Archive for October 16th, 2009

“Task Force” Using Crime And Corruption In Mexico As Premise For Gun Control In U.S.

October 16, 2009

As previously reported here, the NRA is getting fired up over the “Bi-National” shenanigans that are thinly vield shots at U.S. sovereignty because Mexico can’t get a handle on corruption.

On October 13, the Associated Press reported that the so-called Bi-National Task Force on Rethinking the United States-Mexico Border has produced a report, which, among other things, calls for re-imposition of the federal “assault weapon” ban of 1994-2004, saying it would improve security in both countries.

The “border-rethinking” group has been put together by the Pacific Council on International Policy and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations. The group consists mostly of former U.S. and Mexican officials and journalists, none of them currently elected by the people of the U.S. or Mexico to make policy on these issues.

According to the Pacific Council, the report is being released under the auspices of the Mexican CFR on November 13th and is absolutely unavailable until that time.  The Brady Campaign, naturally, has a copy of the report anyway, and quotes its executive summary as saying “The United States should intensify efforts to curtail the smuggling of firearms, ammunition, and bulk cash into Mexico by aggressively investigating gun sellers, regulating gun shows, [and] reinstituting the Clinton-era ban on assault weapons.”

Congress finished its hearings on the Mexico situation several months ago, and many members of Congress have declared their line-in-the-sand opposition to re-imposition of the ban.  So given that Brady Campaign seems to be the only outfit that has a copy of the embargoed report, it’s safe to conclude that the “task force” is trying to keep the public primed for the next attack on the ownership of firearms like the AR-15 and Remington 11-87, and ammunition magazines designed for defensive purposes.

Whatever the opinions of those who sip tea and nibble biscuits while musing about how to restrict the rest of us, re-imposing the ban would have no effect on Mexico’s historic problem of crime and corruption, for at least three reasons.

First, as has been amply demonstrated, the cartels are not limited to semi-automatic AR-15s and AK-47s.  They have hand-held and tripod-mounted, belt-fed machine guns; grenade launchers and grenades; and a variety of other high-end firearms, explosives, and special-purpose optics and communication gear acquired from countries other than the United States. Thanks to some Americans’ insatiable appetite for mind-altering drugs, they have enough money to buy the “task force” 10 times over, along with any weapon that can be found among any infantry platoon on Earth, no matter what kind of gun law gets imposed.

Second, most of the firearms seized from the cartels do not come from the United States. The claim that “90 percent” of Mexican “crime guns” originate in the U.S. is false. It does not relate to all firearms the Mexicans have seized from the cartels, but only to guns that the Mexicans have asked the BATFE to trace. As the Government Accountability Office has explained, “In 2008, of the almost 30,000 firearms that the Mexican Attorney General’s office said were seized, only around 7,200, or approximately a quarter, were submitted to [BATFE] for tracing.” The 6,700 guns that BATFE traced to the U.S. accounted for about 90 percent of the 7,200 guns that BATFE traced, but only 22 percent of all firearms seized by the Mexican government

Third, the ban did not stop the production and sale of any guns, it merely put a one-attachment limit on new guns. For example, before the ban, AR-15s had a pistol-type grip, flash suppressor and bayonet mount. The 750,000 AR-15s made during the ban had only the grip.  If the “task force” thinks the fate of Mexico hinges on whether a relatively small number of semi-automatic rifles have flash suppressors and bayonet mounts, its members ought to switch to decaffeinated tea and sugar-free cookies during their get-togethers.

Make no mistake, however. Even if the “task force” doesn’t understand the finer details of the old “assault weapon” ban, leading gun ban advocates like Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, the Brady Campaign, the Violence Policy Center, the Joyce Foundation, and the Legal Community Against Violence do.  If they have their way, they will eventually drag us into a much larger battle over the right to keep and bear semi-automatic shotguns, M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, and Ruger Mini-14s, in addition to the AR-15s, semi-automatic AK-47s, and other commonly owned firearms that were at issue during the 1994-2004 ban.

SOURCE

Obama administration reverses US stance on arms treaty

October 16, 2009

The obama cretins pissed on American sovereignty. Trashing our unalienable rights acknowledged in the Constitution and Bill of Rights can lead to no good whatsoever. Next it will be Americans being tried in some dumb ass world court stuffed with America haters.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush’s administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, “operates under the rules of consensus decision-making.”

“Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly,” Clinton said in a written statement.

While praising the Obama administration’s decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.

“The shift in position by the world’s biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers,” Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.

However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus “could fatally weaken a final deal.”

Treason Revealed Here

God and guns founded country

October 16, 2009

Chuck Norris nails it with this editorial!

God and guns are what our country was founded upon.

But more and more, these pillars of American life and liberty are being attacked and abandoned out of not only sheer bias but also ignorance of our Founding Fathers, the Revolutionary period and our Constitution. These pivotal American rights have become the brunt end of cultural jokes and often are regarded as biased lifestyle components of “rednecks” and rural citizens.

For example, gone but not forgotten is even President Barack Obama’s partiality on the campaign trail in April 2008. You might recall when he addressed the economic hardships, at a private California fundraiser, of those in Pennsylvania, with this quip: “You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years, and nothing’s replaced them. … And it’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion … as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Presently, with the Supreme Court back in session and new justice Sonia Sotomayor’s narrow view of the Second Amendment, gun rights are back again on the docket. Two weeks ago, concerning a case out of Chicago, the justices agreed to rule on whether the Second Amendment gives Americans a constitutional right to keep and bear arms that is enforceable against local and state gun laws.

The indifference toward and lack of education and passion regarding all of our Bill of Rights gravely concerns me. And while there is nothing funny about it, it is one of many reasons roughly one-fifth of the 101 short stories are “Freedom” entries in my new book, “The Official Chuck Norris Fact Book,” a fun yet inspirational and educational book in which I share my 101 favorite Chuck Norris “facts” — embedded within five core values: freedom, family, faith, fitness and fight. (It will be released Nov. 1 and is now available for pre-order on Amazon.com for less than $9. Proceeds will go to help http://www.KickStartKids.org.)

Full Article

Sleazy politics: it’s worse than watching sausage-making

October 16, 2009
Anti-gun ObamaCare Now Moves to the Senate Floor
— But Obama does not yet have the 60 votes he needs

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

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Well, there’s good news and bad news.

If you’ve been listening to the media, you know the bad news.  Senators voted the Baucus version of the ObamaCare bill out the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday, and the legislation now moves to the Senate floor.

So what’s the good news?  President Obama still doesn’t have the 60 votes he needs to overcome a filibuster of his nationalized health care bill.

In brief, the Baucus bill which passed out of committee will hurt you in several ways:

* You will have less money for buying firearms and ammunition. Hopefully, you have $25,900 that you don’t know what to do with — every year.  Because that’s how much the Baucus bill is going to cost an average family of four to pay for a government-mandated ObamaCare policy every year.

That’s right … $25,900 every year!  That will be your cost, according to a Price Waterhouse study of the Baucus legislation.  You will be required to purchase this ObamaCare policy and pay this amount under penalty of law under Baucus’ bill. (Go to http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_pwc2.html to read the Price Waterhouse study.)

* Anti-gun medical database that can be used to deny your right to purchase firearms. As GOA has warned for several months, the ObamaCare legislation will pump your medical information into the medical database that was created under the stimulus bill earlier this year.

The federal government has already used medical diagnoses (such as PTSD) to deny more than 150,000 military veterans the right to own guns — without their being convicted of a crime or receiving any due process of law.  So don’t be surprised if socialized ObamaCare results in your medical information being used to infringe upon your Second Amendment rights.

* Discrimination against gun owners. ObamaCare legislation in Congress will very likely empower anti-gun bureaucrats to deny medical reimbursements to individuals who engage in supposedly “dangerous” activities, like hunting or keeping loaded weapons for self-defense.  As GOA pointed out in an earlier alert, this type of discrimination against gun owners has already occurred in the homeowner insurance industry. (See documented examples of this at http://gunowners.org/op0231.htm on the GOA website.)

Bottom line:  Don’t be surprised if an Obama-prescribed policy precludes reimbursement of any kind in a household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense.

Sleazy politics: it’s worse than watching sausage-making

In order to get a somewhat positive financial analysis from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) kept the details of his health care rationing scheme secret.  He did this by providing the CBO an outline of the legislation, rather than providing real legislative language.

In fact, at the hour that the Senate Finance Committee was being forced to vote on the Baucus bill, the legislative language was still not available!  So the Senate Finance Committee voted on a bill that will take over one-sixth of the American economy without even seeing specific legislative language.

Otto von Bismarck, the first Chancellor of the German Empire, used to say that, “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.”

That’s still true today.  In order to get this sleazy effort to the Senate floor without anyone knowing what is in the legislative language, the Senate leadership has developed a really contemptible scheme:

* They will take a totally unrelated piece of legislation — perhaps a bill that deals with AIG bonus legislation — and then amend it with a thousand-page health bill that no one, to this date, has been able to read.

* The Republicans will filibuster this attempt to vote on “secret legislation” — requiring the Democrats to muster 60 votes.  If Democrats are successful in doing so, many of them will be free to vote against the health care bill on final passage, since only 51 votes will be needed for the final passage vote.  These switch-hitting Democrats would then be free to tell their constituents that they “opposed” the anti-gun socialized medicine bill because they voted against it on “final passage” — a nearly irrelevant vote that only requires the assent of 51 senators.

But make no mistake:  The REALLY IMPORTANT VOTE is the one that requires 60 votes.  That’s the vote to end the filibuster (or “invoke cloture”) on the motion to proceed to the secret bill.

At this point, it is not clear that Obama has the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster.  Already, one Democrat, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, has announced he is opposed to the Baucus plan.

And Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa indicated recently that there may be one more Democrat who is leaning against the bill.

That’s why it’s IMPERATIVE that you contact both of your senators.  Don’t think:  “Oh, my Senator is a Democrat and he’s going to support the President.”  We can’t afford to think that way.  All we need to do is pick off one more Democrat Senator and this bill is dead!

At the same time, we need to make sure all the Republicans vote against this anti-gun monstrosity.  Even with liberal Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine defecting, it is still possible to win the war over this legislation.

ACTION: Contact your two U.S. Senators.  Let them know of your disgust for the Baucus bill, and urge them to vote against cloture on the motion to proceed to a “secret” composite bill crafted behind closed doors.

You can 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:

This may come as a surprise to you.  But most Americans can’t afford $25,900 a year to pay for health insurance under the sleazy bill passed out of the Senate Finance Committee.

According to a Price Waterhouse study, by 2019, the cost of the average family’s government-mandated Obama-drafted health insurance policy — which I would be required to purchase under penalty of law — would be $25,900 A YEAR.  This is a much bigger increase in premiums than if Congress did nothing.

Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office agrees that premiums would climb faster under the Baucus bill than if Congress did nothing.

Incidentally, please do not try to tell me that the “fines” for not purchasing an ObamaPolicy have been reduced and that I can’t be sent to prison.  This is largely a lie.

An ordinary family would pay $1,500 in fines when the bill fully kicks in.  And, while an amendment added by Senator Charles Schumer says you can’t be sent to prison if you can’t afford the policy, it does NOT say you can’t be sent to prison if you can’t afford the fine.

The next step will be a motion to proceed to a bill which would implement a government takeover of a sixth of the American economy — and put the government in charge of making decisions over whether my family and me live or die.

That motion to proceed will be made at a point when there is no CBO score based on legislation — and possibly no legislative language at all.

I would urge you, in the strongest terms, to vote against that motion to proceed — particularly if there is not a final CBO score BASED ON LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE.

Please do not vote wrong on this crucial cloture vote — and then expect that you can trick me by voting “no” on a meaningless final passage vote which only requires 50 senators.

Sincerely,