Bobusnr

Uncatagorized

Archive for the category “Second Amendment to the United States Constitution”

POLL: MAJORITY WANT BENGHAZI SELECT COMMITTEE


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.breitbart.com/ :

 

Posted by:MATTHEW BOYLE


A poll released by Democratic pollster Pat Caddell and Republican pollster John McLaughlin shows that a vast majority of American voters want a special select committee to investigate the Benghazi scandal. However, House Speaker John Boehner is denying them a shot at it.

WHY is he stopping it ?

Secure America Now president Allen Roth, whose organization commissioned the poll, points to it as a major reason why he signed a letter to Boehner sent Monday that demands he stop obstructing the investigation and install a select committee.

“In a recent national poll, conducted by Democrat Pat Caddell and Republican John McLaughlin, 62% of Americans say it is important that Congress create a special committee to get to the truth about Benghazi,” Roth told Breitbart news in an email over the weekend before the letter became public. “A large majority of House Republicans agree. The American people understand that if Republican leaders allow the Obama Administration to cover up its negligence that led to unnecessary deaths of Americans, it would be a crime. We will continue to apply pressure on House leadership until they create a select committee.”

Roth’s group’s poll was released in late October and showed that 62 percent of voters believe that congressional leaders should create a select committee on Benghazi, whereas only 32 percent think such a procedure is not important. More specifically, 83 percent of GOP voters and 58 percent of independents support a select committee, while 50 percent of Democratic voters oppose a select committee. A majority of self-identified moderate voters, 53 percent, want a select committee as well.

Conservative leader Ginni Thomas, who also signed the letter to Boehner, told Breitbart News: “Americans can see John Boehner is not serious about using the constitutional powers of investigation to get at the truth of Benghazi. On the anniversary of September 11 in 2012, Americans should have been rescued in a firefight started by radical Islamists, not left alone while the president prepares to go to a fundraiser the next day in Las Vegas.”

“Republicans are playing ‘small ball legislating’ when America wants professional investigations and accountability from an administration that is running circles around Republicans,” Thomas continued. “If Republicans with gavels don’t do oversight capably, garnering the respect of the Obama administration, at some point, Republicans are as complicit in the scandal. We are approaching that deadline.”

DNC sends email defending Obama from impeachment possibility


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://dailycaller.com

 

Posted by:Patrick Howley

DNC sends email defending Obama from impeachment possibility

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) sent out a paranoid email Saturday evening urging supporters to vote for Democrats so that Republicans can’t impeach President Obama.

The email, subject line “Impeachment,” was sent to Obama for America supporters, imploring them to contribute to the DNC’s 2014 efforts. “What do these people all have in common?,” the email asked, featuring quotes from Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Rep. Kerry Bentivolio of Michigan, and Rep. Blake Farenthold of Texas discussing the possibility of impeaching Obama for one of his numerous instances of presidential misconduct.

The DNC email discussed the “I-Word” and said that “Republicans are actually excited about the idea.”

“Show these Republicans that they are way, way off-base, and give President Obama a Congress that has his back,” according to the DNC email, noting that Democrats need to win 17 GOP House seats to reclaim a majority.

The DNC, which recently expanded its political tactics to include boycotting independent news outlets, previously supported the last president to be impeached: Bill Clinton.

Obama’s staff changed key talking points on the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack; his Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups during the 2012 election cycle; and Obama personally lied to the American people when he told them that they could keep their existing doctors and health insurance plans under Obamacare.

Obama’s expansion of executive branch authority is “setting the stage for something very dangerous in the future” according to Republican Rep. Justin Amash.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/28/dnc-sends-email-defending-obama-from-impeachment-possibility/#ixzz2orC4uvhK

Saudis lament, ‘we have been stabbed in the back by 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!

 

Reblogged from:FoxNews.com

 

Posted by:Richard Miniter

Obama lying more

Arabs don’t trust Obama either.

As 2013 ends, President Obama has lost credibility with many people who trusted him at the start of the year. Thanks to the Healthcare.gov debacle, polls find support for the president among women and independents has dropped to the lowest ebb of his presidency. Obama’s words — promising Americans they could keep their doctors under his health care plan — didn’t match his deeds.

Surprisingly, the same thing is happening on the other side of the world among Arabs in the Middle East and for the same reason.

Too often, Obama’s speeches and actions don’t match.

“We are glad the Americans are here,” said Ahmed al-Ibrahim, an adviser to some of Saudi Arabia’s royals and officials, when I met with him recently, “but we fear that the president has lost credibility after Syria.”

Astonished Saudi officials are contrasting Obama’s quick actions in South Sudan with his unwillingness to act in places like Syria or in Bahrain.

The Saudi official is referring to Obama’s “red line” vow of military action if the Syrian dictator Bashir Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. Assad did and Obama didn’t. Saudi officials were stunned.

Next came the revelation earlier this year that Obama was secretly negotiating with Iran, the mortal enemy of both Israel and Saudi Arabia. Officials in both nations have told me that they simply don’t believe that the president can sweet-talk the mullahs out of the weapons they have coveted for years.

“The bond of trust between America and Saudi Arabia has been broken in the Obama years,” al-Ibrahim said. “We feel we have been stabbed in the back by Obama.”

“Every time that Obama had to choose between his enemies and his friends, he always chose his enemies,” he said. “We don’t know what he’s putting in his tea.”

Al-Ibrahim also pointed to Obama’s “dangerous inaction” during violent Iran-backed uprisings in Bahrain, and now his negotiations with Iran, and his separate, secret negotiations with Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah. Since American officials cannot legally negotiate with terrorist groups and Hezbollah is a State Department-listed terror organization, the administration has been using British diplomats to carry messages to Hezbollah. The Obama administration reportedly favors a “warm up to a direct relationship in the future” with Hezbollah.

Obama is sending conflicting messages. In Washington, the president says negotiations are all we need to meet the Iranian threat. He issued a rare veto threat to try to halt tougher sanctions against Iran.

At the same time, in the Middle East, the president has dispatched more than 40 U.S. Navy vessels (including a carrier-strike group) and sent his secretary of defense to detail America’s vast military assets in the region.

Speaking to Arab defense ministers, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel itemized America’s military commitment to immediately respond to Iranian aggression:

• More than 35,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines in the theater;
• Even after exiting Iraq, the U.S. Army maintains more than 10,000 forward-deployed soldiers as well as tanks, artillery, and attack helicopters;
• America’s most advanced fighter jets, including F-22s, are deployed less than an hour’s flight time from Iran;
• American surveillance aircraft, ground listening stations, satellites, and sea patrols continue to scan for threats across the region;
• America’s missile defense systems–on ground, sea, and air–remain on high alert. That includes the U.S. Navy’s ballistic missile defense ships, Patriot missile batteries, and phased-array radars.

“The Department of Defense will work with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) on better integration of its members’ missile defense capabilities. The United States continues to believe that a multilateral framework is the best way to develop interoperable and integrated regional missile defense. Such defenses are the best way to deter and, if necessary, defeat coercion and aggression,” Hagel told the Gulf News on Dec.18.

With little fanfare, Obama has also quietly lifted the ban on selling sensitive missile-defense technology to Saudi Arabia and other Arab allies living within reach of Iran’s new Shahab-3 missiles. The Shahab-3’s range is 1,242 miles–placing Israel and most of America’s Arab allies within striking distance.

However, Obama’s quiet efforts to provide new missile defenses and renewed security guarantees may be too little, too late.

The Saudis are now seeking their own military arrangements because they no longer trust the U.S. The GCC, a regional alliance of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, recently announced the creation of a joint military force based in the Saudi capital of Riyadh. 

“There will be a unified command of around 100,000 members, God willing,” Prince Miteb bin Abdullah told reporters. This new force represents a massive expansion of the 30,000-strong Peninsula Shield force.

“We no longer believe that America alone can safeguard our freedom from Iranian aggression,” said al-Ibrahim, “that’s why we are expanding our forces and integrating our missile defenses with our neighbors.”

He added, “the world should understand that the GCC will not stay quiet and leave our member-states vulnerable to bad actors and bad deals in the region. It is our duty to protect our region.”

And now, astonished Saudi officials are contrasting Obama’s quick actions last weekend in South Sudan with his unwillingness to act in places like Syria or in Bahrain where thousands of U.S. troops and the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet are based.

“The president has shown that he can take action when he chooses to. He chose not to act after the chemical weapons attacks in Syria, but as soon as things started to go wrong in South Sudan, Obama jumped on it,” said al-Ibrahim.

On Saturday, Obama dispatched three CV-22 Osprey aircraft, the sort that can fly like an airplane and an helicopter, to South Sudan to evacuate Americans caught in ongoing violence in the city of Bor. The aircraft came under small arms fire and were forced to retreat as they attempted to land. Four U.S. service members were injured in the attempted evacuation. American citizens were rescued successfully on Sunday using civilian and U.N. helicopters.

In his June 4, 2009 Cairo speech, the first American president raised in a Muslim land came to offer a bold promise: “I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.” Four and a half years later, Arab leaders like al-Ibrahim say that “mutual interest” is sundered and “mutual respect” squandered.
If the Saudi exasperation sounds familiar, it is because it is the same tone you hear in Tel Aviv and in Washington.

