Watch this great visualization of what it looks like to take a $100 million cut from a $3.5 trillion budget. To even offer up such a paltry cut is really just another demonstration of Obama ridiculing us. To suggest that a $100 million cut in the budget is serious is an insult to our intelligence.

He didn’t even try to hide it. In his defection speech from the Republican party, Senator Arlen Specter declared very simply that polls of his Pennsylvania constituency showed that he had a very poor chance of being re-elected as a Republican, and therefore he was switching to the Democratic party. He also mouthed some platitudes about the Republican party’s leaving him, an utterly implausible excuse, since the basic Republican party’s platform hasn’t changed since Ronald Reagan’s day.

Yes, the pure and simple reason for Specter’s abandonment of the party that had served him well for five terms in the Senate was nothing more than a desperate grasp at retaining his personal power base. As one of the more senior senators, he has held positions on many of the “plum” committees, including the Senate Judiciary Committee. People who have spent this long building up a base of power and influence are deeply reluctant to lose it.

Specter recently dismayed (and betrayed) his fellow Republicans and millions of our conservative, tax-paying citizens by voting for Obama’s huge pork-laden “stimulus” bill, one of the most irresponsible actions in the history of our country. Evidently it not only angered fellow members in Congress, but must have had repercussions with his voters in Pennsylvania, who made it known they would not tolerate such traitorous shenanigans, and come next election cycle, would be voting for someone with more sense of responsibility.

What makes Specter’s defection so ironic is that in 2001, when Senator Jim Jeffords abandoned the Republican party to become an independent, an angry Senator Specter introduced legislation to prevent a senator from changing parties in mid-term. Presumably his ire over “Jumping Jim’s” defection stemmed from the quaint, old-fashioned notion that a senator is elected by his constituents based on his party credentials and the campaign platform on which he runs — a platform that normally mirrors the party’s basic positions on most issues. He then owes his constituents his loyalty to maintain those positions for the six-year term of office.

The idea of owing a group of citizens who elected him into office, some consistency, loyalty and integrity was fine for other senators. But when it appeared it would have an adverse affect on Arlen Specter’s personal political career, it only took a few phone calls from Vice President Biden, no doubt filled with tantalizing promises of campaign cash from the Democrats’ fat coffers, and more plum committee assignments, for Specter to abandon any pretense of loyalty to his former principles.

More and more of our country’s hard-working citizens are becoming increasingly disenchanted with corrupt politics in Washington, and are being energized to do something about it. The Tax Day TEA parties produced far more participants among both Democrats and Republicans than anyone expected, and organizers are capitalizing on the huge turn-outs to keep the momentum going with follow-up meetings and strategies to replace career politicians with people who still understand the meaning of “we the people” and the obligation to support their voters instead of building personal power bases.

If Shakespeare’s Marcellus (in Hamlet) thought something was rotten in Denmark, he would have reeled from the stench in Washington. Greed, corruption, and power-mongering among those we are supposed to trust is so palpable, I’m surprised they haven’t started issuing masks to cope with the odor.

The irresponsible spending; the cavalier disregard for the threat of terrorism and the danger posed by the “axis of evil;” the revealing of classified information to the detriment of those who are trying to save lives; and the many insulting remarks about the military who put their lives on the line to defend the homeland, are just a few of the stinking, rotten betrayals foisted on us by the President, Senate, and House of Representatives. To again paraphrase Shakespeare, “A pox on all your houses!”

© 2009 Carolyn Abell, all rights reserved

Regarding yesterday’s stupendously stupid Air Force One “mission” over Manhattan which paniced many New Yorkers who experienced 9.11… As for accountability and our being told of Obama’s “outrage,” the facts show that approval for this amazing idiocy came directly from where it would have had to come — guess where? The White House. Of course.

On Monday afternoon, the Director of the White House Military Office, Louis Caldera, released a statement saying, “Last week, I approved a mission over New York. I take responsibility for that decision….”

As for transparency, perhaps Obama will step forward like a man and take responsibility for this, or at least apologize for having such stupid help in the White House?

Do you think?

1. CIFTA Gun Treaty Removes Congressional Oversight

(Note: How this treaty can overrule U.S. law or the Constitution itself is discussed at the end, after the treaty analysis below.)

I’ve completed my review of the South America gun-control treaty that Mr. Obama wants to get ratified.

It is known as CIFTA, the Inter-American Convention Against The Illicit Manufacturing Of And Trafficking In Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, And Other Related Materials. It can be found here verbatim.

