Archive for the ‘Hoplophobia’ Category

Exclusive in-depth investigation, part 3–what is ‘government 2.0’?

May 19, 2010

With the development and advancement of the Internet, malevolent forces that have joined together in a big government/big corporation conglomeration have a powerful and effective tool by which to obtain their objectives–ultimate power and huge sums of money.

In Part One of this investigation we discovered that the Obama Administration is preparing to expand the size and scope of government to unprecedented levels.  In Part Two we uncovered a report, issued by the Rand Corporation and commissioned by the U.S. Army and the Administration in Washington, to put into place a new national police force that will have unprecedented powers to enforce the new initiatives of this oppressive regime–Obama’s 4th Reich.

Today we examine how these malevolent forces are presently using the Internet to violate every known principle of liberty as set forth in the Constitution and place each citizen under constant surveillance reminiscent of George Orwell’s nightmare, 1984.

The Internet is tailor-made for totalitarians.  The manner in which the web has been configured, allowing tracking cookies and other such spy-ware, is a tyrant’s dream.  While it can be used for great good, in the wrong hands it can become a tool for government and corporate snoops, spying on ordinary citizens, and then using the information gathered to coerce, intimidate, and corral the herds of the populace into submission.

Some of this, of course, is already being done.  Google and other search engine corporations are known for privacy violations and their reckless attitude toward the rights of citizens.  Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter, as we shall see, are also major offenders.

But the key to understanding the present push toward totalitarian government can be found in numerous statements issued by the Obama Administration contending that there is no inherent right to privacy on the Internet, not even with regard to email.

The Canadian government echoed this sentiment when it stated that there is no right to privacy with the Internet, because ‘that’s the way it was designed.’

In conjunction with the notion that there is no inherent right to private communication on the Internet is the push by the Obama  Administration to make having Broadband Internet ‘a basic human right.’

The Left has been advancing such a notion for several years now.  During the 2008 Presidential campaign Democratic candidate John Edwards was asked in a TV interview to describe the things he considers to be ‘inherent, basic human rights.’  At the top of the his list was ‘Internet access,’ while failing to mention a single guaranteed right contained in the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution.

This is no accident.  By making Broadband Internet access a human right, thus expanding the scope of Internet communication to nearly everyone on the planet, the notion cited above that ‘there is no inherent right to privacy on the Internet’ takes on an entirely different tone.

The moguls of big government and big corporations want everyone communicating on the Internet so that they can monitor the thoughts and activities of citizens, leading to preemptive action if necessary, to control the population.

And that brings us to something called ‘Government 2.0.’ And there is even already a concerted effort to wage war on those who would attempt to oppose it.

The basic thrust of the concept of Gov. 2.0 is to bring together the brightest minds on the planet, along with the moguls of government and corporations, to take both the government and the Internet to an entirely new level, based upon the world-wide web.

One of the investigative sources for this series, who shall remain anonymous, stated the following:

So, a burgeoning, massive database appears to already be forming, beyond the “Evil Empire,” Google.
There’s Web 2.0. Now there’s “Gov 2.0.”
Blogs, photos, or seemingly innocent opinions…recorded as isolated incidents, are to be gathered
from numerous social networks and indeed, across the Internet. The massive power of the ongoing
“collective.” Once gathered & indexed they can be sorted in powerful ways to spur further
investigations and enable its use, years later… “evidence” as ammunition or tools for political coercion.

So, who are some of the main players invited by the Obama White House to be part of the start-up of Government 2.0?

We will name the names in the next segment.

For commentary on the issues of the day, visit my blog at The Liberty Sphere.

Anti-Gun ObamaPet Nominated to the Supreme Court

May 19, 2010

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

The next justice of the Supreme Court could well cast the deciding vote on the constitutionality of ObamaCare.  And that justice will almost certainly preside, during the next thirty years, over dozens of cases which could very well chip away at the DC v. Heller decision, telling us which gun laws the court views as “constitutional” and which “unconstitutional.”

So it is more than a little interesting that Barack Qbama has reached into his closet of political leftists to bring out Elena Kagan — a woman whose legal views have been shaped by the most extreme socialist voices in Washington.

Kagan doesn’t have a record of judicial opinions. She hasn’t been a judge. So the crafty Obama figures that, without a paper trail, we won’t know of the ways she is moving American jurisprudence to the left until it’s too late.

But Kagan’s views on the Second Amendment are no mystery.  According to columnist James Oliphant, Kagan was part of “a small group of staffers work[ing] behind the scenes to pursue an aggressive policy agenda” during President Bill Clinton’s second term.

Oliphant writes: “According to records at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Ark., [Kagan] drafted an executive order restricting the importation of certain semiautomatic assault rifles. She also helped prepare a question-and-answer document advocating the campaign-reform legislation then proposed by Sens. Russ Feingold and John McCain.”

Kagan was also part of the Clinton team that pushed the firearms industry to include gun locks with all gun purchases and was in the Clinton administration when the president pushed legislation that would close down gun shows.

President Obama has made it very clear that he expects Kagan’s “powers of persuasion” to make her and Justice Anthony Kennedy the swing votes to uphold his anti-gun ObamaCare legislation.

Kagan’s opinion of the “greatest lawyer” of her lifetime was her former boss — the consistently left-wing Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Bloomberg News reported on May 13 that while working for Justice Marshall, Kagan urged him to vote against hearing a gun owner’s claim that his constitutional rights were violated.

Kagan wrote that she was “not sympathetic” toward the gun rights claim that was made in Sandidge v. United States — an amazing statement for a woman who is being heralded for supposedly showing a “special solicitude” for the interests of certain groups.

Alas, it seems that gun owners are not a part of those groups for whom she would like to show special concern.

After the Heller case was handed down, Kagan did concede that the Second Amendment was an “individual right.”  But that makes her no different than the talking heads at the Brady Campaign.

Kagan, like the President who nominated her, is an extreme leftist.  According to WeeklyStandard.com (May 6, 2009), she is so far to the left she has lamented that socialism has “never attained the status of a major political force” in our country.

And according to Politico.com (March 20, 2009), she says that foreign law can be used to interpret the U.S. Constitution in “some circumstances.”  Considering that most of the world does not respect the freedoms that are protected in our Second Amendment, this is a bad sign.

While every Senator needs to hear from us, there are seven Republican Senators in particular who need to hear from their constituents.  These seven Republicans voted for Elena Kagan last year when she was confirmed as Obama’s Solicitor General:

* Coburn (R-OK)
* Collins (R-ME)
* Gregg (R-NH)
* Hatch (R-UT)
* Kyl (R-AZ)
* Lugar (R-IN)
* Snowe (R-ME)

ACTION: Contact your Senators and urge them to vote NO on Elena Kagan — and tell him or her that you want Kagan’s nomination filibustered and defeated.  As Kagan could be the deciding vote on the constitutionality of ObamaCare and many other gun cases, it is imperative that Republicans stick together and filibuster every anti-gun nomination from the President.

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

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

Please vote NO on the nomination of Elena Kagan.  The next justice of the Supreme Court will almost certainly preside, during the next thirty years, over dozens of cases which could very well chip away at the DC v. Heller decision, telling us which gun laws the court views as “constitutional” and which “unconstitutional.”

But Kagan’s views on the Second Amendment are no mystery.  Columnist James Oliphant writes: “According to records at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Ark., [Kagan] drafted an executive order restricting the importation of certain semiautomatic assault rifles.”

She was also part of the Clinton team that pushed the firearms industry to include gun locks with all gun purchases and was in the Clinton administration when the president pushed legislation that would close down gun shows.

Bloomberg News
reported on May 13 that while working for Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan urged him to vote against hearing a gun owner’s claim that his constitutional rights were violated.  Kagan wrote that she was “not sympathetic” toward the gun owner’s claim.

Sure, after the Heller case was handed down, Kagan did concede that the Second Amendment was an “individual right.”  But that makes her no different than the talking heads at the Brady Campaign.

According to WeeklyStandard.com (May 6, 2009), she is so far to the left she has lamented that socialism has “never attained the status of a major political force” in our country.

And according to Politico.com (March 20, 2009), she says that foreign law can be used to interpret the U.S. Constitution in “some circumstances.”  Considering that most of the world does not respect the freedoms that are protected in our Second Amendment, this is a bad sign.

Please vote NO on Elena Kagan and support any filibuster attempt against her.

Sincerely,


GOF Brief in McDonald v Chicago

Speaking of the Supreme Court, the next high-court judicial battle regarding gun rights will be an attempt to rule Chicago’s notorious gun ban as unconstitutional as the one struck down in Washington DC in the landmark Heller case. In essence, will the “individual right” affirmed in Heller apply to every state or just DC?

To view what Gun Owners Foundation is doing to influence this upcoming Supreme Court decision, and/or to make a tax-deductible contribution to further these legal efforts, please see:
http://www.gunowners.com/mcdonald.htm

Matt Mead for Governor, Star Tribunes latest praise spells caution

May 19, 2010

Matt Mead for Governor

From a Casper Star Tribune opinion – Mead could follow in Freudenthal’s footsteps :

“In a crowded GOP gubernatorial primary, Matt Mead is the candidate who most reminds us of the states current Democratic governor, Dave Freudenthal”

It seems that the Casper Star Tribune has named their pick for Governor. I must say if you’re looking for a liberal leaning candidate you might have to agree with them.

As a former U.S. Attorney, Mead would be the most likely candidate to side with the Feds, JUST LIKE Dave Freudenthal.

The Star-Tribune goes on to praise Matt Mead even lifting him up to Freudenthal’s pedestal, on more than one occasion.

The Red Flag – when the most liberal, anti-gun rag in the state virtually endorses Mead, I believe it sends a strong message to the voters, here it comes…

CAUTION! – Matt Mead another Freudenthal for Governor!!!

no rinos
Image A.Bouchard

The Casper Star Tribune also goes on to say –“Mead is well qualified for the job. In addition to serving as a federal prosecutor, where he had to make decisions that he noted involved ‘life, liberty and property’”.

On this point Mead is right, “he was involved with such decisions”, but what Mead and the Trib fail to tell you is, Matt Mead was on the WRONG SIDE of the decisions. Mead actually fought against gun rights and state sovereignty in one flailing swoop.

When I questioned Mead on this, all he had to say was…

“You should see my gun collection”…and …I was just doing my job”.

Neither of which qualifies Mead to be at the helm of the Independent State of Wyoming.

Remember like Mead the Nazi soldiers also “had gun collections” and claimed “they were also just doing their job” while throwing corpses in the trenches.

FACT – When given a choice to protect the state of Wyoming or take the money and fight AGAINST IT, Mead took the money as shown in the case Wyoming vs. BATF. Honestly, the group I hang with would rather die than fight for the gungrabbers.

Despite the truth of the court case which is on the Brady Anti-Gun Campaign web-site, Mead has spoke out saying- “Do not to believe anything on the internet”. Also at events in Sheridan and Cheyenne, Mead stated that “Some blogger is spreading lies”. Mead also said that this blogger (apparently me) wouldn’t meet with him, as if we never spoke with each other. Here’s the rub: it is certainly disingenuous of Mead since we have had two phone conversations about his Venomously Anti-Gun Record.

Further, Meads Campaign Manager Bill Novotny “got in my face” at an event in Cheyenne saying to me – “you must work for someone”, he was apparently attempting to stifle me but, these establishment style tactics are nothing more than a case of “we can’t dispute the message, so let’s kill the messenger”.

More rhetoric comes as if to say Mead isn’t pandering to the Democrats, Novotny said “he hasn’t heard of any Democrats supporting Mead”, really! Everyone else knows except Novotny, Mead’s Campaign Manager?

Again just “POLITICS AS USUAL” coming out of the Mead Campaign.

Is this what Wyoming needs, a Governor that reminds us of Freudenthal? I don’t think so.


Related Articles:

Matt Mead – rejected for governor by Wyoming Gun Owners

Matt Mead for Governor, wolf in sheep’s clothing

Matt Mead, deceptive with so called “rumor control”

You may also like these…

Colin Simpson and Matt Mead, possible early picks for Governor by the Democrats

Colin Simpson’s campaign manager speaks out


Anthony Bouchard is a staunch supporter of the Bill of Rights and limited government – he is also the Director of WyGO – Wyoming Gun Owners Association, Wyoming’s Only No-Compromise Gun-Rights Organization.

NRA CONVENTION REPORT

May 18, 2010

I do indeed agree with much of what Mr. Kopel says in what follows. However? He leaves much of the story out.

The NRA’s annual members meeting was held last weekend, in Charlotte, North Carolina. Since I’ve been going to these events for the last two decades, I’d like to offer a report on how the Convention has changed over the years, and some thoughts about the NRA’s past and present.

First of all, the annual meeting grown from “large” to “enormous.” This year’s convention drew 72,128 NRA members. It’s now so big that relatively few US cities have convention facilities that can accommodate it. The 2010 meeting was the largest event ever held in the city of Charlotte, and the people of Charlotte were very welcoming, and the facilities were well-run.

The Exhibit Hall, where manufacturers of firearms, hunting gear, and related accessories show off their products to consumers, was a three mile walk, if you went through each row. The shooting industry’s annual trade show (SHOT — Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trades) is even bigger, but you have to be a firearms retailer, or otherwise engaged in the firearms business, in order to be able to attend SHOT. So for most persons, the NRA exhibit hall is the best opportunity ever to examine products close up, talk to manufacturer’s representatives, and so on. As has become the norm in recent years, the exhibit hall was so full most of the day Saturday that it was difficult to walk at more than a slow space. (Friday and Sunday were easier.)

Traditionally, the highlight (at least for me) has been the annual members’ banquet on Saturday evening. Last year in Phoenix, the banquet set the record as “the largest meal ever served in the state of Arizona.” Even then, there were many people who wanted to attend, but could not get tickets. So this year, the banquet was replaced by an evening event at the nearby basketball arena (the Time-Warner Cable Center), which drew 11,754 to hear a Charlie Daniels concert, plus speeches by Glenn Beck and Newt Gingrich, as well as by NRA Executive Vice-President Wayne LaPierre.

A notable addition in recent years is the Friday afternoon “Celebration of American Values” leadership forum. This too took place at the basketball arena. As Jim Geraghty of National Review Online reported, the event now serves as a cattle call for politicians who may have national ambitions.  Speakers this year included Sarah Palin, John Thune, Haley Barbour, and Mike Pence, plus North Carolina Democratic Congressman Heath Shuler. The CAV is a relatively recent addition to the Annual Meeting. Because the Saturday banquet can only accommodate one or two headline speakers, the CAV provides NRA with an additional opportunity to build relationships with leading political figures.

New media were present, with NRA staff twittering the convention for the first time, plus the now-established events for the dozens of “gun bloggers” who attend. The most prominent “new media” at the convention was NRA News, the NRA’s satellite radio program which airs three hours every weekday on Sirius (and, starting today, also on XM) as well as on the Internet. NRA News had a studio on the convention floor, and broadcast nearly round the clock over the weekend. [For NRA News video of the weekend’s speeches, go the NRA News website, and then look in the video archives for May 14 or 15.]

The Continuing Legal Education seminar at the Annual Meeting has been in operation for about a decade and half, a Friday program that provides hundreds of lawyers with eight hours of low-cost CLE, and greatly helps to expand the number of lawyers who have the knowledge to handle firearms cases–whether the case is an administrative law issue for a licensed firearms dealer, or a constitutional defense.

Among the interesting presenters at the CLE was Stephen Halbrook, discussing his draft article for the Northeastern Law Review symposium, in which he commented on this passage in Chicago’s brief (p. 19, n. 9) in McDonald: incorporation “would raise questions whether a weapon generally in common use for lawful purposes in one locale (such as a high-powered hunting rifle with precision sighting equipment popular in rural Illinois) must be allowed elsewhere, precluding a ban on use by Chicago gangs seeking to assassinate rivals.”

Stated another way, Chicago wants the legal option to ban ordinary rifles used for hunting deer and other big game. Rifles which, by the way, are currently owned by Chicago residents, and are lawfully used by them for hunting and target shooting. Chicago’s argument certainly refutes the notion that nobody in the gun control movement wishes to ban hunting long guns.

Throughout the three days of the convention, there are seminars on all kinds of topics, from hunting to self-defense to firearms history. The one I attended was Sniper: Myths and the Media & Winning the Sniping War in Iraq. Major John Plaster gave a very interesting presentation on the sniper war in Iraq from 2004 to 2008, perhaps the most extended sniper conflict in the history of warfare. He explained how the Iraqi insurgents nearly won that conflict in 2005-06, and how the U.S. forces finally turned the tide by changing their tactics, and bringing in substantial additional resources, including forensics teams who could lift fingerprints from recovered insurgent guns.

But the main reason I went was for the other speaker, Stephen Hunter, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist from the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun. Now retired from newspapers, Hunter is a novelist, and in his most recent mystery-adventure novel, I, Sniper, I am a very minor character. It’s the first time I have ever appeared in a novel, so like a Pirandello character in search of his author, I made sure to say hello to him, and get him to sign my book.

In sum, the NRA Annual Meeting showcased an organization that is strong and getting stronger, largely because of its increasing ability to mobilize the grassroots. Twentyfive years ago, if you joined the NRA, you got a monthly magazine, plus direct mail requests for additional donations, and occasional legislative alerts. Now, the NRA is in touch with its members daily (at least the members who want daily updates) via NRA News, the website, e-mails, blogs, and so on. As the Annual Meeting continues to scale up, the organizers are doing a solid job of giving members the opportunity not only to be part of very large crowds, but also to participate in smaller events with one-on-one conversations.

Throughout the meeting, at event after event, the key word was not “rifle” or “gun.” In Charlotte, as at every convention for at least the last ten years, the word was “American.” This is reflected in part in the genuine veneration which the NRA, at all levels, has for the American armed forces. The NRA membership and staff have a high proportion of military veterans, and at any convention event, a call-out to the active duty soldiers typically leads to a standing ovation.

But more broadly, the NRA considers itself the embodiment of American patriotism, as the direct descendant of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. This isn’t a point about constitutional originalism, but it is a point about four million people who have never thought that it was uncool to be patriotic, and who very much see themselves as carrying forward the sacred flame of liberty that was lit in 1776, was fought for on the beaches at Normandy and Guadalcanal, and which is based on eternal truth.

Like any social and political movement, the NRA at times defines itself as oppositional–as resisting “the anti-gun mainstream media,” or Bill Clinton, or Michael Bloomberg. But the National Rifle Association of America is incapable of being oppositional to America itself, or of imagining itself to be countercultural. Founded in 1871 by Union army officers, and led in its early days by bipartisan Union Generals (such as retired U.S. President U.S. Grant, a Republican; and Winfield Scott Hancock, “the hero of Gettysburg” and the 1884 Democratic presidential nominee), the NRA has always defined itself as the mainstream of America. Probably the only civic organization whose membership has included more U.S. Presidents than the NRA is the Boy Scouts–and that’s because the Boy Scouts make every U.S. President into their honorary President. In short, Whig history is alive and well at the NRA, and based on the present and past successes of NRA in shaping American culture as a gun culture, that view of history cannot be said to be inaccurate.

SOURCE

And what of the NRA’s stance supporting ex post facto law? Just to name one utter failure…

The Side Effects of ObamaCare

May 15, 2010

The true scope of ObamaCare’s side effects continued to be divulged this week with the revelation of some little-known provisions in the law. The lab tests are back, and the prognosis isn’t good.

First, Section 9006 will force businesses to issue 1099 tax forms to any individual or corporation from which they buy more than $600 in goods or services in a tax year. Currently Forms 1099 are received by independent contractors and freelancers to document income beyond wages and salaries for work they perform for businesses and clients. Starting on Jan. 1, 2012, these forms will have to be issued not just to individuals, but to corporations as well. If a freelancer purchases any good or service worth more than $600, they must issue a 1099 to the business from which they made the purchase. This provision encompasses just a few lines in the 2,400-page law, but it will add millions of new tax documents to each year’s reporting.

Democrats defended the move based on their belief that it will put an end to some $300 billion per year in unreported income. Just think of all the tax revenue! Demos claim that this revenue will help fund continued tax cuts for small businesses. What they purposefully ignore is that the more complex the tax system grows, the more difficult and expensive it becomes to do business.

Meanwhile, the provision that allows adult “children” to remain on their parents’ health insurance plan until age 26 has a surprise of its own. An estimated 1.2 million young adults are expected to join these plans after Sept. 23, and the Health and Human Services Department noted that premiums for the employers of those parents would rise about one percent in 2011 as a result. That’s on top of the 6 to 7 percent hike that employers are already expecting next year. Furthermore, coverage for young adults must be offered at the same level as for that of other dependents. They can neither be charged more, nor receive a lower level of benefits. Parents who purchase insurance for their adult children in the open market can expect to pay an additional $2,300 in premiums next year.

Finally, the Congressional Budget Office announced that the health care plan will actually cost at least $115 billion more than estimated when it was signed into law. This pushes the law’s total cost well above $1 trillion over 10 years (though “unofficial” estimates are as high as $3.5 trillion) and erases the $100 billion in deficit “savings” that Barack Obama bragged about during the legislative debate. The CBO’s adjustment is necessary because Democrats didn’t include real numbers in various portions of the law that include administrative costs for actually implementing the program. Any figures the bill’s authors didn’t know at the time were simply replaced with the phrase “as needed.” The CBO has since had a chance to score these nebulous elements, and the president’s own budget office has told Congress to offset these new costs with spending cuts or tax increases. Gee, which option will they choose?

Obama audaciously issued a veto threat for any portion of the bill that comes in above the original cost estimate. Since we surely couldn’t believe him when he claimed that his health care takeover would actually save the country money, why would we begin to believe that he would veto any portion of legislation upon which he staked his political future?

Given all this, and given the many as-yet undiagnosed side-effects sure to come, we humbly suggest that the following FDA-type warning be read each time an Obama official mentions its crowning legislative achievement: Taking Hope ‘n’ Change may cause bloated budgets, irritated politics, nausea and heartburn. Unexplained costs could be a sign of a common but serious side effect of unbridled socialism.

SOURCE

Elene Kagan: A Scorecard

May 13, 2010

I’ll admit, when I first read that the impostor in chief had made a decision on who he would put before the senate for confirmation as the next Justice on the Supreme Court, and who it was, I was not all that alarmed. With the caveat that the devil is always in the details, and if details are not readily available? Then dig a little deeper… Thankfully, Anthony at The Liberty Sphere had more luck than I did… At least with all the power outages etc. that I have had recently do to the man made global warming. You know, that white fluffy stuff… Please follow the links for the entire story.

Is Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan a self-avowed socialist?

It would appear to be the case. Then what can we expect from the current person running things at the White House?

Does America need an anti-military Supreme Court justice?

Stupidly, we are in a multi- front war, along with a rather serious asymmetrical warfare situation. The answer to the above question should be self evident. Unless of course you are hell bent on the destruction of these not so United States of America.

Explosive report shows Kagan supports censorship of TV, radio, posters, and pamphlets

Kagan wrote that government can restrict free speech

That’s correct. The lady apparently believes that the government can tell you what you can say, print, think, and yes even blog about. And please, don’t anyone use the “Can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” argument. If the damned place is in fact on fire it’s your civic and moral duty to let people know so that they can escape.

More controversy on the Kagan nomination casts doubts on her fitness for the Court

Controversy is putting it mildly. The lady is an obama clone from the way things appear. Oh, alright, unlike obama, she does still have her license to practice law.

Then we have her history on Gun Control, and it isn’t hitting your intended target…

Spelling Treason: Lautenberg, King, Bloomberg

May 9, 2010

Since September 11, 2001, it’s been clear that terrorists who hate America will exploit our weaknesses in order to destroy us. This week, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) and New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg exploited Americans’ fear of terrorism to push their latest anti-gun proposal, and in doing so showed that they’re willing to destroy other parts of the Constitution, to choke its Second Amendment.

On Tuesday, as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Lieberman held a hearing to give Lautenberg and King the opportunity to promote their bills S.1317 and H.R.2159, to prohibit the possession of firearms by people on the FBI’s “terrorist watchlist,” and Lautenberg’s S. 2820, to maintain records of approved instant background check transactions for a minimum of 180 days. The watchlist bills further propose that a person seeking relief in court  from these new restrictions would be prevented from examining and challenging “evidence” against him, and that the judge deciding whether the person had been watchlisted for good reason be limited to summaries and redacted versions of such “evidence.”

Joining Lautenberg, King and Bloomberg to speak in favor of these patently anti-American and unconstitutional bills was Bloomberg’s police commissioner, Ray Kelly.

Claims made by the bills’ supporters during the hearing bordered on the frivolous. Lautenberg cited the failed attempt last Saturday to set off a homemade gasoline-propane bomb in an SUV near NYC’s Times Square — even though his watchlist bill would only regulate firearms and commercially made explosives. Lautenberg then brought up an even more irrelevant incident, the 2008 attack by a terrorist group in Mumbai, India, saying “That’s why we need to change the law” in the United States. A “fanatic” in his own right when it comes to gun control, Lautenberg continued, “Nothing in our laws keeps fanatics on the terror watchlist from purchasing guns and explosives.”

Lautenberg was lying, of course, and Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) called him on it. Knowing that the Government Accountability Office has reported that about 95 percent of people on the watchlist are neither American citizens nor legal residents of the United States, Sen. Graham pointed out “there are 400,000 people on the watchlist.” He then asked, “what percentage of them are American citizens?”

Lautenberg and his allies sat silently, dumbfounded, for what seemed an eternity, until Kelly, dutifully taking the punch so his boss wouldn’t have to, sputtered that he was unable to come up with a figure. Since it was obvious that the anti-gunners didn’t get the point, Sen. Graham clarified it for them: “The law prohibits the purchase of a gun unless you’re an American citizen or a legal resident alien.”

Lautenberg tried to justify his bill by saying “From 2004 to February of this year, terrorists tried to buy guns and explosives 1,228 times. In 91 percent of those cases, they were given the OK to buy the guns.” The claim was misleading, in that the 1,228 checks were accounted for by about 650 individuals, according to the GAO. But Sen. Graham seized upon a more important flaw in the statistic when he asked how many of these “terrorists” were dangerous enough to have been brought up on terrorism charges. On this point too, the Lautenberg team had no response. That led Sen. Graham to question whether the watchlisted gun buyers were as dangerous as the Lautenberg team want people to believe.

King falsely claimed that his bill was justified by last year’s Ft. Hood murders, “where individuals [sic] suspected of terrorist activity legally obtained weapons that were used to kill innocent Americans.” The truth is, the one person (not multiple individuals) accused of the Ft. Hood crime was not “suspected of terrorist activity.” Months before the accused killer bought his gun, the FBI had completed an investigation of him, concluding that despite some suspicious e-mails between the accused and an anti-American Islamist overseas, he was not a terrorist threat. At the bottom line, even if everything that Lautenberg, King and Bloomberg are proposing had already been federal law, it would not have affected the Ft. Hood crime one whit.

Speaking against the proposed legislation during the hearing was Aaron Titus of the Liberty Coalition.  “Senate Bill 1317 goes too far,” he said. “The bill should be titled, ‘The Gun Owners Are Probably All Terrorists Act,’ because it strips citizens of their constitutional right to [keep and] bear arms without any meaningful due process. And Senate Bill 2820 should be called, ‘The National Firearm Registry Act’ because it creates a national firearms registry. . . . a massive database of names and detailed personal information of each law-abiding citizen who purchases a gun.”

Titus’ point laid Lautenberg’s, King’s and Bloomberg’s intention bare. While S. 2820 would allow the FBI to retain NICS records on all NICS transactions, 99.999 percent of the people documented in those records would not be persons on the watchlist. “The bill disingenuously purports to target terrorists,” Titus said, “but in fact only one ten-thousandth of one percent of these records will belong to people on watch lists. Every year, only 200 new watch-list records will be created. But the system will generate more than 14 million new records on law-abiding citizens. Once collected, there’s no limit on what the information may be used for, and no legal requirement to ever delete it.”

Later, Sen. Graham summed up the reason that should motivate every American — regardless of personal feelings about individual gun ownership — to oppose the Lautenberg and King bills. “I think you’re going too far here,” he said. “There’s a huge difference between losing your gun rights based upon a felony charge that was proven by a court of law and appealed, and is a conviction on the books, and being on some list that is, at best, suspect.”  NRA members in South Carolina and around the nation owe Sen. Graham their thanks for getting to the heart of the issue.

SOURCE

“The Day I’ll Join the NRA”

May 6, 2010

What follows virtually mirrors my feelings toward the NRA. While I remain a Life Member simply because then I at least have the right to criticize the organization from within. I was speaking the other day with the author of what follows about this very subject.

My feelings? Has the NRA done some good in the past? Certainly! Have they helped the nation? Again, certainly! However, they should have stayed with safety, marksmanship, competitions, and hunting, and, turned over politics and legal things to their former director Larry Pratt at Gun Owners of America.

Recently I came across the following  – AN OPEN LETTER TO TED NUGENT:”THE DAY I’LL JOIN THE NRA”, it originates from Aaron Zelman, Founder and Director of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO).

I couldn’t agree more with Mr. Zelman’s points, as a matter of fact WyGO – Wyoming Gun Owners was also formed due to the ongoing compromise by the NRA.

Two excerpts from the letter:

I’ll join the NRA…
When the NRA soundly condemns, and works tirelessly to abolish, the “Gun Control Act of 1968”. NRA lawyers actually helped to write this piece of totalitarian legislation…

And this one…

I’ll join the NRA…
When the NRA aggressively presses to abolish all concealed carry permit laws. How has an unalienable right to self defense been demoted to a revocable government granted privilege? Unregistered concealed carry has been no big issue in both Alaska and Vermont for decades. Arizona just passed unregistered concealed legislation. It’s time for the NRA to start swimming strongly with this tide…

Be sure to read the entire letter to Ted Negent or all of the open letters from JPFO

Like you, I will wait patiently for Ted’s reply. (Sarcasm)


Anthony Bouchard is a staunch supporter of the Bill of Rights and limited government – he is also the Director of WyGO – Wyoming Gun Owners Association, Wyoming’s Only No-Compromise Gun-Rights Organization. Anthony is also the –  Cheyenne Government Examiner.

WyGO / Wyoming Gun Owners

Promote Your Page Too

Wyoming Gun Owners

Straw Purchase felon Bloomberg: Use fatally flawed list

May 6, 2010

New York’s felon Mayor is back at it again. That guy just can’t seem to figure out that when something is broken you don’t promote it as something to be admired… I just happen to have a problem with taking away peoples rights without a trial…

New York City officials on Wednesday seized on the attempted terror attack in Times Square to urge Congress to tighten counterterrorism policies.

In testimony before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly called on lawmakers to close a loophole that lets individuals on the federal government’s terrorism watch list buy firearms and explosives.

~snip~

“The problem I have is that [the] watch list, when you look at the numbers, has so many problems with it that I think it’s not appropriate to go down the road that we’re going because a constitutional right is involved,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told Bloomberg during questioning.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) strongly opposes the proposed changes, claiming that the terrorism watch list is full of errors.
Andrew Arulanandam, NRA’s director of public affairs, pointed to the well-publicized 2004 incident in which the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) was temporarily prevented from boarding a flight because his name was mistakenly on the list.

“There are innocent people who are not terrorists whose names are on the list,” Arulanandam said in an interview. “It is wrong to deny law-abiding people a constitutional right if they are innocent.”

But Bloomberg claimed that national-security concerns take precedence over any Second Amendment arguments.

Full Story

Puerto Rico Statehood, another threat to freedom in Wyoming

May 4, 2010

Reprinted with permission. Please follow the link for comments that are there.

Line in the Sand
Image: A.Bouchard

The newest “line in the sand” has been drawn, a Washington D.C. hostile takeover of your freedoms in the form of a push to make Puerto Rico a part of the Federal Union.

From the news – House Approves Puerto Rico Statehood Measure, “The House voted Thursday to allow Puerto Ricans to change the island’s commonwealth status, in what critics are saying is a backdoor attempt to force Puerto Ricans into choosing U.S. statehood…which passed 223-169 and now must be taken up by the Senate, would introduce a two-step ballot measure for Puerto Rico to decide if its residents want to change their current relationship with the United States”.

This is happening despite the incompatibility of the Constitution of this unincorporated U.S Territory, specifically the right to keep and bear arms. Unlike our Republic (a nation of Constitutional laws), Puerto Rico by a review of their Constitution and the actions of their Parliament, Puerto Rico is a Democracy (of men). Ever wondered the difference between a Republic and a Democracy, well the answers are right here. Just read on…

REPUBLIC VS. DEMOCRACY

Puerto Rico’s Constitution states it is a Democracy-
Section 19. The foregoing enumeration of rights shall not be construed restrictively nor does it contemplate the exclusion of other rights not specifically mentioned which belong to the people in a democracy. The power of the Legislative Assembly to enact laws for the protection of the life, health and general welfare of the people shall likewise not be construed restrictively.

By contrast the Wyoming Constitution clearly defines the form of government as Republic-
97-1-007 – Absolute, arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority.

Also to be noted there is no mention of the “right to keep and bear arms” in the Puerto Rican Constitution, but the Wyoming Constitution states this-
97-1-024 – The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied.

Motive – If Puerto Rico is forced into Statehood by Congress they will have a new partner to impose strict gun control in the U.S. and this backdoor attempt is just another step toward full federal control.

Nothing new here! In fact, similarly states like New York and California have become enemies to liberty in Wyoming by imposing their will in our state on issues such as land, wildlife and mining. More recently, legislation has been introduced in Washington that could alter “Water Rights” in Wyoming forever.

Obama started to circle the wagons while campaigning in Puerto Rico in 2008, as you will see in this video.

With the recently passed HealthCare Mandate and the coming Value Added Tax (VAT) and ”Cap and Trade”, it should be even more alarming that – this combined with new found allies supporting full “gun control”…Well, I believe you see the big picture.

A summary of Puerto Rico’s GUN CONTROL-

  • “FULL GUN REGISTRATION” scheme in place, “Any legal firearm…shall be registered in the registry of weapons”. You notice “legal firearm”? Once again criminals are exempt, only law abiding citizens must ask permission and register their firearms.
  • Licensing, you must ask the Government to purchase and possess firearms and ammunition.
  • Clinton style weapons ban in full force.
  • The government has the ability to seize weapons as they see fit.
  • Strict ammo purchase and possession scheme, one cannot possess ammunition for which you do not have a licensed firearm.
  • If you fail to license all of your activities including “target shooting” you are guilty of a felony and will be imprisoned.
  • BUT OF COURSE, in Puerto Rico…ALL Government officials (even the Parliament) can have special privileges to carry and possess firearms.

The Puerto Rican Government stated this about the New Weapons Act of Puerto Rico in 2000 – “By enacting this law, the State exercised its inherent power of regulation”.

It is this very thing that concerned the Founders as well as the Wyoming Legislature in 1889, “a government that CAN and WILL push to take away your inalienable rights”.

By contrast the Wyoming Constitution says this-
97-1-001 – All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness; for the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.

I will leave you with this last thought – It has never been so important to be a “vested” member in WyGO – Wyoming Gun Owners.

Research sources:
Wyoming Constitution

New Weapons Act of Puerto Rico 2000
Amendments in 2002
Puerto Rico Constitution


Anthony Bouchard is a staunch supporter of the Bill of Rights and limited government – he is also the Director of WyGO – Wyoming Gun Owners Association, Wyoming’s Only No-Compromise Gun-Rights Organization. Anthony is also the –  Cheyenne Government Examiner.

WyGO / Wyoming Gun Owners