Critics Slam Sen. Feinstein’s “Assault Weapons” Ban, Gun Registry

Comments Off on Critics Slam Sen. Feinstein’s “Assault Weapons” Ban, Gun Registry

I’m going to continue to pound this 2nd amendment debate.

Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California has stirred up a hornets’ nest with her latest proposal to ban so-called “assault weapons” and standard capacity magazines while creating a federal registry of gun owners, complete with pictures and fingerprints. Analystssay supporting the measure would be “political suicide” for Democrats, and some opponents of Sen. Feinstein’s most recent assault on the Second Amendment are evenasking the White House to put the far-left lawmaker on trial for treason. More than a few critics also suggested the move against gun rights could start another revolution or civil war.

Despite claims by the Obama administration and the establishment media, recent polls show that a majority of Americans oppose Feinstein’s scheme, not that opinion polls matter when discussing rights enshrined in the Constitution. Analysts also say the dangerous legislation is unlikely to pass — especially with GOP control of the House and even liberal so-called “RINO” Republicans in the Senate vowing to oppose the measure. The previous “assault weapons” ban, which expired in 2004, was also entirely ineffective, according to studies.

Instead of more gun control laws, pressure is mounting on legislators to repeal statutes purporting to create so-called “gun-free zones,” which experts say are a “magnet” for mass murderers who obviously do not obey laws anyway. The National Rifle Association (NRA), meanwhile, is pushing a controversial plan for federally funded armed guards at schools to help prevent future tragedies.

Sen. Feinstein’s proposed legislation, which she promised to introduce in 2013, would purport to ban the sale, manufacture, or importation of 120 types of guns — essentially semi-automatic firearms that some politicians and their allies in the establishment press have arbitrarily described as “assault weapons.” Included on the list are many of the most popular pistols, rifles, and shotguns owned by tens of millions of Americans. The bill would also seek to criminalize the possession of standard capacity magazines that accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The anti-gun extremists in Washington, D.C., critics say, are hoping to completely disarm America. “The bottom line: If we are foolish enough to embrace a ban on any weapon in the coming Congress then we are unwittingly embracing a ban on every weapon,” noted AWR Hawkins with the pro-Second Amendment group AmmoLand Shooting Sports, saying Feinstein’s plan was really a thinly veiled attempt to ban handguns as well. “The Democrats cannot be trusted with our freedoms, and they will politicize every tragedy to accomplish their ends.”

Another one of the most troubling aspects of the Feinstein scheme is a provision that would purport to mandate a federal database of gun owners, which, aside from being anti-constitutional, is also currently prohibited by statute. According to a summary of the legislation released by Sen. Feinstein, the bill would unconstitutionally seek to register weapons in a federal database that would include photographs and fingerprints of gun owners.

Also required to be able to keep one’s “grandfathered” weapons under the proposal would be local law enforcement verification placed in the federal registry, as mandated by the “National Firearms Act” (NFA) — essentially requiring a signature from a county sheriff or city police chief. One of the many problems already cited with the plan is that some anti-gun local law enforcement bosses could refuse to sign, as they already do oftentimes for machine guns, leaving gun owners with the option of either giving up their weapons, facing arrest, or hiding them.

Of course, the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to create a national registry of gun owners any more than it would permit a ban on semi-automatic rifles or pistols — in fact, the Second Amendment explicitly guarantees the God-given right to keep and bear arms, and the Supreme Court recently upheld that right. Aside from that, though, critics of the scheme have pointed to the historical record on gun registration: It is often simply a precursor to outright confiscation, as countless governments including the National Socialist (Nazi) regime of Adolf Hitler, numerous mass murdering communist dictatorships, and even modern-day Western countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia have proven.

Plus, critics of the proposal point to studies showing that the previous “assault-weapons” ban — in place from 1994 to 2004, but far less draconian than the current proposal — did virtually nothing to stop crime, murder, or mayhem, despite promises by its supporters. One 2004 study by the National Research Council cited in news reports, for example, found that the scheme “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence.”

Even the Justice Department explained that it had “no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury.” When the ban expired, anti-Second Amendment extremists claimed murder and mayhem would be sure to follow. Of course, that never happened, with murders nationwide actually dropping by almost four percentthe first decline since 1999 — the year after lawmakers refused to renew the ban.

There was at least one development, however, that was widely attributed to the last “assault weapons” ban: the overwhelming defeat of Democrats at the polls, likely costing the Democrat Party the control of Congress. Analysts, even those who support more infringements on gun rights, have said the current legislation would almost certainly amount to “political suicide” for Democrats, and especially for any RINOs who might be tempted to join in. Most Americans reject the ban, and gun owners tend to remember politicians who attack their rights.

“I think that is a phony piece of legislation and I do not believe it will pass for this reason: It’s all built on lies,” NRA chief Wayne LaPierre said recently about the controversial scheme, which his organization and its millions of members oppose. Other gun rights leaders such as Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, known as the fiercest and most uncompromising defender of the right to keep and bear arms, have been just as vocal, warning politicians that they will pay a major political price for seeking to assault the unalienable rights of Americans.

While political analysts say the prospects for passage at this point remain slim, gun rights activists have still been making their voices heard loud and clear across the Internet, posting comments all over the Web stating that they will not register or surrender their weapons regardless of any unconstitutional statutes purporting to require it. They are also calling their lawmakers, just in case. More alarming, perhaps, some commentators are openly speculating that further gun control efforts could be the spark that finally kicks off an armed rebellion in the United States.

“Feinstein’s bill is unprecedented in the history of this country, and requires widespread enforcement in every town and hamlet in order to be effective,” wrote Brandon Smith with the liberty-minded Alt-Market in a widely disseminated piece saying Feinstein’s bill would trigger the next American Revolution. “The way in which it is designed makes a violent response from the public inevitable.”

Like other analysts making a similar case, Smith looked at the numbers. “To put this bluntly, there are approximately 50 million gun owners (according to official estimates) (true estimates are more like 150+ million gun owners) in the United States.  If only 2% of those gun owners refuse to submit to the Feinstein Database, and the feds attempt confiscation, they will have a massive revolution on their hands,” he wrote. “Many Americans, including myself, will not be strolling into the local Fusion Center to register our weapons. Why? Because gun registration reeks of fascism!”

Despite the establishment media hysteria aimed at creating the perception of stronger support for more infringements on gun rights, polls also show the American public still overwhelmingly supports the right to keep and bear arms. Even in the face of non-stop “assault weapon” propaganda in the mainstream press, most Americans oppose the proposed ban, and 75 percent are against a handgun ban, according to a recent Gallup survey conducted after the Sandy Hook massacre.

As anti-gun rights lawmakers pursue unconstitutional legislative schemes, disgraced Attorney General Eric Holder suggested theObama administration may try to use non-existent “executive” powers to assault gun rights. Holder, whose Justice Department was infamously caught arming Mexican drug cartels in Fast and Furious while using the ensuing chaos to push gun control, famously proposed a taxpayer-funded campaign to “brainwash” Americans against guns.

While it seems unlikely at this point that Sen. Feinstein’s proposal will pass, the establishment has shown that it is fully behind the plan. Even if it does not get through this time, the anti-gun rights fanatics do not intend to give up anytime soon — though some analysts have already suggested that the gun control movement is “doomed.” If the proposal does somehow manage to get through Congress, however, that is when gun rights activists say the real problems will begin.

New American

Obama fiscal proposal ‘classic bait and switch’

Comments Off on Obama fiscal proposal ‘classic bait and switch’

The top-ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee Sen. Orin Hatch accused President Obama of pulling a “bait and switch” this week with the administration’s proposed deal to avert the so-called “fiscal cliff.”

https://i2.wp.com/1.bp.blogspot.com/-FoN9pq38XbY/UJrrw3nJT8I/AAAAAAAAV90/6M-zeSuxjaM/s1600/fiscal-cliff.jpg“What [Obama] proposed this week was a classic bait and switch on the American people—a tax increase double the size of what he campaigned on, billions of dollars in new stimulus spending and an unlimited, unchecked authority to borrow from the Chinese,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said in Saturday’s weekly GOP address.

“Maybe I missed it but I don’t recall him asking for any of that during the presidential campaign. These ideas are so radical that they have already been rejected on a bipartisan basis by Congress.”

On Thursday, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was dispatched to Capitol Hill to share Obama’s plan with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) The deal included $1.6 trillion in tax hikes, $50 billion in economic stimulus spending and $400 billion in spending cuts. Republicans have demanded more severe spending cuts – including entitlement reform – to begin a discussion on raising taxes.

Full article here

‘We’re Still Home of the Brave, But We’re Not the Land of the Free Anymore’

Comments Off on ‘We’re Still Home of the Brave, But We’re Not the Land of the Free Anymore’

Shame on John Boehner…..

A group of freshmen congressmen on Wednesday said that a regulation issued under Obamacare by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has taken freedom of religion away from Americans.

The regulation that requires health plans to offer sterilizations, contraceptives, and abortifacients free of charge became effective today, Aug. 1. It has been unanimously denounced by the Catholic bishops of the United States as “unjust and illegal mandate” that forces Catholic individuals, business owners and institutions to act against the teachings of their faith.

“We’re still home of the brave, but we’re not the land of the free anymore,” said Rep. Billy Long (R.-Mo.)

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives could stop this regulation that Republican members and the Catholic Church have called an attack on religious liberty by prohibiting funding for it in the next continuing resolution to fund the government after Sept. 30. However, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), and other House Republicans have indicated  that they will fund the implementation of the regulation.

Despite his apparent intention to fund it, Boehner himself has described the regulation as “an unambiguous attack on religious freedom in our country.”

On Tuesday, Rep. Long was joined at the U.S. Capitol in denouncing the regulation by Representatives Mike Kelly (R.-Pa.), Austin Scott (R-Ga.), Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.), Sandy Adams (R-Fla.), Alan Nunnelee (R-Miss.), Steve Pearce (R-N.M.), Ben Quayle (R-Ariz.), Ann Marie Buerkle (R-N.Y.), and Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) in vowing to stand against the regulation.

“It’s outrageous that this administration believes it’s within their power to force people to violate their right of religion if it interferes with this administration’s agenda,” said Nunnelee.  “It should disturb people of all faiths, or for that matter people of no faith at all, that President Obama has such a low opinion of the First Amendment that he would trample on these rights.”

At least 154 members of Congress have already denounced the HHS “preventive services” regulation that mandates that nearly all health insurance plans in the United States must offer sterilizations, contraceptives, and abortion-inducing drugs free of charge.

“The federal government was put in place to protect our rights, not to grant those rights,” Buerkle added.

Rep. Kelly said August 1 would now forever be ingrained in American history.

“I know in your mind you can think of the times that America was attacked: one is December 7th, that’s the Pearl Harbor date,” he said.  “The other is September 11th, and that’s the day of the terrorist attack.”

“I want you to remember August 1, 2012, the attack on our religious freedom,” said Kelly.   “That is a date that will live in infamy along with those other dates.”

“The question is if not us, who, if not now, when?” Kelly said.  “It is our turn, there is no option, we have to stand up now and defend our Constitution.”

Continue reading

Cowardly House Republicans Refuse To Defund ObamaCare

Comments Off on Cowardly House Republicans Refuse To Defund ObamaCare

Just another example that the problem is on both sides.  Congress controls the purse strings to Obamacare. They don’t need the Senate on this one.

Determined as always to travel the safest, least contentious path to their own re-election, House Speaker John Boehner, Majority leader Eric Cantor and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy have decided that the Party will do NOTHING to defund ObamaCare when current, federal funding legislation expires on September 30th.

Thirty times over the past two years the House has voted to repeal the President’s “Affordable” Care Act. Of course, on each occasion Republican leaders were secure in the knowledge that the measure had NO chance of passing the Democrat controlled Senate or collecting the signature of Barack Obama. And this was of supreme importance to these stout-hearted, GOP Representatives as it meant none of the scheduled votes would raise the ire of the Party’s most feared and potent foe—the dreaded national media.

For were the landmark legislation of their Marxist icon to REALLY be threatened by some Republican scheme, the New York Times and its left-wing colleagues might spend the rest of these pre-election months trying to discredit Republican candidates with all manner of vile half-truths and dishonest reporting, something the media would NEVER do without good cause!

 Yet weak knees on the part of Republican leadership should come as no surprise to interested conservatives as we were warned by Iowa Congressman Peter King last year that “…the decision was made by leadership to avoid the prospect of a showdown with the president or Harry Reid that could result in a potential shutdown of government.” (1)

And it was in February that John Boehner nearly suffered whiplash, ducking a reporter’s question about the congressman’s ObamaCare funding intentions in an upcoming budget resolution. Boehner’s non-answer answer: “We are opposed to Obamacare. We have voted to repeal it. That also included $700 million in tax hikes, about $2.6 trillion in new spending. We’re going to continue to take all the actions that we can to make sure that we do not ruin the best health care delivery system in the world, bankrupt our nation and, most importantly, get in the way of job creation in America.”

But apparently the Speaker and his colleagues are NOT so opposed to ObamaCare or worried about job creation that they are willing to rescind the $80 billion or so earmarked for the “healthcare” law by the last congress, or the $115 billion already authorized for “additional appropriation.” (2)

One hundred and twenty seven House Republicans signed a letter addressed to Boehner and Cantor by Michelle Bachman and Jim Jordan. In it they wrote, “…we urge you not to bring to the House floor in the 112th Congress any legislation that provides or allows funds to implement ObamaCare…” “We also urge you to take legislative steps necessary to immediately rescind all ObamaCare implementation funds.” (3)

House leadership has the authority to legislatively package ObamaCare funding in any manner it wishes. Were they to place it with truly necessary “must pass” funding legislation, it would force Senate Democrats to make a very dodgy political decision before the election. As Congressman King puts it, Democrats would have… to “…defend Obamacare as more important than all of the rest of the functions of government combined.” (1)

But once again, John Boehner and the other shining pillars of Republican resolve are intent upon snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. For although the American public is solidly in favor of Republicans defunding ObamaCare, political caution MUST take precedence over the Constitution or a congressional oath of office!

Should Obama win in November, expect Speaker Boehner to be provided round-the-clock, Secret Service protection. Barack couldn’t afford anything happening to one of his most valued supporters.

Western Journalism

Conservatives Stop New Boehner CR That Permitted Funding for Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, Palestinian Authority

Comments Off on Conservatives Stop New Boehner CR That Permitted Funding for Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, Palestinian Authority

boehner-cantor(CNSNews.com) – The Republican leadership tried to pass a continuing resolution through the House of Representatives on Wednesday afternoon that would have permitted funding for Obamacare implementation, Planned Parenthood, the United Nations Population Fund, and the Palestinian Authority to continue in the new federal fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1.

The bill was defeated 195 to 230 when 48 House conservatives joined with 182 House Democrats in voting against it.

Among the leading conservatives opposing it were Rep. Steve King (R.-Iowa), Rep. Louie Gohmert (R.-Texas), Rep. Joe Walsh (R.-Ill.), Rep. Jeff Flake (R.-Ariz.), Rep. Trent Franks (R.-Ariz.) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R.-0hio), the chairman of the House Republican Study Committee, which is the organization of House conservatives.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R.-Minn.) and Rep. Ron Paul (R.-Texas), who are campaigning for president, did not vote.

The Democrats objected to the bill because it would have offset new money for disaster relief at the Federal Emergency Management Agency by cutting $1.5 billion from the $25-billion Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loans program that provides government-subsidized financing to automakers.

The failed CR, promoted by House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R.-Va.), was a temporary measure designed to fund the entire government through Nov. 18.

Entire article @ CNS News

Rick Santelli: If Not For Tea Party, U.S. Would Be Rated BBB

Comments Off on Rick Santelli: If Not For Tea Party, U.S. Would Be Rated BBB

Breaking: S&P downgrades U.S. to AA+

Comments Off on Breaking: S&P downgrades U.S. to AA+

We told you so !!!

With a “negative outlook” to boot.

America is now a risky investment.

U.S. Treasuries, once undisputedly seen as the safest investment in the world, are now rated lower than bonds issued by countries such as the UK, Germany, France or Canada.

The outlook on the new U.S. credit rating is negative, S&P said in a statement, a sign that another downgrade is possible in the next 12 to 18 months.

See the last few updates in the other thread for details on this afternoon’s drama between S&P and the White House. Supposedly the agency admitted privately that it goofed in using the wrong debt-to-GDP baseline — a $2 trillion error. But when you’re $14 trillion in the hole and set to add $6 trillion more by the end of the decade, what’s $2 trillion, really? A deadbeat’s a deadbeat.

Odds of that negative outlook turning into a further downgrade if the Super Committee chokes: High. Stand by for updates.

Update: A grumpy White House points to S&P’s math error and calls it “amateur hour.”

Update: Zero Hedge has the text of S&P’s statement. The debt-ceiling deal wasn’t good enough:

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade…

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year’s wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability…

When comparing the U.S. to sovereigns with ‘AAA’ long-term ratings that we view as relevant peers–Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K.–we also observe, based on our base case scenarios for each, that the trajectory of the U.S.’s net public debt is diverging from the others. Including the U.S., we estimate that these five sovereigns will have net general government debt to GDP ratios this year ranging from 34% (Canada) to 80% (the U.K.), with the U.S. debt burden at 74%. By 2015, we project that their net public debt to GDP ratios will range between 30% (lowest, Canada) and 83% (highest, France), with the U.S. debt burden at 79%. However, in contrast with the U.S., we project that the net public debt burdens of these other sovereigns will begin to decline, either before or by 2015.

Not only can’t the Super Committee fail, it’ll be under enormous public pressure to reach a grand bargain. That’s the silver lining in this cloud — they have to get serious now. They have no choice.

H/T Hotair

Older Entries