• EVERY aspect of the treaty introduces major required gun controls, most of which will affect average citizens (as well as the targeted criminal syndicates, dictators and other bad actors).
• The controls go way past anything EVER attempted by gun-control groups in the United States.
• NONE of the proposed gun controls are likely to pass by themselves through Congress. If the treaty is enacted they don’t have to — they become law when the treaty is ratified.
• Virtually NO PROTECTIONS FOR RKBA are to be found, and the wordings are loose enough to allow all sorts of attacks on gun rights American enjoy today.
• The U.S. government under this treaty GAINS POWER to manage firearms almost any way it would like to, without checks and balances.
• Once signed, many of the restrictions and government intrusions become MANDATORY, and the full Congress, already cut out of ratification (only the Senate approves treaties) would be cut out of the implementation process entirely.
• Top to bottom registration of all firearms, ammunition, ammunition components and other related materials is required if they are “in transit” and records must be kept indefinitely. This vague language, and the requirement to comply are a gun-banner’s dream and a rights advocate’s nightmare.
• “Transit licenses or authorizations” for transfers of firearms are required for imported firearms, and loose language could include the same for all domestic firearms.
• Lengthy recordkeeping is required that directly conflicts with U.S. law, and would be left up to bureaucrats and arbitrary controls and implementation.
• Home reloading of ammunition would become illegal and subject to severe sanctions, without government licensing that is undefined and could include almost any conditions, taxes and limitations, including scrupulous inventorying, recordkeeping and unscheduled audit searches of people who reload.
• Similar licensing and controls will be required on anything made “that can be attached to a firearm,” known as “other related materials.” This includes components, parts, replacement parts and such items as wood or composite stocks, slings, bayonets, bayonet lugs, sights, scopes, rails, lasers, grips, flash hiders, suppressors, muzzle brakes and other paraphernalia. Attaching any such parts without a government license would be “illicit manufacture,” a criminal act with undefined penalties.
• Record sharing requirements ensure that any gun-owner data that must be destroyed under current U.S. law can be easily stored abroad, and can be retrieved at will as required under various international “cooperation” clauses.

If I were advising Mr. Obama IN FAVOR of using this treaty for gun control — here is what I would suggest.

This creative vantage point helps me to underscore the serious threat the treaty presents. I DO NOT approve of any of the anti-rights suggestions, easily drawn from the treaty language — they merely show you what Americans face. Everything I outline below comes directly from the treaty itself. Be sure you’re sitting down.

————-

To: Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States
From: (As if written by the anti-gun-rights lobby)
Re: CIFTA Treaty

Dear Mr. President,

We commend your common-sense support of the CIFTA Treaty for reducing illicit arms manufacture and gun trafficking. This is a brilliant stratagem in the exhausting effort to rid our country of the scourge of gun violence.

With the treaty in place and ratified by the Senate, you will be obligated to take certain steps with regard to private ownership of firearms that we have never been able to move through the houses of Congress. Further, you will be able to take these actions unilaterally, making swift change possible and, under international obligation to act you are insulated from direct criticism.

Our attorneys assure us the steps we outline here are in full compliance with international law and the terms of the treaty itself. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution unambiguously gives such a treaty a degree of supremacy over the nation, its laws, the states and the public (even though some in the powerful gun lobby deny this or point to questionable court precedents). This is especially useful as we adapt to a global economy, world courts, an empowered U.N. and environmental concerns on a planetary scale.

In addition, we know that if a law can be interpreted to either spread or curtail the proliferation of arms in the hands of average people, the common-sense interpretation must be to curtail arms whenever possible. CIFTA provides the perfect platform for this very reasonable approach.

There will be little disagreement that CIFTA’s surface goal of keeping arms out of the hands of dictators, tyrants, terrorists, violent criminal cartels, syndicates and gangs, insurgents, non-state actors, and genocidal regimes is a worthy goal. The value for domestic gun control here and abroad is equally worthy, and lies in virtually every measure required to track and control arms. We are eager to see your signature on this important step forward for the safety of Americans.

[Language from CIFTA appears in brackets.]

Statement of Purpose

["...the urgent need to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials, due to the harmful effects of these activities on the security of each state..."]

Note that “trafficking” is not explicitly limited by “illicit” and this is critical. It is perfectly reasonable to bring all firearms trafficking under control to properly manage the portion that is illicit or undesirable. This construction is precise and appears throughout the treaty.

["give priority... because of the links of such activities with drug trafficking, terrorism, transnational organized crime, and mercenary and other criminal activities"]

The unconditional inclusion of “other criminal activities” assures a broad jurisdiction for every facet of existing and not-yet-defined gun crime, even minor and paperwork violations, if so desired.

["international cooperation... appropriate measures at the national,regional and international levels... pertinent resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly on measures to eradicate the illicit transfer of conventional weapons and on the need for all states to guarantee their security... support mechanisms such as the International Weapons and Explosives Tracking System (IWETS) of the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL)"]

The emphasis on globalization dovetails smoothly with current plans. Potential exists to wed NICS and IWETS functionality.

["a 'know-your-customer' policy for dealers in, and producers, exporters, and importers of, firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials is crucial for combating this scourge"]

Firearms dealers are specifically included in the web of CITRA.

["to eradicate illicit transnational trafficking in firearms is not intended to discourage or diminish lawful leisure or recreational activities such as travel or tourism for sport shooting, hunting, and other forms of lawful ownership and use recognized by the States Parties]

This is one rare spot where “trafficking” and “illicit” are connected, and then only for transnational acts. We do not expect this to inhibit any reasonable domestic gun-control activity associated with CIFTA. The sapient inclusion here of “acceptable” gun activity is neatly compartmentalized and removed from the ability to apply controls.

["this Convention does not commit States Parties to enact legislation or regulations pertaining to firearms ownership, possession, or trade of a wholly domestic character"]

While the treaty doesn’t seem to require Parties to enact domestic gun laws, the careful wording does not prevent Parties from enacting domestic gun laws either. And it additionally requires that the parties “will apply their respective laws and regulations in a manner consistent with this Convention,” binding future actions into compliance, while giving a comfortable appearance of autonomy. Our attorneys were impressed with how well this is drafted.

Article I, Definitions.

The definitions are suitably robust and need little description here.

However, “Illicit manufacture” includes any ammunition made, “b. without a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place;”. This unequivocally places dangerous homemade “reloading” operations under any reasonable controls deemed necessary. Such controls are not optional. Any so-called hobbyist operating outside a yet-to-be designed licensing scheme would be in violation. Penalties are to be independently determined by the Parties.

Also note that “an accessory that can be attached to a firearm” is included as “other related materials,” and also subject to illicit manufacture rules. This provides the broadest controls over anyone making, transporting, possessing or transferring such items as wood or composite stocks, slings, bayonets or bayonet lugs, sights, scopes, rails, lasers, grips, flash hiders, suppressors, muzzle brakes and other paraphernalia. The tax dollars from this new revenue source is not determined but believed to be potentially large.

Article II, Purpose.

Reiterates introductory remarks, promotes exchanges of information.

Article III, Sovereignty.

Ensures that territorial jurisdictions and a nonintervention policy are maintained.

Article IV, Legislative measures.

["States Parties that have not yet done so shall adopt the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offenses under their domestic law the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials... the criminal offenses established pursuant to the foregoing paragraph shall include participation in, association or conspiracy to commit, attempts to commit, and aiding, abetting, facilitating, and counseling the commission of said offenses."]

Once the treaty is signed, laws (if needed) or “other measures” (regulations, memoranda of understanding, policies, operations manuals, AG opinions, basically any legal construct without limitation) are required to implement the terms of the treaty. This is excellent for our purposes. We believe the legal framework exists to handle most if not all the requirements outside cumbersome legislative channels, facilitating easy adoption of the treaty’s conditions.

Some objections may be raised by opposition leaders or the gun lobby, but the signed treaty puts this game well into the home stretch by the time such annoyances arise.

Article V, Jurisdiction.

["Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses"]

CIFTA doesn’t even contemplate statutes, just “measures” for establishing jurisdiction, including rules for extradition.

Article VI, Marking of Firearms.

Serial numbers and similar markings already required on firearms by U.S. law become an international standard, and now include place of manufacture and name and address of importers, plus special marks for arms retained for official use. There is no enforcement mechanism for rogue nations that do not comply.

Article VII, Confiscation or Forfeiture.

["States Parties shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that all firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials seized, confiscated, or forfeited as the result of illicit manufacturing or trafficking do not fall into the hands of private individuals or businesses through auction, sale, or other disposal."]

The treaty, when signed, will once and for all end the intolerable practice of returning guns and accessories back to the public after they have fallen into police hands. Our legal opinion is that even recovered stolen guns would also be unreturnable, since these have been illegally trafficked as defined. State laws allowing gun resales and auctions will become null and void, under the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause. This may impact some police departments that have come to rely on such revenues,
but the net gain in public safety and gun control is more than worth the small loss, which could perhaps be mitigated through use of bailout funds or other government monies.

Article VIII, Security Measures.

["States Parties, in an effort to eliminate loss or diversion, undertake to adopt the necessary measures to ensure the security of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials imported into, exported from, or in transit through their respective territories."]

It seems clear that the only way to effectively meet this common-sense security obligation (eliminate loss or diversion of firearms and related supplies) is to have universal registration and tracking of all firearms in the country. This long-sought elusive goal is now within reach. The phrase “in transit” effectively touches every firearm, all ammunition and related gear.

Article IX, Export, Import, Transit Licenses

Port of entry and exit requirements already in place cover this section.

Article X, Strengthening Controls at Export Points

Same as above.

Article XI, Recordkeeping

["States Parties shall assure the maintenance for a reasonable time of the information necessary to trace and identify illicitly manufactured and illicitly trafficked firearms to enable them to comply with their obligations under Articles XIII and XVII."]

This provision provides clear authority to establish large scale comprehensive gun-registration databases. The “reasonable time” for recordkeeping had been determined by the FBI, under former AG Reno, as permanently.

We do anticipate some political objections to this provision, since U.S. laws place some restrictions on firearm recordkeeping on the public. However, as we learned under Attorney General Janet Reno, during the original implementation of the NICS background checks, government systems can be set up in any manner desired with little effective oversight, and only after prolonged and arguable challenges need the systems be changed. The true nature of such complex systems remains difficult to ascertain, is difficult to monitor on an ongoing basis, can be modified in future iterations to more closely reflect desired policy without raising warning flags, and system backups maintained by allies do not fall under the same controls as domestic versions.

A review of the remaining 19 Articles of the treaty will be provided shortly. These are minor and deal largely with exchange of information among the parties, cooperation, training (for which the U.S. can play a significant role by financing and controlling programs among the Parties), mutual legal assistance (another area where the U.S. can exert significant influence), “controlled delivery” or sting operations, extradition of U.S. citizens, and structural elements such as a consultative committee, periodic meetings, ratifications, withdrawal, effective dates and dispute settlements.

An interesting “Annex” exempts certain items from the definition of explosives, including:

["compressed gases; flammable liquids; explosive actuated devices, such as air bags and fire extinguishers; propellant actuated devices, such as nail gun cartridges; consumer fireworks suitable for use by the public and designed primarily to produce visible or audible effects by combustion, that contain pyrotechnic compositions and that do not project or disperse dangerous fragments such as metal, glass, or brittle plastic; toy plastic or paper caps for toy pistols; toy propellant devices consisting of small paper or composition tubes or containers containing a small charge or slow burning propellant powder designed so that they will neither burst nor produce external flame except through the nozzle on functioning; and smoke candles, smokepots, smoke grenades, smoke signals, signal flares, hand signal devices, and Very signal cartridges designed to produce visible effects for signal purposes containing smoke compositions and no bursting charges."]

END OF ANALYSIS

——

The Supremacy Issue

Numerous attorneys and others wrote to challenge my position in Page Nine #63 that Mr. Obama’s run-around gun treaty could conveniently bypass the legislative process and the Constitution, like John M. says here:

“While your item in ‘Page 9′ about Congress and the Obamanation Administration using an Inter-American Treaty on ‘arms trafficking’ to do an end-run around the Second Amendment is certainly scary, I’m not ready to concede (as you appear to do) that a treaty supersedes the Constitution under Article VI.”

He goes on to describe why Art. VI and other safeguards will protect us.

Many people went into greater detail. Cases were cited (Reid v. Covert; Missouri v. Holland; Whitney v. Robinson; Cherokee Tobacco). One high-placed lobbyist felt fairly safe because,

“While an international treaty bypasses House consideration, it requires two-thirds of the Senate for ratification – a tall order even in ObamaNation.”

Other people were less sure, like Chuck G. here:

“I’m still up in the air about it as I’ve heard all my life exactly what you stated.”

I too always heard what he had heard — treaties supercede the Constitution — and always thought it odd. Go read Article VI, cl. 2 yourself. The language is crystalline. One attorney at a high-profile think tank believes,

“The federal government will have arguable legal authority to seize our guns and ammunition if this treaty is signed.”

