Posts Tagged ‘California’

Watching a dung beetle drag its “prey” back to its lair: Chuck Schumer

April 26, 2013

“Immigration reform could be a bonanza for Democrats [and] cripple Republican prospects in many states they now win easily.” — Politico, April 22, 2013

In 1984, California was sufficiently conservative so that it cast its electoral votes for President Ronald Reagan. It was not fiercely pro-gun, but, then again, it wasn’t New York.

But, in 1986, Reagan signed an immigration amnesty bill, called Simpson-Mazzoli. The bill was small compared to the current amnesty bill. Three million illegals benefited.

But that was enough to change California from a sometimes “swing state” to a state almost wholly controlled by Leftists. Within 20 years — and continuing to this day — California couldn’t pass enough gun bans, gun registration, ammunition limits, and ammunition registration.

So it is with some concern that Chuck Schumer’s amnesty bill (S. 744) which is currently on the table would cover 11,000,000 to 20,000,000 illegal aliens — four to seven times the size of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill.

We predict that, if the bill is passed, by 2035, the American electorate will have changed so fundamentally that California-style gun control could become a very real possibility in this country!

We know you’re tired. We have just fought a hard-fought battle over explicit gun control in the Senate — a battle which we won.

But it does strike us as interesting that the same gun control crazies who pushed gun control want to slam immigration amnesty through the Senate quickly so they can redirect their fire against us again.

Who are the chief architects of forging a more anti-gun electorate? Well, the chief sponsor of S. 744 is Chuck Schumer, and he is joined by other Second Amendment haters such as Dick Durbin (D-IL), Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and compromiser John McCain (R-AZ).

Over the next week or so, we’ll let you in on some of the anti-gun specifics of Schumer’s “amnesty bill,” as it’s correctly dubbed. But for starters, the bill would push us towards a biometric ID card, which is something that GOA has opposed for years — given that a de facto National ID poses a huge threat to gun owners’ privacy.

But then there’s the fact that Schumer’s “amnesty bill” requires the government to give its okay — in a Brady Gun Check-type procedure — before you could get a private job in America (section 3(c)(2)(A)(iii)). Does anyone not see why this might be a problem?

We’ve just gone through excruciating pain to stop the expansion of Brady Checks for guns. Now we turn around and the same parties who were pushing that are now pushing Brady Checks for private jobs.

It’s ironic that those pushing for background checks are adamantly against ID’s for voting because that would disenfranchise the elderly, the poor, and minorities. Hmm, so they do understand that background checks — as a prior restraint — are a fundamentally flawed concept?

But this is where the real fun starts. You feed the potential employee’s info into a government database and, according to Senator Durbin, “up pops a picture.” And, says Durbin, “if that picture doesn’t match [the one on your ID], you may not be employed.”

The Brady Check deals with a list of names which is in the millions. It deals only with things like names and social security numbers, not pictures. Yet it gives “false negatives” 8% of the time. And if you’re one of those 8% who are illegally denied a gun, the FBI’s response, more often than not, is “So sue us.” If this weren’t bad enough, the system breaks down for days at a time — normally the times when the most people need it.

Do we really want to expand this flawed concept to other areas of our lives?

If this weren’t bad enough, we know that, once the government has to give its approval before you can do something, it’s an almost iron-clad guarantee that it will exercise that power in a political manner. Under the Brady Check system, 165,000 law-abiding honorable veterans have lost their gun rights, not because they have done anything wrong, but because they sought counseling from the VA on the basis of a traumatic experience in the military.

Watching Schumer explain on the Senate floor why those veterans should lose their constitutional rights without any court order — while he vigilantly defends due process for foreign terrorists — is like watching a dung beetle drag its “prey” back to its lair.

So we know 165,000 non-politically correct veterans lost their gun rights under Brady Checks. Who will become politically incorrect unemployable non-persons under Brady Checks for Jobs?

Now, one would think that the fact that one million people in Boston were put under house arrest last week because our current immigration system allowed two asylum-seekers from terrorist-filled Chechnya to become legal residents and, in one case, a citizen of our country, will put the skids on the “inevitability” of Schumer’s amnesty bill. After all, gun control was “inevitable” too.

But the bottom line is this: Just as we saw the gun ramifications of ObamaCare, we will also see the problems with a bill that alters the electorate in such a way that the Second Amendment will cease to exist. In doing so, we will need to make sure that we don’t have most of our guns registered or confiscated in 2035 because short-sighted politicians listened to MSNBC and turned our country blue.

But we will also make sure that we do not take bad gun law and turn it into bad employment law.

ACTION: Click here to contact your Senators and ask them to oppose the anti-gun Schumer amnesty bill (S. 744).

Schumer, like Bloomberg et al seem to be one hundred percent on the wrong side of things one hundred percent of the time!

 

Gun ban advocates must decide if they’re willing–and able–to kill 50,000,000+

March 23, 2013

This id from Kurt Hoffman’s Examiner. Kurt is indeed one of the best writers on the internet, and AIRBORNE of course!

A new WorldNetDaily/Wenzel poll finds that only 20 percent of American gun owners would surrender their firearms if ordered to by the government (although an additional 16 percent claimed to be “unsure”–probably not the sort who would be determined enough to face the consequences of defying such an order). From WorldNetDaily:

The scientific telephone survey was conducted March 7-12 and has a margin of error of 2.92 percentage points.

“Among gun owners, 64 percent said they would not relinquish their guns, while 20 percent said they would and another 16 percent of gun owners were unsure on the question,” he said.

In some respects, additional details of the poll carry few surprises. Those who identify themselves as “conservative” are far less likely to surrender their guns than those who call themselves “liberal,” Republicans are less likely to submit to disarmament than Democrats, men less likely than women, whites less so than other ethnic groups, and southerners are less likely than inhabitants of other regions.

But if we step back away from the minutiae of the demographic breakdown, we have somewhere between 64 and 80 percent who will not comply with any confiscatory gun bans. And make no mistake, the specter of confiscatory bans is not “paranoid, right-wing delusion,” as can be seen be seen in the obscenely misnamed “SAFE Act,” in New York, an active program of confiscation of registered firearms in California, and proposals for similar abominations at the federal level:

From Senator Feinstein’s early plans for her “assault weapon” ban, (and remember, that’s “just the beginning”), to the Obama administration’s own National Institute of Justice declaring that “assault weapon” and “high capacity” magazine bans cannot accomplish anything without confiscation, to Rep. Eliot Engel‘s (D-NY) perennial confiscatory ban of “armor piercing” handguns, the gun prohibitionist lobby very clearly considers confiscation to be a realistic goal, and not just an abstract fantasy for the distant future.

What this poll shows, though, is that aspiring gun banners need to do some math homework. 64 to 80 percent of an estimated 80 million gun owners (a common, if tough to verify, estimate) works out to 51 to 64 million freedom loving, angry–and armed–Americans who intend to stay armed. Taking the math a bit further, that’s about 102 to 128 million hands that are not cold and dead, and will be holding guns until they are.

The WND article quotes Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA):

Meanwhile, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who has sponsored a bill that would ban certain types of weapons, said in Congress last week, “We cannot allow the carnage … to continue.”

She has never seen wholesale “carnage,” but if she really wants a good look, an attempt to disarm the American citizenry would get her a ringside seat for a level of carnage America hasn’t seen since the 1860s–except that there are no ringside seats for aspiring tyrants. She will be in the ring.

Who is going to disarm us? Who is going to kill us, in order to make that possible? Here’s something to think about before you answer. There are not enough jackbooted thugs to make it happen. There are not even enough grave diggers to bury the JBTs who might try. We were ready to rumble as three percent of America’s gun owners. At 20 or more times that, there won’t be enough targets to go around.

Your move, statists. Molon Labe.

SOURCE

There was something in the air that night, the stars were bright Fernando…

January 14, 2013

Can you hear the drums Fernando?
I remember long ago another starry night like this
In the firelight Fernando
You were humming to yourself and softly strumming your guitar
I could hear the distant drums
And sounds of bugle calls were coming from afar

They were closer now Fernando
Every hour every minute seemed to last eternally
I was so afraid Fernando
We were young and full of life and none of us prepared to die
And I’m not ashamed to say
The roar of guns and cannons almost made me cry

There was something in the air that night
The stars were bright, Fernando
They were shining there for you and me
For liberty, Fernando
Though we never thought that we could lose
There’s no regret
If I had to do the same again
I would, my friend, Fernando

Now we’re old and grey Fernando
And since many years I haven’t seen a rifle in your hand
Can you hear the drums Fernando?
Do you still recall the fateful night we crossed the Rio Grande?
I can see it in your eyes
How proud you were to fight for freedom in this land

There was something in the air that night
The stars were bright, Fernando
They were shining there for you and me
For liberty, Fernando
Though we never thought that we could lose
There’s no regret
If I had to do the same again
I would, my friend, Fernando

There was something in the air that night
The stars were bright, Fernando
They were shining there for you and me
For liberty, Fernando
Though we never thought that we could lose
There’s no regret
If I had to do the same again
I would, my friend, Fernando
Yes, if I had to do the same again
I would, my friend, Fernando…

SOURCE

Something to think about, to say the least.

Firearms Policy Coalition pledges “not one more inch.”

January 4, 2013
BELLEVUE, WA / SAN CARLOS, CA / MADERA, CA (January 4, 2013) – Firearms Policy Coalition, a new project of renowned Second Amendment rights advocacy organizations Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, Second Amendment Foundation, and The Calguns Foundation has been launched, noted managing director Brandon Combs.  The Coalition’s website, firearmspolicy.org, was opened to the public in late December 2012.

The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) provides for an effective, NATO-like response to gun control campaigns and efficient, low-friction advocacy of litigation, legislation, education, and grassroots efforts that advance Second Amendment rights. Of the Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb said, “I’m proud to help usher in the next generation of gun rights activism. The new paradigm is, and must be, coordination, mutual-support, and unity. Those who would disarm America’s law-abiding people are rabid in their desire to assault gun owners’ Second Amendment, privacy, and property rights.”

“FPC immediately brings to the table leading Second Amendment advocacy groups, leadership, staff, volunteers, and hundreds of thousands of active supporters. This,” said Combs, “will enable superior communication, real-time collaboration, and scalable action to advance individual liberties and defend against promised attacks on civil rights by extremists like U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Representative Carolyn McCarthy, California State Senator Leland Yee, and Illinois State Senators Dan Kotowski and Antonio Muñoz.”

“The coordination between stakeholders at all levels within FPC,” explained Calguns Foundation Chairman Gene Hoffman, “ is really key. We knew that, to meet the coming challenge head-on, a new model for our cause would have to be employed. As a seasoned Silicon Valley entrepreneur, I know how important it is to be agile and effective in today’s world – and what happens when you’re not.”

Excitement surrounding the Coalition and its fresh, positive approach to the issues that matter to gun owners has led to a rapid and steady increase of new individual members, which is expected to continue as new tools and organizational alliance members come online. FPC has already received numerous inquiries from interested gun rights organizations across the country and looks forwards to onboarding a number of organizations over the next quarter.

“We must now take on those who say that our Constitution is outdated, that it doesn’t mean what it says, and we must take them on together,” said Combs, CCRKBA Director of Advocacy and President of Cal-FFL. “Our rights are not negotiable and we are simply not going to give up another inch of our inalienable rights. This is the year of unity, focus, and resilience for gun rights activists at every level across the nation.”

State-level organizations seeking additional information or to explore joining the coalition should contact FPC at info@firearmspolicy.org or through the contact form at http://firearmspolicy.org/contact.

More information about FPC can be found at http://firearmspolicy.org/faq. FPC’s Facebook page is located at http://facebook.com/gunpolicy and its Twitter feed can be viewed at http://twitter.com/gunpolicy.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (ccrkba.org) is dedicated to protecting your firearms rights. Its role is to educate grass root activists, the public, legislators and the media. CCRKBA’s programs are designed to help all Americans understand the importance of the Second Amendment and its role in keeping Americans free.

The Second Amendment Foundation (saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms.  Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

The Calguns Foundation (calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization which serves its members by providing Second Amendment-related education, strategic litigation, and the defense of innocent California gun owners from improper or malicious prosecution. The Calguns Foundation seeks to inform government and protect the rights of individuals to acquire, own, and lawfully use firearms in California.

California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (calffl.org) is California’s premier non-profit industry association of, by, and for firearms manufacturers, dealers, collectors, training professionals, shooting ranges, and others, advancing the interests of its members and the general public through strategic litigation, legislative efforts, and education. For more information or to join Cal-FFL, please visit calffl.org.

Contact:
Brandon Combs
info@firearmspolicy.org
425-454-4911

The listing above is the source.

Baffle them with bovine feces..? When the Feds refuse to do their job.

June 25, 2012

Well, the Black Crows have finally stepped up and released their decision having to do with Arizona’s attempt to protect it’s people from a quite literal invasion by people that do not belong there. As usual, they did what at best might be called a half-assed job.

I find it ironic at best that the courts, and government in general, expect we the unwashed,  follow the various laws of our nation or face numerous penalties including fines and imprisonment. But do not do the same when political expediency, or correctness enter into the fray, and it involves themselves.

Sexism is all fine and dandy as long as it is the context of misandry. Immigration enforcement is held in high esteem so long as it does not apply to anyone from south of our borders. Lifetime bans on firearm ownership for less than felony behavior is cool. Even though the ability to properly and effectively defend oneself, friends, and family are God given, and enshrined within the Bill of Rights. Private property is nothing more than a pipe dream if the local, state, special district, or federal government can make a few dollars based upon eminent domain. Rights and freedom and liberty can be brushed aside by juries of less than twelve. Yet urinating on our nations flag is indeed a form of protected speech…

 

DREAM Act (Part II) reaches Jerry Brown

September 19, 2011

California Governor Jerry Brown has the chance to make some undocumented and illegal California residents’ dreams come true if he signs AB 131, the second part of the so-called California Dream Act. Passed through the State Assembly and Senate in the past weeks, it now sits on the Governor’s desk.

The California Dream Act, authored by Assemblyman Gilbert Cedillo (D-Los Angeles), comprises two bills known as AB 130 and 131. Brown signed AB 130 this July – a bill allowing undocumented residents and college students in the state to receive private funding and scholarships.

AB 131, if Brown signs it, will allow undocumented college students to receive public funding from the state as of January 1, 2013. Undocumented college students in California are currently ineligible for such state funding. But federal law currently allows a state to provide “any state or local public benefit” to eligible undocumented residents if state law “affirmatively provides for that eligibility.”

AB 131 passed the California State Senate on August 31 and the State Assembly on September 2. Should the bill become law, it would provide undocumented residents “with more education benefits than they have in any other state,” according to the New York Times.

The text in AB 131 would amend state education law to require the trustees, board of governors, or regents in charge of the various California public college systems to follow the new procedures. For undocumented students who qualify, universities would have “to establish procedures and forms that enable students to apply for, and participate in, all student aid programs…to the full extent permitted by federal law.”

The bill would provide financial aid in the form of community college district fee waivers, institutional aid from CSU and UC schools, and access to Cal Grants (which students do not need to pay back) for eligible undocumented residents. A Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary estimates the fiscal impact for the 2013-14 school year to be $13 million in Cal Grants, $7.5 to $15 million in fee waivers, and $11.4 to $12.2 million in institutional aid.

AP Photo: Dream Act part 1 (AB 130) held by California Governor Jerry Brown in July.

This article was written by JOEY JACHOWSKI; full article at the STANFORD REVIEW

California: Stuck on stupid!

November 24, 2010

Thank God that I got out of there in 1978. It was bad enough back then…

“In the future, historians may likely mark the 2010 midterm elections as the end of the California era and the beginning of the Texas one. In one stunning stroke, amid a national conservative tide, California voters essentially ratified a political and regulatory regime that has left much of the state unemployed and many others looking for the exits. … This state of crisis is likely to become the norm for the Golden State. In contrast to other hard-hit states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada, which all opted for pro-business, fiscally responsible candidates, California voters decisively handed virtually total power to a motley coalition of Democratic-machine politicians, public employee unions, green activists and rent-seeking special interests. In the new year, the once and again Gov. Jerry Brown, who has some conservative fiscal instincts, will be hard-pressed to convince Democratic legislators who get much of their funding from public-sector unions to trim spending. Perhaps more troubling, Brown’s own extremism on climate change policy — backed by rent-seeking Silicon Valley investors with big bets on renewable fuels — virtually assures a further tightening of a regulatory regime that will slow an economic recovery in every industry from manufacturing and agriculture to home-building.” –columnist Joel Kotkin

And then these words of wisdom;

“In 1920, when the top tax rate was 73 percent, for people making over $100,000 a year, the federal government collected just over $700 million in income taxes — and 30 percent of that was paid by people making over $100,000. After a series of tax cuts brought the top rate down to 24 percent, the federal government collected more than a billion dollars in income tax revenue — and people making over $100,000 a year now paid 65 percent of the taxes. How could that be? The answer is simple: People behave differently when tax rates are high as compared to when they are low. With low tax rates, they take their money out of tax shelters and put it to work in the economy, benefitting themselves, the economy and government, which collects more money in taxes because incomes rise. High tax rates, which very few people are actually paying, because of tax shelters, do not bring in as much revenue as lower tax rates that people are paying. It was much the same story after tax cuts during the Kennedy administration, the Reagan administration and the Bush Administration. The New York Times reported in 2006: ‘An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year.’ Expectations are in the eyes of the beholder — and in the rhetoric of the demagogues. If class warfare is more important to some politicians than collecting more revenue when there is a deficit, then let the voters know that. And spare us so-called ‘deficit reduction commissions.’” –columnist Thomas Sowell

SOURCE

Stuck on stupid: A tale of two states…

November 3, 2010

This will be a short post, but to the point. And surly there will be follow up postings.

Colorado and California. That says it all…

Any wonder why California is broke????

May 26, 2010

Texas versus California

A Governor is jogging with his dog along a nature trail. A coyote jumps out and attacks the dog.

California :

#1. Governor starts to intervene, reflects upon the movie  “Bambi” and then realizes he should stop; the coyote is  only doing what is natural.

#2. He calls animal control. Animal control captures coyote and spends $200 testing it for diseases and $500 upon relocating it.

#3. He calls veterinarian. Vet collects dead dog and spends $200 testing it for diseases.

#4. Governor goes to hospital and spends $3,500 getting checked for diseases from the coyote and on getting bite wound  bandaged.

#5. Running trail gets shut down for 6  months while wildlife services conduct a $100,000 survey to make sure the area is clear of dangerous animals.

#6. Governor spends $50,000 of state funds  implementing a “coyote awareness” program for residents of the area.

#7. State legislature spends $2 million  investigating how to better handle rabies and how to  possibly eradicate the disease.

#8.Governor’s  security agent is fired for not stopping the attack and for letting the Governor intervene.

#9. Cost: $75,000 to train new security agent.

#10. PETA  protests the coyote relocation and files suit against the state.

Texas :

#1. Governor shoots coyote and keeps jogging. Governor has spent $0.50 on a .380 cartridge. Buzzards eat dead coyote.

Any wonder why California is  broke????

Courtesy of Texas Fred

The “Golden State” of my birth…

April 1, 2010

Said State of Gold…? Is broke. As a direct result of socialist policy’s that have been going on for decades. It is broke morally as well as financially. Don’t get me wrong on this. There are still quite a few people in California that are decent, strong, and smarter than your average hoplophobe from San Fransisco. But..? Why, in the name of God, or any of the early Californios, are these things even an issue..?

Some things are right, and? Some things are wrong. Granted, some things are a bit gray. However? What follows clearly isn’t. Not at all. You see, these things are already granted…

Assembly Bill 2053, sponsored by Assemblymember Jeff Miller (R-71), would clarify the current statutes for law enforcement to issue a concealed firearms license.  Under AB2053, the “good cause” stipulation would apply to self-defense, defending the life of another, or preventing crime in which a human life is threatened.

Assembly Bill 2115, introduced by Assemblymember Steve Knight (R-36), would alter California’s concealed carry statutes by eliminating the “good cause” requirement for veterans.

Assembly Bill 2152, simply put, would exempt honorably discharged members of the United States Armed Forces, National Guard, Air National Guard, and active reserve components of the United States from the handgun safety certificate requirements to purchase a handgun.  AB2152 is sponsored by Assemblymember Jim Nielsen (R-2).

Please contact the members of the Assembly Committee on Public Safety TODAY and respectfully urge them to support AB2053, AB2115, and AB2152. Contact information can be found below.

Assembly Member Tom Ammiano (D-13) – Chair
(916) 319-2013
Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Curt Hagman (R-60) – Vice Chair
(916) 319-2060
Assemblymember.Hagman@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Danny D. Gilmore (R-30)
(916) 319-2030
Assemblymember.Gilmore@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Jerry Hill (D-19)
(916) 319-2019
Assemblymember.Hill@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Nancy Skinner (D-14)
(916) 319-2014
Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Jim Beall, Jr. (D-24)
(916) 319-2024
Assemblymember.Beall@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Anthony Portantino (D-44)
(916) 319-2044
Assemblymember.Portantino@assembly.ca.gov

SOURCE


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 168 other followers

%d bloggers like this: