Archive for the ‘Czar Wars’ Category

“No Confidence” in Holder Resolution

January 28, 2012

Attorney General Eric Holder — recently caught lying under oath concerning his knowledge of his department’s Fast and Furious program — may be moving a step closer to the inside of a jail cell.

On Thursday, February 2nd, Chairman Darrell Issa’s Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will hold another hearing on the disastrous Fast and Furious operation.

Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar, a member of that committee, is also pushing a resolution of “no confidence” in Holder’s management — or lack of management — of the Justice Department.

That resolution, H. Res. 490, provides a course of action for the momentum generated by that hearing.

H. Res. 490 finds that, as a result of “Holder’s failure to properly control, monitor, or establish Operation Fast and Furious, it is likely Mexican nationals were killed or wounded by weapons sold through this scheme” — and that the victims of Holder’s incompetence included U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

It goes on to resolve that the House has “lost confidence” in Holder, which is, basically, a call for him to resign.

Clearly, the Justice Department believes it can stonewall Issa’s inquiry and bull its way through questions concerning its criminal malfeasance. Adoption of the Gosar resolution would make it much, much more difficult to do so.

ACTION: Contact your Representative and urge him or her to cosponsor H.Res. 490. Click here to send a prewritten message to your Rep.

 

 

Let’s see now… Economics revisited; The epic failure known as obama.

July 26, 2011

Quick! Blame it on Bush! Blame it on Congress! Blame it on racism! But remember to do it For the Children!

Let’s get back to the basics, and stop the blaiming and finger pointing. Supposedly we have adults working on the economic woes that have beset our nation. What is needed are solutions. Not more he did this or she did that type of whining…

If a house is on fire put the damned fire out. NOW! The investigation into the cause can come later. If a patient is in V-Fib shock him, and do it now! What caused it can be determined at a later date…

Here, are a few guidelines to help the uninformed. So as to not try putting out that fire by spraying it with gasoline.

There are four basic laws of . When these laws are applied correctly in a society the society achieves explosive prosperity. Conversely when these four laws are violated that society will spiral down into recessions, depressions and wars.

The following are The Four Basic Laws of Economics.

  1. All money value is created through and backed by the production of goods and services.
  2. The individuals who create this production own the money exchanged for it.
  3. All production must be marketed on an Open Market (open to all on equal terms, absolutely no exceptions.)
  4. The money supply must be held constant forever with no exceptions. This Law standardizes the economic system like the metric system is standardized with a titanium bar in the length of 39 centimeters. So a constant money supply standardizes economics

These are the four basic laws of economics.   When I studied the History of Economics, I found  Societies using these laws knowingly or unknowingly achieved roaring prosperity.    When these laws fell out of use that Society found itself  in a recession, depression and/or war.

Societies using these laws are rewarding Production.   Societies not using these laws are rewarding non-production.    When you reward production you will get more production.   When you reward non-production you will get more non-production.

If we look back at the last 48 years we can see Laws 2, 3 and 4 were very out. The first law cannot be violated because production always creates money value if production is taking place. It is always in, man cannot change this law.    Without production money will have no value.

SOURCE

Economic principles are crucial not only to arguments for economic freedom, but also for personal and political liberty and for peaceful coexistence. Yet many people are ignorant of economics, or have heard some misleading or incorrect information. Still more people don’t see how economic principles can be applied to everyday life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the job of the libertarian to show the world how closely tied economics is to freedom.

Economics and Abstraction

The trouble that many people seem to have applying economics, or accepting the libertarian view that economics is much more widely applicable than traditionally believed, is that they view economics as an abstraction, a set of patterns or guidelines, or some philosophy or social science that attempts to model reality. Since economics is viewed only as a model, when economics and reality do not coincide it is simply assumed that the model is flawed, and thus economics is seen as just one way of looking at things, that is sometimes useful and often inaccurate.

Some economics is abstraction. The supply and demand curves, for example, are abstract, not real. There are no actual curves, physically manifest in the real world, that are supply and demand curves. They are a mathematical model, and as such, they are useful only in helping us to visualize the data they represent – not to predict outcomes with great accuracy.

On the other hand, the core principles of Austrian economics are real, universally applicable laws. In the real world, physically, things are produced and consumed; they are supplied and demanded; the laws governing these actions are just as real as the laws of the physical world.

Every action one takes involving any resource that is scarce, anything that can be spent, is an economic action. Whether you are spending money or material goods, or time, attention, or effort, or whether you are spending any social capital, good will, influence, or credibility – any time you shrink your pool of anything that’s available to you, for any reason, you are engaging in an economic action. Taking these actions while ignoring the rules governing them is just as potentially hazardous as driving a car without knowing how to steer, or walking around on top of a steep mountain while ignoring the laws of gravity.

The problem the libertarian faces in convincing people of the veracity of these claims is that there is, within the field of economics, a lot of junk science. Every time a war, hurricane or tsunami hits, someone proclaims that the economy is stimulated, promptly convincing practically everyone within earshot that what’s good for “the economy” – an abstraction – is not necessarily good. Actual economists cringe at this, pointing out the fallacy that Bastiat is credited with exposing, which is that this view does not consider the opportunity cost of the resource being spent repairing the damage. In fact, disasters – natural or man made – are disasters, and throwing the economy in front of the train of public opinion is generally an attempt by those in power to placate the population and maintain the status quo. After all, a public that can see the positive side of hurricanes and tsunamis is that much more likely to buy into a war or some other State-sponsored disaster.

The Market – Real or Abstract?

People speak of the market very often in economics, so it’s of paramount importance to determine the reality behind this term. Is the market a real, actual thing, or is it an abstraction? The answer is both, and neither.

In some cases, the market is a real, physical place. When you buy groceries, you buy them at a supermarket, or a mini-mart, or a convenience store (the name convenience store is all too accurate, since their main commodity for sale is not groceries, but convenience, and you certainly pay for it), which is just as much a market as the supermarket is. Generally, any place where you buy something can be called a market. So in this sense, the market is real.

In other cases, the market is not physical but inferred. You can buy things on the Internet – web sites are “places” in one sense, but not another. The market becomes a facilitator. When we refer to the market value of a thing, we aren’t referring to the price we saw the thing for sale for at the actual market. We are in this case speaking of a metaphorical market. The black market isn’t an actual place one goes that is actually colored black. It’s an abstract term. (One could argue that the place where an exchange takes place becomes a de facto market, so if I sell things at my house, my house is an actual market for those things for that time. Either way, the term market is sometimes used as an abstraction, sometimes not.)

In this sense the market is both real and abstract, depending on the circumstance. However, the sense in which the term is often used is neither a physical location nor an abstraction of such. It is a situation, or a description of the state of things. When things are traded “on the market” it means that ownership of the things has been exchanged publicly, voluntarily, and legitimately. When we refer to a market as free, we mean that there are no barriers to these exchanges placed by others – in other words, no taxes, tariffs, price controls, or other interferences. When we say that something is “placed on the market” we mean that it is being offered for sale or trade.

It is important to distinguish between the abstract and situational uses of this term. For instance, if something is “on the market,” it’s available to be purchased – there is an actual good or service that is really available. If something has a “market value,” however, you can’t infer anything about that thing itself. “Value” is subjective, and relative; “market value” simply refers to the price one could fetch for the item if it were sold publicly. It might be based on the MSRP (manufacturer’s suggested retail price), or on the appraisal of a third party, or on the price that previous, similar items have sold for. There’s no way to predict or know market value – you can only guess, estimate, extrapolate, or average.

The Reality of the Free Market

Detractors of libertarianism complain that the free market is idolized and worshiped by libertarians, and that it is just another abstraction, that can never come true; they say it is idealistic or Utopian to expect a free market to ever arise.

The term “free market” often does not refer to a market at all. For instance, some would claim that the free market reduces prices and increases quality as time passes. However, there isn’t an actual marketplace that accomplishes this feat. Rather, “free market” is an abbreviation; what we are really referring to is the collected efforts of individuals acting on the free market. Markets don’t act – people do. The “free market” is simply the state of people acting without barriers to exchange.

Economic law proves that when individuals act without barriers to exchange they bring about states of affairs more desirable to themselves than if they act with barriers to exchange. When the “free market” reduces the price of a commodity, what’s really happening is that individual suppliers are reducing the prices of their goods in order to maximize their profits in the face of competition. When the “free market” increases the quality of a good, what’s happening is that suppliers are making better products, in order to maximize profit in the face of competition. When the “free market” bankrupts one supplier and makes another a millionaire, what is really happening is that individual consumers chose to spend their money on the latter supplier’s product, in order to maximize the utility of their money.

Libertarians do not worship the free market; however, we hold as an ideal that state of affairs brought about by the free market – a situation where everyone is free to act to benefit him or herself, as long as they do not harm others. Theory holds that this leads to maximal prosperity. Empirical evidence shows that the fewer restrictions on non-harmful, non-coercive behavior, the greater the prosperity that is achieved. This is not because of an abstraction or a model, but because of human nature and physical reality.

As for the final accusation, the situation described by the free market is not Utopian. Free exchanges are made every day. What prevents many people from seeing this fact is the limitation of economics to financial matters.

The Scope of Economics

Economics govern not merely financial exchanges but the allocation of all scarce resources, and the actions people take to satisfy their desires. People desire material goods, but they also desire other things. Let us consider the example of interpersonal relationships, and the applications of the free market scenario vs. the hampered market.

Daily, we trade our affections for the affections of others. Friends, family members, lovers, even pets, are capable and willing partners in exchanges of time, energy, favors, and good will – and these things are scarce resources. Governments do not currently place a tax on any of these things; however, I am certain that if a politician could figure out a way to do it it would happen. However, there are plenty of limitations or restrictions. A person cannot legally give a large monetary gift to their spouse, parent, child, or best friend without the government taxing it, even if the giver initially paid income tax on the money. A man cannot legally engage in sexual relations with another man. Consenting adults are limited in their behavior to varying degrees in different states.

Consider the question of voluntary exchange in a romantic relationship. You exchange affection, love, intimate relations, and promises of exclusivity, among other things. In a free market, these exchanges are voluntary and unrestricted. However, imagine if you had to pay a fee to love someone. This is relationship tax. Imagine if you had to give affection or romantic relations to a person who claimed to be unable to attain these things from free exchange! This is relationship welfare. Imagine if you had to marry someone of a specific race because statistics showed it to be harder for people of that race to find spouses! This is relationship affirmative action. Imagine if the State paid some people to have relations with each other, but not others. This is relationship subsidy. Imagine if the government provided everyone with a pet and demanded extraordinary amounts of money from them to take care of this pet. Yet this is what State roads, schools, and every other State bureaucracy is.

We live in a society with a relatively free market in interpersonal relationships. Very few filial, friendly, and romantic relations are taxed, limited, restricted, or forbidden. Many agree that the few restrictions there are should be lifted. Most people would be outraged by any further limitations or by any of the policies outlined above. It is clear to everyone that when it comes to matters of the heart, the freer the better.

But when it comes to matters of the wallet, it’s not clear to them at all. People are willing to force others to spend their money to contribute to the good of society. Money is seen as the root of all evil. Desire for material goods is looked down upon. The only reason for this is that it’s easier to benefit from someone else’s material goods than from their affections. Armed with enough firepower you could steal a million dollars but couldn’t make one person love you. Politicians have spent ages, for this reason, convincing us that it’s their right to steal money from us practically at gunpoint, and they have largely ignored our love lives – except to appease their religious constituency.

Due to centuries of influence by the political apparatus, many people believe that we rely on government interference for our safety and security and that it is necessary to sacrifice some freedom toward this end. However, when we consider that our finances are not the only economic situation we’re in, it becomes easier to see the stark differences between liberty and oppression.

Conclusion

Whenever an individual acts to meet his or her desires, he or she is subject to the rules of physical reality – of cause and effect, of scarcity, and of gravity and other physical laws. He or she is also subject to the rules of economics. Free trade allows the most efficient specialization, which means the greatest productivity. Disasters are bad. People trade things they have for things they want more. Scarcer goods are more expensive. These and other laws are immutable and both empirically and aprioristically proven.

Abstraction is a tool some economists overuse, but this should not be construed to deny the validity of economic laws. The free market is not an abstraction but an actual state of affairs, one that is to be striven for. The scope of economics is wide, and the rules thereof apply to things you might not expect them to – they apply to any action taken to meet a desire.

The denial of economic reality can be as disastrous as the denial of physical reality. The belief that you can defy economics is similar to the belief that you can fly by sprinkling fairy dust on yourself and thinking happy thoughts – it’s a fantasy that could prove harmful or fatal if taken too far. Libertarians should stress the applicability of economic principles and attempt to educate the public about them if we are ever to have victory for the cause of freedom and liberty.

 

SOURCE

 

And then there is…

 

 

The story of the Austrian School begins in the fifteenth century, when the followers of St. Thomas Aquinas, writing and teaching at the University of Salamanca in Spain, sought to explain the full range of human action and social organization.

These Late Scholastics observed the existence of economic law, inexorable forces of cause and effect that operate very much as other natural laws. Over the course of several generations, they discovered and explained the laws of supply and demand, the cause of inflation, the operation of foreign exchange rates, and the subjective nature of economic value–all reasons Joseph Schumpeter celebrated them as the first real economists.