Obamacare: Highly Compensated Individuals & the Second Amendment


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://freedomoutpost.com

 

Posted by:Sid Wolf

gun

“Prohibition on Discrimination in Favor of Highly Compensated Individuals” is a section found in Obamacare. Within in it is a sub-section protecting Second Amendment gun rights, with respect to wellness and prevention programs. The language appears, on the face, to prohibit the use of any data collection with regard to the ”the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition.” However, does this section really provide adequate protection for gun owners, and more specifically our veterans?

The Section reads as follows:

SEC. 2716. PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF HIGHLY COMPENSATED INDIVIDUALS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan (other than a self-insured plan) shall satisfy the requirements of section 105(h) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to prohibition on discrimination in favor of highly compensated individuals).

(b) RULES AND DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section—

(1) CERTAIN RULES TO APPLY.—Rules similar to the rules contained in paragraphs (3), (4), and (8) of section 105(h) of such Code shall apply.

(2) HIGHLY COMPENSATED INDIVIDUAL.—The term ‘highly compensated individual’ has the meaning given such term by section 105(h)(5) of such Code.”.

(e) Section 2717 of the Public Health Service Act, as added by section 1001(5) of this Act, is amended—

(1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections

(d) and (e), respectively; and

(2) by inserting after subsection (b), the following:

(c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.—

(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.—A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to—

(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or

(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.

(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any information relating to—

(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition;

(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or

(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.

(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.

(4) LIMITATION ON DETERMINATION OF PREMIUM RATES OR ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE.—A premium rate may not be increased, health insurance coverage may not be denied, and a discount, rebate, or reward offered for participation in a wellness program may not be reduced or withheld under any health benefit plan issued pursuant to or in accordance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act on the basis of, or on reliance upon—

(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or

(B) the lawful use or storage of a firearm or ammunition.

(5) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS.—No individual shall be required to disclose any information under any data collection activity authorized under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act relating to—

(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or

(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition.

To imply that the healthcare database would not be used in any database is to ignore history and an earlier Executive Order: a) Action #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 and b) Action #16 Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, Public Law 103-159 basically requires the Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) to request background checks on prospective firearm transferees and that the US Attorney General establish the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Under this law some military veterans are being denied their right to own a gun ….not for any crimes committed, but because of psychiatric determinations or evaluations based on issues related to PTSD (post-traumatic stress syndrome).

Here are just a few reasons, under the Brady Law, where an individual can be denied, when undergoing a background check: a) 18 U.S.C. §922 (g) (3) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance; b) 18 U.S.C. §922 (g) (4) Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution; and c) 18 U.S.C. §922 (g) (6) Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.

Given the above, one conclusion can be drawn –”It does not prohibit the use of a database to determine who has a psychological ‘disorder’ like ADHD or PTSD. And it does not prohibit the ATF from trolling the database for persons with these disorders (independent of any issue of gun ownership) — and sending their names to the FBI’s database of prohibited persons because of any of the reasons stated above under 18 USC §922 (g). Further, HIPAA would not prohibit this ‘law enforcement function,’ and Obamacare has significantly broaden the list of people whose determination is an ‘official’ determination similar to the VA psychiatrists who have disarmed approximately 150,000 veterans.”

Everyone goes to the doctor for one reason or another, so under this law and the Executive Order issued by this administration, questions about guns in the home will be asked of literally every individual in the nation and not just those with “mental health issues.” Kris Zane rightly asks, “What about post-partum depression or other ‘depressive’ disorders? This and PTSD could be easily—but falsely—’proved’ or be temporary issue. What about a child who tells the doctor that mom and dad have been arguing? Would this be considered a ‘mental health’ issue because at any one time any one of us could be categorized as being ‘depressed going through a difficult time in our lives?’”

What has not been discussed in the media is the reference to Section 105(h) of the IRS code and ramifications for employers as well as employees regarding health insurance and compliance.

There are other sections in Obamacare that reference and require fully-insured plans which lose “grandfathered” status comply with the requirements of section 105(h)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

According to a memo from Davis & Harman LLP, titled “New Nondicrimination Requirements for Insured Group Health Plans,” the rules “prohibit health plans from discriminating in favor of “highly compensated individuals.” These rules already apply to self-funded plans, but will now apply to fully-insured plans, which have lost grandfathered status, which went into effect on the first plan year beginning after September 23, 2010.

“The penalty for an employer who sponsors a fully-insured plan which violates these rules is severe,” the memo continues. “They would be liable for an excise tax of up to $100 per day per employee ‘discriminated against.’ Below explains some of the rules and what must be done to make sure their benefits, eligibility, and contribution structure are in compliance.”

Suppose a “highly compensated individual” is promised benefits for life under a self-funded health care plan and he incurs $100,000 of medical costs in connection with an illness. The $100,000 of benefits will be taxable income under Section 105(h). Most lawyers warn organizations that self-insured plans should not create exclusive eligibility rules only for higher-ranking executives in connection with retirements or separation of employment. Under Section 105(h) only highly compensated individuals are subject to the above adverse tax consequences. However, most of these individuals comprise roughly 25% of the workforce, and are usually an employer’s most senior and vital employees.

Section 105(h) defines“Highly compensated individuals (HCI or HCE)” as individuals who are:

  1. one of the 5 highest paid officers,
  2. a shareholder who owns (with the application of section 318) more than 10 percent in value of the stock of the employer, or
  3. an individual who is among the highest paid 25 percent of all employees (other than excludable employees who are not participants).

Benefits Testing: Under the benefits test, all benefits provided to “highly-compensated employees (and their dependents), must be provided for all other participants (and their dependents). In other words, HCEs must not be provided better benefits (or the opportunity to elect better benefits) than NHCEs.”

However, for testing purposes, employers may exclude from testing:

  1. employees who have not completed 3 years of service;
  2. employees who have not attained age 25;
  3. part-time or seasonal employees;
  4. employees not included in the plan who are covered by a collective bargaining agreement, if accident and health benefits were the subject of good faith
    bargaining between the employee representatives (UNIONS) and the employer; and
  5. employees who are nonresident aliens and who receive no earned income (within the meaning of section 911(d) (2)) from the employer which constitutes income from sources within the United States (within the meaning of section 861(a) (3)).

Hopefully, this section protects the rest of us, but I have not been able to get clarification of this since this “entire” section of the Act addresses “highly compensated individuals” and the “exclusion” portion of this section seems to protect “unions” excluding the rest of those individuals that do not fall into the other 2 categories.

I did find this on a BCBS website in South Carolina which relates to what is currently being discussed in the news regarding “grandfathered plans” but this statement is troubling. “Prohibition of Discrimination Based on Lawful Ownership or Possession of Firearms or Ammunition – Plan may not base eligibility, premiums, discounts, rebates or rewards on the lawful use, ownership, or possession of firearms or ammunition, nor may a plan request this information as part of a wellness program or for any use related to the Health Care Reform Act. These prohibitions do not apply to a grandfathered plan.” It’s apparent, the healthcare law is mandating insurance companies drop current healthcare plans, not only to include all the new requirements, but to have everyone bound by this section of the law with the intent of everyone ultimately being included in any database that currently exits under the Brady Act.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/obamacare-highly-compensated-individuals-second-amendment/#l7DwG2Cjt1yezX8w.99

Let The Arms Trade Treaty Gather Dust


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 canadafreepress.com

Posted by CCRKBA

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) has already warned Kerry that the treaty “will collect dust alongside the Law of the Sea Treaty

BELLEVUE, WASecretary of State John Kerry may have signed the controversial United Nations Arms Trade Treaty today, but tomorrow it begins gathering dust in the U.S. Senate, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms predicted.

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb noted that Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) has already warned Kerry that the treaty “will collect dust alongside the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the Kyoto Protocol, to name a few, which have all been rejected by the U.S. Senate and the American people.”

“If Secretary Kerry and President Barack Obama pursue this farce,” Gottlieb warned, “the full fury of American firearms owners could come back to haunt them. Second Amendment sovereignty is not up for grabs, and we will encourage our members and supporters to contact their senators about this treaty.”

For the ATT to be ratified requires two-thirds confirmation by the Senate. But Gottlieb noted, as did Sen. Inhofe in his letter to Secretary Kerry, that 53 senators have already indicated they will reject any treaty that threatens the Second Amendment.

“If this was all theatrics by the Obama administration,” Gottlieb observed, “the president and Secretary Kerry need better script writers. And we will remind the administration of the warning it received Wednesday morning from Sen. Bob Corker, ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The Senate has not given its advice or consent on this treaty, so ‘the Executive branch is not authorized to take any steps to implement the treaty.’ How does that look to the world when an administration can’t get one of its pet projects approved on Capitol Hill?

“We know that anti-gunners have this ‘thing’ about symbolic victories,” he concluded, “but just how much of a symbol is it if the treaty is filed in the dust bin? After Fast and Furious, Benghazi and Syria, that’s just what the Obama administration needs, another symbol of international ineptitude.”

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.

Arming Yourself for the Zombie Apocalypse: How to Build the Ultimate Survival Shotgun


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 Willow Haven Outdoor 

Posted by Creek Stewart

.

As a Survival and Preparedness instructor, I take my line of work very seriously–sometimes too seriously.  Occasionally, though, I like to take on survival projects that are just downright fun.  This article highlights one of those projects.

