TOLERANCE: Newspaper editor calls for NRA members to be shipped to concentration camps

But we're the extremists, right?

This is what passes for reasoned discourse in the mainstream media:

I have seen the light. After all these years, I now agree that it’s fruitless to give the benefit of the doubt to people who are so obviously corrupt, so clearly malevolent, so bent on hurting innocent people for their own sick gain.

No more due process in the clear-cut case of insidious terrorism. When the facts are so clearly before all Americans, for the whole world to see, why bother with this country’s odious and cumbersome system of justice? Send the guilty monsters directly to Guantanamo Bay for all eternity and let them rot in their own mental squalor.

No, no, no. Not the wannabe sick kid who blew up the Boston marathon or the freak that’s mailing ricin-laced letters to the president. I’m talking about the real terrorist threat here in America: the National Rifle Association.

It seems many in the [fascist media] would love to dispose of the Constitution and declare Barack Obama “President for Life,” or some other title generally bestowed upon dictators by their lackeys.

Luckily, there’s an app for that.

And, fortuitously, there are also several technological developments that make banning guns as practical as herding squirrels.

Oh, don't get me wrong. The mental midgets on the Left will do their best to pass thousands of pages of new laws trying to force squirrels into herds. And they'll be just as successful as the RIAA was in banning MP3 distribution by shutting down Napster.

And apparently the following calculus is too difficult for the likes of Dave Perry to comprehend: a criminal bent on rape and murder is unlikely to follow your laws limiting magazine capacity. Schmuck.

National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers to Gang of Eight: How About Comprehensive Immigration Enforcement First, Geniuses?

Actually, I paraphrased their respectful and compelling open letter:



Related: National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers.

RUH ROH: This ain't good for Senator Rubio

When you've lost the RINO establishment...


CNN observes that NRO photoshopped out some inconvenient background characters like Grover Norquist.

As for existing immigration law?

A federal law enforcement official says one of the students from Kazakhstan arrested Wednesday in the Boston Marathon bombings was allowed to return to the United States this year despite not having a valid student visa. Authorities say that after the explosions he helped remove a laptop and backpack from the bombing suspect's dormitory room before the FBI searched it.

But let's pass more laws that no one can be bothered to read!

Remember hearing that 90% of Americans want gun control? Well, those claims were pig excrement.

Economist John Lott eviscerates the propagantician known as "Lies, Damn Lies and" Nate Silver (which is the nickname he prefers, I hear):

Despite assurances by the likes of Nate Silver that these are solid polls showing "Overwhelming majorities of 80 to 90 percent of the public say they favor background checks," 

I have previously noted my skepticism of claims.  To me, it wasn't too surprising that the Senate voted down the gun control bill about 10 days ago.  My concern is that people were really just being asked about whether they wanted to keep criminals from getting guns, not about the particular legislation being voted on by the Senate.  Well, now there is another poll by the PEW Research Center that I think is much more accurate.  It asks people whether they are happy that the Senate gun control bill was stopped.  Apparently, both Republicans and Independents are generally happy that it was stopped.  My guess is that Republicans should pay a lot more attention to what Independents and Republicans wanted than Democrats who wouldn't never have voted for the Republicans anyway.  It looks to me that Republicans voted the way that there constituents wanted.  So Republicans shouldn't really care that among all voters the poll showed support of 47 to 39 percent.  They should look at the results by political affiliation.

Many, such as the New York Times, paint a picture of Senators [like Max Baucus] who both simultaneously opposed the will of 90 percent of their voters and at the same time quake in fear of the NRA... Note in Baucus' case, he is retiring and yet he still voted against the so-called "universal background check" bill.  Might [the Times'] Mr. Nocera re-examine his piece?

By the way, the Nate Silver analysis of how Senators would vote on the Manchin-Toomey bill has sone major problem, he uses a very unreliable measure of gun ownership from Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.  If you use a bad survey, you get a lot of noise and it makes it more likely that you won't get a statistically significant result.  I also like the way he runs a regression after the fact rather than predicting how people were going to vote before the Senate vote.  Letting him play around with different factors (we have no idea how many regressions that he ran before he decided to report the one that he did) makes the predictive power of that regression pretty useless.

It's back to the propaganda drawing board for you, Mr. Silver!


Hat tip: BadBlue Gun News.

Someone Break the News to Marco Rubio: Amnesty Costs 70 Times More Than Enforcement

I respect Marco Rubio. I supported him in his Senate run. Most importantly, I believe he means well.

But the allure of power has proven too strong for him. Ensconced in the Beltway Bubble, Rubio's fallen for what I call "the legislation delusion". Roughly translated, it is the belief that complex, multi-faceted legislation can solve humanity's problems.

Obamacare is the quintessential example of law run amok: it represents tens of thousands of pages of regulations, arbitrary thresholds, segmentation of families into static classes, and other symptoms of a master planner's delusions.

What the Statist terms "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" is similarly -- and fatally -- flawed. It represents dizzyingly complex regulations, dependent upon arbitrary conditions, restrictions, and dictates all requiring millions of pages of flowcharts. It is the product of the proverbial "Mastermind": one who believes he or she can better orchestrate mankind than the entirety of the civil society.

And, as history has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, Masterminds must always turn a blind eye to the financial ramifications of their plans. One need only review the cost of Amnesty.

The cost of amnesty: $999 billion. The cost of attrition by enforcement: as little as $14 billion. Amnesty would cost up to 70 times as much as enforcing existing law.

$999 billion cost of Amnesty (Mass Legalization)

Source: The Heritage Foundation
Summary: The Heritage Foundation issued two studies in 2007 pointing out that the big problem with mass legalization is that (a) most illegal aliens are low-skilled and therefore do not earn enough money to pay enough taxes to cover the government benefits they receive; and (b), amnesty would eventually make them eligible for the full array of welfare and medical benefits offered by local, state and federal governments. They found the cost of allowing illegal aliens to remain in the United States, and eventually to become citizens, would be $3.7 trillion through the year 2056. That works out to a present cost of $1 trillion, at a 5 percent discount rate. In other words, immediately upon passage of an amnesty bill, the United States government would need to put $1 trillion into an investment earning 5 percent per year if it were honest about paying for the costs of amnesty.

$14 billion cost of attrition through enforcement option #1.

Source: Congressional Budget office Estimate for H.R. 4437.
Summary: This option is the bill H.R. 4437 sponsored by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner that passed the House of Representatives in 2005. This bill would have been so effective in combating illegal immigration that some 1 million illegal aliens marched in cities around the United States on May 1, 2006 to protest it. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would cost $1.9 billion over the 5 years 2006-2010, which we extrapolate out to the year 2056 using a linear model to account for cost increases. Then we use a discount rate of 5 percent to bring the future costs back to a single present cost figure. The resulting cost was actually $13.5 billion, which we round up to $14 billion to facilitate comparison to the other cost figures.

$177 billion cost of attrition through enforcement option #2.

Source: Congressional Budget Office Estimate for H.R. 4088.
Summary: This option is the SAVE Act (Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act) that was introduced in the House of Representatives in 2007. This is a strong attrition through enforcement bill. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would cost $40.7 billion over the 10 years 2009-2018, which we extrapolate out to the year 2056 using a linear model to account for cost increases. Then we use a discount rate of 5 percent to bring the future costs back to a single present cost figure.

We conservatives are immigrants. We are first-generation immigrants or the descendants thereof. But we, as opposed to those whom the "Gang of Eight" would legalize, have followed a lawful process. We and our forebears have come to America's shores through Ellis Island and other ports of entry, applied for citizenship, and have become the law-abiding citizens that have shaped the country.

That is not what "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" represents: it instead grants legal status to those who have broken the law, stolen their way into the country without background checks, without any vetting of their connection to drug cartels or terrorism, and without even a modicum of examination.

There is only one acceptable response to the Gang of Eight's master plans. Seal the border, prove it is sealed over a substantial period of time, and then -- and only then -- will the American people countenance "amnesty" or whatever term the Statist uses to describe legalized lawbreaking.

Politico lets the cat out of the bag: immigration "reform" would give Democrats a permanent majority

Well, anyone with an ounce of sense knew this was the case, but this is the first time I've seen it in black and white. I refer, of course, to the Obama administration's press release blog, otherwise known as Politico:

Immigration reform could be bonanza for Democrats

The immigration proposal pending in Congress would transform the nation’s political landscape for a generation or more — pumping as many as 11 million new Hispanic voters into the electorate a decade from now in ways that, if current trends hold, would produce an electoral bonanza for Democrats and cripple Republican prospects in many states they now win easily.

...Republican Mitt Romney ... would have lost the national popular vote by 7 percentage points, 53 percent to 46 percent, instead of the 4-point margin he lost by in 2012, and would have struggled even to stay competitive in GOP strongholds like Texas, which he won with 57 percent of the vote...

...Texas, where the unauthorized immigrant population is second only to California’s, had an estimated 1.65 million undocumented immigrants in 2010, according to statistics from the Pew Hispanic Center. Romney won the state in 2012 by just under 1.3 million votes...

...In Arizona, Romney won by 212,000 votes — and there are an estimated 400,000 undocumented immigrants in the state as of 2010... Even Georgia, which isn’t a border state and doesn’t immediately come to mind when thinking of immigrant-heavy states, would be affected: Georgia had an estimated 425,000 undocumented immigrants in 2010, per Pew Hispanic Center’s estimates, and Romney won there by 308,000 votes...

If all those immigrants had voted in 2012 and President Obama had won 71 percent of them — the percentage he won among Latinos nationally — he would have come in less than 50,000 votes short in Arizona, within about a half-million votes of winning Texas and 125,000 votes shy in Georgia.

Politico quotes the quintessential loser and establishment RINO consultant Steve Schmidt -- you know, the genius behind the McCain 2008 campaign -- who says that Republicans are bound to get some Hispanic votes if they support Amnesty.

Say Steve-o, what's the track record to support this conjecture? Let's look, just for fun.

--1980 Jimmy Carter, 56% Ronald Reagan, 35% +21

--1984 Walter Mondale, 61% Ronald Reagan, 37% +24

--1988 Michael Dukakis, 69% George H.W. Bush, 30% +39

--1992 Bill Clinton, 61% George H.W. Bush, 25% +36

--1996 Bill Clinton, 72% Bob Dole, 21% +51

--2000 Al Gore, 62% George W. Bush, 35% +27

--2004 John Kerry, 58% George W. Bush, 40% +18

--2008 Barack Obama, 67% John McCain, 31% +36

--2012 Barack Obama, 71% Mitt Romney, 27% +44

In other words, over the last 9 election cycles, Democrat presidential candidates won the Hispanic vote by an average of 33 percentage points. But I'm sure the brilliant strategist Steve Schmidt can turn things around, even though a huge chunk of illegals are de facto Democrats, i.e., dependent upon government largess.

If the Gang of Idiots -- which is the phrase they prefer, I hear -- get their way, the entire United States will become a supersized version of California. Only with crappier weather.


Hat tip: BadBlue News.

Slow Down Immigration Reform: An Open Letter to Sen. Harry Reid from Sen. Rand Paul

Guest post by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)

Dear Majority Leader Reid,

As our thoughts and prayers continue to go out to those affected by the tragedy in Boston, I urge you to incorporate the following national security concerns into the comprehensive immigration reform debate. Before Congress moves forward, some important national security questions must be addressed.

I believe that any real comprehensive immigration reform must implement strong national security protections. The facts emerging in the Boston Marathon bombing have exposed a weakness in our current system. If we don't use this debate as an opportunity to fix flaws in our current system, flaws made even more evident last week, then we will not be doing our jobs.

We should not proceed until we understand the specific failures of our immigration system. Why did the current system allow two individuals to immigrate to the United States from the Chechen Republic in Russia, an area known as a hotbed of Islamic extremism, who then committed acts of terrorism? Were there any safeguards? Could this have been prevented? Does the immigration reform before us address this?

There should be hearings in the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee that study the national security aspects of this situation, making sure that our current immigration system gives individuals from high-risk areas of the world heightened scrutiny.

In the wake of 9/11, there was a comprehensive reform of our intelligence gathering system, yet our improved intelligence gathering system did not adequately detect these extremists. We need to understand possible intelligence failures and craft solutions.

Media reports indicate that the deceased bombing suspect was interviewed by the FBI two years ago at the request of a foreign government. We need to know the details of this interview. We need to know if this interview might have given investigators any reason to conclude that this individual might be dangerous or at least worthy of further inquiry. If so, was there an intelligence failure? At the very least, it should be examined.

Media reports indicate that both the bombing suspects were legal permanent residents and one is reported to be a naturalized citizen. We need to make sure that we have safeguards against this type of situation happening again.

In 2002, Congress set up the National Security Registration System (NSEERS), yet it was suspended in 2011 by Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. That system had problems, yet was still based on the practical idea that extra screening is necessary from nations that have a higher population of extremists. Congress might need a similar system updated for current circumstances to be rolled into comprehensive immigration reform.

I would like the US-VISIT/OBIM program studied to see if it actually works, or at least study the process by which we collect and analyze biometric data on immigrants.

Our refugee programs have proven to be a problem. On, January 29, 2013, two Iraqi citizens living in Bowling Green, in my home state of Kentucky, were sentenced to long prison terms for participating in terrorism and providing material support to terrorists while living in the United States. How did this happen? Does the current immigration reform address how this might have happened? We may need more scrutiny when accepting refugees from high-risk nations.

I want to make sure that any new bill addresses the visa entry and exit programs, in addition to refugee programs that have proven problematic in Bowling Green and possibly, if media reports are correct, in Boston.

Finally, do we need to take a hard look at student visas? Should we suspend student visas, or at least those from high-risk areas, pending an investigation into the national security implications of this program?

I respectfully request that the Senate consider the following two conditions as part of the comprehensive immigration reform debate: One, the Senate needs a thorough examination of the facts in Massachusetts to see if legislation is necessary to prevent a similar situation in the future. Two, national security protections must be rolled into comprehensive immigration reform to make sure the federal government does everything it can to prevent immigrants with malicious intent from using our immigration system to gain entry into the United States in order to commit future acts of terror.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Rand Paul, M.D.


Hat tip: TPNN.

LIBERALS SHOCKED, CONFUSED: Heavily-Armed Boston Bombers Didn't Have Gun Permits

Or explosives permits, for that matter.

A perplexed Associated Depress reluctantly reports:

Massachusetts police official say the brothers suspected of bombing the Boston Marathon before having shootouts with authorities didn't have gun permits.

Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert Haas tells The Associated Press in an interview Sunday that neither Tamerlan Tsarnaev (tsahr-NEYE'-ehv) nor his brother Dzhokhar had permission to carry firearms.

...he [also] says the 19-year-old Dzhokhar (joh-KHAR') would have been denied a permit because of his age. Only people 21 or older are allowed gun licenses in Massachusetts.

The suspects were also accused of hijacking a Mercedes on Thursday night.

Haas says the pair didn't release the driver, but he escaped when he was left alone while the two men entered a convenience store.

So let's pass some more gun control laws, right, progressive nitwits?


Hat tip: @SisterToldjah.

And now, a public service announcement on immigration from Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

Brought to you courtesy of the Sunday talk shows, which iOwnTheWorld watches so you don't have to.


As Dave Cutler wrote recently, we need comprehensive immigration law enforcement. Passing more laws -- when our current ones aren't enforced -- makes no sense, unless you're a Democrat or a miscreant. But I repeat myself.

The Gang of Eight's Immigration Deception [Cutler]

Guest post by Michael Cutler

The “Gang of Eight,” aka the “Eight Gangsters,” are concocting Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation. Purportedly this legislation is needed to address the presence of the officially-estimated population of 12 million illegal aliens.

While the legislation is referred to as being “Comprehensive,” there is nothing truly comprehensive about their approach, other than the fact that it would provide nearly all illegal aliens who are in the United States, or who will arrive in the months to come, with lawful status and ultimately, a pathway to United States citizenship. It would also increase the number of visas for many thousands of foreign workers and allow them to compete unfairly with American workers.

A History of Deception

The “one time” amnesty of 1986 was supposed to involve approximately one million illegal aliens. Over 3.5 million actually came forward. If history were to repeat itself, Comprehensive Immigration Reform would involve between 30 and 40 million aliens.

And that is just one of the deceptions inherent in the coverage of the current debate. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) was on ABC’s “This Week” last Sunday, and expressed concern that pledges to secure the border between the U.S. and Mexico won’t be kept, leading to a massive influx of illegal aliens.

“It looks like…it will give amnesty now, legalize everyone that’s here effectively today and then there’s a promise of enforcement in the future,” Sessions said about the proposed legislation. “Even if you pass laws today that appear to be effective, it doesn’t mean they’re going to be enforced.”

“And we have in this administration,” he added, a failure to enforce. So that’s a big deal right now.”

The Border Deception

Another deception is the claim that the United States has just four border states. Any state that has a seaport or international airport is as much a border state as are those states found along America’s northern and southern border. Simply stated, there are 50 border states.

The “debate” over Comprehensive Immigration Reform has, by design, centered on whether the southern border is secure. It most certainly is anything but secure, but that is hardly the only problem in our current immigration system. While that border must be secured against the illegal, un-inspected entry of aliens and cargo, it is not a more serious problem than the fact that there are millions of illegal aliens present in the United States who ran across the U.S./Canadian border, jumped ship or stowed away on vessels, or violated their terms of supposedly lawful admissions into the United States.

It is certainly not more serious than the fraud permeating the immigration benefits program.

While attention is being intentionally drawn to the U.S./Mexican border, attention is purposely being drawn away from the myriad other abysmal failures of the immigration system.

The Terror Deception

The lack of integrity in the adjudications process was the focus of clear concerns of the 9/11 Commission, and the 9/11 Commission staff noted it in their report, 9/11 AND TERRORIST TRAVEL: Staff Report of the National Commission onTerrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

This paragraph is found on page 98 under the title “Immigration Benefits:”

“Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.”

Page 47 of the above-noted report contained the following paragraph:

“Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida. Mohammed Salameh, who rented the truck used in the bombing, overstayed his tourist visa. He then applied for permanent residency under the agricultural workers program, but was rejected. Eyad Mahmoud Ismail, who drove the van containing the bomb, took English-language classes at Wichita State University in Kansas on a student visa; after he dropped out, he remained in the United States out of status.”

The “Eight Gangsters” expect that there would be no way to verify material facts contained in applications for Comprehensive Immigration Reform filed by “Undocumented Aliens.” They craft legislative prerequisites for aliens to deceive their colleagues and the American people. Aliens who game the system will be able to falsely claim they meet those requirement. For example, let’s examine the requirement that aliens must have been present in the United States for a designated period of years. Without a record of their entry into the United States, and without the means to conduct field investigations, an alien could easily enter the United States well after any cutoff date, while fraudulently claiming to have been here for years.

The "Unobtainium" Deception

Engineers who are engaged in cutting-edge programs refer to materials that don’t exist but that would be essential to the construction of advanced design aircraft, spacecraft and the like, as being “unobtainium.” Where immigration is concerned, the term “unobtainium” could be used to refer to the verification of claims made in applications for immigration benefits. There is no way to verify information concerning material facts contained in those applications.

There has been no mention as to how the USCIS would process these amnesty applications. There are not enough personnel available to conduct face-to-face interviews with all of the applicants. Today, that beleaguered, inept and incompetent agency is processing alien “DREAMERS” without in-person interviews, and without the capacity to conduct field investigations to verify claims made in those applications.

Immigration fraud compromises national security and deprives hardworking Americans the opportunity to find decent jobs at a time when such jobs are already in short supply.

Yet fraud largely goes undetected and unpunished. Think of it as a case of “Mind over matter.” If the administration doesn’t mind, it would not matter if aliens lie on their applications with impunity, and, in fact, tacit immunity!

The Fraud Deception

Aliens who succeed in gaming the system provide encouragement to other aliens, who are consequently emboldened to file their own fraud-laden applications, further exacerbating the backlog of applications, applying more pressure on the over-burdened system to move the applications still more quickly. It takes minutes to approve an application, but it may take hours or days to deny an application. The only way to clear the burgeoning backlog of applications is to approve nearly every application. This encourages more fraud and further compromises not only the integrity of the immigration system, but national security and the safety and well-being of all Americans as well.

Today, record numbers of Americans, especially young Americans and members of the American minority communities, are unemployed and underemployed. It is outrageous that the “Eight Gangsters,” such as Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), are calling for more work visas for foreign workers as a “solution” to the immigration crisis. This is the equivalent of addressing drunk driving by raising the acceptable blood alcohol level for motorists. While fewer drivers would be legally drunk, the carnage on the highways would actually increase as more drivers drank more—with impunity!

As I noted at the conclusion of my prepared testimony for the hearing on immigration conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 20, 2013:

Inspiring a Flood of New Illegals

“Law enforcement is at its best when it creates a climate of deterrence to convince those who might be contemplating violating the law that such an effort is likely to be discovered, and, that if discovered, adverse consequences will result for the law violators. Current policies and statements by the administration, in my view, encourage aspiring illegal aliens around the world to head for the United States. In effect the starter’s pistol has been fired, and for these folks, the finish line to this race is the border of the United States.”

The true solution to the immigration crisis lies in addressing all of the failures that induced and enabled millions of illegal aliens to enter the United States and work illegally or, in all too many instances, acquire lawful status by committing fraud. More agents must be hired for ICE and they must be given the resources and leadership to do an effective job. Aliens must come to understand that those who commit fraud and other violations will be identified and face prosecution and deportation.

Rather than Comprehensive Immigration Reform, America really needs COMPILE (Comprehensive Immigration Law Enforcement)!

Michael W. Cutler is a retired Senior Special Agent with the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

The 3 Most Dangerous Provisions of the Schumer-Toomey-Manchin Gun Grab Legislation

3 The Bill Will Lead to a Federal Gun Registry:

It would be a bad idea for Congress to give Attorney General Eric Holder the broadest possible discretion by empowering him to implement the STM background check legislation by regulations “notwithstanding any other provision” of the legislation. Perhaps the courts would say the anti-gun registry provisions prevail over the “notwithstanding” clause and there can be no step toward a gun registry, and perhaps the courts would say the “notwithstanding” clause displaces the anti-gun registry provisions and Attorney General Holder can start toward a gun registry.

The statutory rights of Americans to live free from a federal government registry of everybody who has firearms, what types of firearms they have, and where they have them should not be left to the judicial roulette of liberal judges in some courts and conservative judges in others.

2 It Eviscerates HIPAA Privacy Rights:

The STM gun control legislation eliminates any HIPAA privacy protection for mental health records in connection with the NICS system, leaving only what privacy protection the Attorney General cares to provide. The STM legislation says that information collected under the law by Attorney General Eric Holder to help him enforce the prohibition on firearms possession by mental defectives or people committed to mental institutions “shall not be subject to [HIPAA]

1 It Facilitates Undercover Busts of Innocents at Gun Shows:

Congress has made gun laws so complex that even the well-meaning, law-abiding citizen who owns firearms will have a hard time learning about and complying with every firearms law and regulation on the books. It is unreasonable to assume that every person at a gun show will automatically know that it is a crime to transfer a firearm without a necessary background check. The STM bill’s new undercover sting provision is a trap for the innocent.

Giving Attorney General Eric Holder unfettered power to further shred the Constitution is unacceptable.

This bill must be stopped.

Like Sarah Palin and Mark Levin, I will work to defeat anyone who supports this madness, starting with Pat Toomey.

16 TRAITORS

We expect it of the Leftists who have as their stated purpose the eradication of the Bill of Rights (except for the super-secret 69th Amendment, which protects the right to abortion).

But we do not expect, nor should we tolerate, the dimunition of our liberties by those who claim to respect the Constitution. By those who rally under the banner of liberty, emancipation, and civil rights -- the banner of the Republican Party -- and then vote on a secret bill that redacts the Second Amendment.

Here are the 16 Republicans who voted to kill Rand Paul's gun control filibuster before it started

Sadly, just a few hours later, 16 Republican Senators caved to the Democrats and voted to end debate and bring to the floor a gun control bill that no one has had a chance to read.  There will be Amendments offered, it will probably pass, and then we'll all be able to "find out what's in it."

So much for "shall not be infringed."

Here are the GOP members who sided with their Dem opponents. It's basically a who's who of the RINO world.

• Lindsey Graham (SC)  (202) 224-5972
• Lamar Alexander (TN)  (202) 224-4944
  
• Kelly Ayotte (NH)  (202) 224-3324
• Richard Burr (NC)  (202) 224-3154
• Saxby Chambliss (GA)  (202) 224-3521
• John McCain (AZ)  (202) 224-2235
  
• Tom Coburn (OK)  (202) 224-5754
• Susan Collins (ME)  (202) 224-2523
• Bob Corker (TN)  (202) 224-3344
• Jeff Flake (AZ)  (202) 224-4521
• John Hoeven (ND)  (202) 224-2551
• Johnny Isakson (GA)  (202) 224-3643
• Dean Heller (NV)  (202) 224-6244
• Mark Kirk (IL)  (202) 224-2854
• Pat Toomey (PA)  (202) 224-4254
• Roger Wicker (MS)  (202) 224-6253

...feel free to give them a call tell them what you think of their decision.

We have an Amendment process, boys and girls. The Second Amendment isn't up for a vote. The Constitution isn't up for a vote. The Bill of Rights isn't up for a vote.

As Paul Harvey famously said, "Lawlessness begets lawlessness."

And when our "legislators" write bills in secret, rush them to the floor and force a vote without having read them, without committee hearings, without debate and without any public scrutiny whatsoever, we no longer have a Republic.

We are living with a lawless government. We are living in a society that is bankrupt, financially and morally.

Aside from a few statesmen -- a Rand Paul, a Ted Cruz, a Mike Lee, perhaps a few others -- I can think of few rays of light to which we can pin some hope for saving this Republic.


Hat tip: Paula.

PAT TOOMEY THINKS YOU'RE STUPID: Avoids being photographed with Schumer to hide his betrayal of his constituents and the Constitution

The Senator from Pennsylvania, swept into office by Constitutional conservatives and Tea Party activists, has executed the consummate betrayal:

...the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer sell-out [is] worse than the Feinstein gun ban, which will reportedly be tied to it and offered simultaneously in a Senate procedure known as an “amendment tree.”

Toomey and Manchin will claim that their bill only covers “gun show sales” and Internet sales. But if you’ve ever talked about your gun and /or let it be known you’d like to sell or buy a gun on the Internet, this language covers you. If you advertise your gun in the church bulletin and the bulletin is put on the Internet, you’re covered.

The only exemption is for sales that are sold exclusively by word of mouth. The increased number of background checks would likely exacerbate the system breakdowns (inherent to NICS) which have shut down gun shows over and over again. It would mean that Americans who were illegally denied firearms because their names were similar to other people's would effectively be barred from owning a gun. (We would never tolerate such delays for voting rights or other freedoms that we are guaranteed.)

And for those Republicans who think they’re going to be able to offer their useless amendments, guess what? Reid is reportedly going to use a procedure to block out all amendments (called an “amendment tree”). And there are plenty of Senators standing in line to make sure that the Senate doesn’t give “unanimous consent” to let those Republicans offer their amendments.

So if you live in a rural area, you’re effectively barred from selling or buying a gun... [and the] Toomey-Manchin-Schumer “national registry” language is full of holes. There will be a national gun registry as a result of this sell-out.

Toomey is helping the Marxist Left set the stage for universal gun registration and, ultimately, confiscation.

Illustrating just how deceptive Toomey has had to become on this issue, Roll Call is reporting that the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania refused to be photographed with Schumer at the gun deal press conference -- as if that would fool his constituents somehow.

Four senators may have signed on to a gun background check deal Wednesday, but only two showed up for the news conference — in part because Pennsylvania GOP Sen. Patrick J. Toomey’s public support for the bill hinged on not having to stand next to Democratic Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York.

The background check bill, which would close the gun show loophole and expand checks to online sales, is officially co-sponsored by Schumer; Toomey; Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va.; and Mark S. Kirk, R-Ill. But only Toomey and Manchin appeared before the cameras. Toomey, the former Club for Growth president, had told Manchin he would not speak at the news conference if he had to get on stage with Schumer, according to two sources familiar with the talks. Schumer obliged, and Kirk also agreed not to appear in order to provide cover to Schumer.

In other words, Pat Toomey thinks you're an idiot. That because he avoided appearing in a photograph with Schumer that he can somehow divorce himself from the bill he co-sponsored with the very same loathsome, Leftist hack.

Call Toomey now at 202-224-3121. Tell him that the Bill of Rights isn't up for a vote. Be polite, but firm: infringing upon the Second Amendment is a violation of his oath of office.


Hat tip: BadBlue Gun News.

RED ALERT -- TAKE ACTION NOW: Mark Levin warns Senate will try to erase the Second Amendment on Thursday

The Right Scoop headlines its audio snippet: "Mark Levin goes NUCLEAR: An up and down vote on the 2nd amendment is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!":

Mark Levin says that on Thursday the Senate intends to vote to change the 2nd amendment without any pretense of going through the amendment process, on a bill that hasn’t even been written yet. He says that this isn’t republicanism, it’s democratic tyranny. And the senators arguing to filibuster are being demonized, but Levin says that an up and down vote on the 2nd amendment is unconstitutional, that there is no up and down vote on the Constitution.

Write your Representatives now. The Second Amendment isn't up for debate or modification. This lawlessness must end.

And the survey (of 15,000 law enforcement personnel on the Democrats' proposed gun control bill) says...

A March 2013 survey of 15,000 police officers covering proposed gun control legislation and attitudes about concealed carry laws had some surprising results:

The survey, which was conducted in early March 2013, received 15,000 responses from law enforcement professionals. It found that the overall attitude of law enforcement is strongly anti-gun legislation and pro-gun rights, with the belief that an armed citizenry is effective in stopping crime. Response percentages varied only slightly when analyzed by rank and department size. Among the results:

• 86 percent feel the currently proposed legislation would have no effect or a negative effect on improving officer safety

• Similarly, 92 percent feel that banning semi-automatic firearms, or “assault weapons,” would have no effect or a negative effect on reducing violent crime ...

• Respondents were more split on background checks, with 31 percent agreeing that mental health background checks in all gun sales would help reduce mass shootings, while 45 percent disagreed

• 71 percent support law enforcement leaders who have publicly refused to enforce more restrictive gun laws within their jurisdictions ...

• 91 percent support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or have not been deemed psychologically incapable

• Likewise, 80 percent feel that legally-armed citizens would likely have reduced the number of casualties in recent mass shooting incidents

...The survey was promoted by PoliceOne exclusively to its 400,000 registered members, comprised of individually-verified law enforcement professionals. Only current, former or retired law enforcement personnel were eligible to participate in the survey.

The results are conclusive: police officers believe that more gun control laws are useless and that concealed-carry by law-abiding citizens makes society safer.

Which makes it even more certain that Democrats will ignore the will of the people to continue their efforts to eradicate the Second Amendment.

For the children, dontcha know?


Hat tip: BadBlue Gun News.

Democrats Want to Tax Your Constitutional Rights

Word tonight that a New York legislator is pushing a bill in Congress to require gun owners to buy liability insurance or face a $10,000 fine. That's right: Democrats want you to pay a tax in order to exercise a God-given mandate that is codified in plain English in our Bill of Rights.

Dr. John Lott, the world's foremost expert on gun laws, offers the following astute observation:

With the cost of insurance at up to $2,000, Democrats put the fine for not having insurance at $10,000.

Compare that to Obamacare where the fines for not having insurance are less than a quarter of the costs for people whose income is at $50,000.

My interpretation is that Democrats are not serious about people getting health insurance, but they are serious [in] stopping people from owning guns.

Remember, folks, a penalty is a tax, except when it's just a tax, other than when it is a penalty or simply a penalty and a tax. Ain't that right, Chief Justice Roberts?

THE TRANSCRIPT: Cruz vs. Feinstein on Guns

Today in a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee, one of the upper chamber's most brilliant legal minds interrogated one of the most mendacious and immoral. I refer, of course, to Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) being questioned by Ted Cruz (R-TX).

The Independent Sentinel (a member of the invaluable Watcher's Council) provides us with the transcript and some needed perspective (video here).

[Their Q&A] can only be described as a perfect example of a very legitimate and pertinent question, followed by a totally evasive and self-glorifying, political non-answer.

CRUZ: The question that I would pose to the senior senator from California is Would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment, namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights? Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?

FEINSTEIN: I’m not a sixth grader. Senator, I’ve been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I’ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I’ve seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered. Look, there are other weapons. I’ve been up — I’m not a lawyer, but after 20 years I’ve been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. This doesn’t mean that weapons of war and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here. And so I — you know, it’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I’ve been here for a long time. I’ve passed on a number of bills. I’ve studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated, and I thank you for the lecture.”

Yes, Ma’am, you’re most all of the things you stated... but you didn’t answer the question...

One other very important point... [most] of the weapons you’ve listed in this legislation have been proven NOT to have been used at Sandy Hook. You are using the horrible deaths at Sandy Hook to promote a political ideology and playing on the heartstrings of Americans in the process. That’s despicable.

When a legislator is forced to use emotion and insults -- rather than the law -- it is a tacit admission that her argument is a sham.

Tell me, Ms. Feinstein: which "military-style assault weapons" used at the time of America's founding were banned by the Framers?


Hat tip: BadBlue 24-7 News.

Senate said to near bipartisan deal on universal gun registration

Democrat media markets the news as "background checks for most private gun sales", but make no mistake about it.

Background checks for private gun sales would be equivalent to universal gun registration.

A bipartisan group of senators is on the verge of a deal that would expand background checks to all private firearms sales with limited exemptions, but significant disagreements remain on the issue of keeping records of private gun sales, according to aides familiar with the talks.

An agreement would be a bold first step toward consideration of legislation to limit gun violence in the wake of the mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school in December and comes as the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected this week to begin considering new proposals to limit gun violence.

... “These negotiations are challenging, as you’d expect on an issue as complicated as guns,” the chief negotiator, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), said in a statement Saturday. “But all of the senators involved are approaching this in good faith. We are all serious about wanting to get something done, and we are going to keep trying.”

Resolution of whether to keep records of private sales is key to earning the support of one of the Republicans involved in the talks, Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, who has a solid A-rating from the influential National Rifle Association and could provide political cover for lawmakers of both parties who are wary of supporting the plan.

...Democrats say that keeping records of private sales is necessary to enforce any new law and because current federal law requires licensed firearm dealers to keep records. Records of private sales also would help law enforcement trace back the history of a gun used in a crime, according to Democratic aides. Republicans, however, believe that records of private sales could put an undue burden on gun owners or could be perceived by gun rights advocates as a precursor to a national gun registry.

Any bill with which Chuck Schumer is involved will lead only to tyranny.

And Senator Tom Coburn is said to be considering retirement at the completion of his term in 2016.

These are bad tidings indeed.

I don't know this Jason Mattera fellow, but I like the cut of his jib

Now this right here is a real journalist.

In an explosive exchange outside the U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting in Washington, D.C., security guards for billionaire New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg accosted senior Talk Radio Network investigative reporter Jason Mattera when he asked the mayor about his strong support for gun control.

In the video, Bloomberg is seen surrounded by security. Mattera approaches Bloomberg and asks, “In the spirit of gun control, will you disarm your entire security team?”

Bloomberg’s reply: “Uh, you, we’ll get right back to you.”

“Why can you defend yourself but not the majority of Americans?” Mattera asks as the mayor walks away. “Look at the team of security you’ve got. And you’re an advocate for gun control?”

The video then cuts to Mattera walking further down the street when one of the men guarding Bloomberg, identified as Officer Stockton NYPD, stops Mattera and asks to see his photo ID...

One rule for the elites, one rule for the peons.

After all, that's the evil that Statism always devolves into. Which is why these progressive miscreants continually lobby for more control, whether it's health care, guns, unions, education, or light bulbs.

They can't articulate any limits to the power and control they seek. They're making it up as they go along.

Their only goals are controlling you and solidifying their power, not about following the Constitution, not about following the law, not about honoring America's traditions or its moral code or its ethics.

It's about keeping a white-knuckled death grip on power that Bloomberg, Feinstein, Schumer, and Obama seek to hold over you, the individual. We are witnessing history here. It is our sacred duty to preserve this, the world's last best hope for liberty.

Racist Tea Party Extremist and Tiananmen Square Survivor Eviscerates Democrat Gun-Banners Feinstein, Schumer and Obama

Last week, a firsthand survivor of tyranny offered a unique perspective on the Second Amendment. His short, powerful speech should be seen and heard by every regular American (drones and other irregular Americans can skip it, it's over their heads).

"When government has all the guns, it has all the rights... Do not give up the fight, my friends. It maybe a small step to give up your rifles and 30-round magazines, but it will be a giant leap in the destruction of this great Republic."


Hat tip: Vicki.