Gun Owners of America applauds immediate past NRA President Sandy Froman, who stepped up to the plate last week with a call to arms for all NRA members to vigorously oppose the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. (See the article below). GOA has been calling on our members to oppose this nomination since it is clear that Sotomayor is anti-Second Amendment and wants to legislate from the bench. The official position from current NRA leadership is to take a "wait and see" approach to the Sotomayor nomination which may well allow her to wiggle through and be confirmed. GOA calls on all pro-gunners across America to urge NRA leadership to join in this critical fight to protect the Constitution -- and especially our gun rights. -- GOA Vice-Chairman Tim Macy ---------------------------------------- NRA Members Must Oppose Sotomayor by Sandy Froman Wednesday, June 24, 2009 Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama's first nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, has a narrow view of the Second Amendment that contradicts the Court's landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. A heated debate has started in the U.S. Senate over her opposition to the right to keep and bear arms. This issue, which has decided the fate of presidential elections, could also decide her nomination. Gun owners, and especially the members of the National Rifle Association, must aggressively oppose Judge Sotomayor's confirmation to the Supreme Court. On June 24, senators began speaking on the floor of the Senate expressing grave concerns over Judge Sotomayor's Second Amendment record. Senator Jeff Sessions R-AL, the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, pointed out that although her record on the issue is "fairly scant," she has twice stated that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right. Senator Sessions also noted that in Second Amendment and other constitutional cases, Sotomayor's analysis of important constitutional issues has been lacking suggesting "a troubling tendency to avoid or casually dismiss difficult Constitutional issues of exceptional importance." Sotomayor's view on the Second Amendment clearly reflects an extreme anti-gun philosophy, and some Democrat senators from pro-gun states are justifiably nervous. Last year, the Supreme Court held in Heller that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individual Americans to keep and bear firearms. But that ruling was a fiercely-contested, 5-4 split decision. Justice Kennedy joined the four conservatives on the Court to make the majority, with the four liberal justices writing passionate dissents about how the Second Amendment does not apply to private citizens. Bluntly speaking, the Second Amendment survived by a single vote. Had one justice voted differently, the Second Amendment would have been erased from the Bill of Rights forever. Today in the Supreme Court, the right to bear arms hangs by a single vote. The next question the Supreme Court will decide is whether the Second Amendment is a "fundamental right" that applies to cities and states, thus preventing them from restricting gun rights. Even the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held earlier this year in Nordyke v. King that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right, yet Judge Sotomayor disagrees. When Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, it belied his flowery rhetoric about respecting our constitutional gun rights. Out of almost 200 federal appeals judges in this country, Judge Sotomayor is one of only six to weigh in (after the Heller case) to hold that the Second Amendment only limits federal actions. If your state or city chooses to ban all guns or take away the ones that you already have in your home for hunting and self-defense, Sonia Sotomayor says the Constitution can't help you. This position becomes all the more radical when it's revealed how she reached this conclusion. Only six judges have denied gun rights against the states. Of these, three did so in a recent Seventh Circuit case, NRA v. Chicago, writing a detailed opinion that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states because they thought an old 1800s Supreme Court case tied their hands on the issue, and they commended the case up to the Supreme Court after long and scholarly consideration. Judge Sotomayor and two of her liberal colleagues, however, wrote only a single paragraph on the whole issue when deciding their own New York case, Maloney v. Cuomo. In one paragraph, she said the Second Amendment gives people no rights at all when it comes to state or city laws. She gave no explanation, and made no call for Supreme Court action. Then we find that this has been a consistent belief for Sotomayor. In a case before her in 2004, she and her colleagues concluded that there is no fundamental right in the Second Amendment but provided no substantive analysis to justify this conclusion. Throughout her career, Judge Sotomayor's record is one of consistent opposition to the private ownership of firearms. America has almost 90 million gun owners who value their rights. And of these, no one does more to protect the Second Amendment than the four million members of the National Rifle Association. I served as an officer of the NRA for nine years, including a two-year term as president. I saw NRA members turn the tide on Election Day 2000 to defeat Al Gore. We fought again to help defeat John Kerry in 2004. We can do the same with Sonia Sotomayor, if we call our U.S. Senators and tell them to vote against this anti-gun judge. No fewer than fourteen Democrat senators have solid records on the Second Amendment, and we must urge them to oppose this nominee. Next year, the Supreme Court is likely to take up NRA v. Chicago, which will decide whether the Second Amendment applies to states and cities like it does the federal government. This case is as important as Heller, and will massively impact gun rights forever. We already know where Judge Sotomayor stands. It's time to tell the Senate, "Vote No! on Sonia Sotomayor."
Archive for the ‘Law’ Category
GOA Applause: NRA Past President on Sotomayor Nomination
June 30, 2009Piracy and the right to self defense
June 28, 2009Just yesterday the History Channel had a program about the American flag ship that Somali pirates attacked earlier in the year, and the fine work that the U.S. Navy did in getting the ship and crew rescued. Not to sell the Navy short by any means, but a lot of what happened was as a direct result of the actions taken by the crew. Indeed, if the crew had not taken decisive action, the Navy’s job would have been much tougher.
It seems that those that are so much smarter than common people prefer appeasement. Indeed, what in recent history has appeasement accomplished? World War Two comes to mind, as does the seizing of the American Embassy in Iran.Let’s not forget our second place finish in the Southeast Asian War games when appeasement stopped the bombing. Or the Korean War and what that has led to in the aftermath, as in lunatics with nuclear weapons. Appeasing hostage takers brought us September eleventh, and the World Trade Center attacks that this nation is still reeling from.
So then what is all this about? Well, I do have my problems with the N.R.A. But this time they hit the ball right out of the park, and it went straight over the center field fence. Read on.
| Friday, June 26, 2009 |
| Last month we reported on the arming of merchant mariners to allow them to defend their crews and ships from pirate attacks. We noted that, with the increase in pirate attacks on the high seas, many are now realizing that firearms and armed citizens can be as effective a criminal deterrent at sea, as they are on land.
The International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) wrapped up a meeting earlier this month, where it agreed on “revised guidance on combating piracy and armed robbery against ships.” Among other things, the report recommends “guidance to shipmasters and crew…who may be kidnapped or held hostage for ransom, based on the current United Nations guidance on ‘surviving as a hostage.’” As hard as it is to believe, the MSC report concludes that, “flag States should strongly discourage the carrying and use of firearms by seafarers for personal protection or for the protection of a ship. Seafarers, it was agreed, are civilians and the use of firearms requires special training and aptitudes and the risk of accidents with firearms carried on board ship is great. Carriage of arms on board ship may encourage attackers to carry firearms or even more dangerous weapons, thereby escalating an already dangerous situation. Any firearm on board may itself become an attractive target for an attacker. Carriage of firearms may pose an even greater danger if the ship is carrying flammable cargo or similar types of dangerous goods.” These recommendations defy reason, given that the pirates are already heavily armed and know vessels are easy targets due to the high level of probability that seamen are unarmed.
By contrast, U.S. Representative Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) has introduced H.R. 2984–the “United States Mariner and Vessel Protection Act of 2009.” The purpose of the Act is to assist in the defense of United States-flag vessels against piracy and to ensure the traditional right of self-defense of those vessels against piracy.
Commenting on the measure, Rep. LoBiondo, the ranking member of the U.S. House of Representatives Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation subcommittee, said: “Our merchant marine fleet is increasingly under attack from unlawful individuals and rogue groups that seek to disrupt commerce, seize U.S. and foreign crews, and instill fear on international waters. It is only appropriate that our fleets be legally allowed to defend themselves from these violent encounters. This common-sense legislation is a necessary step in empowering U.S.-flagged vessels to protect their crews and cargo.” |
The Sullivan Act: Some History about Gun Control
June 27, 2009The history of gun control is riddled with racism and corruption as well as outright deception. Based in elitism of one sort or another it is a subject worthy of soap opera drama that stirs the imagination.
One of the earliest examples is New York’s Sullivan Act. Often pointed to by various advocates of the destruction of unalienable rights as some sort of morbid example of what those that know better than you do what you and your loved ones so desperately need it too is founded in corruption. One has to believe that Chuck Schumer and Frank Lautenberg both wish that they had written this law, and that their constant never ending attacks on liberty reflect that desire.
Some years or decades ago I researched and reported on the Sullivan Act, one of America’s first gun control laws.
New York state senator Timothy Sullivan, a corrupt Tammany Hall politician, represented New York’s Red Hook district. Commercial travelers passing through the district would be relieved of their valuables by armed robbers. In order to protect themselves and their property, travelers armed themselves. This raised the risk of, and reduced the profit from, robbery. Sullivan’s outlaw constituents demanded that Sullivan introduce a law that would prohibit concealed carry of pistols, blackjacks, and daggers, thus reducing the risk to robbers from armed victims.
The criminals, of course, were already breaking the law and had no intention of being deterred by the Sullivan Act from their business activity of armed robbery. Thus, the effect of the Sullivan Act was precisely what the criminals intended. It made their life of crime easier.
As the first successful gun control advocates were criminals, I have often wondered what agenda lies behind the well-organized and propagandistic gun control organizations and their donors and sponsors in the US today. The propaganda issued by these organizations consists of transparent lies.
Consider the propagandistic term, “gun violence,” popularized by gun control advocates. This is a form of reification by which inanimate objects are imbued with the ability to act and to commit violence. Guns, of course, cannot be violent in themselves. Violence comes from people who use guns and a variety of other weapons, including fists, to commit violence.
Nevertheless, we hear incessantly the Orwellian Newspeak term, “gun violence.”
Very few children are killed by firearm accidents compared to other causes of child deaths. Yet, gun control advocates have created the false impression that there is a national epidemic in accidental firearm deaths of children. In fact, the National MCH Center for Child Death Review, an organization that monitors causes of child deaths, reports that seven times more children die from drowning and five times more from suffocation than from firearm accidents. Yet we don’t hear of “drowning violence,” “swimming pool violence,” “bathtub violence,” or “suffocation violence.”
The National MCH Center for Child Death Review reports that 174 children eighteen years old and under died from firearm accidents in 2000. The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control reports that 125 children eighteen years old and under died from firearm accidents in 2006. In 2006 there were 77,845,285 youths in that age bracket.
Heller V. D.C. anniversary
June 27, 2009
Click here to vote in this week’s poll. Today, June 26, marks the one-year anniversary of the landmark D.C. v. Heller case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban and affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.”
Yet despite this great victory, we can’t rest on our laurels. Those who would still deny our Second Amendment freedoms are always looking for ways to thwart our success and reverse that decision. And while the case affirmed that the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government, and federal entities such as Washington, D.C., from banning handguns for self-defense, the decision did not resolve the separate question of whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments.
Piracy And The Right To Self Defense: Last month we reported on the arming of merchant mariners to allow them to defend their crews and ships from pirate attacks. We noted that, with the increase in pirate attacks on the high seas, many are now realizing that firearms and armed citizens can be as effective a criminal deterrent at sea, as they are on land.
Pending Federal Legislation Needs Your Support: There are a number of pro-gun bills pending in Congress that require your attention and action. Please review these legislative initiatives and be sure to contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, and your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121, and urge them to cosponsor and support these measures. Additional contact information can be found using the “Write Your Representatives” feature at www.NRAILA.org.
Gun Banner Confirmed — And The Truth About Legislation
June 27, 2009Eight Republicans Help Confirm a Hard-Core Gun Banner -- And how to keep Senators from "spinning" their support for gun control 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 "Too much work [was] left undone. After a few sleepless nights, I wrote for myself a list of issues on which I needed to do more in the years ahead. One of those issues was global regulation of small arms." -- Harold Hongju Koh (2001) Friday, June 26, 2009 Imagine that. The Senate confirmed this week, by a vote of 62-35, a gun banner who stays up at night thinking of ways to impose more gun control upon American citizens. Harold Koh is that gun grabber, and he was confirmed yesterday to be the Legal Adviser at the State Department. On Wednesday, Senate Republicans attempted to kill the Koh nomination with a filibuster -- until eight of them crossed the aisle to help Democrats confirm Koh. The back-stabbing Senators are: Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Susan Collins (R-ME), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Mel Martinez (R-FL), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and George Voinovich (R-OH). Once the filibuster was thwarted, Koh's nomination passed easily. The vote on final passage can be viewed at: http://tinyurl.com/m4m2f5 Koh is eager to assume his post at the State Department, having lamented that there is only so much that can be done from the outside to push gun control treaties, and that ultimately we need people like him in positions of power. The chief lawyer for the State Department is just the position someone like him needs to push more gun control through international treaties. GOA will continue watching for any attempt by the Obama administration to foist an international gun control treaty upon the citizens of the U.S. Please stay tuned. Don't Let Your Senators Escape the Heat of the Spotlight! If you have been watching the news, you have no doubt seen stories on the health care debate. This is the topic de jour on Capitol Hill, and Congress is ramping up to vote on a bill in a few weeks. Last week, GOA alerted you to the fact that the whole health care issue has become a Trojan Horse for gun control, among other things. However, there are detractors who claim that the current health care debate will have nothing to do with guns. For example, GOA has been "informed" that a search of the TeddyCare bill does not turn up the word "guns," and that the word "database" is seen only a few times. Hmm, if your Senator's office gives you that as a response, then tell them not to be so lazy and naive. One needs to do more than type in a word search in order to analyze legislation. The database was set up under section 3001(c)(3)(i) of the stimulus bill. But the Kennedy bill allows for sweeping new regulations, which make it potentially impossible for any doctor to refuse to enter your records under the current section 13112 exemption. Many things you tell your doctor in the privacy of his office could affect your right to own a firearm. And just because anti-gun zealot Ted Kennedy doesn't notify us up front of his anti-gun intentions doesn't mean they don't exist. Frankly, we got this same garbage in connection with the Veterans Disarmament Act (officially known as the NICS Improvement Act), where the anti-gunners took away the guns of 150,000 veterans through language which was not explicit. Before the bill was signed into law last year, some detractors even claimed that because the NICS bill did not mention the word "veterans," we must have been wrong to suggest that the bill would disarm vets! Well, guess what? The disarmament which was already occurring before President Bush signed the legislation into law last year is now occurring with a vengeance under the Obama administration. (In fact, GOA members should be looking for an upcoming mailing which will give you postcards to send in support of an important bill -- introduced by Sen. Burr of North Carolina -- which will protect veterans from the fangs of the Veterans Disarmament Act.) The point is, no Senate staffer should ever give you an opinion on a bill unless he has read the entire code that the bill will be amending. Nor should they ignore the potential for an Obama administration to abuse any particular piece of legislation. Remember how the RICO Act, originally enacted to help combat the Mafia, was later used to crack down on legitimate banks and peaceful pro-life protesters? The original RICO Act never used the word "abortion," but that didn't stop overzealous prosecutors from going after the non-violent protestors. And who would have thought, when the original Brady law was passed in 1993, that it would be used to keep people with outstanding traffic tickets... or couples with marriage problems... or military vets with nightmares from buying guns? After all, the Brady law never mentioned those people groups, and yet the law has been used over the past 15-plus years to deny gun rights to those very people. Reading legislation is not a job for the timid or the lazy. If staffers in your Senate offices aren't willing to read current bills IN THE LIGHT OF EXISTING LAWS -- and to do the research necessary to compile this information -- then politely encourage them to get another line of work. **************************** The Infamous "Rosie" T-shirt A photo of a man wearing a particular GOA T-shirt has been circulating around the internet in recent months, resulting in record sales. Check out this unique shirt, featuring a GOA logo and the message: If guns kill people, then... -- pencils miss spel words. -- cars make people drive drunk. -- spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat. Only $15.50 at http://gunowners.org/merchandise.htm (plus shipping and handling). ****************************
Obamacare leads to no where…
June 26, 2009Amidst all the various sad stories being splashed across the Internet and airways having to do with the supposedly sad state of health care in America something has gone by the wayside. That something is called freedom and liberty. The freedom to choose what sort of coverage that you want, and the liberty to decide if you do,in fact, want or need any coverage at all.
Brought to you by our good friends at The Independence Institute in Golden, Colorado is a presentation addressing exactly this issue.
The New Mafia..?
June 25, 2009Big Cowboy Hat Tip to none other than Texas Fred for this one.
Seems we have gangsters in our midst. Usually when I write about gangsters it’s referring to, oh… MS 13, or Crip’s, Blood’s and those sorts of people.
Not so this time. Our very own government is engaging in what looks an awful lot like extortion if not outright theft. Further, since said government and or it’s agents are armed with dangerous and or deadly weaponry? Well folks, that’s called robbery, first degree or armed robbery.
Well, a lot of people in this not so United States wanted change. They are getting change alright. Along with one healthy dose of corruption. Oops! I mean Chicago style politics.
Now, the youtube that follows is pretty to the point. I do not agree with it though. There are in fact many fine individuals serving in the Senate and Congress. Perfect? Nope, and I dare anyone to show me a perfect person. But at least many from places like Texas, Utah, and Wyoming are doing their level best to actually uphold the oath that they took to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Not just to make a buck, or inflict their values on everyone else…
Judicial Indiscretion; Dogs running wild
June 21, 2009Human, and by extension their pets, sometimes come into conflict with wildlife. Recently coyote attacks have been in the news quite a bit. That, however is not what today’s living with wildlife post is about. It does however tie in directly with another post having to do with hierarchy in the law.
Most states have laws about domestic canines worrying cattle or wildlife. In most situations, lethal force is authorized. I have always been fortunate in that the few times that I’ve seen things like this hazing of some sort convinced the dog (s) to find another amusement to satisfy their instincts. That certainly is not always the case though. I have a friend that left E.M.S. and became a Sheriffs Deputy in Weld County. While on patrol he came across a dog that was attempting to chew on a claf that was being born. He tried to frighten it away with his lights and siren, then with a warning shot. All to no avail. He ended up shooting the dog. That’s a legal shoot folks.
So then where am I going with this? Well, it seems that Ron Wedow witnessed a dog attacking a doe after having just killed the doe’s fawn. This was in unincorporated Douglas County, Colorado. Both the Douglas County Sheriff’s Department and the Colorado Division of Wildlife responded and determined that the shoot was indeed legal. It is in fact authorized by state law. Some time later though, County Animal Control came along. They decided, as a matter of policy, to charge Mister Wedow. Now he has mounting legal fees, for doing his civic duty.
This is clearly Judicial indiscretion on the part of the Douglas County District Attorney’s office. They need to flat drop the charges and even reimburse Ron Wedow for his legal expenses.
Read about this miscarriage of justice HERE.
H/T to Charlie Meyers of The Denver Post.
Second Amendment: GAO Blames U.S. for Mexican Gun Violence
June 20, 2009Well, it seems that even after being totally debunked the administration just keeps on ramming falsehoods at we the people…
“A new study by the Government Accountability Office says most firearms recovered in drug violence in Mexico come from the U.S., a finding that will likely fuel the politically charged debate over the U.S. government’s efforts to stem gun trafficking across the border,” reports The Wall Street Journal. As we have pointed out before, however, the data is flawed right from the beginning. According to the Journal, in 2008, Mexican law enforcement seized 30,000 weapons, but only 7,200 were submitted to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for tracing. Rather than look at the complete facts, of course, anti-gun demagogues pounced on the report. “The availability of firearms illegally flowing from the United States into Mexico has armed and emboldened a dangerous criminal element in Mexico, and it has made the job of drug cartels easier,” said Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY). “It is simply unacceptable that the United States not only consumes the majority of the drugs flowing from Mexico, but also arms the very cartels that contribute to the daily violence that is devastating Mexico.”
Blaming law-abiding U.S. citizens for drug violence in Mexico makes little sense, other than as a justification for more gun control. In anticipation of a renewed effort by the Obama administration to reinstate the so-called “assault weapons” ban, 23 state attorneys general sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, saying, “We share the Obama Administration’s commitment to reducing illegal drugs and violent crime within the United States. We also share your deep concern about drug cartel violence in Mexico. However, we do not believe that restricting law-abiding Americans’ access to certain semi-automatic firearms will resolve any of these problems.”
SOURCE followed up by…
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report this week entitled, “Firearms Trafficking: U.S. Efforts to Combat Arms Trafficking to Mexico Face Planning and Coordination Challenges.”
Among other things, the report asserts that Mexican officials consider illicit firearms the number one crime problem affecting their country’s security; that about 87 percent of firearms seized in Mexico and traced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) in the last five years originated in the United States; and that these firearms are increasingly more powerful and lethal, including “high-caliber and high-powered” AK-47 and AR-15 type semi-automatic rifles. The report further contends that the country’s law enforcement agencies are insufficiently organized, and that Mexico has a history of corruption at the federal, state and local levels.
With regard to the “87 percent” statistic, the report’s figures make clear that BATFE only traces a fraction of the guns seized. Those firearms are not selected randomly, but are likely selected because they are the guns most likely to have come from the U.S. Trace data reveals nothing about the large number of guns that are not traced.
The report also states “According to U.S. and Mexican government officials, these firearms have been increasingly more powerful and lethal in recent years. For example, many of these firearms are high-caliber and high-powered, such as AK and AR-15 type semiautomatic rifles.” The report, however, states that about 25 percent of firearms traced were of that type, which works out to only eight percent of all firearms seized. Also, the report does not indicate what percentage of murders is committed with various types of firearms, but it does note, “The majority of the casualties have been individuals involved in the drug trade in some way.”
The report further states that, “The U.S. government faces several significant challenges in combating illicit sales of firearms in the United States and stemming their flow into Mexico.” These include “restrictions on collecting and reporting information on firearms purchases, a lack of required background checks for private firearms sales, and limitations on reporting requirements for multiple sales” and even the fact that the U.S. government is prohibited by law from maintaining a national registry of firearms.
But as we know, the gun control measures indicated would not be effective against purchasers who can pass instant background checks. As the report noted, “Firearms [purchases] at gun shops and pawn shops for trafficking to Mexico are usually made by ‘straw purchasers,’ according to law enforcement officials. These straw purchasers are individuals with clean records who can be expected to pass the required background check and who are paid by drug cartel representatives or middlemen to purchase certain guns from gun shops.”
Finally, the report noted that, “Another significant challenge facing U.S. efforts to assist Mexico is corruption among some Mexican government entities. Government officials acknowledge fully implementing these reforms will take considerable time, and may take years to affect comprehensive change.” And, “According to Mexican government officials, corruption pervades all levels of Mexican law enforcement — federal, state, and local. For example, some high ranking members of federal law enforcement have been implicated in corruption investigations, and some high publicity kidnapping and murder cases have involved corrupt federal law enforcement officials.”
Obviously, Mexico has a huge problem with rampant corruption that clearly cannot be blamed on the U.S. At the same time, Mexico has extremely prohibitive gun laws, yet has far worse crime than the U.S.
More evidence of what is truly happening in Mexico was brought out in a series of hearings held earlier this year. During those hearings, three representatives of U.S. law enforcement, one each from BATFE, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), made it clear that the increase in violence in Mexico is being misinterpreted by the media and politicians. They testified that the increase in violence is a direct result of the actions taken by Mexican President Felipe Calderon to take on the cartels. The cartels, they testified, are being pressured more than ever before and are fighting back in desperation, resulting in casualties. (If you wish to view the hearings, please use the following links: House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere: “Guns, Drugs and Violence: The Merida Initiative and the Challenge in Mexico” , and Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs: “Law Enforcement Responses to Mexican Drug Cartels”)
For American gun owners, the battle will be to make sure that politicians who see an opportunity to advance their gun ban agenda do not use Mexico as an excuse to sacrifice our Second Amendment rights.
Obama Care, Teddy Care, and so on…
June 20, 2009I don’t know about you, but the more I am hearing about “health care reform” the more skeptical I become. From making gun control into a health care issue to deciding who gets what care, and when?
This entire issue is becoming a Trojan Horse from the looks of things. Here’s a thought though. On another thread a person argued in favor of a complete ban on mentally ill people from owning firearms. Alright, that sounds reasonable prima facie. In many places those will mental illness are also banned from voting. Therefore, those afflicted with the mental illness of Hopolophobia will be forever banned from voting, or owning weapons! Fat chance that will happen in this day and age of political correctness.
Obamacare Takes Center Stage
ABC News is lending itself to the Obama administration for the night of Wednesday, June 24, for a live broadcast of ABC World News Tonight from the Blue Room of the White House. This will be followed by an hour-long primetime special entitled “Prescription for America,” which will advocate the Obama health care plan. The Republican National Committee noted that with the absence of opposing views, the programming amounts to little more than a campaign commercial — one that should rightly be paid for by the Democratic National Committee.
ABC predictably took offense and claimed that it will have complete editorial control over the content of the program. Or at least as much control as the White House wants them to have. As columnist Cal Thomas observes, “By the way, guess who’s the new director of communications for the White House Office of Health Reform. It’s former ABC News correspondent Linda Douglass, who left journalism last year to join the Obama campaign.” How convenient.
The network claims it will have “thoughtful” and “diverse” perspectives on the plan, but one noteworthy absence is “20/20” anchor John Stossel, who will not be participating. A pity, too, for if anyone at ABC has the requisite “thoughtful” and “diverse” perspective, it’s Stossel. (See his 2007 health care report for more.)
Obama’s reason for taking to the airwaves is that his proposal is facing stiffer opposition than anticipated. First, his estimate of $634 billion over 10 years is wildly optimistic. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the plan will cost $1.6 trillion over 10 years and “result in a net increase in the federal budget deficits of about $1 trillion,” despite Obama’s reassurance that his reform (read: takeover) “will not add to our deficit over the next 10 years.” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) promised to cut $600 billion from the proposal and to pay for it with tax increases, spending cuts and other offsets. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) said the plan includes $600 billion in tax hikes and $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.
Furthermore, the CBO estimates that 23 million Americans will lose the insurance they currently have, contrary to Obama’s key promise that no one will lose insurance. “[T]he number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million,” the report says.
Obamacare only tastes good after the alcohol kicks inThe CBO estimate is so ugly for Democrats, The Hill reports, that “lawmakers are talking about changing the chamber’s normal accounting procedures,” substituting estimates from the White House Office of Management and Budget for those of the CBO. So much for “transparency.”
Considering the whole of Obamacare, one Patriot reader declared, “I haven’t heard health care advice so laughable since Lucille Ball flogged Vitameatavegamin on TV. ‘It’s so tasty too. It’s just like candy.’ Has our president been hitting the Vitameatavegamin bottle himself? Not to worry, though. Even though socialized medicine has proven an abject failure in every venue trying it, the United States is such a big country that, like Lucy and Ethel selling homemade salad dressing below the cost of their ingredients, no doubt ‘We’ll make it up in volume.'”
The BIG Lie
“Let me also address an illegitimate concern that’s being put forward by those who are claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan Horse for a single-payer system. I’ll be honest: There are countries where a single-payer system works pretty well. But I believe — and I’ve taken some flak from members of my own party for this belief — that it’s important for our efforts to build on our traditions here in the United States. So when you hear the naysayers claim that I’m trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They’re not telling the truth.” –President Barack Obama to the American Medical Association
When asked which countries’ citizens enjoyed their socialized medicine, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs later admitted, “I don’t know exactly the countries. … I assume Canada, Britain, maybe France.” Not the examples we’d pick to bolster Obama’s case.
On Cross-Examination
“It’s hard to know whether President Obama’s health care ‘reform’ is naive, hypocritical or simply dishonest. Probably all three. The president keeps saying it’s imperative to control runaway health spending. He’s right. The trouble is that what’s being promoted as health care ‘reform’ almost certainly won’t suppress spending and, quite probably, will do the opposite.” –Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson
This Week’s ‘Alpha Jackass’ Award
“I do not want the government to run things. I’ve got enough to do.” –President Barack Obama, attempting the equivalent of a Jedi mind trick: “These are not the droids you’re looking for.”
Conservative Libertarian Outpost 