Gun Control U.N. style

September 16, 2009

The United nations attempt at undermining the Constitution of the United States is nothing new. What is new is a freedom detesting, America hating, foreign apologist sitting in the Whitehouse that is surrounded by like minded individuals.

The Obamanites may not be able to garner support for their radical anti liberty agenda in Congress, but what they can do is ram a treaty through, and them have the Supreme Court enforce the provisions of the treaty.

Effectively disarming the American people at a time when foreign cartels fuel lethal gang activity across the country, and terrorist walk among us. Not to mention that they are armed to the hilt. Often with weaponry that is in fact denied to American citizens already. Read on…

Conventional arms control, United Nations-style, won’t stem the proliferation of guns that get into the wrong hands. More likely, it will only make bad situations worse.

The United States was one of only two nations that voted against the U.N. resolution last year. Its support among member states could advance a legally binding U.N. treaty creating “common international standards” for the import and export of small arms and light weapons.

The trouble is, rogue nations and thugs don’t subscribe to “international standards.” Worse, a “right-to-buy” provision would enable despots to acquire arms freely and inhibit U.S. enforcement of its own arms embargoes against 26 states and/or entities.

And how would a U.N. gun treaty keep weapons away from world terrorists when, as yet, U.N. members haven’t defined exactly what constitutes terrorism?

“The problem is not the absence of an arms trade treaty. It is the U.N. members that are supplying and buying arms, conniving with terrorists and killing people directly,” according to a Heritage Foundation analysis.

Iran and Venezuela both fit the bill. And China and Russia — which abstained on the U.N. resolution — are leading suppliers to the world’s worst regimes.

The U.S. should speak up, and loudly, against a U.N. arms-trade treaty that isn’t merely ineffective but is bound to backfire.

SOURCE

Persuasive speech?

September 15, 2009

“There is nothing in the world like a persuasive speech to fuddle the mental apparatus and upset the convictions and debauch the emotions of an audience not practiced in the tricks and delusions of oratory.” –American author and humorist Mark Twain (1835-1910)

Great oratory is a skill that many have perfected over the course of history. Both for good, and evil.

“Barack Obama will not stop committing serial dishonesty with the American people until the media expose his false figures and bogus exaggerations for what they are: fraudulent scare tactics. Last night Obama told a litany of lies. He said the total cost of his health reform would be $900 billion over ten years, but even the government-run Congressional Budget Office found it would cost $1.6 trillion. He claimed his reform would not cover illegal immigrants or abortions, but nothing in any of the Democrat bills requires citizen verification and several organizations including the National Right to Life Committee have shown exactly how federal funds would be used to pay for abortion-on-demand. He knows these are lies and he tells them because he is confident the left wing ‘news’ media will let him get away with it. Worst still, Obama used these lies to play on Americans greatest fears and vulnerabilities. He warned that more people would die unless we passed his sweeping plan and threatened that our country’s economic pulse would weaken with American businesses closing. And still, the media let him get away with it. This must stop. The media must expose Obama’s calculated scare tactics and lying on ‘reform.’ Failing to do so gives him a green light to lie and cry wolf about whatever he wants, whenever he wants. And it will aid in the most radical government takeover ever attempted in America.” –Media Research Center President Brent Bozell

“So why can’t the silver-tongued post-partisan healer seal the deal on this health care business? Surely it should be the work of moments for the greatest orator in American history to whip up a little medicinal Gettysburg, a touch of Henry V-in-the-Agincourt-casualty-tent, and put this thing away. Yet there he was the other night with the usual leaden medley of tinny grandiosity (all the this-is-the-moment, now-is-the-hour stuff), slippery reassurances (don’t worry, you won’t be ‘required’ to change your present health arrangements), imputations of bad faith to anyone who takes a different view (they’re playing ‘games’), and the copper-bottomed guarantee that you can have it all for no money down, no interest, no monthly payments, no nuthin’ (‘I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit’). This would barely have passed muster four months back. After a summer of seething town halls and sliding approval numbers, it was a joke. Or, rather, it would be a joke if the president’s intention was to persuade an increasingly skeptical, if not downright hostile, electorate. On the other hand, if the intention is to ram it down America’s throat whatever the citizenry thinks, then the joke’s on us.” –columnist Mark Steyn

SOURCE

More on obamacare: Questions from a wise man…

September 15, 2009

In various places around the Internet and in the Main Stream Media anyone that questions the impostor in chiefs plan to destroy health care in America as we know it are called anything but intelligent. What follows are questions presented from one of the brightest bulbs out there.

“One plain fact should outweigh all the words of Barack Obama and all the impressive trappings of the setting in which he says them: He tried to rush Congress into passing a massive government takeover of the nation’s medical care before the August recess — for a program that would not take effect until 2013! Whatever President Obama is, he is not stupid. If the urgency to pass the medical care legislation was to deal with a problem immediately, then why postpone the date when the legislation goes into effect for years — more specifically, until the year after the next Presidential election? If this is such an urgently needed program, why wait for years to put it into effect? And if the public is going to benefit from this, why not let them experience those benefits before the next Presidential election? If it is not urgent that the legislation goes into effect immediately, then why don’t we have time to go through the normal process of holding Congressional hearings on the pros and cons, accompanied by public discussions of its innumerable provisions? What sense does it make to ‘hurry up and wait’ on something that is literally a matter of life and death? If we do not believe that the President is stupid, then what do we believe? The only reasonable alternative seems to be that he wanted to get this massive government takeover of medical care passed into law before the public understood what was in it. Moreover, he wanted to get re-elected in 2012 before the public experienced what its actual consequences would be. Unfortunately, this way of doing things is all too typical of the way this administration has acted on a wide range of issues.” –economist Thomas Sowell

SOURCE

VOLUNTEERS NEEDED AT ROARING JUDY FISH HATCHERY

September 15, 2009

GUNNISON, Colo. — The Colorado Division of Wildlife is seeking volunteers to lead visitor tours at the Roaring Judy Fish Hatchery in Almont this fall.

Tour groups include elementary and high school students, and other visitors and tourists. Guided tours will be offered from Sept. 15 through Nov. 1. Tour schedules will vary and will be conducted on weekdays and weekends.

The Roaring Judy is one of the most interesting hatcheries in Colorado. Besides raising a variety of trout species, the Roaring Judy is also the primary hatchery for the production of the state’s kokanee salmon. Visitors who tour the hatchery will learn about Colorado fisheries management, aquaculture and how hatcheries operate.

The hatchery is located at 14131 North Highway 135 (five miles north of Almont on Colorado Highway 135).

For more information or to volunteer, contact Jim Ferraro at (970)641-0190.

###

For more information about Division of Wildlife go to: http://wildlife.state.co.us.

Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina

September 15, 2009

It is said that timing is everything. Mr. Wilson may have failed to properly lead the bird. However, the target was clear, and I might add appropriate.

A Pro-Gun Stalwart Comes Under Attack
— Please stand with Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina

Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Pl, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
http://www.goapvf.org

Monday, September 14, 2009

Even if you missed the President’s speech to the Congress on health care last week, you certainly have seen the news following the event.

Most notable was the fact that pro-gun congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina — rated “A” by GOA — decided to call out the President because of his… well, shall we say… his failure to communicate truthfully.

No matter what you think about the time and place Wilson chose to tell President Obama “You lie,” the facts are on Joe Wilson’s side.

The President lied repeatedly throughout his speech.  Even the Associated Press — hardly a bastion of conservatism — noted that the President failed to accurately articulate the truth in several instances.

Wilson’s opponent, however, is trying to use the national attention on Wilson to raise money for his campaign.  In fact, Wilson’s opponent says he raised over $1 million in the first 48 hours following the speech.

It’s up to the pro-gun community to respond in kind and help Wilson through this difficult time.  But first, who is Rep. Joe Wilson and what has he done for gun owners?

Not only has he consistently supported the Second Amendment with his votes, he has also cosponsored needed gun rights legislation.  This year, he has cosponsored two reciprocity bills in the House — including the GOA-supported HR 1620, which protects Vermont-style carry — plus a bill that removes certain restrictions on the interstate sale of firearms.

In previous years, Wilson was the chief sponsor of the Citizen’s Self-Defense Act, a bill that would protect individuals who successfully defend themselves or others from violent attack, only to find themselves in the clutches of anti-gun prosecutors.

And when a conference committee watered down GOA’s language to arm airline pilots following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Rep. Wilson stepped up to the plate.  He successfully pushed through legislation to allow all commercial pilots (not just passenger pilots) to carry guns.  Further, when TSA bureaucrats dragged their feet once armed pilots became the law of the land, Wilson authored yet another bill that streamlined the certification process.

Here’s the bottom line:  Joe Wilson couldn’t stand listening to the President dish out lie after lie.  He says his emotions got the best of him, and he yelled “You lie” in the midst of a presidential address.  He regrets the time and place he did it… but he is not sorry for what he said.

He was ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.  He did what millions of Americans — many people like you — would have loved to do.  How many of us would like the chance to tell the President, to his face, to stop lying?

It’s ironic.  The President stood there on national television and said his opponents were lying.  But when Joe Wilson countered that it was the President who was, in fact, lying… it was Wilson who came under attack from the liberal media.

That’s why we need to stand with Rep. Joe Wilson.  If we lose a pro-gun stalwart because of his willingness to call out the President on his lies, it will be a crying shame.

You can contribute to the Wilson campaign by going online at https://www.completecampaigns.com/public.asp?name=Wilson&page=2

Even if it is a contribution of solidarity — only $5 or $10 — it will be worth it.  But if you can afford more, please do so.

Wilson is in for a tough race because the left-wing, anti-gun movement smells blood and they will pour even more money into this race.

Representative Wilson deserves all the help we can give.  Let him know that gun owners are standing with him!

Tim Macy
Vice Chairman

SOURCE

Cass Sunstein: Liberal Nutcase in a position of power!

September 14, 2009

Something tells me that this elitist known as Cass Sunstein is going to become an ongoing theme here. Time will tell, but it sure looks that way. He stands for just about everything everyday Americans dislike, and he appears to hate the things that those same Americans love. Maybe I should add a new category? Czar Wars?

Sales of firearms in the United States have skyrocketed since November 4, 2008.   It’s no secret the election of Barrack Obama to the highest office in the free world caused grave concern among gun owners.

Liberals scoff at the notion that Obama would attempt to disarm the United States population.   However, this is the man who can be heard in an address to a group in San Francisco on a clandestine recording say, in reference to rural America, “…they cling to their guns and their religion.”

Perhaps Obama isn’t making any speeches about disrupting the lifestyle of rural America these days, but he’s certainly putting people in place to do it for him.    The number one candidate for that kind of hit work on sportsmen in the United States is Cass Sunstein.   Sunstein is a professor from Harvard University, who formerly worked with Obama at the University of Chicago.  He’s now tapped to become head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Sunstein’s nomination raises the hackles of sportsmen’s groups nationwide.    He’s widely known for a blatant disdain for the Second Amendment.   He’s even more passionate about animal rights, so much so, he advocates the rights of animals to be granted protected status in the nation’s courts.   More to the point, he believes animals should have the right to sue people.   He’s on the record in favor of an end to all hunting.

A few short years ago, people like Sunstein existed, but rarely were in positions of power.  They were people who took such amazingly over the top positions, but were generally regarded as freakish and weird.  Such is the danger of the Obama appointment.  If confirmed as “Regulatory Czar” to the White House, Sunstein would become the gatekeeper for White House policy for the Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, FBI, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.   A man who’s an avowed hater of hunting and guns would be writing the fine print in the Obama Administration’s policies for how those federal agencies would create rules and restrictions.

Wondering how that affects you?

The FBI and ATF are the key agencies who deal with albeit limited regulation of firearms ownership.  There is still the Second Amendment.  However, they conduct the instant background checks and make the decision on whether you are of legal status to buy a gun—or not.

Moreover, the oversight with Department of the Interior is vast.  The agency controls millions of acres of public lands now open for hunting.  How long it will last under such leadership is a mystery.   The National Park Service falls under Interior’s purview.  Already, the Obama Administration has moved toward removing all lead bullets and fishing tackle from Park Service property.   Presently regulation covers Park Service employees only, but there’s a clear desire by higher ups to extend such restrictions to public users.

Where does this end?    Coalitions of sportsmen and conservation groups have teamed to battle Sunstein’s confirmation in the Senate.  The US Sportsman’s Alliance and National Wild Turkey Federation are leading the charge and lobbying heavily on the Congressional Sportsman’s Caucus to close ranks and oppose the nomination.  Those two groups are backed by a host of other organizations who convinced one Senator, Republican Johnny Isackson of Georgia, to push for a “hold” on the nomination.

The Congressional Sportsman’s Caucus is a coalition of Congressional members, both Democrat and Republican, who align themselves in defense of issues threatening hunting, fishing, trapping, shooting, and other such activities.  Sadly, the CSC’s clout appears to be withering.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid staged a vote, over the objections of those constituency groups, to end debate of Sunstein’s nomination.    Twenty-two of the 63 Senators who voted in favor of cutting off debate were members of the Congressional Sportsman’s Caucus, including U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia.   Senator Robert Byrd is not a member of the CSC, but also voted in favor of ending debate and moving the nomination forward.

“We are disappointed with the outcome of tonight’s vote, especially that so many members of the Senate claiming to be pro-sportsman voted in favor of a nominee who has expressed that recreational hunting could be banned,” stated USSA President and CEO Bud Pidgeon through a press release.  “Nonetheless, the USSA and our partners had an obligation to fight this appointment. Sportsmen all across America will clearly be able to see which senators, along with Sen. Isakson, were willing to stand up for them.”

Sunstein doesn’t have the job yet, but this week’s vote was a strong indication he’s looking more and more likely to be the man wielding power over rules governing hunting, fishing, and firearms ownership in the near future.  If confirmed, he would answer only to his boss, President Obama and not to the millions of sportsmen and women across the United States.

Still wondering why the firearms industry has been thriving while the rest of nation’s industries have been stalled amid the recession?

source

update to the story; I believe that this whack job was in fact confirmed.

Justice Stevens and the NRA

September 14, 2009

When is half a glass is better than no glass? McCain Feingold was, and remains, a constitutional nightmare irrespective of how this case turns out. Read on…

During Wednesday’s extraordinary Supreme Court oral argument in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, some of the more remarkable moments came when Justice John Paul Stevens repeatedly referred, with approval, to a brief filed in the case by the National Rifle Association. Not a pairing you might expect, but Stevens saw in the brief a possible way to rule on the case narrowly, without totally upending major Court precedents on corporate and union spending in election campaigns.

The NRA brief, authored by Charles Cooper of Cooper & Kirk in D.C., joined the opponents of spending restrictions by agreeing with Citizens United that the precedents, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and a section of McConnell v. FEC, should be overturned. But Cooper also suggested a more limited alternative that caught Stevens’ eye: reversing those precedents only to the extent that they permit the government to restrict campaign spending by non-profit advocacy groups — like the NRA, he said — that use individual donations to fund political speech. That would have the effect of striking down the so-called Wellstone Amendment in the McCain-Feingold law, which included such non-profit groups in the ban on campaign spending. Cooper says the amendment was specifically aimed at keeping the NRA from using its treasury funds in campaigns, and sticks out like an “unconstitutional sore thumb.” By excising the Wellstone Amendment from the law, Cooper said, the Court would strike a blow for the First Amendment and allow “non-profit groups like the NRA, the Sierra Club, and the ACLU, to speak to their hearts’ content” during campaigns.

“I’m delighted that the points we made got Justice Stevens’ attention, or any other members of the Court,” said Cooper. Asked in jest if the NRA would welcome the liberal Stevens as a member, Cooper laughed and said, “With open arms, I am sure.”

Stevens first cited the NRA solution just as Citizens United’s lawyer Theodore Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher was ending his time at the podium. “No one has commented” on the NRA brief, Stevens said, but he was bringing it up in response to Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s suggestion earlier that “there are narrow ways of resolving the problem before us.” Stevens asked Olson if he would comment on the brief during his rebuttal, and after some back and forth, Olson said he would do so.

Next, Stevens raised the NRA brief in a question to Olson’s adversary Solicitor General Elena Kagan. In response, she allowed that Citizens United is “an atypical plaintiff” as an ideological non-profit corporation, but the discussion took another turn before she fully answered Stevens’ question. Stevens came back to it again, and ultimately Kagan acknowledged that striking down the Wellstone Amendment would be “certainly a narrower and I think better solution” than invalidating the entire statute that pertains to corporate and union spending.

When Olson rose again for his rebuttal, Stevens soon asked him again about the NRA brief. Earlier in the case Olson had shifted the case into high gear by explicitly asking the Court to overturn the Austin and McConnell precedents. The oral argument to that point had clearly put that goal within reach, so Olson was not, it appeared, settling for a half- or quarter-loaf.

“It would not solve the problem,” said Olson, adding that even without the Wellstone Amendment his client might still be covered by the law. To nail down the point, Stevens persisted: “You do not endorse the NRA’s position?” To which Olson replied, “No we don’t.”

In an interview Cooper stressed that his preference, like Olson’s, would be to overturn Austin and McConnell broadly. “That’s an argument we have made robustly,” Cooper said. But the narrower solution, he said, would serve his client’s interest, as well as that of other non-profit advocacy groups, without disturbing the restrictions on the main target of campaign legislation: business corporations. “With a group like ours, our purpose is advocacy,” said Cooper. “It’s not the cash register, it’s the ballot box.” The First Amendment, he said, should not stifle such speech.

Footnote: Cooper did not attend the argument Wednesday. He was in California at the time, working with his clients, supporters of Proposition 8 which overturned a California Supreme Court ruling that would have allowed same-sex marriage. One of his adversaries in the litigation over the proposition: Ted Olson.

SOURCE

DOW TO OFFER HUNTING MARKSMANSHIP CLASS SEPT. 26-27

September 14, 2009

If you are new to hunting a course like this can save you years of frustration. Hat tip to the Colorado Division of Wildlife!

MONTE VISTA, Colo.–The Colorado Division of Wildlife will host a Hunting Marksmanship Class in Monte Vista on Sept.  26-27. The class will take place at the Division of Wildlife Monte Vista Service Center, 0722 South Road 1 East.

The purpose of the class is to teach adult big game hunters how to refine and apply their basic marksmanship skills to become better hunters.  Topics include proper zeroing and marksmanship techniques, range estimation, shot placement and equipment.  This class will include a shooting session at the Rio Grande Sportsman’s Range.  Hunters of all skill levels are welcome to attend.

Participants must bring their own centerfire rifle (preferably the rifle used to hunt big game) and ammunition with a minimum of 30 to 40 rounds. This class will be limited to 20 participants and filled on a first-come, first-served basis.

There will be three sessions: morning classroom on the 26th for all participants, a range session during the afternoon of the 26th for half of the class, and a range session on the morning of the 27th for the remaining participants.

To register, please call the DOW Monte Vista Service Center at (719) 587-6900.

For more information about Division of Wildlife go to: http://wildlife.state.co.us.

UNCOMPAHGRE PLATEAU MOUNTAIN LION RESEARCH AREA MEETINGS

September 14, 2009

In addition to this there is a very good course at the DOW about Mountain Lions. See link at the end;

MONTROSE, Colo.– The Colorado Division of Wildlife will be holding meetings to discuss the upcoming lion hunting season in the research area on the south end of the Uncompahgre Plateau in portions of Game Management Units (GMUs) 61, 62, and 70.

Discussion will include quotas, season dates, a permit system for the research area and how hunters can participate in the research effort.  As time allows, biologists will discuss lion management outside of the research area.

The meetings are aimed at mountain lion hunters.  General lion information will not be discussed.  Mountain lion hunters are invited to ask questions and discuss issues with DOW staff.

The first meeting will be at 7 p.m., Sept. 16 at the Delta Montrose Electric Association building in Montrose, 11925 6300 Rd.  The second meeting will be at 7 p.m., Sept. 17 at the Redvale Community Center in Redvale.

For more information, especially if you cannot attend the meeting, contact Brad Banulis or Ken Logan at the Montrose DOW office at (970)252-6000.

For more information about Division of Wildlife go to: http://wildlife.state.co.us.

Clearing up a misconception

September 14, 2009

Quote of the Day: “There are some bills we don’t need to read, we already know how we’re going to vote.” – Rep. Henry Brown

Does DownsizeDC.org agree or disagree with this statement? The answer may surprise you . . .

Subject: Clearing up a misconception about the Read the Bills Act

The partisans on both sides are using “reading the bill” as a sign of moral superiority. They’re jabbing each other over who’s read the healthcare bill more carefully, as the Joe Wilson controversy indicates.

As originators of the Read the Bills meme, we consider this a sign of progress. It means that public pressure in support of our idea is both working and growing. Now, if only the Democrats and Republicans in Congress would stop using our idea to grandstand, and would instead pass DownsizeDC.org’s Read the Bills Act (RTBA)!

But the debate over which side has read the healthcare bill more carefully raises a question: should members of Congress who intend to vote AGAINST a bill still be required to read every word of it?

We think it would be helpful for them to do so, especially when it comes to debating why the bill should be defeated, but we don’t think those who intend to vote NO on a bill should be required to read it.

No one needs to justify opposing a bill that will invade your life, your liberty, or your property. Opponents don’t have to prove they know every clause and subsection.

One bad clause may be sufficient to put down the bill and go vote against it.

The onus is always on those who support a bill to justify it.

This gives us an opportunity to clear up a common misconception among members of Congress . . .

Several of them think that DownsizeDC.org’s RTBA would require all members to read every word of every bill that comes to a vote. It doesn’t. It only requires those who vote in favor of a bill to have signed an affadavit affirming they have read the bill, or heard it read.

Those who oppose a bill because they think its key points are bad, aren’t asked to sweat the details.

The RTBA’s purpose is to force a bill’s supporters to have a basic knowledge of what it is they’re passing. This basic knowledge can only come from reading the bill. This simple requirement would . . .

* Prevent politicians from blithely supporting bills just because they sound like they have good intentions
* Require politicians to take responsibility for their vote — they could no longer hide behind the excuse that they “didn’t know that was in the bill”
* Make politicians more concerned to make sure that a nice-sounding bill won’t have unintended consequences

We therefore agree with the Quote of the Day above — at least in one sense. If Representative Brown already knows he’s going to oppose a bill, the RTBA won’t require him to read it. But he, and all members of Congress, must read every bill they intend to support.

Use our Educate the Powerful System to tell your Congressional employees to pass DownsizeDC.org’s Read the Bills Act.

Use your personal comments to tell them that, contrary to their possible misconception, the RTBA only requires them to read bills they support, not bills they oppose. Also remind them that if they pass the healthcare bill without reading it first, they will pay a steep political price.

You can send your letter to Congress here.

Thank-you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army. To see how fast your Army is growing, please check out the Keeping Score report below my signature.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

KEEPING SCORE REPORT

Your Downsize DC Army grew by 22 net new members since our last report. This brings our total growth for the year to 3,802. The Downsize DC Army now stands at 28,148, nearly 15% of the way between 28,000 and 29,000.

YOU can make the army KEEP GROWING by following our quick and easy instructions for personalized recruiting.

SOURCE