Archive for April 23rd, 2009

Americans are telling us!

April 23, 2009

This is from Town Hall from March, is LaPierre a clairvoyant?No, he just didn’t have any blinders on. Enjoy!

Americans don’t need the NRA to tell them that the Barack Obama-Joe Biden administration could spell oblivion for their freedoms: Americans are telling us!

Even during the poorest holiday spending season in almost 40 years, with consumer confidence in a freefall, Americans bought guns like they were going out of style—or going to be banned.

The month Obama was elected, FBI background checks for firearm purchases increased by 42 percent over 2007, setting an all-time record for purchases in a month. Right-to-carry permit applications soared from coast to coast.

It’s easy to see why.

After spending millions of dollars to convince Americans they would never take their guns, Obama and Biden, just three days after winning the election, posted a Web page detailing how they planned to do just that.

Their preliminary agenda included:

• “Making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent”—despite the fact that even after 10 years, the Clinton-Reno Justice Department couldn’t spin it as anything more than a total failure;

• Opening sensitive federal gun-trace data for abuse by politicians seeking to sue the firearms industry out of business for the criminal acts of third parties; and

• “Making guns childproof” through government mandates requiring nonexistent, unworkable or prohibitively expensive technologies, ultimately leading to bans on non-“childproof” firearms.

If gun bans are their goal, Obama and Biden have plenty of experienced players to run with the ball.

The leader of Obama’s transition team, John Podesta, served as Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, where he helped mastermind the strategy of using frivolous lawsuits to bankrupt America’s firearms industry through “death by a thousand cuts.”

Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, was a key Clinton administration strategist on gun bans before he went to Congress, where he introduced the very gun ban that the administration now admits it seeks.

Obama’s choice for attorney general, Eric Holder, also served in the Clinton administration—as Attorney General Janet Reno’s lead salesman for various gun bans.

Last year, Holder signed a “friend of the court” brief defending the Washington, D.C., gun ban before the U.S. Supreme Court in the historic Heller case, arguing that “the Second Amendment does not extend an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

Now, with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under his control, Holder will have the power not only to suppress gun sales through increased fees, regulations and harassment of dealers—just as Bill Clinton did when he drove 80 percent of gun dealers out of business—but also to bring suit in federal court to prevent the landmark Heller ruling from being applied to cities and states, or to quash it altogether.

For more than a decade at the United Nations, dictatorships have been working with global gun-ban groups funded by billionaire financier George Soros to impose a gun ban treaty upon the United States.

In 2010, the United Nations convenes a major gun-control conference. But you can bet that, under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the U.S. delegation won’t oppose the U.N.’s gun-ban dictates, as it did in the past, but will now embrace American gun bans in the name of “international law.”

Under Obama, hunters may be as much of an endangered species as gun owners.

Obama’s pick for EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, held a similar post in New Jersey, where, in 2006, she shut down the state’s bear hunt—even after overabundant bears had begun killing livestock, invading homes and attacking kids. Could she shut down shooting ranges and hunters nationwide by regulating lead bullets out of existence as an “environmental toxin”?

If so, she surely won’t meet much resistance from Cass Sunstein, Obama’s choice to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. “We ought to ban hunting if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun,” Sunstein has said. “That should be against the law.”

In fact, in his book “Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions,” Sunstein wrote, “Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives.”

It’s easy to laugh, but this is no joke. Anti-gunners now control every lever of federal power. With the White House, nearly veto-proof majorities in Congress, and the ability to pack the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal bench and the vast federal bureaucracy with anti-gun extremists, they can attack your rights from every direction—executive, legislative, judicial, regulatory, even international.

If you agree with us, then join us. This is no time for silent assent or passive agreement. We must let those in power know we’re watching and we’re listening. We must stand with deeper ranks and broader strength and more resolve than ever.

So that if it becomes necessary—and I believe it will—the NRA will have the size and strength to swiftly act with the formidable unity and dogged resolve that have proven us the singular and most potent guardian of this freedom so essential to a free state.

Some political musings…

April 23, 2009

So? What is hot across the Internet and MSM today as far as politics go?

Hillary Clinton thinks Dick Cheney isn’t a reliable source. Funny how no one addressed her credibility…

Frank Lautenberg, of high treason fame, yet again seeks to destroy the nation and Constitution that he swore an oath to protect. One tiny cut at a time or the the occasional full blown slice! The man needs to do a rope dance, not be in elected office.

The folks that dubbed a rather sizable chunk of America with a Domestic Terrorist label are yet seeking even more power. Talk about Chutzpah!

Then the impostor in chief pulls the populist card yet again but fails to even suggest hammering the big boys where it will hurt. As in getting credit reports flagged to indicate that these people were, and are being hounded by those operations, and attorneys that feed from their teats.

But, I digress…


Obama Pushing Treaty To Ban Reloading

April 23, 2009

It appears that just about every day the impostor in chief comes up with another sneaky method to deprive us of our rights. read on…


-- Even BB guns could be on the chopping block

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

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Remember CANDIDATE Barack Obama?  The guy who "wasn't going to take away
our guns"?

Well, guess what?

Less than 100 days into his administration, he's never met a gun he
didn't hate.

A week ago, Obama went to Mexico, whined about the United States, and
bemoaned (before the whole world) the fact that he didn't have the
political power to take away our semi-automatics.  Nevertheless, that
didn't keep him from pushing additional restrictions on American gun
owners.

It's called the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing
of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other
Related Materials.  To be sure, this imponderable title masks a really
nasty piece of work.

First of all, when the treaty purports to ban the "illicit"
manufacture
of firearms, what does that mean?

1. "Illicit manufacturing" of firearms is defined as
"assembly of
firearms [or] ammunition... without a license...."

Hence, reloading ammunition -- or putting together a lawful firearm from
a kit -- is clearly "illicit manufacturing."

Modifying a firearm in any way would surely be "illicit
manufacturing."
And, while it would be a stretch, assembling a firearm after cleaning it
could, in any plain reading of the words, come within the screwy
definition of "illicit manufacturing."

2. "Firearm" has a similarly questionable definition.

"[A]ny other weapon" is a "firearm," according to
the treaty -- and the
term "weapon" is nowhere defined.

So, is a BB gun a "firearm"?  Probably.

A toy gun?  Possibly.

A pistol grip or firing pin?  Probably.  And who knows what else.

If these provisions (and others) become the law of the land, the Obama
administration could have a heyday in enforcing them.  Consider some of
the other provisions in the treaty:

* Banning Reloading.  In Article IV of the treaty, countries commit to
adopting "necessary legislative or other measures" to criminalize
illicit manufacturing and trafficking in firearms.

Remember that "illicit manufacturing" includes reloading and
modifying
or assembling a firearm in any way.  This would mean that the Obama
administration could promulgate regulations banning reloading on the
basis of this treaty -- just as it is currently circumventing Congress
to write legislation taxing greenhouse gases.

* Banning Gun Clubs.  Article IV goes on to state that the criminalized
acts should include "association or conspiracy" in connection
with said
offenses -- which is arguably a term broad enough to allow, by
regulation, the criminalization of entire pro-gun organizations or gun
clubs, based on the facilities which they provide their membership.

* Extraditing US Gun Dealers. Article V requires each party to "adopt
such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the
offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention" under a
variety of circumstances.

We know that Mexico is blaming U.S. gun dealers for the fact that its
streets are flowing with blood.  And we know it is possible for Mexico
to define offenses "committed in its territory" in a very
broad way.
And we know that we have an extradition obligation under Article XIX of
the proposed treaty.  So we know that Mexico could try to use the treaty
to demand to extradition of American gun dealers.

Under Article XXIX, if Mexico demands the extradition of a lawful
American gun dealer, the U.S. would be required to resolve the dispute
through "other means of peaceful settlement."

Does anyone want to risk twenty years in a sweltering Mexican jail on
the proposition that the Obama administration would apply this provision
in a pro-gun manner?

* Microstamping.  Article VI requires "appropriate markings" on
firearms.  And, it is not inconceivable that this provision could be
used to require microstamping of firearms and/or ammunition -- a
requirement which is clearly intended to impose specifications which are
not technologically possible or which are possible only at a
prohibitively expensive cost.

* Gun Registration.  Article XI requires the maintenance of any records,
for a "reasonable time," that the government determines to be
necessary
to trace firearms.  This provision would almost certainly repeal
portions of McClure-Volkmer and could arguably be used to require a
national registry or database.

ACTION:  Write your Senators and urge them to oppose the Inter-American
Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms,
Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.

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

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

I am urging you, in the strongest terms, to oppose the Inter-American
Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms,
Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.

This anti-gun treaty was written by international bureaucrats who are
either stupid or virulently anti-gun -- or both.

This treaty could very well ban the ability to reload ammunition, to put
new stocks on rifles lawfully owned by American citizens, and, possibly,
even ban BB guns!

There are too many problems with this treaty to mention them all in this
letter.  The rest can be read on the website of Gun Owners of America
at:
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0901.htm

Please do not tell me the treaty has not yet been abused in this way by
the bevy of Third World countries which have signed it.  We do not
expect the real ramifications of the treaty to become clear until the
big prize -- the U.S. -- has stepped into the trap.

For all of these reasons, I must insist that you oppose ratification of
the treaty.

Sincerely,

 


People Advised To Think Twice About Picking Up Young Animals‏

April 23, 2009

It seems that every year this message needs to be repeated. Not just for youngsters though. It simply amazes me how many adults think Boo Boo Bear, Coyotes, Cougars and so on are just misunderstood fellow occupiers of the Earth. Animals that pose somewhat less danger to humans need to be left alone as well though.

PEOPLE ADVISED TO THINK TWICE ABOUT PICKING UP YOUNG ANIMALS

DENVER, Colo. – Spring is the season of re-birth when many wildlife species come into the world. As people venture outside in the warm weather, they may find newborn wildlife in their yards, along trails, or in open space areas.  As tempting as it may be to “help” a young animal by picking it up, or by trying to give it food or water, for wildlife babies, there is no substitute for their natural parents.

It seems counter intuitive, but according to wildlife experts, it is normal to find young wild animals without an adult animal nearby.   Well-meaning people sometimes scoop up baby wildlife and bring them to wildlife rehabilitation facilities, veterinary clinics, or Colorado Division of Wildlife offices, but experts say that is the wrong thing to do.

If you find young wildlife, enjoy a quick glimpse, leave the animal where it is, and keep pets out of the area.  “The best thing to do if you are concerned is to quietly observe the animal from a distance using binoculars.  Don’t hover so close that the wild parents are afraid to return to the area,” advises Colorado Division of Wildlife Officer Jeromy Huntington.

“If several hours go by and the parent does not return, it is possible the newborn was abandoned or the parent is dead (hit by a car, for example) then report it to the Division of Wildlife.  Do not move the animal yourself,” he said.

Donna Ralph of the non-profit Ellicott Wildlife Rehabilitation Center agrees.  “Many of the animals we get should have never been picked up in the first place,” said Ralph.  “They would have had a better chance for survival if left in the care of the parent animal.”

“The sooner the animal can be released back to where it came from the better,” she explained.   “Make sure you provide your contact information so we can let it go in the same place you found it.”

Ralph said her center has already taken in many small mammals this year including several fox kits.  “Baby foxes don’t look like most people would expect them to look like. They are very small, very dark (almost black) and appear to be very kitten like.  People who find them think they might be baby raccoons, skunks, or something else.”

Ralph’s advice: Don’t try to feed them. Don’t put anything into their mouths. Contact the DOW, a veterinarian, or licensed wildlife rehabilitator to give these babies the care they need.

“Whatever you do, don’t try to keep the animal as a pet,” she said. “It is illegal to keep wild animals in captivity unless you are a licensed wildlife rehabilitator. ”

Right now, wildlife centers are taking in small mammals, but as the season progresses, people will bring in newly hatched birds that have fallen from their nest.  Experts recommend returning them to the nest if you can do so safely, or placing them on a high branch to keep them away from pets.  It is an old wives tale that birds will reject their young if people touch them.  Birds have little sense of smell.

“If you are not able to reach the nest, put the bird in a small box and attach it as to close to the nest as you can.  It is a lot easier, and more successful, when the parent birds feed and care for their babies than when humans try to do so,” Ralph said.

Picking up wildlife is not only detrimental for the animal; it can be risky for people, too.   According to Huntington, most people have good intentions when they pickup wildlife, but are unaware of the risks associated with handling wild animals.  Wild animals can carry rabies, distemper or other illnesses.  It is also possible for the animals to carry fleas that might subsequently spread disease to humans or pets.

Cute baby raccoons and skunks will grow up to be big problems if you illegally “adopt” a foundling. “You are putting yourself and your family at risk.  You can be ticketed and the animal will be taken away,” he cautioned.

Human-raised and hand-fed animals rarely can be returned to the wild because they have imprinted on humans or because they lack survival skills.  Licensed wildlife rehabilitators are trained to use methods that will give a wild animal the best chance of surviving upon release.

Despite the fact that wildlife is usually best left alone, there are instances in which people find injured or orphaned wildlife that needs help.  If this happens, call the DOW for assistance.

For more information, visit the DOW web site at www.colorado.gov/wildlife or call your local Colorado Division of Wildlife Office.

More about “Right Wing Terrorist’s”

April 23, 2009

The firestorm that unleashed last week over the DHS report on “right wing terrorists” has not abated. In fact, it appears to have heated up. Half hearted apologies don’t come across as sincere to say the least. Some people have also pointed out that this past January there was another report about possible terrorist groups with a left wing tilt. Sorry, that report didn’t lump entire groups into the category of terrorist like this latest assessment from DHS did. So then what are people saying?

“The idea that American ‘hate groups’ are right-wing and bristling with vets got new life with JFK’s assassination at the hands of a disgruntled vet named Lee Harvey Oswald. Everybody knew right away that Oswald was an agent of ‘hate’ — and hate was code for right-wing and racist. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren summed up the instantaneous conventional wisdom when he blamed the ‘climate of hatred’ for Kennedy’s death. Everybody knew that the right was involved. There was just one inconvenient truth: Oswald was a communist who, according to the Warren report, had ‘an extreme dislike of the rightwing’ and had actually tried to murder a right-wing former Army general. When Hollywood filmed the Tom Clancy novel ‘The Sum of All Fears,’ it changed the real villains from Jihadi terrorists to a bunch of European CEOs who were secret Nazis. Because ‘everybody knows’ that’s where the real threat lies. Sen. John Kerry belonged to an organization of vets that considered assassinating American politicians. (Kerry denied participating in those meetings.) Barack Obama was friends with, and a colleague of, a domestic terrorist whose organization plotted to murder soldiers and their wives at a social at Fort Dix. A young Hillary Clinton sympathized with the Black Panthers, a paramilitary gang of racist murders and cop killers. Bring that up and you’re a paranoid nutcase out of ‘Dr. Strangelove.’ But if you’re terrified of a bunch of citizens who throw tea in the water and demand lower taxes and less government spending, well, that’s just a sign of political seriousness. Because everyone knows who the real threat to the country is.” –National Review editor Jonah Goldberg

On the Tea Parties

April 23, 2009

The “Tea Parties” were viewed, if at all, by the MSM as some sort of anachronism if not with out and out antagonism. Branding the participant’s as “tea baggers,” the term used in a deviant manner. I suppose that is to be expected from a profession that has sank into the depths that, for the most part reflects an utter lack of moral fortitude. But, then again it was these same people that brought to you the term “Saturday Night Special.”

Too wit the blond with a brain adds this commentary:

“The point of the tea parties is to note the fact that the Democrats’ modus operandi is to lead voters to believe they are no more likely to raise taxes than Republicans, get elected and immediately raise taxes. Apparently, the people who actually pay taxes consider this a bad idea. Obama’s biggest shortcoming is that he believes the things believed by all Democrats, which have had devastating consequences every time they are put into effect. Among these is the Democrats’ admiration for raising taxes on the productive. All Democrats for the last 30 years have tried to stimulate the economy by giving ‘tax cuts’ to people who don’t pay taxes. Evidently, offering to expand welfare payments isn’t a big vote-getter. Even Bush had a ‘stimulus’ bill that sent government checks to lots of people last year. Guess what happened? It didn’t stimulate the economy. Obama’s stimulus bill is the mother of all pork bills for friends of O and of Congressional Democrats. … And all that government spending on the Democrats’ constituents will be paid for by raising taxes on the productive. Raise taxes and the productive will work less, adopt tax shelters, barter instead of sell, turn to an underground economy — and the government will get less money. … The lie at the heart of liberals’ mantra on taxes — ‘tax increases only for the rich’ — is the ineluctable fact that unless taxes are raised across the board, the government won’t get its money to fund layers and layers of useless government bureaucrats, none of whom can possibly be laid off.” –columnist Ann Coulter

Thomas Sowell on gun control

April 23, 2009

Yes, I know  that there are some people that have a great deal more patience than I do. I admit that there are times when I just get fed up explaining the obvious over and over. Time, and time again it goes on… In any case, Thomas Sowell, someone that I have great respect for attempts yet again to explain the great mysteries of life to the uninitiated.

“Some of our biggest political fallacies come from accepting words as evidence of realities. …[For example,] ‘gun control’ laws do not control guns. The District of Columbia’s very strong laws against gun ownership have done nothing to stop the high murder rate in Washington. New York had very strong gun control laws decades before London did. But the murder rate in New York has been some multiple of that in London for more than two centuries, regardless of which city had the stronger gun control laws at a given time. Back in 1954, when there were no restrictions on owning shotguns in England and there were far more owners of pistols then than there were decades later, there were only 12 cases of armed robbery in London. By the 1990s, after stringent gun controls laws were imposed, there were well over a thousand armed robberies a year in London. In the late 1990s, after an almost total ban on handguns in England, gun crimes went up another ten percent. The reason — too obvious to be accepted by the intelligentsia — is that law-abiding people became more defenseless against criminals who ignored the law and kept their guns.” –Hoover Institution economist Thomas Sowell

Stimulus package: humor

April 23, 2009

I got this from my better half. She received it from her father, who has an MBA. Enjoy!

Stimulus Payment Information

This year, US taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus
Payment. This is a very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and
A format:
Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
A. It is money that
the federal government will send to taxpayers.
Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From
taxpayers.
Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only
a smidgen.
Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that
you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating
the economy.
Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China ?
A. Shut
up.

Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the US
economy by spending your stimulus check wisely:

If you spend that
money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China.
If you spend it on
gasoline it will go to the Arabs.
If you purchase a computer it will go to
India.
If you purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras,
and Guatemala (unless you buy organic).
If you buy a car it will go to
Japan.
If you purchase useless crap it will go to Taiwan.
And none of it will help the American economy.
We need to keep that money here in America.
You can keep the money in America by spending it at yard sales,
going to a baseball game, or spend it on prostitutes, beer and wine (domestic
ONLY), or tattoos, since those are the only businesses still in the
US.