Archive for the ‘Education’ Category

Speaking of immigration…

April 26, 2009

Coming soon to a place near you..?

Obama Rejects Gitmo Report

Speaking of immigration, we may soon be welcoming a new group of residents to the U.S. Human Events editor Jed Babbin reports, “White House lawyers are refusing to accept the findings of an inter-agency committee that the Uighur Chinese Muslims held at Guantanamo Bay are too dangerous to release inside the U.S., according to Pentagon sources familiar with the action.” Obama has long promised to close Gitmo, but he recently ordered the review by all the national security agencies to determine the status of all detainees. The 17 Uighurs, for example, are members of the “East Turkistan Islamic Movement,” a terrorist cell, and were captured at an al-Qa’ida training camp. After review, the ruling on the field is that these terrorists are too dangerous to be released. But apparently, the White House has demanded that the review group re-do its findings to come up with Obama’s desired answer.

As Babbin writes, “Gitmo holds three classes of terrorist detainees: first, those that are held for prosecution of terrorist acts such as Khalid Sheik Muhammed; second, those who cannot be prosecuted and will be released or transferred to another country for trial or incarceration; and third, those who cannot be prosecuted (because the information against them is intelligence information inadmissible in court) but who pose such a danger that they cannot be released. The last category encompasses a large number of the Gitmo detainees.” Yet Obama thinks these nice folks would make great neighbors for some Americans — just not in the vicinity of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

SOURCE

All Gore brings “change”

April 26, 2009

One things for sure, the Gore is on the “change” bandwagon and it certainly appears that the current administration likes this form of change…

Climate Week Comes to Washington

A series of highly publicized hearings and testimonials were held surrounding Earth Day this week to draw as much attention as possible to the liberal sham that is climate legislation. Even Al Gore showed up on Friday, though, oddly enough, it didn’t snow.

The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Transportation Department and the Energy Department testified on climate change legislation — a bill that is 648 pages in draft form — before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. According to The New York Times, “The House measure, the most far-reaching piece of energy and environmental legislation to come before Congress in years, would require large changes in the way the United States generates electricity, manufactures products, heats and lights its homes and offices, and moves people and goods.”

Political grandstanding was the main order of the week, but passing the cap and trade bill will top the agenda over the coming weeks — with the hope that it will clear the full House before Memorial Day. Some more radical elements, though, would include stricter measures that limit emissions and heavily fine those deemed to be polluters. Either way, the economy will suffer the consequences for actions taken based on dubious theories. As Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) put it, “The debate is not about whether cap-and-trade legislation will raise energy costs; the only dispute is by how much. With a cap-and-trade scheme like that proposed by Chairmen Waxman and Markey, households can expect energy cost increases up to $3,128 per year. Your electricity bill will increase by 77 to 129 percent. Filling up your gas tank will cost anywhere from 60 to 144 percent more. The cost of home heating oil and natural gas will nearly double.” So much for Barack Obama’s oft repeated pledge to “cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families.”

In related news, Obama burned about 9,000 gallons of jet fuel on Earth Day to make his speech in Iowa about saving the planet.

SOURCE

The End of the World as we know it…

April 26, 2009

Anthony Martin over at Columbia Conservative Examiner reviews the first one hundred days of the current administrations achievements toward the total destruction of the United States. This theme appears to be the mainstay across the board when one observes blogs as well as the MSM. Although some see it in diametrically different ways to be sure. Those suffering from  various emotional and mental issues jump for joy and get “tingles” up their leg so joyful are they at the destruction of freedom and liberty. Not to mention the self flagellation that the impostor in chief brings upon our nation. Indeed, after observing what has been going on around the world as of late a friend from Germany emailed me asking if the United States was collectively suicidal.

Then, Mark Alexander releases the following from the Patriot Post

The CIA’s Aquatic Sports Program and Obama’s Real Agenda

By Mark Alexander

Leon Panetta was certainly not appointed Director of Central Intelligence because of any related professional qualifications for the post. However, as the former White House Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton, Panetta has the political gravitas to run interference for the Obama regime, to best ensure that nobody will depart the Agency reservation with anything that poses a problem for Obama’s agenda.

Of course, what could possibly pose a problem for a pathological socialist who launched his political career a few years back in the home of his terrorist neighbors, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn — and is now president?

Though Panetta lacks an intelligence background, at least he passed muster for the requisite DCI clearances. His boss, however, wouldn’t qualify for the clearance level required of a desk clerk at the Social Security Administration. (Is this a great country, or what?)

This week, Panetta greeted Obama in the lobby of the CIA’s Original Headquarters Building in advance of Obama’s teleprompted regurgitation of the most overtly partisan pile of political horse pucky in CIA history. Feigning impartiality, Panetta said, “We must be careful not to spend so much time and energy in laying blame for the past that it interferes with our ability to focus on the fundamental mission we have for today and for tomorrow.”

Notice Panetta did not say that we shouldn’t lay political blame. He just qualified how much time should be spent doing so.

Blame for what?

Last week, Obama released some carefully chosen top-secret memos regarding “enhanced interrogation” techniques used to interview a few al-Qa’ida guests at the fashionable “Chez Gitmo” resort located on the southeast shore of a nearby Caribbean island getaway. (OK, that may not be a fair representation of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp — and certainly not Castro’s island concentration camp — but the food, sanitation and amenities at Gitmo are much better than that of the detainees’ former dwellings in the dark, dank caves of mountainous Afghanistan.)

The memos pertained to the treatment of three particularly evil Gitmo detainees, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. These three were subjected to waterboarding — the forcible introduction of water to the mouth and nasal passages in order to coerce a captive’s submission and cooperation. (It’s worth noting that thousands of our Special Forces and clandestine operators have been subjected to waterboarding as part of their “Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape” training, and, like the Gitmo detainees, they survived.)

However distasteful you might find this practice, I would argue it is a bit more humane than al-Qa’ida’s terminal interrogation practice, decapitation.

While Obama released the information about the interrogation techniques, the information obtained by those techniques was redacted. Why, you ask?

Both the CIA and the Justice Department have confirmed that intelligence gathered from these detainees, particularly that from KSM (architect of the 9/11 attacks), saved American lives and property, especially information that thwarted planned attacks on Los Angeles and New York, as well as actionable intelligence that led to the arrest of an al-Qa’ida cell in the U.S. and the capture or death of a succession of al-Qa’ida principals in the Middle East and Africa.

Call it selective transparency. Despite the fact that the Bush administration succeeded with the interrogation policy in question, when it comes to Left-partisan politics, no good deed goes unpunished.

Speaking to CIA employees, Obama said, “I have put an end to the interrogation techniques described in those OLC memos, and I want to be very clear and very blunt. I’ve done so for a simple reason: because I believe that our nation is stronger and more secure when we deploy the full measure of both our power and the power of our values — including the rule of law.”

“Values”? Like the values which form Obama’s “vision for America.”

“Rule of law”? Everything the Obama administration has done and plans to do is an affront to constitutional Rule of Law.

In fact, the timing of the memos’ release has nothing to do with “values” or “rule of law.” Let me offer a different rationale for their release from any you’ve heard or read thus far.

While this memo folly seems to be another candidate for the Obama regime’s “ready, fire, aim” botched policy bin, it has a clever, if not obvious, purpose.

First, it serves to both appease and re-energize Obama’s ultra-Leftist cadres, those who made “waterboarding” a rallying point for their anti-Operation Iraqi Freedom protests. Indeed, withdrawal from Iraq was the most prominent theme of both Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign and his 2008 presidential campaign platform.

Second, and more than re-energizing his anti-war base, however, Obama timed and staged this political shenanigan to reignite the anti-Bush sentiment among a much broader cross section of his constituents. To accomplish this, he has left the door open for prosecution of Bush officials, including Condoleezza Rice, who approved of the policy.

In doing so, he hopes to regain the allegiance of his largest and most loyal constituency, Bush-haters, with the objective of deflecting a growing chorus of “buyer’s remorse” among those who elected him but are now increasingly disillusioned.

A charade it may be, but based on the media play it is receiving, Obama is accomplishing his shrewd political objective, which again, has nothing to do with waterboarding.

Obama’s Veep, Joe Biden, primed the pump for this farce in February, when he met with Panetta and CIA employees, and told them that Obama was going to “reverse the [waterboarding] policies that in my view and the view of many in this agency caused America to fall short of its founding principles and which gave al-Qa’ida a powerful recruiting tool.” (Note to Joe: No detainee had been subjected to waterboarding since 2003.)

On Monday, Obama stood in the same location at which Biden delivered his remarks, and completed the act.

CIA Memorial Wall

To be more specific, both Obama and Biden staged their remarks in front of the north wall in the CIA’s Original Headquarters Building lobby. On the marble wall behind them is an inscription: “In honor of those members of the Central Intelligence Agency who gave their lives in the service of their country.” Under those words are 89 stars representing some of the CIA officers who have been killed in covert actions.

Watching that photo op, I was struck by Obama’s unmitigated “audacity,” that he would defile this solemn memorial by using it as a backdrop for delivering remarks to a handpicked audience — comments which served no other purpose than to amplify his anti-American political agenda.

At the entrance to the CIA’s OHB, not far from Obama and his teleprompters, there is another marble wall with the inscription “And Ye Shall Know the Truth and the Truth Shall Make You Free” (John 8:32). The fifth and longest serving DCI, Allen Dulles, had those words from Scripture inscribed there, and they would become the CIA’s motto.

One would hope that our nation would “know the truth,” and moreover, recognize that Obama and Biden are al-Qa’ida’s “powerful recruiting tool,” before our nation suffers another catastrophic attack.

Brady Campaign And Lautenberg Unite To Mislead And Control–Again

April 25, 2009

More from the masters of mysandry and misdirection.

This week, in a typically misleading move designed to bolster their political agenda rather than reduce violent crime, the Brady Campaign released a report calling for background checks on “all gun sales in America, including at gun shows.” The Brady report was intentionally designed to correspond with, and bolster, a “gun show loophole” bill (S. 843) introduced this week by fanatical anti-gun Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). In fact, the Brady report was released at the press conference Lautenberg held earlier this week.

Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign, said in the group’s press release, “We can do this. It will have no impact on any law-abiding gun owner in the country.” Of course, that is absolutely false—the proposal will ONLY impact law-abiding gun owners, including any law-abiding person selling a firearm to a law-abiding buyer. Does Helmke really think that criminals, drug cartel members, and violent gang thugs are going to start legally purchasing firearms and submitting to a background check? Law-breakers, by definition, break the law. They are criminals; they are predatory, they operate outside of the law. You know that, we know that, Lautenberg knows that, even Helmke knows that.

Lautenberg’s new bill is essentially a re-introduction of the same bill he introduced in the 110th Congress—S. 2577. And as before, S. 843 calls for massive new government powers to register gun show customers, register gun owners, retain information on people who pass criminal records checks when buying firearms, heavily tax both gun collectors and gun sales, and require gun show promoters to police gun show customers, as if they were agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The bill is not about gun shows. Rather, S. 843 is a solution in search of a problem; numerous government studies have determined that gun shows are an insignificant or miniscule source of firearms misused in crime. For instance, a 2000 Bureau of Justice Statistics study, “Federal Firearms Offenders, 1992-98,” found only 1.7% of federal prison inmates obtained their gun from a gun show. Similarly, a 1997 National Institute of Justice study reported less than 2% of criminals’ guns come from gun shows.

In reality, gun shows are large, public events held in convention centers and banquet halls. But S. 843 defines “gun show” so broadly that it would include a person’s home. Merely “offering” to “exchange” a firearm at an “event” could be banned. The National Matches at Camp Perry and your local gun club’s Sunday trap shoot could be defined as “events” subject to the bill’s provisions. Even talking about a gun at an “event” could be seen as an “offer” to sell a gun. Even if you are not a dealer, but you display a gun at a gun show, and then months later sell the gun to someone you met at the show, you would be subject to the same requirements as if you had completed the sale at the gun show. The restrictions and regulations S. 843 would impose upon real gun shows, and upon gun owners’ personal activities that the bill would preposterously define as “gun shows” and “events,” are unprecedented. S. 843 actually imposes restrictions on “gun show” transactions well beyond those required for firearms transactions at a gun store. And running afoul of S. 843’s numerous, far-fetched provisions could send you to prison for years. Among other things, the legislation calls for:

Gun show customer registration: A person who attends a show, even without a gun, who even discusses the possibility of selling a gun, would be required to sign “a ledger with identifying information.” Gun show promoters would have to retain the ledgers indefinitely for inspection by the BATFE.

Absurd requirement on gun show promoters: Because a promoter cannot know whether a person who attends his show will discuss the sale of a gun, he will have to require every customer to sign the ledger, and check every customer’s identification to verify the information required on the ledger.

Invasion of privacy: In addition to records kept on gun show customers, this bill would allow the FBI to retain, for 90 days, personal information about people who clear instant checks when buying guns.

Gun collector registration: If you are at home with a collection of fifty or more firearms, it would be a five-year felony to “offer” or “exchange” a single gun — even between family or friends — unless you first registered with the BATFE and paid a fee, the amount of which would be at BATFE’s discretion.

The real objective of this legislation is to over-regulate gun shows out of business. Rest assured we will continue to actively monitor the bill and will apprise you of any developments.

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Senators and urge them to strongly OPPOSE S. 843! You can call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121.

SOURCE

The right to dissent abolished!

April 24, 2009

In a dark of the night move that would, and probably has Frank Lautenberg smiling your right to protest was abolished last Tuesday. For years I have been posting about not using terms like “law abiding citizen.” This is precisely what I saw coming. Welcome to the world of felons people!

Hat Tip to Anthony at The Liberty Sphere;

Bill Quietly Becomes Law That Forbids Opposition!

Have you ever heard of legislation in the United States of America that forbids any opposition to it?

Well, we now have it, and it is the law of the land, courtesy of the thugs in the White House and Congress.

Read all about it in my column at Columbia Conservative Examiner.

Thank-you.

Boo boo strikes again!

April 24, 2009

Seems like an ongoing theme around here. Figure it out, wild animals, well, are wild. Go figure…

This is the time of year when wildlife are getting active. Most are birthing, and can be even more dangerous than they are most of the time. That people just drove by a pregnant woman clearly in distress really bothers me.

Ashley Swendsen, 26 years old and nearly six months pregnant, was chased into traffic by a bear as she went for a walk during her lunch hour in Colorado Springs Thursday.

A car brushed her to the ground and the driver slowed as Swendsen screamed that she was being chased by a bear.

But the driver, an older woman, sped off and the three cars behind it passed by as well, said Swendsen, reached by cell phone at the hospital.

Her physical injuries are believed to be minor, but the nervousness was still evident in her voice as she waited to see a doctor at about 4 p.m.

As the bear first appeared about 2 feet away from her on a hiking trail between the Vincent Drive Bridge and Interstate 25, she said “I thought … ‘what am I going to do?'”

She walked quickly for a few seconds before her fear overcame her and she began to run. The 4-foot-tall brown bear galloped behind her for about 20 seconds until she reached the roadway at 1005 Garlock Way.

“I started screaming for help, but nobody could hear me,” she said.

Wildlife officers soon located and killed the female bear. No cubs were found nearby. Swendsen said she was going to see its body after she was checked out at the hospital.Colorado Springs police are still looking for the hit-and-run driver, a woman likely to be in her 70s driving a black four-door Mitsubishi sedan.

SOURCE

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.