Another attempt at gun control

From the National Assoication for Gun Rights:

This is an all-out EMERGENCY.

And unless you act today, I'm afraid we'll be staring at a gun control nightmare.

Yesterday, anti-gun California Senator Dianne Feinstein strode to the microphone demanding her colleagues pass a gun control bill -- immediately -- specifically her beloved “assault weapons ban.”

Powerful House Democrat Steny Hoyer urged his colleagues to “renew” the push in the House and Senate for gun control legislation.

Hordes of gun control lobbyists have spread out on Capitol Hill today looking for new Republican and Democrat support for gun control legislation.

But facts don’t matter to the gun-grabbers . . .

Whenever a tragedy -- a revolting grave crime -- is committed, gun-grabbers ALWAYS rush to "cash in."

Always.

New media now report that the shooter was armed with a shotgun, not an “AR-15” that Feinstein wants banned and turned in by the millions of Americans who own them for self-defense.

Of course you and I both know that no specific type of gun commits a crime. Criminals and thugs do.

Others in Washington, DC, and in state capitols across the country are banging the drums for more “Gun Free Zones,” ignoring the fact that yesterday’s shootings occurred in a secure government facility in a city where guns are banned.

“Gun Free Zone” signs do not protect anyone from violent madmen.

All these signs do is guarantee killers never face anyone who can defend his or herself.

And despite the fact that the shooter had a secret government security clearance, the gun-grabbers are demanding a renewed push in the U.S. Senate for expanded federal background checks on all Americans (national gun registry).

So with anti-gun fervor raging in the national media and anti-gunners demanding gun control right now, gun-grabbers are determined to strike while the iron is hot.

You and I both know what’s at stake here . . .

Expanded or Universal “background checks” (NATIONAL GUN REGISTRATION) remains at the top of the gun-grabbers’ priority list.

After all, the ability to CONFISCATE firearms from the American people -- the gun-grabbers’ ultimate goal -- rests on knowing who owns which guns.

That’s the real purpose of these “background checks.”

Without a database of gun owners, this scheme would be largely unenforceable. There would simply be no way for our federal government to know if any citizen had broken the law.

These “background checks” were a key part of the so-called Toomey-Manchin “compromise” and is central to the newly-drafted U.N. “Small Arms Treaty,” which could come before the Senate as early as this fall.

But there’s another threat out there that I’m afraid is growing by the day.

That’s so-called “Mental Health Restrictions,” which is really code for handing federal bureaucrats the ability to STRIP law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights on a whim without trial or due process.

And the gun-grabbers believe the groundwork has already been laid to classify as many Americans as possible as mentally unstable, including:

>>> News reports that nearly 30% of the nearly 900,000 Iraq and Afghanistan War vets treated by the Department of Veterans Affairs have been diagnosed with PTSD! This is in addition to the hundreds of thousands of vets who have already been “rewarded” for serving their country with the loss of their gun rights;

>>> New estimates by the World Health Organization that roughly one in five American youngsters will have some sort of mental health problems every year;

>>> Estimates by U.S. Surgeon General Steven Galson that 46.4% of Americans experience some sort of mental illness during their lives!

To the gun-grabbers, disarming up to 50% of the American population within a year or two’s time by declaring them “crazy” without ever going through a trial sounds like a dream come true!
The good news is, you and I can fight back.

But we must mobilize quickly.

If you want to ensure your Second Amendment rights are protected into the future, I'm counting on you to act IMMEDIATELY.

Being involved in the fight has never been more important.

First, I need your signed Second Amendment Protection Petition to help drown out the anti-gun spin machine with today.

In the coming weeks I'll flood Congress with tens of thousands of pro-gun petitions proving you and I are serious about protecting our rights and we're not backing down!

Obama, Biden, McCain and Schumer vow to enact gun control

We must ensure every politician in Washington, D.C. understands America does not need new gun control laws . . .

It's more freedom.

It's more good guys armed with the power and the ability to stand up to deranged bloodthirsty loons and STOP them.

You know how we'll make the politicians understand that?

By ensuring every single one of them knows they'll pay the price with their political careers for voting for gun control schemes.

But to do that I'm going to have to mobilize Second Amendment supporters from all over the country.

I've already authorized my staff to begin broadcasting our message across the web on sites frequented by politically-active pro-gun voters.

And we're expanding from there:

Mail, email, web videos, and even hard-hitting radio, newspaper and TV ads if I can raise the resources.

I want to mobilize up to 14 million Americans.

Not next month. Not next week. But NOW.

You see, there's no time to waste.

Of course, such an ambitious program won't be cheap. But it's our one shot at winning.

So please sign your Second Amendment Protection Petition TODAY.

Obama, Biden, McCain and Schumer vow to enact gun control

But also, please chip in $10 or $20.

Thanks in advance for answering the call in this tough time.

For Freedom,

Dudley Brown
Executive Vice President

P.S. The gun-grabbers just announced they're on the warpath -- and they're not taking any prisoners -- this is an all-out EMERGENCY.

With anti-gun politicians already calling for gun control, it's never been more important to fight back.

I've already begun a campaign to mobilize up to 14 million pro-gun Americans to prove to the politicians we still stand for the Second Amendment and we're not backing down!

But such an ambitious program isn't cheap.

So after you sign your Second Amendment Protection Petition please chip in $10 or $20.

Together you and I will weather this storm and continue to stand for freedom.

To sign petition click here

Say no to Terry McAuliffe,Hillary's henchman

Hillary is making a bold play in her not–so "stealth" campaign for President.

Will you help me launch a counter offensive immediately?

Let me explain.

Hillary Clinton's close friend and political ally Terry McAuliffe is running for Governor in Virginia, and Hillary is making a special trip to Washington to give a boost to his campaign.

Any friend of Hillary's is no friend of ours –– and Terry McAuliffe must be stopped. Period.

In just two weeks, Hillary will host a multi–million dollar fundraiser for McAuliffe in her swanky Georgetown residence.

Washington's liberal power brokers, leftwing lawyer lobbyists and Bill Clinton's most radical moneymen will all be in attendance.

When you helped us found Stop Hillary PAC, we pledged to go wherever Hillary goes –– and to fight whatever battle she is fighting.

That's why we're launching our first major Stop Hillary –– and her friends –– counter offensive. Will you click here immediately and make a generous $25, $50 or even $100 contribution to help us Stop Hillary and her hand selected henchman for Governor in VA?

You see, we simply can't ignore some of these important state–by–state power plays Hillary is making. Hillary and her allies are most certainly using them as an opportunity to strengthen her grip over key 2016 battleground states –– states she will need to steal the White House.

Virginia's election is this November –– just a few weeks away –– so there's very limited time to act. We can't wait another minute.

Terry McAuliffe must be defeated at all costs and we urge you take immediate action to defeat this major Clinton crony. Click here right now to make an immediate contribution to stop Clinton henchman Terry McAuliffe.

A close Clinton ally serving as a governor of a critical 2016 battleground state is a serious threat. It's absolutely critical to our success that Hillary is robbed of this advantage.

You should know the connections between Clinton and McAuliffe run deep: Served as Chairman of Hillary Clinton's failed 2008 presidential campaign;
Served as Chairman of Bill Clinton's 1996 reelection campaign;
Raised millions for Bill Clinton since 1992, including $275 million for Clinton causes while Bill was President;
Chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 2001–2005; and
Raised $275 million for Clinton causes while Bill Clinton was President.
Offered to personally guarantee the mortgage of the Clinton's New York home.

You need to take this very seriously. The New York Times dubbed McAuliffe "Clinton's most loyal Washington" friend and a "tireless moneyman."

Please make an immediate contribution right now to stop Clinton henchmen Terry McAuliffe.

Consider this: Bill Clinton has been quoted as saying, "I love this guy!"

If we're serious about stopping Hillary than we need to be dead serious about doing everything that it takes. Terry McAuliffe winning Virginia will be seen as a major victory for Hillary Clinton.

Hillary is on her way to DC to help her old friend and closest political ally....we need to act now to ensure we hand Hillary an immediate political defeat.

So right now, before you do anything else, please click here immediately and make a generous $25, $50 or even $100 contribution to help us Stop Hillary by defeating Terry McAuliffe for Governor in VA.

Sincerely,

Ted Harvey

Senator Ted Harvey (R)
Colorado State Senator
Co-Founder, Stop Hillary PAC

PS: In less than two weeks Hillary Clinton will be making a special trip to Washington to headline a major fundraiser for Terry McAuliffe. That's no coincidence. Please make an immediate contribution right now to stop Clinton henchmen Terry McAuliffe.

Donate

A Clinton henchmen in Virginia sounds like a very bad thing. Fortunately there is Ken Cuccinelli,the GOP chanllenger to Terry McAuliffe. We can't afford to let Hillary energize her base. Her henchmen need to be defeated everywhere we encounter them. Hillary is big risk to this country and if elected she'll have as much or more dirty lauundry than her husband and/or Obama,perhaps combined. Our ambassador in Bhenghazi was murdered and she stonewalled and covered it up. As you can see Hillary and her henchmen are bad choices and they must be defeated it.

War in Syria averted and Obamacare defunded

From Freedom Works:

Last Tuesday Harry Reid surrendered on the Syria war. Days later, Boehner backed down on funding ObamaCare. The momentum is shifting, and it’s in our favor.

These wins are thanks to the hard work of millions of activists across the country, patriots like you. This is big. There is no telling what a misguided war in Syria would’ve cost. But Patriots like you stopped it.

On ObamaCare, John Boehner and Eric Cantor tried to trick us. They wanted to use a sneaky parliamentary trick to fund ObamaCare. But thousands of FreedomWorks activists called congress. And Boehner had to back down.

We’re showing the establishment who’s in charge: the American People - you and me. But, it’s not over. We have big fights ahead to stop Common Core, protect our Civil Liberties, completely defeat ObamaCare, and more.

Good news indeed. Good job everyone. You deserve that pat on the back.

A Public Advocate success story

From Public Advocate:

Obama has launched his latest attack on real marriage and on the U.S. military.

Citing the recent Supreme Court decision to gut the Defense of Marriage Act, the Obama Administration and the Pentagon are ordering states to legitimize homosexual "marriage" through their individual National Guard units.

Obama is insisting that even pro-marriage states -- the majority of states -- must recognize homosexual "marriage" in the National Guard by extending real marriage benefits to homosexual "spouses!"

This will effectively make them "gay marriage" states.

Texas has so far refused to comply with Obama's attempt to force homosexual "marriage" on their state.

Louisiana and Mississippi have also announced that they will not allow the Obama Administration to force their states to change their marriage laws through their National Guards.

Sadly, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell has declared that he will comply with this mandate -- even though Virginia legally protects real marriage!

But the pro-Family Movement in Virginia is striking back.

Long time Public Advocate ally Delegate Bob Marshall confronted Virginia's governor with the truth that other conservative states are refusing to comply.

Marshall and Public Advocate have worked together before to expose McDonnell's support for the radical Homosexual Agenda.

In a series of fights last year, we tried to prevent the appointment of radical homosexual activist Thorne-Begland as a judge in the state capitol.

But Governor Bob McDonnell actually praised the appointment.

And now, according to Del. Marshall, McDonnell is going to use this policy change to radically alter the Virginia tax code to recognize homosexual "marriage."

Since McDonnell dismissed Marshall's letter, Public Advocate supporters in Virginia sprang into action.

They poured thousands of phone calls into McDonnell's office, and sent hundreds of emails to Marshall to show their support.

But this fight is far from over.

It's up to Public Advocate to show President Obama that he cannot force his homosexual agenda upon America.

And you can be sure that the Virginia governor is going to continue hearing from Public Advocate until he opts to support pro-Family values.

For the Family,

HON. EUGENE DELGAUDIO
President, Public Advocate of the U.S.

P.S. Will you chip in $5 or $10 to help Public Advocate fight the Homosexual Lobby?

The Senate wants to give the Department of Justice the authority to decide who gets First Amendment protection

Senate Amendment Would Give DOJ Power to Determine Who Is a 'Journalist'

by Ben Shapiro 13 Sep 2013 1017

An amendment is moving through the Senate Judiciary Committee that would essentially allow the government to determine who is a journalist for purposes of legal protection of sources. For purposes of protecting a source, a “journalist” under law would be anyone who:

•Works or worked for “an entity or service that disseminates news or information by means of newspaper; nonfiction book; wire service; news agency; news website, mobile application or other news or information service…news program; magazine or other periodical…or through television or radio broadcast…” These people would have to have the “primary intent to investigate events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public news or information.” Opinion journalists might not be covered.

•Bloggers and citizen journalists – citizens who commit acts of journalists without working for such an outlet – would not be covered, unless it was determined that “at the inception of the process of gathering the news or information sought, had the primary intent to investigate issues or events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public news or information.” In other words, the government – the Department of Justice – would now determine whether primary intent was news distribution or political concerns.

•Those explicitly excluded from protection include those “whose principal function, as demonstrated by the totality of such person or entity’s work, is to publish primary source documents that have been disclosed to such person or entity without authorization.” Glenn Greenwald, please contact your lawyer.

Who would decide who fell within these guidelines? A “judge of the United States” can “exercise discretion to avail the persons of the protections of this Act.” But in the first instance, the DOJ would have the discretion to determine whether a person is a “journalist” for purposes of the law. Instead of focusing on acts of journalism, the law would identify people by employment status.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said that it should not matter to citizen journalists if new protections extended to a special class of journalists created by the government, since the First Amendment does not grant any right to protect sources in the first place. “When we’re discussing the issue of adding a privilege, the issue of taking away someone’s First Amendment rights just isn’t engaged….All we’re doing is adding privilege to existing First Amendment rights, so there is, logically, zero First Amendment threat out of this,” said Whitehouse, ignoring the fact that a massive institutional advantage would be handed to approved government outlets, thereby perverting the entire system of a free press.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) launched into the proposed bill, which he said could “have the effect of excluding certain persons from enjoying the added First Amendment protections the bill would provide.” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) agreed, stating, “Essentially as I understand this amendment, it protects what I would characterize as the ‘corporate media.’…But it leaves out citizen bloggers….I don’t think any protection should treat citizen bloggers who are meeting the underlying test of being primarily engaged in gathering news to report it I don’t think they should be excluded because they don’t happen to work for a media corporation.” He continued:

It strikes me that we are on dangerous territory if we are drawing distinctions that are treating some engaged in the process of reporting and journalism better than others. If we are advantaging those who happen to receive a paycheck from a corporate media entity over those who happen to be citizens….I for one would have deep troubles with legislation from Congress saying ‘we will grant special privileges if you happen to work for a corporate media interest’….It seems to me the First Amendment protects the activity, not the employment status of the person engaging in it.

Source:click here

This is very important. It means that those who are politically correct will be protected while those of us who believe in civil liberties won't be. Look for assclowns like Dave Futrelle and Hugo Schwyzer being given "journalist" protections while those of us in the manosphere will receive no protections. Do you want some judge to decide? We've all seen how the corrupt the judiary is. It has been documented on the Men's Rights Blog so we know it exists. One liberal judge could destroy everyones' rights. Not only that do you want Eric Holder to decide for you? Remember this is the same Eric Holder who covered up black on white hate crimes:here and here. The is the same Eric Holder who perjured himself in the House concerning fast and furious. Do you want to give more power to Eric Holder? I sure don't.

As far as the bill's supporters perhaps we should email them and let them know we are not fond of this bill and to leave the Constitution alone,this bill is an infringement upon the First Amendment:

Senator Dianne Feinstein contact form

Senator Dick Durbin contact form

Senator Chuck Schumer contact form

Then there are the good guys. We should thank them for standing up for not only the First Amendment but the Constitution itself:

Senator Mike Lee contact form

Senator Ted Cruz contact form

Let's let both sides know how we feel. That we value the Constitution.

Verizon hates free speech

Court case renews debate on US 'Open Internet' rules

AFP
Rob Lever

Debate is back on in Washington on US regulations on "net neutrality" which bar Internet broadband providers from blocking or discriminating against services or content.

A court case for which arguments were held this month brought by Verizon, one of the largest Internet service providers, challenges the "Open Internet" rule approved in 2010 by the Federal Communications Commission.

The seemingly arcane rule, or changes to it, could have an important impact: some say it may determine whether fixed broadband providers can control what services flow throw their networks.

"These rules provide an important safeguard both for innovation and investment on the Internet," said David Sohn, an attorney with the Center for Democracy and Technology, which backs the FCC rules.

Sohn said that if Verizon has its way, it and other providers like Comcast or AT&T could "play favorites," by blocking or degrading services such as YouTube or Netflix to promote their own offerings or that of their partners.

"Every user every day benefits from this rule for the services they use, whether it's YouTube ot Twitter or something else," Sohn told AFP.

But Verizon and its allies argue the FCC lacks authority to interfere with their business, and that Congress never decided these companies were regulated utilities or "common carriers."

"It is not up to the FCC to decide these issues on its own," said Verizon lawyer Helgi Walker, arguing the case before the US Court of Appeals in Washington earlier this month.

"It has no implied authority, no express authority.. and it's highly unlikely that Congress would have delegated authority in such a convoluted way."

The FCC, in a 3-2 majority decision December 2010, said it imposed the rules to ensure that the Internet "has no gatekeepers limiting innovation and communication through the network."

But participants at the appeals court hearing said two of the three judges appeared inclined to overturn the FCC rules, although the decision could stem from either jurisdictional or fundamental legal arguments.

Whatever the appeals court decides, the debate is likely to continue. Either side could appeal to the US Supreme Court, and the issue could end up in Congress, which has been divided on the issue.

Amid the US debate, the European Commission this month adopted a similar "net neutrality" provision barring any blocking or throttling of competing or data-heavy services.

With the stakes high, Washington lobby groups on both sides have been ramping up their efforts.

"This affects most Americans who watch a move on Netflix or who make a phone call on Vonage," said Pantelis Michalopoulos, lawyer for parties arguing in support of the FCC rules.

Michalopoulos said companies like Verizon "have the incentive and ability to discriminate" against service and could, for example, degrade Netflix to the point where viewers would see blank screens.

But another Washington lawyer work works on tech issues, and who requested not to be cited because of clients he represents in the sector, said he did not believe service providers would try to dramatically reshape what flows through their networks.

"It would be commercially infeasible to offer an Internet service if you couldn't get to the big sites," the lawyer said.

More likely, the attorney said, would be deals mirroring what is taking place in the wireless space, which is not subject to the same rules, and where providers offer premium packages on an exclusive basis, such as NFL football games.

Firms like Verizon fear that if the FCC has its way, the agency would be in a position to more tightly regulate broadband as a public utility, which might mean regulating prices as well.

Scott Cleland at the advocacy group NetCompetition, which backs Verizon in the case, said overturning the FCC rules would bring free-market economics back to the Internet.

"Consumers would be able to pay less, not more for broadband, if consumers no longer were forced to shoulder the full broadband cost of Internet access by subsidizing the biggest edge companies like Netflix and Google-YouTube, which consume about half of the Internet's peak traffic," Cleland said on his blog.

But Jennifer Yeh at the advocacy group Free Press said in a blog post that the dangers are greater if Verizon overturns the rules.

"The FCC needs to restore its authority to ensure that network providers can't block or discriminate against any online content. Otherwise, we run the risk of the Internet going the way of cable -- where the providers determine what content we see, charge us different prices based on what content we get, and extract tolls from Internet companies for delivering that content to users," she said.

Source:click here

Sign the petition to preserve net neutrality.

More information:click here

This is bad. If you are a Verizon customer you may want to tell them that you won't allow it. If you don't they're going to decide what you do and where you go on the net. Not only that but this could be misused by those in power to silence anyone against them. This is a slippery slope and it is one that should be avoided. Let's hope the courts uphold the net neutrality laws.

Syria is not our problem

I've seen a lot of drumbeating on FOX especially comimg from Bill O'Reilly about how we should get involved in Syria. About the suffering of children and other civilians there that are victims of Bashar Al Assad's regime or the rebels. It depends on who you ask. It was up to Obama to convince the nation that war with Syria was in American interests and he botched that up royally. If you are in favor of intervention let me ask you the following:

1.Obama has made it clear there will be no regime change. If that is the case what is the objective?

2.It would take a lot of our soldiers to guard these chemical weapons thus spreading American preparedness even more thin. If we are spread too thin aren't we asking for trouble?

3.If the president actually gave a fuck he would have given a fuck about getting the answers concerning Benghazi but he doesn't. All he wants to do is cover it up. Why should we trutst him?

4.Why should our sons,nephews,fathers,uncles and male cousins fill up Arlington Cemetary to prop up an unpopular president?

Not only that but who are these rebels? Are they pro-American? We don't know. Are they pro-Al Qadea? Again we don't know. That's just it: why put in a new govenment that may just turn around and burn our flag in a few years? Not only that by if Obama really cared he would go after those terrorists that murdered our ambassador in Benghazi,Libya. He would have the support of not only Congress but the people as well. But we know he won't and do you know why he won't? Because if he did he would be placing not only his head on the chopping block but his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's head on it too. If he did that he would be derailing Hillary's chances in 2016 (there are a lot people that love Hillary and who want her to capture the presidency. Thankfully there are a lot of people like myself that hate Hillary Clinton and never want to see her in the Whitehouse. One such group is the Stop Hillary PAC,check them out.) Obama is a lame duck but Hillary is the Democrat's future.

The Syria resolution has been debated in the Senate. It is so very unpopular in the House they won't even bring it up. Russian President Vladmir Putin bypassed Obama and went straight to the American people by writing an OP-ED that was published in the New York Times. Which goes to show that Putin understands how the American system works. He must have learned this in KGB spy school. Putin is making sense,more sense than Obama. Assad is not an American ally but he's not in Al Qadea's camp either. If he is removed will the jihadists take his place? That is a big unknown. We were wrong about the arab spring which turned out to be springtime for Al Qadea. Assad says he is turning over all his chemical weapons to the international community but is he? Is he going to hold on to some for insurance reasons? Will we know if is being honest or deceitful? No. Will he be honest with us? No,but he will with the Russians and he will do their bidding and right now the Russians don't want the jihadists in power. Did everyone get that: THE RUSSIANS DO NOT WANT AL QADEA IN POWER IN SYRIA. It would also be in our best interests to deny Al Qadea a base thus we and the Russians have the same goal in denying a base to Al Qadea. Let's get to the crux of the matter. Let's get to the skinny. Obama doesn't give two fucks about Syria. He just needs something to get the country's attention in a positive way and to distract the Republicans from wanting to impeach his ass. In short Obama is as popular as a turd in a punchbowl and if he were white he would be in prison by now. Even Pat Buchanan agrees with Putin and since when are Buchanan and the Russians on the same page about anything? Not only that we have no international support other than France. Which brings up another point: since when have the French given a fuck about us in recent times? Syria is a hornets' nest and it is one hornets' nest we should avoid. If you agree that we should avoid military intervention in Syria click here. If you are a 20 something liberal who believes in what Obama is doing then go talk to your Viet Nam war vet grandfather and he'll tell you he's seen this before. Syria is another Viet Nam but let us learn our lesson from Viet Nam and stay out of Syria. It's just not worth it.