Saturday, January 19, 2013

Report: State Department backing down from Iran over imprisoned U.S. citizen

OpEd: Jack
Looks like Hillary Clinton will have the blood of another US citizen on her collective hands..wonder what her excuse will be this time...OMG I just came down with the Iranian Flu?
by: Joel Gehrke 

State Department officials have reportedly hesitated to intercede on behalf of an American citizen facing trial and perhaps execution in Iran due to his “Christian activities,” in part because Iran refuses to recognize the pastor’s U.S. citizenship.
“I recently learned our State Department informed Pastor Saeed Abedini’s wife, Naghmeh, that it could do nothing for her husband’s case because Iran did not recognize his U.S. citizenship,” Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said in a statement to The Washington Examiner. Abedini’s attorney, Tiffany Barrans of the American Center for Law and Justice, told World the State Department listed that among the reasons it could not help Abedini.
“Let me be clear: under no circumstances should the U.S. State Department allow Iran to determine who is or isn’t a U.S. citizen and who the U.S. should protect,” Franks continued.  “The State Department should be doing everything possible to ensure the safety of its citizens abroad and to defend this U.S. citizen who faces trial in Iran under the harsh Iranian judicial system.” The Iranian-born pastor married an American citizen and has a family in Idaho.

The State Department has made one statement on Abedini’s case. “He was arrested by Iranian officials more than three months ago on charges related to his religious beliefs,” spokesperson Victoria Nuland said last week. “We understand that a hearing will be held soon, and we call on Iranian officials to respect Iran’s own laws and provide Mr. Abedini access to an attorney.”
The State Department said it had “no new updates” on the case when contacted about the citizenship issue by The Washington Examiner. One Republican aide said the State Department seemed to be “backing down” from Iran with respect to Abedini’s case.
Two congressional sources said that the State Department has also cited Abedini’s failure to sign a privacy release form as a reason for not asking Switzerland (the government that mediates between Iran and the United States) to press Iran about Abedini — an odd requirement, given the lack of State Department privacy release forms in Iranian prisons and the fact that his wife has submitted a privacy release form through a power of attorney, according to one source.

Abedini’s case has been assigned to one of the harshest judges in Iran. “Judge Pierre Abbasi who heads that branch,” Barrans told KTVB News in Idaho, “is specifically notorious for his brutal sentences. He’s been nicknamed the ‘hanging judge’ by the US Commission on International Religious Freedom.”
Two letters have been sent this week to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by lawmakers regarding Abedini’s case. “[W]e believe there is still a great deal of good that the State Department can and should do on behalf of Mr. Abedini, one of our own citizens,” a group of House members wrote in one letter. “We believe that strong and sustained advocacy from the State Department would do much to rally the world against this wrongful detainment.”
Eleven senators, writing in their letter, emphasized that “we should not stand idly by while the Iranian regime arbitrarily persecutes a U.S. citizen who has committed no crime.”

Rusty Humphries: The Leftist Lunacy in the Age of Gun Control Hysteria

By Rusty Humphries
TRN Nationally Syndicated Radio Host
TPNN Contributor

The left has lost its damned mind. I’m not trying to cast out insults or mudsling here; I’m really trying to say that some have just gone completely off the deep end with regards to this national discussion of gun control.
Sure, there are some that are willing to have a rational discussion about guns in America; but the media is being dominated by reactionary lunatics that have had me shaking my head in disbelief.
Chicago Alderman Willie Cochran has called for City Council hearings to discuss advocating the installing of GPS tracking devices on newly manufactured firearms and retrofitting all existing firearms with a GPS.
Cochran claimed that he understood that the provision would be an infringement of privacy (to say the least), but relied on the trusty mantra of the new, radicalized left by saying, “It is extremely important that we look past this privacy issue, at this point, and understand how important it is for us to address the issue of safety.”
Sure, we’ll just “look past this privacy issue.” And while we’re at it, let’s “look past” this whole “shall not be infringed” thing…

In a laughably tragic illustration of the failures of “don’t think, just sign” legislation, after New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a bill nullifying the Second Amendment in the Empire State, people took notice of one embarrassing fact.
The Cuomo Administration was in such a hurry to capitalize on the anti-gun hysteria sweeping the nation, they apparently realized after the fact that there had been no inclusion in his sweeping gun ban of an exception for on-duty police officers. With a ban on magazines that are capable of holding more than 7 rounds, the 15-round magazines that police routinely carry put each and every one of them in firm violation of the law. And just by signing his name, Cuomo made criminals out of every police officer in the state.
Of course, this will likely be remedied quickly, but it really speaks to the level of consideration and oh-so-careful analysis this legislation was given before the rights of millions of Americans were savagely swept away with the stroke of a pen. Shame on all of them.
But the lunacy is not contained to only local and state levels. The Obama Administration has gone off the deep end as well. Not only are they content with stomping on our Constitutional rights, they have added insult to injury by lecturing us on the morality of the issue.

Joe Biden, the Ringo Starr of the executive branch, with regard to Obama’s royal gun control decrees, stated, “It is about civility in society. This is about the coarsening of our culture.”
There’s nothing as infuriating as a dimwitted politician aiding in the revocation of your constitutional rights while smugly lecturing you on the civility and nobility of doing so. I liked it better when Biden was just given a slinky and tucked away, out of sight and out of mind.
The list goes on and on. Every day, new utterings and nonsensical ramblings come out from media personalities, politicians, celebrities and various other nefarious leftists. They spew out their garbage in a fashion that makes my skin crawl with their crass, vulgar use of children and tragedy as a stepping stone to the fulfillment of their unconscionable agenda. And Americans are so desensitized to their crazy ramblings, it just goes in one ear and out the other- like a tinfoil-hat-wearing hobo preaching about the illuminati.
We have got to stop shrugging off the insane ramblings of gun-grabbers as, “Oh, that’s just Barack being Barack.” We have to remember that these are our rights, and the burden is not upon us to explain why we want to keep them- the burden is upon them to explain why they should take them.

Rand Paul to Chris Christie: Cool it With the Temper Tantrums & Grandstanding, Alright?

Sen. Ran Paul Publicly Reprimands Gov. Chris Christie For Constantly Making a Scene

If it seems like Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.) have been in the news an awful lot recently, it’s because they have been — the New Jersey governor for his harsh criticism of House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and the National Rifle Association and the Kentucky senator for his vow to “nullify” the president’s new gun-control measures.
And if you’ve been waiting for a news story that involves both GOP heavyweights, well, you’re in luck: Sen. Paul on Friday publicly reprimanded Gov. Christie for “not standing up for Second Amendment rights in the ongoing gun control debate,” as CNN puts it.
“You have some Republicans backing down like Christie backing down and criticizing the NRA, and I think that doesn’t do us any good,” Sen. Paul told conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham. “So I think Republicans do need to stand more firmly on this issue.”
Asked why he thinks Gov. Christie chose to take such a hard stance against the NRA and its “reprehensible” anti-Obama ad, Sen. Paul said he thinks the governor is merely posturing.
“I think he may be solidifying his support with Democrats in New Jersey and maybe liberal Republicans,” the Kentucky senator said.
“If he wishes to do something nationally, I think criticizing the Second Amendment movement and the over-the-top, ‘give me my money’ stuff, ‘I want all sixty billion now or I’ll throw a tantrum’ — I don’t think that’s going to play well in the Republican primary,” he added. 

Sen. Paul also took issue with the New Jersey governor’s habit of attacking conservatives, referring specifically to the governor’s blistering anti-John Boehner press conference. Paul explained that House Republicans were hesitant to pass the Hurricane Sandy bill because of what was in it, not what it was intended for.
“I think people need to think through what their positions on these things are,” he said. 

Final Thought: Although Gov. Christie’s anti-Boehner press conference is considered by many to be his official “I’m not interested in running in 2016” party, the governor hasn’t definitively ruled out higher office. Furthermore, there have been rumors that Sen. Paul is seriously considering a presidential run.
Could this eventually turn into a Christie/Paul face off in the GOP presidential primary? Boy, that would be entertaining. 
Featured images courtesy Getty Images.

Holder Begs Court to Stop Document Release on Fast and Furious

Attorney General Eric Holder and his Department of Justice have asked a federal court to indefinitely delay a lawsuit brought by watchdog group Judicial Watch. The lawsuit seeks the enforcement of open records requests relating to Operation Fast and Furious, as required by law.

Judicial Watch had filed, on June 22, 2012, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking all documents relating to Operation Fast and Furious and “specifically [a]ll records subject to the claim of executive privilege invoked by President Barack Obama on or about June 20, 2012.”
The administration has refused to comply with Judicial Watch’s FOIA request, and in mid-September the group filed a lawsuit challenging Holder’s denial. That lawsuit remains ongoing but within the past week President Barack Obama’s administration filed what’s called a “motion to stay” the suit. Such a motion is something that if granted would delay the lawsuit indefinitely.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said that Holder’s and Obama’s desire to continually hide these Fast and Furious documents is “ironic” now that they’re so gung-ho on gun control. “It is beyond ironic that the Obama administration has initiated an anti-gun violence push as it seeking to keep secret key documents about its very own Fast and Furious gun walking scandal,” Fitton said in a statement. “Getting beyond the Obama administration’s smokescreen, this lawsuit is about a very simple principle: the public’s right to know the full truth about an egregious political scandal that led to the death of at least one American and countless others in Mexico. The American people are sick and tired of the Obama administration trying to rewrite FOIA law to protect this president and his appointees. Americans want answers about Fast and Furious killings and lies.”
The only justification Holder uses to ask the court to indefinitely delay Judicial Watch’s suit is that there’s another lawsuit ongoing for the same documents – one filed by the U.S. House of Representatives. Judicial Watch has filed a brief opposing the DOJ’s motion to stay.
As the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was voting Holder into contempt of Congress for his refusal to cooperate with congressional investigators by failing to turn over tens of thousands of pages of Fast and Furious documents, Obama asserted the executive privilege over them. The full House of Representatives soon after voted on a bipartisan basis to hold Holder in contempt.

There were two parts of the contempt resolution. Holder was, and still is, in both civil and criminal contempt of Congress. The criminal resolution was forwarded to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Ronald Machen–who works for Holder–for prosecution. Despite being technically required by law to bring forth criminal charges against Holder, under orders from Holder’s Department of Justice Machen chose to ignore the resolution.
The second part of the contempt resolution–civil contempt of Congress–allowed House Republicans to hire legal staff to challenge President Obama’s assertion of the executive privilege. That lawsuit remains ongoing despite Holder’s and the DOJ’s attempt to dismiss it and settle it.
It’s unclear what’s in the documents Obama asserted privilege over, but the president’s use of the extraordinary power appears weak. There are two types of presidential executive privilege: the presidential communications privilege and the deliberative process privilege. Use of the presidential communications privilege would require that the president himself or his senior-most advisers were involved in the discussions.
Since the president and his cabinet-level officials continually claim they had no knowledge of Operation Fast and Furious until early 2011 when the information became public–and Holder claims he didn’t read the briefing documents he was sent that outlined the scandal and how guns were walking while the operation was ongoing–Obama says he’s using the less powerful deliberative process privilege.

The reason why Obama’s assertion of that deliberative process privilege over these documents is weak at best is because the Supreme Court has held that such a privilege assertion is invalidated by even the suspicion of government wrongdoing. Obama, Holder, the Department of Justice, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and virtually everyone else involved in this scandal have admitted that government wrongdoing actually took place in Operation Fast and Furious. 
In Fast and Furious, the ATF “walked” about 2,000 firearms into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. That means through straw purchasers they allowed sales to happen and didn’t stop the guns from being trafficked even though they had the legal authority to do so and were fully capable of doing so.
Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and hundreds of Mexican citizens–estimates put it around at least 300–were killed with these firearms.
The Fast and Furious scandal and more is covered in detail in the New York Times best-selling book Corruption Chronicles.

The US is called a country not a city...!

So that being said we are sure not gonna let you( the so called elite intelligent ones) run this freaking country. And if you haven't noticed the U.S. is called a COUNTRY not a CITY, which means city folk don't know how to run it...! 

Cue the song:

West Point center cites dangers of ‘far right’ in U.S.

West Point
This article was written by Rowan Scarborough  for The Washington Times on January 17, 2013
A West Point think tank has issued a paper warning America about “far right” groups such as the “anti-federalist” movement, which supports “civil activism, individual freedoms and self-government.”
The report issued this week by the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., is titled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right.”
The center — part of the institution where men and women are molded into Army officers — posted the report Tuesday. It lumps limited government activists with three movements it identifies as “a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.”
The West Point center typically focuses reports on al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists attempting to gain power in Asia, the Middle East and Africa through violence.
But its latest study turns inward and paints a broad brush of people it considers “far right.”

It says anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”
The report also draws a link between the mainstream conservative movement and the violent “far right,” and describes liberals as “future oriented” and conservatives as living in the past.
“While liberal worldviews are future- or progressive -oriented, conservative perspectives are more past-oriented, and in general, are interested in preserving the status quo.” the report says. “The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation or ethnic community.”
The report adds: “While far-right groups’ ideology is designed to exclude minorities and foreigners, the liberal-democratic system is designed to emphasize civil rights, minority rights and the balance of power.”
The report says there were 350 “attacks initiated by far-right groups/individuals” in 2011.

Details about what makes an attack a “far right” action are not clear in the report, which was written by Arie Perliger, who directs the center’s terrorism studies and teaches social sciences at West Point.
A Republican congressional staffer who served in the military told The Washington Times: “If [the Defense Department] is looking for places to cut spending, this junk study is ground zero.
“Shouldn’t the Combating Terrorism Center be combating radical Islam around the globe instead of perpetuating the left’s myth that right-wingers are terrorists?” the staffer said. “The $64,000 dollar question is when will the Combating Terrorism Center publish their study on real left-wing terrorists like the Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, and the Weather Underground?”
See the intro at the “Combatting Terrorism Center”, where there is a link to the pdf of the study:

Link for the pdf itself:

Oath Keepers will publish a formal response within the next two days

Here we go more fraud from the Feds..!
This is worth reading and thinking about. Pay attention to your next Social Security income, whether you get a check or an electronic deposit....note what it is now called...see below.. Have you noticed, your Social Security check is now referred to as a "Federal Benefit Payment"? I'll be part of the one percent to forward this. I am forwarding it because it touches a nerve in me, and I hope it will in you. Please keep passing it on until everyone in our country has read it. The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a “Federal Benefit Payment.”This isn’t a benefit – its earned income!Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too.It totaled 15% of our income before taxes.If you averaged $30K per year over your working life, that's close to $180,000 invested in Social Security.If you calculate the future value of your monthly investment in social security ($375/month, including both you and your employer’s contributions) at a meager 1% interest rate compounded monthly, after 40 years of working you'd have more than $1.3+ million dollars saved! This is your personal investment.Upon retirement, if you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $39,318 per year, or $3,277 per month. That’s almost three times more than today’s average Social Security benefit of $1,230 per month, according to the Social Security Administration (Google it - it’s a fact).

And your retirement fund would last more than 33 years (until you're 98 if you retire at age 65)!I can only imagine how much better most average-income people could live in retirement if our government had just invested our money in low-risk interest-earning accounts.Instead, the folks in Washington pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madoff ever did.They took our money and used it elsewhere. They “forgot” that it was OUR
money they were taking. They didn’t have a referendum to ask us if we wanted to lend the money to them. And they didn’t pay interest on the debt they assumed. And recently, they’ve told us that the money won’t support us for very much longer. But is it our fault they misused our investments? And now, to add insult to injury, they’re calling it a “benefit,” as if we never worked to earn every penny of it. Just because they “borrowed” the money, doesn't mean that our investments were a charity!

Let’s take a stand. We have earned our right to Social Security and Medicare. Demand that our legislators bring some sense into our government –Find a way to keep Social Security and Medicare going, for the sake of that 92% of our population who need it.

Poll Shows NRA More Popular Than President Obama; As Usual, Media Ignores

Despite constant hammering by the national news media, the National Rifle Association has a favorability rating of 54 percent in the latest Gallup survey, slightly higher than President Obama’s rating of 53 percent.
While those figures are within the poll’s margin of error, they show that the NRA’s popularity is in the same range as that of the Democratic president who issued 23 executive orders to accomplish goals the gun-rights group has promised to combat in “the fight of the century.”
According to an article by Frank Newport, the Gallup poll — which was conducted Dec. 19-22 — showed that only 38 percent of those surveyed have an unfavorable opinion of the NRA, while Obama’s disapproval rating is three points higher at 41 percent.
The survey, which was taken after the Sandy Hook murders on Dec. 14 and NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre’s anti-gun control press conference on Dec. 22, also indicates that 21 percent of Americans have a very favorable opinion of the NRA, while 18 percent have a very unfavorable opinion.
As you might expect, favorable opinions of the NRA are much higher than average among the 45 percent of Americans who report having a gun in the household — although one in four view the NRA unfavorably. At the same time, four in 10 of those without a gun in the household have a favorable opinion of the NRA.

Corrupt Mayor Gets Busted: Too Bad The Pentagon & DHS are Too Big To Jail

Friday was a great day for justice. A corrupt mayor, who had been getting public money from the city he was suppose to work for, got busted. According to the ABC News:
“Federal prosecutors today announced a 21-count indictment against former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, accused of enriching himself as the city struggled to rebuild in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Nagin is accused of using the office of mayor to steer city projects to business associates who, in turn, allegedly paid kickbacks and bribes and flew him on lavish free trips to Hawaii, Jamaica, and Las Vegas. Nagin was charged with bribery, honest service wire fraud, money laundering, conspiracy and filing false tax returns.”
So does this teach us that crime doesn’t pay? Close. It teaches you that crime doesn’t pay if you are a mere local politician. But if you are the Pentagon, the rules are entirely different.

So does this teach us that crime doesn’t pay? Close. It teaches you that crime doesn’t pay if you are a mere local politician. But if you are the Pentagon, the rules are entirely different.
“The Government Accountability Office said Thursday that it could not complete an audit of the federal government, pointing to serious problems with the Department of Defense… ‘The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) cannot render an opinion on the 2012 consolidated financial statements of the federal government because of widespread material internal control weaknesses, significant uncertainties, and other limitations,” the agency said. ‘As was the case in 2011, the main obstacles to a GAO opinion on the accrual-based consolidated financial statements were: Serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense (DOD) that made its financial statements unauditable. The federal government’s inability to adequately account for and reconcile intragovernmental activity and balances between federal agencies. The federal government’s ineffective process for preparing the consolidated financial statements.’”
Now, I’ll grant, this report doesn’t a list of people who lined their pockets. But don’t be fooled. The fact that the books can’t be reconciled is because money went into secret places. This wasn’t lost in the couch; it lined someone’s pockets. For two years in a row now, the military has not been able to present financial statements that can be audited.

545 In Washington Vs. 300 Million In The Country…Time for Some Accountability

Syndicated columnist Charley Reese is a conservative who was associated with the Orlando Sentinel from 1971-2001. He first published an editorial about 545 people being “responsible for the domestic problems that plague” the U.S in 1985. He updated it in 1995 and again in 2008 it was updated with political references to people of the day in public office. His editorial was titled “545 people are responsible for the mess, but they unite in a common con.”
I contacted the Orlando Sentinel to see if I might be able to post the entire content of the editorial here. They wanted $150 for that, which is fine, but I’m not going to pay that when I can simply link to the complete article here. However, they did allow me to post a few lines to wet your appetite about this article by Reese.
What I find interesting is the common sense approach to government and how we the people are at the mercy of just a few men and women in Washington.
Reese writes,
You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don’t have the constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don’t write the tax code. The Congress does. You and I don’t set fiscal policy. the Congress does. You and I don’t control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices – 545 human beings out of 238 million- are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Bank because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.
Read more:

Obama: Critics Oppose My Gun Limits to Make More Money

President Obama’s weekly remarks
Hi, everybody. This week, I announced a series of concrete steps we should take to protect our children and our communities from gun violence.
These proposals grew out of meetings Vice President Biden and his task force held over the last month with more than 200 different groups — from parents and teachers; to law enforcement and sportsmen; to religious leaders and mental health professionals.
And in the weeks ahead, I will do everything in my power to make them a reality. Because while we may not be able to prevent every senseless act of violence in this country, if there is even one thing we can do to reduce it — if even one life can be saved — we’ve got an obligation to try.
My administration is taking a series of actions right away — from strengthening our background check system, to helping schools hire more resource officers if they want them, to directing the Centers for Disease Control to study the best ways to reduce gun violence.
But the truth is, making a real and lasting difference also requires Congress to act — and act soon.
First, it’s time for Congress to require a universal background check for anyone trying to buy a gun.  The law already requires licensed gun dealers to perform these checks, but as many as 40% of all gun purchases are conducted without one.

That’s not safe, it’s not smart, and it’s not fair to responsible gun buyers or sellers. An overwhelming majority of Americans agree that anyone trying to buy a gun should at least have to prove they’re not a felon, or someone legally prohibited from owning one.  That’s just common sense.
Second, Congress should restore a ban on military-style assault weapons, and a 10-round limit for magazines. Many assault rifles, when combined with high-capacity magazines, have one purpose and one purpose only: to fire as many bullets as possible as quickly as possible. These weapons have no place in our communities. And a majority of the American people agree with me.
Finally, Congress needs to make it easier, rather than harder, for law enforcement to do its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns only to turn around and sell them to criminals. And at a time when many communities have been forced to make cuts to their police force, we should put more cops back on the job and back on the street.
Like most Americans, I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms.  We have a strong tradition of gun ownership in this country, and the vast majority of gun owners act responsibly.
But I also believe most gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking few from causing harm on a massive scale. That’s what these reforms are designed to do.
None of this will be easy.  Already, we’re seeing pundits, politicians, and special-interest lobbyists calling any attempt at commonsense reform an all-out assault on liberty — not because that’s true, but because that’s how they get higher ratings and make more money…..
Read More:

Joe Biden: ‘We Don’t Have Time To Prosecute Everybody Who Lies’ On Background Checks


So the Federal government wants to put more gun control legislation on the books, but they don’t want to enforce the current laws. Barack Obama wants universal background checks on guns, but doesn’t seem willing to do his job when it comes to enforcing the laws behind background checks. This came out during a meeting between Vice President Joe Biden and Jim Baker of the National Rifle Association. According to an interview that Baker gave with the Daily Caller, he said that Biden told him, “regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.”

Baker also said he was only given five minutes to present the NRA’s concerns and approaches to prevent massacres like the shooting that took place in Newtown, Connecticut. While He pointed out the low number of prosecutions for information falsification and the low felony prosecution rate for gun crimes, it didn’t seem to sway Biden in the least.
According to the Bureaus Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide, anyone submitting false information on ATF Form 4473 commits a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison.
One would think that with the administration’s call to “get the guns out of the hands of criminals,” that they would be genuinely interested in prosecuting said criminals, but as reported earlier, this administration simply wants to go after guns. They are not interested in enforcing the law, which by the way, is their job as the Executive Branch.

In a report titled Enforcement of the Brady Act, 2010: Federal and State Investigations and Prosecutions of Firearm Applicants Denied by a NICS Check in 2010 that was authored by Ronald J. Frandsen and funded by tax payers through the U.S. Department of Justice and received in August of 2012, there was a report of 72,659 applications to purchase firearms that were denied (See Table A below).

National Instant Criminal Background Check System reported that the most common reasons for denial fell into three categories. Thirty-four thousand four hundred fifty-nine denials for felony indictment or conviction were issued, making it 47.4% of the reason for denial of applications to purchase or transfer a firearm. Another 13,862 were denied because of being a fugitive, which amounted to 19.1% of denials. Finally, 7,666 people had their application denied because of State law prohibition, which made up 10.6% of denials.

background checks 

National Instant Criminal Background Check System reported that the most common reasons for denial fell into three categories. Thirty-four thousand four hundred fifty-nine denials for felony indictment or conviction were issued, making it 47.4% of the reason for denial of applications to purchase or transfer a firearm. Another 13,862 were denied because of being a fugitive, which amounted to 19.1% of denials. Finally, 7,666 people had their application denied because of State law prohibition, which made up 10.6% of denials. In delayed denials, according to the report, “the agent contacts the firearm purchaser and seizes or takes an abandonment of the firearm or coordinates a transfer of the firearm to a licensed dealer or to a third party who is not a prohibited person. In POC states, a retrieval may be handled by local law enforcement, a statewide firearms unit, or ATF. In addition to the delayed denials, a small number of 2010 standard denials potentially involved unlawful firearm possession. Field offices investigated a total of 1,923 unlawful possession cases that began in 2010. A retrieval of a firearm (or firearms) from a prohibited person by field agents occurred in 1,164 (about 61%) of the cases. The subject of the investigation was cleared in 509 cases (approximately 27%). About 93% of the cases had been resolved by December 13, 2010, with the subject missing in nearly 7% of the cases.”

However in the chart that follows that assessment, they indicate that 128 of those delayed denials they were unable to locate and 122 had other outcomes. Together they total 13% of delayed denials, which means that at the least a little over half of those still possess the firearm they acquired.
When it comes to actual prosecutions by U.S. attorneys, here’s how the numbers break down. In Table 4 below these are the numbers of cases that the ATF declined to refer for prosecution and the reasons why.

cases declined by AFT
Table 5. shows a total of 62 cases in 2010 that ATF referred for prosecution. Note the reasons for the referral.

charges referred for prosecution 
Table. 6 shows that out of these 62, only 44 of those were prosecuted.

Caroline May at the DC reports the responses of the NRA representatives to Biden’s comments and the Justice Department’s lack of prosectution:
“We think it is problematic when the administration takes lightly the prosecutions under existing gun laws and yet does not seem to have a problem promoting a whole host of other gun laws,” Baker told The DC.
“If we are not going to enforce the laws that are on the books, it not only engenders disrespect for the law but it makes law-abiding gun owners wonder why we are going through this exercise we are going through now,” he added.
“They don’t have time to pursue people who are dangerous, who aren’t supposed to get guns, and the message they have sent is literally ‘Good luck, go get them elsewhere,’” Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in an interview with TheDC.

Just keep this in mind when the Obama administration comes out trying to talk about “respecting the Constitution” and saying, “I’m not going to take your guns.” They do this in the midst of talking about keeping guns out of the hands of a few criminals, but they are failing to follow through with prosecution of the law and that isn’t a biased opinion, it’s the words of Obama’s vice president.
As I’ve said before, the real issue here is not safety. It’s not about “the children” and it’s not even about a few people with semi-automatic rifles, it’s about a direct assault on the Second Amendment. I just wonder when we are going to be getting a full and complete background check on the man occupying the Oval Office.
UPDATE: I received a CC on an email from Colorado Sheriff Ron Bruce in which he really let’s Vice President Joe Biden have it. Bruce writes:

Mr. Vice-President-
These actions are 100% bullshit (a word I knew you would understand). My Sheriff’s Office will oppose these processes with all our might and will encourage our residents to do the same thing. This does absolutely nothing to protect anyone. The federal government has failed to enforce hundreds and perhaps thousands of gun laws currently on the books. This has nothing to do with protection but has everything to do with subjugation.
Not so respectfully,
Sheriff R.B. Bruce, Hinsdale County, Colorado

Attorney General Eric Holder Said What About Gun Trafficking?


Attorney General Eric Holder, during a talk on gun control with United States mayors on Friday, said that the U.S. government will consider “imposing tough penalties on gun traffickers who help funnel weapons to dangerous criminals.”
After going over Obama’s executive orders issued Wednesday, Holder said, “The administration has called upon Congress to renew legislation banning high-capacity magazines, including those used in recent high profile mass shootings, to protect our police by getting rid of armor piercing bullets, to pass a new ‘assault weapons ban,’ updated and stronger than the one enacted in 1994 to keep military style weapons off of our streets.”

But Holder wasn’t finished. In fact, I’m actually surprised the mayors attending didn’t fall out of their chair laughing at his next words. He continued, “…to consider a series of new federal laws imposing tough penalties on gun traffickers who help funnel weapons to dangerous criminals.”
Can anyone take this guy seriously? Fast and Furious, hello! Holder was held in contempt of Congress for not providing documentation in knowingly trafficking weapons across the Mexican border into the hands of “dangerous criminals.” Holder is facing a civil lawsuit by Congress in this matter. Holder’s behind was covered by Barack Hussein Obama in this matter via executive privilege. His own ATF can’t get violations of gun laws properly prosecuted.
I’ll give him warning. Be careful of implementing “tougher penalties on gun traffickers” as you just may find yourself facing those penalties.
He then had the audacity to say that “These measures represent essential parts of any serious comprehensive effort to eradicate gun violence.”

No, actually these “measures” are nothing more than a blatant attack on the Second Amendment, masked in the emotional verbiage of the deaths of children and “protecting our police officers.” It would be nice for a change to hear our representatives and those who serve in government stand for once and declare the Second Amendment is about arms. It’s about being able to put down foreign and domestic enemies and it’s not to be tampered with simply because the Federal government was moronic enough to pass a piece of legislation that made certain places “Gun Free Zones.” No, essential parts of any serious comprehensive effort to eradicate gun violence is for government to stop messing with the Second Amendment and deal with what it’s supposed to be doing and that is abiding by the Constitution.

Secession movement just needs 'more oxygen'

by Taylor Rose 

A Southern heritage organization that has argued for an investigation of “injustices” committed by Union troops against the South during the Civil War now says the offhand dismissal by the White House of secession petitions filed by residents of all 50 states may actually help the movement.
“I think that this is going to rejuvenate and give it more life, and obviously we need to fan the flames and give it more oxygen,” said Michael Hill, president of the League of the South, which has numerous chapters across the United States.
The issue arose immediately after Barack Obama’s re-election in November. It got started with a petition on the White House website from Louisianans anxious to properly withdraw their state from the union.
In just days, residents of all 50 states had launched such petitions, gathering hundreds of thousands of signatures.
The petitions were ignored by the White House until just days ago, when Jon Carson, director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, said no.
“As much as we value a healthy debate,” he wrote, “we don’t let that debate tear us apart.”

Atheist Group to Hand Out Hate Literature at Schools


Atheism is the “non-belief” that is willing to admit to being a religion only when it is politically convenient.
Case in point: The Orange County, Florida, school district apparently invites outside organizations to leave faith-based materials on a table at schools for any students who want them.
A local atheist group called Central Florida Freethought, which is affiliated with the Freedom From Religion Foundation, wants to deposit some of its own reading materials, including a booklet titled “An X-rated Book: Sex and Obscenity in the Bible,” to counteract Christian materials from local churches.
If atheism were really a “nonbelief,” then atheists wouldn’t care so much what Christians were up to because they wouldn’t have any religious sensibilities to offend. But since Christianity challenges their own feelings of religious superiority, atheist activists are compelled to wage war, even to the point of taking advantage of a policy about “faith-based” materials.

I don’t think this is a great policy to begin with, but if the school district wants to allow faith-based materials to be distributed in schools, setting up a table for use by all groups seems a reasonably fair way to go about it. Rules prohibit groups’ representatives from having contact with students.

And if the atheist group wanted to simply put out some “rah-rah-atheism” type of materials, it wouldn’t bother me. Promote away.
But as is typical for atheist activists, particularly those connected in any way to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the materials in question don’t just promote their own beliefs, but they have to tear down the beliefs of Christians and Jews.
A booklet titled “An X-rated Book” that purports to be about the Bible is obviously not going to focus on positive aspects of atheism, but it will paint Christians and Jews as stupid, ignorant, misogynistic and backwards.
Why not just put out “Mein Kampf” or “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” for the kiddies while you’re at it?

It’s hate speech, pure and simple, and it has no place in schools.

Actor says 2nd Amendment Created to Defend Against Slave Revolts


Bill of Rights
A meme is going around by a number of people claiming that the Second Amendment — “the right to bear arms” — was put in the Constitution to protect slavery. The following is from actor Danny Glover who spoke to a group of students at a Texas A&M University:
“‘I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms,’ he said. ‘The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans.
“‘A revolt from people who were stolen from their land or revolt from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the genesis of the second amendment is,’ he continued.

If this is true, then it’s obvious that gun ownership was for protection against what people believed was a threat. If there were fears of Indian uprisings and slave revolts, then you would think that Glover would be lobbying for the right of the people to keep and bear arms rather than for the government to restrict gun ownership. Blacks are as much victims of crimes as are whites. Why should they be left defenseless? It doesn’t matter what the perceived threat is.
That threat today consists of marauding thugs and a potentially power-grabbing and rights-denying federal government that one day might use unrestricted force to impose its agenda on the American people.
Unfortunately for Glover and other mythstorians, the history of the Second Amendment is not rooted in the slave trade. It’s rooted in the threat of political tyranny going back centuries.
“The right to have arms in English history is believed to have been regarded as a long-established natural right in English law, auxiliary to the natural and legally defensible rights to life.”

The 1689 English Bill of Rights included a provision that there would be “no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence.” Under James II, Protestants were denied the right to bear arms. The 1689 Bill of Rights stated: “Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence.
Debates and laws over bearing arms have a long history in England for some of the same reasons we are debating the topic today. The great English jurist William Blackstone (1723–1780) wrote:

“In these several articles consist the rights, or, as they are frequently termed, the liberties of Englishmen. . . To preserve these from violation, it is necessary that the constitution of parliaments be supported in it’s full vigor; and limits certainly known, be set to the royal prerogative. And, lastly, to vindicate these rights, when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and lastly to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence. And all these rights and liberties it is our birthright to enjoy entire; unless where the laws of our country have laid them under necessary restraints. Restraints in themselves so gentle and moderate, as will appear upon farther enquiry, that no man of sense or probity would wish to see them slackened.”

You can see echoes of our own Constitution in these words. For example, in addition to the right to bear arms, the First Amendment uses the phrase “redress of grievances.” These were viewed as “liberties of Englishmen” that were their “birthright to enjoy.”
Notice that nothing is said about slavery.
Danny Glover and other mythstorians on the Second Amendment should read Stephen P. Halbrook’s That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right:
“Halbrook traces the right to bear arms from ancient Greece and Rome to the English republicans, then to the American Revolution and Constitution, through the Reconstruction period extending the right to African Americans, and onward to today’s controversies.”
Also see Halbrook’s The Founders and the Second Amendment: The Origins of the Right to Bear Arms that’s “the first book-length account of the origins of the Second Amendment, based on the Founders’ own statements as found in newspapers” from 1768 to 1826.

It didn’t take me long to find these facts. They are available to anyone who wants to take the time to do the research. Glover knows that he’s appealing to low-information voters.

Friday, January 18, 2013

Why is Adam Lanza’s Documentary History Missing?

Ever since the horrible shooting in Sandy Hook Elementary School I’ve been waiting for the autopsy report and any other information of the killer. There has been information from day to day, but the claims are usually dismantled the next day. Like many others, I’ve wondered about the possible influence of, or of withdrawal from, psychotropic drugs.

But we know basically nothing about Adam Lanza. It is as if the Left has been handed a gift, a gun that seems to have killed with no person behind it. We can speculate about his mental health or his medications or his video games or his mother, but we have no solid evidence of anything; just changing stories from people who have not seen him recently. Adam Lanza is the perfect propaganda tool for demonizing guns.
But it is not just the tox screen that we are still waiting for. It recently occurred to me that all the noise about gun control is distracting us, the populace, from some basic questions any news organization worthy of the name should be investigating. For example, this editorial points out something so obvious that I’m embarrassed I haven’t thought of it before now:
“When Adam Lanza moved on to middle school and then to high school, his cumulative folder (a student’s records) should have followed him. And so should have information about any special accommodations to which he would have had a legal right under IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Act). If Adam Lanza was a gifted student, it would also have been noted in his cumulative folder and he would have also had the right for “special accommodations” throughout his school career.”
So where is it? Why has no one asked for it, mentioned it, or published it? “Public school officials can do more than provide an opinion. Public schools should be able to provide records.”

'Oath Keepers' answer to Arie Perliger West Point Manchurian Candidate!

 Influential study published by an Israeli academic at America’s top ...

First and foremost a search for a complete Biography on one known as Arie for the most part sparse and interesting to note: strange for one known to be a professor and author,however his own biography is quite telling... take notice of where his degrees were earned and articles published! and the lack of citing any US military experience or service!

[Christians under attack]

Dr. Arie Perliger

Class of 1977 Director of Terrorism Studies

Expert Bio

–Special thanks to the West Point Class of 1977 for generously supporting this position-
Arie Perliger is the Director of Terrorism Studies at the Combating Terrorism Center and Assistant Professor at the Department of Social Sciences, US Military Academy at West Point. After completing his PhD in Political Science at the University of Haifa Israel (2007), where he was also a fellow at the National Security Studies Center (NSSC), Dr. Perliger became affiliated with the Department of Political Science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem as a Golda Meir Post-Doctoral Fellow (2007-2008). On August 2008 Dr. Perliger joined the Department of Political Science at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, where he was a Schusterman Visiting Assistant Professor until the summer of 2010.
In the past decade Dr. Perliger has studied extensively issues related to Terrorism and Political Violence, Politics of Security, Politics of the Far Right in Israel, Europe and the US, Middle Eastern Politics and the applicability of Social Network Analysis to the study of social phenomena. His studies appeared in four books and more than 20 articles and book chapters by publishers such as Columbia University Press, Rutledge, Security Studies, Social Forces and others.
Dr. Perliger is the co-editor of the journal Democracy and Security and a regular reviewer for various publishers and Journals such as Political Psychology, Critical Studies on Terrorism, Terrorism and Political Violence, Columbia University Press, Chicago University Press, Routledge and Polity Press.
Oath Keepers has an interest in this sort of study, because such analytics are continuously being inserted into the mental states of our public servants, especially those who are to be used to suppress dissent within the population at large. You know, the gals and guys with the badges and the guns – and those with the uniforms of the U.S. military.
These types of analytics shore-up a mindset which becomes applied policy as they are assimilated into the rhetoric of “Homeland Security” at the bureaucratic level.  From the bureaucratic level this sort of profiling of American citizens is dispersed through a maze of more than seventy satellite offices under the command of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) outwardly, down the chain of command to State level “enforcement agencies”, through County Sheriff departments, and to City or local police departments/offices.
This sort of study is the fertile psychological ground in which the seeds of governmental tyranny are sprouted and nurtured, fertilized and watered and incubated by the heated force of applied government. It is conceived in the misguided and misperceiving minds of statists (people who would grant all authority for the management of individual lifestyles of citizens to government offices and agencies). It gets written up into profiling theses, such as the below, using numbers and statistics reflecting the group behavior – while inadvertently overlooking any semblance of personal responsibility on the part of the individual.

It’s transition is marked by three stages. It is 1) profiling, which becomes 2) predisposed perception, which in turn becomes 3) policy. It is morally irresponsible and repugnant, but it is the only “system” available to any modern government which seeks to contain, limit, control the beliefs, perceptions, habits, and behavior of its citizenry.  It is based on “studies” and “polls” drawn from the group, and as such it is biased against the “individual citizen”.
In today’s SWAT-infested militarized combat-style “law enforcement” agencies it often leads to a predisposed violation of Constitutional rights of citizens, as we saw in the protests at the G-20 in Pittsburgh.

But we here at Oath Keepers already know these basics, of course. Let us therefore simply note that in the study reproduced below, there are some serious Constitutional threats embodied In the sections dealing with militias.  In this report, militias are grouped right into the mix with KKK, skinhead radicals, white supremacists, and radicalized fringe groups from the greater Christian society.
Observe the psychological subtlety.  Then ask oneself – how can this be applied by rogue government bureaucracies to Constitutional-minded liberty fighters such as Oath Keepers?  Another question -
Will it be applied?
- Click on the link to read the article/paper written by the West Point Manchurian Candidate:

Identifying Three Trends in Far Right Violence in the United States

Sep 26, 2012

Author: Arie Perliger


Will You Support Your State And Sheriff That defy Obama Gun Control Orders?


Where do you draw the line in the sand in defense of your life, your family and your community? What happens when the President of the United States, determines that it is illegal for you to use the very guns which are constitutionally protected because he issues an executive order against ownership? What alternative are you left with, and who can you turn to?
Your weapons which are constitutionally protected may need a local sheriff who will stand against the federal tidal wave of unconstitutional White House directives to protect gun rights!

States and local sheriffs in several jurisdictions are leading a resurgent awakening in the nation in protecting the gun rights of citizens from being quashed by federal edicts. In fact, some of these states are considering legislation to criminalize efforts of federal employees that attempt to enforce gun control executive orders. Some of these states considering legislation action include Alabama, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina, Texas, and Wyoming, among others.
Obama may use executive orders to increase stricter gun control measures
Obama may use executive orders to increase stricter gun control measures
Reaction to the proposed legislative edicts by President Obama for a reinstated sticker assault-weapons ban and a 10-round limit on magazines is raising concerns by local law enforcement officials. According to CNS News, Oregon, Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller has already told Vice President Biden in a letter, that he will not enforce any recommended gun laws he deemed unconstitutional.

Another sheriff has joined the growing effort to prevent the assault on legal law abiding citizen’s Second Amendment rights in the state of Kentucky. According to Breitbart, Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky stated recently, “My office will not comply with any federal action which violates the United States Constitution or the Kentucky Constitution which I swore uphold.”
A state legislative leader in Texas is tackling this gun control overreach by the Obama administration and gun control advocates. Rep. Steve Toth (R) is planning legislative action to make it illegal for the state of Texas to enforce any federal laws that restrict the constitutional rights of its citizens to own semi-automatic firearms or the size of gun magazines. Is this not the legal obligation of all local sheriffs and state legislative officials to uphold the dictates of the U.S. Constitution as well as their own state constitution? Is this not their oath of office? In fact, it makes perfect sense that every county, parish and borough in America has a sheriff or law enforcement officials who has taken such an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
Obama uses Executive Orders to Strip Gun Owners of legal Constitutional Gun  Weapons Rights
Obama uses Executive Orders to Strip Gun Owners of legal Constitutional Gun Weapons Rights
This means that in all 3009 counties, 64 parishes and 16 boroughs in America, gun owners and those who support the upholding of Second Amendment rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution must get active now. They should be demanding that these officials protect those rights against federal intervention by President Obama or congress. Take the opportunity to begin a petition effort in your county to request your local sheriff or legislator to protect your Second Amendment rights against Obama’s executive order or congressional intervention. Use Saturday January 19th’s Gun Appreciation Day to rally for this cause or begin your own letter writing campaign.
On January 19th go to your local gun range, gun store or gun show and bring your American Flag and a ‘Hands off my Guns’ sign to show your support!

This day is your way of demonstrating that constitutional gun rights do matter. This is your opportunity to stand up and acknowledge that a nation that fought a War of Independence to be free from tyranny of an imperial elite will not bow on bended knee to a 21st century version of that now residing in the White House. Embrace this national day of gun appreciation as a measure of respect for the Second Amendment that millions of Americans hold dear. The gun control activists want a dialogue in America, but only if it is based on discussing ways to disarm citizens. Show America that this is your answer to a national dialogue. Send the nation a clear concise message: “We will stand and fight!”

Forfeit Your Guns Bill Introduced In House of Representatives


rosa delauro
Representative Rosa L. DeLauro (D-CT) introduced HR 226 in the House of Representatives. What does the bill seek to do? I looks to amend the 1986 Internal Revenue code and allow a credit if taxpayers “surrender” their guns to the government. The Act is said to be cited as the “Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act.”
According to the text of the bill, the allowance of the credit is:

(1) In general.–In the case of an individual who surrenders a specified assault weapon to the United States or a State or local government (or political subdivision thereof) as part of a Federal, State, or local public safety program to reduce the number of privately owned weapons, on the election of the taxpayer there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter an amount equal to $2,000.
(2) Year credit allowed.–The amount of the credit under paragraph (1) shall be allowed \1/2\ for the taxable year during which the assault weapon was so surrendered and \1/2\ in the next taxable year.

Notice the purpose is not to give a credit of $2000.00, which if that is the case, one could really make a good bit of money as you can get a Bushmaster for well under $1000, but rather it is to “reduce the number of privately owned weapons.”
The bill states that the weapons must lawfully be possesssed, that it is surrendered in writing, and there can only be one weapon surrendered per tax year. So what weapons does Rep. DeLauro consider to be “assault” weapons? The list is very similar to Senator Diane Feinstein’s list. According to the bill “the term ‘specified assault weapon’ means any of the following:

(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates
“(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR,
“(ii) AR-10,
“(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR,
“(iv) AR70,
“(v) Calico Liberty,
“(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU,
“(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC,
“(viii) Hi-Point Carbine,
“(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1,
“(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle,
“(xi) M1 Carbine,
“(xii) Saiga,
“(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800,
“(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine,
“(xv) SLG 95,
“(xvi) SLR 95 or 96,
“(xvii) Steyr AUG,
“(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14,
“(xix) Tavor,
“(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando, or
“(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).
“(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof:
“(i) Calico M-110,
“(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3,
“(iii) Olympic Arms OA,
“(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10, or
“(v) Uzi.
“(C) The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:
“(i) Armscor 30 BG,
“(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12,
“(iii) Striker 12, or
“(iv) Streetsweeper.
“(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has–
“(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
“(ii) a threaded barrel,
“(iii) a pistol grip,
“(iv) a forward grip, or
“(v) a barrel shroud.
“(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
“(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
“(F) 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) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol
“(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
“(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has–
“(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
“(ii) a pistol grip,
“(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine, or
“(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.
“(I) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
“(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through
(I) or (L).
“(K) A conversion kit.
“(L) A 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. In making the determination, 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.
“(2) Related definitions.– 
“(A) Barrel shroud.–The term `barrel shroud’ means a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that the shroud protects the user of the firearm from heat generated by the barrel, but does not include a slide that encloses the barrel, and does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or substantially encircle the barrel.
“(B) Conversion kit.–The term `conversion kit’ means any part or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into a semiautomatic assault weapon, and any combination of parts from which a semiautomatic assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
“(C) Detachable magazine.–The term `detachable magazine’ means an ammunition feeding device that can readily be inserted into a firearm.
“(D) Fixed magazine.–The term `fixed magazine’ means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm.
“(E) Folding or telescoping stock.–The term `folding or telescoping stock’ means a stock that folds, telescopes, or otherwise operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of a firearm.
“(F) Forward grip.–The term `forward grip’ means a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.
“(G) Pistol grip.–The term `pistol grip’ means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.
“(H) Threaded barrel.–The term `threaded barrel’ means a feature or characteristic that is designed in such a manner to allow for the attachment of a firearm as defined in section 5845(a) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(a)).

The bill was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means on January 14, 2013, much like the bill that seeks to eliminate the 22nd Amendment that was put forth earlier by Congressman Jose Serrano (D-NY).
Americans must resist this kind of enticement and stand upon what the Founders provided us in the Second Amendment. If we do not make our stand on that right, we will eventually lose all other rights.

This hard evidence confirms CNN's undeniable anti-gun bias

Media Research Center. America's Media Watchdog

Dear Patriot,

 The liberal media's relentless assault on conservative values and our constitutional rights has reached fever pitch.

CNN, the self-avowed neutral news outlet, is leading the liberal media's anti-Second Amendment crusade and censoring conservative opposition to radical gun control measures.

On the one-month anniversary of the horrific Newtown shooting, CNN invited THIRTEEN anti-gun rights advocates and only TWO pro-gun rights guests on to discuss the issue.  

This hard evidence confirms CNN's undeniable anti-gun bias and they must be held accountable for their partisan agenda.

Please take a moment to contact the office of Janelle Rodriguez, CNN's Vice-President of Programming by phone at (404) 827-5681 or by email at, and tell her to stop censoring the views of pro-gun rights Americans.  

As President Obama was finalizing his liberal anti-gun agenda, his fanatically loyal propagandists in the national "news" media have been working overtime to demand the American public accept anything he proposes - no matter how extreme or impractical - while censoring the truth about the Left's radical anti-gun agenda.  

CNN is leading the charge in this campaign and we must hold them accountable.

Let Janelle Rodriguez know that you won't stand for CNN's blatant anti-gun lobbying. 

Thank you for standing up to the left-wing bullies in the "news" media and please forward this email to your friends and family and ask them to contact Janelle Rodriguez to demand objective reporting. 

P.S.  After you contact Janelle Rodriguez, please chip in a tax-deductible contribution so MRC can continue to battle the so-called "news" media's attempts to censor the news.

Take Action Now!