Archive for the ‘Non Compos Mentis’ Category

Support for Gun Control Laws at All Time Lows

April 8, 2009

Well imagine that? Why could this be? Perhaps because even many democrats don’t trust the imposter in chief and his administration?

SOURCE

In Gallup polling conducted prior to last week’s gun massacre at an immigrant center in Binghamton, N.Y., only 29% of Americans said the possession of handguns by private citizens should be banned in the United States. While similar to the 30% recorded in 2007, the latest reading is the smallest percentage favoring a handgun ban since Gallup first polled on this nearly 50 years ago.

Read About It: Gallup Poll

If He Can Make It Here, He Could Make It Anywhere!

April 8, 2009

Okay folks, I don’t know how on earth this slipped past me, but better late then never I suppose, and yes, the NRA should have proof read this before posting it. SOURCE

Friday, April 03, 2009
For those of you who don’t closely follow local politics in Manhattan, Richard Aborn, former president of then-Handgun Control, Inc. (now Brady Center) is running for Manhattan DA, and he has secured some endorsements for his race based in large part on his support for gun control.

Former New York City Police Department and current Los Angeles police commissioner Bill Bratton blessed Aborn’s race, noting their working relationship on, among other items, the Brady bill. Bratton also cited Aborn’s work with Mayor Bloomberg on “meaningful gun control and regulation.”

Aborn was also endorsed by NY Assemblyman Danny O’Donnell, brother of the well-known, shrill, anti-gun crusader, Rosie O’Donnell. Danny O’Donnell cited the following in issuing his endorsement:

“When it comes to which person will crack down on crime while protecting civil liberties and defending progressive values, there is no one more qualified for Manhattan D.A. than Richard Aborn. Whether it’s taking on the NRA on guns, investigating police misconduct, or ensuring equal access to justice, Richard has shown he never backs down from a fight. He will bring his deep commitment to justice to the office of District Attorney.”

Someone needs to educate Assemblyman O’Donnell that “protecting civil liberties” while whittling away the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans are mutually exclusive.

And finally, from Aborn’s own campaign site, he lists these bona fides:

GUN CONTROL LEADER

  • President, Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady Campaign), 1992-1996
  • Principal strategist behind passage of the Brady Bill, the national assault weapons ban, and the ban on large volume clips
  • Board member, New Yorkers Against Gun Violence,
    and Harlem Mothers SAVE

Enough said.

From the Left: More Lousy Obama Nominees

April 5, 2009

And there are still those that think the impostor in chief isn’t all about destroying America? Read on…

According to Harold Koh, Obama’s nominee for the State Department’s legal adviser and considered a possible future Obama Supreme Court pick, Shariah law (i.e., Islamic law) may properly be used to determine certain court cases. That’s just one of Koh’s off-the-wall positions. A former dean of Yale Law School, Koh is a proponent of what’s called a “transnational legal process,” which equates our constitutional process with laws instituted in other nations. That’s akin to accepting the currency of Zimbabwe (where a loaf of bread can cost billions) at a 1-to-1 ratio for our dollar — discounting the administration’s best efforts to match Zimbabwean hyperinflation. Koh believes that it’s “appropriate for the Supreme Court to construe our Constitution in the light of foreign and international law” in its decisions, regardless of the will of American voters. Think same-sex marriage, affirmative action and detainment of terrorists.

Koh has also claimed that together North Korea, Saddam-era Iraq and the United States compose an “axis of disobedience” because each “flagrantly” has disobeyed international law. But as far as disregarding the law himself, in 1994 he said, “I’d rather have [former Supreme Court Justice Harry] Blackmun, who uses the wrong reasoning in Roe [v. Wade] to get the right results, and let other people figure out the right reasoning.” In light of his obvious hostility to America and its Constitution, how can Koh take the oath to support and defend them?

In other nomination news, yet another Obama pick fessed up and paid back taxes this week — and it’s not an April Fool’s joke. Health and Human Services nominee Kathleen Sebelius, who replaced tax cheat Tom Daschle, amended three years’ worth of returns and paid nearly $8,000 to the IRS for “unintentional errors.” Asked for his thoughts, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said, “I think she should be confirmed.”

SOURCE

Department of Military Correctness: Murtha’s Award

April 5, 2009

In yet another mind-boggling illustration that much of the upper echelon of American leadership, even some military leadership, is totally detached from reality, the United States Navy has given Rep. “Fightin'” John Murtha (D-PA) its Distinguished Public Service Award, the highest public service recognition given to a non-employee by the Department of the Navy. This would be the same John Murtha who, in May 2006, slandered U.S. Marines by accusing them of war crimes, saying they were nothing but “cold-blooded killers” who “murdered innocent civilians.”

The Navy’s perverse citation says that Murtha “ensured” that the America’s sailors and Marines “were provided the resources necessary to effectively conduct the global war on terrorism.” Words fail us in trying to describe the juxtaposition of Murtha’s award with his actions in the real world.

Needless to say, there are plenty of folks who are displeased with the Navy’s actions. The director of the Vets For Freedom Educational Institute, Gabe Ledeen, who is also a Marine veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, has posted a “Don’t Honor John Murtha” petition online, rightly saying that Murtha is unworthy of such an award. The petition calls on Murtha to “apologize for slandering the Marines … and for undermining the efforts of those servicemen and women who fought in Iraq,” pointing out that Murtha “has routinely and deliberately undermined the United States military, slandered servicemen serving in combat, and caused irreparable damage to our international reputation.” If Murtha doesn’t apologize, the award should be rescinded. Perhaps those in the Navy responsible for this decision should also apologize for giving a lying, treasonous coward one of its highest awards.

SOURCE

Hope ‘n’ Change: The (Toxic) Elephant in the Room

April 5, 2009

What follows is an article that points out the utter failure by the current administration to understand fundamental principles of economics, and just about every other aspect of governing.

The nation’s Kommissar of Economic Cheerleading, a.k.a. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, unveiled his plan to save our ailing economy this week — the so-called Public-Private Investment Program (PPIP). The announcement was punctuated by a much-ballyhooed 500-point surge in the Dow, an indication that the market, at least, likes PPIP. But why wouldn’t it? Investors tend to appreciate “free” money.

At its core, PPIP provides investors with mega-leveraged government financing. Patterned roughly after the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) thrift bailout plan of the late ’80s, PPIP is composed of two parts: The first part addresses “legacy” loans; the second, “legacy” securities. “Legacy,” incidentally, is the new kinder-gentler buzzword for “toxic,” as in “toxic assets,” the former nom du jour for radioactive financial instruments like subprime mortgages and mortgage-derived securities.

PPIP offers private investors enormous amounts of cheap, taxpayer-backed financing for every dollar they put up of their own money. Under the program, government lends up to 85 percent of investor funding, with the Treasury “investing” one dollar of taxpayer money for each private capital dollar to cover the remaining 15 percent.

From an investor’s standpoint, of course, there’s no personal downside. Investors leverage government money at a 6-to-1 ratio and the lion’s share of any losses generated are absorbed by taxpayers. Thus, if a borrower defaults on his mortgage, the government would only be able to seize the real estate — private investors walk away relatively unhurt.

Independent of taxpayer liability, however, the program is not without risk. As indicated by Vincent Reinhart, American Enterprise Institute resident scholar and director of the Monetary Affairs Division of the Federal Reserve, PPIP assumes that “assets are troubled because their true values are obscured by irrational self-doubt and market illiquidity, and not by fundamental problems in the prospects of repayment. It also assumes that the solution to problems created by excessive leverage is for government to encourage more leverage.”

Apart from PPIP, our strategic issue, the elephant in the room, is one of accountability. Helped by a willing media, the central focus has been shifting from Congress and the Executive branches to business. Still, for all the finger pointing at banks and insurers, and for all post-hoc economic crater repairing, we hope those as yet unenlightened Americans who have been blinded by the Obama media will soon learn the origins of this mess: government.

SOURCE

The AIG Saga Continues

April 5, 2009

The Senate this week significantly slowed the progress of a punitive 90 percent tax on bonuses for executives of companies receiving federal bailout money. Reflecting the cooling position of the White House, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that the upper chamber would first debate a bill for national service followed by the 2010 budget. Last week, Reid planned to bring the bill to the floor right after it passed the House 328-93. So, what changed Harry’s mind?

President Obama’s recent statement that “We cannot govern out of anger” played a part, though this was also a significant change from what he had said just a few days prior. Obama first said he would “pursue every legal avenue to block these bonuses.” Therein lies the problem. This tax may actually be unconstitutional, and if the White House is not going to support it, then the Senate is likely to retreat.

The Constitution specifically outlaws bills of attainder, measures that impose punishments on a select group through legislation without trial. The tax currently being proposed is a direct result of the revelation that American International Group, the poster child of the recent federal bailout craze, was about to pay $165 million in bonuses to its top executives. Congress was outraged that AIG would have the nerve to make such a move, particularly after the federal government bought an 80 percent stake in the foundering company for the bargain price of $170 billion. Claiming that their punitive tax is not a bill of attainder is a bit disingenuous. However, the statements of politicians alone cannot be counted on to hold up in court. After all, politicians will say anything. Therefore, the burden of proof in the constitutionality of the tax lies in its impetus. Is it meant to punish greedy AIG execs, or is it meant to protect the massive, and unsolicited, support of the taxpayers?

On the other hand, the issue may just fizzle out. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo successfully persuaded at least 15 AIG bonus recipients to return up to $50 million in bonus money. He hopes to recover up to $80 million in total — the other $85 million was given to employees outside the U.S. and is therefore, as even he admits, out of his jurisdiction. Cuomo’s efforts may thus save the constitutional law professor in chief from getting into a protracted argument over constitutional issues. After all, the president needs to preserve his diminishing political capital for another day.

One area in which Obama is considering spending some political capital is his idea to regulate pay for all executives, regardless of prior federal involvement. If he wants “Atlas Shrugged” to further come to life, that’s one way to do it. Companies that cannot determine the salaries of their own management will take their business overseas, and executives who don’t get paid what they are worth could go the way of Rand’s protagonist, John Galt. Government has no business making decisions regarding pay in the private sector, any more than it does in making decisions on prices — an unconstitutional folly perpetrated before.

An interesting addendum: AIG is suing the IRS to recover $306 million in taxes, interest, penalties and court costs. AIG maintains that the IRS inaccurately determined the company improperly claimed $62 million in tax credits and that the agency also billed AIG for taxes it claims the company should have paid. Many see the lawsuit as the high point of gall, but the fact is, if the company did indeed overpay its taxes or was improperly charged by the IRS, it has a duty to rectify the situation for its shareholders, who are now predominantly American taxpayers.

SOURCE

States Rebellion Pending

April 5, 2009

This article from the Patriot Post (see sidebar) points out what many blogs have been posting about for months.

States Rebellion Pending

By Walter E. Williams

Our Colonial ancestors petitioned and pleaded with King George III to get his boot off their necks. He ignored their pleas, and in 1776, they rightfully declared unilateral independence and went to war. Today it’s the same story except Congress is the one usurping the rights of the people and the states, making King George’s actions look mild in comparison. Our constitutional ignorance — perhaps contempt, coupled with the fact that we’ve become a nation of wimps, sissies and supplicants — has made us easy prey for Washington’s tyrannical forces. But that might be changing a bit. There are rumblings of a long overdue re-emergence of Americans’ characteristic spirit of rebellion.

Eight state legislatures have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution; they include Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington. There’s speculation that they will be joined by Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.

You might ask, “Isn’t the 10th Amendment that no-good states’ rights amendment that Dixie governors, such as George Wallace and Orval Faubus, used to thwart school desegregation and black civil rights?” That’s the kind of constitutional disrespect and ignorance that big-government proponents, whether they’re liberals or conservatives, want you to have. The reason is that they want Washington to have total control over our lives. The Founders tried to limit that power with the 10th Amendment, which reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

New Hampshire’s 10th Amendment resolution typifies others and, in part, reads: “That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General (federal) Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.” Put simply, these 10th Amendment resolutions insist that the states and their people are the masters and that Congress and the White House are the servants. Put yet another way, Washington is a creature of the states, not the other way around.

Congress and the White House will laugh off these state resolutions. State legislatures must take measures that put some teeth into their 10th Amendment resolutions. Congress will simply threaten a state, for example, with a cutoff of highway construction funds if it doesn’t obey a congressional mandate, such as those that require seat belt laws or that lower the legal blood-alcohol level to .08 for drivers. States might take a lead explored by Colorado.

In 1994, the Colorado Legislature passed a 10th Amendment resolution and later introduced a bill titled “State Sovereignty Act.” Had the State Sovereignty Act passed both houses of the legislature, it would have required all people liable for any federal tax that’s a component of the highway users fund, such as a gasoline tax, to remit those taxes directly to the Colorado Department of Revenue. The money would have been deposited in an escrow account called the “Federal Tax Fund” and remitted monthly to the IRS, along with a list of payees and respective amounts paid. If Congress imposed sanctions on Colorado for failure to obey an unconstitutional mandate and penalized the state by withholding funds due, say $5 million for highway construction, the State Sovereignty Act would have prohibited the state treasurer from remitting any funds in the escrow account to the IRS. Instead, Colorado would have imposed a $5 million surcharge on the Federal Tax Fund account to continue the highway construction.

The eight state legislatures that have enacted 10th Amendment resolutions deserve our praise, but their next step is to give them teeth.

Senator Kerry–Border Security “No”, Gun Control “Yes”

April 4, 2009

Well just what can you really expect from someone that put himself in for medals, then threw them away, but the medals were actually someone else’s, and also negotiated with enemy government representatives while still serving as a reserve officer in the United States Navy? John Kerry deserves to be tarred and feathered, then hung until dead, period. Not a United States Senator that is still determined to undermine and destroy the Constitution if not the United States of America. He has been in league with the international felon George Soros to that end, and now this?

With escalating drug-related violence continuing unabated in Mexico, anti-gun elected officials in Washington continue to let no tragedy go unexploited.

The latest to add his voice to the anti-gun chorus should come as a surprise to no one, as Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) has a long voting record in support of gun control.

This week, Kerry called sending National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexican border “premature and possibly counterproductive.” But Kerry had no qualms in supporting additional restrictions on law-abiding American gun owners. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/30/kerry-mexico-failed-state/)

For a fleeting moment Kerry sounded a hopeful tone in his remarks in El Paso when he noted the need to “work harder to enforce existing gun laws against exporting weapons across international borders.” However, Kerry reverted to his usual anti-gun talking points as he called for a ban on imported “assault rifles” (presumably he meant semi-auto “assault weapons”) into the U.S.—a ban that has existed since 1989.

Senator Kerry is either confused about what an “assault rifle” is, is ignorant of the parameters of the existing import ban, or more likely, simply wants to expand his gun control crusade. In either case, and as noted earlier, none of this should come as a surprise from a failed presidential candidate who tried to camouflage his decades long voting record against the Second Amendment by trying to reinvent himself as a “sportsman.” Senator Kerry’s plan to stop the international trafficking of firearms into Mexico by banning legal importation of firearms into the United States simply defies logic and common sense.

American gun owners should be outraged when a sitting U.S. Senator dismisses tightening up our nation’s border security as “possibly counterproductive”, but has no qualms about passing additional restrictions that will be avoided and evaded by criminals.

SOURCE

25% is 90% The new math..?

April 4, 2009

Seems like Ms. Pelosi et all are still at it, and still can’t get the facts correct even with help from rogue agencies.

As we continue to report, Congress has jumped into the topic of Mexican border violence with both feet, having held 10 different Subcommittee and Full Committee hearings on the topic, with more coming. It has also become clear that anti-gun politicians and groups are intent on using this issue to advance new gun laws.

In the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Drugs and Crime, Sen. Dianne Feinstein renewed her attacks on gun owners’ rights. During her remarks, she stated that there are over 2,000 guns smuggled into Mexico from the U.S. each day. But when she tried to elicit support for that number from a representative from the BATFE, he responded that the number was much lower. Senator Feinstein was clearly unhappy that he would not endorse her anti-gun sound bite.

Feinstein also repeated the claim that 90% of seized guns are from American sources (please see related story below). In fact, it is unknown where most of the arms possessed by the cartels originate. According to the BATFE 90% of the firearms traced are from American sources, but BATFE only traces 25% of the guns seized by Mexican authorities. The remaining 75% of guns seized along with all the firearms remaining in the hands of the cartels are of unknown origin. The fact that only 25% of the guns seized are traced raises a significant question: Why has the Mexican government not requested traces on the remaining 75%? Could it be because those guns are far less likely to have originated in America? Could it be that the Mexican authorities do not want it known where these guns come from? Could it be that it benefits the Mexican government to continue to blame U.S. gun laws to divert attention away from the rampant corruption of local governments and police forces? Could it be all of the above?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has also entered the debate, traveling to Mexico and taking the opportunity to blame American gun laws. She called for a renewal of the semi-auto ban, and even trumpeted the ban’s illusory impact: “And there’s no doubt in my mind that the 10 years we had an assault weapons ban in America was one of the tools that helped to drive down the crime rate.”

Perhaps if Clinton had read the congressionally mandated study performed by the Urban Institute (http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/aw_final.pdf) she would know it showed that the ban couldn’t possibly have had much impact on crime because “the banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders” before the ban.

In another development that will not please the gun ban crowd, the leader of the Border Patrol Union, T.J. Bonner, said he was “underwhelmed” by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s plans to secure the border and went on to debunk the idea that Mexican violence is caused by American guns: “The U.S. has more weapons but we don’t have that kind of violence in our streets,” he said.

American gun owners know that that the real solution to the border violence is to actually secure the border. Shifting the focus to gun laws is nothing more than a calculated attack on our Second Amendment rights.

For more information on the hearings, please go to www.nraila.org.

Greater Gun Rights Battles Looming‏

April 3, 2009
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

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

In March, both the U.S. House and Senate finished up work on a massive,
anti-gun $10 billion omnibus federal land bill.

The bill had been held up for over a year in large part due to GOA
members fighting for Second Amendment rights on federal land -- YOUR
land.

The Second Amendment has been null and void for many years on all land
controlled by the National Park Service (NPS).  While regulations
promulgated in the waning days of the Bush administration partially
reversed that gun ban, a federal judge recently blocked those rules from
taking effect.

GOA worked closely with pro-gun members of the House and Senate to add a
complete repeal of the NPS gun prohibition to the larger land bill.
While these efforts delayed passage of the bill, in the end the anti-gun
congressional leadership teamed up with "pro-gun" compromisers and
passed the measure without protecting the Second Amendment.

In an effort to appease gun owners, language was added to the bill to
protect hunting and fishing.  But, as GOA pointed out to the Congress,
the Founding Fathers did not pledge their lives, fortunes and sacred
honor to protect a recreational pastime.

The final attempt to protect the Second Amendment from NPS bureaucrats
came on a procedural vote in the House that would have made in order an
amendment, sponsored by pro-gun Reps. Doc Hastings (R-WA) and Rob Bishop
(R-UT), to repeal the gun ban.  That motion failed by a vote of 242-180.

So now not only does the gun ban remain in place, the new bill greatly
expands the total amount of NPS land.  Since NPS-controlled parks and
trails also include many busy roadways, hundreds of thousands of gun
owners can unwittingly find themselves in violation of the gun ban
without even knowing they are on federal land.

Representatives Hastings and Bishop, along with Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA),
have vowed to continue their efforts to wipe this unconstitutional gun
ban from the books.  In the Senate, Tom Coburn (R-OK) is also pushing
for the repeal of the anti-gun NPS regulations.

Gun Owners of America would like to thank the thousands upon thousands
of email subscribers who repeatedly contacted their congressmen in this
battle to protect the Second Amendment.  We were sold out by
compromisers this time, but we will "remember in November" 
those who
voted against the Second Amendment.

Please help spread the word so we can get even more people contacting
their elected officials.  As the late Senator Everett Dirksen said,
"When I feel the heat, I see the light."

And do we ever need to turn up the heat!

Many important battles for your Second Amendment rights lay before us.
For instance, Barack Obama and his anti-gun cronies are making a massive
push to renew the Clinton semi-auto ban.

The President and his Attorney General, Eric Holder, are blaming the
current violence among Mexican drug cartels on firearms from the United
States.  This is another blatant attempt by anti-gun advocates to use
whatever situation they can find to further erode your Second Amendment
rights.

The problems of corruption and violence in Mexico should not be used as
an excuse to curtail your right to keep and bear arms.  But once again
law-abiding American gun owners are in danger of being punished for the
criminal actions of others.

The Clinton gun ban is just one of the attacks that you and GOA will be
fighting.

There is also a massive anti-gun bill in Congress, H.R. 45, that
includes universal gun owner licensing and registration, and the Obama
White House continues its efforts to ban private firearms transactions
at gun shows.

You can help us reach out to even more gun owners.   Please forward this
message to your friends and encourage them to sign up for the GOA email
alerts.

And if you haven't already become a member of GOA, consider joining.
For a small amount of money such as $35, $50 or $100, you can join with
other Americans to save our Constitutional rights.  Visit
www.gunowners.org to join GOA today.

Thank you again for being part of the GOA team working to protect
American liberty.