Archive for the ‘Immigration’ Category

Trump, and some things that came from..?

October 25, 2016

There is a viral posting about Donald Trump, and his assassination. It is a rather long essay that just happens to be on target. However, it isn’t true. At least as far as who actually wrote it. Read the whole thing because it is serious thinking from someone that has a very fertile mind. Myself, I happen to think that the obama will be the first President assassinated after he is out of office. The reasons are many, and race is only a minor one.

Bill Bennett: They’d Kill Trump Before They Let Him Be President -Incorrectly Attributed!

Life, in these not so United States is in for some dramatic changes irrespective of who is installed as President…

Election 2016: What it means for life and liberty in these not so United States.

October 24, 2016

What follows is the work of Mia Lee, a long time Facebook friend.

The 2016 Election is probably the strangest and most important one of our time.  Like riding on a roller coaster at Six Flags, there have been many ups and downs, unexpected turns, and sometimes flat-out nauseating moments, and the many issues at stake are equally, if not more, a roller coaster each in itself.  From illegal immigration to the refugee crisis; the National Debt to TPP; Common Core to free college; Religious Liberties, transgender bathrooms.  The list goes on and on, but there are two issues in particular that CANNOT be overlooked, the 2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court.  Both are vital for the other’s survival and are needed for our Constitution to remain intact.

This election cycle started out with the biggest field of contender, ever.  The winnowing process was a painful one, but slowly, one by one, the playing field diminished, until only two competitors remained; Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.  Now I know some of you may be groaning and rolling your eyes right now at the thought of who is left.  Yes, I know, it has turned out to be quite the conundrum, voting for the lesser of two evils as some of you may see it.  I too have been faced with this frightful task, as “my guy” didn’t make the cut.  It’s been a back and forth, conflict of convictions, and soul-searching process.  The one thing that I keep coming back to is this, the 2nd Amendment.  History has shown us time and time again that the loss of one’s right to defend himself, family and home, has been a key factor in Tyranny. We can go as far back as the Bible and see examples of governments and rulers taking away God-given rights of self-defense as a means to control.  Once that control was taken away, it then became very easy to “exterminate” the undesirable and unruly citizens.  Under the guise of “Public Safety”, the Democrats have spread their propaganda, twisted or omitted the truth, in order to further their agenda of oppression and government control.  With the help of the MSM, they have been able to lay their groundwork and it’s just a matter of time before they attempt to change the rules on law-abiding gun owners and American citizens.  At the helm of this crusade, for the last 8 years, has been President Obama.  He has made it very clear that gun control is at the top of his list and will stop at nothing to earn that final feather in his cap.

This brings us to the elephant in the room, who are we all going to vote for.  After considering all the pros and cons, personal and moral views, one thing keeps coming back to the forefront.  The 2nd Amendment.  For without it, we will slowly lose all the other Freedoms and Liberties that are afforded to us through the Constitution of the United States.  This then brings us to our next game changer, The Supreme Court.  With the recent passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, a staunch Conservative and advocate for the 2nd Amendment, finding his replacement is even more important. The balance of The Supreme Court is at stake, and with it, the Constitution.  It is now even more important to elect a Republican candidate.  To ensure that our freedoms and Constitutional rights as Gun Owners not be vanquished under the guise of crime prevention and public safety.

I recently read an interview by Chris Cox, NRA-ILA Executive Director, with Donald Trump.  I believe that Mr. Trump is this country’s best shot at preserving our Constitution and 2nd Amendment.  We know for a fact that Hillary Clinton will only continue Obama’s gun control agenda and even more.  I’m not willing to take that chance.

I’ve included the full interview transcript below for you to read and see where Donald Trump stands on this very important issue.  Remember what is at stake in this election. I f we lose this election to Hillary Clinton, basically a third term of the Obama Administration, we will most certainly lose our 2nd amendment Rights, or Constitution, and the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness as we know it.

by Mia – the Shooter’s Wife




This year’s race for the White House is like no other in our history. Hillary Clinton has made it clear that if elected, she will come after our firearms freedom on her very first day in office. So it’s no exaggeration to say that the Second Amendment is on the ballot this November. Recently, I had the opportunity to sit down with Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, to discuss our right to keep and bear arms and what’s at stake in this election for America’s gun owners.