I’m fortunate in that I’ve been able to turn my passion into my profession–this being the study of Survival and Preparedness.  I’ve always enjoyed building survival kits of all shapes and sizes.  I enjoy the challenge of fitting lifesaving survival necessities into small compact containers.  I’ve built survival kits using film canisters, candy tins, key-rings, boxes, bottles, tubes, bags and everything in-between.  For this project, I decided to build a survival kit using a shotgun platform–creating the Ultimate Survival Shotgun.  My challenge was that everything had to be included in or on the gun itself–no extra pack items or containers.  Below is what I did as well as the survival logic behind each decision.

Ultimately your survival needs fall into five main categories.  Your situation dictates the order.  They are:

  • Water
  • Fire
  • Shelter
  • Signaling
  • Food

Every survival kit must include contents that directly or indirectly meet these five basic survival needs.  The shotgun platform I decided to use is the Mossberg 500 – PUMP.  I chose a pump action because it is easier for me to troubleshoot and work on in the field compared to other models.  I chose the Mossberg brand because it is a very popular gun, and there are literally hundreds of aftermarket modification pieces and parts designed to fit this gun.  I knew I would want to add on some of these extras to increase the gun’s survival value. Below is a photo of the shotgun “off the shelf”–before my survival modifications.

Mossberg 500 Pump Action Shotgun Before Survival/Zombie Modifications

I will now break down each survival modification and detail why it was included in the final build.

Ammunition

First things first: the gun itself.  A shotgun’s primary purpose is hunting.  Clearly, you can use this shotgun as a hunting weapon to “restock” on valuable calories.   Humans can go for three weeks without food, but it’s not fun.  Lack of food leads to light-headedness, weakness, and poor decisions.  In a survival situation, meat is the fastest and most effective way to replenish lost calories.  Meat comes in all shapes and sizes.  Carrying different shot shells designed for different applications increases your chances of a successful hunt.  For this reason, I chose to pack a variety of shotgun shells:

  • Bird Shot: Designed for birds and other small game such as rabbit and squirrel.
  • 00 Buck: Good for turkey and larger game such as deer.
  • Slug: Designed for large game such as deer, hog, or elk.

Your Arsenal: Bird Shot, Buck Shot, and Slugs

In addition to hunting, a shotgun is an excellent self-defense weapon.  It’s easy to imagine the need for a self-defense weapon in an urban or wilderness survival scenario–defending you or your family from man or animal.  Not only is a pump action shotgun a proven deterrent, but it also has some serious knockdown power.  Because of these 2 considerations (hunting & self defense), I wanted to carry as much ammo on the gun as I could.  I filled the magazine and the chamber which holds 7 + 1.  I also added a side saddle shell holder and a screw on stock mount shell holder which together extends my total capacity to 19 rounds of ammunition.  Not bad at all.

Side Saddle for Holding Shells

Side Saddle on the Stock

Signal Flares

Special shotgun shells allow you to fire signal flares.

You are probably wondering what the short orange rounds are on the stock side saddle.  These are specialty signaling flare rounds designed for 12 gauge shotguns.  These flares fire over 300 feet and can be seen for miles.  They are the perfect signaling solution for a shotgun survival kit.  Not only are these EXCELLENT rescue signals but they can also be fired into a prepared fire pit to start a fire.  In survival, multi-use products are key.

Knife

5” Ka-Bar Knife Mounted on a Picatinny Rail

I know from experience that one of the most important survival resources is a good quality knife.  It can assist in almost every survival related task.  I found a great 5” Ka-Bar brand knife designed to mount directly to a picatinny rail.  The stock Mossberg shotgun does not have picatinny mounts, so I purchased a barrel mount picatinny rail unit.  This makes the knife easily accessible for quick deployment.  A knife can perform thousands of survival tasks including dressing game, cutting wood and cordage, striking a fire steel, digging, scraping, prying, slicing, and the list goes on and on.  I prefer a larger survival knife, but this one will work just fine.  I sacrificed size for the seamless integrated mount option.

Flashlight

Another tool that assists in survival is a light source.  Without a flashlight, low-light work or travel can be very difficult & dangerous–sometimes impossible.  Not only can a flashlight allow you to be productive in low-light conditions, but it can also be used as a nighttime signaling device.  A good flashlight can also help prevent injuries in dark conditions.  I purchased a flashlight with a picatinny rail holder for the other side of my barrel.  The push button switch on this flashlight is also a compass.  Now, I have a means to confirm direction as well.  This can certainly be useful in any survival scenario.

Flashlight/Compass combo will ensure you never get lost.

Storage

At this point I need to be thinking about storage space to house several other crucial survival items.  After much consideration, I opted for 2 additional modifications which gave me 3 separate storage areas.  I first replaced the standard stock with an integrated pistol grip/stock combo unit.  The rubber butt plate unscrews and detaches, revealing a generously sized compartment inside of the stock.

In addition, the pistol grip is hollow which allows for more storage.

I went one step further and replaced the pump hand grip with a picatinny version mounted on a picatinny compatible vertical grip.

Fire

Fire kit that’s stored in the vertical grip.

This particular grip is already designed to store extra batteries and has a water tight seal.  This makes an excellent area to store fire starting materials.  In here, I stored 6 waterproof matches and a striker.  I also stuffed in some steel wool and a package of WetFire brand fire starting material.  Both of these are excellent fire starting aids even in damp conditions.

Quick Access Fire and Steel Setup

Before I started assembling items to be stored inside of the stock, I carved a groove along the top of the stock to fit a blank fire steel rod.  I used epoxy to permanently secure this in place.  I like the idea of having quick access to the fire steel without taking the time to open a storage area.  Using the back side of the Ka-Bar, I can strike a shower of sparks into one of my fire starting materials to quickly ignite a fire.

Multi-Tool

Store your multi-tool in the hollow pistol grip.

In the hollow pistol grip I stored a small Gerber Multi-Tool with pliers, large flathead screwdriver, small flat head screwdriver, cross point screwdriver, small knife, nail file, and tweezers.  All of these tools can be useful in a survival situation.  I carved a custom rubber plug for the bottom of the pistol grip from a cheap rubber door stop and spray painted it black.  It is a perfect and secure fit.

Survival Kit

A survival kit that fits in the butt stock of your shotgun.

Next I assembled a variety of survival kit items to be stored in the butt stock compartment.  To remove the rubber butt plate, I use the cross point driver on the multi-tool.  Below are the items that I included in this kit and why.

  • 4”x6” Aluminum Baking Pan:  Available at any grocery store, this aluminum bread pan can be folded flat for compact storage.  A metal container is invaluable in any survival scenario.  It can be used to boil water which kills bacteria, virus, and cysts.  Boiling water is a 100% effective method of water purification.  This container can also be used for other cooking tasks as well as water collection.  The reflective metal also makes an excellent signaling device.
  • Trash Bag: A trash bag has a myriad of survival uses.  Some of the most practical are poncho, water collection, ground tarp, make-shift shelter, solar still, and flotation device.
  • Fishing Kit: This kit includes 20 feet of 30 lb test line, 5 assorted fish hooks and 3 sinkers.  Not only can these items be used for fishing but the line can also be used as cordage for shelter building, gear repairs, or animal snares.  Bank lines can be set at night to work while you rest.
  • 2 Non-Lubricated Condoms: By design, condoms are watertight.  They make amazing water containers–capable of holding about 1 liter of water each.  They are very lightweight and compact and make great back-up water collection and storage containers.  They can also be used to protect fire materials such as matches and dry tinder.  You can also fill these with clear (but not purified) water and leave them in the sun for 48 hours for UV purification.
  • Water Purification Tablets: Boiling water is not always possible or practical.  Chemical water treatment tablets are an excellent back-up water purification solution.  They weigh virtually nothing and take up very little space.  You can fill up a condom with water and use a tablet to purify it.  They also have a very long shelf life.  Chemical tablets are not very effective on cloudy or dirty water.  The water must be fairly clear.  You can pre-filter using clothing or a bandana.
  • Emergency Survival Blanket: These survival blankets are designed to reflect and trap your body heat in a cold weather survival scenario.  They also make excellent make-shift shelters, ground tarps, ponchos, rescue signals, and fire heat reflectors.
  • First Aid Supplies: (packed in zip lock bag): 3 adhesive bandages, 30 SPF sun block packet, 2 wound closure strips, 2 Ibuprofen pills, 2 Acetaminophen pills, 2 Calcium Carbonate pills.
  • Carmex Lip Balm: Not only for obvious reasons, but this petroleum based product can be mixed with natural fire tinder such as cattail down.  Doing so can extend burn-time up to 5 minutes which is very helpful in fire building.  This is an excellent multi-use product.
  • Whistle: Even though I have signal flares, a rescue whistle is always a good idea.
  • Small Bic Lighter: This is the easiest way to start a fire.
  • Snare Wire: Snares can work for you while you are working on other tasks–such as sleep.  I’ve included 25 feet of snare wire for building traps.  This can also be used as cordage or binding for a variety of projects.

Emergency blanket in survival kit can be used for shelter.

I carefully wrapped most of the items inside of the trash bag for water proofing and then stored everything in the stock storage area.  All of the kit items only weigh a few ounces.

What the survival kit looks like in the butt stock.

Saw

Makeshift Survival Saw

One tool that I use extensively while on survival trips is a handheld folding saw.  It’s not practical to include one of these in this shotgun kit.  However, I did incorporate a suitable work-around.  A saw is an excellent tool for cutting larger fire wood or collecting limbs & trees for shelter building.  I purchased 2 replacement bow saw blades and cut them down to fit the span between the back of the pistol grip and the butt stock sling stud.  I added another sling stud to the bottom back of the pistol grip which allowed for 2 anchor points.  Using 2 small bolts which I keep in the stock, I can secure 1 of the saw blades on these sling studs–creating a perfect make-shift bow saw.  I chose to pack 1 blade designed for wood and 1 blade designed for metal to give me versatility in a variety of survival scenarios.  The blades easily tuck into the butt stock compartment when not in use.

Saw in action.

Cordage

Make your gun sling from braided paracord.

At this point I am still lacking sufficient cordage.  Never underestimate how important cordage can be in a survival scenario.  My favorite cordage is 550 Parachute Cord.  I always like to keep as mush 550 paracord with me as possible.  It can be used for all kinds of survival functions from climbing ropes to shelter construction.  550 paracord is comprised of 7 inner strands which can be used independently as well.  These lines make excellent snares and fishing line.  For this reason, I also added a shotgun sling made from approximately 80 feet of braided paracord.  If necessary I can unravel the sling and use it accordingly.

Another view of the paracord gun sling

Bandana

I finished off the sling by tying on a bandana.  I have used a bandana in more ways than I can count while camping and backpacking.  It is an incredible multi-use product that I know for a fact would be very useful in a survival situation.  Below are just 15 great bandana survival uses:

  1. Filter/Sieve for dirty water
  2. First Aid Bandage
  3. Dust/Sand Mask
  4. Hat
  5. Signal Flag
  6. Dew Rag for collecting dew as drinking water
  7. Container for collecting berries, fruit, nuts, etc…
  8. Cut/striped into emergency cordage
  9. Cleaning Rag
  10. Neck Gator – Cool Weather
  11. Evaporative cooling neck band – Hot Weather
  12. Filter for Bush Tea (filtering out seeds, leaves, bark, etc…)
  13. Eskimo sunglass to prevent sun blindness.  Cut eye slits in the bandana.
  14. Trail Markers – strip into pieces
  15. Last ditch toilet paper
Locked and Loaded

So there you have it, the Ultimate Survival Shotgun ready for even the worst scenario.  It offers multiple solutions for securing food.  It offers multiple solutions for collecting and purifying water.  It offers incredible signaling devices.  It includes shelter building materials and also several “fool-proof” fire building methods.  It also includes a knife, a flashlight, 80 feet of paracord, 2 saws, and a complete first aid kit. If the zombies still eat your brains when you’re carrying this thing, it’s your own dang fault.

Inspiration

However, it is still missing one very critical piece.  Survival is 90% mental.  Keeping your morale and spirits high is absolutely critical.  Finding your inspiration and motivation for staying alive can get you through even the worst of situations.  The will to live is more powerful than any skill or tool you can buy or improvise.  I always include something personal in every survival kit I build–an item that might keep my spirits lifted and remind me of what I’m fighting for.  It can be anything–a photo of your girlfriend or your family, a song lyric or a motivational quote.  It must be meaningful and inspirational to you.

So finally, for inspiration, I had one of my favorite passages engraved on a small metal plate which I affixed to the receiver of this survival shotgun:

Now…I’m all set.

Many of the lessons in this project apply to building any kind of preparedness kit for urban or wilderness survival.  Basic survival principles apply to almost all survival scenarios.  I hope you’ve enjoyed this article and have taken something away that you can use in your own preparedness efforts and projects.

Remember, it’s not IF but WHEN.

 

Treasonous President Obama to Charge 14 Governors with Treason?


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://godfatherpolitics.com

Posted by Dave Jolly

It has been repeatedly reported on some of our websites that President Barack Hussein Obama is guilty of multiple accounts of treason against the people and Constitution of the United States.  He has not been charged with any of his many crimes because he controls the US Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice (Holder is just as guilty of treason as is Obama).  The rest of Congress seems too spineless or fearful to say or do anything about it.

But let someone else try to stand up against Obama’s crime syndicate and he’s the first one to start hollering treason.

It seems that a growing number of state governors are re-establishing State Defense Forces, also known as State Guards, State Military Reserves and State Militias.  These forces are under the direct authority of the governor of the state and are not subject to federal control.  They can be readily deployed in the case of any natural or man-made disasters.

As of 2010, 23 states and territories have organized State Defense Forces (SDFs) with approximately 14,000 people serving in them.  SDFs were established by federal and state law at the very beginning of our country’s history.  They have played important roles over the years in helping to defend our nation, however, due to many state budget deficits, SDFs are becoming a thing of the past.

The Heritage Foundation did a report on State Defense Forces back in 2010 and if you want to read more about their history, please click here.

According to a recent report, 14 governors have been working to reinstate SDFs in their states.  Governors Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and Rick Perry of Texas have been fronting the drive to get more states to re-establish their STFs.

The report goes on to say that each of the 14 governors have now supposedly received National Security Letters from the Obama administration demanding that they halt the formation of their SDFs or face possible charges of treason.  It seems that since Obama has drastically reduced the size of the military and their forces are stretched thin with troops still in Afghanistan and Iraq, that he is fearing rebellion from the states.  Further evidence of his fear of a rebellion or revolution is the fact that he has nationalized all of the state National Guard units.

Perhaps this is the reason that he has had the Department of Homeland Security purchase over 2 billion rounds of ammunition and thousands of fully automatic assault rifles.

It is typical of Obama to bully everyone who stands up to him and does not bow down and kiss their bottoms goodbye for him.  He’s tried this with many states when they passed voter ID laws.  He bullied and harassed Sheriff Joe Arpaio because he dared to defy Obama and investigate Obama’s birth certificate.

President Obama is the most corrupt and despicable president our country has ever had.  He considers himself to be above the law, above Congress and above the Constitution.  He is still actively engaged in giving aide and support to our enemies (Egypt for one) which are the definable terms for the charge of treason according to the US Constitution.  He is not acting as our president but rather our dictator.  He’s not any different than Fidel Castro or any other dictator in history.

If the report on the governors receiving National Security Letters is true, then America could well be on verge of a national showdown between state governors and the federal government.  What better way is it for Obama to rid himself of some of his most ardent state opposition leaders than to start charging them with treason, the very crime that he is guilty of several times over?

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/10763/treasonous-president-obama-to-charge-14-governors-with-treason/#ixzz2SwPu5cAw

 

IS THIS MISSING PIECE TO BENGHAZI PUZZLE?


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 AARON KLEIN

Congressional probe lacks crucial detail

author-image

hillary-clinton-gesture

JERUSALEM – A House Republican report released this week on the Obama administration’s response to the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi terror attack is missing one essential piece that could help to answer many of the questions raised in the report.

That piece is the alleged illicit activities transpiring inside the U.S. facilities that were attacked.

The 46-page report by five committees of the Republican-led House says the White House scrubbed terrorism and al-Qaida from talking points and misled the American public by blaming the attack on an obscure YouTube film.

The report further questions why the White House falsely claimed the U.S. facilities were targeted in unplanned, popular street protests while it was known to the government almost immediately that the Benghazi mission and nearby CIA annex were attacked by militants in a premeditated fashion.

One key question of the congressional probe centers on why the State Department chose to reduce security at the U.S. Benghazi mission and to deny multiple requests for more security assistance.

The report rejects State Department claims that funding was the reason for the security reductions.

States the report: “It is clear that funding – or a lack thereof – is not the reason for the reductions in security, as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Lamb testified and as emails reviewed by the Committees attest.

“Moreover, a lack of funding would not have been at issue with respect to the rejection of the request to extend the deployment of the [U.S. Military Security Support Team], as that team was provided via the Defense Department at no expense to the State Department.”

A key accusation in the report alleges the White House generated talking points for the public that “excluded details about the wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya, an exacerbating factor that contributed to the lethality of the attacks.”

The report does not mention that the weapons and fighters may actually be the reason for the coordinated assaults on the U.S. facilities. According to Middle Eastern security officials, the U.S. mission was allegedly used to help coordinate arms and other aid to the jihadist-led rebel; insurgencies in Libya and in Syria.

The U.S. mission’s alleged role in arming the rebels, as first exposed by WND, may help to answer many of the questions in the probe, including why the White House did not want to draw attention to al-Qaida’s role in the attacks.

It also could explain why security was reduced as the compound. An increased security presence at the U.S. mission would have drawn attention to the shabby, nondescript building that was allegedly being used for such sensitive purposes.

WND has filed numerous reports quoting Middle East security officials who described the mission in Benghazi as a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East, including the transfer of weapons to rebels.

Two weeks after the Benghazi attack, WND also broke the story that murdered U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens himself played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian security officials.

In November 2012, Middle Eastern security sources further described both the U.S. mission and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi as the main intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels that was being coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Many rebel fighters are openly members of terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida.

Among the tasks performed inside the Benghazi facility was collaborating with countries, most notably Turkey, on the recruitment of fighters – including jihadists – to target Assad’s regime, the security officials said.

Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya, Egyptian security officials told WND. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad’s forces, said the security officials.

The officials said Stevens also worked with the Saudis to send names of potential jihadi recruits to U.S. security organizations for review. Names found to be directly involved in previous attacks against the U.S., including in Iraq and Afghanistan, were ultimately not recruited by the Saudis to fight in Syria, said the officials.

White House officials previously denied aiding arms shipments to the rebels.

However, confirming WND’s exclusive reporting for over a year, the New York Times last month reported that since early 2012, the CIA has been aiding the Arab governments and Turkey in shopping for and transporting weapons to the Syrian rebels.

Previously, multiple establishment news media reports described the U.S. role in helping to arm the Libyan rebels attacking the regime of Moammar Ghadaffi. At the same time it was widely reported that al-Qaida groups were among the Libyan rebels.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/is-this-missing-piece-to-benghazi-puzzle/#P4HSKhUK7LLmkdzG.99

 

POLICE TOLD TO CHOOSE: GUN CONTROL OR CONSTITUTION


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 DREW ZAHN

Video warns military, too – D.C. lawmakers about to commit ‘treason’

author-image

130415timetochoose

“This is a message to every member of law enforcement and the military,” a sizzling new YouTube video begins. “You know you have a choice to make.”

The video, produced by a man identified on Facebook as Aaron Hawkins, is a challenge to those who enforce America’s laws, warning them the day is coming when gun-control legislation will undermine the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment and police forces will be asked to restrict or even confiscate American citizens’ firearms.

On that day, the video warns, America’s lawmakers will have committed “treason,” and the nation’s police and military will be forced to choose “which side of history you’re going to be on.”

The video, titled “Police & Military – Time to Choose,” cites alleged offenses already enacted against the Constitution from both current and past presidential administrations, including the Patriot Act – which expanded the federal government’s use of domestic security and surveillance powers – and the National Defense Authorization Act – which many worry opens the door to indefinite detention of American citizens without trial.

“At this juncture in history, there can be no question that those holding the reins of power in Congress and the Senate and in the executive branch no longer represent the rule of law,” the video continues, “By destroying the Constitution with the Patriot Act and the NDAA and numerous other police-state measures, they have abandoned every shred of legitimacy and have made themselves into enemies of the people.”

Hawkins, who administers a site called StormCloudsGathering.com, paints the picture in stark terms, but says he hopes principled police and military will rather refuse to enforce the laws than permit a conflict over firearms turn to civil war.

“You took an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic,” the video reminds the police and military. “The Congress, the Senate and the executive branch have made themselves into a domestic enemy, and they are going to attempt to use you to help them. It’s time to choose which side of history you’re going to be on.

“Any congressperson or senator who puts their name to any law which infringes on the right to bear arms should be arrested for treason. That would be a literal fulfillment of your oath,” Hawkins continues. “If you don’t want the situation to come to that … send a letter to every congressperson, senator and state lawmaker, a letter not asking them nicely to abide by the Constitution, but letting them no on no uncertain terms what will happen to them if they don’t. Make it clear to them that not only will you refuse to enforce their edicts, but they will be defining themselves as enemies of the Constitution and of the people, if they go down this road.”

The video can be seen below:

Hawkins

Hawkins’ video ends with an appeal to support Oathkeepers.org, which describes itself as “a non-partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, peace officers and firefighters who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people.”

Though there is no indication the organization endorses Hawkins’ video, a similar call to choose the Constitution over gun-control legislation does appear on the Oath Keepers’ website from a New Jersey police officer identified as Oathkeeper151:

Oathkeeper151 includes in his call to fellow police officers a challenge similar to Hawkins, reminding them that laws are only as enforceable as those willing to enforce them.

Oathkeepers 151

“If [we] law enforcement officials and military remembered our oaths,” the Oath Keeper states, “[gun-grabbing legislators] wouldn’t be able to do anything.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/police-told-to-choose-gun-control-or-constitution/#SlHOHV4MuOtlvFAV.99

 

Slapped Down by Senate, Obama Prepares Executive Gun Orders


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. godfatherpolitics.com

 

Posted by Tad Cronn

A minor miracle occurred the other day when the Senate, despite months of buildup and lobbying by the Obama Administration, rejected an entire slate of gun-control proposals.

It doesn’t matter whether the Democrats who jumped party lines voted against the gun grab because of principle or because they fear for their jobs. Either way, they wound up doing the right thing.

And boy, was Obama ticked. If he had clenched his jaw any tighter during his press conference, his teeth would have started shooting out of his mouth from the pressure, like blown rivets.

The classic Obama tantrum should be taken as a warning sign. Obama’s not one of those guys who just takes his ball and goes home to brood. He’s the type who nurses thoughts of revenge.

On Thursday, “Crazy Uncle Joe” Biden briefed the troops to reassure them that the Man Who Would be King would not be so easily defeated by the majority of American rabble who want to keep their right to self-defense.

During a conference call which was supposed to be kept from the press, Biden assured gun-control groups, lobbyists and other participants that Obama would follow up his defeat in the Senate with new executive orders on guns.

It’s been Obama’s pattern throughout his presidency to go around Congress whenever he suffers a legislative defeat.

When Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House, she would find ways to bend the law, such as via the “Slaughter Rule,” to make sure that Obama got his way in the House, and she was usually able to bully Harry Reid into making the Senate roll over. Since voters knocked Pelosi off her dais, Obama either has resorted to ordering his “czars” and Cabinet members to implement incremental policies that don’t require congressional approval but have the same effect as the laws, or he has issued executive orders.

It’s the executive orders that are most dangerous to the country because they further solidify his monarchical approach to the presidency. The turning point was when Obama, frustrated by the failure of the Dream Act to pass in Congress, unilaterally wrote it into law with an executive order essentially granting amnesty to millions of children of illegal immigrants being educated in public schools.

Congress didn’t challenge that order, which completely ignored the constitutional separation of powers and secured for the president the power to initiate and pass laws.

So if Obama now wants to write an executive order on background checks, limiting gun magazines or even outright outlawing guns, Congress will have a much harder time challenging it, no matter how far Obama feels like pushing his gun-grab agenda.

Brace yourselves for federal gunfight, part two.

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/10457/slapped-down-by-senate-obama-prepares-executive-gun-orders/#ixzz2R5KPtrXF

 

Holder gets stormy reception from House panel


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.politico.com

 

posted by JOSH GERSTEIN

Holder in the hot seat

The fact there is no love lost between Attorney General Eric Holder and House Republicans was on clear display again Thursday afternoon at a stormy House appropriations panel hearing which culminated with the subcommittee’s chairman declaring he’d given up on Holder and his stewardship of the Justice Department.

“Forget it. Forget it. Forget it. Forget it. Forget it,” an exasperated Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) declared after Holder refused to commit to a deadline to answer 91 questions Wolf had prepared. The lawmaker, who heads the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the Justice Department, said he planned to forego asking the questions orally so that Holder could leave the session in order to attend a meeting relating to the Boston Marathon bombing investigation.

“We’re just going to ignore you. I’m going to ignore you,” said Wolf, who complained earlier in the two-hour-long hearing that Holder and his aides had not responded to a slew of letters seeking information on various subjects. “Your civil rights division is a rats’ nest….I think you’ve been a failure with regard to the prison industries. You were a failure with regard, with regard to prison rape….If you’re not going to answer the questions….”

“Frankly, I’m not going to pay any attention to you because your positions with regard to these budget….You come up here. You were initially going to stay for the whole time. If you’re not going to answer these questions, then we’re not going to pay any attention to you. Hearing adjourned,” Wolf declared.

“No, Mr. Chairman….if you want me to stay, I’ll stay. I will stay,” Holder replied. “That meeting will just have to wait. If you want to ask some more questions, let’s go.”

“It is an important meeting, but I’m making a determination, if you want me to stay, I’ll stay,” the attorney general said.

“They told me it dealt with the Boston issue. Is that correct? That’s an important issue and I wouldn’t want you to miss it,” Wolf said, rising to his feet. “The hearing is adjourned. I think you ought to go to the meeting.”

Ignoring the fact that the hearing was adjourned, twice, Holder launched into a defense of his tenure at the department.

“You said some things that I think are a little unfair with regard to the civil rights division,” Holder said. “A lot of what the inspector general found in the civil rights division preceded my time as attorney general. We have taken steps to try to deal with the issues that were identified there.”

The chief of the civil rights division, Tom Perez, has been nominated by President Barack Obama to be the next secretary of labor. However, Holder conceded that “there’s no question that work needs to be done” to address further the problems described in the IG report.

The attorney general also said he’d worked diligently on the prison rape issue and to provide work for federal prisoners. He also took a shot at the management of the department under his GOP predecessors.

“I’m proud of what we’ve done across the board at the Justice Department in the last four and a half years. I’m proud of what I’ve done as attorney general. The department that we have now is fundamentally different than the department I found when I got there. We don’t hire people on the biases of political orientation. We don’t do things as was done in the previous administration. We don’t write memos that say that torture is appropriate when dealing with interrogation techniques.”

Relations between Holder and Republican-led House were never good, but went completely sour last June when lawmakers voted, 255-67, to hold Holder in criminal contempt for failing to turn over all the records a House committee subpoenaed about the department’s response to the Operation Fast and Furious gun trafficking scandal.

In an interview in February, Holder said he had no respect for those who joined in what he dismissed as an act of “partisan sport.” All but three House Republicans backed the criminal contempt measure.

“I have to tell you that for me to really be affected by what happened, I’d have to have respect for the people who voted in that way,” Holder told ABC News. “And I didn’t, so it didn’t have that huge an impact on me.”

Earlier in Thursday’s hearing, Holder came under fire from GOP lawmakers for refusing to commit to brief them by a particular time about whether the Justice Department recommended to the Pentagon that it not label as an act of terrorism the attack at Fort Hood, Texas in November 2009. They pointed to an interview Army Secretary John McHugh did recently in which he suggested, but did not say outright, that the Justice Department advised the military against awarding medals to those injured in the attack because doing so could undermine the court martial for the alleged perpetrator, Army Maj. Nidal Hasan.

Hasan had been in touch by e-mail with Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula leader Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack, but investigators have indicated they don’t believe Al-Awlaki or others directed or helped plan the shooting spree.

Two victims of the attack and the wife of a soldier killed in the attack were in the audience at the hearing, Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) pointed out as he raised the issue. The lawmaker, who once served on the base, said the victims were being denied medical care and other benefits as a result of being denied Purple Hearts.

Hasan is being prosecuted in the military justice system, not by the Justice Department, something Holder noted. “If we’ve had some interaction with [military prosecutors], I’m just not aware of it,” the attorney general said.

When Holder refused to commit to brief Rooney and other lawmakers about any such contacts, Wolf’s frustration boiled over.

“We’re never getting responses. Once you get out of here, you’re gone, there will be no response,” the chairman said.

At one point, Holder replied: “As soon as I can….that’s the best I can do for you.”

The attorney general eventually said he could “probably” brief lawmakers by the end of next month on any DOJ involvement in the case. He also thanked the victims for their service and said they had his “sympathy for the losses they’ve had to endure.” After the hearing, he spoke briefly with the three audience members involved.

Fattah tried to deflect some of the GOP anger, saying he thinks the Pentagon is “completely wrong” to have declared the event an incident of “workplace violence.” However, he said the decision to hold back on the awards may have been justified by a desire to “further the effective prosecution of the gentleman who did this.” Fattah, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, also urged Rooney to take up the issue with McHugh directly.

Rooney conceded that might have been the best way to proceed, but he also lashed out on behalf of the victims. “There’s a guy in the back of the room who has a bullet that needs to be removed from his body,” the lawmaker said angrily. “He has to wait with a bullet in his body until we figure out what the hell we’re doing in here.”

Wolf’s frustration with Holder seemed to extend beyond the attorney general to his staff. “They’re passing you notes left and right on every issue,” the schoolmarmish chairman complained. Later, he abruptly called out some of Holder’s aides seated in the front row.

“I see you whispering there, back and forth,” the chairman barked.

 

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

 

Guns: The Left’s True Aim, and How to Thwart It


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 Lewis Dovland

We must not lose focus on the end goal of progressives regarding guns.  Make no mistake; regardless of what they say, their ultimate goal is confiscation of all guns in America.  And a “universal background check” will get them closer to this nirvana than the banning of a few selected weapons ever could.

To understand progressive methodology, let’s use another similar issue: the gay marriage agenda.  Say the current definition of “marriage” as it has been for thousands of years is represented by “A” on a continuum of A to Z, with “Z” being the left’s ultimate goal.  Asking for “Z” now would be a major overreach (and “Z” is much farther than just gay marriage), so progressives ask for “N,” which is just enough of a stretch to make people push back only a little.

So to protect a foundation of society, the people of California overwhelmingly vote a law that defines marriage — an appropriate state’s rights issue.  The left goes to court and has California’s decision overturned.  The people next pass a state constitutional amendment, and again the left gets it overturned, and now it is in the Supreme Court.  The left also applies public pressure through the media to brand anyone who doesn’t agree as a homophobe or hater, all the while controlling the educational curriculum so only one side of the argument is taught to our children.

Eventually, progressives will get only “C” this time, which is really all they wanted for now.  But note something powerful here.  “C” becomes the new “A.”  So there is never a way to back it up to the original “A.”  Over time, they will win another “C” that becomes “A.”

Before long we find that we are at “H” on the original A-Z scale, but “H” is now considered “A”.  And so it continues.

Note the steps:

  • Ask for more than you know you can achieve.  In fact, ask for something you don’t even want.  Then everyone will be focused more on that than on your real goal.
  • Use all media and educational tools to inculcate your view in the public and low-information voters.
  • Develop your own lexicon, redefine words, and then keep pounding those words into the psyche each time you speak.
  • Attack your opponents not on logic or facts, but by name-calling and emotion, and accuse them of being “obstructionist.”
  • When you concede, always be sure you’ve moved the marker a little farther toward your goal.
  • Reset the measures so that the new position is now considered “normal,” which makes it impossible for anyone to argue against or reverse.
  • Never, ever give up or stop pushing, even when you (temporarily) lose.

How does this strategy apply to the gun issue?  At this time, the left does not expect to restrict the sale of “assault weapons.”  That effort is a deliberate misdirection to throw us off-base so we are jousting with the wrong target and using up energy.

What the left wants is universal background checks.  If leftists get that, they actually leapfrog the restrictions on certain weapon types.  How?

No one can buy a modern operational firearm from a licensed dealer today without a background check.  Period.  There is no “gun show loophole,” because to buy a gun at a gun show from a licensed dealer — the only entity permitted to sell at gun shows — one must pass the background check or show a firearms license.

Not controlled are sales of guns between private parties.  You can sell me your gun in a face-to-face transaction without requiring that you get a background check on me.

Look at where this is going.  The left is asking to ban the sale of “assault” weapons.  Using the marriage example above, this is moving the marker from “A” to about “N” on the scale, since “Z” would be the total ban and confiscation of guns.  The left knows that a ban is not possible, although “Z” is their ultimate goal.  But what are they doing?

Ask for “N” when you know that “C” is possible, use the media and lexicon (“assault weapon,” “gun show loophole”) to pound home the message, demonize those who disagree, and get media support.  Use emotion — see Obama’s recent “shame on us” speech with the Newtown families standing behind him.

And then, the final, sneaky step.  Say, “Well, the American people just don’t understand the need to ban these assault weapons, so at least give us background check legislation.  That is not too much to ask for the children’s sake.”  And if we don’t agree to that, they call us “obstructionist” and other names, trying to shame us into action.  If they succeed, we will have just moved from “A” to “S” on the scale, well past “N.”  How?

Enforcing the universal background check will require registration of all guns in a national database; otherwise, how and where do we prevent private sales without background checks?  And the details of how to enforce the background checks will be handled by the legislation, neatly out of the direct view of the public.  Once that occurs, the government will have a list of all legal guns and owners in the U.S., making confiscation extremely easy when the time comes.

And where are the teeth to make a gun owner register a gun, when he never expects to sell it?  All the left needs to do is make possession of an unregistered gun a felony — a “minor” clause in the law when they craft it.  Then, when you defend yourself at 3 a.m. from an armed home invasion and your gun is found, you will be in more trouble than the perps.  As a felon, you then lose your right to own any guns. 

That is the goal here.  Watch for the left to cave on the assault weapon ban and “settle” for just universal background checks.  Sounds innocuous, right?  If granted, it will provide the left with much, much more than they ever hoped to get at this juncture.

Our answer must be: “Never, never, never — not one inch.”  No universal background checks, ever.  Enforce the laws we have now.  Otherwise, game over for us.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/guns_the_lefts_true_aim_and_how_to_thwart_it.html#ixzz2QVoJxVm2
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

Gunsite Day Two: Fighting Out of a Threat


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 Katie Pavlich

  • Katie Pavlich

Gunsite Day Two: Fighting Out of a Threat

* Editors note: TOWNHALL News Editor Katie Pavlich is participating in a multi-day firearms training course at the Gunsite Academy in Paulden, Arizona. Stay tuned for daily dispatches. The third dispatch is below. As the dispatches accumulate, they’ll all be available here.

PAULDEN, Ariz. – Here at Gunsite everyone is armed with a pistol on their hip and it feels like the one of the safest places I have ever been. Buz Mills, the owner of Gunsite, carries a Smith & Wesson 1911.
Being armed at all times requires a certain mindset, an attitude that enables you to defend your life in the presence of a threat. As my instructor Dave told me Saturday, “the majority of this is mental.” And he’s right.
Gunsite instructors aren’t here to teach people how to shoot, they’re here to teach people how to save their lives and fight their way out of a threat. The goal is always to stop the violent behavior of an attacker, which often times can take more than two rounds to accomplish. The AR-15 is a fighting gun and when used properly, will stop a threat from continuing a violent action.
Saturday, I learned how to fight my way out of a threat using four main positions.
Standing/Fighting stance: standard shooting position. Left foot slightly in front of the right, knees slightly bent, hips square to the target, chest over the belt buckle.
 photo ScreenShot2013-04-14at123111AM_zpse8df1bf6.png

Kneeling: kneeling position comes in three forms, Brace (like a lunge, one knee forward one knee back with behind resting on the back leg), Speed (just like a regular lunge) and Double Knee (both knees on the ground). All three forms are entered either from standing or from Prone position. Double knee gives the shooter the most mobility.

More training photos and videos on page two.

Squatting: exactly as it sounds. Shooter squats down and puts both elbows on the insides of the legs for support.
 photo ScreenShot2013-04-14at123040AM_zps709022a7.png

Prone: entire body is against the ground, giving the shooter the most stable position. Prone can be entered easily from standard position by dropping down to kneeling and then onto the floor or ground.
 photo ScreenShot2013-04-12at114838PM_zpsa8396cda.png
In addition to learning how to shoot from these positions, I learned how to move efficiently and effectively while engaging a threat. Keeping the knees bent allows for faster movement and more control. In the video below, you’ll see me move from a “low-ready” position with my carbine to a ready and fire position.

The AR-15 is a close range tool and rifle, unlike conventional rifles. Despite the narrative recently in certain political circles, it is compact, easy to handle and offers close range accuracy. It can be used inside and outside of the home for self-defense. The Gunsite student handbook describes carbines being “politically incorrect” as a disadvantage.

Katie Pavlich

 

GUN OWNER STOPS HOME INVADERS DEAD


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.wnd.com.

posted by COLIN FLAHERTY

But media coverage quiet on racial, 2nd Amendment overtones

author-image

130414gunhomeinvasion

(Editor’s note: Colin Flaherty has done more reporting than any other journalist on what appears to be a nationwide trend of skyrocketing black-on-white crime, violence and abuse. WND features these reports to counterbalance the virtual blackout by the rest of the media due to their concerns that reporting such incidents would be inflammatory or even racist. WND considers it racist not to report racial abuse solely because of the skin color of the perpetrators or victims.)

When a group of black men were planning a home-invasion robbery in Fayetteville, N.C., on Friday, they stuck to an M.O. that had succeeded all over the country, but made one fatal error: They chose the wrong home.

The residents of the targeted house were home at the time and armed. After what local authorities report as a “gun battle,” two of alleged robbers died.

Most home invasion robberies follow the same script: Find a residence in a nice neighborhood where people do not live too close together. Statistics show potential victims are likely white or Asian, though professional athletes of all races are common targets, too. In this case, police are not identifying the identity of the home owner.

In an increasingly common crime around the country, especially in rural areas near cities, the perpetrators rush in, maybe beat up the occupants, take what they came for and get out. Maybe kill someone. Maybe not.

But this is the most important part of the plan: The potential victims need to be defenseless.

And that is where Xavier White, Dominik Lavon Council, Lamyer Gorminie Campbell and Derek Rashaun Hair went wrong: They chose the wrong house.

Police are not releasing the name of the homeowner who shot and killed two of these men as they broke into his home 3:37 a.m. Friday.

Xavier White reportedly died after crawling to a neighbor’s house a block a way and begging for help. Dominik Lavon Council was reportedly found nine miles away, abandoned on the road with a fatal gunshot wound.

The other two suspects, who initially escaped, were taken into custody Sunday and charged with burglary and assorted offenses. This is not their first brush with the law.

The homeowner was also wounded and has gone into hiding, say local media reports. He is not expected to be charged because North Carolina is considered a strong “castle law” state – where a homeowner is allowed to use deadly force against anyone breaking into his home or even car. He is not required to retreat.

The Fayetteville area was made popular in the movie “Cape Fear,” where a convicted felon terrorized his former lawyer and family for doing a poor job at his trial. One of the perpetrators died at the Cape Fear Valley Hospital.

The incident reflects another example of black mob violence, a pattern documented in the book:
“White Girl Bleed a Lot, the return of racial violence and how the media ignore it.”

Local media were hesitant to discuss the wider racial and 2nd Amendment issues the attempted robbery presents. The daily paper reported it dutifully, but did not allow comments – as many local media outlets do not when the crime is racially charged.

But at local TV news websites, dozens of comments touted the incident as a win for the Second Amendment in the face of increasing racially-charged crime.

A web visitor identified as Al, for example, told the ABC affiliate, “Four guys break into a house, and two are dead – not bad. Dunno how many shots were fired, but evidently is was more than Biden’s ‘two shots in the air.’ Yet these bozos will tell you, ‘you don’t need more than a 10-round magazine.’ Guess they never heard of flash mobs either. Oh wait, CBS calls them ‘mischievous youths.’”

Over at the local Fox News affiliate, David Hedgecock chimed in: “Perfect example of why we need to preserve and protect our right to bear arms. I hate to think what would have happened if the government had confiscated their gun or guns in this case. It would likely be the homeowner that has assumed room temperature. Right on for the 2nd Amendment.”

See the Big List of black mob violence.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/gun-owner-stops-home-invaders-dead/#ALLlAEk0flojYLew.99

 

IRAN WARNS OF WORLD WAR III


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.wnd.com.

 

posted by REZA KAHLILI

 

General: Country’s army has finger on the trigger

nuclear_blast4

Iran ratcheted up its vitriol against Israel and the United States over the weekend, warning that an attack on the Islamic regime’s nuclear facilities could lead to global war.

The rhetoric eerily matched that currently coming out of North Korea against its perceived enemies.

“Iran will not stand by in the face of such aggression,” Ali Ahani, Iran’s ambassador to France, said Sunday, according to the Islamic regime’s PressTV. “This can entail a chain of violence that may lead to World war III. A potential Israeli attack against Iran with an objective of destroying its scientific and nuclear facilities is sheer madness. Its consequences are disastrous and uncontrollable.”

The deputy chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, Brig. Gen Masoud Jazayeri, warned the United States on Saturday that Iran would continue its nuclear program.

“We would not trade off our rights,” he said, adding that Iran would stand with North Korea in its faceoff with America.

According to Mehr News, Jazayeri blamed the tension on the Korean Peninsula on the U.S. presence in the region.

“Whenever necessary, we would stop the U.S. excessive demands,” he said. “The Islamic Revolution will never leave its past and present friends. The U.S. and its allies will suffer great losses if a war breaks out in this region.”

The commander of the Islamic regime’s ground forces, Brig. Gen. Ahmad Reza Poordastan, in his speech at Friday Prayers, also warned “the enemies” that the country’s army has its finger on the trigger and that any attack on the country will make the “enemy” regret its actions.

All enemy activities at Iran’s borders and in the region are being monitored by the country’s intelligence analysts, and Iran’s armed forces are prepared for any scenario, he said.

The regime’s PressTV ran an op-ed analysis on Saturday with a headline “Iran deals deathblow to U.S. global hegemony.” The analysis, by Finian Cunningham, an Irishman whom the outlet calls “a prominent expert in international affairs,” blames America for much of the world’s problems and warns of its decline.

“Iran, however, presents a greater and more problematic challenge to U.S. global hegemony,” Cunningham wrote. “The U.S. in 2013 is a very different animal from what it was in 1945. Now it resembles more a lumbering giant. Gone is its former economic prowess and its arteries are sclerotic with its internal social decay and malaise. … Iran exerts a controlling influence over the vital drug that keeps the American economic system alive – the world’s supply of oil and gas. Any war with Iran, if the U.S. were so foolish to embark on it, would result in a deathblow to the waning American and global economy.”

Cunningham said the story will not end there: “The attainment of world peace, justice and sustainability does not only necessitate the collapse of American hegemony. We need to overthrow the underlying capitalist economic system that gives rise to such destructive hegemonic powers. Iran represents a deathblow to the American empire, but the people of the world will need to build on the ruins.”

The world powers once again failed at Almaty, Kazakhstan, to get Iran to stop its uranium enrichment program and allow further inspections of its nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The talks, which lasted two days, were held last week between Iran and the 5-plus-1 powers: the United States, Britain France, Russia, China, plus Germany.

As reported exclusively on WND on March 20 and in a follow-up in The Washington Times the next day, information provided by a high-ranking intelligence officer in the regime’s ministry of defense revealed yet another secret site where Iran is engaged in completing its nuclear bomb program and arming its ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads.

The source added that not only does the regime have enough plutonium for several bombs, but it also has enriched uranium to weapons grade.

The new site, 15 miles from another previously secret site exposed in 2009 (the Fordow nuclear facility), is approximately 14 miles long and 7.5 miles wide, consisting of two facilities built deep into a mountain along with a nearby missile facility with over 380 missile garages and silos, surrounded by barbed wire, 45 security towers and several security posts.

American experts who viewed satellite imagery of the new site are concerned that Iran may be much further along in its nuclear bomb program than perceived and that the images of the site are a clear indication that the regime’s strategy is to put together an “objective force” and not just one or two nuclear bombs. An objective force is defined as the level of military forces needed within a finite time frame and resource level to accomplish approved military objectives, missions or tasks.

Last week, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, in a hasty and unusual press conference, denied the existence of this site, dubbed “Quds,” at which the rogue nation is making great progress in creating nuclear warheads for an array of long-range missiles stored underground nearby. He did not elaborate as to what the site is and what work is being done out of the facilities.

The satellite images clearly show this vast site is visible to the naked eye and that it is a high-priority site with secret work conducted deep within the mountain.

Iran double agent

 

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/iran-warns-of-world-war-iii/#u3M6EZrxxTcX0wDf.99

 

Tough Gun Votes Could End Careers on Capitol Hill


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 rebloged from http://www.nationaljournal.com.

posted by Jill Lawrence

TARP, taxes, Obamacare, and guns have been blamed for scores of defeats in the last 20 years.

Sens. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and Mark Pryor, D-Ark., face red-state challenges. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

There aren’t too many votes with the potential to make or break a congressional career, but the upcoming gun-control showdown on Capitol Hill is one of them. For true believers aligned with their states, red or blue, the choice is easy. The rest could face difficult questions, such as “Am I willing to lose my job over this?” and “Will I be able to live with my vote?”

Rightly or wrongly, scores of defeats in the past 20 years have been blamed on votes that live in political infamy: Bill Clinton’s 1993 budget that raised taxes, the 10-year assault-weapons ban passed in 1994, the 2008 Troubled Asset Relief Program (better known as the bank bailout), and the 2010 Affordable Care Act (better known as Obamacare).

Support for gun control in particular is perceived as a career killer, largely because of the outsized reputation of the National Rifle Association. The group’s electoral record isn’t as bulletproof as you might think. As Dorothy Samuels noted in The New York Times in 2009, several factors contributed to the Republican sweep of 1994. Clinton went on to highlight his gun-control successes in his winning 1996 campaign. And four years later, gun-rights stalwarts backed by the NRA lost to Democrats in Senate elections in Florida, Michigan, Missouri, and Washington.

So you can buck the NRA and win. That could be particularly true this year, when the NRA is on the wrong side of public-opinion polls that show nine in 10 Americans support universal background checks for prospective gun buyers. Still, crossing the NRA is not risk-free. It could encourage primary challenges next year against Republicans. It could also boost GOP odds in conservative states now represented by Democrats, such as Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

But voting the NRA line isn’t entirely without risk, either. Lawmakers could be accused of doing the bidding of a group so far right that it even opposes a new bipartisan compromise to close major loopholes in the background-check system. Or, as former Republican Rep. Joe Scarborough put it this week on his MSNBC show, Morning Joe: “If you’re Kay Hagan in North Carolina and you’re Mary Landrieu and you’re running for reelection (next) year, do you really want to go to women’s groups and say, ‘You know, I didn’t have the courage to vote to make sure we could have criminal background checks so rapists couldn’t go and buy guns?’ ” He went on to say that “anybody that votes against criminal background checks” is basically saying “let’s give them a free pass” to buy guns.

There’s room for ambivalence toward the proposals coming before the Senate this week, including expanded background checks and limits on assault weapons and magazine clips. You don’t have to be a Second Amendment fanatic to wonder, as Kathleen Parker did Wednesday in The Washington Post, if at least some of them are simply “balm” to make us feel better. Yet she’s wrong, for instance, to say categorically that it wouldn’t do any good to limit the size of magazines because “maybe a killer simply would carry several small magazines and swap them out.”

In the January 2011 Tucson rampage, several people tackled Jared Loughner and wrested a new magazine from him after he had emptied a 30-round clip and was trying to reload. And in Newtown, where Adam Lanza’s ammunition included 10 30-round clips, parents and other relatives of the victims said 11 children escaped while he was reloading. The families say more lives would have been saved if he had been forced to reload more often.

Once they make their decisions, the questions for politicians are all about the future. When the next shooting happens, as it will, are they prepared to defend a vote against a restriction that might have stopped it? And if they vote for new gun controls, are they prepared for the possibility that voters will oust them?

Former Reps. Marjorie Margolies of Pennsylvania and Karen Shepherd of Utah both lost their seats after voting for Clinton’s 1993 budget, and they say they don’t regret their decisions. “You really have to do what is right and not what you have justified is right” because of your determination to win, Margolies told me three years ago.

And of course, there is always the possibility of a second chance. Margolies recently confirmed that she is considering a race for the House next year, 20 years after her defeat. If she does it, she’ll be owed plenty of help from Bill Clinton, whose daughter is now married to her son, and whose economic plan she saved with her eleventh-hour “aye” vote.

 

PTR In Bristol Is First Rifle Maker To Declare It’s Exiting Connecticut


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://courantblogs.com.

 

Posted by DAN HAAR

 

 During the three-month debate over gun control in Connecticut, the name PTR Industries Inc.barely came up, but the Bristol manufacturer with 50 employees has become the first maker of military-style rifles to announce its exit from Connecticut since the state adopted a strict ban on sales last week.

“Although PTR has not decided upon a specific relocation site at this time, over the coming weeks the company will be actively considering offers from states that are friendly to the industry. We hope to have a site identified within the next six weeks, and hope to have our move completed by the end of this year,” the company said in an announcement on its web site and in a press release.

A majority of the company’s employees, “which includes ALL of our management personnel, engineering staff and skilled gunsmiths,” has agreed to move, the statement said, even though the location has not been determined.

PTR said its employees had “a heavy heart but a clear mind” in reaching the decision — and the company is now inviting other manufacturers and suppliers to join it in departing Connecticut. It’s unclear how many people at different supplier companies work on PTR rifles, but all of the components are made in Connecticut, said John McNamara, the PTR vice president of sales.

The company’s statement echoes comments made by others in the industry — who are upset that no one saw the language of the law until the day before it was adopted by the state House of Representatives, without a public hearing.

“The disregard for public input…and the haphazard production of the legislation should be insulting to any citizen or business in CT,” the statement said. “It should be a shock to us all that such landmark legislation could be written in one week, and seen by no one (including the rank-and-file legislators) prior to its emergency certification.”

McNamara said the company had representatives at the Capitol this year but, he added, “We’re a little bit under the radar.”

PTR, which stands for Precision Target Rifles, was started in 2002 when a predecessor company bought tooling and designs for the HK-91 rifle from a Portuguese firm, Fabrica Militar, according to the PTR web site. The company at first made copies of the semi-automatic HK-91 using surplus parts, then branched out into its own line. It reorganized in 2010, the web site said, and has beefed up its manufacturing, customer service and support.

PTR is not likely to be the only Connecticut firearms firm to move or expand out of state as a result of the law.  Even before the Newtown tragedy on Dec. 14, and the threat and April 4 enactment of a ban on most military-style rifles, firms received many relocation offers from states in the South, West and Midwest. After Newtown, offers from other states became a flood and some companies have said they are considering a move.

Under the new Connecticut law, signed by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy last Thursday, most military-style rifles are banned outright for retail sale in Connecticut. Firms are allowed to make and ship firearms that are banned. Still, the owners of manufacturers including Stag Arms in New Britain, with 200 employees, and magazine-maker Ammunition Storage Components, which has 100 people in New Britain, say they may be forced to leave by a backlash from customers in other states who refuse to buy from companies that remain here.

PTR, which has “1776″ as the last four digits of its phone number, focuses its statement on rights and freedoms in Connecticut, where ten of the 34 “master dealers” of PTR guns are located.

“The rights of the citizens of CT have been trampled upon. The safety of its children is at best questionably improved from the day of the tragedy that triggered the events that lead (sic) us here. Finally, due to an improperly drafted bill, manufacturing of modern sporting rifles in the State of CT has been effectively outlawed. With a heavy heart but a clear mind, we have been forced to decide that our business can no longer survive in Connecticut – the former Constitution state.”

PTR’s chief executive, Josh Fiorini, said in a Bristol Press story on March 2, “I was born and raised in Bristol and most of my employees are from Bristol. We’d like to stay here, but we are certainly aware of the fallout from the Sandy Hook shooting.”

PTR moved from Farmington to Bristol in early 2012 and changed its name from PTR-91 to PTR Industries, reflecting a broader product line that was — and remains — part of a hot trend in the gun industry. The 10,600-square-foot building that the company occupies is valued at $595,300 by the city of Bristol, and the company has equipment assessed at $1.2 million, almost all of which is exempt from local property taxes under state rules.

McNamara declined to give details about PTR’s 2010 reorganization. There is no record of a bankruptcy filing by the company but in November, 2010, a German parts-maker, SiTec GMBH, sued PTR in U.S. District Court, seeking $117,000 in damages resulting from unpaid bills. The case settled ten weeks later.

The PTR Facebook page, with more than 400 comments about the announcement by midday Wednesday, included dozens from people around the country urging the company to move to their states.  In Connecticut, some dealers praised the PTR product line, including the models based on the HK-91.

“It’s better than the original gun,” said Mark Byers, an employee at the Newington Gun Exchange. For Connecticut, he said, “that’s going to be a huge loss.”

Critics of the ban, in and out of the industry, say Malloy should have realized the state would lose good employers such as PTR. Andrew Doba, Malloy’s spokesman, said in response, “The governor thinks about job creation 24 hours a day, however on this particular issue he thinks public safety must be a priority and the bill he signed into law increases public safety.”

The added background checks and stricter access and registration rules could well improve safety but it’s debatable whether the ban will do so, considering that military-style rifles are responsible for only a tiny fraction of gun deaths, and are widely available — with an estimated 8 million in circulation and no national ban in place.

What’s not debatable is that the firearms industry has been a linchpin in the Connecticut economy for more than 200 years, and is now threatened. A 2012 study by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, an industry group based in Newtown, estimated 2,900 people directly employed by firearms manufacturers, retailers and wholesalers, and another 1,900 employees at suppliers. We will have to wait and see how deeply that cluster of firms unravels.

“We feel that our industry as a whole will continue to be threatened so long as it remains in a state where its elected leaders have no regard for the rights of those who produce and manufacture its wealth,” PTR said in its statement.  “We are making a call to all involved in our industry to leave this state, close your doors and show our politicians the true consequences of their hasty and uninformed actions. We encourage those in our industry to abandon this state as its leaders have abandoned the proud heritage that forged our freedom.”

 

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

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: