And now, our Chief Justice…

Comments Off

Thank the Lord this woman has moxey.  After hearing that another liberal judge struck down Alan Keyes lawsuit on this in California, we can now see if our Chief Justice puts his money where his mouth is.

 

BORN IN THE USA?
Chief justice accepts ‘eligibility’ petition
Roberts agrees to read Obama docs, consider WND’s 330,000 signers


Posted: March 14, 2009
4:45 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts

A California attorney lobbying the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of Barack Obama’s qualifications to be president confronted the chief justice yesterday with legal briefs and a WND petition bearing names of over 325,000 people asking the court to rule on whether or not the sitting president fulfills the Constitution’s “natural-born citizen” clause.

According to Orly Taitz, the attorney who confronted Chief Justice John Roberts at a lecture at the University of Idaho, the judge promised before the gathered crowd that he would, indeed, read and review the briefs and petition.

“I addressed him in front of 800 people in the audience,” Taitz told WND, “including university officials, the president of the Idaho State Bar and the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Idaho, and in front of all them, [Roberts] promised to read my papers.”

Roberts was lecturing on Abraham Lincoln to approximately 1,200 attendees of the annual Bellwood Memorial Lecture Series at the Moscow

, Idaho, university. Roberts has been chief justice of the Supreme Court since his nomination by President George W. Bush and subsequent confirmation in 2005.

Earlier in the week, Taitz confronted Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who told her the issue of Obama’s eligibility, which has been raised before the Supreme Court at least four times but has yet to be given a single hearing, still lacked the votes of the required four justices in conference before it would be officially heard.

Taitz said, “I told Scalia that I was an attorney that filed Lightfoot v. Bowen that Chief Justice Roberts distributed for conference on Jan. 23 and now I represent nine state reps and 120 military officers, many of them high ranked, and I want to know if they will hear Quo Warranto and if they would hear it on original jurisdiction, if I bring Hawaii as an additional defendant to unseal the records and ascertain Obama’s legitimacy for presidency.”

The legal phrase Quo Warranto essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto “affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents.”

Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the “natural-born American” clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 325,000 others and sign up now!

“Tell me what to do, what can I do?” Taitz reports asking Scalia. “Those soldiers [her plaintiffs] can be court-martialed for asking a legitimate question, who is the president, is he legitimate?”

She says Scalia responded, “Bring the case, I’ll hear it, I don’t know about others.”

In Idaho, Taitz obtained the promise of one of the others, the chief justice, that he would read through the eligibility challenge, including the petition brought by WND readers.

As WND reported, Taitz is submitting a motion to the Supreme Court for re-hearing of Lightfoot v. Bowen, a case she is working on through her foundation Defend Our Freedoms, alleging some of her documentation may have been withheld from the justices by a court clerk.

Orly Taitz

She asserts docketing information about her case “was erased from the docket of the Supreme Court on January 21st, one day after the inauguration and two days before [the case was to be heard].”

At the lecture in Idaho, Taitz grabbed the attention of Justice Roberts by boldly addressing her allegation that a clerk had buried the case.

Taitz told WND that the forum rules required that those questioning Roberts announce their relationship to the University of Idaho and refrain from talking about cases currently before or likely to appear before the court.

“I said, ‘Justice Roberts, my name is Orly Taitz. I’m an attorney from California, and I got up at 3 o’clock in the middle of the night, flew and drove thousands of miles just to ask you a question. So please give me some leeway,'” Taitz told WND. “My question is, do you know there is illegal activity going on in the Supreme Court of the United States?”

According to Taitz, the room was stunned silent as she continued, “I have presented my case to you, and you personally agreed to hear this case in conference. But your clerk refused to forward a supplemental brief to you. He has hidden this brief from you. He refused to put it on the docket. Additionally, my case was erased from the docket one day after the Inauguration, two days before my case was to be heard.

“Outraged citizens and members of the media and state representatives are calling the Supreme Court, demanding to have the case reentered on the docket,” Taitz told Roberts.

Then she held up the WND petition and continued, “Moreover, here are the names of U.S. citizens who signed this petition and who sent individual letters to individual justices, including you, Justice Roberts, all of them demanding the same thing – that you hear my case in regards to Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility for presidency.”

According to Taitz, Roberts approached the microphone and said, “I see you have papers. I promise you I will read all your papers, I will review them. Please give them to my Secret Service and I will review all of them.”

Shortly thereafter, Taitz told WND, a Secret Service agent identified by his badge as Gilbert Shaw accepted two suitcases of documents and pledged to deliver them to Roberts.

Taitz reports the documents included four major sections:

  • A motion for reconsideration of Lightfoot v. Bowen with all its supplemental briefs.

 

  • The Quo Warranto Easterling et al v. Obama et al case.

 

  • The WND petition, consisting of 3,300 pages of names – over 325,000 in all – of people demanding the Supreme Court hear the Obama eligibility case.

 

  • A copy of a 164-page dossier sent to Attorney General Eric Holder detailing suspected criminal activity surrounding Obama and his supporters, also available on the Defend Our Freedoms website.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, some suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are “garbage,” here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama’s eligibility:

  • New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn’t properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.

 

  • Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
  • Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

 

  • Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut’s secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

 

  • Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state’s 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case was dismissed by Judge Michael P. Kenny.
  •  
  • Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama’s vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
  • Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama’s eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama’s citizenship. His case was denied.
  • In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
  • Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.
  • In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama’s citizenship. The case was denied.
  • In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama’s birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia’s secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

 

  • California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama’s eligibility include:

  • In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
  • In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
  • In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
  • In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
  • In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

 

Chuck Norris-I May Run for President

1 Comment



I may run for president of Texas

On Glenn Beck’s radio show last week, I quipped in response to our wayward federal government, “I may run for president of Texas.”

That need may be a reality sooner than we think. If not me, someone someday may again be running for president of the Lone Star state, if the state of the union continues to turn into the enemy of the state.

From the East Coast to the “Left Coast,” America seems to be moving further and further from its founders’ vision and government.

George Washington advised, “The great rule of conduct in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations [and] having with them as little political connection as possible.” Yet the Obama administration just pledged $900 million in U.S. taxpayer-funded aid to Hamas-controlled Gaza and Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority.

Thomas Jefferson counseled us, “We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.” Yet the Feds have just skyrocketed our national deficit and debt by trillions of dollars, and it plans much more fiscal expansion with few expectations of resistance. Despite that George Washington admonished, “To contract new debts is not the way to pay for old ones,” we keep borrowing and bailing, while we watch the stock market plunge further every time we do.

Patrick Henry taught that, “Our Constitution is … an instrument for its people to restrain the government.” Yet our Congress and president stampede that founding document, overlook its explicitness and manipulate its words to abandon a balance of power and accommodate their own desires, partisan politics and runaway spending.

John Adams declared that, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.” Yet we’ve bastardized the First Amendment, reinterpreted America’s religious history and secularized our society until we ooze skepticism and circumvent religion on every level of public and private life.

How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution? We the people have the authority according to America’s Declaration of Independence, which states:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

When I appeared on Glenn Beck’s radio show, he told me that someone had asked him, “Do you really believe that there is going to be trouble in the future?” And he answered, “If this country starts to spiral out of control and Mexico melts down or whatever, if it really starts to spiral out of control, before America allows a country to become a totalitarian country (which it would have under I think the Republicans as well in this situation; they were taking us to the same place, just slower), Americans won’t stand for it. There will be parts of the country that will rise up.” Then Glenn asked me and his listening audience, “And where’s that going to come from?” He answered his own question, “Texas, it’s going to come from Texas. Do you agree with that Chuck?” I replied, “Oh yeah!” Definitely.

It was these types of thoughts that led me to utter the tongue-n-cheek frustration on Glenn Beck’s radio show, “I may run for president of Texas!”

I’m not saying that other states won’t muster the gumption to stand and secede, but Texas has the history to prove it. As most know, Texas was its own country before it joined the Union as its 28th state. From 1836 to 1846, Texas was its own Republic. Washington-on-the-Brazos (river) served as our Philadelphia, Pa. It was there, on March 2, 1836, where a band of patriots forged the Texas Declaration of Independence. (We just celebrated these dates last week.)

On March 1, 1845, then-President John Tyler signed a congressional bill annexing the Republic of Texas. Though the annexation resolution never explicitly granted Texas the right to secede from the Union (as is often reported), many (including me) hold that it is implied by its unique autonomy and history, as well as the unusual provision in the resolution that gave Texas the right to divide into as many as five states. Both the original (1836) and the current (1876) Texas Constitutions also declare that “All political power is inherent in the people. … they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper.”

Anyone who has been around Texas for any length of time knows exactly what we’d do if the going got rough in America. Let there be no doubt about that. As Sam Houston once said, “Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may.”

Just last Friday, the Alamo celebrated its 173rd commemoration, when on March 6, 1836, Texans under Col. William B. Travis were overcome by the Mexican army after a two-week siege at the Alamo in San Antonio. But they didn’t go down without a hell-of-a-fight, as those roughly 145 Texans fought to their dying breaths against more than 2,000 Mexican forces under Gen. Santa Anna. (Casualties in the battle were 189 Texans vs. about 1,600 Mexicans.) They lost that battle, but would provide the inspiration to win the war. Their fighting spirit rallied the new-found republic, and still does to this day. So when you think all is lost in America, remember the Alamo!

For those losing hope, and others wanting to rekindle the patriotic fires of early America, I encourage you to join Fox News’ Glenn Beck, me and millions of people across the country in the live telecast, “We Surround Them,” on Friday afternoon (March 13 at 5 p.m. ET, 4 p.m. CT and 2 p.m. PST). Thousands of cell groups will be united around the country in solidarity over the concerns for our nation. You can host or attend a viewing party by going to Glenn’s website. My wife Gena and I will be hosting one from our Texas ranch, in which we’ve invited many family members, friends and law enforcement to join us. It’s our way of saying “We’re united, we’re tired of the corruption, and we’re not going to take it anymore!”

Again, Sam Houston put it well when he gave the marching orders, “We view ourselves on the eve of battle. We are nerved for the contest, and must conquer or perish. It is vain to look for present aid: None is at hand. We must now act or abandon all hope! Rally to the standard, and be no longer the scoff of mercenary tongues! Be men, be free men, that your children may bless their father’s name.”

(Note: Speaking of showdowns, Chuck is also inviting anyone near the Houston area this weekend to see a good example of the raw Texas fighting spirit by joining him and others for the national martial arts event, “Showdown in H-Town.”)

Worldnet Daily.com

Heil, Obama

Comments Off

Are you ready for the civil militia? 


http://www.theodoresworld.net/

March 15, 2009

Obama’s H.R.1388, “The Give Act” to Reform the National Service Laws

Obama Requires American’s to SERVE, H.R.1388, “The Give Act” to reform the National Service Laws

HR 1388, will hit the House floor on Tuesday.It is called the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (The Give Act.) The House is scheduled to Rule this week. Sponsored by Democrat Representative Carolyn McCarthy (NY), Education and Labor Committee. The objective is to reauthorize and reform the national service laws.
Democrat Rep. McCarthy is sponsoring the bill with 25 co-sponsors, ALL Democrats, including Charlie Rangel.

You can CLICK HERE…… The Library of Congress Thomas
And CLICK this one too

From clicking on the link above: ( these are just a few of the things)
* Government the right to require individuals to give 3 years service under the guise of “volunteer” service
* It talks about uniforms and “camps.” They revise the word “camps” and call it “campus.” There is language about Seniors and Community organizations.
* “leverage Federal investments to increase State, local, business, and philanthropic resources to address national and local challenges
* encourage national service efforts to address pressing national challenges, such as improving education for low-income students, increasing energy conservation, and improving the health, well-being, and economic opportunities of the neediest individuals in the Nation;
* expand and strengthen service-learning programs through year-round opportunities, including during the summer months, to improve the education of children and youth and to maximize the benefits of national and community service, in order to renew the ethic of civic responsibility and the spirit of community to children and youth throughout the United States;
* increase service opportunities for our Nation’s retiring professionals
* encourage members of the Baby Boom generation to partake in service opportunities
* Civilian Community Corps shall be called the “National Civilian Community Corps”
* the Director determines appropriate “Uniforms”

**** Take note of the Miscellaneous Section (Title VI) of the Bill. Very Strange!!!
From the Misc. section, #6104: (6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.
MANDATORY!
CO-SPONSORS(25), ALPHABETICAL
Rep Altmire, Jason [PA-4] – 3/12/2009
Rep Andrews, Robert E. [NJ-1] – 3/9/2009
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] – 3/12/2009
Rep Courtney, Joe [CT-2] – 3/9/2009
Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] – 3/12/2009
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] – 3/9/2009
Rep Hare, Phil [IL-17] – 3/9/2009
Rep Hinojosa, Ruben [TX-15] – 3/9/2009
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] – 3/9/2009
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] – 3/12/2009
Rep Kildee, Dale E. [MI-5] – 3/9/2009
Rep Klein, Ron [FL-22] – 3/12/2009
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] – 3/12/2009
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] – 3/12/2009
Rep Miller, George [CA-7] – 3/9/2009
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] – 3/12/2009
Rep Polis, Jared [CO-2] – 3/9/2009
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] – 3/12/2009
Rep Sablan, Gregorio [MP] – 3/9/2009
Rep Sestak, Joe [PA-7] – 3/9/2009
Rep Shea-Porter, Carol [NH-1] – 3/12/2009
Rep Tonko, Paul D. [NY-21] – 3/9/2009
Rep Van Hollen, Chris [MD-8] – 3/12/2009
Rep Welch, Peter [VT] – 3/12/2009
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] – 3/12/2009

Part of Title VI says:
SEC. 6107. POWERS OF COMMISSION.
(a) Hearings and Sessions- The Commission may, for the purpose of carrying out this title, hold public hearings, sit and act at times and places, take testimony, and receive evidence as the Commission considers appropriate.
b) Powers of Members and Agents- Any member or agent of the Commission may, if authorized by the Commission, take any action which the Commission is authorized to take by this section.
(c) Obtaining Official Data- Upon request of the Chairperson, the head of any department or agency shall furnish information to the Commission that the Commission deems necessary to enable it to carry out this title.
(d) Physical Facilities and Equipment- The Architect of the Capitol, in consultation with the appropriate entities in the legislative branch, shall locate and provide suitable facilities and equipment for the operation of the Commission on a nonreimbursable basis.

Have you got a good grip on your gun?

1 Comment

A couple of my friends write to me and send me this stuff.  I’m getting ready to prepare myself and I hope you are too.

No Longer Just Paranoia

For months, anyone who’s proffered the position that the Obama Administration was anti-gun has been dismissed as being a variety of things, from sore loser to rampant paranoid. Nonetheless, since assuming office, members of the Obama administration have steadily- and stealthily- moved against firearms and ammunition.

Their only public blunder was Attorney General Holder’s saying the “assault weapons ban” needed to be reinstated. Quickly, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi – no friend of gun owners – went on record as opposing Holder’s suggestion. She went as far as to parrot the words of pro-gun groups, saying the government should enforce the laws on the books today, rather than introducing new laws.

At the same time, the State Department notified Canadian authorities of plans to issue an export ban on “military caliber ammunition” to Canada. That proposed action would prevent the sales of .223, .308 and other military calibers.

When Canadian authorities protested – and notified several members of the American media, the U.S. State Department suddenly went silent. But they quietly reinstated other rules and charges firearms exports-retroactively.

While it seemed they had been headed off on one proposal, they had actually drawn attention away from other actions. If you’re into incrementalism, that translates as a win.

Anything passed brings the ultimate goal that much closer.

Last Friday, the anglers and hunters were notified that the National Park Service planned to make all lands under their control totally lead-free by 2010. No lead in ammo or fishing tackle.

As we report in today’s Outdoor Wire, that decision has kicked off howls of protests – and questions about the NPS trying to usurp states’ rights by issuing their unilateral decision with no prior notification. It’s definitely not going to be a decision without some serious discussions. That still doesn’t mean the NPS will back off on their decision.

All these things are racing along on parallel tracks. Now, many observers – and not just those on the pro-gun side of the discussion – believe the country is hurtling toward a confrontation.

The catalyst might be any one of several flashpoint issues, but both groups seem to believe a reckoning is unavoidable.

For months, I’ve gotten reports of everything from re-tasking of military heavy assault units for domestic violence scenarios to calls for “committees of correspondence” designed to spread news the way word was spread by citizens of the then-British colonies.

In each instance, I’ve discounted the reports as internet hysteria that has produced breathless notices of “the real-deal on the new assault weapon ban”- or references to HR45 – a gun registration bill that is a prime example of “eyewash legislation”. It’s purpose has already been achieved.

Part of that discounting has been due to the fact that hot-blooded rhetoric seems to run along with firearms ownership.

To the chagrin of industry officials, there’s never a shortage of people willing to go on camera, get red-faced and spout “from my cold dead hands” phrases.

Admittedly, those people concern me, but more for their reinforcement of a negative stereotype to people who have no opinion one way or the other on firearms.

Today, however, a report that has nothing to do with rhetoric, hyperbole or rumor.

A very disturbing report that points to a very real assault on ammunition supplies.

The Department of Defense has issued a directive that bans the sale of military brass to ammunition re-manufacturers.

Without that brass, a very large dent is put into civilian ammunition supplies.

New Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS) requirements call for the “mutilation of shell casings”. Mutilation, incidentally, is the destruction of the property “to the extent that prevents its reuse or reconstruction”.

Government officials will determine what constitutes “sufficient mutilation” but it’s safe to say that it will no longer be suitable for remanufacturing.

The first word of this latest decision came over the weekend when Georgia Arms’ Larry Haynie released a letter notifying him of the new requirement.

For a company with an order in for 30,000 pounds of expended military brass in .223, .308 and .50 BMG, that was not a pleasant notification.

Georgia Arms was remanufacturing more than one million rounds of .223 ammunition monthly; selling that ammo on the civilian market to resellers and to government agencies all over the country.

Tomorrow, Georgia Arms will start sending cancellation notices for .223 ammunition to law enforcement agencies across the United States. Haynie says he may have to layoff half of his sixty-person workforce.

The message is simple. The implication is chilling.
A new welcome page posted on Georgia Arms’ website (www.georgia-arms.com) says simply “Due to new government regulations concerning the purchase of surplus brass, we are removing sales of all 223 and all 308 until further notice.”

>From there, it directs visitors to the government website for contacting elected representatives.

All of us need to start contacting our elected representatives -and telling them, quite directly, that we’re not going to put up with a move that not only curtails access to ammunition (nearly all .223 and .308 manufacturing capacity is tied up to satisfy the needs of the military) for civilians – but wastes taxpayers’ money turning usable surplus into scrap metal.

Reducing the ammo brass to scrap reduces the value of the metal/surplus by nearly eighty percent. It also means that recast brass – in shippable form – may be shipped to China, one of the largest markets for U.S. metals on the world market.

If this is allowed to go unchallenged, anyone who owns a modern or traditional rifle in .223 or .308 calibers will see the impact- probably sooner than later.

“Anyone” in this context means everyone from recreational shooters to law enforcement trainers.

Pulling military brass out of the consumer supply chain means that all the manufacturing capacity being dedicated to meeting the military need will effectively become unavailable to civilians – forever.

Export rulings, lead bans, and brass mutilation orders from separate areas of the federal government look coincidental – on the surface. I’m not big on conspiracy theories – partially because I doubted the new administration would have gotten its collective act together so rapidly.

Seems I’ve been wrong on that one – and mistakenly using the word “hoard” when talking about the nearly-insatiable demand for ammunition that continues across the country. Today, laying up of ammunition might be better described as prudent preparation for possible problems.

States are beginning to serve notice to the federal government they will not enforce laws that violate individual rights. The federal government seems intent on creating a society with increasingly higher numbers of people dependent on the government for either sustenance or employment. Average citizens are beginning to grow tired of being asked to “tote the note” for others’ irresponsibility.

These are, indeed, uncertain times.

Today, it’s important that every reader take time to notify Congress that we – taxpayers – oppose this latest DOD move- and all the other not-so-subtle moves against gun owners.

You can contact your elected officials in Washington by going to this webpage http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml and following the links to your respective Senator or Congressman.

One key member of the United States Senate is Montana’s Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Baucus could make a call to the Pentagon and let them know their budgets might be reexamined if they don’t reconsider this latest directive. At that point, the directive might labeled a “misunderstanding” and rescinded.

But it is important that we keep pressure on Congress.

If that means phone calls, e-mails, and letters, let’s get that done. If that doesn’t produce results, we need to look beyond symbolic gestures like sending tea bags or bringing hundreds of thousands of gun owners to Washington and state capitols to protest.

These are, indeed, uncertain times. But the time for uncertain actions may be passing.

We’ll keep you posted. In the meantime, maintain situational awareness.

–Jim Shepherd http://www.shootingwire.com/

And also this:

Here it is, folks, and it is bad news. The framework for legislation is
always 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.

Remember, the first step in establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the
citizens.

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 rim fire 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 “semiautomatic rifle 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, 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 law enforcement agency is not particularly
suitable for sporting purposes, and a 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

Change you can believe in. 

Steve

And You Think Obama Isn’t After Your Gun?

Comments Off

Feds undercut civilian supply of ammunition

Policy leaves manufacturers without brass for cartridges

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Fired brass shell casings

A recent government policy change has taken a bite out of the nation’s already stressed ammunition supply, leaving arms dealers scrambling to find ammo for private gun owners.

Georgia Arms is a company that for the last 15 years has been purchasing fired brass shell casings from the Department of Defense and private government surplus liquidators. The military collects the discarded casings from fired rounds, then sells them through liquidators to companies like Georgia Arms that remanufacture the casings into ammunition for the law enforcement and civilian gun owner communities.

But earlier this month, Georgia Arms received a canceled order, informed by its supplier that the government now requires fired brass casings be mutilated, in other words, destroyed to a scrap metal state.

The policy change, handed down from the Department of Defense through the Defense Logistics Agency, cuts a supply leg out from underneath ammunition manufacturers.

The policy has compelled Georgia Arms, for example, to cancel all sales of .223 and .308 ammunition, rounds  used, respectively, in semi-automatic and deer hunting rifles, until further notice. Sharch Manufacturing, Inc. has announced the same cancellation of its .223 and .308 brass reloading components.

“They just reclassified brass to allow destruction of it, based on what?” Georgia Arms owner Larry Haynie asked WND. “We’ve been ‘going green’ for the last dozen years, and brass is one of the most recyclable materials out there. A cartridge case can be used over and over again. And now we’re going to destroy it based on what? We don’t want the civilian public to have it? It’s a government injustice.”

WND contacted the Defense Logistics Agency, the Department of Defense’s largest combat support agency, several times seeking comment or explanation for the policy change but received none.

The National Rifle Association confirmed to WND that the DLA had been instructed to require the scrapping of the brass casings but declined further comment at this time.

Other gun advocates, however, have sounded off on the issue, eyeing the change in government policy with suspicion and filling the blogosphere with speculation that the effects of the policy change may be deliberate.(Maybe deliberate? Of course it is!)

“It is an end-run around Congress. They don’t need to try to ban guns – they don’t need to fight a massive battle to attempt gun registration, or limit ‘assault’ weapon sales,” writes firearm instructor and author Gordon Hutchinson on his The Shootist blog. “Nope. All they have to do is limit the amount of ammunition available to the civilian market, and when bullets dry up, guns will be useless.”

A writer named Owen at the Boots & Sabers blog suspects the policy change is an effort by an anti-gun administration to raise the cost of ammunition.

“This policy didn’t come out of the blue,” writes Owen. “The Commander in Chief is clearly sending a message to gun owners that they should be paying more for ammunition. If he can’t do it through regulatory action, he’ll do it by forcing ammunition manufacturers to spend more on production.”

Hutchinson reports Georgia Arms was manufacturing over 1 million rounds of .223 ammunition every month, but without the ability to purchase expended military ammunition, the company may be forced to lay off up to half its workforce.

Read at Worldnet Daily.com

Lose your property for growing food?

2 Comments

Here’s another unbelieveable thing going on with our government…..I guess we must be terrorists to disagree with this one to?

WND Exclusive


GROUND CONTROL

Lose your property for growing food?

Big Brother legislation could mean prosecution, fines up to $1 million


By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Some small farms and organic food growers could be placed under direct supervision of the federal government under new legislation making its way through Congress.

Food Safety Modernization Act

House Resolution 875, or the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, was introduced by Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., in February. DeLauro’s husband, Stanley Greenburg, works for Monsanto – the world’s leading producer of herbicides and genetically engineered seed.

DeLauro’s act has 39 co-sponsors and was referred to the House Agriculture Committee on Feb. 4. It calls for the creation of a Food Safety Administration to allow the government to regulate food production at all levels – and even mandates property seizure, fines of up to $1 million per offense and criminal prosecution for producers, manufacturers and distributors who fail to comply with regulations.

Michael Olson, host of the Food Chain radio show and author of “Metro Farm,” told WND the government should focus on regulating food production in countries such as China and Mexico rather than burdening small and organic farmers in the U.S. with overreaching regulations.

“We need somebody to watch over us when we’re eating food that comes from thousands and thousands of miles away. We need some help there,” he said. “But when food comes from our neighbors or from farmers who we know, we don’t need all of those rules. If your neighbor sells you something that is bad and you get sick, you are going to get your hands on that farmer, and that will be the end of it. It regulates itself.”

The legislation would establish the Food Safety Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services “to protect the public health by preventing food-borne illness, ensuring the safety of food, improving research on contaminants leading to food-borne illness, and improving security of food from intentional contamination, and for other purposes.”

Federal regulators will be tasked with ensuring that food producers, processors and distributors – both large and small – prevent and minimize food safety hazards such as food-borne illnesses and contaminants such as bacteria, chemicals, natural toxins or manufactured toxicants, viruses, parasites, prions, physical hazards or other human pathogens.

Under the legislation’s broad wording, slaughterhouses, seafood processing plants, establishments that process, store, hold or transport all categories of food products prior to delivery for retail sale, farms, ranches, orchards, vineyards, aquaculture facilities and confined animal-feeding operations would be subject to strict government regulation.

Government inspectors would be required to visit and examine food production facilities, including small farms, to ensure compliance. They would review food safety records and conduct surveillance of animals, plants, products or the environment.

“What the government will do is bring in industry experts to tell them how to manage all this stuff,” Olson said. “It’s industry that’s telling government how to set these things up. What it always boils down to is who can afford to have the most influence over the government. It would be those companies that have sufficient economies of scale to be able to afford the influence – which is, of course, industrial agriculture.”

Farms and food producers would be forced to submit copies of all records to federal inspectors upon request to determine whether food is contaminated, to ensure they are in compliance with food safety laws and to maintain government tracking records. Refusal to register, permit inspector access or testing of food or equipment would be prohibited.

“What is going to happen is that local agriculture will end up suffering through some onerous protocols designed for international agriculture that they simply don’t need,” Olson said. “Thus, it will be a way for industrial agriculture to manage local agriculture.”

Under the act, every food producer must have a written food safety plan describing likely hazards and preventative controls they have implemented and must abide by “minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water.”

“That opens a whole can of worms,” Olson said. “I think that’s where people are starting to freak out about losing organic agriculture. Who is going to decide what the minimum standards are for fertilization or anything else? The government is going to bring in big industry and say we are setting up these protocols, so what do you think we should do? Who is it going to bring in to ask? The government will bring in people who have economies of scale who have that kind of influence.”

DeLauro’s act calls for the Food Safety Administration to create a “national traceability system” to retrieve history, use and location of each food product through all stages of production, processing and distribution.

Olson believes the regulations could create unjustifiable financial hardships for small farmers and run them out of business.

“That is often the purpose of rules and regulations: to get rid of your competition,” he said. “Only people who are very, very large can afford to comply. They can hire one person to do paperwork. There’s a specialization of labor there, and when you are very small, you can’t afford to do all of these things.”

Olson said despite good intentions behind the legislation, this act could devastate small U.S. farms.

According to the act, “Any person that commits an act that violates the food safety law … may be assessed a civil penalty by the Administrator of not more than $1,000,000 for each such act.”

Food Safety and Tracking Improvement Act

Another “food safety” bill that has organic and small farmers worried is Senate Bill 425, or the Food Safety and Tracking Improvement Act, sponsored by Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio.

Brown’s bill is backed by lobbyists for Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland and Tyson.(This isn’t a surprise!They probably helped write it too.) It was introduced in September and has been referred to the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee. Some say the legislation could also put small farmers out of business.

Like HR 875, the measure establishes a nationwide “traceability system” monitored by the Food and Drug Administration for all stages of manufacturing, processing, packaging and distribution of food. It would cost $40 million over three years.

Recalls of contaminated food are usually voluntary; however, in his weekly radio address on March 15, President Obama announced he’s forming a Food Safety Working Group to propose new laws and stop corruption of the nation’s food.

The president said outbreaks from contaminated foods, such as a recent salmonella outbreak among consumers of peanut products, have occurred more frequently in recent years due to outdated regulations, fewer inspectors, scaled back inspections and a lack of information sharing between government agencies.

Read the rest at Worldnet Daily.com

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 396 other followers