So…

1. Opinions on the supremacy issue are inconsistent (though often adamant).
2. People who say the treaty won’t be a problem point to a number of SCOTUS decisions, and perhaps stare decisis. Maybe that makes those folks fully comfortable with where Mr. Obama is heading on this. Less so for me.
3. SCOTUS precedents are increasingly ignored by those in power, with groovy rationalizations each time. And SCOTUS decisions have so eviscerated key elements of the Constitution, my faith there is shaken, not stirred.
4. The courts, which should provide more balance, a) don’t, b) are run by the very people they’re supposed to balance, and c) all too often use the completely worthless rational-basis test, knowing it’s worthless, to allow every short-of-insane law to stand.
5. Given a choice of support for gun-rights or outright gun bans, we know which way this administration will go.
6. Four of the current SCOTUS Justices have expressed interest in defining U.S. law from foreign sources, leaving us one vote away from a new understanding of the supremacy clause.
7. Perhaps the biggest issue, though, making all else moot, is that new regs you can easily forecast coming from this treaty will be portrayed as a) required by international law so we’re only doing what’s right, b) required by Article VI however you like to read it, c) consistent with precedent, and most of all, d) not violative of the Second Amendment so no big deal.

After all, if, for instance, every home reloading enthusiast simply has to get a government license, pay an annual tax called a “fee,” pass a test, accept “routine” BATFE searches without notice like FFLs must, and keep detailed records so government can fulfill its obligation to track all guns and ammo, backed up with threats of prison time for paperwork errors or a miscount of a single round, what’s wrong with that?

Besides, you have an attorney general to protect you who’s on record saying a ban on any working firearm in your own home is acceptable under 2A, so, what me worry?

You have a choice: assume the treaty won’t be a problem, the supremacy clause will void any abuse and just let Mr. Obama enact the treaty, or remain a bit more skeptical of this man’s motives. Choose wisely.

If Mr. Obama is indeed a Marxist at heart as so many people fear and some evidence tends to support, a debate over constitutional principles would be pointless.

2. Amend Constitution by Statute, Using EPA Laws

“The National Parks Service has announced it will not challenge a court order that temporarily stops the late-term Bush administration policy of allowing CCW-permit holders to carry in National Parks.”

That’s the news media’s backwards way of saying the bureaucrats running the National Parks are delighted they don’t have to allow CCW-permit holders to exercise their civil rights in the parks, at least for now.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a temporary injunction, favoring a lawsuit brought by gun-control and environmental activists. She gave the Interior Dept., which runs the parks, until April 20 to respond.

The idea that parks must first undergo environmental-impact approval before partially honoring the right to keep and bear arms is a complete subterfuge and extremely dangerous on several grounds.

Most obvious, there is NO environmental impact of carrying an unfired gun in a park or elsewhere. Even fired, at the rate CCW permitees fire their guns, the impact is so small it is essentially unmeasurable. The District Court/EPA/Brady effort is a transparent deception, used by hoplophobes and gun banners, to stop a ruling that would restore limited civil rights (for government permitees only) and could save lives and deter crime.

The original 25-year-old ban was created during the Reagan era, reversing the right to carry that existed on these public lands since the nation’s founding.

A bigger problem however is that, if EPA can be used to stop mere concealed carry on the basis of enviro-impact, what does that say for any form of outdoor marksmanship? The impact difference between carry and use is obvious. If the precedent of allowing EPA to regulate CCW stands, this invites the wholesale destruction of any outdoor target practice on public land. Officials know this. Nationwide, public land is a mainstay of open-air exercise of the right to bear arms — for practicing for proficiency and safety.

Using environmental threats to deny the civil and human right of self defense and the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is environmental terrorism.

The biggest problem though is that this repugnant scheme uses a statute and its regulations — the EPA machinery — to suppress the Constitution itself, namely the Second Amendment.

An ongoing and increasing problem, EPA and numerous other federal agencies, FHA, FCC, FTC, FDA, TSA, EEOC and others have suppressed First Amendment free-speech guarantees for decades. Now, using EPA legislation, people in charge are making inroads into infringing RKBA out of existence. Such activity is patently illegal. The terms of the Constitution can only be changed by amendment, as described in the Constitution itself, and not by law-making from Washington or anywhere else.

People suggesting or implementing such actions should be quickly removed from office for violation of their oath, and brought up on charges of denial of civil rights and abuse of power. That had better happen soon, because we are reaching a tipping point. How many abuses and usurpations need we endure before people take to their pitchforks?

3. National Ammo Shortage Is Suspicious

Call me skeptical, but something doesn’t smell right about the length and severity of the ammo shortage in America. We’re not short of ammo, we’re out. Since November. This is the end of April. WalMart shelves are bare. Big 5 Sports here in Phoenix got its weekly truck and it had 3 boxes of .38s (150 rounds), no 9mm, no .357, no .380, no .45. Dealers I’ve asked
uniformly say their orders are just not being filled, and they get no word on what or when they’ll get more.

Anyone with DIRECT connections to ammo makers is encouraged to ask questions, get names, and let me know what you hear. I’ve seen the unsubstantiated rumors on the web that there’s a conspiracy, but the talk sounds wacky and the parts don’t make sense. Why would for-profit companies voluntarily cut back production in hard economic times when demand has exploded?

That said, note that most American gun owners are not short of ammo. They have plenty socked away. They just can’t buy more, or replace supplies used at the range and elsewhere. The situation is most acute however for newcomers, of which there are hundreds of thousands scared into buying their first gun, who learn quickly that a new gun without some shells isn’t much of a good deal.

Also note that this panic/obsessive buying is a shot across the bow for the temperature of America — what would it take to trigger similar runs on supplies of toilet paper, bottled water, tobacco, liquor, batteries, light bulbs, canned goods, coffee, medicines and any other commodities people depend upon. If ammo, a minor niche product is any gauge, we live in delicate times.

Blatant racism is the basis for the Democrats’ strategy for keeping power, counting the votes of the black sheeple as a lock, and moving to admit 12 to 20 million ILLEGAL aliens — largely hispanic — to citizenship.

Have you noticed a certain spooked look in the eyes of Republicans nowadays? Wonder why?

Democrat operative James Carville, speaking on the talk radio show Imus in the Morning, today gave a reason from his new book, Forty More Years (as in 40 more years of Democrats in power). Carville’s point is simple: Changing demographics will do the Obamanation’s job for it. Old whites vote Republican and will die out, replaced by youth and non-whites.

Reading Carville’s lines, and between them, you get the rest of it pretty easily. Most of the young, short on life experience and long on fuzzy idealism, always drift liberal (don’t I know it). Only some decades ago, before the effects of Ted Kennedy’s and some Republicans’ new immigration policy that welcomed everyone except Europeans, 90% of the US electorate was white. That is now gone forever, even though Kennedy stupidly or deviously claimed that the monumental new immigration policy would not significantly change US demographics.

Today the only real population explosion is among hispanics, especially with open borders when millions of illegal immigrants will be rewarded with citizenship, paid benefits and given voting rights. Both in Europe and the US, it’s clear that whites do not reproduce like browns and muslims do. (Carville, of course, fails to mention significant and growing pockets of muslims in the US.) Blacks of course will remain on their neo-plantation for the, uh, “benefits” the Dems hand them, delivering 90% of themselves as usual, the urban ghettos able to swing whole states against the white taxpayers, even if you call the hand-outs “tribute” in return for not burning down the cities. (Currently, most blacks probably are content with the US becoming much less white. How they will feel later, down the road the liberals are leading them on, when they are increasingly challenged by the “color” of hispanics, Asians and muslims, remains to be seen, and could get interesting.)

Carville makes the case that Dems have a lock on power for the next 40 years. Demographics, according to him, guarantee it. This used to be whispered, but now it can be said out loud in public, and in his new book. Maybe even Senator Ted Kennedy can admit he knew it all along.

Agree or disagree, but have you wondered why the Republicans seem so spooked lately, or is it mummified? And Democrats, with their media cheerleaders, have that look of a contented creature that just caught and ate a nice big fat chicken?

Our electric power grid is vulnerable to missile attack, and Congress is doing nothing about it, according to the author of the book One Second After. The detonation of a small nuclear warhead above the center of the country would create an electromagnetic pulse sufficient to take out the national grid. (Remember what one little surge did in August 2003?)

From the National Review, here’s how it would work:

…one missile, properly targeted, could degrade the electronic grid of the entire continental United States… …even North Korea has weapons capable of doing this…

Rather than target the warhead at land, enemies deliver their payloads from 25 to 300 miles above the Earth’s surface. There, radiation from a nuclear explosion would interact with air molecules to produce high-energy electrons that speed across the earth’s magnetic field as an instantaneous, invisible electromagnetic pulse. Such an explosion would release a pulse strong enough to disrupt power grids, electronic systems and communications over the lower 48.

The United States never has prepared for this threat because experts long assumed it wouldn’t matter. An EMP attack, the theory goes, would come as a precursor to a full-scale nuclear exchange with our Cold War nemesis, the Soviet Union. At that point, the state of the power grid would be the least of our problems.

But today, we must consider a giant electromagnetic pulse (EMP) a significant threat on its own. The congressional Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack, calls EMP “one of a small number of threats that has the potential to hold our society seriously at risk and might result in defeat of our military forces.” ….

During Bush’s presidency when the EMP commission did its research, United States Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, to which the commission reported. He had this to say:

[EMP is] a major threat to the United States, not only from terrorists but from rogue nations like North Korea.

An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack over American soil, one of the expert witnesses at the hearing said, is one of only a few ways that America could be essentially defeated by our enemies, terrorist or otherwise. A single nuclear weapon, detonated at the right altitude, would produce an electromagnetic pulse that — depending on its location and size — would knock out power grids and other electrical systems across much of the country, for months if not years.

Few if any people would die right away. But the long-term loss of electricity would essentially bring our society to a halt. Communication would be almost impossible. Powerless refrigerators would leave food rotting in warehouses, marooned by a lack of transportation as those vehicles still operable simply run out of gas (which can’t be pumped without electricity). The unavailability of clean water would quickly threaten public health, not to mention leave the inevitable fires raging unchecked. As we have seen in areas of natural and other disasters, this kind of scenario often results in a fairly rapid breakdown of social order.

Our society has grown so dependent on computer and other electrical systems that we have created our own Achilles’ heel of vulnerability, ironically much more so than less developed nations. Deprived of power in occasional blackouts, we are in many ways helpless. Typically, power is restored relatively quickly, but a large-scale burnout caused by broad EMP attack would create a much more difficult situation. Not only would there be nobody nearby to help, it could take years to replace destroyed equipment. Transformers for regional substations, for example, are huge and are no longer manufactured in the United States (emphasis mine).

Recent missile tests by North Korea and Iran involved trajectories over open water. Average citizens in the western world brushed them off and were not alarmed, because these did not look like the successfully targeted down-range tests we are familiar with. But that is because we always think of missiles as being aimed at a target. If the goal of rogue nations is simply to detonate a nuclear warhead over the continental United States to create an electro-magnetic pulse, then the delivery system only needs lauch and distance capability, not the technological refinement necessary for aiming. Iran declared its last test a success. For their purposes, most likely it was. This is not to say that Israel has no cause for concern, but that we should also.

The book One Second After by William R. Forstchen is fiction. But it is predicated on a very real situation. Its current popularity serves as a wake-up call to a dangerous threat.

Related:

Book website — One Second After

Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack — Website

Report of the Commission — Executive Report, 2004 (PDF)

Report of the Commission — Critical National Infrastructures Report, April 2008 (PDF)

Wall Street Journal — What a Single Nuclear Warhead Could Do

Heritage Foundation — The risk of electromagnetic pulse devastation is greater than ever. Why does Washington dismiss it?

CNN Inside Politics — FBI concerned about threat of terror-induced blackouts.

Wikipedia — Northeast Blackout of 2003

Tail wag: Larry Braden

Obama apologized to the French for US “arrogance,” forgetting the Normandy beaches. If he ever even knew…

Peter Heck wrote a good column for OneNewsNow, discussing Obama’s trip to Europe:

Arrogant Americans, Mr. President?

As I was sitting in church waiting for the start of the service, my grandpa came walking towards me pointing his finger. No matter how old I get, and no matter how long he’s been out of the U.S. Navy, that’s still an intimidating sight. As he approached me, his voice quivered as he said, “We saved that continent twice…how dare my president apologize for this country’s arrogance.” My grandpa is right. Americans need not apologize to the world for their arrogance; rather, Americans should apologize to their forefathers for the arrogance of their president.

Barack Obama’s first foreign trip as President of the United States has confirmed the naiveté so many of us feared during the election cycle. But worse than that, it has also demonstrated that our president suffers from either a complete misunderstanding of our heritage and history, or an utter contempt for it. Neither is excusable.

Garnering cheers from the French of all people, President Obama declared, “In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” Consider that Obama spoke these words just 500 miles from the beaches of Normandy, where the sand is still stained with 65-year-old blood of “arrogant Americans.”….

Election cycles go back and forth between Republicans and Democrats, between statism and federalism, between aggressive foreign policy and isolationism. Usually, the ideologists who are out of power at any given time understand the pendulum nature of US politics and plan for the next campaign to do a better job of getting their message out. Also they understand the value of never allowing the country to become too one-sided, of staying in the middle ground. And cycling between the parties somewhat accomplishes this.

But this presidency is more than just a disappointment. Barrack Hussein Obama is completely lacking in American cultural literacy. He is a gut-wrenching embarrassment.

A coalition of taxpayer advocacy groups is organizing a March on Washington scheduled for September 12, to continue the momentum for reform generated by the tea parties held last week. Spearheaded by Freedom Works, it is also being sponsored by The Club for Growth, the National Taxpayers Union, and Americans for Tax Reform. The organizers say:

On April 15, taxpayers gathered across the country. Now it’s time to bring that message to Washington on September 12th. We have secured permits for the West Front of the United States Capitol and are currently working on the remaining logistics.

If you want to help, or to register for the event, or just learn more, visit their website:

09.12.09 National Tea Party

The Tea Party Movement Goes to Capitol Hill

An elected official is threatening to press charges against a constituent who sent her a tea bag. Toby Ann Stavisky, the Democratic New York State Senator from Queens (NY-16th Senate District), has threatened Michael Chimenti, an ordinary guy who lives in her district, writes a lot of letters to the editor of the New York Daily News, and who sent her a tea bag to protest profligate government spending.

Michael Chimenti writes:

NY State Senator Toby Stavisky (16th District) is threatening to press charges against me for sending her a tea bag.

The Albany police said because there was an “unknown” substance in the letter, it becomes a federal offense under the laws passed after 9/11, even though it was clearly a tea bag with a letter in it marked “TEA PARTY”.

Buffalo, New York tea party organizer Allen Coniglio commented via email:

That is a bogus charge and, of course, will be dismissed. It is protected political speech, and only an idiot would construe it as anything but. Please tell Ms. Stavisky to get a life.

These people don’t get that it is just for reasons such as her childish behavior that we the people are so disgusted that we want to throw them all out of office. These people act like thin-skinned thugs and enforcers, using their office to bring the power of the state down on ordinary citizens who, perhaps caught up in the fever of the moment, are doing nothing more than trying to make a political point. Clearly, the guy should not have sent the teabag, but, lighten up, senator (small “s” intentional). The tyrant never understands that the more they attempt to repress the people, the more the opposition to their bullying tactics will increase. We will continue the fight, senator, and we will prevail in the end. Thank you for reminding us of what we have to do and why we are doing it.

This is just another example in which the Democratic incumbents, instead of governing wisely for all of their constituents, become shills for their political party. Staviski could have been a stateswoman. She could have responded with a polite letter to Chimenti outlining the pros and cons of the issues, and her reasons for taking the opposite position to her constituent. But no. She responded like a partisan political hack, the epitome of all that is wrong with the American political process today. Shame on her!

This is the first case of attempted intimidation that we have learned about, although we were expecting exactly this response to the tea bag mailings. Doubtless there will be more strong-arm tactics against the patriotic citizens, as the fall-out from the FBI surveillance of the tea parties and the Rightwing Extremism Threat Assessment plays out. We’ll keep you posted … until they come for us.

UPDATE: We received a report that the Albany police department was involved, and that they locked down and quarantined Staviski’s office until the “substance” was “verified.” The police contacted Mr. Chimenti on Monday morning and informed him that the senator could press federal charges. In his letter he had included three phone numbers where he could be reached — home, work, and cell.

Hardly a suspicious terrorist! If I had been running that office, I would have made a cup of tea and sent a thank-you letter. It is much better to build bridges than to create a bogus emergency, especially wasting the policemen’s time and the citizens’ tax dollars.

Barack Obama misrepresented gun numbers during his trip to Mexico last week in a way that amounts to lying. Appearing with Mexican President Felipe Calderón on Thursday, Obama spoke about the drug violence in Mexico:

“This war is being waged with guns purchased not here but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that lay in our shared border.”

Here’s the truth. When the Mexican government confiscates guns, it sorts out those that appear to be made in the United States and sends them to us so we can trace them by serial number. But the guns that they send to us are only a fraction of the total number of guns that they confiscate.

Of the subset of guns sent by the Mexican government to the US, 90% turn out to actually be from the US, and the rest were mistakenly identified. That’s where the 90% figure comes from. But the guns that are actually from the US used in the Mexican gun war are really only about 17% of the total number of guns confiscated by Mexico.

Nevertheless, Obama is using these misleading assertions to promote the Inter-American Arms Treaty, first unsuccessfully proposed in 1998 and now being revived in the new effort to disarm America. The Washington Times notes Obama’s real agenda:

Democrats aren’t alone in repeating phony gun statistics. The New York Times, CNN and numerous networks continue to repeat the 90 percent figure with no reporting to back it up. The hysteria is used to create the notion that a major problem exists with American guns – and Mr. Obama is anxious to step in to solve that problem with a $400 million program to stop U.S. guns from going to Mexico. That initiative would include clampdowns on U.S. gun shops.

It is ridiculous for Mr. Obama to blame Mexico’s lawlessness on Americans as if the longstanding corruption of Mexican elected officials, judges and law-enforcement officers has nothing to do with it. …his real agenda is to pursue gun control here at home.