The Late Scholastics were advocates of property rights and the freedom to contract and trade. They celebrated the contribution of business to society, while doggedly opposing taxes, price controls, and regulations that inhibited enterprise. As moral theologians, they urged governments to obey ethical strictures against theft and murder. And they lived up to Ludwig von Mises’s rule: the first job of an economist is to tell governments what they cannot do.

The first general treatise on economics, Essay on the Nature of Commerce, was written in 1730 by Richard Cantillon, a man schooled in the scholastic tradition. Born in Ireland, he emigrated to France. He saw economics as an independent area of investigation, and explained the formation of prices using the “thought experiment.” He understood the market as an entrepreneurial process, and held to an Austrian theory of money creation: that it enters the economy in a step-by-step fashion, disrupting prices along the way.

Cantillon was followed by Anne Robert Jacques Turgot, the pro-market French aristocrat and finance minister under the ancien regime. His economic writings were few but profound. His paper “Value and Money” spelled out the origins of money, and the nature of economic choice: that it reflects the subjective rankings of an individual’s preferences. Turgot solved the famous diamond-water paradox that baffled later classical economists, articulated the law of diminishing returns, and criticized usury laws (a sticking point with the Late Scholastics). He favored a classical liberal approach to economic policy, recommending a repeal of all special privileges granted to government-connected industries.

Turgot was the intellectual father of a long line of great French economists of the eighteenth and nineteenth century, most prominently Jean Baptiste Say and Claude-Frederic Bastiat. Say was the first economist to think deeply about economic method. He realized that economics is not about the amassing of data, but rather about the verbal elucidation of universal facts (for example, wants are unlimited, means are scarce) and their logical implications.

Say discovered the productivity theory of resource pricing, the role of capital in the division of labor, and “Say’s Law”: there can never be sustained “overproduction” or “underconsumption” on the free market if prices are allowed to adjust. He was a defender of laissez-faire and the industrial revolution, as was Bastiat. As a free-market journalist, Bastiat also argued that nonmaterial services are subject to the same economic laws as material goods. In one of his many economic allegories, Bastiat spelled out the “broken-window fallacy” later popularized by Henry Hazlitt.

Despite the theoretical sophistication of this developing pre-Austrian tradition, the British school of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries won the day, mostly for political reasons. This British tradition (based on the objective-cost and labor-productivity theory of value) ultimately led to the rise of the Marxist doctrine of capitalist exploitation.

The dominant British tradition received its first serious challenge in many years when Carl Menger’s Principles of Economics was published in 1871. Menger, the founder of the Austrian School proper, resurrected the Scholastic-French approach to economics, and put it on firmer ground.

Together with the contemporaneous writings of Leon Walras and Stanley Jevons, Menger spelled out the subjective basis of economic value, and fully explained, for the first time, the theory of marginal utility (the greater the number of units of a good that an individual possesses, the less he will value any given unit). In addition, Menger showed how money originates in a free market when the most marketable commodity is desired, not for consumption, but for use in trading for other goods.

Menger’s book was a pillar of the “marginalist revolution” in the history of economic science. When Mises said it “made an economist” out of him, he was not only referring to Menger’s theory of money and prices, but also his approach to the discipline itself. Like his predecessors in the tradition, Menger was a classical liberal and methodological individualist, viewing economics as the science of individual choice. His Investigations, which came out twelve years later, battled the German Historical School, which rejected theory and saw economics as the accumulation of data in service of the state.

As professor of economics at the University of Vienna, and then tutor to the young but ill-fated Crown Prince Rudolf of the House of Habsburg, Menger restored economics as the science of human action based on deductive logic, and prepared the way for later theorists to counter the influence of socialist thought. Indeed, his student Friederich von Wieser strongly influenced Friedrich von Hayek’s later writings. Menger’s work remains an excellent introduction to the economic way of thinking. At some level, every Austrian since has seen himself as a student of Menger.

Menger’s admirer and follower at the University of Innsbruck, Eugen von Boehm-Bawerk, took Menger’s exposition, reformulated it, and applied it to a host of new problems involving value, price, capital, and interest. His History and Critique of Interest Theories, appearing in 1884, is a sweeping account of fallacies in the history of thought and a firm defense of the idea that the interest rate is not an artificial construct but an inherent part of the market. It reflects the universal fact of “time preference,” the tendency of people to prefer satisfaction of wants sooner rather than later (a theory later expanded and defended by Frank Fetter).

Boehm-Bawerk’s Positive Theory of Capital demonstrated that the normal rate of business profit is the interest rate. Capitalists save money, pay laborers, and wait until the final product is sold to receive profit. In addition, he demonstrated that capital is not homogeneous but an intricate and diverse structure that has a time dimension. A growing economy is not just a consequence of increased capital investment, but also of longer and longer processes of production.

Boehm-Bawerk engaged in a prolonged battle with the Marxists over the exploitation theory of capital, and refuted the socialist doctrine of capital and wages long before the communists came to power in Russia. Boehm-Bawerk also conducted a seminar that would later become the model for Mises’s own Vienna seminar.

Boehm-Bawerk favored policies that deferred to the ever-present reality of economic law. He regarded interventionism as an attack on market economic forces that cannot succeed in the long run. In the last years of the Habsburg monarchy, he three times served as finance minister, fighting for balanced budgets, sound money and the gold standard, free trade, and the repeal of export subsidies and other monopoly privileges.

It was his research and writing that solidified the status of the Austrian School as a unified way of looking at economic problems, and set the stage for the School to make huge inroads in the English-speaking world. But one area where Boehm-Bawerk had not elaborated on the analysis of Menger was money, the institutional intersection of the “micro” and “macro” approach. A young Mises, economic advisor to the Austrian Chamber of Commerce, took on the challenge.

The result of Mises’s research was The Theory of Money and Credit, published in 1912. He spelled out how the theory of marginal utility applies to money, and laid out his “regression theorem,” showing that money not only originates in the market, but must always do so. Drawing on the British Currency School, Knut Wicksell’s theory of interest rates, and Boehm-Bawerk’s theory of the structure of production, Mises presented the broad outline of the Austrian theory of the business cycle. A year later, Mises was appointed to the faculty of the University of Vienna, and Boehm-Bawerk’s seminar spent a full two semesters debating Mises’s book.

Mises’s career was interrupted for four years by World War I. He spent three of those years as an artillery officer, and one as a staff officer in economic intelligence. At war’s end, he published Nation, State, and Economy (1919), arguing on behalf of the economic and cultural freedoms of minorities in the now-shattered empire, and spelling out a theory of the economics of war. Meanwhile, Mises’s monetary theory received attention in the U.S. through the work of Benjamin M. Anderson, Jr., an economist at Chase National Bank. (Mises’s book was panned by John Maynard Keynes, who later admitted he could not read German.)

In the political chaos after the war, the main theoretician of the now-socialist Austrian government was Marxist Otto Bauer. Knowing Bauer from the Boehm-Bawerk seminar, Mises explained economics to him night after night, eventually convincing him to back away from Bolshevik-style policies. The Austrian socialists never forgave Mises for this, waging war against him in academic politics and successfully preventing him from getting a paid professorship at the university.

Undeterred, Mises turned to the problem of socialism itself, writing a blockbuster essay in 1921, which he turned into the book Socialism over the next two years. Socialism permits no private property or exchange in capital goods, and thus no way for resources to find their most highly valued use. Socialism, Mises predicted, would result in utter chaos and the end of civilization.

Mises challenged the socialists to explain, in economic terms, precisely how their system would work, a task which the socialists had heretofore avoided. The debate between the Austrians and the socialists continued for the next decade and beyond, and, until the collapse of world socialism in 1989, academics had long thought that the debate was resolved in favor of the socialists.

Meanwhile, Mises’s arguments on behalf of the free market attracted a group of converts from the socialist cause, including Hayek, Wilhelm Roepke, and Lionel Robbins. Mises began holding a private seminar in his offices at the Chamber of Commerce that was attended by Fritz Machlup, Oskar Morgenstern, Gottfried von Haberler, Alfred Schutz, Richard von Strigl, Eric Voegelin, Paul Rosenstein-Rodan, and many other intellectuals from all over Europe.

Also during the 1920s and 30s, Mises was battling on two other academic fronts. He delivered the decisive blow to the German Historical School with a series of essays in defense of the deductive method in economics, which he would later call praxeology or the logic of action. He also founded the Austrian Institute for Business Cycle Research, and put his student Hayek in charge of it.

During these years, Hayek and Mises authored many studies on the business cycle, warned of the danger of credit expansion, and predicted the coming currency crisis. This work was cited by the Nobel Prize committee in 1974 when Hayek received the award for economics. Working in England and America, Hayek later became a prime opponent of Keynesian economics with books on exchange rates, capital theory, and monetary reform. His popular book Road to Serfdom helped revive the classical liberal movement in America after the New Deal and World War II. And his series Law, Legislation, and Liberty elaborated on the Late Scholastic approach to law, and applied it to criticize egalitarianism and nostrums like social justice.

In the late 1930s, after suffering from the worldwide depression, Austria was threatened by a Nazi takeover. Hayek had already left for London in 1931 at Mises’s urging, and in 1934, Mises himself moved to Geneva to teach and write at the International Institute for Graduate Studies, later emigrating to the United States. Knowing Mises as the sworn enemy of national socialism, the Nazis confiscated Mises’s papers from his apartment and hid them for the duration of the war. Ironically, it was Mises’s ideas, filtered through the work of Roepke and the statesmanship of Ludwig Erhard, that led to Germany’s postwar economic reforms and rebuilt the country. Then, in 1992, Austrian archivists discovered Mises’s stolen Vienna papers in a reopened archive in Moscow.

While in Geneva, Mises’s wrote his masterwork, Nationalokonomie, and, after coming to the United States, revised and expanded it into Human Action, which appeared in 1949. His student Murray N. Rothbard called it “Mises’s greatest achievement and one of the finest products of the human mind in our century. It is economics made whole.” The appearance of this work was the hinge of the whole history of the Austrian School, and it remains the economic treatise that defines the School. Even so, it was not well received in the economics profession, which had already made a decisive turn towards Keynesian.

Though Mises never held the paid academic post he deserved, he gathered students around him at New York University, just as he had in Vienna. Even before Mises emigrated, journalist Henry Hazlitt had become his most prominent champion, reviewing his books in the New York Times and Newsweek, and popularizing his ideas in such classics as Economics in One Lesson. Yet Hazlitt made his own contributions to the Austrian School. He wrote a line-by-line critique of Keynes’s General Theory, defended the writings of Say, and restored him to a central place in Austrian macroeconomic theory. Hazlitt followed Mises’s example of intransigent adherence to principle, and as a result was pushed out of four high-profile positions in the journalistic world.

Mises’s New York seminar continued until two years before his death in 1973. During those years, Rothbard was his student. Indeed, Rothbard’s Man, Economy, and State (1963) was patterned after Human Action, and in some areas–monopoly theory, utility and welfare, and the theory of the state–tightened and strengthened Mises’s own views. Rothbard’s approach to the Austrian School followed directly in the line of Late Scholastic thought by applying economic science within a framework of a natural-rights theory of property. What resulted was a full-fledged defense of a capitalistic and stateless social order, based on property and freedom of association and contract.

Rothbard followed his economic treatise with an investigation of the great depression, which applied Austrian business cycle theory to show that the stock market crash and economic downturn was attributable to a prior bank credit expansion. Then in a series of studies on government policy, he established the theoretical framework for examining the effects of all types of intervention in the market.

In his later years, Mises saw the beginnings of the revival of the Austrian School that dates from the appearance of Man, Economy, and State and continues to this day. It was Rothbard who firmly established the Austrian School and classical liberal doctrine in the U.S., especially with Conceived in Liberty, his four-volume history of colonial America and the secession from Britain. The reunion of natural-rights theory and the Austrian School came in his philosophical work, The Ethics of Liberty, all while he was writing a series of scholarly economic pieces gathered in the two-volume Logic of Action, published in Edward Elgar’s “Economists of the Century” series.

These seminal works serve as the crucial link between the Mises-Hayek generation and the Austrians now working to expand the tradition. Indeed, without Rothbard’s willingness to defy the intellectual trends of his time, progress in the Austrian School tradition might have come to a halt. As it was, his wide and deep scholarship, cheerful personality, encyclopedic knowledge, and optimistic outlook inspired countless students to turn their attention to the cause of liberty.

Though Austrians are now in a more prominent position than at any point since the 1930s, Rothbard, like Mises before him, was not well treated by academia. Although he held a chair in his later years at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, he never taught in a capacity that permitted him to direct dissertations. Nonetheless, he managed to recruit a large, active, and interdisciplinary following for the Austrian School.

The founding of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in 1982, with the aid of Margit von Mises as well as Hayek and Hazlitt, provided a range of new opportunities for both Rothbard and the Austrian School. Through a steady stream of academic conferences, instructional seminars, books, monographs, newsletters, studies, and even films, Rothbard and the Mises Institute carried the Austrian School forward into the post-socialist age.

The first issue of the Rothbard-edited Review of Austrian Economics appeared in 1987, became a semiannual in 1991, and becomes a quarterly in 1998, The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. The Mises Institute’s instructional summer school has been held every year since 1984. For many of these years, Rothbard presented his research into the history of economic thought. This culminated in his two-volume An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, which broadens the history of the discipline to encompass centuries of writing.

Through the Mises Institute’s student fellowships, study guides, bibliographies, and conferences, the Austrian School has permeated, at some level, virtually every department of economics and the social sciences in America, and in many foreign countries as well. The annual Austrian Scholars Conference at Auburn University attracts scholars from around the world to discuss, debate, and apply the entire Austrian tradition.

The fascinating history of this great body of thought, through all its ebbs and flows, is the story of how great minds can advance science and oppose evil with creativity and courage. Now the Austrian School enters a new millennium as the intellectual standard bearer for the free society. That it does so is thanks to the heroic and brilliant minds that make up the family history of the School, and to those who are carrying that legacy forward with the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Source ; See blogroll

An ENEMY of the people…

December 18, 2010

Nearly two years into his term, President Obama finally chose a director for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Mr. Obama will submit the name of Andrew Traver, the special agent in charge of the Bureau’s Chicago field division, to the Senate, the White House said. However, he will face a confirmation fight—if his nomination is not filibustered, eliminating him from consideration.

Why? He is an anti-gun zealot. This is preposterous!

I can’t—nor can most Americans—comprehend the idea of an anti-gun zealot being in charge of the ATF. Even worse, Mr. Obama appears to be waiting to appoint him during the Christmas holiday recess because he knows he will face a brutal confirmation hearing by Senate Republicans and gun-rights moderate Democrats—if not an outright boycott of his nomination…

Insiders tell me it this appointment could, and likely will, happen when no one is thinking about it. It could be the last Christmas present you unwrap on Christmas morning; or perhaps, it will be the throbbing headache you wake up with on January 1. The bottom line is this: Andrew Traver is an ENEMY of the people, like you and me, who understand the Second Amendment is the cornerstone of liberty and, without the Second Amendment right to own and bear arms, we would be no more secure, no more safe in our homes, than the least safe and least secure people in the most despotic nations on Earth. The Second Amendment is what safeguards the entire Bill of Rights. Weaken the Second Amendment and the Constitution of the United States will easily be breached.

Let me give you Andrew Traver’s philosophical resume:

  • He favors banning ALL gun shows.
  • He opposes civilian ownership of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.
  • He opposes private firearm sales.
  • He wants the Center for Disease Control to have oversight of the firearms industry. Apparently Mr. Traver believes guns are a disease. Or, maybe it’s the gun owners he believes are diseased.

This is a DIRECT AFFRONT to those of us who own guns and use them properly and lawfully.

A frightening as it is, Mr. Obama can legally make a “recess appointment” and commission Mr. Traver is the TOP law enforcement official over the gun industry without a single Senator voting to confirm him. By confirming him on January 1, 2011, Traver would head the ATF for the balance of Obama’s term in office. Now, that’s scary, too.


The ATF hasn’t has a director for almost four years. Former director Carl Truscott’s reign was marked by numerous complaints about misappropriation of funds and poor treatment of employees. Following his resignation in 2006, the parameters were changed, and Senate confirmation is now required for a nominee.

Mr. Traver is NOT a friend of the people who whole-heartedly believe in the Second Amendment rights in the U. S. Constitution. Yes, that’s you and me!

What he is a “friend” of is the “Chicago Machine” that spawned so many of your favorite Chicago-Washington “elites” who use the word “Chicago” as a synonym for cronyism. Cronyism was voted OUT in the November elections; but the message has not yet resonated at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Obama’s anti-gun friend will head the ATF if the American people don’t stop him. That’s why you and I must STOP this recess appointment.

The bottom line: We MUST let our voices and votes be heard. Traver is obviously NOT the man to head the most powerful firearms policing agency. His ANTI-GUN BIAS illustrates a clear conflict of interest on his part and his nomination proves that Barack Obama is openly hostile to your gun rights.

Anyone as clearly hostile to the Second Amendment as Mr. Traver is, has no business being allowed to head the powerful gun licensing and regulatory agency.

The nomination of the Naperville, Illinois native to be top gun cop is applauded by gun-control activists, who say the 5,000-employee ATF has lost ground in its regulation of the $28 Billion US firearms business, having labored under interim directors since 2006.

Quite frankly, Mr. Obama has chosen a very strong, anti-Second Amendment ATF head for an administrative job that has far more influence over the practical exercise of the Second Amendment rights than any other job in the country.

In spite of our economic uncertainty, Americans spent $11 BILLION MORE in 2009 than in 2008 to buy guns, ammo, and gear, etc. In an economy that needs every dollar in retail sales from every corner of the free enterprise system, killing $11 billion more in retail sales in a failing economy is not wise, the Second Amendment notwithstanding.

There are roughly 80,000,000 gun owners in our great country who, like you, must reject this presidential appointment. So we must GET INVOLVED NOW to fax every single Member of Congress to make sure that the appointment of Andrew Traver is TOTALLY BLOCKED.

Chris Cox, NRA spokesperson said this about Andrew Travers: “You might as well put an arsonist in charge of the fire department.”

The bottom line: Andrew Traver is an anti-gun zealot. His confirmation, recess or otherwise, MUST be blocked! Mr. Traver is clearly NOT the man to head the most powerful firearms policing agency in the world. His anti-gun bias illustrates a clear conflict of interest. Please help us at this very moment to block this travesty and adverse person who is AGAINST YOU and your ownership of a gun.

We must OPPOSE this confirmation right now.

This email from The Second Amendment Foundation has been modified in order to pass muster with spam filters. If you wish to donate to the cause, go HERE.

ObamaCare Challenge Tossed

December 4, 2010

U.S. District Judge Norman Moon, a Clinton appointee, tossed out a challenge to ObamaCare in Virginia this week. This is the second victory for the Obama administration in a wave of lawsuits. Liberty University, the plaintiff in the case, has already decided to appeal in hopes of eclipsing Moon’s decision. “Congress does not have the authority to force every American to purchase a particular kind of health insurance product,” said Mathew Staver, dean of Liberty’s School of Law and an attorney on the case. Liberty argued that the law abuses the Commerce Clause of the Constitution in an attempt to provide the government strict control over the health care market. Their constitutional exegesis is completely sound, but Moon was blinded to that reality.

According to Moon, the law requiring individuals and employers to purchase health insurance falls legally under the Commerce Clause because the lack of the law would drive up costs, “precisely the harms that Congress sought to address with the Act’s regulatory measures.” To this we would ask, if the Commerce Clause can be melded to the whims of the backers of ObamaCare, what powers doesn’t Congress have to continue to shackle the American people?

Along the same lines…

A recent Investor’s Business Daily editorial calls it “the ultimate form of taxation without representation”: the continuing attempts by eco-fascists to force wealth redistribution upon the United States and other “rich” countries. This is all under the guise, of course, of saving the world from the scourge of global warming.

After its abysmal failure in wintry Copenhagen last year, the UN is holding another climate change conference in balmy Cancun, Mexico. There, surrounded by sun and sand, it will once again attempt to convince delegates from 193 countries that, a) the world is in peril and therefore we must drastically reduce emissions; and b) the U.S. and other developed nations must pay poor countries billions of dollars in retribution for the “damage” they caused in becoming, well, developed. The conference will feature the usual fanfare, including 250 presentations about the effects of climate change and proclamations that 2010 is tied for the hottest year since we began keeping records 131 years ago.

This is all smoke and mirrors. German economist Ottmar Edenhofer, who also serves as the pretentiously titled Co-chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change, has openly admitted that “climate change policy is redistributing the world’s wealth.” This would be accomplished in the U.S. with cap-n-trade policies being pushed by Obama and his “progressive” pals in Congress.

Despite the sunny weather, the climate at this conference probably won’t be any friendlier than it was in Denmark. Even before the Republican landslide in last month’s elections, many lawmakers were leery of saddling Americans with more taxes during the recession, especially given the fact that China — the world’s biggest polluter — refuses to make any binding promises about emissions. In addition, in the wake of the Climategate scandal, emerging studies have shot more holes in climate change “science” than in Swiss cheese. Only time will tell, but it looks as if leftists will have to find another way to siphon America’s wealth to other nations.

In related news, House Republicans are set to eliminate the climate change committee created by soon-to-be-ex-Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In Congress at least, the climate has changed.

And yet more commentary on epic fail obama’s choice of czar for BATFE

In another example of the “Chicago Way,” last week Barack Obama tabbed Andrew Traver, currently special agent in charge of the Chicago division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (better known by the ATF acronym), as the bureau’s permanent head. “You might as well put an arsonist in charge of the fire department,” quipped NRA spokesman Chris Cox.

While the gun grabbers at the Brady Center applaud the choice, Second Amendment advocates are predictably aghast. They criticize Traver because of his ties to the gun-control advocating Joyce Foundation and work during a 2007 conference on reducing gun violence sponsored by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, another fervently anti-gun organization. The IACP report includes a call for legislation to allow federal health and safety oversight of the firearms industry. What Second Amendment?

Others question Traver’s lack of senior-level executive experience, but when has that ever stopped anyone in Washington? The Senate may get a chance to question and confirm Traver, who would take over an agency laboring under acting leaders since 2006, unless Obama decides to use him as yet another recess appointment. Certainly Traver would fit right in with the rest of Executive Branch Washington in an era where the president relies on regulation, as opposed to legislation, to enact his agenda.

SOURCE

Assault weapons and the truth: Here we go again..!

December 2, 2010

The Obama administration is moving into high gear in putting gun-control advocates into important government positions. The administration’s nominee to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), Andrew Traver, should be of particular concern. His attacks on the civilian use of so-called assault weapons raise real questions about his willingness to distort the truth for political purposes. The person nominated to be the nation’s top gun cop shouldn’t use inaccurate descriptions to scare people into supporting gun control.

Mr. Traver is the special agent in charge of the BATFE’s Chicago field division. Therefore, he knows what was covered by the federal assault-weapons ban that sunset in 2004. But in November 2009, NBC interviewed Traver and reported: “Traver says the power and randomness of the heavy caliber, military-style weapons make them so dangerous not only to people, but to police. They’re so powerful, body armor can’t withstand a hit, and they’re so difficult to control, their bullets often get sprayed beyond the intended targets, striking innocent victims even when they’re in their own homes.”

SOURCE & SNIP

And further…

The list of problems with Mr. Traver’s claims is very long. If he really believes that these weapons fire unacceptably “heavy caliber” bullets, he is going to have to ban virtually all rifles. Small-game rifles — guns designed to kill squirrels and rabbits without destroying too much meat — typically fire .22-caliber bullets, which are only slightly smaller than the .223-caliber bullets fired by the M16 (used by the U.S. military since Vietnam) and the newer M4 carbine (used in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars). Deer-hunting rifles fire rounds that are very similar to those used by the AK-47.

Speaking of M16s, M4s, and AK-47s, Traver is correct when he states that the guns covered by the federal assault-weapons ban were “military-style weapons.” But he fails to note that this really just deals with style — the cosmetics of the guns, not how they actually operate. The guns covered by the ban were not the machine guns actually used by the military, but civilian, semi-automatic versions of those guns. The civilian version of the AK-47 may look like the guns used by militaries around the world, but it is different. It fires essentially the same bullets as deer-hunting rifles at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and does the same damage.

On penetrating body armor, Mr. Traver leaves out one important detail: Rifles in general are often able to penetrate body armor simply because their bullets travel faster than those fired from handguns. The same can be said for going through the walls of houses. But if he had said that deer-hunting rifles can often penetrate walls and lower-level types of body armor, it is unlikely that his comments would have generated the same fear.

Unfortunately, Mr. Traver has done more than make clearly inaccurate claims about so-called “assault weapons.” He has supported banning .50-caliber rifles, regulations that would force many gun shows to close down, the Chicago handgun ban, and repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, which protects sensitive trace data from being misused in frivolous municipal lawsuits against gun makers. He also worked with the Joyce Foundation, which has funded gun-ban groups such as the Violence Policy Center, on the “Gun Violence Reduction Project.”

The fact that Mr. Traver uses the same misleading claims as groups such as the Brady Campaign shouldn’t make it too surprising that gun-control groups are applauding his nomination. Nor is Traver’s nomination very surprising after President Obama appointed two strong anti-self-defense members to the Supreme Court. But Mr. Traver’s nomination is dangerous. Making up claims about guns to demonize them is beyond what is acceptable for someone who wants a position in which he will be regulating American gun ownership.

John R. Lott Jr. is a FOXNews.com contributor, an economist, and the author of More Guns, Less Crime, the third edition of which was recently published by the University of Chicago Press.

More of the same from the nanny government types that ignore the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Now, as a retired Paramedic I can tell you a truism. Get smacked between the eyes with a single shot twenty gauge shotgun, or a fully automatic M2 Fifty caliber machine gun, the result is the exact same thing. You got smacked to death, period. So stop blaming calibers.

“Assault” weapons..? Hey creeps I got a question for you. Why is it that you want to ban effective weaponry to American citizens when the bad guys; be they terrorist’s or criminals don’t bother with things like background checks, or proper training (Mexican Drug Cartels aside.) and buy black market “Choppers” (Full Auto AK47’s) but think that Americans shouldn’t be allowed similar effective weapons..?

The answer is indeed oh so obvious. You “Hate America First.” As well as all things American. Such as refusing to bend a knee toward oppression, kneeling firing position notwithstanding.

Since I support the Minutemen, and other similar groups that support Freedom and Liberty I will in all probability be branded a racist.’ That is after all, what the hell you people do when you cannot argue anything at all based upon logic or reason.

After all, you lost the “sexist” angle when so many women started buying weapons to defend themselves and their families from leftist’s goons… Not from me or others like me. Those folks are often, defined as Social Services, and the BATFE. Best watch out when you go out to destroy a family these days. After all, you never know when that Cop standing next to you is an “Oath Keeper.”

Keep the fire burning friends. As in our newly elected Taxed Enough Already butts. No more of the same old game. No more compromise when Liberty and Freedom are at stake.

PERIOD!

I have no faith whatsoever, in the Country Club Blue Blood Republicans.

Righting “wrongs” based on wrong interpretations of “rights”

December 1, 2010

Socialists,from President Obama on down, look at the government as the
creator and administrator of rights. That is why even some on the left
liked the Heller and the McDonald decisions which overturned gun bans
in Washington, DC and Chicago.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m ecstatic that the Supreme Court ruled
against these the gun bans in these two cities. And I’d rather be in
our shoes today than in the Brady Campaign’s — as they saw their
arguments slapped down harshly by the Court.

So why then would some big-government types like these two decisions
— especially the McDonald case out of Chicago? Because in basing
their decision upon the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, the
Justices perpetuated a false doctrine which has allowed the
Constitution to continue evolving.

The Due Process clause is the place where judges invent rights and
then decide how much the government can control them.

Gun Owners of America argued that the Court should have based its
decision on the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The Court would have then been using a definitive clause dealing with
rights of citizenship rather than the amorphous “substantive” Due
Process Clause where Courts have run wild and seldom come to
constitutionally-based conclusions.

Justices love the Due Process Clause because it has been interpreted
in such a way to allow judges to twist the Constitution to fit their
big-government world view. They love this approach because they love
righting “wrongs” based on what they THINK are “rights.”

President Obama complained on a Public Broadcasting radio interview,
when he was a state senator, that the Constitution only protects
negative rights and that such a limitation (in his view) must be
overcome. Obama made it quite clear that a constitutional republic
that is governed by our Constitution is antithetical to his socialism.
He talks of a right to health care, and a right to a comfortable
living, and, well, a right to anything the left thinks will help buy
votes.

Indeed, the role of government in the Founders’ Constitution is to
protect liberty, and no more. Socialists want government to provide
for everything, making the people dependent, even at the expense of
liberty.

The left is hoping to pit their understanding of the 14th Amendment
where courts create rights against the Tenth Amendment. They argue
that the Fourteenth Amendment, being enacted after the Tenth, trumps
the earlier amendment. That is why they are so eager to inject their
view of government-created rights into the 14th Amendment.

If the government is the creator of rights, then the government must
be protected from the people. That means they cannot allow any notion
that the Second Amendment is intended to be a check on the
unconstitutional exercise of federal power. The constitutional militia
was intended to be an instrument of the states to protect their
citizens from the federal government (by legal definition throughout
the colonies). All freemen were required to own military long arms.

Wyoming is on the right path. Wyoming has a Firearms Freedom Act which
“interposes” Wyoming against all federal laws involving a firearm
made in the state and which remains in the state. Unlike the other
seven states with identical laws, Wyoming makes violation of the act
by a federal official a state offense punishable by up to 365 days in
jail. Had they added one more day to the potential penalty, any
conviction would result in the loss of gun rights under 18 USC 922(g)
for any federal official who violates their law.

States and county sheriffs are going to need to take the militia
clauses of the Constitution seriously. Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa
County (Phoenix), Arizona has a posse of 3,000. If Arizona were to
create a State Guard and encourage sheriffs to beef up their posse
strength to levels analogous to Maricopa County, and if other states
were to follow suit, the federal government would be less inclined to
assume that there are no limits to their powers.

Such an outcome will not come about until we understand that there is
no conflict between the Tenth and the Fourteenth Amendments, and that
rights come from God, not from government. Government-made
“rights” are the “wrong” rights.

SOURCE

Gun Owners of America has two major goals in 2012

November 24, 2010

First — make Barack Obama a one-term President.

Second — make Harry Reid the minority leader in the Senate.

I traveled to Bozeman, Montana on Saturday, November 13th to deliver the Gun Owners of America endorsement for Steve Daines for United States Senate to defeat John Tester in 2012.

Remembering that the 13th was less than two weeks after the November 2nd Election, a time when most people were worn out and resting from the hard work of the last few months, I was blown away by the crowd in attendance.

There were at least 200-300 people in the room on that Saturday morning to listen to Steve Daines give his announcement speech… and he didn’t disappoint them.

In a speech that highlighted the roots of his family (5-generations) who came to America and settled in Montana, he also stressed saving our economy, cutting taxes, putting the federal government on a major diet and PROTECTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

Music to my ears.

Folks, this guy is the real deal.

After Daines gave his announcement, it was my turn to give the Gun Owners of America endorsement, which was easy since I had the chance to spend time with and to learn about Steve over the past few months.

And it was easy since he is running to unseat Senator John Tester, who has an “F” rating from GOA.

Tester is the poster boy for voting pro-gun on one item and then stabbing pro-gunners in the back and voting anti-gun on the next.

Some examples:

Tester voted to confirm anti-gun leftists Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court for many years to come.

Tester voted not once, but twice, for the so-called “Disclose Act,” which was a blatant attempt by sitting members of Congress to stop groups like Gun Owners of America from giving the voting records of elected officials around election time. This legislation was so blatantly political that it even gave ‘exemptions’ to some groups to campaign while trying to stop others from doing anything!

Tester voted to confirm radical anti-gun U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who, as you will recall, was one of the key figures in the Clinton White House in pushing the ban on semi-automatic firearms. Today, Holder advocates the reinstatement of the Clinton gun ban.

Senator Tester voted for Obama-appointed “regulatory Czar” Cass Sunstein, who believes hunting is outdated and should be stopped and that animals should have legal representation against humans in court.

Senator Tester — are you listening? Gun Owners of America won’t let our members and the pro-gun voters of Montana and America forget how you voted on these key issues before you face the Montana electorate in 2012.

I hope every American and every organization that believes in the Constitution of the United States, and the crucial need to protect it, has the same chance I’ve had to get to know Steve Daines in the very near future.

If they do, I guarantee you that he will have the money and the volunteer workforce to get the job done in 2012 and he will be elected Montana’s next United States Senator.

You can bet that Gun Owners of America and our members will do all we can to help.

If you want to help Steve, go to :

www.stevedaines.com

This is one time where the term “piling on” is a good thing.

Tim Macy
Vice-Chairman
Gun Owners of America

A great night for the Second Amendment: Or was it really?

November 5, 2010

The Second Amendment had a great night on Tuesday. Across the nation, the right to arms is stronger than ever, and the stage has been set for constructive reforms in 2011.

U.S. Senate: The net result of Tuesday was a gain of +6 votes on Second Amendment issues.

In not a single U.S. Senate seat did the gun control lobby gain ground. Three open seats switched from anti-gun to pro-gun: Ohio (Rob Portman replacing George Voinovich), West Virginia (Joe Manchin taking the seat of the late Robert Byrd), North Dakota (John Hoeven replacing Byron Dorgan). In Arkansas, John Boozman’s victory over Blanche Lincoln is a significant gain.

Full Story

It just so happens that I agree with Dave Kopel about 99% of the time. Now, having said that..? Just how many of these new kids on the block will take on Lautenberg and Schumer. Two men devoted to the destruction of the Constitution and Bill of Rights? How many will put forth legislation doing away with GCA 1968? Or the ex post facto law portion, if not the entire Lautenberg Domestic Violence Act? The abortion known as obamacare? With it’s hidden as well as blatant un Constitutional mandates..? I myself, am sick of hearing how this or that “D” is pro Second Amendment then all they do is pay lip service… Unless it’s election time, and that goes for RINO’s like McCain as well!

HERE is another good read that, especially if you read the comments. Shows to what extremes some people will go to for the sole purpose of “Lording it over” you and I.

Will the hoplophobia continue on. It is, after all, politically correct mental illness.

Zero tolerance at election time

November 4, 2010

“I think that the message is unmistakable that the Obama agenda is dead. … [N]ow it will depend on how Obama proceeds. He has now tried a two-year experiment in hyper-liberalism, and the country has said no.” –columnist Charles Krauthammer

“Democrats will spin Harry Reid’s victory and cling to it like the American people allegedly cling to their Bibles and guns, but I see a huge silver lining here for conservatives. … Yes, Reid would have made a great trophy on the GOP’s mantle. But cheer up: He’s even better as a leader of Senate Democrats — depending on your point of view.” –columnist Stephen Spruiell

“I so want to believe that the tea party marks the beginning of a comeback for small government. But I’m probably deluding myself. I know that big government usually wins. Remember the last time the Republicans took power? They promised fiscal responsibility, and for six of George W. Bush’s eight years, his party controlled Congress. What did we have to show for it? Federal spending increased by 54 percent. That’s more than any president in the last 50 years.” –columnist John Stossel

“[T]he GOP still faces significant challenges. Heck, an electoral bonanza notwithstanding, Republicans are still fairly unpopular. But if the first half of the Obama presidency proves anything, it is that straight-line predictions lead to political hubris. Events change and attitudes change with them, for every demographic.” –columnist Jonah Goldberg

“The Constitution cannot protect us and our freedoms as a self-governing people unless we protect the Constitution. That means zero tolerance at election time for people who circumvent the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. Freedom is too precious to give it up in exchange for brassy words from arrogant elites.” –economist Thomas Sowell

“America, its founding principles, its Constitution, its robust liberty tradition and its strength are being stolen out from under us by a man who has no appreciation for America’s greatness and who has contempt for ordinary Americans (we’re ‘enemies’), whom he considers beneath him and unworthy of their sovereign prerogative to preserve this nation. The people have had enough. Consequently, absent unimaginable, comprehensive voter fraud … we’re going to see an unprecedented housecleaning.” –columnist David Limbaugh

SOURCE

Behind the Scenes, Obama Continues Pushing UN Gun Control Treaty

October 26, 2010

The never ending attack on the United States of America by the epic fail obama administration continues unabated. Read on…

Voters can stop this global tyranny by electing an Obama-proof Congress
Friday, October 22, 2010

 

In late September, several dozen UN representatives met at the University of Massachusetts in Boston to further discuss their plans for global gun control.

While our President may have a history of being absent for important events — missing over 300 votes while in the U.S. Senate, dissing important dignitaries who visit our country, etc. — he was sure to have his administration represented at this meeting.

The final report for the Boston Symposium on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is posted online and states that:

“In the end, we seek to achieve an ATT that will establish the highest possible common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms, including small arms and light weapons, in order to contribute effectively towards peace and stability. This Symposium has brought us one step closer to achieving that goal.”

So, they are one step closer to their goal.  What are there goals for our firearms?

Apart from using generic phrases like “highest possible common international standards” (aka, gun controls), the gun banners are very careful not to publicly post specific anti-gun proposals that would excite the American public against them.  But Paul Gallant and Joanne Eisen, who have attended these UN meetings, spell out what the proposed ATT will really entail.

Writing together with another noted firearms author of the Independence Institute, Dave Kopel, they say that an Arms Trade Treaty would impose:

* Microstamping on firearms, thus increasing the cost of each gun by about $200;

* Registration of all firearms, which is often a prelude to gun confiscation;

* Restrictions on gun sales, especially private transfers (thus, no more gun shows as we know them);

* Embargoes on firearms and materials (such as nickel and tungsten) that would limit access to many of the firearms which are sold in this country.

I’ll never submit to any stinkin’ gun control laws!

You might think:  “I don’t care what the UN imposes on us, I will never comply with their gun controls.”

Oh really?  So, you’ll never buy a new gun from a gun dealer?  Because if you do — and that gun has been manufactured according to UN treaty standards — then the microstamping technology on that gun will cost you a couple hundred dollars extra.

Not only that, the signature impressions that the firing pin leaves on your spent cartridge cases will be registered with the government under your name.

No problem, you say, you’re not a criminal — so who cares if the signature from your firing pin is registered with the government.

Well, do you ever take your guns to a shooting range and leave your spent brass?  According to Kopel, criminals could easily implicate innocent gun owners by going to gun ranges, collecting the empty casings and dumping them at crime scenes.  Moreover, the common practice of selling or giving away once-fired brass could disappear overnight.

Do you still think that a UN treaty won’t affect you?  The “master minds” at the UN plan to register every firearms sale that passes through a gun dealer and to cut off (make illegal) any private sale that you might attempt as a means of circumventing their controls.

But we can beat this travesty by electing an Obama-proof Senate this November!

Even if the President signs the Arms Trade Treaty — and he most certainly will when it’s completed — we can strangle this hideous creature in its cradle if he can’t get two-thirds of all the Senators to support him.

Help GOA stop UN gun control

That’s why GOA is here, fighting to make sure he can’t impose a UN gun ban on every American citizen.

GOA has published its 2010 Voter Guide which is available at the GOA website.

And the GOA Political Victory Fund has helped pushed several pro-gun candidates over the hump in their primaries and into the lead for the general election.  You can go to the GOA-PVF site to get more details on these races.

Finally, you can help Gun Owners of America continue to spread the word about pro-gun candidates by clicking here and contributing to the organization that is on the front lines defending your gun rights without compromising one inch.

This is crunch time.  We are less than two weeks away from one of the most important elections in our lifetimes.

Thank you so much for your support!

SOURCE


%d bloggers like this: