinner – is unanimously deemed by experts, both liberal and conservative, as “an impeachable offense”;

Whereas, Obama’s Justice Department has presided over the disastrous “Fast and Furious” operation in which approximately 2,000 firearms were directed from U.S. gun shops across the U.S.-Mexico border and into the hands of members of Mexican drug cartels, resulting in the deaths of as many as 100 people, including U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry – a scandal that constitutional experts agree constitutes, at a minimum, clear grounds for impeaching Attorney General Eric Holder;

Whereas, Obama has – in clear-cut violation of his oath to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” imposed by Article II of the Constitution – refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed into law in 1996 under President Bill Clinton;

Whereas, Obama usurped the authority of Congress by issuing an executive order in June 2012 declaring that illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. before they turned 16 and who are younger than 30 would not be deported – essentially duplicating the DREAM Act which failed to pass in Congress;

Whereas, Obama made several recess appointments in January 2012 while the Senate was still officially in session, actions the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently ruled violated the Constitution because they weren’t made when the Senate was in recess;

Whereas, Whereas, the Obama administration’s multi-faceted scandal in Benghazi, Libya, which resulted in the murder of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, is not only proof of what legal experts call tremendous “deceit” on the part of Obama and his top team, but a serious constitutional violation as well;

Whereas, Whereas, numerous other constitutional outrages characterize Obama’s presidency – from his administration’s abuses of citizens’ civil rights under cover of the PATRIOT Act; to the Obama Justice Department’s refusal to prosecute the worst case of voter intimidation in modern times, perpetrated by club-wielding New Black Panthers; to Obama’s appointment of more than 30 unelected “czars” to positions in federal agencies when the Constitution requires such appointments be vetted by Congress; and other instances of clear contempt for Congress, the Constitution and the American people:

SIGN THE PETITION

Therefore, Therefore, we the undersigned urge Congress to immediately undertake a full and impartial investigation into the many blatantly unconstitutional actions of Barack Obama, with particular focus on the illegal war against Libya and the illegal “kill list” of U.S. citizens – offenses universally condemned by top constitutional experts as both unprecedented and unquestionably impeachable. For members of Congress, who have also sworn solemn oaths to uphold the Constitution, to allow a president to routinely flaunt the Supreme Law of the Land without being held accountable is equally repugnant to a free country and a free people.

 

Weighing the Gun Control Argument


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

 

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

 

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

 

This is a Reblogged from http://www.americanthinker.com.

 

Posted by William Sullivan

     It is a bit misleading to call our current national discussion about gun control a “debate.”  Simply put, politicians and the media directing the discussion aren’t interested in evidence or conclusions contrary to those that they have a vested interest in disseminating.  They are interested merely in silencing any opposition, and they rely on their devoted acolytes to continue empowering them to do so.

It’s about belief for these acolytes, not proof.  Because they believe in the moral imperative, whether or not facts support their beliefs is unimportant.  They just blindly accept that what they’ve been told is true, and they look upon those who believe otherwise as dangerous heretics.

Yet in a somewhat intellectually quixotic self-perception, these gun-control zealots declare themselves the rational thinkers on the subject and believe their conclusions infallible, despite the fact that the hypotheses to which they are so devoted are rarely measured in the crucible of evidence.

Consider the most basic of their arguments — that access to guns needs to be restricted by the government, because access to guns is the most convincing variable that determines murder rates in our society.  Let’s just briefly weigh that assertion in the balance, and see how well it holds up to scrutiny. 

In 1960, data suggests that there were roughly 77.5 million guns owned by a population of just over 179 million, meaning that there was somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.3 guns per 10 Americans.  In that year, the murder rate in America was roughly 5.1 per 100,000 Americans. 

Fast-forward to 2009.  According to a Congressional Research Service report by William J. Krouse, 310 million guns were owned by Americans in that year by a population estimated to be 307 million, meaning there were probably more guns in America than there were Americans.

Now pause a moment, and remember that gun-control advocates contend that there exists a positive correlation between the number of readily accessible guns and the number of murders.  If true, we might expect such a surge in gun ownership (and guns that are owned are as readily accessible as guns get) to yield a much higher murder rate.  But in fact, the murder rate was lower in 2009 than in 1960 — at 5.0 per 100,000 Americans.   

Such inconsistency and an obviously flawed hypothesis might send a reasonable person back to the drawing board.  But gun control zealots just double down and get more specific.  Currently, the fashionable tactic is to appear a bit centrist by suggesting that it’s not all guns or the Second Amendment that they oppose, but rather just those scary looking semi-automatic guns people call “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines.  No one needs that kind of gun, and no one needs to fire that many bullets, they argue.

In terms of the practical purpose of the Second Amendment — that is, the preservation of individual liberty — it should be obvious, as I have argued before, why such weapons and such payloads are essential, and explicit in the verbiage of the Second Amendment is unquestionable proof that the federal government has no legal right to infringe upon a law-abiding American’s right to own them.  But since it is a common objection among the left that supporters of gun rights cling to their archaic Constitution (or that “little book,” as Piers Morgan calls it), rather than just accepting the idea that a new assault weapons ban would curtail violence, let’s examine a bit of data surrounding their claim.

That data can tell a pretty simple story to those willing to hear it.  The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004, and in that year, the murder rate was 5.5 per 100,000 Americans.  In 2011, that murder rate had declined to 4.7 per 100,000 Americans, which, incidentally, is the lowest murder rate in nearly four decades.  If the laws banning “assault weapons” were so incredibly effective, why have murder rates significantly fallen since it expired?  Not only did the federal government lift laws restricting “assault weapons,” but since then, many states expanded “concealed carry” rights, meaning that guns were all the more prevalent in public life during these years, with both criminals and the law-abiding being totally aware of that fact — and the result was a lower murder rate.

This is not to say the data shows a constant trend opposite of the one that gun control advocates suggest.  Murder rates have vacillated in big swings throughout the years, sometimes rising, sometimes falling, despite the fact that gun ownership has steadily increased.  Therefore, we must accept that more guns don’t always result in less murder, either, in terms of the data.  The point, however, is that the primary hypotheses that are the foundation of current gun control arguments are fatally flawed.  Neither the presence of guns (whether semi-automatic or outfitted with a large payload) nor the laws restricting them (which lawless murderers invariably ignore) are the most convincing variable that determines rates of murder in this country.    

It would certainly be valuable to have a discussion about how we can best reduce incidents of murder in America.  But it should be a discussion based upon reason, not emotional agendas to rob Americans of their fundamental liberties based upon specious and unsubstantiated arguments.  There are far more convincing variables to explain high rates of murder, whether we’re talking about large quantities of unheralded murders or isolated and sensationalized killing sprees.  And regarding the latter, considering that it has recently surfaced that Adam Lanza’s likely motivation for the massacre in Newtown was to surpass Oslo spree-killer Anders Breivik in notoriety, it might make sense that we examine the practical impact of the self-centered nature of our culture that values celebrity above all things.  And maybe it is a good idea to address the media’s sensationalism of the actions of demented spree-killers like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Seung-Hui Cho, Jared Loughner, Anders Breivik, and Aurora shooter James Holmes, all of whom were granted larger-than-life notoriety by the media for their actions.

But at these suggestions, gun control advocates generally return full circle to that flawed argument with which we began — that fewer guns and more gun control are the answer to curtail murder in America.  It’s as if the above-mentioned data roundly disproving the claim never existed, and they go on arguing their hypothesis in other ways, like comparing this place that has gun control to that place that doesn’t.

For example, gun-control advocates are very quick to point out that England has a lower murder rate than America and extremely restrictive gun control laws.  Notably absent from these keen observations, however, is the multitude of comparisons where the opposite is true, such as a comparison between America and, say, Russia, which has extremely strict gun control laws and few guns, but a murder rate that eclipses our own.

Of course, they generally neglect to use domestic examples, too, and with good reason — the opposite of their contention is almost invariably true in domestic comparisons.  Urban areas, for example, typically have stricter gun control laws and lower rates of gun ownership than rural areas, yet they have much higher murder rates.  And then there is the glaring example of Obama’s hometown, Chicago, which proudly touts its extremely progressive gun control laws while owning the highest murder rate in the nation.  But that doesn’t stop the devout masses from cheering in passionate agreement when the president suggests, with a repetitive cadence that would make Goebbels proud, that Chicago-style gun regulation be applied federally.

The implication of such ignorance is too grave to find any humor in that sad irony. 

The hypothesis we should be discussing is that cultural factors are much more convincing variables correlating to murder rates.  Take the consideration that widespread poverty and unemployment could have potentially contributed to the spike in murder rates in the late seventies, or that the proliferation of a culture of gang violence likely contributed to the sustained high murder rates in the early nineties, or the possibility that our current culture of celebrity and sensationalized violence is perhaps now leading to isolated spree-killing endeavors, if one is to take Adam Lanza’s supposed motive into consideration.

If there is to be any progress in the gun control “debate,” America must forego the commonly held fallacy that gun regulations upon the law-abiding will regulate the lawless.  Until then, we may be doomed to have reasonable arguments against gun control fall on deaf ears.

William Sullivan blogs at http://politicalpalaverblog.blogspot.com and can be followed on Twitter.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/weighing_the_gun_control

_argument.html#ixzz2LqYSbwFq
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

DHS Raids Gun Collector & Confiscates Nearly 1,500 Guns & No Charges Filed


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

 I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

 This is a Reblogged from freedomoutpost.com.


20130202-103003.jpg

    On Wednesday, the Department of Homeland Security, along with a SWAT team and Bernalillo County sheriff’s deputies raided the home of Robert Adams in Albuquerque, New Mexico and, according to a federal search warrant affidavit the raid seized nearly 1,500 firearms from the man’s home and business. However, no charges have been filed against him, despite the fact that court documents reveal that agents had been watching Adams for years.

By Wednesday afternoon dozens of rifles were hauled out of the house, bagged as evidence and laid out on the lawn.

According to search warrants that were filed on Thursday Homeland Security Investigations confiscated nearly 900 firearms from Adams’ home, 548 handguns and 317 rifles. They also seized 599 pistols and revolvers from his office.

Neighbors say that he was a firearms collector and some indicated that he was also a licensed gun seller. No confirmation of that has been forthcoming.

While having been watched for years and no charges filed as they seized Adam’s firearms, Federal investigators are saying that they are investigating him for gun smuggling, tax evasion, violating importation laws.

KRQE reports,

Court documents reveal federal agents were watching Adams for years and that some documentation was missing “to determine to whom Adams [was] selling or exporting his firearms.”

The guns were also not properly marked possibly to make the guns more valuable and to avoid paying high import taxes, investigators alleged.

However, a bigger concern is that no markings on the guns and missing documents mean the guns are not traceable by law enforcement.

The search warrant also said Adams was investigated in Canada for keeping about 80 illegal guns in a storage unit. U.S. agents worked with Canadian police on that case.

Kurt Nimmo points out, “New Mexico does not regulate or specifically restrict the possession of firearms. Owners are not required to register or license firearms with the state.

“No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms,” Article 2, Section 6 of the state constitution reads.

“Gun collectors are protected under the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986,” Nimmo writes. “The law states that a firearms dealer is defined as a person who is selling guns for profit or livelihood. Unlicensed individuals are allowed to sell firearms from their private collection without performing a background check on the buyer.”

Something seriously smells here. How can you be investigated for years, yet upon serving a search warrant you don’t put forth any charges against a man when you confiscate nearly 1,500 firearms? I wish they had taken this kind of approach to the Obama Justice Department’s gunwalking program that trafficked nearly 2,500 firearms across the border into Mexico that has left hundreds dead. No one is claiming that the firearms that Adams had were used in any crime!

So much for the Obama administration’s claims that they aren’t against gun collectors. Sports shooters and hunters, you’re up next.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/dhs-raids-homeowner-confiscates-nearly-1500-guns-no-charges-filed/#ixzz2JuSf7rr7

1,100 GREEN BERETS SET RECORD STRAIGHT ON GUNS


AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic’

Published: 1 hour ago

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Politicians, pundits and private citizens have been sounding off on Barack Obama’s new push for gun bans, but what do the professionals whose job it is to use guns in the protection of their nation, their fellow countrymen and themselves say?

Watch out.

An open letter has been posted on the Professional Soldiers blog that has been signed as of this writing by more than 1,100 current and former U.S. Army Special Forces soldiers, the Green Berets.

The soldiers say first it’s important to define the issue and set the record straight.

“The terms ‘assault weapon’ and ‘assault rifle’ are often confused,” they say. “According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, ‘Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assaults rifles.’”

The Green Berets, who use the weapons, point out the M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle – it is an assault rifle.”

“The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The ‘AR’ in its name does not stand for ‘Assault Rifle’ – it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!”

Likewise, they say, a ban on “high-capacity” magazines would be irrelevant, pointing to the shooting by Eric Harris at Columbine High School as proof. The letter explains that when the first weapons ban was adopted in 1994, manufacturers retooled their products to meet the requirements of the law.

“One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.”

And, underlying the issue, the letter says, is the Constitution’s assurance of protection for the “sacrosanct” right of self-defense.

“Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression,” they say..

They write that it is easy to blame guns, but weapons aren’t really the problem. Civilized society already proves it, they contend.

“We cite the experience in Great Britain,” they write. In 1987 was the Hungerford massacre that killed 18, and the government followed with a 1988 law banning semi-automatic guns. But eight years later, a “disturbed” man murdered 16 children and a teacher the Dunblane school. Immediately the law was amended to ban “all private ownership of handguns.”

Somehow, criminals apparently didn’t get the message, the letter suggests.

“Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35 percent over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 recorded crimes… Gun related homicides were up 32 percent over the same period. … Gun related crime had increased 65 percent since the Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world,” the letter says.

“In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related homicides in the U.S. declined by 9 percent from the 2005 high,” the letter says, citing FBI statistics.

Since gun bans don’t really impact violence, what is the issue at hand?

“The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny,” the Green Berets say.

“Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the Second Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.”

But school shootings are horrible and need to be addressed, they write.

“First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem.”

The military veterans say local schools should make their own decisions and plans.

“Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves.”

Further, those individuals with diagnosed conditions that impact their ability to make decisions can be addressed with programs of treatment.

“In each of these mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable,” the Green Berets says

Firearms safety programs in schools could help, and a repeal of laws making them gun-free zones should be considered by local officials.

Also, the violence in video games needs to be addressed.

“”War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said, ‘War is hell!’ Leave war to the professionals,’” the letter says

“This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set,” they write.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/1100-green-berets-set-record-straight-on-guns/#UcBXsUAiBIqef8De.99 

 

The Left Has NO Problem Breaking Law!


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from dailycaller.com.

Posted byVince Coglianese Senior Online Editor

Brock’s Glock: In anti-gun DC, Media Matters for America gave bodyguard illegal weapons to guard founder David Brock

A staffer at left-wing Media Matters for America committed numerous felonies in the District of Columbia and around the country by carrying a firearm to defend the organization’s founder, David Brock, The Daily Caller has learned.

According to a knowledgeable source, multiple firearms used to protect the Media Matters founder were purchased with Brock’s blessing — and apparently with the group’s money.

TheDC has previously reported that Brock’s one-time aide, Haydn Price-Morris, carried a concealed Glock handgun as he traveled with the liberal leader to public events in Washington, D.C. (RELATED: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, Media Matters’ close coordination with White House and news organizations)

But the extent of Brock’s armed activities have been largely unknown until now, even among those closest to him. An array of current and former Media Matters sources, all with intimate knowledge about the inner workings of the organization, granted extensive interviews to TheDC.

Brock, whose struggles with mental health have seen him hospitalized in the past, became increasingly concerned by late 2010 that he was being targeted by right-wing assassins.

TheDC has learned that by that time, Brock had armed his assistant — who had no permit to carry a concealed firearm — with a Glock handgun.

According to an internal email exchange obtained by TheDC, the gun was purchased with cash in Maryland, likely to diminish the chances such a purchase would appear on the tax-exempt group’s books.

Between Price-Morris’ early 2009 arrival and late 2010 departure from Media Matters, he also acquired a shotgun for Brock’s protection.

Price-Morris was regularly armed when accompanying Brock on trips around the country, according to a source, and his firearm possession in Washington, D.C. constituted multiple felonies.

On at least one occasion, Brock — accompanied by his armed aide — visited California to attend a “Democracy Alliance” summit of major Democratic donors and lawmakers.

That gathering included such major figures in Democratic politics as billionaires George Soros, Peter Lewis and Bill Benter, former Service Employees International Union Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger, and the politician behind the federal government’s 1994 “Assault Weapons Ban,” California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

On Thursday, Feinstein re-introduced a new version of the ban which would reinstate and greatly expand the law, which expired in 2004. Reached Thursday, a spokesman for Feinstein did not respond to a request for comment related to the senator’s attendance, alongside Brock and Price-Morris, at the Democracy Alliance meeting.

Spokespersons for Soros and Benter did not reply to emailed requests for comment.

Brock’s bodyguard had a personal weapon with a 17-round magazine

It’s unclear if Price-Morris was carrying his Media Matters-supplied Glock to that Democracy Alliance summit, but a well-placed source told TheDC he was carrying a concealed weapon at the event.

Brock’s aide was a “gun enthusiast,” according to the source, and often selected a weapon from his personal collection of firearms that would suit a given occasion and his taste. Price-Morris would occasionally carry a separate Glock that he owned personally, one with a high-capacity magazine — 17-rounds — if his outfit was loose enough to conceal the weapon.

Media Matters had reason to be concerned about news of its use of firearms becoming public. (RELATED: The Daily Caller’s complete coverage of Media Matters for America)

Aside from risking the disapproval or outrage of disenchanted anti-gun donors, it appears Media Matters personnel may have committed several serious crimes.

“If he carried it in DC, that’s a felony,” Stephen Halbrook, a D.C.-area lawyer with more than 35 years of experience practicing gun law nationwide, confirmed to TheDC.

“Any weapon [with] over 10 rounds is illegal under D.C. law,” said Halbrook of Price-Morris’ 17-round-capacity Glock. “And this is for mere possession. If you have a gun that’s unregistered, that’s another felony by the way.”

“If you’re carrying it around, you’re committing two crimes: one, the crime of carrying the firearm, and two, having it unregistered — the status of it being unregistered. Both of those would be felonies,” he explained.

“And then the ammunition can be a separate charge: If you don’t have a registered gun, then you can’t have ammunition in D.C.”

For carrying a fully-loaded Glock in Washington without a permit, Price-Morris “could be looking at some substantial prison time because if we use the low-end felony sentence of five years, you could get five years for the non-registration, five for the carrying, and then [more for] the second offenses of the magazine being over 10 rounds and then the cartridges,” said Halbrook.

Halbrook said Brock also risks facing criminal charges.

It could be considered a criminal “conspiracy,” Halbrook explained, “if they set up this arrangement and everything that was done was illegal. Then they would be a conspirator, or maybe an aider or abettor of a crime.”

Aside from Brock and Price-Morris, few at Media Matters knew Brock had armed his aide, according to multiple Media Matters sources.

One source described Brock as “very shy,” explaining that while Price-Morris was there, he rarely confided in anyone outside of his aide and two other people: then-Media Matters president Eric Burns and Brock’s longtime fundraiser, Mary Pat Bonner.

Burns has since started his own public relations firm and would not respond to TheDC’s requests for comment.

Bonner, who sources say now shares office space with Brock inside Media Matters, also did not respond to an emailed request for comment.

‘Holy shit! It was so beyond what was acceptable’

Whether they were aware of the guns or not, Media Matters sources viewed Price-Morris as “very protective” of Brock.

Reflecting on an incident — previously reported by TheDC — where Price-Morris whisked his boss from the roof of Media Matters’ Washington headquarters for fear of “snipers,” one former staffer said Brock’s aide was “a strange kind of guy.”

“I think he [Price-Morris] worried more about David’s security than David worried about it,” she said.

She was one of several sources that expressed displeasure with Price-Morris’ demeanor, calling him a “loose cannon.”

“Haydn was another one of those people that nobody in the office really got along with,” she said.

He was “arrogant,” agreed another source, who said Price-Morris exuded a “sense of entitlement” exceptional even for Washington, D.C.

Many of Brock’s senior employees claim they were caught completely by surprise when in late 2010, staffers became aware of Price-Morris’ gun after he revealed his concealed weapon to a female employee.

One former senior employee told TheDC the Media Matters staff was “shocked” to learn of the gun. Another said the in-house reaction was “like, ‘Holy shit!’ It was so beyond what was acceptable.”

Speaking to TheDC, multiple Media Matters staffers described an atmosphere of confusion surrounding why Price-Morris had a gun when so much of the liberal organization’s work was aimed at restricting the public’s access to firearms.

In the aftermath of the December 14 school shooting in Newtown, Conn., Media Matters has been on the gun control warpath, commissioning hundreds of pieces supportive of restrictions on firearms.

As one source put it, Brock was “terrified” that the gun story would get out.

“George Soros and a lot of groups connected to gun control are funding this group, and they wouldn’t be too happy that an employee of Media Matters was carrying a gun, especially when it was illegal in D.C.,” said the source.

The Joyce Foundation, a Chicago-based philanthropy whose board of directors included Barack Obama from 1994 to 2002, awarded $400,000 to Media Matters for “a gun and public safety issue initiative” in 2010 — the same year the staff learned of Price-Morris’ gun. (RELATED: Left-wing foundations lavish millions on Media Matters)

A spokeswoman for the Joyce Foundation did not respond to a request for comment.

Likewise, the David Bohnett Foundation — started by Geocities co-founder David Bohnett — gave Media Matters $75,000 between 2010 and 2011, specifically for “gun safety” operations.

Foundation executive director Michael Fleming declined to comment for this report.

One former Media Matters staffer expressed disbelief that Brock could have approved of Price-Morris carrying a concealed weapon. “I can’t imagine David wouldn’t have known this wasn’t the type of thing that wouldn’t blow up in his face,” the source explained.

Despite Brock’s knowledge of the guns, his organization successfully laid the blame for the lapse in judgment at Price-Morris’ feet, and he was quickly let go.

Price-Morris disappeared from Washington, D.C. not long after, moving with his wife from their Annapolis, Md. home to Jersey City, N.J. — but not before returning the guns to Media Matters through a third party.

Emails: how Media Matters got rid of the guns

By the beginning of April 2011, Media Matters was scrambling to retrieve the weapons from Price-Morris. An email exchange obtained by TheDC shows that the group clearly had a stake in the weapons.

Matt Reents, a former senior Media Matters staffer, emailed Price-Morris on April 4, 2011 asking him to transfer ownership of a shotgun to a man named Robert Stewart. Reents also explained that the Glock would be surrendered to the police.

“MD [Maryland] law doesn’t require paperwork or registration when transferring a shotgun,” Reents emailed Price-Morris that Monday morning. “For our records, you will just need to sign a letter designating Robert Stewart as the new owner of the gun (I’ll send the letter to sign once Robert gives me the shotgun’s serial number to put in the letter).”

“Robert is also going to surrender the handgun to the police,” Reents continued. “As it was not registered, this will be straight-forward and won’t require any additional action on your part. If you have any purchase documentation on the handgun, let me know (it was purchased with cash, right?).”

Read the emails:

It’s unclear what police department the handgun was surrendered to. A spokeswoman for Washington, D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department told TheDC that the department would have to do too much “digging” to provide a timely response for this report.

Price-Morris replied to Reents minutes later, claiming the Glock “was registered in MD” and that Stewart had already “removed it from Maryland.”

“There is no paperwork of the registration on file,” Reents responded, “and Rob ran the handgun in the police system to verify. Do you have a copy of the handgun registration? Either way it won’t be a problem for turning the handgun pack into the police for disposal. But please let me know what paperwork you do have so we can complete the file and dispose of the gun properly. Thanks!”

“[Y]es, will do,” Price-Morris replied.

Reents, who for nine months was simultaneously operations manager at Media Matters and director of operations for Brock’s American Bridge 21st Century political action committee, could not be reached for comment. (RELATED: After slow start, Brock’s American Bridge takes $1 mil from Soros)

Reents is no longer with either group, according to his LinkedIn profile.

In early 2012, when TheDC began investigating Price-Morris’ departure, he frantically phoned Media Matters to alert the group that he had received inquiries.

“They asked me if David had me bring a gun to work,” he warned someone at the organization, according to an inside source.

Price-Morris would not comment on the record for this report, but Media Matters insiders told TheDC that his silence is rumored, internally, to have been purchased by the group.

Reached by phone Thursday afternoon, Media Matters spokeswoman Jess Levin told TheDC, “Let me think about it and I will get back to you.”

Media Matters did not return that request for comment.

Alex Pappas contributed to this report.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/27/illegal-guns-david-brock-media-matters/#ixzz2JJewXtf3

 

A (Not So) Brief History of the Gun


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from www.americanthinker.com.

Posted byTrevor Thomas

As debates about guns and gun rights in America rage, truly to understand the gun, one needs to look at its history.  The story of the gun is a fascinating and riveting look not only at history, but also at science, business, politics, justice, and morality.  Throw in a great deal of ingenuity, a good deal of heroism, and a small dose of romance, and the story of the gun is the world’s greatest tale of human invention.

The gun’s story begins with the invention (or discovery) of gunpowder.  Gunpowder most likely was invented just prior to 1000 A.D.  It became rather prominent around the turn of the twelfth century.  Theories abound about who actually invented gunpowder, but no one really knows.

According to noted historian Ian Hogg, “[t]he first positive statement relating to gunpowder appears in a document written in 1242 by Roger Bacon entitled On the Miraculous Power of Art and Nature.  Hogg also notes that since, during that period, “fiery compositions” were considered an element of the “Black Arts,” Bacon, a Franciscan friar, concealed his formula in an anagram (which remained unsolved for over 600 years).

Early guns were really cannons.  The first illustration of a cannon appears in a 1326 work entitled On the Duties of Kings, prepared for King Edward III of England.  These early cannons fired large stone balls — sometimes weighing up to 200 pounds.  However, such stones were still lighter than iron shot of a similar diameter and, due to the relative weakness of early gunpowder, were safer to use.

Such cannons were massive and thus difficult to move.  Smaller calibers that were more mobile were much desired.  This led to the development of the “hand-gonne.”  These were simply miniature iron or bronze cannon barrels attached to the end of a lengthy wooden staff.

By the 15th century, “arms of fire” with a lock, stock, and a barrel — the same basic look we have today — became somewhat common.  The first weapon that could be carried, loaded, and discharged by a single man became known as the matchlock.  This was a muzzle-loading gun that was discharged when a hand-lit match was lowered into the flash pan.

The term “lock” most likely originated from the fact that the gun-lock operated in a similar fashion to the locking mechanisms of the day.

These early guns were not very accurate or reliable.  They could be quite dangerous to use (as the burning wick necessary to ignite the powder in the flash pan was often in close proximity to the stores of powder on the user), and were virtually useless in wet weather. The matchlock also was not very useful for hunting, as the burning wick alerted most every type of game.

A new lock design for igniting the powder was needed.  Thus, around 1500 A.D., the world was introduced to the wheel lock.  The wheel lock made use of a centuries-old process for lighting fires: striking stone against steel and catching the sparks. No longer was a cumbersome and dangerous burning cord necessary for discharging a gun.

For the first time, a firearm could now be carried loaded, primed, and ready to fire.  Again, the actual inventor is unknown, but Leonardo da Vinci had one of the earliest drawings of a wheel lock design.

The wheel lock also led to another advancement in firearms: the pistol.  For the first time, a weapon could now be carried concealed.  It was at this point that many of the first laws against carrying firearms came into being.

Like the matchlock, the wheel lock had its shortcomings.  If the wrench necessary to wind the wheel was lost, the weapon was rendered useless.  Also, with over 50 individual parts, the wheel lock was of a complicated and intricate design.  This made the gun very costly to own and difficult and expensive to maintain.

Efforts toward a simpler, less expensive, and more reliable gun led to the next significant step in firearms: the flintlock.  The first flintlock design was by the Frenchman Marin le Bourgeoys around 1615.  The flintlock was a more simple design, and most of the moving parts were inside the gun.  This made it much more weather-proof than its predecessors.

For over 200 years, the flintlock was the standard firearm of European armies.  It was used in the greatest battles of the 18th century and helped determine many of the rulers of Europe, not to mention helped set the borders of many European nations.  The flintlock brought to an end the armor-wearing knight and also saw the end of the Napoleonic wars.

The flintlock was also the customary firearm of the young United States and was instrumental in our battle for independence.  In fact, to battle lawlessness and Indians, and to put food on the table, the gun was the most essential and prized tool in early America.  As soon as they were old enough properly to hold and fire a flintlock, many young American boys were expected to help feed their families.  Thus, generations of boys growing up and using guns from a young age played no small part in America winning her independence.  “The Americans [are] the best marksmen in the world,” lamented a minister of the Church of England in 1775.

The first original American contribution to firearms was the Kentucky rifle (which was made in Pennsylvania).  This gun was superior to most every European contemporary.  It was longer and lighter, and it used a smaller caliber than other muzzle-loading guns at the time.  Most importantly, as the name indicates, the Kentucky gun was “rifled.”  This process, which involves cutting helical grooves inside the gun barrel, greatly increased accuracy.

A bullet fired from a rifled gun spins and thus helps stabilize any bullet imperfections (which were usually significant in the 18th century) that otherwise would distort flight (think bow and arrow vs. slingshot).

In spite of all this, most American Revolutionaries still carried smooth-bore muskets.  Kentucky rifles did take longer to load than smooth-bore muskets, and often the volume of fire was/is more important than accuracy.  General George Washington did make significant use of American marksmen armed with the Kentucky rifle, though.  These riflemen played major roles (as in picking off British officers) in such conflicts as the Battle of Saratoga (see Morgan’s Riflemen).

The birth of a new nation meant the need for a national armory.  In 1777, General Washington settled on a strategic location in Springfield Massachusetts as the setting for the armory.  In addition to being important for our national defense, the Springfield Armory led the world in technological advancements that would change manufacturing forever.

The manufacture of firearms at Springfield helped usher in the age of mass production.  An ingenious inventor named Thomas Blanchard, who worked for the Springfield Armory for five years, created a special lathe for the production of wooden gun stocks.

Such a lathe allowed for the easy manufacture of objects of irregular shape.  This led, for example, to the easy mass production of shoes.  Many other technical industries — such as the typewriter, sewing machine, and bicycle — were also born out of the gun industry.  Factories that produced such products were often located near firearm manufacturers, as the firearms industry possessed the most skilled craftsman necessary for creating the complicated parts for such machines.

The Springfield Armory also introduced contemporary business practices to manufacturing.  Concepts such as hourly wages and cost accounting practices became customary at Springfield and were important steps in modernizing manufacturing.

The next step in firearms development came from a minister.  Due to his severe frustration with the delay between trigger pull and gunfire (which too often allowed for the escape of his prized target: wild ducks) from his flintlock, the Reverend Alexander Forsyth invented the percussion cap.

Inside the cap is a small amount of impact-sensitive explosive (like fulminate of mercury). Thus, muzzle-loading guns now did not have to rely on exposed priming powder to fire, were quicker to fire, and were almost completely weather-proof.  However, gun users were still plagued by a centuries-old problem: they were limited to a single shot before reloading. Enter Samuel Colt.

Making use of the percussion cap, in 1836, Colt (with the aid of a mechanic, John Pearson) perfected and patented a revolving handgun.  Although little of Colt’s design was original, he ingeniously brought together existing features of previous guns and fashioned them into a mechanically elegant and reliable revolver.

Along with being an inventor, Colt was a shrewd and capable businessman.  His genius was not only in his gun design, but in the techniques used to manufacture it.  His guns were made using interchangeable parts (made by machine and assembled by hand).

In 1847, with an order of 1,000 pistols from the U.S. Army but no factory to build them, Colt looked to noted gun-maker Eli Whitney (often called “the father of mass production”) to help fill the order.  It was the production of guns, and men such as Whitney and Colt, that led the way in the pioneering and perfection of the assembly line.

When Colt’s American patent expired in 1857, there were many who stood ready to take the next step in firearms — none more so than a pair of men who had spent much of their time perfecting ammunition: Horace Smith and Daniel Wesson.  In 1856, just in time to take advantage of Colt’s expiring patent, their partnership produced the world’s first revolver that fired a fully self-contained cartridge.  This cartridge was a “rimfire” variety that Smith and Wesson patented in 1854.

As handguns were progressing, long arms were beginning to catch up.  This is where another American icon enters our history: a wealthy shirt maker named Oliver Winchester.  Winchester took over a fledgling arms company in 1855 and in 1857 hired a gunsmith named Tyler Henry to turn it around.

By 1860, Henry had created a breech-loading lever-action repeating rifle (firing 16 rounds). The Henry Repeating Rifle was a tremendously popular, useful, and reliable gun.  It was this weapon that began to make the single-shot muzzle-loading rifle obsolete.

In 1866, Winchester improved on the Henry rifle and produced a model named after himself.  The Winchester model 1866 fired 18 rounds, had a wooden forearm to make it less hot to handle, and contained the familiar side-loading port.

It was in 1873 that the two most legendary guns of the Old West were produced — the Winchester model 1873 (which was a larger caliber than the 1866 model) and the Colt model 1873, otherwise known as “The Peacemaker.”  Carrying on with the savvy business sense of its founder, the Colt Company built this model to hold the exact same ammunition as the Winchester model 1873.

Though such guns put more firepower in the hands of an individual than ever before, they paled in comparison to what was next.  With virtually every step in gun advancement, there were many attempts toward the same goal.  This was no different for the “machine gun.”

Certainly the most famous of the early versions of the machine gun was the Gatling Gun.  Mounted on a central axis with six rotating barrels, the Gatling Gun was fired by hand turning a rotating crank mounted on the side.  Although not a true automatic, the Gatling could achieve several hundred rounds per minute.

The most successful and famous of the early fully automatic guns was the Maxim gun.  Invented by an American-born Brit, Sir Hiram Stevens Maxim, this gun was introduced in 1884.  The maxim was completely automatic in the sense that it was “self-powered.”  In other words, using the tremendous amount of energy that was released when the gun was fired, it was now unnecessary for a discharged cartridge to be manually ejected and the next cartridge to be manually loaded.  With the Maxim gun, this action continues with a single trigger pull.  Maxim’s gun could fire 10 rounds per second.

Maxim spent several years studying how to put the recoil energy of a gun to good use.  He patented virtually every possible way of automatically operating a gun — so much so that, as Ian Hogg put it, “he could have probably quoted [only] one of his many patents and stifled machine gun development for the next  21 years, since almost every successful machine gun design can be foreseen in a Maxim patent.”

Men like John Browning, Baron Von Odkolek, John Thompson, Mikhail Kalashnikov, and several others built off Maxim’s success, and machine guns became smaller and lighter.

This brings us into the 20th century, where fully automatic weapons that could be carried and operated by a single man were commonplace and necessary for any successful army.

From before the founding of this great nation, firearms have been essential to the preservation of life, the enforcement of law and justice, and the establishment and protection of liberty.  Our Founding Fathers understood well how important the gun was to the founding and maintaining of liberty in the U.S.

Thus, they gave us: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…”  And just what is the “militia”?  No less than the co-author of the 2nd Amendment, George Mason, tells us: “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people[.] … To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

What’s more, the technology that drove the progression of firearms and the improved manufacturing and business practices adopted at gun factories propelled the U.S. into the Industrial Age.  America owes much to the gun.  Americans, whether they are gun owners or not, whether they love them or despise them, would be wise to remember all that the gun has meant to this nation and hope and pray that guns remain in the hands of its citizens.

Trevor Grant Thomas: at the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason. www.trevorgrantthomas.com

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/a_not_so_brief_history_of_the_gun.html#ixzz2IadJ6Fz7
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

The Roots of Mass Murder


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

 

 

An assault rifle similar to the one used by Adam Lanza

 

Charles Krauthammer

 

Every mass shooting has three elements: the killer, the weapon, and the cultural climate. As soon as the shooting stops, partisans immediately pick their preferred root cause, with its corresponding pet panacea. Names are hurled, scapegoats paraded, prejudices vented. The argument goes nowhere.

Let’s be serious:

THE WEAPON
Within hours of last week’s Newtown, Conn., massacre, the focus was the weapon and the demand was for new gun laws. Several prominent pro-gun Democrats remorsefully professed new openness to gun control. Senator Dianne Feinstein is introducing a new assault-weapons ban. And the president emphasized guns and ammo above all else in announcing the creation of a new task force.

I have no problem in principle with gun control. Congress enacted (and I supported) an assault-weapons ban in 1994. The problem was: It didn’t work. (So concluded a University of Pennsylvania study commissioned by the Justice Department.) The reason is simple. Unless you are prepared to confiscate all existing firearms, disarm the citizenry, and repeal the Second Amendment, it’s almost impossible to craft a law that will be effective.

Feinstein’s law, for example, would exempt 900 weapons. And that’s the least of the loopholes. Even the guns that are banned can be made legal with simple, minor modifications.

Most fatal, however, is the grandfathering of existing weapons and magazines. That’s one of the reasons the 1994 law failed. At the time, there were 1.5 million assault weapons in circulation and 25 million large-capacity (i.e., more than ten bullets) magazines. A reservoir that immense can take 100 years to draw down.

THE KILLER
Monsters shall always be with us, but in earlier days they did not roam free. As a psychiatrist in Massachusetts in the 1970s, I committed people — often right out of the emergency room — as a danger to themselves or to others. I never did so lightly, but I labored under none of the crushing bureaucratic and legal constraints that make involuntary commitment infinitely more difficult today.

Why do you think we have so many homeless? Destitution? Poverty has declined since the 1950s. The majority of those sleeping on grates are mentally ill. In the name of civil liberties, we let them die with their rights on.

A tiny percentage of the mentally ill become mass killers. Just about everyone around Tucson shooter Jared Loughner sensed he was mentally ill and dangerous. But in effect, he had to kill before he could be put away — and (forcibly) treated.

Random mass killings were three times more common in the 2000s than in the 1980s, when gun laws were actually weaker. Yet a 2011 University of California at Berkeley study found that states with strong civil-commitment laws have about a one-third lower homicide rate.

THE CULTURE
We live in an entertainment culture soaked in graphic, often sadistic, violence. Older folks find themselves stunned by what a desensitized youth finds routine, often amusing. It’s not just movies. Young men sit for hours pulling video-game triggers, mowing down human beings en masse without pain or consequence. And we profess shock when a small cadre of unstable, deeply deranged, dangerously isolated young men go out and enact the overlearned narrative.

If we’re serious about curtailing future Columbines and Newtowns, everything — guns, commitment, culture — must be on the table. It’s not hard for President Obama to call out the NRA. But will he call out the ACLU? And will he call out his Hollywood friends?

The irony is that over the last 30 years, the U.S. homicide rate has declined by 50 percent. Gun murders as well. We’re living not through an epidemic of gun violence but through a historic decline.

Except for these unfathomable mass murders. But these are infinitely more difficult to prevent. While law deters the rational, it has far less effect on the psychotic. The best we can do is to try to detain them, disarm them, and discourage “entertainment” that can intensify already murderous impulses.

But there’s a cost. Gun control impinges upon the Second Amendment; involuntary commitment impinges upon the liberty clause of the Fifth Amendment; curbing “entertainment” violence impinges upon First Amendment–protected free speech.

That’s a lot of impingement, a lot of amendments. But there’s no free lunch. Increasing public safety almost always means restricting liberties.

We made that trade after 9/11. We make it every time the TSA invades your body at an airport. How much are we prepared to trade away after Newtown?

Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2012 theWashington Post Writers Group.

 

Post Navigation

Brittius

Honor America

China Daily Mail

News and Opinions From Inside China

sentinelblog

GOLD is the money of the KINGS, SILVER is the money of the GENTLEMEN, BARTER is the money of the PEASANTS, but DEBT is the money of the SLAVES!!!

Politically Short

The American Reality Outside The Beltway

My Opinion My Vote

America needs saving

America: Going Full Retard...

Word: They are acting. They are creating. They are framing their reality around you. And we … we bark at the end of our leashes. Our ambition for freedumb is at the end of our leash.

hillbillysurvival

The greatest WordPress.com site in all the land!

I am removing this blog and I have opened a new one at:

http://texasteapartypatriots.wordpress.com/

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

Lissa's Humane Life | In Honor of George & All Targeted Individuals — END TIMES HARBINGER OF TRUTH ~ STANDING FIRM IN THE LAST HUMAN AGE OF A GENOCIDAL DARKNESS —

— Corporate whistle blower and workers’ comp claimant, now TARGETED INDIVIDUAL, whose claims exposed Misdeeds after the murder of my husband on their jobsite by the U.S. NWO Military Industrial Complex-JFK Warned Us—

Linux Power Wordpress.com

Just another WordPress.com weblog

redpillreport.wordpress.com/

The ‘red pill’ and its opposite, ‘blue pill,‘ are pop culture terms that have become symbolic of the choice between blissful ignorance (blue) and embracing the sometimes-painful truth of reality (red). It’s time for America to take the red pill and wake up from the fog of apathy.

The Mad Jewess

Mirror Site For Reflection

Freedom Is Just Another Word...

Rules?? What Are rules? I don't need no stinking rules!!!

sharia unveiled

illuminating minds

JUSTICE FOR RAYMOND

Sudden, unexplained, unattended death and a families search for answers

THE GOVERNMENT RAG BLOG

TGR Intelligence Briefing | Sign up for newsletter to receive notifications | Visit us at http://thegovernmentrag.com

Flyover-Press.com

Dedicated to freedom in our lifetimes

News You May Have Missed

News you need to know to stay informed

Automattic

Making the web a better place

%d bloggers like this: