Archive for the ‘Men’s Issues’ Category

The Golden Dome on Colfax Avenue

April 30, 2009

Shenanigans, pure shenanigans is what I see going on down on Colfax Avenue at Colorado’s golden dome. Those few brave souls that try to do what is right and correct for the state’s population are to be commended. Those that do otherwise need to be tarred and feathered, chained to a log and tossed into the South Platte River. What with the run off beginning, they might make it all the way to New Orleans where their politics and sense of ethics would be more the norm. To that end, I’m posting an informative email that I received from one of the people that is taking the heat by standing firm for his beliefs.

The final version of the budget passed the House and Senate last week. It was one of the most controversial bills of the session, forcing legislators to make a choice between true fiscal responsibility and the temptation of big government.

In spite of the doomsday proclamations you may have heard about budget shortfalls in Colorado, the Democrats managed to pass a budget that increased spending by about 4% over last year.

Colorado fell about $850 million short of projected tax revenues this year. The Democrats’ original plan to fill the gap was to increase fees on everything from car registration to hospital stays and to seize $500 million from a private insurance company. Shortly after the Senate approved the seizure, Governor Ritter and the Democrats were forced to accept the fact that his plan was illegal and doomed to failure.

The House then had to rewrite  the $17.9 billion budget to make up for the $500 million gap. The Democrats relied primarily on gimmicks to fill the  gap: adding a new tax to vending machine sales, diverting cigarette tax revenues from anti-smoking campaigns to state coffers, repealing several tax breaks, and furloughing state employees for eight days next year.

While making small, temporary cuts is certainly preferable to Communist-style nationalization, this approach does nothing to address the fundamental budget problems in Colorado: our government has grown too big, too fast.

The Democrat notion of fiscal management consists of growing the size of government as quickly as possible: they managed to add 200 new employees to the state payroll this year in spite of the recession. To avoid making tough choices, they have drained cash funds, used creative accounting practices, and sidestepped TABOR to raise taxes again and again without voter approval.

Colorado needs to return to fiscal responsibility and adjust spending to meet revenues, reassess the size of government, and live up to the spirit of the law and ask voters before increasing their taxes. The Democrat-controlled legislature has dug itself into a deep fiscal hole. I sincerely hope that the economy bounces back quickly so that Coloradans will not be forced to pay for their irresponsibility.

In the final stretch of the legislative session, I could use your help in writing or e-mailing legislators and donating to cover ongoing expenses. You can donate online now be clicking HERE.

The legislative session will end next week, and I am still fighting a repeal of the death penalty, more tax and “fee” increases, forced unionization of public employees, and a proposal to abolish the Electoral College. I’ll keep you updated.

Sincerely,

Ted Harvey

Congress Trying to Implement the Medical Records Gun Ban

April 29, 2009

Well we knew this wouldn’t be going away!

Congress Trying to Implement the Medical Records Gun Ban
— Step #2 in fraudulent budget process comes to a vote on Wednesday

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

Monday, April 27, 2009

Congress is moving closer to a showdown over the largest expansion of
government in modern U.S. history — a bill which would require
virtually every single American to buy government-approved health
insurance, whether they wanted it or not. And, in the process, that
bill would feed all of your most confidential medical data into an
enormous database, which could be used to take away your guns.

This is a bit complicated. But here’s where we are:

Once a year, the 1974 Budget Act allows Congress to pass a bill —
solely for the purpose of balancing the budget — and that bill cannot
be filibustered in the Senate. Hence, it can be passed with only fifty
Democrat votes (plus the vice president), without any Republican
support.

Now, that supposed “budget-balancing bill” is called the
“reconciliation
bill” — and it can only be created if the annual budget resolution
mandates it.

Three weeks ago, the Senate considered its version of the annual budget
resolution. Gun Owners of America asked you to oppose passage of the
Senate version of the budget resolution for two reasons:

* First, although the Senate version of the bill did not contain
language mandating the giant anti-gun database and the huge $10,000+
per person government health mandate, the Pelosi-devised House version
did.

* Second, although Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND)
protested mightily that the Senate version did not mandate the anti-gun
database and health mandate, GOA found out that Conrad intended all
along to capitulate in House/Senate conference to the Pelosi language.

Now, the budget resolution has come back from conference, and guess
what?

Budget Chairman Conrad stabbed us in the back, just as GOA thought he
would. His actions meant that Senators didn’t have to go on record
voting for gun control the first time around.

The conference report gives Senate and House Republicans until September
to cave in and agree to pass the anti-gun database and $10,000+ health
mandate. And, if they do not, the Left Wing Democratic leadership will
pass their own bill with 50 Senate votes — and no Republicans.

And, incidentally, when we say “anti-gun database,” we mean that
everything your kid told his pediatrician about whether you have a gun
collection will be searchable by the government. And people with
Alzheimer’s, ADHD, and other disorders will begin losing their gun
rights just as quickly as veterans — who have seen the ramifications of
being on a government database.

Although the next vote on this budget resolution will not be the final
battle in this eight-month war, GOA is asking senators and
representatives to vote against the sleazy, corrupt budget resolution
conference report — scheduled for a Senate vote this Wednesday.

Incidentally, the one thing that the federal government can do to reduce
health costs is to remove the anti-gun federal laws which prohibit more
Americans from using firearms to defend themselves and their families.

ACTION:

Contact your senators and representative. Ask them to vote against the
“fraud scheme” which the budget resolution conference report
has become.

Please 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.

You can also call them toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear

The budget resolution conference report would set the stage for
legislation to require virtually every American to purchase
government-approved health insurance. And it would use government
control over health insurance to require providers to feed our most
confidential medical data into an anti-gun government database.

When I say “anti-gun database,” I mean that everything a kid
tells his
pediatrician about his dad’s gun collection will be searchable by the
government. And people with Alzheimer’s, ADHA, and other disorders will
begin losing their gun rights just as quickly as veterans — who have
seen the ramifications of being on a government database for the last
decade.

The budget resolution was sold to the Senate under a lie. Senators were
told that the Senate version contained no “reconciliation
instructions”
when, all along, Budget Chairman Kent Conrad intended to immediately
capitulate in conference.

Please show that such underhanded tactics are unacceptable in the
Congress. Please vote against the budget resolution conference report.

Sincerely,

Nugent electrifies

April 27, 2009

Leave it to the Brother of Blood to tell it like it is!

Nugent Electrifies Gun-Rights Backers

By Bradley Vasoli, The Bulletin
Monday, April 27, 2009

Spring had arrived in earnest, the sun shone brightly and the sky was clear as sportsmen rode up the verdant woods to practice shooting and archery last Saturday. The Commonwealth Foundation’s Live Free PA event couldn’t have come happened on a better weekend.

That’s not just because of the weather. The men and women who arrived at the Eltonsville Sportsmen’s Association came to celebrate their right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. The Commonwealth Foundation began planning the event about a year ago, but it happened to land on a date just a few weeks after Gov. Ed Rendell, D, began a new push for more gun control.

After target practice around midday, rock songwriter and guitarist Ted Nugent spoke to the Live Free participants, as he pushed back against recent calls for greater restrictions on gun rights. Consistent with his reputation, he was articulate and upbeat.

“Your life is a precious gift from God,” he said. “You deserve, and I believe we have a duty to protect and defend it.”

Recent high-profile crimes, particularly police shootings in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, have boosted the case for gun control in the eyes of some public officials. Mr. Nugent asked Americans to consider how firearms be more part of the solution than the problem.

He said jurisdictions in the United States with looser gun laws have lower crime rates than those that don’t. His assertion is backed by some prominent researchers, such as the University of Maryland’s John Lott. Mr. Nugent urged citizens to consider the good that gun ownership has done many crime victims.

“Anti-gunners side with rapists,” the musician and sportsman told his audience. “Either you like the rapists shot, or you like the rapists raping.”

He also said the push to limit gun purchases in cities like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh ignores the experience of other cities. Chicago, he noted, has enacted gun control to become an essentially “gun-free zone,” but has nonetheless seen crime rates skyrocket.

“Ed Rendell sees the dead bodies and wants more of this,” Mr. Nugent said. “I’m a different species. I don’t like increased innocent death. I like decreased innocent death.”

Mr. Rendell has won the support of police unions and other law-enforcement organizations for his the anti-gun case, but Mr. Nugent said he would have less success if he sought the backing of rank-and-file officers.

“In the vast majority of the instances,” he said, the anti-gun officers are “bureaucrats and desk jockeys.”

He has some firsthand knowledge of law enforcement, having served as a deputy sheriff in Michigan and a deputy constable in Texas.

After rousing the fervor of several dozen gun-rights supporters, he gave them a demonstration of his archery skills, refined by decades of practice. He landed several arrows perfectly on three targets shaped like a turkey, a deer and a bear.

It was a unique setting for a Commonwealth Foundation event. The organization spends most of its time defending Pennsylvanians’ economic liberties. But the think tank’s president, Matthew Brouillette, said “the other freedoms that we’ve got under attack” deserve attention as well.

“We don’t need a nanny state to tell us how to live,” he said. “We’re free Americans and should be treated as such by our government.”

SOURCE

The End of the World as we know it…

April 26, 2009

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

Then, Mark Alexander releases the following from the Patriot Post

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

By Mark Alexander

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

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

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

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

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

Blame for what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CIA Memorial Wall

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

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

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

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

Brady Campaign And Lautenberg Unite To Mislead And Control–Again

April 25, 2009

More from the masters of mysandry and misdirection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCE

The right to dissent abolished!

April 24, 2009

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

Hat Tip to Anthony at The Liberty Sphere;

Bill Quietly Becomes Law That Forbids Opposition!

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

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

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

Thank-you.

Some political musings…

April 23, 2009

So? What is hot across the Internet and MSM today as far as politics go?

Hillary Clinton thinks Dick Cheney isn’t a reliable source. Funny how no one addressed her credibility…

Frank Lautenberg, of high treason fame, yet again seeks to destroy the nation and Constitution that he swore an oath to protect. One tiny cut at a time or the the occasional full blown slice! The man needs to do a rope dance, not be in elected office.

The folks that dubbed a rather sizable chunk of America with a Domestic Terrorist label are yet seeking even more power. Talk about Chutzpah!

Then the impostor in chief pulls the populist card yet again but fails to even suggest hammering the big boys where it will hurt. As in getting credit reports flagged to indicate that these people were, and are being hounded by those operations, and attorneys that feed from their teats.

But, I digress…


Obama Pushing Treaty To Ban Reloading

April 23, 2009

It appears that just about every day the impostor in chief comes up with another sneaky method to deprive us of our rights. read on…


-- Even BB guns could be on the chopping block

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Remember CANDIDATE Barack Obama?  The guy who "wasn't going to take away
our guns"?

Well, guess what?

Less than 100 days into his administration, he's never met a gun he
didn't hate.

A week ago, Obama went to Mexico, whined about the United States, and
bemoaned (before the whole world) the fact that he didn't have the
political power to take away our semi-automatics.  Nevertheless, that
didn't keep him from pushing additional restrictions on American gun
owners.

It's called the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing
of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other
Related Materials.  To be sure, this imponderable title masks a really
nasty piece of work.

First of all, when the treaty purports to ban the "illicit"
manufacture
of firearms, what does that mean?

1. "Illicit manufacturing" of firearms is defined as
"assembly of
firearms [or] ammunition... without a license...."

Hence, reloading ammunition -- or putting together a lawful firearm from
a kit -- is clearly "illicit manufacturing."

Modifying a firearm in any way would surely be "illicit
manufacturing."
And, while it would be a stretch, assembling a firearm after cleaning it
could, in any plain reading of the words, come within the screwy
definition of "illicit manufacturing."

2. "Firearm" has a similarly questionable definition.

"[A]ny other weapon" is a "firearm," according to
the treaty -- and the
term "weapon" is nowhere defined.

So, is a BB gun a "firearm"?  Probably.

A toy gun?  Possibly.

A pistol grip or firing pin?  Probably.  And who knows what else.

If these provisions (and others) become the law of the land, the Obama
administration could have a heyday in enforcing them.  Consider some of
the other provisions in the treaty:

* Banning Reloading.  In Article IV of the treaty, countries commit to
adopting "necessary legislative or other measures" to criminalize
illicit manufacturing and trafficking in firearms.

Remember that "illicit manufacturing" includes reloading and
modifying
or assembling a firearm in any way.  This would mean that the Obama
administration could promulgate regulations banning reloading on the
basis of this treaty -- just as it is currently circumventing Congress
to write legislation taxing greenhouse gases.

* Banning Gun Clubs.  Article IV goes on to state that the criminalized
acts should include "association or conspiracy" in connection
with said
offenses -- which is arguably a term broad enough to allow, by
regulation, the criminalization of entire pro-gun organizations or gun
clubs, based on the facilities which they provide their membership.

* Extraditing US Gun Dealers. Article V requires each party to "adopt
such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the
offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention" under a
variety of circumstances.

We know that Mexico is blaming U.S. gun dealers for the fact that its
streets are flowing with blood.  And we know it is possible for Mexico
to define offenses "committed in its territory" in a very
broad way.
And we know that we have an extradition obligation under Article XIX of
the proposed treaty.  So we know that Mexico could try to use the treaty
to demand to extradition of American gun dealers.

Under Article XXIX, if Mexico demands the extradition of a lawful
American gun dealer, the U.S. would be required to resolve the dispute
through "other means of peaceful settlement."

Does anyone want to risk twenty years in a sweltering Mexican jail on
the proposition that the Obama administration would apply this provision
in a pro-gun manner?

* Microstamping.  Article VI requires "appropriate markings" on
firearms.  And, it is not inconceivable that this provision could be
used to require microstamping of firearms and/or ammunition -- a
requirement which is clearly intended to impose specifications which are
not technologically possible or which are possible only at a
prohibitively expensive cost.

* Gun Registration.  Article XI requires the maintenance of any records,
for a "reasonable time," that the government determines to be
necessary
to trace firearms.  This provision would almost certainly repeal
portions of McClure-Volkmer and could arguably be used to require a
national registry or database.

ACTION:  Write your Senators and urge them to oppose the Inter-American
Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms,
Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.

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

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

I am urging you, in the strongest terms, to oppose the Inter-American
Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms,
Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.

This anti-gun treaty was written by international bureaucrats who are
either stupid or virulently anti-gun -- or both.

This treaty could very well ban the ability to reload ammunition, to put
new stocks on rifles lawfully owned by American citizens, and, possibly,
even ban BB guns!

There are too many problems with this treaty to mention them all in this
letter.  The rest can be read on the website of Gun Owners of America
at:
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0901.htm

Please do not tell me the treaty has not yet been abused in this way by
the bevy of Third World countries which have signed it.  We do not
expect the real ramifications of the treaty to become clear until the
big prize -- the U.S. -- has stepped into the trap.

For all of these reasons, I must insist that you oppose ratification of
the treaty.

Sincerely,

 


Wag the Dog

April 18, 2009

Since getting absolutely hammered every time they mention increased gun control the impostor in chief and his administration is taking a play from the Clinton era, and wagging the attack dogs of the mainstream media at the American people.Read on…

President Obama, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Attorney General Eric Holder are downplaying gun control, at least for the time being. But the so-called “news” media have begun hammering away on guns with the same intensity they did in the early 1990s, when the outcomes of the Brady bill and “assault weapons” debates were still undecided.

You have to wonder why the media think they, and not the public, know best what direction the country should take. Annual polls show that Americans’ confidence in newspapers and television news has decreased to a mere 24 percent. During the last few years of President George W. Bush’s administration, the media sanctimoniously and incessantly reminded us that the president’s approval ratings were near the lowest in history, yet in every single year of the Bush administration, Americans’ confidence in the president exceeded their confidence in the media. Even with the nation’s recent economic problems, largely blamed on big banks, Americans have more confidence in banks than in the media.

Yet, in their supreme arrogance, many in the media still believe the American people cannot function, that society and perhaps civilization itself will collapse, without the moral and intellectual guidance of those who, having been to journalism school, are the world’s leading experts on all subjects under the sun, including gun control.

It must be strange on their planet.

For example, take ABC “20/20’s” recent attempt to convince us that neither good private citizens nor police officers are able to use guns effectively for protection, but somehow criminals are. At the end of her not-as-clever-as-she-thought hatchet job on guns, Diane Sawyer ever-so-smugly added, “by the way, if you’re wondering where are all those studies about the effectiveness of guns used by ordinary Americans for self-defense, well, we couldn’t find one reliable study.”

As if they even bothered to look.

The landmark study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, showing hundreds of thousands of successful defensive gun uses annually, was reliable enough to be endorsed by the leading anti-gun criminologist of the day, the late Marvin Wolfgang. And, as economist John Lott noted in a Fox News rebuttal to “20/20’s” pablum on Wednesday, “There have been 26 peer-reviewed studies published by criminologists and economists in academic journals and university presses. Most of these studies find large drops in crime [under Right-to-Carry laws]. Some find no change, but not a single one shows an increase in crime.”

Lott could have mentioned, but modestly did not, that his own comprehensive study of Right-to-Carry has survived a cacophony of half-baked attacks by the usual suspects. And whatever the results of Diane Sawyer’s contrived and anything-but-reliable classroom experiment, designed to “prove” ABC’s cockamamie theories about self-defense, every day in this country private citizens defend themselves and their families with guns.

Then there’s the delirious commentary of Dan Rodericks in the March 12 Baltimore Sun. He writes, “After the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and again after the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan in 1981, many of us believed the country would turn against guns – assault-style weapons and handguns in particular.”

“Assault-style weapons?” What do they have to do with those crimes? The “assault weapon” issue did not even exist until several years after the attempt on President Reagan, which involved a small-caliber revolver.

And why is Americans’ support for gun control lower than it has been in ages? Rodericks is sure he has the answer. According to Rodericks, Americans oppose gun control not because they believe in freedom and self-protection, and not because they know criminals don’t obey gun laws, but because “There’s a pessimism and cynicism about the kind of society we’ve become and the uncertain future we face. . . . It’s an epidemic of resignation.” Translation: “I’ve been to journalism school, and I’m exasperated by the fact that the vast majority of Americans still don’t agree with me.” It brings to mind the late ABC News anchor Peter Jennings, in 1994, characterizing voters as “angry two-year-old(s)” throwing a “temper tantrum” by voting Republicans into control of Congress, against Jennings’ wishes, of course.

More drivel comes from the pen of that most superficial and trite of opinion spouters, PBS’ Mark Shields. On Sunday, Shields wrote that Congress doesn’t impose more gun control because its members “lack . . . . backbone.” Congress, says Shields, allowed the “assault weapon” ban to expire because congressmen are in need of a “a vertebrae transplant.” Oh, how we would like to see Shields say that straight to the face of Rep. John Dingell, Sen. Max Baucus, or scores of others on Capitol Hill, who have forgotten more about the issue than Shields will ever know.

Of course, no modern media blitzkrieg against guns would be complete without Michael Isikoff, during the 1990s the Washington Post’s hit man on “assault weapons” and now performing the same function at Newsweek. In the April 20 issue of that magazine, Isikoff wrote about Mexico’s drug cartels being armed with “high-powered assault weapons” from the United States, when it has already been established that most of the cartels’ weapons are not “assault weapons,” and only a minority have been traced to the United States. But what can you expect from a “reporter” whose “in-depth” research consists of skimming the Brady Campaign’s latest press release?

Thanks to Isikoff on two things, however. If there were any doubt about the Obama Administration’s eventual gun control plans, Isikoff says that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), author of bills in earlier congresses to drastically expand the former “assault weapon” ban, “pressed Obama transition officials to take up the issue” but they told her “that’s not for now, that’s for later.” (Emphasis added.)

And Isikoff quotes Brady Campaign’s Peter Hamm as saying “When you see people like Eric Holder or Hillary Clinton or Rahm Emanuel become muted on this issue, you feel like you want to call up a friend and say, ‘What’s up?'” (Emphasis added, again.)

Writing for the largest newspaper in America’s largest city, and hopelessly out of touch with America west of the Lincoln Tunnel, the New York Times‘ Bob Herbert on Tuesday expressed skepticism about Right-to-Carry, particularly on college campuses (because, as John Lott has noted, legislation to allow carrying on campuses is making progress in some states). But, unable to come to grips with the fact that people really do use guns to protect themselves successfully every day, Herbert defaulted to whining that America is “a society that is neither mature nor civilized enough to do anything” about the criminal use of guns.

And a Washington Post editorial the same day, dedicated to portraying the Virginia Tech murders as justification for gun show legislation in Virginiaeven though no gun involved in the murders came from a gun showwent on to claim that “None of the gunmen [in recent multiple victim shootings] could have done as much damage had he [sic] not had access to guns.” Apparently the Post’s editorial staffers have been too busy typing up opinions to read the paper’s news section; otherwise, they would know that the worst mass murders in American history have been committed with jet airliners, explosives and flames, not with firearms.

Whether the media will be able to prod the most powerful elected officials in the country into attacking the Second Amendment remains to be seen. But, in the meantime, is it any wonder that the American people hold the media in such low regard?

SOURCE

Global Warming, and other acts of idiocy…

April 16, 2009

Fresh from the golden dome on Colfax Avenue Greg Brophy keeps us up to date on the shenanigans of the saviors on the left that will “save” Colorado from itself…

Global Warming

A couple weeks ago the Colorado Senate passed a global warming joint resolution. It’s titled “Concerning Recognition of Colorado’s Cool Cities”, but it was really an Al Gore would be proud sop to carbon dioxide caused global warming.

As a side bar, I think Wray, Colorado (my home town) is the “coolest city” in the state. We have our own little stream running through town, nice hills and bluffs surrounding town, a couple of good places to eat, a nice swimming pool and the best coffee shop on the planet.

Back to the farce: Senator Rollie Heath from, you guessed it, Boulder, introduced the resolution.

Apparently he missed the memo from the eco-commies who changed the term “global warming” to “climate change” when it became apparent that while CO2 emissions continue to rise, global temperatures are going down. They have been for ten years.

Senators Renfroe and Lundberg had fun pointing out the facts about global warming. Senator Heath said, “I don’t want to get into an argument about global warming”.

At that point I went up and pointed out that he should at least make the case for his resolution, but I’d be voting against it because “anthropogenic global warming is a farce”.

End of debate: the resolution passed on a straight party line vote.

Blatant Disregard

We see another attempt by the Democrats to exert their will over the will of the people in HB09-1299.

It’s a bill that would lead to tossing out the electoral vote for President in return for a national popular vote.

It’s not that it would happen overnight. First more states would have to pass a similar bill; enough states to reach the magic number of 270 electoral votes have to pass bills to join the movement for it to go into effect.

So far four states have passed bills enacting this agreement into law. Colorado is poised to become a fifth.

I’m not sure if the Democrats are still sore about the 2000 election or what.

For the life of me, I can’t figure out why anyone in Colorado would throw away our swing-state status in favor of a national popular vote. Right now, Presidential candidates come to Colorado because there is some question where our nine electoral votes will go and through most of the election cycle, you can draw a scenario where our nine will make the difference in determining who will win.

Take away our nine and no one will care about our votes; no one will come here to campaign. The candidates will stick to the major population centers on the coasts and ignore “fly-over country”.

It’s really a horrible idea that has so many unintended consequences that everyone on the left seems to ignore.

Just like they ignore the will of the voters. In 2004 Coloradoans roundly rejected a change to our electoral college system 66-34.

That’s the blatant disregard.

Pinnacol Raid

Here’s the problem: state revenues are down, expectations for state spending are up (sounds like my family budget situation too).

So what are we going to do? Rob a bank? No, lets seize the money in an insurance company’s accounts, after all it looks like the insurance company, Pinnacol Assurance has more assets than liabilities.

Pinnacol is a workers compensation insurance company that was originally created by the state and then finally turned loose in 2002. At the time, their liabilities exceeded their assets by about $200 million. Now, their assets exceed their liabilities by about $600 million.

They are paying big dividends and have cut premiums by 42% over the past four years.

So the Democrats in Colorado (and two Republicans) have decided to take their “extra” money. That’ll teach them for being successful.

Two other states have tried the same thing in very similar situations and the courts in those states have sided with the insurance company. No telling what our activist Supreme Court will do, but I am positive the insurance company won’t just write the check because the Governor signs the bill that steals their money.

Expect a long protracted battle so ensue. The majority party has no plan for dealing with the defeat, except to close have of the colleges in the state.

I expected more from them.

The Budget

The Colorado Senate will pass a budget on Monday.

For the first time in my memory, it will be a pure work of fiction.

Colorado’s Constitution requires a balanced budget for each year. This one will be balanced by taking money $500 million from an insurance company. Money that will never show up because the insurance company won’t just hand the loot over.

I won’t bug you with all the details of the budget. It’s really a mess with Constitutionally mandated spending increase requirements in some areas, Constitutionally protected revenues in other areas and everyone wanting more.

The key take away is this: the money from the insurance company (Pinnacol Assurance) is never going to materialize. They aren’t just going to hand it over and I don’t think the court will let the state take it. Ultimately, we’ll have to come back and balance the budget again and this time truly hard choices will have to be made.

The immediate fall back provision is to cut colleges by another $300 million. That’s on top of the $100 million reduction in the rate of growth that they’ve already taken. A $300 million dollar cut would be a real cut and would probably lead to the closure of several schools. That’s completely unacceptable; we offered rational alternatives, but the other side turned them down.

This won’t be over for a while.

I have decided to join the world of FaceBook. I am not the most professional politician in the world, so I am actually using mine as it was intended – almost strictly for social purposes. If you want to “friend” me, search FB for Greg Brophy. I think this link will work: http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/profile.php?id=1192617444&ref=profile