HERE YOU ARE FOLKS, WHAT YOU KNEW WAS COMING FROM THIS COMMUNIST BARACK OBAMA,
Subject: The Gun Ban list is out. Here it is....
Folks, here it is and it is bad news. The framework for legislation is already laid, and the Democrats have the votes to pass anything they want to impose upon us. They really do not believe you need anything more than a brick to defend your home and family. Look at the list and see how many you own. Remember, it is registration, then confiscation. It has happened in the UK, in Australia, in Europe, in China, and what they have found is that for some reason the criminals do not turn in their weapons, but will know that you did. Please send this to everyone you can. It will come up for a vote, and it might even be a secret vote if Madame Pelosi has her way, and then it will be a done deal.
=============================================================================
Remember, The first step in establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the citizens
I don't know which of you are gun owners (I am) but take a look.
Subject: Gun Law Update by Alan Korwin, Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list. Forward or send to every gun owner you know....
Gun Law Update by Alan Korwin,
Author Gun Laws of America
Gun-ban list proposed.
Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats
have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when
they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress)
It serves as a framework for the new list the Brady's plan to introduce shortly.
I have an outline of the Brady's current plans and targets of opportunity,
It's horrific. They're going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms
dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. They've
made little mention of criminals.
Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun
bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process,
confiscated property, states' rights, free speech, right to assemble and
more, in addition to the Second Amendment.
The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):
Rifles (or copies or duplicates):
M1 Carbine, Sturm Ruger Mini-14, AR-15, Bushmaster XM15,
Armalite M15, AR-10, Thompson 1927, Thompson M1; AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47,
AK-74, ARM, MAK90, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR; Olympic Arms PCR;
AR70, Calico Liberty, Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU, Fabrique
National FN/FAL, FN/LAR,or FNC, Hi-Point20Carbine, HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, HK-PSG-1,
Thompson 1927 Commando, Kel-Tec Sub Rifle; Saiga, SAR-8, SAR-4800, SKS with detachable magazine, SLG 95, SLR 95 or 96, Steyr AU, Tavor, Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or
Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).
Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
Calico M-110, MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3, Olympic Arms OA,
TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10, Uzi.
Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
Armscor 30 BG, SPAS 12 or LAW 12, Striker 12, Streetsweeper.
Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see below),
(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.
Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can
accept more than 10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rimfire rifles).
A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine,
and has:
(i) a second pistol grip,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a barrel shroud or
(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and
(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
A semiautomatic shotgun with:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5
rounds, and
(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.
Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will:
Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any "semiautomaticrifle or
shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based
on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes,
as determined by the Attorney General."
Note that Obama's pick for this office (Eric Holder, confirmation hearing set for Jan. 15)
wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a
working firearm in your own home.
In making this determination, the bill says, "there shall be a rebuttable presumption that
a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any federal law enforcement agency
is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be
particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a
sporting event."
In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military
is not suitable for the public.
The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn't have a sporting purpose just because
it can be used for sporting purpose -- is that devious or what? And of course, "sporting purpose" is a
rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent.
Respectfully submitted,
Alan Korwin,
Author Gun Laws of America
http://www.gunlaws.com/gloa.htm
Forward or send to every gun owner you know....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Windows Live™: Life without walls. Check it out.
Friday, March 6, 2009
'Pay to Play:' Billions Wasted in Earmarks
Washington's 'Pay to Play:' Billions Wasted in Earmarks
Wednesday, March 4, 2009 7:41 PM
By: David A. Patten Article Font Size
The $410 billion spending bill that President Obama expected to sail through Congress is now coming under intense fire for thousands of earmarks that even some senators admit look like pay-to-play politics.
On Monday, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., told fellow senators the “outright greed” and the political motivation behind many earmarks made him “want to vomit.”
When it appeared Coburn might be blocked from offering earmark-curtailing amendments to the omnibus spending bill, he complained: “We’re not supposed to take out things that are obviously quid pro quo in terms of earmarks and campaign contributions.”
Author and Wall Street Journal commentator John Fund, who has written extensively on earmarks and the corrupting influence of money on politics, tells Newsmax that many of the omnibus earmarks are just more subtle versions of the “pay to play” politics for which Illinois has become infamous.
“D.C. earmarks often have same origins and purpose as Chicago ‘sweeteners,’” Fund tells Newsmax, “but they are more elegantly packaged and more cleverly hidden.”
Ronald Utt, senior policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation, also views earmarks as close relatives of the more blatant political transactions that have drawn the attention of federal investigators.
“I think it’s very close,” Utt tells Newsmax. “These things are bought and sold like bushels of wheat and bales of cotton.”
Of course, some earmark requests are intended to address what appear to be valid needs. But earmarks both past and present appear to be growing more controversial by the minute as more details emerge:
In the House version of the spending bill, Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., sponsored $19 million in earmarks for 22 groups and projects. One of them involved $238,000 for the Sephardic Addiction and Family Education (SAFE) foundation – money to help families struggling with addictive behaviors. What has attracted attention is that the organization’s board of directors have contributed more than $160,000 to Weiner’s various campaigns, according to the New York Daily News. “It smacks of pay to play,” says Steve Ellis with Taxpayers for Common Sense. According to the New York Daily News, Weiner also sponsored a $300,000 earmark for Brooklyn’s Ohel Children’s Home and Family Services, whose director, David Mandel, personally contributed $6,240 to Weiner’s political endeavors. Mandel tells the Daily News the contributions were “certainly not” a factor in winning the earmark. New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg has defended Weiner, saying earmarks are “probably just a fact of life” for congressmen, the newspaper reports.
GOP Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, who recently declined an opportunity to become President Obama’s Commerce Secretary, has in recent years channeled some $66 million in earmarks to transform the former Pease Air Force Base in Portsmouth, N.H., into a business park. The Associated Press reports that while Gregg was sponsoring the earmarks, he also was an investor in the park, having poured between $465,004 and $1,050,000 of his own money into several real estate ventures there involving his brother, Cyrus Gregg. Sen. Gregg says his investments, which were made public in his personal financial disclosure report, do not violate Senate guidelines. "These earmarks do not benefit me in any way, shape, manner financially, personally or in any other manner other than the fact that I'm a citizen of New Hampshire," Gregg told the AP. The AP reports Gregg has collected at least $240,017 from his investments. It adds that Gregg leases a former Pease guard post to serve as one of his Senate offices.
According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, some $30 million of earmarks in the Senate version of the omnibus bill are sponsored by senators who no longer work there. One $3 million “non-earmark” – so called because it is not identified as such in the 1,000-page bill – appears to reflect the legacy of former congressman Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired the 9/11 Commission. Hamilton hasn’t served in Congress since 1999, and RollCall.com reports the earmark dates back to at least 2002. The $3 million is designated for the University of Indiana and its Center for Congress, which aims to enhance public understanding of how the Congress works. According to RollCall.com, Hamilton is a director of the Center, which he helped create. But because it’s not identified as an earmark, no one has to attach their name to the expenditure – in other words, no one knows who requested the $3 million, which has apparently been made each year since 2002.
Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., is a University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa graduate who regularly rewards his alma mater with millions of dollars of earmarks for research, including the study of shrimp and catfish. Among the earmarks Shelby sponsored or co-sponsored in the current bill: $819,000 for study of the catfish genome, and $800,000 for oyster rehabilitation.
Sen. Coburn has targeted 39 earmarks in the omnibus bill that would benefit clients of PMA Group, the lobbying firm whose offices were raided by the FBI in November for suspicion of improper campaign contributions. According to OpenSecrets.org, PMA and its clients donated a stunning $7.8 million to the campaigns of congressmen who sit on the defense appropriations committees. ABCNews.com reports PMA won its clients “hundreds of millions” in earmarks. According to RollCall.com, omnibus earmarks for current PMA clients include $950,000 that was sponsored by Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, for a company named Alpha Micron to develop an “advanced window technology; another $950,000 requested by Rep. Peter Visclosky, D-Ind., for research by a firm named NuVant Systems into methanol fuel cells; plus several earmarks requested by Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. Sen. John McCain has stated Congress should not approve earmarks for PMA clients while the activities of PMA are under federal investigation.
The Obama administration has sought to portray the omnibus spending bill as “last year’s business,” and has warned Congress that it will be drafting tougher guidelines for earmarks in future legislation. During the campaign, Obama promised he would go “line by line” through legislation to take out wasteful spending, but he has also stated he intends to sign the spending bill regardless of earmarks, assuming it is approved by the Senate.
The suspicion that some congressmen may be putting their political interests above public welfare amidst a severe economic downturn has even Obama’s supporters running short on patience, however. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote Wednesday in the New York Times that, “In one of his disturbing spells of passivity, President Obama decided not to fight Congress and live up to his own no-earmark pledge from the campaign.”
Wednesday, March 4, 2009 7:41 PM
By: David A. Patten Article Font Size
The $410 billion spending bill that President Obama expected to sail through Congress is now coming under intense fire for thousands of earmarks that even some senators admit look like pay-to-play politics.
On Monday, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., told fellow senators the “outright greed” and the political motivation behind many earmarks made him “want to vomit.”
When it appeared Coburn might be blocked from offering earmark-curtailing amendments to the omnibus spending bill, he complained: “We’re not supposed to take out things that are obviously quid pro quo in terms of earmarks and campaign contributions.”
Author and Wall Street Journal commentator John Fund, who has written extensively on earmarks and the corrupting influence of money on politics, tells Newsmax that many of the omnibus earmarks are just more subtle versions of the “pay to play” politics for which Illinois has become infamous.
“D.C. earmarks often have same origins and purpose as Chicago ‘sweeteners,’” Fund tells Newsmax, “but they are more elegantly packaged and more cleverly hidden.”
Ronald Utt, senior policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation, also views earmarks as close relatives of the more blatant political transactions that have drawn the attention of federal investigators.
“I think it’s very close,” Utt tells Newsmax. “These things are bought and sold like bushels of wheat and bales of cotton.”
Of course, some earmark requests are intended to address what appear to be valid needs. But earmarks both past and present appear to be growing more controversial by the minute as more details emerge:
In the House version of the spending bill, Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., sponsored $19 million in earmarks for 22 groups and projects. One of them involved $238,000 for the Sephardic Addiction and Family Education (SAFE) foundation – money to help families struggling with addictive behaviors. What has attracted attention is that the organization’s board of directors have contributed more than $160,000 to Weiner’s various campaigns, according to the New York Daily News. “It smacks of pay to play,” says Steve Ellis with Taxpayers for Common Sense. According to the New York Daily News, Weiner also sponsored a $300,000 earmark for Brooklyn’s Ohel Children’s Home and Family Services, whose director, David Mandel, personally contributed $6,240 to Weiner’s political endeavors. Mandel tells the Daily News the contributions were “certainly not” a factor in winning the earmark. New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg has defended Weiner, saying earmarks are “probably just a fact of life” for congressmen, the newspaper reports.
GOP Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, who recently declined an opportunity to become President Obama’s Commerce Secretary, has in recent years channeled some $66 million in earmarks to transform the former Pease Air Force Base in Portsmouth, N.H., into a business park. The Associated Press reports that while Gregg was sponsoring the earmarks, he also was an investor in the park, having poured between $465,004 and $1,050,000 of his own money into several real estate ventures there involving his brother, Cyrus Gregg. Sen. Gregg says his investments, which were made public in his personal financial disclosure report, do not violate Senate guidelines. "These earmarks do not benefit me in any way, shape, manner financially, personally or in any other manner other than the fact that I'm a citizen of New Hampshire," Gregg told the AP. The AP reports Gregg has collected at least $240,017 from his investments. It adds that Gregg leases a former Pease guard post to serve as one of his Senate offices.
According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, some $30 million of earmarks in the Senate version of the omnibus bill are sponsored by senators who no longer work there. One $3 million “non-earmark” – so called because it is not identified as such in the 1,000-page bill – appears to reflect the legacy of former congressman Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired the 9/11 Commission. Hamilton hasn’t served in Congress since 1999, and RollCall.com reports the earmark dates back to at least 2002. The $3 million is designated for the University of Indiana and its Center for Congress, which aims to enhance public understanding of how the Congress works. According to RollCall.com, Hamilton is a director of the Center, which he helped create. But because it’s not identified as an earmark, no one has to attach their name to the expenditure – in other words, no one knows who requested the $3 million, which has apparently been made each year since 2002.
Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., is a University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa graduate who regularly rewards his alma mater with millions of dollars of earmarks for research, including the study of shrimp and catfish. Among the earmarks Shelby sponsored or co-sponsored in the current bill: $819,000 for study of the catfish genome, and $800,000 for oyster rehabilitation.
Sen. Coburn has targeted 39 earmarks in the omnibus bill that would benefit clients of PMA Group, the lobbying firm whose offices were raided by the FBI in November for suspicion of improper campaign contributions. According to OpenSecrets.org, PMA and its clients donated a stunning $7.8 million to the campaigns of congressmen who sit on the defense appropriations committees. ABCNews.com reports PMA won its clients “hundreds of millions” in earmarks. According to RollCall.com, omnibus earmarks for current PMA clients include $950,000 that was sponsored by Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, for a company named Alpha Micron to develop an “advanced window technology; another $950,000 requested by Rep. Peter Visclosky, D-Ind., for research by a firm named NuVant Systems into methanol fuel cells; plus several earmarks requested by Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. Sen. John McCain has stated Congress should not approve earmarks for PMA clients while the activities of PMA are under federal investigation.
The Obama administration has sought to portray the omnibus spending bill as “last year’s business,” and has warned Congress that it will be drafting tougher guidelines for earmarks in future legislation. During the campaign, Obama promised he would go “line by line” through legislation to take out wasteful spending, but he has also stated he intends to sign the spending bill regardless of earmarks, assuming it is approved by the Senate.
The suspicion that some congressmen may be putting their political interests above public welfare amidst a severe economic downturn has even Obama’s supporters running short on patience, however. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote Wednesday in the New York Times that, “In one of his disturbing spells of passivity, President Obama decided not to fight Congress and live up to his own no-earmark pledge from the campaign.”
WHAT OTHER TRUTHS ARE KEPT FROM US??
WHAT OTHER TRUTHS ARE KEPT FROM US??
The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April ('08) that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since '95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota; western South Dakota; and extreme eastern Montana ...... check THIS out:
The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay, and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels.. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion.
'When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.' says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.
'This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years.' reports, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston Basin, but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' And it stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada. For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves.... and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!
That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 41 years straight.
2. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from TWO YEARS AGO!
U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World!
Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006
Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?
They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:
- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
- 18-times as much oil as Iraq
- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
- 22-times as much oil as Iran
- 500-times as much oil as Yemen
- and it's all right here in the Western United States ..
HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy....WHY?
James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.
Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find? Think again! It's all about the competitive marketplace, - it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?
Got your attention/ire up yet? Hope so! Now, while you're thinking about it .... and hopefully P.O'd, do this:
3. Pass this along. If you don't take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you want to complain about gas prices .. because by doing NOTHING, you've forfeited your right to complain.
--------
Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this to every one in your address book.
By the way...this is all true. Check it out at the link below!!!
GOOGLE it or follow this link. It will blow your mind
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April ('08) that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since '95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota; western South Dakota; and extreme eastern Montana ...... check THIS out:
The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay, and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels.. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion.
'When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.' says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.
'This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years.' reports, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston Basin, but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' And it stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada. For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves.... and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!
That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 41 years straight.
2. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from TWO YEARS AGO!
U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World!
Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006
Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?
They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:
- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
- 18-times as much oil as Iraq
- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
- 22-times as much oil as Iran
- 500-times as much oil as Yemen
- and it's all right here in the Western United States ..
HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy....WHY?
James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.
Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find? Think again! It's all about the competitive marketplace, - it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?
Got your attention/ire up yet? Hope so! Now, while you're thinking about it .... and hopefully P.O'd, do this:
3. Pass this along. If you don't take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you want to complain about gas prices .. because by doing NOTHING, you've forfeited your right to complain.
--------
Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this to every one in your address book.
By the way...this is all true. Check it out at the link below!!!
GOOGLE it or follow this link. It will blow your mind
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Who's Thomas Saenz?
WHEN YOU FINISH READING THIS ARTICLE I HOPE YOU WILL DO ME A FAVOR AND TELL ME HOW THE HELL WE CAN SUCCESSFULLY FIGHT THIS ASSULT ON THE IMMIGRATION PROCESS, THE LAW OF THE LAND (OURS NOT MEXICOS). WE HAVE ENTRUSTED AN IDIOT, COMMUNIST, DEMOCRAT SOB, WHO IS IN THE PROCESS OF HANDING OUR COUNTRY TO THE SOCIALIST LIKE GEORGE SOROS. I HOPE YOU PROPONENTS OF BARACK H. OBAMA ARE HAPPY. I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARIN FROM YOU. DAVE ANDERSON OAD@ALASKA.NET.
Who's Thomas Saenz?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, March 05, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Civil Rights: The open-borders crowd eagerly awaits the nomination of one of its own to a key Justice Department post, a man who has dedicated his life to promoting illegal immigrant "rights."
President Obama is expected to appoint Thomas Saenz as the nation's top civil-rights enforcer. It's a key appointment because Obama has promised to "reinvigorate" the division Saenz will lead. And the Civil Rights Division carries a wide-ranging portfolio, covering everything from hate crimes and police misconduct to voting rights and redistricting laws.
All this power will likely be turned over to Saenz, who was a top lawyer for a radical Hispanic group that wants to cede California to Mexico. Saenz is credited with killing Proposition 187 in California against the wishes of 60% of voters. That law would have denied welfare to illegals.
At the time, Saenz was vice president of litigation for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF, whose co-founder has exulted: "California is going to be a Mexican state, we are going to control all the institutions. If people don't like it, they should leave."
Saenz has also sued California cities to establish "hiring halls" for illegal day laborers so that they can have a place to urinate. In fact, protecting day laborers against "anti-immigrant" sweeps is one of his top priorities.
He has agitated for "a federal court decision which would settle (the issue) for all time," and now he may have his way. Loitering illegals may soon have total freedom to harass store customers and drink and relieve themselves in public.
He would also crack down on local law enforcement officials who help ICE deport illegals. When the LAPD tried such collaboration, Saenz demanded "punishing all wrongdoers."
In fact, the way Saenz sees it, no illegal alien should be rounded up.
"Currently in California, thousands and thousands of people live in fear because of widespread Border Patrol sweeps," he said. "It is critical that comprehensive immigration reform includes nondiscrimination against people on the basis of immigration status."
By reform he means amnesty. "At a certain point," he said, referring to the 20 million illegals in the U.S., "people have earned a right to stay here with their families."
In addition to amnesty, he wants to give them full access to government benefits, including Social Security. "We treat undocumented immigrants as a separate class from which we take and do not give," he complained.
Obama ran on a promise of uniting all Americans, not those who broke into the country illegally, and his selection of Saenz couldn't be more divisive.
And now, with Mexican drug-gang violence spilling across our borders, this certainly is no time to put an open-borders extremist in charge of policing police.
Email To Friend
Who's Thomas Saenz?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, March 05, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Civil Rights: The open-borders crowd eagerly awaits the nomination of one of its own to a key Justice Department post, a man who has dedicated his life to promoting illegal immigrant "rights."
President Obama is expected to appoint Thomas Saenz as the nation's top civil-rights enforcer. It's a key appointment because Obama has promised to "reinvigorate" the division Saenz will lead. And the Civil Rights Division carries a wide-ranging portfolio, covering everything from hate crimes and police misconduct to voting rights and redistricting laws.
All this power will likely be turned over to Saenz, who was a top lawyer for a radical Hispanic group that wants to cede California to Mexico. Saenz is credited with killing Proposition 187 in California against the wishes of 60% of voters. That law would have denied welfare to illegals.
At the time, Saenz was vice president of litigation for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF, whose co-founder has exulted: "California is going to be a Mexican state, we are going to control all the institutions. If people don't like it, they should leave."
Saenz has also sued California cities to establish "hiring halls" for illegal day laborers so that they can have a place to urinate. In fact, protecting day laborers against "anti-immigrant" sweeps is one of his top priorities.
He has agitated for "a federal court decision which would settle (the issue) for all time," and now he may have his way. Loitering illegals may soon have total freedom to harass store customers and drink and relieve themselves in public.
He would also crack down on local law enforcement officials who help ICE deport illegals. When the LAPD tried such collaboration, Saenz demanded "punishing all wrongdoers."
In fact, the way Saenz sees it, no illegal alien should be rounded up.
"Currently in California, thousands and thousands of people live in fear because of widespread Border Patrol sweeps," he said. "It is critical that comprehensive immigration reform includes nondiscrimination against people on the basis of immigration status."
By reform he means amnesty. "At a certain point," he said, referring to the 20 million illegals in the U.S., "people have earned a right to stay here with their families."
In addition to amnesty, he wants to give them full access to government benefits, including Social Security. "We treat undocumented immigrants as a separate class from which we take and do not give," he complained.
Obama ran on a promise of uniting all Americans, not those who broke into the country illegally, and his selection of Saenz couldn't be more divisive.
And now, with Mexican drug-gang violence spilling across our borders, this certainly is no time to put an open-borders extremist in charge of policing police.
Email To Friend
ISLAM: AMERICAN IS AT FAULT
The article below reports that a brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard was arrested on terrorist-related charges after being fingered by an informant. How the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood (The Muslim Public Affairs Council, MPAC) and CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) reacted is a perfect illustration of “properly understanding the times,” as discussed in our Monday and Tuesday emails this week.
Did the MPAC and CAIR denounce the alleged activities of the man who was arrested? Of course not. Following their predictably worn-out script, these two organizations attacked the FBI and law enforcement authorities for “violating the trust” of Muslims by working with an informant who infiltrated a mosque. Here’s one sentence from MPAC’s response:
“Federal law enforcement cannot establish trust with American Muslim communities through meetings and townhall forums, while at the same time sending paid informants who instigate violent rhetoric in mosques.”
Notice the insinuation, that the man arrested was “instigated” by a paid federal informant. The man arrested isn’t responsible — the “devil made him do it!” This is the same kind of response organizations like MPAC and CAIR make whenever a Muslim is arrested or suspected of terrorist-related activities. They attack law enforcement, or politicians, or groups and people they call “Islamophobic.” They play the “offended victim” card, complaining that the latest action violates “trust” between Muslims and law enforcement.
This is the same script Islamic militants and leaders have followed for years in Europe and Great Britain.
Here’s what violates trust — Islamic organizations and spokespeople who refuse to acknowledge that there a lot of people in their community of faith who want to hurt America, kill Americans, and impose shariah law on America.
Here’s what violates trust — Islamic organizations and spokespeople who claim perpetual victim status for Islamic radicals, and who claim that Americans are the aggressors, when in fact it is the radicals who are the aggressors and Americans are the victims.
We don’t see FBI informants and undercover criminal investigations inside churches and synagogues, and there’s an obvious reason why. If MPAC and CAIR are genuinely and sincerely concerned about “trust,” they would do well to stop attacking Americans and law enforcement and start denouncing the real violators of our trust – the radical Muslims in our midst who intend us harm.
But don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen. And that gives us an advantage – because we can predict with a high degree of accuracy what the Islamists will do next. Their “script” isn’t hard to read. We just have to expose them and refuse to play the role they’re trying to foist on us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, 3 March 2009
U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Reacts to California Mosque Infiltration
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/19815
From the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report:
The U.S. Muslim Brotherhood is reacting to the arrest of a brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard on charges of lying about his ties to terrorist groups on his citizenship and passport applications. An AP report describes the case as follows:
In the California case, information about the informant who spied on the Islamic Center of Irvine came out last week at a detention hearing for a brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard, an Afghan native and naturalized U.S. citizen named Ahmadullah Niazi. Niazi, 34, was arrested Feb. 20 on charges of lying about his ties to terrorist groups on his citizenship and passport applications. He will be arraigned Monday in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana. FBI Special Agent Thomas J. Ropel III testified at the hearing that an FBI informant infiltrated Niazi’s mosque and several others in Orange County and befriended Niazi. Ropel said the informant recorded Niazi on multiple occasions talking about blowing up buildings, acquiring weapons and sending money to the Afghan mujahadeen. Niazi has not been charged with terrorism and it’s not yet clear if the FBI was focused on anything beyond his activities. Neither the mosque nor any other of its members have been charged. A 46-year-old fitness instructor told The Associated Press last week he was the informant. Craig Monteilh of Irvine said Niazi talked about blowing up buildings and discussed sending Monteilh to a terrorist training camp in Yemen or Pakistan. Monteilh said his tenure as an informant ended after Niazi and other members of the Islamic Center of Irvine reported him to authorities. A Muslim advocacy group has demanded a federal investigation into whether Niazi was arrested because he refused to become an FBI informant after telling the agency about Monteilh.
The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) has reacted by stating that the use of informants in mosques “stigmatizes” the mosques and erodes trust. According an article on the MPAC website:
Trust is the cornerstone of any partnership between law enforcement and communities. It can only be established and maintained through clear and open communication. Without this, trust is eroded and suspicions arise on all sides. This clearly does not serve anyone’s interests.Federal law enforcement cannot establish trust with American Muslim communities through meetings and townhall forums, while at the same time sending paid informants who instigate violent rhetoric in mosques. This mere act stigmatizes American mosques and casts a shadow of doubt and distrust between American Muslims and their neighbors. It has also led many mosques and community groups to reconsider their relationship with the FBI, including most recently the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California. It is now up to the FBI and law enforcement agencies to re-engage with the Muslim American community, and re-build trust and respect. MPAC will continue to raise these community concerns with federal law enforcement officials in its efforts to help form policies that preserve civil liberties while also protecting our nation.
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) announced that is planning to file a request for the U.S. Attorney General to launch an investigation into the FBI’s arrest:
On Tuesday, February 24, the Greater Los Angeles Area chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-LA) will host a news conference to announce the filing of a request for the U.S. Attorney General to launch an investigation into the FBI’s arrest last week of Ahmad Niazi. The news conference will immediately follow a court hearing Tuesday for Niazi in Santa Ana, Calif. Members of his family will take part in the news conference. Mr. Niazi is charged with perjury, naturalization fraud, misuse of a passport obtained by fraud, and making a false statement to a federal agency. He claims the charges are in retaliation for his refusal to become an FBI informant. Mr. Niazi previously reported to CAIR-LA and other community members that, during a raid of a friend’s house, an FBI agent urged Mr. Niazi to work with the agency, saying that if he refused to cooperate his life would be made a “living hell.”
MPAC was established in the mid 1980’s by individuals whose backgrounds are likely rooted in the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and since its inception has acted in concert with the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. The organization, like other U.S. Brotherhood organizations, has a long history of fundamentalism, anti-Semitism, and support for terrorism. The organization has long enjoyed generally good relations with the U.S. government and functions essentially as the political lobbying arm of the U.S. Brotherhood.
Documents released in the Holy Land Trial have revealed that the founders and current leaders of CAIR were part of the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood as well as identifying the organization itself as being part of the U.S. Brotherhood. Investigative research posted on GMBDR had determined that CAIR had it origins in the U.S. Hamas infrastructure and is an integral part of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood with a long history of support for fundamentalism, anti-Semitism, and terrorism. Numerous earlier posts have reported on the relationship between the FBI and CAIR which appears to have been terminated by the FBI.
Both organizations have long histories of opposing almost all elements of U.S. counterterrorism strategy. CAIR in particular has defended numerous individuals accused and/or convicted of terrorism offenses and a number of CAIR employees have also been convicted of terrorism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591
www.actforamerica.org
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
Do not respond to this e-mail for any reason. To discontinue your membership automatically please, follow the link below. You are registered to receive email as Dave Anderson at the following e-mail address: OAD@ALASKA.NET. You must use the correct e-mail address to discontinue your membership.
Did the MPAC and CAIR denounce the alleged activities of the man who was arrested? Of course not. Following their predictably worn-out script, these two organizations attacked the FBI and law enforcement authorities for “violating the trust” of Muslims by working with an informant who infiltrated a mosque. Here’s one sentence from MPAC’s response:
“Federal law enforcement cannot establish trust with American Muslim communities through meetings and townhall forums, while at the same time sending paid informants who instigate violent rhetoric in mosques.”
Notice the insinuation, that the man arrested was “instigated” by a paid federal informant. The man arrested isn’t responsible — the “devil made him do it!” This is the same kind of response organizations like MPAC and CAIR make whenever a Muslim is arrested or suspected of terrorist-related activities. They attack law enforcement, or politicians, or groups and people they call “Islamophobic.” They play the “offended victim” card, complaining that the latest action violates “trust” between Muslims and law enforcement.
This is the same script Islamic militants and leaders have followed for years in Europe and Great Britain.
Here’s what violates trust — Islamic organizations and spokespeople who refuse to acknowledge that there a lot of people in their community of faith who want to hurt America, kill Americans, and impose shariah law on America.
Here’s what violates trust — Islamic organizations and spokespeople who claim perpetual victim status for Islamic radicals, and who claim that Americans are the aggressors, when in fact it is the radicals who are the aggressors and Americans are the victims.
We don’t see FBI informants and undercover criminal investigations inside churches and synagogues, and there’s an obvious reason why. If MPAC and CAIR are genuinely and sincerely concerned about “trust,” they would do well to stop attacking Americans and law enforcement and start denouncing the real violators of our trust – the radical Muslims in our midst who intend us harm.
But don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen. And that gives us an advantage – because we can predict with a high degree of accuracy what the Islamists will do next. Their “script” isn’t hard to read. We just have to expose them and refuse to play the role they’re trying to foist on us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, 3 March 2009
U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Reacts to California Mosque Infiltration
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/19815
From the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report:
The U.S. Muslim Brotherhood is reacting to the arrest of a brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard on charges of lying about his ties to terrorist groups on his citizenship and passport applications. An AP report describes the case as follows:
In the California case, information about the informant who spied on the Islamic Center of Irvine came out last week at a detention hearing for a brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard, an Afghan native and naturalized U.S. citizen named Ahmadullah Niazi. Niazi, 34, was arrested Feb. 20 on charges of lying about his ties to terrorist groups on his citizenship and passport applications. He will be arraigned Monday in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana. FBI Special Agent Thomas J. Ropel III testified at the hearing that an FBI informant infiltrated Niazi’s mosque and several others in Orange County and befriended Niazi. Ropel said the informant recorded Niazi on multiple occasions talking about blowing up buildings, acquiring weapons and sending money to the Afghan mujahadeen. Niazi has not been charged with terrorism and it’s not yet clear if the FBI was focused on anything beyond his activities. Neither the mosque nor any other of its members have been charged. A 46-year-old fitness instructor told The Associated Press last week he was the informant. Craig Monteilh of Irvine said Niazi talked about blowing up buildings and discussed sending Monteilh to a terrorist training camp in Yemen or Pakistan. Monteilh said his tenure as an informant ended after Niazi and other members of the Islamic Center of Irvine reported him to authorities. A Muslim advocacy group has demanded a federal investigation into whether Niazi was arrested because he refused to become an FBI informant after telling the agency about Monteilh.
The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) has reacted by stating that the use of informants in mosques “stigmatizes” the mosques and erodes trust. According an article on the MPAC website:
Trust is the cornerstone of any partnership between law enforcement and communities. It can only be established and maintained through clear and open communication. Without this, trust is eroded and suspicions arise on all sides. This clearly does not serve anyone’s interests.Federal law enforcement cannot establish trust with American Muslim communities through meetings and townhall forums, while at the same time sending paid informants who instigate violent rhetoric in mosques. This mere act stigmatizes American mosques and casts a shadow of doubt and distrust between American Muslims and their neighbors. It has also led many mosques and community groups to reconsider their relationship with the FBI, including most recently the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California. It is now up to the FBI and law enforcement agencies to re-engage with the Muslim American community, and re-build trust and respect. MPAC will continue to raise these community concerns with federal law enforcement officials in its efforts to help form policies that preserve civil liberties while also protecting our nation.
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) announced that is planning to file a request for the U.S. Attorney General to launch an investigation into the FBI’s arrest:
On Tuesday, February 24, the Greater Los Angeles Area chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-LA) will host a news conference to announce the filing of a request for the U.S. Attorney General to launch an investigation into the FBI’s arrest last week of Ahmad Niazi. The news conference will immediately follow a court hearing Tuesday for Niazi in Santa Ana, Calif. Members of his family will take part in the news conference. Mr. Niazi is charged with perjury, naturalization fraud, misuse of a passport obtained by fraud, and making a false statement to a federal agency. He claims the charges are in retaliation for his refusal to become an FBI informant. Mr. Niazi previously reported to CAIR-LA and other community members that, during a raid of a friend’s house, an FBI agent urged Mr. Niazi to work with the agency, saying that if he refused to cooperate his life would be made a “living hell.”
MPAC was established in the mid 1980’s by individuals whose backgrounds are likely rooted in the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and since its inception has acted in concert with the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. The organization, like other U.S. Brotherhood organizations, has a long history of fundamentalism, anti-Semitism, and support for terrorism. The organization has long enjoyed generally good relations with the U.S. government and functions essentially as the political lobbying arm of the U.S. Brotherhood.
Documents released in the Holy Land Trial have revealed that the founders and current leaders of CAIR were part of the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood as well as identifying the organization itself as being part of the U.S. Brotherhood. Investigative research posted on GMBDR had determined that CAIR had it origins in the U.S. Hamas infrastructure and is an integral part of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood with a long history of support for fundamentalism, anti-Semitism, and terrorism. Numerous earlier posts have reported on the relationship between the FBI and CAIR which appears to have been terminated by the FBI.
Both organizations have long histories of opposing almost all elements of U.S. counterterrorism strategy. CAIR in particular has defended numerous individuals accused and/or convicted of terrorism offenses and a number of CAIR employees have also been convicted of terrorism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591
www.actforamerica.org
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
Do not respond to this e-mail for any reason. To discontinue your membership automatically please, follow the link below. You are registered to receive email as Dave Anderson at the following e-mail address: OAD@ALASKA.NET. You must use the correct e-mail address to discontinue your membership.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Subject: Know Thy Enemy,,,,,,
Subject: Know Thy Enemy,,,,,,Re: Fw: H.R-45 - Bad News
>
> Congressional Research Service Summary
> The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a
> well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress. GovTrack did
> not write and has no control over these summaries.
>
> One day into the 111th session of Congress was all it took for Illinois
> Democrat and former Black Panther, ***Bobby Rush***, to take a run on a
> new measure of gun control. Problem is, quite a few don’t like the
> language—in particular, the part about “anyone wishing to purchase, own or
> possess a ‘qualifying firearm’ would have to be licensed by the state or
> the federal government in a licensing program managed by the Attorney
> General.”
>
> “I might be a gun rights advocate,” says Larry Pratt, the Executive
> Director of the Gun Owners of America, “but anyone with any sense, or any
> respect for the Constitution at all, has to bristle at proposed
> legislation that wants to place our Bill of Rights in the hands of one
> man.”
>
> Pratt is available for interviews to comment on this political move, and
> the foreshadowing he fears it may represent in a President Obama/Speaker
> Pelosi Washington tag team.
>
> With an eye on the bill’s details that require redundant personal
> identification, a release of personal health records to the Attorney
> General and other unnecessary, intrusive measures, Pratt and other gun
> rights proponents find it a harsh pill to swallow, and a disturbing
> political double standard that shows a government more preoccupied with
> its own citizens than foreign enemies.
>
> “What I find frighteningly ironic,” adds Pratt, “is the bill’s mandate
> requiring gun owners apply for a federal firearms I.D. card. Isn’t this
> the Party that, together with the ACLU, had a tirade over the proposal of
> a post-9/11 national I.D. card?”
>
> In 1969, Rush himself served six months in prison for an illegal weapons
> conviction. Currently, the bill has no cosponsors, has not been scheduled
> for a committee hearing and, if it were to get as far, would likely have a
> difficult time passing in the Senate. Nonetheless, with a heavily
> left-leaning D.C. right now, folks like Pratt are taking nothing for
> granted. (Special Guests)
>
>
> More:
>
> 1/6/2009--Introduced.
> Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 - Amends the
> Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing
> a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this
> Act or a state system certified under this Act and such license has not
> been invalidated or revoked. Prescribes license application, issuance, and
> renewal requirements.
> Prohibits transferring or receiving a qualifying firearm unless the
> recipient presents a valid firearms license, the license is verified, and
> the dealer records a tracking authorization number. Prescribes firearms
> transfer reporting and record keeping requirements. Directs the Attorney
> General to establish and maintain a federal record of sale system.
> Prohibits: (1) transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee,
> unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance
> with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with
> exceptions; (2) a licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply
> with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act; (3) failing to
> report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72
> hours; (4) failing to report to the Attorney General an address change
> within 60 days; or (5) keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm
> and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the
> risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the
> firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.
> Prescribes criminal penalties for violations of firearms provisions
> covered by this Act.
> Directs the Attorney General to: (1) establish and maintain a firearm
> injury information clearinghouse; (2) conduct continuing studies and
> investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and (3) collect and
> maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed
> manufacturer.
> Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or
> record of sale systems.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Congressional Research Service Summary
> The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a
> well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress. GovTrack did
> not write and has no control over these summaries.
>
> One day into the 111th session of Congress was all it took for Illinois
> Democrat and former Black Panther, ***Bobby Rush***, to take a run on a
> new measure of gun control. Problem is, quite a few don’t like the
> language—in particular, the part about “anyone wishing to purchase, own or
> possess a ‘qualifying firearm’ would have to be licensed by the state or
> the federal government in a licensing program managed by the Attorney
> General.”
>
> “I might be a gun rights advocate,” says Larry Pratt, the Executive
> Director of the Gun Owners of America, “but anyone with any sense, or any
> respect for the Constitution at all, has to bristle at proposed
> legislation that wants to place our Bill of Rights in the hands of one
> man.”
>
> Pratt is available for interviews to comment on this political move, and
> the foreshadowing he fears it may represent in a President Obama/Speaker
> Pelosi Washington tag team.
>
> With an eye on the bill’s details that require redundant personal
> identification, a release of personal health records to the Attorney
> General and other unnecessary, intrusive measures, Pratt and other gun
> rights proponents find it a harsh pill to swallow, and a disturbing
> political double standard that shows a government more preoccupied with
> its own citizens than foreign enemies.
>
> “What I find frighteningly ironic,” adds Pratt, “is the bill’s mandate
> requiring gun owners apply for a federal firearms I.D. card. Isn’t this
> the Party that, together with the ACLU, had a tirade over the proposal of
> a post-9/11 national I.D. card?”
>
> In 1969, Rush himself served six months in prison for an illegal weapons
> conviction. Currently, the bill has no cosponsors, has not been scheduled
> for a committee hearing and, if it were to get as far, would likely have a
> difficult time passing in the Senate. Nonetheless, with a heavily
> left-leaning D.C. right now, folks like Pratt are taking nothing for
> granted. (Special Guests)
>
>
> More:
>
> 1/6/2009--Introduced.
> Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 - Amends the
> Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing
> a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this
> Act or a state system certified under this Act and such license has not
> been invalidated or revoked. Prescribes license application, issuance, and
> renewal requirements.
> Prohibits transferring or receiving a qualifying firearm unless the
> recipient presents a valid firearms license, the license is verified, and
> the dealer records a tracking authorization number. Prescribes firearms
> transfer reporting and record keeping requirements. Directs the Attorney
> General to establish and maintain a federal record of sale system.
> Prohibits: (1) transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee,
> unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance
> with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with
> exceptions; (2) a licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply
> with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act; (3) failing to
> report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72
> hours; (4) failing to report to the Attorney General an address change
> within 60 days; or (5) keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm
> and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the
> risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the
> firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.
> Prescribes criminal penalties for violations of firearms provisions
> covered by this Act.
> Directs the Attorney General to: (1) establish and maintain a firearm
> injury information clearinghouse; (2) conduct continuing studies and
> investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and (3) collect and
> maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed
> manufacturer.
> Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or
> record of sale systems.
>
>
>
>
>
Beating Swords Into Bargaining Chips
Beating Swords Into Bargaining Chips
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, March 03, 2009 4:20 PM PT
SDI: A Russian-built reactor undergoes operational tests in Iran. Tehran orbits a satellite with an ICBM. Are we about to trade away proven missile defense for unproven and unreliable Russian diplomacy?
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and our new secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, are scheduled to meet in Geneva on Friday. One of the topics on the list is sure to be something we have warned about — the trading away of American missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic for vague Russian promises to help with the Iranian missile and nuclear threat.
The Russian daily newspaper Kommersant reported on Monday that President Obama had made just such a proposal in a letter to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.
The BBC reports that Undersecretary of State William Burns, who delivered the letter, told the Russian news agency Interfax: "If through strong diplomacy with Russia and our other partners we can reduce or eliminate (the) threat, it obviously shapes the way in which we look at missile defense."
"We have received signals from our American colleagues," Medvedev said in an interview with Spanish media on Sunday. "I hope these will turn into specific proposals. I hope to discuss the issue, which is extremely important for Europe, with U.S. President Barack Obama."
Obama and Medvedev are scheduled to meet in London on April 2.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov has confirmed that "the American administration has expressed readiness to reconsider the situation with the missile system in Europe in exchange for a decision on the Iranian nuclear problem satisfactory to the American administration," according to the Web site russiatoday.com.
Attending a NATO meeting in Krakow, Poland, on Feb. 20, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said: "I told the Russians a year ago that if there were no Iranian missile program, there would be no need for the missile sites." Is that the reason Obama kept him on?
Our new president's waffling on the issue is legend. During the campaign, he told the leftist disarmament group, Caucus for Priorities, that he would not invest in "unproven" missile defense. Yet, in a post-election phone call, Obama told Polish President Lech Kaczynski, according to a Polish press statement about the call, "that the missile defense project would continue."
The Obama transition team then almost immediately issued a rebuttal echoing his stated opposition to missile defense: "President-elect Obama made no commitment on it. His position is as it was throughout the campaign — that he supports deploying a missile defense system when the technology is proved to be workable."
In the kind of test Joe Biden predicted, within hours of Obama's election, Medvedev announced that Moscow would deploy SS-26 Iskander missiles in the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad situated between our NATO allies Poland and Lithuania.
Medvedev later told the French newspaper Le Figaro that "we are ready to abandon this decision to deploy the missiles in Kaliningrad if the new American administration, after analyzing the real usefulness of a system to respond to 'rogue states' decides to abandon its anti-missile system."
The Obama administration may be preparing to do just that. When the Soviet Union targeted Europe with its SS-20s, President Reagan deployed Pershing missiles in West Germany.
When Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev met Reagan in Reykjavik, Iceland, in October 1986, he hoped Reagan would be willing to trade SDI away in exchange for arms control agreements and vague promises of making nice with America.
Reagan said no. As a result of his steadfastness in defending America in the Cold War, we won, and they lost. This time, Obama may blink and say, yes, we can.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, March 03, 2009 4:20 PM PT
SDI: A Russian-built reactor undergoes operational tests in Iran. Tehran orbits a satellite with an ICBM. Are we about to trade away proven missile defense for unproven and unreliable Russian diplomacy?
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and our new secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, are scheduled to meet in Geneva on Friday. One of the topics on the list is sure to be something we have warned about — the trading away of American missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic for vague Russian promises to help with the Iranian missile and nuclear threat.
The Russian daily newspaper Kommersant reported on Monday that President Obama had made just such a proposal in a letter to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.
The BBC reports that Undersecretary of State William Burns, who delivered the letter, told the Russian news agency Interfax: "If through strong diplomacy with Russia and our other partners we can reduce or eliminate (the) threat, it obviously shapes the way in which we look at missile defense."
"We have received signals from our American colleagues," Medvedev said in an interview with Spanish media on Sunday. "I hope these will turn into specific proposals. I hope to discuss the issue, which is extremely important for Europe, with U.S. President Barack Obama."
Obama and Medvedev are scheduled to meet in London on April 2.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov has confirmed that "the American administration has expressed readiness to reconsider the situation with the missile system in Europe in exchange for a decision on the Iranian nuclear problem satisfactory to the American administration," according to the Web site russiatoday.com.
Attending a NATO meeting in Krakow, Poland, on Feb. 20, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said: "I told the Russians a year ago that if there were no Iranian missile program, there would be no need for the missile sites." Is that the reason Obama kept him on?
Our new president's waffling on the issue is legend. During the campaign, he told the leftist disarmament group, Caucus for Priorities, that he would not invest in "unproven" missile defense. Yet, in a post-election phone call, Obama told Polish President Lech Kaczynski, according to a Polish press statement about the call, "that the missile defense project would continue."
The Obama transition team then almost immediately issued a rebuttal echoing his stated opposition to missile defense: "President-elect Obama made no commitment on it. His position is as it was throughout the campaign — that he supports deploying a missile defense system when the technology is proved to be workable."
In the kind of test Joe Biden predicted, within hours of Obama's election, Medvedev announced that Moscow would deploy SS-26 Iskander missiles in the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad situated between our NATO allies Poland and Lithuania.
Medvedev later told the French newspaper Le Figaro that "we are ready to abandon this decision to deploy the missiles in Kaliningrad if the new American administration, after analyzing the real usefulness of a system to respond to 'rogue states' decides to abandon its anti-missile system."
The Obama administration may be preparing to do just that. When the Soviet Union targeted Europe with its SS-20s, President Reagan deployed Pershing missiles in West Germany.
When Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev met Reagan in Reykjavik, Iceland, in October 1986, he hoped Reagan would be willing to trade SDI away in exchange for arms control agreements and vague promises of making nice with America.
Reagan said no. As a result of his steadfastness in defending America in the Cold War, we won, and they lost. This time, Obama may blink and say, yes, we can.
Betraying Our Friends
WE ARE HEADING RAPIDLY TOWARD THE ROAD TO DISTRUCTION. WHAN WE AS A NATION, ALREADY UNLIKED BECAUSE OF OUR PAST SUCCESSES, TURN AWAY FROM THE FRIENDS THAT WE DO HAVE BY WAY OF APPEASING ANOTHER "IFFY" NATION (RUSSIA) TO HELP US (NOT) IN PERSUADING IRAN TO TO CURTAIL THEIR NUCLEAR ADVANCEMENT HAS IN EFFECT SHOWN OUR FRIENDS WHAT WE ARE REALLY, AND IT IS BECOMING CLEAR OUR 'TRUE' WORD IS NOT WORTH WHAT IT USED TO BE. WE ARE BETRACY WHAT FRIENDS WE HAVE LEFT. SHAME DAVE ANDERSON.
Betraying Our Friends
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, March 03, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Foreign Policy: Appeasing Russia to "solve" Iran's nuclear ambitions is not the only disconcerting feature of President Obama's approach to the world. Vital friends and allies are getting America's cold shoulder.
What sense does it make that after Ronald Reagan wins the Cold War by refusing to abandon missile defense, the United States offers it as a bargaining chip to an increasingly menacing post-Communist Russia?
And where is the wisdom in withdrawing plans to use missile defense to protect the liberated former Eastern Bloc states against a Russian aggressor willing to wage war with the former Soviet state of Georgia and use the Ukrainian pipeline to starve Europeans of natural gas — all to prevent its former satellites from aligning with the free West?
Is it any wonder that the Poles and the Czechs — who have only known freedom for a short time — now long for the days of President George W. Bush, a president willing to help them defend their liberty against aggression?
Our young, new president has reportedly written a secret letter to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev offering to give away the proposed missile shield if Moscow helps stop Iran from building long-range nuclear weapons.
Barack Obama supposedly had 300 foreign policy advisers during his presidential campaign.
Couldn't one of them have told him that it was Russia who provided Iran with nuclear experts, gave Iran technical information stolen from the West by Russian spies, and is building and delivering fuel for Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant?
Has it ever crossed the president's mind that letting Iran give terrorists nuclear bombs to incinerate an American or Western European city might be in Russia's long-term geopolitical interest?
Thomas C. Reed and Danny B. Stillman's newly published history of the bomb, "The Nuclear Express," calls post-cold war China — another facilitator of Iran's nuclear program — "a fearsome global competitor with interests that could be well served by the devastation of Washington or New York . . . ."
The same surely applies to Vladimir Putin's Russia.
As the president mulled giving away the store to the Russians, he hosted British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at the White House Tuesday, claiming that the U.S.-U.K. "special relationship" is getting more special all the time.
But the big-spending, tax-raising Brown is well to the left of his predecessor Tony Blair, and the Scot has been a dyed-in-the-wool socialist all his life, writing a 1975 "Red Paper for Scotland" demanding "a positive commitment to creating a socialist society."
The president and Brown are joining forces to establish an unprecedented "global new deal" that would impose stringent new bank regulations on industrialized nations.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met Tuesday with newly elected Israeli Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu and pushed for the establishment of a Palestinian state right at a time when Israelis — suffering continual Palestinian rocket fire — have gone to the polls to place security before the "peace process."
To our south, the Obama administration is jeopardizing our relationship with Colombia over misguided Carteresque human rights quibbles after America has helped that nation make strides in its war against drug cartels — and at a time when the Pentagon reports that Mexico may suffer a "rapid and sudden collapse."
A recent Joint Forces Command analysis warns: "(Mexican) politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state."
In spite of that dire prospect just across our border, the administration and Congress are foot-dragging on ratification of the Colombian trade pact and funds to continue opposing the drug traffickers and Colombia's leftist insurgency.
With Venezuela's Hugo Chavez aligned with Iran and the Castro regime still in business in Cuba, what friend will we have in Latin America if we shun President Alvaro Uribe's government in Colombia?
Barack Obama promised in his campaign to change the world. He never mentioned he would do it by acting against our best allies and partners around the globe — friends we need, and who need us, to stay free and secure.
Betraying Our Friends
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, March 03, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Foreign Policy: Appeasing Russia to "solve" Iran's nuclear ambitions is not the only disconcerting feature of President Obama's approach to the world. Vital friends and allies are getting America's cold shoulder.
What sense does it make that after Ronald Reagan wins the Cold War by refusing to abandon missile defense, the United States offers it as a bargaining chip to an increasingly menacing post-Communist Russia?
And where is the wisdom in withdrawing plans to use missile defense to protect the liberated former Eastern Bloc states against a Russian aggressor willing to wage war with the former Soviet state of Georgia and use the Ukrainian pipeline to starve Europeans of natural gas — all to prevent its former satellites from aligning with the free West?
Is it any wonder that the Poles and the Czechs — who have only known freedom for a short time — now long for the days of President George W. Bush, a president willing to help them defend their liberty against aggression?
Our young, new president has reportedly written a secret letter to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev offering to give away the proposed missile shield if Moscow helps stop Iran from building long-range nuclear weapons.
Barack Obama supposedly had 300 foreign policy advisers during his presidential campaign.
Couldn't one of them have told him that it was Russia who provided Iran with nuclear experts, gave Iran technical information stolen from the West by Russian spies, and is building and delivering fuel for Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant?
Has it ever crossed the president's mind that letting Iran give terrorists nuclear bombs to incinerate an American or Western European city might be in Russia's long-term geopolitical interest?
Thomas C. Reed and Danny B. Stillman's newly published history of the bomb, "The Nuclear Express," calls post-cold war China — another facilitator of Iran's nuclear program — "a fearsome global competitor with interests that could be well served by the devastation of Washington or New York . . . ."
The same surely applies to Vladimir Putin's Russia.
As the president mulled giving away the store to the Russians, he hosted British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at the White House Tuesday, claiming that the U.S.-U.K. "special relationship" is getting more special all the time.
But the big-spending, tax-raising Brown is well to the left of his predecessor Tony Blair, and the Scot has been a dyed-in-the-wool socialist all his life, writing a 1975 "Red Paper for Scotland" demanding "a positive commitment to creating a socialist society."
The president and Brown are joining forces to establish an unprecedented "global new deal" that would impose stringent new bank regulations on industrialized nations.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met Tuesday with newly elected Israeli Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu and pushed for the establishment of a Palestinian state right at a time when Israelis — suffering continual Palestinian rocket fire — have gone to the polls to place security before the "peace process."
To our south, the Obama administration is jeopardizing our relationship with Colombia over misguided Carteresque human rights quibbles after America has helped that nation make strides in its war against drug cartels — and at a time when the Pentagon reports that Mexico may suffer a "rapid and sudden collapse."
A recent Joint Forces Command analysis warns: "(Mexican) politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state."
In spite of that dire prospect just across our border, the administration and Congress are foot-dragging on ratification of the Colombian trade pact and funds to continue opposing the drug traffickers and Colombia's leftist insurgency.
With Venezuela's Hugo Chavez aligned with Iran and the Castro regime still in business in Cuba, what friend will we have in Latin America if we shun President Alvaro Uribe's government in Colombia?
Barack Obama promised in his campaign to change the world. He never mentioned he would do it by acting against our best allies and partners around the globe — friends we need, and who need us, to stay free and secure.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Leak Gives Marine One Helicopter Details to Iran
IT IS STRANGE TO ME THAT THIS TYPE OF "ACCIDENT" OCCURS AT AN INSTALLATION WHERE "ANY" DEMOCRATE MAY BE A CONSULTANT AS IS BROKEBACK GENERAL WESLEY CLARK
Leak Gives Marine One Helicopter Details to Iran
Monday, March 2, 2009 10:56 AM
By: Dave Eberhart
A file-sharing glitch reportedly has put engineering, cost, and communications details about President Barack Obama’s Marine One helicopter in the hands of Tehran.
NBC affiliate WPXI in Pittsburgh reported Saturday that a Pennsylvania-based security company called Tiversa uncovered the classified information at an IP address in Iran’s capital city.
Tiversa CEO Bob Boback told the TV station, “We found a file containing entire blueprints and avionics package for Marine One, which is the president’s helicopter.”
Boback also disclosed that employees of his company had pinpointed the source of the leak. “What appears to be a defense contractor in Bethesda, Md., had a file-sharing program on one of their systems that also contained highly sensitive blueprints for Marine One,” he said.
The Tiversa CEO hypothesized that an employee of the defense contractor may have downloaded a file-sharing program -- without considering the potential security issues. “When downloading one of these file-sharing programs, you are effectively allowing others around the world to access your hard drive,” he advised.
Furthermore, Boback told the station that file-sharing has in his opinion become a windfall for intelligence to foreign governments — particularly Pakistan, Yemen, Qatar, and China.
Tiversa consultant, retired Gen. Wesley Clark advised that the company had located the individual computer and employee that left the information vulnerable. “I’m sure that person is embarrassed and may even lose their job.”
Meanwhile, Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., said he would ask Congress to investigate how to prevent such breaches of security in the future.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Leak Gives Marine One Helicopter Details to Iran
Monday, March 2, 2009 10:56 AM
By: Dave Eberhart
A file-sharing glitch reportedly has put engineering, cost, and communications details about President Barack Obama’s Marine One helicopter in the hands of Tehran.
NBC affiliate WPXI in Pittsburgh reported Saturday that a Pennsylvania-based security company called Tiversa uncovered the classified information at an IP address in Iran’s capital city.
Tiversa CEO Bob Boback told the TV station, “We found a file containing entire blueprints and avionics package for Marine One, which is the president’s helicopter.”
Boback also disclosed that employees of his company had pinpointed the source of the leak. “What appears to be a defense contractor in Bethesda, Md., had a file-sharing program on one of their systems that also contained highly sensitive blueprints for Marine One,” he said.
The Tiversa CEO hypothesized that an employee of the defense contractor may have downloaded a file-sharing program -- without considering the potential security issues. “When downloading one of these file-sharing programs, you are effectively allowing others around the world to access your hard drive,” he advised.
Furthermore, Boback told the station that file-sharing has in his opinion become a windfall for intelligence to foreign governments — particularly Pakistan, Yemen, Qatar, and China.
Tiversa consultant, retired Gen. Wesley Clark advised that the company had located the individual computer and employee that left the information vulnerable. “I’m sure that person is embarrassed and may even lose their job.”
Meanwhile, Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., said he would ask Congress to investigate how to prevent such breaches of security in the future.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Limbaugh: Obama Wants to Punish Those Who Succeed
LIMBAUGH; Obama Wants to Punish Those Who Succeed
Saturday, February 28, 2009 8:48 PM
By: Ronald Kessler Article Font Size
President Barack Obama wants to “punish” those who succeed and who helped make America great, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh told a wildly cheering crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Saturday.
Limbaugh said Obama and the Democrats are waging an “assault” on capitalism by raising taxes on those who make more than $250,000 and by expanding welfare, limiting deductions on charitable contributions, increasing the deficit and giving the government an expanding role in Americans’ lives.
“We can take this country back. All we need is to nominate the right candidate,” he said.
Just before he spoke, CPAC released the results of its straw poll of attendees. For the third year in a row, Mitt Romney won the poll. Of the 1,757 conservative activists who cast votes, 20 percent favored the former Massachusetts governor and presidential candidate. Romney was followed by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, with 14 percent of the vote. Texas Rep. Ron Paul and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin each received 13 percent.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich got 10 percent of the vote, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee received 7 percent. South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford received 4 percent, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani got 3 percent, and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist received 1 percent.
“Let me speak about President Obama for just a second,” Limbaugh said, as he delivered the closing speech on a stage festooned with a glowing blue drape and 16 American flags topped with eagles. “President Obama is one of the most gifted politicians, one of the most gifted men that I have ever witnessed. He has extraordinary talents, he has communication skills that hardly anyone can surpass. I’m very serious about this. It just breaks my heart that he does not use his extraordinary talents and gifts to motivate and inspire the American people to be the best they can be.”
Instead, Limbaugh said, Obama “seeks a path that punishes achievement, that punishes success, and he speaks negatively of the country. Ronald Reagan used to speak of a shining city on a hill. Barack Obama portrays America as soup kitchens, some dark night in a corner of America that’s very obscure. He constantly is telling the American people that bad times are ahead, worse times are ahead. And it’s troubling, because this is the United States of America.”
What made America great is “the freedom, it’s the ambition, it’s the desire, the wherewithal, the passions that people have.” That is what “gave us the great entrepreneurial advances, the great inventions, the greatest food production, the human lifstyle advances in this country,” Limbaugh said. “Why shouldn’t that be rewarded? Why is that now the focus of punishment? Why is that now the focus of blame?”
In an aside, Limbaugh said, “There’s one other business where the customer’s always wrong, and that’s the media. If you ever call them to complain about whatever they do, they say yessir, yessir, three bags full, they hang up and say you’re too stupid to know how they’re doing what they’re doing. You can’t get it, you’re not sophisticated enough. So that’s another business where the customer’s always wrong.”
Referring to Obama’s massive stimulus package and budget plan, Limbaugh said, “It’s not new. It’s not change. And it’s not hope.”
Limbaugh warned that Republicans should not let concerns about racial insensitivities limit criticism of Obama’s policies. “It doesn't matter to me what his race is. He’s liberal, and that’s what matters.”
Limbaugh added, “The racism in our culture was exclusively and fully on display in the Democrat primary last year. We didn’t ask if he was authentically black. What we were asking was, ‘Was he wrong?’ We concluded, ‘Yes.’”
Limbaugh said, “The racism, the sexism, the bigotry that we are all charged with ... doesn’t exist on our side.” He added. “We want everybody to succeed.”
Limbaugh derided those who found fault with his saying he hopes Obama fails. He said Democrats hoped George Bush would fail, and they hoped we would fail in Iraq. In fact, Sen. Harry Reid said we had lost the Iraq war.
“So what is so strange about saying I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to reconstruct and reform this nation so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation?” Limbaugh asked.
Limbaugh said he wants the “country to survive. I want the country to succeed.”
Obama is in the “honeymoon phase,” Limbaugh said, and conservatives shouldn’t get discouraged.
“We are not quitting. We are not giving up,” he said. “The country is too important.”
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via
e-mail. Go here now.
Saturday, February 28, 2009 8:48 PM
By: Ronald Kessler Article Font Size
President Barack Obama wants to “punish” those who succeed and who helped make America great, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh told a wildly cheering crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Saturday.
Limbaugh said Obama and the Democrats are waging an “assault” on capitalism by raising taxes on those who make more than $250,000 and by expanding welfare, limiting deductions on charitable contributions, increasing the deficit and giving the government an expanding role in Americans’ lives.
“We can take this country back. All we need is to nominate the right candidate,” he said.
Just before he spoke, CPAC released the results of its straw poll of attendees. For the third year in a row, Mitt Romney won the poll. Of the 1,757 conservative activists who cast votes, 20 percent favored the former Massachusetts governor and presidential candidate. Romney was followed by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, with 14 percent of the vote. Texas Rep. Ron Paul and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin each received 13 percent.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich got 10 percent of the vote, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee received 7 percent. South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford received 4 percent, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani got 3 percent, and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist received 1 percent.
“Let me speak about President Obama for just a second,” Limbaugh said, as he delivered the closing speech on a stage festooned with a glowing blue drape and 16 American flags topped with eagles. “President Obama is one of the most gifted politicians, one of the most gifted men that I have ever witnessed. He has extraordinary talents, he has communication skills that hardly anyone can surpass. I’m very serious about this. It just breaks my heart that he does not use his extraordinary talents and gifts to motivate and inspire the American people to be the best they can be.”
Instead, Limbaugh said, Obama “seeks a path that punishes achievement, that punishes success, and he speaks negatively of the country. Ronald Reagan used to speak of a shining city on a hill. Barack Obama portrays America as soup kitchens, some dark night in a corner of America that’s very obscure. He constantly is telling the American people that bad times are ahead, worse times are ahead. And it’s troubling, because this is the United States of America.”
What made America great is “the freedom, it’s the ambition, it’s the desire, the wherewithal, the passions that people have.” That is what “gave us the great entrepreneurial advances, the great inventions, the greatest food production, the human lifstyle advances in this country,” Limbaugh said. “Why shouldn’t that be rewarded? Why is that now the focus of punishment? Why is that now the focus of blame?”
In an aside, Limbaugh said, “There’s one other business where the customer’s always wrong, and that’s the media. If you ever call them to complain about whatever they do, they say yessir, yessir, three bags full, they hang up and say you’re too stupid to know how they’re doing what they’re doing. You can’t get it, you’re not sophisticated enough. So that’s another business where the customer’s always wrong.”
Referring to Obama’s massive stimulus package and budget plan, Limbaugh said, “It’s not new. It’s not change. And it’s not hope.”
Limbaugh warned that Republicans should not let concerns about racial insensitivities limit criticism of Obama’s policies. “It doesn't matter to me what his race is. He’s liberal, and that’s what matters.”
Limbaugh added, “The racism in our culture was exclusively and fully on display in the Democrat primary last year. We didn’t ask if he was authentically black. What we were asking was, ‘Was he wrong?’ We concluded, ‘Yes.’”
Limbaugh said, “The racism, the sexism, the bigotry that we are all charged with ... doesn’t exist on our side.” He added. “We want everybody to succeed.”
Limbaugh derided those who found fault with his saying he hopes Obama fails. He said Democrats hoped George Bush would fail, and they hoped we would fail in Iraq. In fact, Sen. Harry Reid said we had lost the Iraq war.
“So what is so strange about saying I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to reconstruct and reform this nation so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation?” Limbaugh asked.
Limbaugh said he wants the “country to survive. I want the country to succeed.”
Obama is in the “honeymoon phase,” Limbaugh said, and conservatives shouldn’t get discouraged.
“We are not quitting. We are not giving up,” he said. “The country is too important.”
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via
e-mail. Go here now.
Massive Federal Spending May Lead Many Back to GOP
Massive Federal Spending May Lead Many Back to GOP, Senate Minority Leader Says
Monday, March 02, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) (AP Photo)Washington (CNSNews.com) - Republican congressional leaders think runaway federal spending could drive a lot of Americans into the arms of the GOP.
“We must stage a comeback,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C., on Friday.
McConnell recalled that when he was elected to the Senate in 1984, New Jersey had a Republican governor, and the GOP gained control of New England State Legislatures.
Today, a few Republicans hold federal office from New England, and no GOP senators are from the West Coast.
"We need to find the people who left the Republican Party,” said McConnell. “There was a good reason they were Republicans, and they need to give us a second look. We don't expect to expand our appeal by turning away those most loyal. Our message has got to get out."
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) (Photo courtesy of Boehner's House Web site)House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) decried the spending of the $787 billion economic stimulus plan and the $410-billion omnibus spending bill, currently working its way through Congress and which, according to the GOP, contains 9,000 earmarks.
"This is a big down payment on a socialist experiment," Boehner told the CPAC crowd.
"When I threw the stimulus bill on the floor of the House, Democrats said it was disrespectful," Boehner said. "Well, I think it’s disrespectful to take one trillion dollars from our kids and grandkids.”
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-2 of 2 Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer Loading...
moriarity at 01:27 PM - March 02, 2009
Why in hell don't the Republicans grow some "cashews" and state flat out that "yes, it was meant to be disrespectful, there is nothing in this pile of crap to respect"? Stop being defensive and call these morons out for what they are, a gaggle of anti-American Goons. Brush aside their pathetic whining and go for their throats. They've been treated with kid gloves for far too long!
John at 09:51 AM - March 02, 2009
There was nothing in the "stimulus" bill worth respecting! And as for those who wrote it......they have asked to be dis-respected. This is a real "wake up" call to America.
Monday, March 02, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) (AP Photo)Washington (CNSNews.com) - Republican congressional leaders think runaway federal spending could drive a lot of Americans into the arms of the GOP.
“We must stage a comeback,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C., on Friday.
McConnell recalled that when he was elected to the Senate in 1984, New Jersey had a Republican governor, and the GOP gained control of New England State Legislatures.
Today, a few Republicans hold federal office from New England, and no GOP senators are from the West Coast.
"We need to find the people who left the Republican Party,” said McConnell. “There was a good reason they were Republicans, and they need to give us a second look. We don't expect to expand our appeal by turning away those most loyal. Our message has got to get out."
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) (Photo courtesy of Boehner's House Web site)House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) decried the spending of the $787 billion economic stimulus plan and the $410-billion omnibus spending bill, currently working its way through Congress and which, according to the GOP, contains 9,000 earmarks.
"This is a big down payment on a socialist experiment," Boehner told the CPAC crowd.
"When I threw the stimulus bill on the floor of the House, Democrats said it was disrespectful," Boehner said. "Well, I think it’s disrespectful to take one trillion dollars from our kids and grandkids.”
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-2 of 2 Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer Loading...
moriarity at 01:27 PM - March 02, 2009
Why in hell don't the Republicans grow some "cashews" and state flat out that "yes, it was meant to be disrespectful, there is nothing in this pile of crap to respect"? Stop being defensive and call these morons out for what they are, a gaggle of anti-American Goons. Brush aside their pathetic whining and go for their throats. They've been treated with kid gloves for far too long!
John at 09:51 AM - March 02, 2009
There was nothing in the "stimulus" bill worth respecting! And as for those who wrote it......they have asked to be dis-respected. This is a real "wake up" call to America.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
WHY NOT THIS PLAN ????
THIS IS FROM A READER AND I BELEIVE IT TO BE VERY FINE AND USEABLE
This really gives a person something to think about.
The Proposal"
When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers. The remaining workers need to find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well. Wall street, and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision", and his board of directors gives him a big bonus.
Our government should not be immune from similar risks.
Therefore: Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members and Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State). Also reduce remaining staff by 25%.
Accomplish this over the next 8 years. (two steps / two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.
Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:
$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165,200 pay / member / yr.)
$97,175,000 for elimination of the above people's staff. (estimate $1..3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate every year)
$240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. (those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion / yr)
The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and would need to improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country?
We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.
Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few)
Note:
Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems. Also, we had 3 senators that were not doing their jobs for 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have been accepting full pay. These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress.
Summary of opportunity:
$ 44,108,400 reduction of congress members.
$282,100, 000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.
$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.
$59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.
$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.
$8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total savings. (that's 8-BILLION just to start!)
Big business does these types of cuts all the time.
If Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits there is no telling how much we would save. Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.
IF you are happy how the Congress spends our taxes, then just delete this message. IF you are NOT at all happy, then I assume you know what to do.
This really gives a person something to think about.
The Proposal"
When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers. The remaining workers need to find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well. Wall street, and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision", and his board of directors gives him a big bonus.
Our government should not be immune from similar risks.
Therefore: Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members and Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State). Also reduce remaining staff by 25%.
Accomplish this over the next 8 years. (two steps / two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.
Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:
$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165,200 pay / member / yr.)
$97,175,000 for elimination of the above people's staff. (estimate $1..3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate every year)
$240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. (those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion / yr)
The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and would need to improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country?
We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.
Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few)
Note:
Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems. Also, we had 3 senators that were not doing their jobs for 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have been accepting full pay. These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress.
Summary of opportunity:
$ 44,108,400 reduction of congress members.
$282,100, 000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.
$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.
$59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.
$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.
$8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total savings. (that's 8-BILLION just to start!)
Big business does these types of cuts all the time.
If Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits there is no telling how much we would save. Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.
IF you are happy how the Congress spends our taxes, then just delete this message. IF you are NOT at all happy, then I assume you know what to do.
3 Smart Presidents
Subject: Fw: 3 Smart Presidents
The people that are in Congress in Washington ,
tell us they can not deport 12 million illegal's?
We probably need to vote all of them out of office
and send them back to school to learn history!
We pay more to illegal's in welfare than it would cost to deport them!
Our career politicians need to work for the voters
and the good of the United States of America , not the lobbyist and big business.
HOOVER , TRUMAN AND EISENHOWER
Here is something that should be of great interest
for you to pass around.
I didn't know of this until it was pointed out to me.
Back during The Great Depression, President Herbert Hoover
ordered the deportation of ALL illegal aliens
in order to make jobs available to American citizens
that desperately needed work.
Harry Truman deported over two million Illegal's after WWII
to create jobs for returning veterans.
And then again in 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower
deported 13 million Mexican nationals!
The program was called 'Operation Wetback'
so that American WWII and Korean veterans
had a better chance at jobs.
It took 2 Years, but they deported them!
Now, if they could deport the illegal's back then,
they can sure do it today!!
I lf you have doubts about the veracity of this information,
enter Operation Wetback into your favorite search engine
and confirm it for yourself.
Reminder.
Don't forget to pay your taxes...
12 million Illegal Aliens are depending on you.
PLEASE LET ME KNOW YOUR FEELING ON THIS; DAVE ANDERSON oad@alaska.net
The people that are in Congress in Washington ,
tell us they can not deport 12 million illegal's?
We probably need to vote all of them out of office
and send them back to school to learn history!
We pay more to illegal's in welfare than it would cost to deport them!
Our career politicians need to work for the voters
and the good of the United States of America , not the lobbyist and big business.
HOOVER , TRUMAN AND EISENHOWER
Here is something that should be of great interest
for you to pass around.
I didn't know of this until it was pointed out to me.
Back during The Great Depression, President Herbert Hoover
ordered the deportation of ALL illegal aliens
in order to make jobs available to American citizens
that desperately needed work.
Harry Truman deported over two million Illegal's after WWII
to create jobs for returning veterans.
And then again in 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower
deported 13 million Mexican nationals!
The program was called 'Operation Wetback'
so that American WWII and Korean veterans
had a better chance at jobs.
It took 2 Years, but they deported them!
Now, if they could deport the illegal's back then,
they can sure do it today!!
I lf you have doubts about the veracity of this information,
enter Operation Wetback into your favorite search engine
and confirm it for yourself.
Reminder.
Don't forget to pay your taxes...
12 million Illegal Aliens are depending on you.
PLEASE LET ME KNOW YOUR FEELING ON THIS; DAVE ANDERSON oad@alaska.net
DIVORCE NOW !!!
> Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives,
> socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:
>
>
> We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the
> whole of this latest election process has made me
> realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated
> each other for many years for the sake of future
> generations, but sadly,
> this relationship has run its course. Our> two ideological
> sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on
> what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We
> can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and
> go our own way.
>
> Here is a model separation agreement:
>
> Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by
> landmass each taking a portion. That will be the
> difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come
> to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively
> easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide
> other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate
> tastes.
>
> We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep
> them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the
> ACLU.
>
> Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms,
> the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah,
> Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are,
> however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle
> big enough to move all three of them).
>
> We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations,
> pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You
> can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and
> illegal aliens.
>
> We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy
> CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and
> give you NBC and Hollywood .
>
> You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and
> we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places
> that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war
> protesters.
>
> When our allies or our way of life are under assault,
> we'll help provide them security.
>
> We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome
> to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You
> can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer be paying
> the bill.
>
> We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury
> cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can
> find.
>
> You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any
> practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe
> healthcare is a luxury and not a right.
>
> We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the
> National Anthem.
>
> I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd
> Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the
> World.
>
> We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give
> trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so
> offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our
> flag.
>
> Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to
> other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and
> if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of
> friendly parting, I'll bet you ANWAR which one of us will
> need whose help in 15 years.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> John J. Wall
> Law Student and an American
>
> P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda
> with you.
>
> socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:
>
>
> We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the
> whole of this latest election process has made me
> realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated
> each other for many years for the sake of future
> generations, but sadly,
> this relationship has run its course. Our> two ideological
> sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on
> what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We
> can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and
> go our own way.
>
> Here is a model separation agreement:
>
> Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by
> landmass each taking a portion. That will be the
> difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come
> to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively
> easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide
> other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate
> tastes.
>
> We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep
> them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the
> ACLU.
>
> Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms,
> the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah,
> Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are,
> however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle
> big enough to move all three of them).
>
> We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations,
> pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You
> can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and
> illegal aliens.
>
> We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy
> CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and
> give you NBC and Hollywood .
>
> You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and
> we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places
> that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war
> protesters.
>
> When our allies or our way of life are under assault,
> we'll help provide them security.
>
> We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome
> to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You
> can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer be paying
> the bill.
>
> We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury
> cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can
> find.
>
> You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any
> practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe
> healthcare is a luxury and not a right.
>
> We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the
> National Anthem.
>
> I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd
> Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the
> World.
>
> We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give
> trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so
> offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our
> flag.
>
> Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to
> other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and
> if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of
> friendly parting, I'll bet you ANWAR which one of us will
> need whose help in 15 years.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> John J. Wall
> Law Student and an American
>
> P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda
> with you.
>
Palin Supports New Rule On Guns In Parks
Palin Supports New Rule On Guns In Parks
Friday, February 27, 2009
Last week, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (R) once again demonstrated her steadfast commitment to America's gun owners, as she urged U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar to support recently adopted regulations that enable Right-to-Carry permit holders to carry concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges in states that recognize their permits. The new rule applies only to law-abiding citizens who have met the requirements to acquire a carry permit, and who are legally allowed to carry in the state in which the park is located. Salazar has asked for a review of the new regulations, which were implemented by the Bush administration.
In a letter to Secretary Salazar, Governor Palin said, "The possession and use of firearms are critical to urban and rural hunters in Alaska. As you know, my state contains vast, pristine areas where the ability to carry firearms can address a potentially life-threatening situation, enabling citizens to respond to bear and other wildlife conflicts. In addition, many urban and rural hunters utilize firearms in the pursuit of wildlife to satisfy their nutritional and cultural needs. Like the residents of other states, Alaskans also rely on firearms for self-defense in the vast acreage encompassed by our national parks and refuges." Palin concluded, "In my opinion, reliance on state laws governing the possession and transport of firearms will not detract from the purposes of national parks and wildlife refuges. Existing state and federal laws are adequate to protect public safety and natural and cultural resources against poaching, vandalism, and other offenses."
A copy of the letter can be found at;
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/pdf/Salazar_ConcealedWeapons-Feb18-2009b.pdf
Friday, February 27, 2009
Last week, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (R) once again demonstrated her steadfast commitment to America's gun owners, as she urged U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar to support recently adopted regulations that enable Right-to-Carry permit holders to carry concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges in states that recognize their permits. The new rule applies only to law-abiding citizens who have met the requirements to acquire a carry permit, and who are legally allowed to carry in the state in which the park is located. Salazar has asked for a review of the new regulations, which were implemented by the Bush administration.
In a letter to Secretary Salazar, Governor Palin said, "The possession and use of firearms are critical to urban and rural hunters in Alaska. As you know, my state contains vast, pristine areas where the ability to carry firearms can address a potentially life-threatening situation, enabling citizens to respond to bear and other wildlife conflicts. In addition, many urban and rural hunters utilize firearms in the pursuit of wildlife to satisfy their nutritional and cultural needs. Like the residents of other states, Alaskans also rely on firearms for self-defense in the vast acreage encompassed by our national parks and refuges." Palin concluded, "In my opinion, reliance on state laws governing the possession and transport of firearms will not detract from the purposes of national parks and wildlife refuges. Existing state and federal laws are adequate to protect public safety and natural and cultural resources against poaching, vandalism, and other offenses."
A copy of the letter can be found at;
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/pdf/Salazar_ConcealedWeapons-Feb18-2009b.pdf
Second Amendment Victory In Washington, D.C.!
Second Amendment Victory In Washington, D.C.!
Friday, February 27, 2009
Yesterday, the United States Senate voted, with overwhelming bipartisan support, to adopt an amendment offered by Nevada Senator John Ensign (R), that seeks to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in the District of Columbia. The amendment, attached to S.160, the "D.C. Voting Rights Act", will repeal restrictive gun control laws passed by the District of Columbia's (D.C.) city council in defiance of the landmark D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court decision. The vote margin was 62-36.
"Today's vote brings us one step closer to restoring the gun rights of law-abiding D.C. residents," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. "It's ludicrous that good people in our nation's capital continue to be harassed as they try to defend themselves and their loved ones in their own homes. This vote reinforces the historic Heller ruling."
Since the Supreme Court struck down D.C.'s ban on handguns and on having guns in operable condition within the home in last year's Heller decision, the District passed a series of temporary "emergency" bills that failed to comply with the Court's ruling, followed by a permanent law (which will take effect in April unless blocked) that imposes even more restrictions on D.C. gun owners. (A temporary "emergency" law that mirrors the restrictive permanent law is currently in effect.) In particular:
The new law enacts sweeping bans, borrowed wholesale from California, on hundreds of models of semi-automatic firearms, and on standard-capacity magazines widely owned for lawful self-defense purposes.
The new law also bans the sale of handguns deemed "unsafe" by California, based on California's legal standards. Individuals would only be able to acquire handguns that are on the "California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale." This provision includes a "microstamping" mandate that would require use of unproven technology and would likely prevent sale of most new models of handguns in D.C. after January 1, 2011.
Though D.C. has always argued for its own sovereignty, these provisions give the legislature of California and the officials of the California Department of Justice all control over which handguns may be sold in the District. D.C. gun owners would be at the whim of bureaucrats in Sacramento, who regularly change these rules to prohibit sales of more models of firearms.
Many of the guns that are prohibited under D.C.'s new law are both "in common use" throughout the United States and "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes," which the Supreme Court in Heller suggested was the standard for constitutional protection.
The new law makes D.C.'s complicated, intrusive and expensive registration procedure even more complicated, to discourage people from attempting to register a handgun. Among other provisions, it requires gun owners to report annually to the Metropolitan Police that they still own their guns.
The new limits include a limit of one handgun registration per 30 days; a provision that rations constitutional rights and that has failed to reduce crime in the few states that have enacted similar laws.
The Ensign Amendment is narrowly drawn to enforce the Supreme Court's Heller decision and prevent the District government from further burdening the Second Amendment rights of its residents.
The Ensign Amendment will:
Conform D.C. gun laws to the requirements set out by the Supreme Court. The D.C. Council had the opportunity to conform its laws to the ruling, but its new laws add major burdens on residents' Second Amendment rights.
Reform the District's firearm registration regime, which the District's new law makes even more complicated and intrusive. Firearm registration also has no crime-prevention benefit, as demonstrated by the fact that all, or nearly all, firearms used in violent crimes in D.C. are not registered.
The underlying question of whether Congress can grant representation to D.C. will ultimately be resolved in the courts. As a single-issue organization, NRA takes no position on voting rights for D.C., but we are obviously concerned about ensuring the Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms is functionally returned D.C. residents. Thus, we were supportive of Sen. Ensign's efforts, and pleased the amendment was adopted. Fortunately, the Ensign amendment contains a severability clause, so it would remain standing even if the courts reject Congress's attempt to give congressional representation to D.C. residents.
"NRA would like to thank the lead sponsor, Senator John Ensign for his efforts to reform D.C.'s gun laws and enable folks to protect their property and their loved ones," concluded Cox. "It's time for leaders in Washington to wake up to the fact that the Supreme Court decision is now the law of the land."
Please contact your Senators and thank them if they voted in favor of the Ensign Amendment. If your Senators voted against this critical measure, please remind them you will remember this vote on Election Day. You can reach your Senators at (202) 224-3121. For more contact information for your U.S. Senators, please click here.
To see how your Senator voted, see below
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Amendment (Ensign Amdt. No. 575 )
Vote Number: 72 Vote Date: February 26, 2009, 03:52 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 575 to S. 160 (District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009)
Statement of Purpose: To restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia.
Vote Counts: YEAs 62
NAYs 36
Not Voting 1
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Burris (D-IL), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johanns (R-NE), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kaufman (D-DE), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Merkley (D-OR), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Risch (R-ID), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Udall (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---62
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)
NAYs ---36
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting - 1
Kennedy (D-MA)
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Grouped by Home State Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Begich (D-AK), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Bennet (D-CO), Yea Udall (D-CO), Yea
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay
Delaware: Carper (D-DE), Nay Kaufman (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Crapo (R-ID), Yea Risch (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Burris (D-IL), Nay Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Yea
Nebraska: Johanns (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Udall (D-NM), Yea
New York: Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Hagan (D-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Merkley (D-OR), Nay Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Yea Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (D-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Yea
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Murray (D-WA), Nay
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Friday, February 27, 2009
Yesterday, the United States Senate voted, with overwhelming bipartisan support, to adopt an amendment offered by Nevada Senator John Ensign (R), that seeks to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in the District of Columbia. The amendment, attached to S.160, the "D.C. Voting Rights Act", will repeal restrictive gun control laws passed by the District of Columbia's (D.C.) city council in defiance of the landmark D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court decision. The vote margin was 62-36.
"Today's vote brings us one step closer to restoring the gun rights of law-abiding D.C. residents," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. "It's ludicrous that good people in our nation's capital continue to be harassed as they try to defend themselves and their loved ones in their own homes. This vote reinforces the historic Heller ruling."
Since the Supreme Court struck down D.C.'s ban on handguns and on having guns in operable condition within the home in last year's Heller decision, the District passed a series of temporary "emergency" bills that failed to comply with the Court's ruling, followed by a permanent law (which will take effect in April unless blocked) that imposes even more restrictions on D.C. gun owners. (A temporary "emergency" law that mirrors the restrictive permanent law is currently in effect.) In particular:
The new law enacts sweeping bans, borrowed wholesale from California, on hundreds of models of semi-automatic firearms, and on standard-capacity magazines widely owned for lawful self-defense purposes.
The new law also bans the sale of handguns deemed "unsafe" by California, based on California's legal standards. Individuals would only be able to acquire handguns that are on the "California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale." This provision includes a "microstamping" mandate that would require use of unproven technology and would likely prevent sale of most new models of handguns in D.C. after January 1, 2011.
Though D.C. has always argued for its own sovereignty, these provisions give the legislature of California and the officials of the California Department of Justice all control over which handguns may be sold in the District. D.C. gun owners would be at the whim of bureaucrats in Sacramento, who regularly change these rules to prohibit sales of more models of firearms.
Many of the guns that are prohibited under D.C.'s new law are both "in common use" throughout the United States and "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes," which the Supreme Court in Heller suggested was the standard for constitutional protection.
The new law makes D.C.'s complicated, intrusive and expensive registration procedure even more complicated, to discourage people from attempting to register a handgun. Among other provisions, it requires gun owners to report annually to the Metropolitan Police that they still own their guns.
The new limits include a limit of one handgun registration per 30 days; a provision that rations constitutional rights and that has failed to reduce crime in the few states that have enacted similar laws.
The Ensign Amendment is narrowly drawn to enforce the Supreme Court's Heller decision and prevent the District government from further burdening the Second Amendment rights of its residents.
The Ensign Amendment will:
Conform D.C. gun laws to the requirements set out by the Supreme Court. The D.C. Council had the opportunity to conform its laws to the ruling, but its new laws add major burdens on residents' Second Amendment rights.
Reform the District's firearm registration regime, which the District's new law makes even more complicated and intrusive. Firearm registration also has no crime-prevention benefit, as demonstrated by the fact that all, or nearly all, firearms used in violent crimes in D.C. are not registered.
The underlying question of whether Congress can grant representation to D.C. will ultimately be resolved in the courts. As a single-issue organization, NRA takes no position on voting rights for D.C., but we are obviously concerned about ensuring the Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms is functionally returned D.C. residents. Thus, we were supportive of Sen. Ensign's efforts, and pleased the amendment was adopted. Fortunately, the Ensign amendment contains a severability clause, so it would remain standing even if the courts reject Congress's attempt to give congressional representation to D.C. residents.
"NRA would like to thank the lead sponsor, Senator John Ensign for his efforts to reform D.C.'s gun laws and enable folks to protect their property and their loved ones," concluded Cox. "It's time for leaders in Washington to wake up to the fact that the Supreme Court decision is now the law of the land."
Please contact your Senators and thank them if they voted in favor of the Ensign Amendment. If your Senators voted against this critical measure, please remind them you will remember this vote on Election Day. You can reach your Senators at (202) 224-3121. For more contact information for your U.S. Senators, please click here.
To see how your Senator voted, see below
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Amendment (Ensign Amdt. No. 575 )
Vote Number: 72 Vote Date: February 26, 2009, 03:52 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 575 to S. 160 (District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009)
Statement of Purpose: To restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia.
Vote Counts: YEAs 62
NAYs 36
Not Voting 1
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Burris (D-IL), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johanns (R-NE), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kaufman (D-DE), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Merkley (D-OR), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Risch (R-ID), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Udall (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---62
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)
NAYs ---36
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting - 1
Kennedy (D-MA)
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Grouped by Home State Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Begich (D-AK), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Bennet (D-CO), Yea Udall (D-CO), Yea
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay
Delaware: Carper (D-DE), Nay Kaufman (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Crapo (R-ID), Yea Risch (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Burris (D-IL), Nay Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Yea
Nebraska: Johanns (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Udall (D-NM), Yea
New York: Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Hagan (D-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Merkley (D-OR), Nay Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Yea Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (D-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Yea
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Murray (D-WA), Nay
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feds Send Mixed Signals On Push For Gun Control
Feds Send Mixed Signals On Push For Gun Control
Friday, February 27, 2009
On Wednesday, February 25, just over five weeks after Inauguration Day, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Obama Administration will seek to reinstate the expired federal "assault weapon" ban and impose additional restrictions.
"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder said. Based on Holder's testimony during his confirmation hearings before the Senate, those other "changes" presumably include prohibiting private transfers of firearms and banning most center-fire rifle ammunition as "armor-piercing."
Holder said that new gun control laws are needed because in Mexico, a country with a history of corruption and disregard for individual rights, there's a shooting war going on between drug gangs and government troops, and some of the gangsters' guns have been illegally purchased in the United States.
Few Americans are going to buy into the idea that the U.S. is responsible for internal problems in any foreign country, particularly one to which we give millions of dollars in aid, and in turn illegal drugs and illegal aliens flow freely into our southwestern states.
Holder tried to sell his scheme by saying that "International drug trafficking organizations pose a sustained, serious threat to the safety and security of our communities," noting that law enforcement officers in this country have arrested more than 750 individuals on related illegal narcotics charges over the last 21 months.
Atta-boy to our law enforcement officers for their good work in making drug gangs bite the dust. But it appears that Holder exaggerated the "threat" that they pose to the U.S. On Thursday, a Drug Enforcement Administration spokesperson told NRA-ILA that there is little incidence of Mexican drug gang members committing violent crimes in this country against Americans who are not involved in illegal activities with the gangs. Some Americans who have colluded with the drug-smugglers have not been so lucky, but for that they have only themselves to blame.
Of course, ignored in the discussion was any mention that straw purchasing a firearm for a Mexican drug runner, and transferring a firearm to someone knowing it will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime, are currently federal felonies punishable by 10 years in prison.
Holder was still enjoying the high (pardon the pun) that he must have felt from his media moment when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reminded him that it isn't the Attorney General who makes laws in the United States. Asked whether Holder had spoken to her before putting himself in front of the national news cameras, Pelosi said "no," adding, "I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now." Shortly thereafter, the office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) stated flatly that "Senator Reid would oppose an effort [to] reinstate the ban if the Senate were to vote on it in the future."
Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid were joined in opposing Holder by members of the bipartisan House of Representatives Second Amendment Task Force. U.S. Rep. and Task Force co-chair Paul Broun (R-Ga.) said "The Attorney General's recent comments about reinstating the 'assault weapons' ban are extremely troubling since a ban clearly violates our Constitutional right to bear arms." Co-chair Dan Boren (D-Okla.) added, "The Second Amendment Task Force is adamantly opposed to reinstating the ban on the sale of assault weapons as it clearly would demonstrate a violation of United States citizens' right to keep and bear arms." Other members of the Task Force include Democrats Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), Travis Childers (D-Miss.), Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.), Jim Matheson (D-Utah) and Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.), and Republicans Rob Bishop (R-Utah), John Carter (R-Tex.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Steve King (R-Iowa) and Steve Scalise (R-La.).
Independently, Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), an NRA Life Member, said that he would "oppose any action on behalf of the Attorney General or President Obama to reinstate the assault weapons ban."
Unfortunately, Holder still has many options for ways to threaten the right to arms. As examples, he could force the BATFE to once again arbitrarily reinterpret firearm importation law, to further limit the kinds of firearms that may be imported. He could force the agency to discontinue its support of the Tiahrt Amendment, which protects both the privacy of gun buyers and the integrity of police investigations. And though the Justice Department has previously testified against the type of "armor piercing ammunition" restriction gun control supporters advocate today, Holder's DOJ could reverse course. Holder could also direct BATFE to adopt enforcement policies designed to drive licensed dealers out of business.
And while Sen. Reid has a good record on many gun control issues, there is no doubt where Speaker Pelosi truly stands. She will support gun control, but on her timetable, not one provided her by the new Attorney General.
As we expect to say a lot over the next four years, "Stay tuned."
Copyright 2009, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
Contact Us | Privacy & Security Policy
Links to Congress
The U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
Senate Schedule
House schedule today
Search THOMAS
Arkansas: Bill Allowing Churches to Decide Whether to Allow Right-to-Carry Needs Your Help!
Governor Signs Two NRA-Backed Bills into Law in Wyoming!
Second Amendment Update for the Badger State
Texas: Campus Carry Bills Introduced in Austin!
South Dakota Preemption Bill Passes House, Heads to Senate!
MORE >>
Voter Information
Grass Roots Activism
Volunteers Needed In Phoenix For 2009 NRA Annual Meetings
Redesigned NRA T-Shirt Available NOW!
"I'm A Bitter Gun Owner And I Vote!" Yard Signs Available Now
Another Way To Get Involved And Make A Difference
Time Is Running Out To Register To Vote!
MORE>>
Friday, February 27, 2009
On Wednesday, February 25, just over five weeks after Inauguration Day, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Obama Administration will seek to reinstate the expired federal "assault weapon" ban and impose additional restrictions.
"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder said. Based on Holder's testimony during his confirmation hearings before the Senate, those other "changes" presumably include prohibiting private transfers of firearms and banning most center-fire rifle ammunition as "armor-piercing."
Holder said that new gun control laws are needed because in Mexico, a country with a history of corruption and disregard for individual rights, there's a shooting war going on between drug gangs and government troops, and some of the gangsters' guns have been illegally purchased in the United States.
Few Americans are going to buy into the idea that the U.S. is responsible for internal problems in any foreign country, particularly one to which we give millions of dollars in aid, and in turn illegal drugs and illegal aliens flow freely into our southwestern states.
Holder tried to sell his scheme by saying that "International drug trafficking organizations pose a sustained, serious threat to the safety and security of our communities," noting that law enforcement officers in this country have arrested more than 750 individuals on related illegal narcotics charges over the last 21 months.
Atta-boy to our law enforcement officers for their good work in making drug gangs bite the dust. But it appears that Holder exaggerated the "threat" that they pose to the U.S. On Thursday, a Drug Enforcement Administration spokesperson told NRA-ILA that there is little incidence of Mexican drug gang members committing violent crimes in this country against Americans who are not involved in illegal activities with the gangs. Some Americans who have colluded with the drug-smugglers have not been so lucky, but for that they have only themselves to blame.
Of course, ignored in the discussion was any mention that straw purchasing a firearm for a Mexican drug runner, and transferring a firearm to someone knowing it will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime, are currently federal felonies punishable by 10 years in prison.
Holder was still enjoying the high (pardon the pun) that he must have felt from his media moment when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reminded him that it isn't the Attorney General who makes laws in the United States. Asked whether Holder had spoken to her before putting himself in front of the national news cameras, Pelosi said "no," adding, "I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now." Shortly thereafter, the office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) stated flatly that "Senator Reid would oppose an effort [to] reinstate the ban if the Senate were to vote on it in the future."
Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid were joined in opposing Holder by members of the bipartisan House of Representatives Second Amendment Task Force. U.S. Rep. and Task Force co-chair Paul Broun (R-Ga.) said "The Attorney General's recent comments about reinstating the 'assault weapons' ban are extremely troubling since a ban clearly violates our Constitutional right to bear arms." Co-chair Dan Boren (D-Okla.) added, "The Second Amendment Task Force is adamantly opposed to reinstating the ban on the sale of assault weapons as it clearly would demonstrate a violation of United States citizens' right to keep and bear arms." Other members of the Task Force include Democrats Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), Travis Childers (D-Miss.), Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.), Jim Matheson (D-Utah) and Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.), and Republicans Rob Bishop (R-Utah), John Carter (R-Tex.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Steve King (R-Iowa) and Steve Scalise (R-La.).
Independently, Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), an NRA Life Member, said that he would "oppose any action on behalf of the Attorney General or President Obama to reinstate the assault weapons ban."
Unfortunately, Holder still has many options for ways to threaten the right to arms. As examples, he could force the BATFE to once again arbitrarily reinterpret firearm importation law, to further limit the kinds of firearms that may be imported. He could force the agency to discontinue its support of the Tiahrt Amendment, which protects both the privacy of gun buyers and the integrity of police investigations. And though the Justice Department has previously testified against the type of "armor piercing ammunition" restriction gun control supporters advocate today, Holder's DOJ could reverse course. Holder could also direct BATFE to adopt enforcement policies designed to drive licensed dealers out of business.
And while Sen. Reid has a good record on many gun control issues, there is no doubt where Speaker Pelosi truly stands. She will support gun control, but on her timetable, not one provided her by the new Attorney General.
As we expect to say a lot over the next four years, "Stay tuned."
Copyright 2009, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
Contact Us | Privacy & Security Policy
Links to Congress
The U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
Senate Schedule
House schedule today
Search THOMAS
Arkansas: Bill Allowing Churches to Decide Whether to Allow Right-to-Carry Needs Your Help!
Governor Signs Two NRA-Backed Bills into Law in Wyoming!
Second Amendment Update for the Badger State
Texas: Campus Carry Bills Introduced in Austin!
South Dakota Preemption Bill Passes House, Heads to Senate!
MORE >>
Voter Information
Grass Roots Activism
Volunteers Needed In Phoenix For 2009 NRA Annual Meetings
Redesigned NRA T-Shirt Available NOW!
"I'm A Bitter Gun Owner And I Vote!" Yard Signs Available Now
Another Way To Get Involved And Make A Difference
Time Is Running Out To Register To Vote!
MORE>>
Tip of the iceberg on gun control?
Is H.R. 45 just the tip of the iceberg on gun control?
Charlie Edgren / El Paso Times
Posted: 02/28/2009 12:00:00 AM MST
Now that the libbie-loos have America's banks well on the road to nationalization, it's time to shift the focus to other ways of abridging Americans' freedoms.
It might well be a renewed push for gun control.
There's been somewhat of an enjoyable respite from gun-control fanaticism for the past few years. But now it appears ready to rear its ugly head once again. This could be the roughest four years in a long time for those who advocate upholding the Second Amendment.
Take, for example, H.R. 45, introduced in January in the U.S. House of Representatives as "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 ... To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes."
The bill was introduced by Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Illinois.
Possibly the most ominous part of this bill is the definition of firearms covered by the legislation:
"SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
"(a) In General - In this Act:
"(1) FIREARM; LICENSED DEALER; LICENSED MANUFACTURER; STATE - The terms 'firearm', 'licensed dealer', 'licensed manufacturer', and 'State' have the meanings given those terms in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code.
"(2) QUALIFYING FIREARM - The term 'qualifying firearm' has the meaning given the term in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by subsection (b) of this section.
"(b) Amendment to Title 18, United States Code - Section
921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
"(36) The term 'qualifying firearm' --
"(A) means ---
"(i) any handgun; or
"(ii) any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device; and
"(B) does not include any antique."
As you might have noticed, that pretty much covers everything except your repro Civil War musket and your potato gun.
If there's any good news, it's that the bill appears stuck in committee.
And speaking of Democrats and Illinois, state Rep. Kenneth Dunkin wants all gun owners to be forced to carry at least $1 million in personal liability insurance.
Ever checked out new Attorney General Eric Holder's attitude toward the Second Amendment? The Volokh Conspiracy, a Web site focusing on the courts and legal system, lists some Holder stances when he was deputy attorney general. He:
advocated federal licensing of handgun owners;
proposed a three-day waiting period on handgun sales;
backed the rationing of handgun sales to a maximum of one per month;
advocated giving the federal government the power to shut down gun shows;
favored national gun registration.
This from someone who has sworn to uphold the Constitution and yes, that still includes the Second Amendment.
A Democratic initiative in New Jersey that would have limited handgun purchases to one every 30 days per individual failed by just one vote in the Senate. Waaaaay too close.
That's just a little bit of what's going on as gun-control zealots dust themselves off and try to gauge how far they can go in and with this new administration.
Did you notice what might be the scariest part of H.R. 45? It talks about the implementation of licensing and acquiring sales records for firearms ... "and for other purposes."
"Other purposes" could easily become handy catch-all way for any federal agen cy to collect any information it wanted on anyone it wanted. It could be effectively argued that such is already the case, but "other purposes" would sure make information-gathering a lot easier.
H.R. 45 is a measure that is absurd in its sweep, but absurdity too often rules the day in the halls of Congress. It appears that H.R. 45 shouldn't have a chance of passing out of committee, but stranger things have happened.
To help keep stranger things from happening, call your senators and representatives and tell them what you think of H.R. 45.
Charlie Edgren is editorial page editor for the El Paso Times. E-mail: cedgren@elpasotimes.com
Charlie Edgren / El Paso Times
Posted: 02/28/2009 12:00:00 AM MST
Now that the libbie-loos have America's banks well on the road to nationalization, it's time to shift the focus to other ways of abridging Americans' freedoms.
It might well be a renewed push for gun control.
There's been somewhat of an enjoyable respite from gun-control fanaticism for the past few years. But now it appears ready to rear its ugly head once again. This could be the roughest four years in a long time for those who advocate upholding the Second Amendment.
Take, for example, H.R. 45, introduced in January in the U.S. House of Representatives as "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 ... To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes."
The bill was introduced by Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Illinois.
Possibly the most ominous part of this bill is the definition of firearms covered by the legislation:
"SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
"(a) In General - In this Act:
"(1) FIREARM; LICENSED DEALER; LICENSED MANUFACTURER; STATE - The terms 'firearm', 'licensed dealer', 'licensed manufacturer', and 'State' have the meanings given those terms in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code.
"(2) QUALIFYING FIREARM - The term 'qualifying firearm' has the meaning given the term in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by subsection (b) of this section.
"(b) Amendment to Title 18, United States Code - Section
921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
"(36) The term 'qualifying firearm' --
"(A) means ---
"(i) any handgun; or
"(ii) any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device; and
"(B) does not include any antique."
As you might have noticed, that pretty much covers everything except your repro Civil War musket and your potato gun.
If there's any good news, it's that the bill appears stuck in committee.
And speaking of Democrats and Illinois, state Rep. Kenneth Dunkin wants all gun owners to be forced to carry at least $1 million in personal liability insurance.
Ever checked out new Attorney General Eric Holder's attitude toward the Second Amendment? The Volokh Conspiracy, a Web site focusing on the courts and legal system, lists some Holder stances when he was deputy attorney general. He:
advocated federal licensing of handgun owners;
proposed a three-day waiting period on handgun sales;
backed the rationing of handgun sales to a maximum of one per month;
advocated giving the federal government the power to shut down gun shows;
favored national gun registration.
This from someone who has sworn to uphold the Constitution and yes, that still includes the Second Amendment.
A Democratic initiative in New Jersey that would have limited handgun purchases to one every 30 days per individual failed by just one vote in the Senate. Waaaaay too close.
That's just a little bit of what's going on as gun-control zealots dust themselves off and try to gauge how far they can go in and with this new administration.
Did you notice what might be the scariest part of H.R. 45? It talks about the implementation of licensing and acquiring sales records for firearms ... "and for other purposes."
"Other purposes" could easily become handy catch-all way for any federal agen cy to collect any information it wanted on anyone it wanted. It could be effectively argued that such is already the case, but "other purposes" would sure make information-gathering a lot easier.
H.R. 45 is a measure that is absurd in its sweep, but absurdity too often rules the day in the halls of Congress. It appears that H.R. 45 shouldn't have a chance of passing out of committee, but stranger things have happened.
To help keep stranger things from happening, call your senators and representatives and tell them what you think of H.R. 45.
Charlie Edgren is editorial page editor for the El Paso Times. E-mail: cedgren@elpasotimes.com
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)