Chris Cox: Mr. Trump, I’d like to begin with an issue of concern to many gun owners. In your 2000 book, “The America We Deserve,” you stated that while you oppose gun control, you support the federal ban on semi-automatic firearms — the so-called “assault weapons” ban — and also support a longer waiting period to purchase a firearm. During this election, however, you’ve repeatedly pointed out you oppose gun and magazine bans and only support background checks that are instant, accurate and fair. Would you say your position has evolved on these issues?

DJT: Absolutely. Over the past 15 years I’ve learned a great deal about how we can protect the good people of this country from those who mean to do us harm. Gun control is not the answer — protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens is the answer. Furthermore, gun bans don’t work. Studies were done after the 1994 “assault weapons” ban expired. They clearly showed that the ban didn’t protect anyone, didn’t reduce crime. It just made it harder for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves with the firearm of their choice. Like with all things, I believe in what works, and gun bans don’t work.

This year’s race for the White House is like no other in our history. Hillary Clinton has made it clear that if elected, she will come after our firearms freedom on her very first day in office. So it’s no exaggeration to say that the Second Amendment is on the ballot this November. Recently, I had the opportunity to sit down with Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, to discuss our right to keep and bear arms and what’s at stake in this election for America’s gun owners.

Chris Cox: Mr. Trump, I’d like to begin with an issue of concern to many gun owners. In your 2000 book, “The America We Deserve,” you stated that while you oppose gun control, you support the federal ban on semi-automatic firearms — the so-called “assault weapons” ban — and also support a longer waiting period to purchase a firearm. During this election, however, you’ve repeatedly pointed out you oppose gun and magazine bans and only support background checks that are instant, accurate and fair. Would you say your position has evolved on these issues?

DJT: Absolutely. Over the past 15 years I’ve learned a great deal about how we can protect the good people of this country from those who mean to do us harm. Gun control is not the answer — protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens is the answer. Furthermore, gun bans don’t work. Studies were done after the 1994 “assault weapons” ban expired. They clearly showed that the ban didn’t protect anyone, didn’t reduce crime. It just made it harder for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves with the firearm of their choice. Like with all things, I believe in what works, and gun bans don’t work.

I have two sons who don’t just believe in the Second Amendment, they live it. They hunt, target shoot, shoot competitively and carry firearms for personal protection. They’re NRA members and so am I. I also have a concealed-carry permit. Our commitment to the Second Amendment is unshakable.

Chris Cox: As you know, the future of our firearms freedom hangs in the balance with the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia — the author of the Heller decision — which held that the Constitution guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms. I have a couple of questions related to the Supreme Court, but first, do you agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental, individual right to own and use firearms for lawful purposes?f

DJT: Without question. Unlike Hillary Clinton, I believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right and the D.C. gun ban overturned in Heller is exactly the kind of law the Second Amendment was meant to prohibit. Let me be clear about this — Heller wasn’t about a “reasonable restriction” as Hillary tries to argue — the D.C. law banned guns in the home As a result, D.C. residents were completely defenseless against violent criminals breaking into their homes. Hillary believes that the Supreme Court was wrong in the Heller decision, which she has said many times. She will appoint judges who will effectively abolish the Second Amendment — that’s the stake in this election.

Chris Cox: In addition to the Scalia vacancy, many suggest the next president could nominate three or even more additional justices to the Supreme Court. Will the Second Amendment and the Heller decision play a role in who you decide to nominate to the Supreme Court?

DJT: One hundred percent. I will appoint judges who will preserve our Second Amendment-protected rights — Hillary Clinton will appoint judges who will eliminate them.Chris Cox: There are a number of laws and regulations that gun control groups have been pushing for years. I’d like to discuss a few of them to get your views. First, do you support so-called “universal” background checks?

DJT: There can never be a so-called “universal” background check, because criminals obviously ignore gun laws. That’s what makes them criminals. The research shows that they find someone with a clean record — a “straw purchaser” — to get a gun for them. Or they get a gun from the black market. Or they steal it. We also know that background checks haven’t stopped the mass shooters we’ve seen. In each case, they either passed a federal background check or stole the guns they used.

Under current law, purchasing a firearm from a dealer requires a background check, whether in a store, at a gun show or anywhere else — but some want to take that a step further so that even if a firearm is transferred from a father to a son as a gift or between lifelong friends on a hunting trip, the federal government has to intervene and approve the transfer in advance. That burdens law-abiding citizens but doesn’t impact criminals. I don’t support that.

Chris Cox: What about gun owner licensing and/or registration?

DJT: I don’t support restricting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens by creating a national government registry. One thing that gun control supporters never point out is that gun control costs us lives every day. Every time a law-abiding citizen has their right to defend themselves taken away, they are put at risk. That terrible tragedy in New Jersey — Carol Bowne, who was killed in her own driveway while waiting for a gun permit — is a tragic example of how gun control costs lives.

But the American people get it. Poll after poll shows a majority of Americans continue to be opposed to invasive restrictions on their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. They believe, as I do, that all of us have the right to defend ourselves and that the government should not be in the business of taking that right away, any more than we would let them regulate and restrict any of our other core freedoms out of existence.

Chris Cox: After the recent tragedy in Orlando, Fla., President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and their allies tried to distract attention away from their failed terrorism policies by calling for more gun control. In addition to calling for a new ban on semi-automatic rifles and for expanded background checks, they pushed for a proposal to ban people on secret government lists from purchasing firearms. What’s your position on that issue?

DJT: Terrorists should not be able to buy guns, legally or illegally. Period. We must make sure that doesn’t happen, and we all agree on that goal. At the same time, we have to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans. These are not mutually exclusive ideas — we can do both. Unfortunately, Obama and Hillary will do anything to distract attention away from their failure to stop the spread of ISIS and defeat terrorism. They also don’t want to talk about the threat, not only of terrorists with guns,

but terrorists with explosives — like at the Boston marathon bombing — and terrorists with trucks — like in Nice, France — or terrorists with any other means of attacking our people. They want to disarm Americans but continue policies that allow terrorists into our country.

Chris Cox: President Obama has made a habit out of using his “phone and pen” to implement gun control through executive orders, bypassing Congress and the will of the people to advance his anti-gun agenda. All presidents have used executive orders at some level, but none have gone to the lengths that Obama has on gun control. Do you have any plans with respect to executive orders on guns if you win the election?

DJT: First, I will undo President Obama’s executive orders on guns. Second, I will look for ways to restore the Second-Amendment-protected rights of law-abiding citizens, by undo ing restrictions put in place by the Obama administration’s federal agencies and pursuing avenues that protect Americans constitutional rights in ways that make us all safer.

Chris Cox: You came out early in the primaries with a position paper on the Second Amendment, including your support for Project Exile — enforcing current gun laws against criminals with mandatory jail time. Is that something you’ll push for if elected president?

DJT: I think the major failure of gun control supporters is the constant push for new gun laws instead of focusing our efforts on prosecuting violent criminals. Federal prosecutions under Obama have plummeted, and all he does is ask for more gun control. It makes no sense. Project Exile was a program that had great success because it’s simple — if you’re a felon caught with a gun or committing another crime with a gun, there’s a mandatory sentence of at least five years waiting for you. And those cases are prosecuted in federal court. When you see violent crime exploding in a place like Chicago, it’s ridiculous that they aren’t taking those criminals off the streets with the laws already in place. I’ll make that a priority in a Trump administration. My Justice Department will focus on prosecuting violent criminals. We will make it happen.

Chris Cox: Is there anything else you want our readers to know about this election?

DJT: This election means everything for the future of our country. Not just gun rights, but also many other issues. The Supreme Court will be shaped for a generation by the next president. Our standing in the world will be shaped — at a critical and dangerous time — by the next president. And the Second Amendment itself hangs in the balance with who we elect as the next president. Your freedoms are hanging by a fraying thread. Every freedom-loving American must vote, and they need to get their friends to vote. We can’t let the freedom secured by those in uniform be surrendered at the ballot box. I promise your readers, and all of America’s law-abiding gun owners, that when I win the White House with your votes, our Second Amendment rights will remain protected and I will do all in my power to advance the cause of freedom.

Source: October 2016 Shooting Illustrated, NRA, Chris Cox, NRA-ILA Executive Director


A Tory to the left of me, and a Tory to the right! Jeb Bush, a Bloomberg clone…

September 19, 2015
It sounds like a broken record playing from the gun control crowd — we just need to pass more laws…

Mandatory waiting periods to buy guns – leaving those who likely need a gun the most, defenseless.

Universal background checks – resulting in the government having a complete list of guns and their owners.

Background check expansion laws – designed to seize guns from gun owners on the mere word of one “mental health staffer.”

Even if you watched the Late Show from front to back the other night—->you still would have missed seeing one of the top tier Presidential candidates describe a utopian gun control agenda – one that the candidate hopes will sweep the nation state by state.

You missed it because it didn’t air – after being taped – likely because the campaign staffers who heard it decided to pull it down for fear that it would hurt the candidate—->they were right.

But this wasn’t a tactical decision by Hillary Clinton’s folks. It wasn’t that loud-mouthed gun grabber Chris Christie who said this. And it wasn’t even something that was said by the radical Bernie Sanders. Nope…

Jeb Bush, when appearing on the debut episode of the new Late Show, came out in full support of radical gun control just a few days ago!

Don’t take my word for it. Listen to what Jeb says for yourself by clicking on the video below.

Of course, Bush planted his words in his professed support for the 10th Amendment, stating that he would prefer each individual state enact the kinds of gun control, just like they did in his home state of Florida.

Worse, it’s obvious from the way he laid this out, that this is exactly what he would like to happen!

He didn’t stumble, he wasn’t trapped by a smart host, and he didn’t misspeak a word here or there. It sounded as if Bloomberg had crafted the words.

This is what Jeb Bush thinks about your gun rights!

Imagine being a homeowner in Ferguson, Mo., last year – watching your city burn – and being unable to buy a handgun to defend your family with because of a government mandated 72 hour waiting period.

Imagine being a homeowner in Boston, stunned as police chased a terrorism suspect around your city for 4 days, and you being left defenseless because some politician decided that you needed to wait 3 days to pick up your firearm.

In all of these scenarios, understand that the criminals are not going to wait around for 3 days to buy a weapon to carry out their plans to assault you or those you love.

You may be thinking, “So what, I’ve already got all the guns I need.” You and me both.

But what about everyone across the country who doesn’t? What about your children when they grow up? What about your granddaughter when she moves across the country for her first job as an adult?

Of course, Bush’s plan to change the mental health laws is designed to make it appear so reasonable that no one would oppose it.

But nothing is more dangerous, nothing is more subtle, than the gun control threat we face from a changing in the mental health code.

You see, under current law for someone who’s deranged to lose their constitutional right to keep and bear arms, they have to be “adjudicated” defective.

Adjudicated means that a judge or jury of your peers needs to be convinced to end those rights.
All of your due process rights are able to be used in this process. You can have an attorney present, produce evidence, confront evidence and witnesses being used against you, etc.

If the government is able to substitute “adjudication” for “declaration” then anyone authorized by the government can, unilaterally, declare you unfit to own firearms!

You can see now why this is so dangerous. This doesn’t affect the size of the magazine in your Colt .45 or whether or not you can own an AR-15. This just flat out leaves you prohibited from owning ANY firearms.

You’d have more rights contesting a traffic ticket than you would the seizure of your constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms if Jeb Bush’s mental health plan became law at the state or federal level!

Just last year Wyoming Gun Owners, with your support, fought and successfully defeated the passage of a bill that would do exactly this right here in the Wyoming legislature!

Background check expansion legislation was introduced in the Senate by Fred Emerich in 2014 and would do exactly what I’ve described above!

With our agressive activism, gun owners mobilized enough to prevent this bill from becoming law here in Wyoming!

Clearly Jeb Bush and his pal Michael Bloomberg want to see this same type of law enacted state by state all over the country!

Jeb Bush and Michael Bloomberg caught while working on the same team

Don’t be lulled off guard by his talk of the 10th Amendment. This simply means that he’d happily see the state government crackdown on your gun rights as opposed to the federal government.

More and more this is exactly what the gun grabbers are doing in response to the stinging defeat they were handed by gun owners on Universal Background Check Legislation proposed in 2013: and now they are taking their fight to state legislatures all over the country.

We’ve been able to stop them so far here in Wyoming.

Now we need to ensure that Wyomingites know all about Jeb Bush’s state-based gun control scheme and that Bush knows that Wyomingites won’t put up with it. Please help us get the word out by:

  1. Calling Bush’s campaign boss David Kochel and owner of the political consultant firm Redwave in Iowa. Call (515) 421-4404 to leave David a message. Make sure he knows you’re calling from Wyoming, that you’re a voter, and that Jeb’s statement on the Late Show tells you all you need to know about his views on the 2nd Amendment.
  2. Contacting Jeb’s national apparatus by leaving him the message on his facebook page. click here
  3. Sharing this email with every gun owner you know in Wyoming – make sure they have the facts about where Jeb stands.

Wyoming Senators: Silence is anything but golden!

June 4, 2015
We lost by a mere 16 votes, but thanks to your grassroots activism, U.S. Senate Leadership took it in the shorts.

First, the scary stuff…

Obama’s declaration of victory on the passage in the Senate by a 67-32 vote:

Immediately signing the wrongly named USA Freedom Act, Obama stated, “my administration will work expeditiously to ensure our national security professionals again have the full set of vital tools they need…

Now the back story…

While Senator(s) Barrasso and Enzi voted NO on the so-called USA Freedom Act, other Republican Senators who also voted NO, admitted that they did so because the measure “didn’t go far enough” to spy on Americans.

Several hours of floor debate revealed the real imbalance in Congress — only one Republican Senator shined by standing up and pushing real freedom.

Samuel Adams said it best ~ “It does not take a majority to prevail… but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

If you want to see this played out in modern politics — watch Senator Rand Paul setting the brushfire on the Senate floor, by clicking here.

The good news is that every single poisonous amendment was voted down, despite the foolish utterances by phony Republican Mitch McConnell.

McConnell proposed four amendments to address what he called the bill’s “serious flaws.”

You just can’t make this stuff up!

McConnell even suggested that Obama’s failed foreign policy was somehow equated to the Senate’s refusal to accept his dangerous amendments that would have further violated the privacy of Americans.

As I watched Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell during this historic defeat, I must admit…it was truly a rewarding experience to see him to burn in the flames.

And you can be proud of being a part of the grassroots brushfire.

But, at the risk of being redundant, Barrasso and Enzi voted correctly while remaining silent.

While thankful that they both voted right, we are at a loss that the Wyoming delegation didn’t stand with Rand Paul in the vocal debate.

Like most politicians, our Senators love to receive accolades for their display of rhetoric in front of Fox News cameras — but where it matters most on the Senate floor, they remain closemouthed.

If the Wyoming Senators want us to believe they were standing on the proper side of the fence — they should have been setting their own brushfires of freedom — instead of leaving the fight to Republican Senator Rand Paul, who single-handedly pushed back at the entire establishment.

For Freedom,

   Anthony Bouchard
Executive Director
Wyoming Gun Owners

Civil War in these not so United States..?

September 19, 2014

This has been an ongoing discussion for many years. Indeed, when I still worked in emergency services it was always a scenario that was discussed and planned for. I retired in 2001, so this really isn’t anything new.

Why then is this being taken so seriously now? In a word, Obama.

Can America survive another Civil War?

Michael Savage starts off his upcoming book “Stop the Coming Civil War: My Savage Truth” with the words:

People can justify a government’s controversial policies and actions for only so long until they see a pattern of abuse of power. Then, even the most devout supporters of any regime must decide if they support these extreme policies and actions or oppose them.

My question is this, he continues. Will the Obama inner circle of extremist left-wing radicals trigger an event that will provoke an American insurrection, even a civil war?

Is this concern to be dismissed as a “right-wing conspiracy theory”?

My own thoughts are along the lines of this being no longer the realm of kooks and conspiracy types. It’s mainstream America, and includes all races and cultures. We are no longer a melting pot. Nor are we kissing cousins. There are a whole lot of very angry people out there, and they are angry for many different reasons. This is indeed a recipe for a not so civil war…

Canadian’s Version of David Letterman’s Top 10. This is Canada’s Top Ten List of America’s Stupidity: From a Yahoo Board…

March 22, 2014

10) Only in America … could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 a plate campaign fund-raising event.
9) Only in America … could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General and roughly 20% of the federal work force is black while only 14% of the population is black. 40+% of all federal entitlements go to black Americans – 3X the rate that go to whites, 5X the rate that go to Hispanics!
8) Only in America … could they have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner (the head of the Treasury Department) and Charles Rangel (who once ran the Ways and Means Committee), BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.
7) Only in America … can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.
6) Only in America … would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege, while they discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just ‘magically’ become American citizens.
5) Only in America … could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country’s Constitution be thought of as “extremists.”
4) Only in America … could you need to present a driver’s license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.
3) Only in America … could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).
2) Only in America … could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year – for total spending of $7-Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn’t have nearly enough money.
1) Only in America … could the rich people – who pay 86% of all income taxes – be accused of not paying their “fair share” by people who don’t pay any income taxes at all.

Gun Owners Spank Bloomberg, Schumer, IRS & Governor “Moonbeam” Brown

February 24, 2014

And GOA submits new brief before the U.S. Supreme Court. Click here to help.

“[New Jersey has] subordinated the People’s right to keep and bear arms to the state’s alleged interest in promoting public safety. It is not, however, within the authority of courts to override the Constitution as ratified by the People.” — Gun Owners of America’s legal brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in Drake v. Jerejian, February 12, 2014

Pro-gun victories are coming so fast and furiously (no pun intended) that it’s difficult to keep up with them.

Here is a sample of good news.


On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that California’s requirement that applicants for concealed carry permits show “good cause” were unconstitutional under the Heller decision.

“The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense,” said Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain.

Gun Owners of America is pursuing an almost identical challenge to New Jersey’s onerous and restrictive concealed carry law. GOA (and its foundation) filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court just one day prior to last week’s Ninth Circuit decision, challenging the New Jersey control scheme that was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

In several instances, the Ninth Circuit opinion critiques the Third Circuit’s opinion by using arguments very similar to the ones GOA presented in our amicus brief. Overall the opinion is a refreshing change from most lower federal court decisions, which have refused to engage in the textual and historical analysis required by Heller and McDonald.

As we see it, the Ninth Circuit decision should add weight in favor of the Supreme Court hearing one of these cases to resolve the circuit split. And hopefully the five justice majority from Heller will seize on these two cases because of the Ninth Circuit’s detailed and careful review of the history that supports public carry of weapons for self-defense.

Go here to read more about this case — including the GOA/GOF brief.

Go here to make a tax deductible contribution in assisting Gun Owners Foundation to continue bringing legal challenges like this.


Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg had intended to turn New Hampshire into his most recent “victory for gun control” — joining a handful of states that enacted stricter gun control laws in the wake of the Newton school yard tragedy.

Bloomberg figured that New Hampshire would be easy pickings. After all, the “Granite State” had a Democratic House of Representatives and a Democratic anti-gun governor.

Gun Owners of America countered Bloomberg’s muscle by aiding several local gun groups in the state to rally grassroots gun owners in opposition to the bill.

Well, the final shootout occurred last Wednesday. And after the smoke cleared, Bloomberg and his “human props” were sent packing, with their tails between their legs. After a series of votes — and an hour and a half of parliamentary wrangling — the Democratic House declared that a Manchin-Toomey-type universal gun registry bill was “inexpedient to legislate.”

Having failed to buy Congress with his billions of anti-gun dollars, Bloomberg has attempted to buy the legislatures of states like New Hampshire. But, with the exception of seven states with legislatures dominated by anti-gun legislators and governors, Bloomberg has been humiliated.

And “red state Democrats” running for reelection in the Senate are running from Bloomberg even faster than they’re running from Obama.

As a result, Bloomberg has now modified his strategy to turn the country blue by legalizing millions of anti-gun voters who broke the law to get here. And to that end, Bloomberg has announced that he will use his billions to support “red state Democrats” who opposed the Manchin-Toomey amendment — language imposing universal background checks around the nation — so long as such Senators agree to support the anti-gun immigration amnesty bill.


Three weeks ago, it looked like an immigration amnesty bill to create 8,000,000 new anti-gun voters was on the “fast track” in the U.S. House.

That was before you burned up the telephone lines and internet accounts of House Republicans. At a Republican “retreat,” dozens of congressmen lined up to oppose the bill. And Speaker John Boehner was forced to concede that Republicans could not “trust” Obama to implement the enforcement provisions of the bill.

Now, reeling from another defeat, New York Senator Charles Schumer has threatened to file a “discharge petition” to force the House to consider the anti-gun bill, over Republican objections.

The problem is that Schumer, to be successful, would have to convince over a dozen Republicans to openly betray their colleagues, in order to garner the necessary 217 or 218 signatures (depending on the number of House vacancies). For this reason, discharge petitions almost never succeed.


Fresh from a scandal in which it tried to harass conservatives applying for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status, the IRS has spent the last several months trying to put GOA out of business.

It did this by threatening regulations which would define a broad range of policy activities (including voting guides) as political activities.

But, in its arrogance, the IRS overstepped its bounds. So many policy-related activities would be limited under the IRS rules that a broad range of both conservative and liberal 501(c)(4)’s blasted the proposals. In addition, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee introduced legislation (H.R. 3865) which would prohibit the IRS regs from being issued. Given the broad support from both ends of the political spectrum, the Camp bill would surely be passed overwhelmingly.

As a result, the IRS has now meekly testified that it will not push its proposals in 2014.

Democrats, Liberals, Progressives love dead kids.

February 18, 2014

Since the other post got fouled up somehow here is a repeat.

Agenda drives the left, in all things. The more dead kids there are, the more fodder for the leftest agenda. Alinsky would be proud. The more that we learn about the mass killers the more we find out how they are drugged, and supporters of leftest ideologies. I for one am going to start referring to the entire lot of them as murderers. Because that is what they are.

When others talk of full blown revolution I will no longer speak about temperance. I’m not, after all, that kind of a Christian. More power to the people of America as envisioned by those that established this great nation!

A bunch of kid killers support the Free Fire Zones. Let us be diligent in reminding them about that at every turn!

Fast Track to Gun Control?

February 17, 2014

Take a deep breath! You’re in for a wild ride.

“‘Immigration reform will add over 8,000,000 anti-gun voters to the voting rolls,’ Gun Owners of America warned its members and supporters in a January 24 alert.” — The Examiner, January 29, 2014

For months, as you know, GOA has been battling against the anti-gun immigration amnesty bill, which would add 8,000,000 anti-gun voters to the voting rolls.

The political left has attacked Gun Owners of America for rallying gun owners to oppose the anti-gun amnesty legislation. One liberal website even (mockingly) characterized our view as saying that “immigrants must suffer because of their supposed political views.”

Of course, that’s not what we’re saying, but then again, we wouldn’t expect anti-gun liberals to understand.

There were even some conservatives who had misgivings. For example, one pro-gun author confessed that he initially “harbored some doubts” about GOA’s position and even argued that immigration overhaul could actually help gun ownership in the U.S.

But after reading our alerts, he admitted that such a rosy scenario was “probably very wishful thinking” on his part, especially considering the 2013 “Pew poll indicating an electoral bonanza for Democrats — and therefore for ‘gun control’ — should illegal aliens gain the right to vote.”

GOA is very thankful for thoughtful journalists like the one above who took the time to really research the issue — and grateful for many gun owners like yourself who have taken action on our alerts.

The result has been an intense outpouring of “political heat” on politicians in Washington (especially Republicans).

A couple of weeks ago, GOA asked you to contact your Republican Congressman, prior to their retreat, to let them know that their grassroots base (that is, gun owners) do not support anything that resembles amnesty. Other groups have joined the chorus as well.

Since then, media reports indicated that the phones rang off the hook on Capitol Hill — especially in Speaker Boehner’s office.

All of this culminated in newspaper headlines around the country reporting, on Friday, that the anti-gun amnesty bill was dead and we had won:

* “Hope dims for immigration bill,” trumpeted USA Today.

* “Boehner Doubts Immigration Bill Will Pass in 2014,” said the New York Times.

* “Immigration Overhaul Stalls,” said the front-page headline of the Wall Street Journal.

For us to have reached this point was an enormous victory for your activism. And GOA is grateful for all you who made calls and helped tie up the phone lines on Capitol Hill opposing this bill.

But the battle is clearly not over, for buried deep in the articles was a more nuanced story. The Journal said that a pro-immigration leader “was told by congressional aides to ‘take a deep breath’ and that ‘the wheels continue to turn.'”

Thus, there is still some degree of danger that Speaker John Boehner could push the anti-gun bill after primary filing season had closed — perhaps in May, June or July.

This would not be the first time that we have seen defeat snatched from the jaws of victory. In fact, you might remember our most recent alert over the weekend which explained how a Senate committee ambushed pro-gun Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) in an attempt to defeat his language repealing the Post Office gun ban.

[GOA has posted an update here which further explains how players behind the scenes — like Senator Mark Begich (D-AK) — worked overtime to ambush Rand Paul and sack his pro-gun agenda.]

So one might wonder: Is this battle over anti-gun amnesty just another political ambush, similar to the one gun owners saw play out in the battle to repeal the post office gun ban?

Well, consider the multiple levels of perfidy that are at play.

Fast Track to Gun Control?

Many of the same business interests that support immigration — for short-term “balance sheet” motives — also support a bill to allow Barack Obama to write virtually any multilateral trade treaties he wants — with little or no ability to stop them when we “find out what’s in them.”

The bill is called “fast track.” The way it would work is that Obama could negotiate treaties, and, once they were negotiated, they would have to be considered under the Senate rules … they could not be filibustered … they would be approved by a simple majority … and they would be unamendable.

Obviously, if the Obama treaties contained provisions limiting the import and export of guns, we would not have the votes to do anything about it, if “fast track” were in place.

Why is this relevant?

MSNBC and the New York Times have floated a “deal” to pass the anti-gun immigration bill. Obama would “give” Republicans “fast track” — because many in the GOP business interests support “fast track” and many Democrats oppose it. In exchange, Republicans would “give” Obama immigration amnesty.

Obviously, some Washington-centered business interests would view this as a win-win.

For gun owners, it would be a lose-lose. There would be 8,000,000 new anti-gun voters, and California-style gun control would be inevitable. On the other hand, newly drafted Obama anti-gun treaties, which could resemble the UN Arms Trade Treaty, would be almost impossible to stop.

Think Obama is so honorable that he would not use treaties to ban guns? Does anyone think that?

ACTION: For now, let’s receive our apparent victory graciously — knowing that we’re going to have to be continually vigilant to make sure the amnesty bill doesn’t raise its ugly head again. So urge your Representatives to remain firm in opposing anti-gun amnesty for the rest of this congressional session. So Take Action and urge your Representatives to remain firm in opposing anti-gun amnesty for the rest of this congressional session.

The Next Big Gun Fight: Stopping 8 Million New Anti-gun Voters

January 26, 2014

“[A] Pew poll suggests that illegal immigrants, if given citizenship, would vote for liberal, anti-gun candidates by an 8-to-1 margin.” – GOA’s Erich Pratt, commenting on Pew poll findings as reported in The Washington Post (7/22/13)

Next Wednesday, the House Republican leadership will announce a set of “principles” for immigration reform.  Supposedly, if these “principles” are not well-received, the House will shelve the issue for the remainder of the year.

To be blunt:  The health of the Second Amendment relies on demolishing these “principles.”

Immigration reform will add over 8,000,000 anti-gun voters to the voting rolls.  There may be as many as 11.5 million persons illegally in the United States.  And, a Pew poll from last year indicated that if illegal immigrants were given citizenship, they would vote for liberal, anti-gun candidates by an 8-to-1 margin.

This is exactly what happened to California — which was once a Red State.  Because of the Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty bill of 1986, the state lurched violently to the left and now can’t pass gun control restrictions fast enough.

If this were to happen at the national level, we would lose the ability to stop massive gun bans and gun registration schemes.  And all of this occurs at a time when a Fox poll shows the American people oppose Obama’s immigration policies by a margin of 36% to 54%.

The first reality is this:  If the House passes ANYTHING, the Senate will tack on its amnesty bill and send it to conference.  And the national conversation will turn off of ObamaCare and onto immigration.

And guess what?  Every gun-hating institution which moved heaven and earth to pass gun control will move heaven and earth to get the House to retreat — if not to a “pathway to citizenship,” to a “pathway to legalization.”

They will have created the biggest and most motivated Obama-loving movement in the country — devoted to electing anti-gun politicians and retaining Harry Reid’s control of the Senate.

What will Republicans get, in exchange for creating an army of pro-Obama election warriors?

Very little.  (Be sure to read GOA legislative counsel Michael Hammond’s analysis, which shows, in great detail, how the Republican leadership’s “principles” will end up back-firing on gun owners.)

The bottom line is that there is a reason why Barack Obama and his “puppet press” have been campaigning for a year to force the Republican House to wade into “immigration reform.”  It is nothing but benefits for anti-gun politicians, and nothing but pain for pro-gun legislators.

Who would be stupid enough to inflict that level of pain on themselves?

ACTION:   Contact your Representative.  If he is a Republican, the pre-written letter will ask him to reject the ridiculous “immigration principles” being hawked by the leadership — principles that will eventually destroy the pro-gun movement in America.  The pre-written letter for Democrats is a generic opposition letter.

ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE:  Remember that clicking on the first “submit” button on the GOA Engage site (where you input your name and address), only submits your information so that your correct legislators can be identified.  Hence, the first “submit” button does not actually send your letter.  Instead, it brings you to the next page where you can actually review the pre-written letter.  The second “submit” button actually sends the letter.

Just as Obamacare isn’t at all about healthcare, immigration reform is not about immigration.

%d bloggers like this: