Trump and Cruz send shivers down GOP spines

Trump Ted

Trump and Cruz send shivers down GOP spines

The prospect of either man as the Republican nominee is setting off alarm bells among officials and operatives across the country.
By ALEX ISENSTADT 01/05/16 05:11 AM EST

With only weeks before GOP primary voters first cast their ballots, the level of alarm among establishment Republicans about the enduring dominance of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz is reaching new heights.

In private conversations with several former aides, Mitt Romney, who in March will keynote the National Republican Congressional Committee’s annual fundraising dinner, has expressed rising frustration about Trump’s prolonged lead in polls and has argued that the real-estate mogul could inflict lasting damage on the party’s brand.

In Washington and elsewhere, meanwhile, Republicans are on the hunt for a political entity that can be used to stop Trump. In recent weeks, Alex Castellanos, a veteran TV ad man who was a top adviser to George W. Bush and Romney, has been meeting with top GOP operatives and donors to gauge interest in launching an anti-Trump vehicle that would pummel the Manhattan businessman on the television airwaves.
Those who’ve met with Castellanos say he’s offered detailed presentations on how such an offensive would play out. Castellanos has said that an anti-Trump ad campaign, which would be designed to cast him as a flawed strongman, would cost well into the millions. It was unclear, the sources said, whether Castellanos, who did not respond to a request for comment, would ultimately go through with the effort.

One growing worry about Trump or Cruz, top party officials, donors, and operatives across the country say, is that nominating either man would imperil lawmakers in down-ballot races, especially those residing in moderate states and districts.

“At some point, we have to deal with the fact that there are at least two candidates who could utterly destroy the Republican bench for a generation if they became the nominee,” said Josh Holmes, a former chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. “We’d be hard-pressed to elect a Republican dogcatcher north of the Mason-Dixon or west of the Mississippi.”

“Trump and Cruz are worrisome to most Republican candidates for governor, senator and Congress,” said Curt Anderson, a longtime GOP strategist and former Republican National Committee political director. “Some will say they are not worried, but they are.”

Romney has been calling around to former advisers to sound them out about the race, and to kvetch about Trump’s surprising durability. But in the immediate term, at least, he has expressed unwillingness to lend his hand to a stop-Trump effort — or to endorse a candidate more palatable to a GOP establishment paralyzed by his rise and worried that nominating him or Cruz would scupper an opportunity to control both the White House and Congress in 2017.

The concern is particularly acute in the Senate, where Republicans are fighting to preserve a relatively slim four-seat majority, defending more than half a dozen seats in hard-to-win swing states. Among them: Ohio, a presidential battleground state where Republican Sen. Rob Portman faces a perilous path to reelection.

When Trump traveled to the state in November, he met with Matt Borges, Ohio’s Republican Party chairman — who warned the front-runner that “divisive rhetoric won’t help us carry Ohio.”

“It’s time for people who have never won squat here to listen to the people who have been doing it for decades,” Borges said in an interview. “I’m just looking out for how we win in November.”

In Wisconsin, some party officials fret that a Trump or Cruz nomination could sink Republican Sen. Ron Johnson, who faces a tough race against his predecessor, Russ Feingold.
“Certainly, it would be bad for Ron Johnson if Trump is the nominee,” said Wisconsin Rep. Reid Ribble who, like Johnson, was swept into Congress in the Republican wave of 2010. “I think Trump is probably really bad down-ballot.”

Some top party strategists have spent months considering how the outcome of the primary will impact congressional races. Since last spring, the National Republican Senatorial Committee has been poring over research and polling data in hopes of better understanding how each of the Republican candidates running for president would affect GOP hopefuls running for Senate. The committee has held internal meetings to discuss the pros and cons of each presidential contender and how they would affect each key Senate race.

The House, where Republicans have a historic 30-seat majority, is more secure for the party. But there, too, the GOP has reason to worry: The party must defend nearly three dozen endangered seats — many of them in liberal-to-moderate states like California, New York and Florida.

Should Trump or Cruz win the nomination, party operatives say, some longtime officeholders in more conservative districts such as New Jersey Rep. Scott Garrett or Florida Rep. John Mica, who typically skate to general election wins, could find themselves in tougher-than-usual contests.

Cruz’s campaign pushes back on the idea that the Texas senator would imperil those running in House and Senate races. A Cruz nomination, they argue, would motivate conservatives to turn out to vote in a way that an establishment candidate couldn’t.

“Down-ballot Republicans need Ted Cruz at the top of the ticket because he is the only candidate in the race who can excite the base to show up in November,” said Rick Tyler, a Cruz spokesman. “If we chose another moderate, we will simply lose seats we would otherwise win.”

Trump’s campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Some, though, are already counseling Republican candidates to begin to think about how to distance themselves from a Trump or Cruz in the event either wins the nomination.

“Candidates will need to develop their own brand,” said Pennsylvania Rep. Charlie Dent, a Republican who has represented a swing district in Lehigh Valley since 2004. “A candidate will need to run his or her own campaign and distance themselves from the top of the ticket.”

Among the tricky questions candidates will be forced to consider: whether it’s worth endorsing either potential nominee.

Illinois Rep. Bob Dold, a Republican who represents a liberal-leaning, suburban Chicago district, said he had ruled out endorsing Trump. He declined to say whether he’d back Cruz.

While Dold said he was monitoring the primary, he argued that voters would be willing to look beyond the party’s presidential nominee when determining his fate in November.

“Illinois 10th District,” he said, “has a long history of ticket splitting.”

 

OBAMA OFFERS NEW GUN CONTROL STEPS

OBAMA OFFERS NEW GUN CONTROL STEPS

— Aug. 29 1:08 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — Striving to take action where Congress would not, the Obama administration announced new steps Thursday on gun control, curbing the import of military surplus weapons and proposing to close a little-known loophole that lets felons and others circumvent background checks by registering guns to corporations.

Four months after a gun control drive collapsed spectacularly in the Senate, President Barack Obama added two more executive actions to a list of 23 steps the White House determined Obama could take on his own to reduce gun violence. With the political world focused on Mideast tensions and looming fiscal battles, the move signaled Obama’s intent to show he hasn’t lost sight of the cause he took up after 20 first graders and six adults were gunned down last year in an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

Vice President Joe Biden, Obama’s point-man on gun control after the Newtown tragedy thrust guns into the national spotlight, unveiled the new actions Thursday at the White House.

“It’s simple, it’s straightforward, it’s common sense,” Biden said in the Roosevelt Room.

One new policy will end a government practice that lets military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies, be reimported into the U.S. by private entities, where some may end up on the streets. The White House said the U.S. has approved 250,000 of those guns to be reimported since 2005; under the new policy, only museums and a few other entities like the government will be eligible to reimport military-grade firearms.

The Obama administration is also proposing a federal rule to stop those who would be ineligible to pass a background check from skirting the law by registering certain guns, like machine guns and short-barreled shotguns, to a corporation or trust. The new rule would require people associated with those entities, like beneficiaries and trustees, to undergo the same type of fingerprint-based background checks as individuals if they want to register those types of guns.

“It’s a very artful dodge to get around people who are not capable, constitutionally or legally, of owning a weapon,” Biden said.

The National Rifle Association dismissed the administration’s moves as misdirected, arguing that background checks for corporations and a ban on reimporting outdated guns wouldn’t keep criminals from getting weapons.

“The Obama administration has once again completely missed the mark when it comes to stopping violent crime,” said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. “This administration should get serious about prosecuting violent criminals who misuse guns and stop focusing its efforts on law-abiding gun owners.”

Joined by Attorney General Eric Holder, Biden formally unveiled the new measures Thursday while swearing in Todd Jones, whose confirmation to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives after six years of political wrangling to fill that position was another of Obama’s post-Newtown priorities. A Senate deal to approve the president’s pending nominations after Democrats threatened to change Senate rules cleared the way for Jones’ confirmation last month.

Still out of reach for Obama were the steps that gun control advocates and the administration’s own review say could most effectively combat gun violence in the U.S., like an assault weapons ban and fewer exceptions for background checks for individual sales. Only Congress can act on those fronts.

There is scant evidence that support for gun control legislation has grown substantially since April, when efforts died in the Senate amid staunch opposition from the NRA and most Republican senators.

“Sooner or later, we are going to get this right,” Obama said that day in the White House Rose Garden, with the families of Newtown victims and former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords — herself a victim of a gunman — at his side. “The memories of these children demand it, and so do the American people,” the president said at the time.

In the months following the Senate vote, Biden has claimed that at a handful of lawmakers who opposed expanded background checks have told him privately they’ve changed their minds and want another chance. But Biden and White House officials have not named any of those lawmakers.

Renewing his pledge to keep working for legislative fixed, Biden suggested that one opportunity for improving prospects for gun control may come next year in the midterm elections. Liberal groups and those supporting gun control have vowed to hold accountable in 2014 those lawmakers who voted against gun control.

“If Congress won’t act, we’ll fight for a new Congress,” Biden said. “It’s that simple. But we’re going to get this done.”

These days, Obama and Biden mention gun control with far less regularity than when it appeared the Senate was poised to take action, although Obama did meet Tuesday with 18 city mayors to discuss ways to contain youth violence. And with immigration and pressing fiscal issues dominating Congress’ agenda, the prospects for reviving gun legislation appear negligible.

With Jones’ confirmation at ATF, the White House has completed or made significant progress on all but one of the 23 executive actions Obama had previously ordered in January, the White House said. Still lingering is an effort to finalize regulations to require insurers to cover mental health at parity with medical benefits, although the White House said that it is committed to making that happen by the end of 2013.

The new rules for guns registered to corporations will follow the traditional regulatory process, with a 90-day comment period before ATF reviews suggestions and finalizes the rule. It would only apply to certain types of guns that must be federally registered. Last year, ATF received 39,000 requests to register guns to corporations and trusts.

Ground Zero Churches: The Church America Needs Right Now.

high_resolution_widescreen_wallpaper_1 copy

Satan did a number on us.    First he used a counterfeit church growth model to deceive the gullible and discourage the faithful.   When righteous pastors looked the staggering growth of Seeker Churches, they felt overwhelmed and even wounded.  They wonder, “What am I doing wrong, am I a fool to hold on to my integrity?”  

Growth seminars preyed on weak Pastors.  David Wilkerson said, “Ministers from small churches are being told, in so many words, ‘Attend this mega-church pastor’s seminar, and you will find the keys to success. You‘ll eventually have a church as big as his.’ Yet this only causes pastors to become more discouraged. They end up convinced; I am not doing anything significant for God. He just isn’t using me.”

After this came the reelection of Barrack Obama. The anti-God forces saw how directly Obama challenged and even maligned the church.  They saw blood in the water and moved to run us off the map. 

The Seeker Church now knows that making nice with secular America did not stop violence, perversion and atheism.  All of these things accelerated on their watch.  After our complete makeover of the Gospel, society hated us even more.

We have been trashed, bashed and left for dead.  Now it is time for the Body of Christ to push back on all of the lies, threats and ominous predictions about our demise.  America is ripe for the church to make a massive comeback.  You heard me, a massive comeback.

I know that all the experts say the Church has lost America and she will never get it back.  These lies have made the rounds in centuries past.  Usually, they pronounce death on the church right before a major revival.  The last time I saw it was when the “God is dead” movement swept America in the 1960’s only to be swallowed up by the Jesus Movement.

To see this we will need a new Church model one that looks nothing like what we see today.   We need Ground Zero Churches.

Los Angeles city skyline in the evening, Los Agneles, California.

Christian leader take heed. I am pleading with you to consider a dynamic option for your church.  I want you to consider becoming a Ground Zero Church: a strong and healthy church that grows without stress, compromise, endless striving, or vicious competition.

Let’s define a Ground Zero Church.  It is the epicenter of God’s dealing for a region. They are a body of believers that have made the supreme covenant with God.  Here are the features of a Ground Zero Church:

1. They believe that God can do it here.  I wonder what would happen if we got a jumbo a jet loaded with fired up Bible College students going on a missionary trip. We take off out of Kennedy to go to Africa.  Instead, order the pilot to make very wide circles over the Atlantic for hours finally landing somewhere in New Jersey.  As soon as we get off, we are hustled into vans and dropped in Harlem.

I am convinced that they will raise the dead, save thousands and deliver many of demons and signs and wonders will abound just because they think they are overseas.

Many delude themselves into thinking it is because the poor are simple in faith and Americans are too sophisticated.  The Bible paints a much different picture.  In Acts, God blasted Saul of Tarsus the zealot intellectual God off his horse.  He became the chief architect of the New Testament Church.  It was in the house of Cornelius, a man of means and influence that the Holy Spirit first fell upon Gentiles.

2.  They allow the Holy Spirit transform their church into a zone of irresistible glory:   Paul described the overpowering effect a church gathering could have on the outside world: 1 Corinthians 14:24 “But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all. 25 And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you.”

When Matthew Henry commented on these verses he said “God can, when he pleases, strike awe upon the worst of men, by the tokens of his presence in the assemblies of the faithful, and force them to acknowledge that God is with them of a truth.”

lights over america

There are many examples of places that oozed God and dropped hardened sinners to their knees.

-A reporter from London came to Wales to investigate the Welsh revival.  The presence he felt when he entered Wales shocked him. He exclaimed, “This is a nation haunted by God!”

-During the Great Awakening, hardened sailors on clipper ships reported being seized with conviction of sin when they entered certain zones off the American coast.

3. They pull the trigger that God has hidden in their culture.    Throughout history, obedient missionaries who listened to God and observed the way that God had prepared a culture through history detonated revivals.   This gave them a supernatural relevance.

-700 B.C. plague kills one third of Athens. Epimenides, a teacher who believed there was one God orders the city leaders to sacrifice prize rams the plague stops.  They build an altar to the unknown God.  Paul pulls the trigger 744 years later, in Acts 17:23 “I even noticed that you have an altar to the unknown God, He whom you ignorantly worship, I openly proclaim!”

-Koreans had a name for God that did not come from any pagan religion.  White missionaries refused to call God by that name thinking it was compromise.  Finally, in prayer a man of God realized that this name was the result of a dealing of God in Korean history. The moment that He called God by this name revival exploded.

-The Lihue Indians wore knots of rope around their wrists.  Once, a missionary from England realized that this was a symbol for their slavery to sin. He preached that Christ cut these rope bands on the cross.  Pandemonium strikes as tens of thousands of the Lihue start sobbing and beg to have their bands cut off.

We cannot fear what our culture is like right now.  The Holy Spirit already has a message and a plan that is uniquely designed for this present darkness.

Fairfield card front copy (2)

OBAMA HAS LOST ALL CREDIBILITY BY MARIO MURILLO

new-york-times

OBAMA HAS LOST ALL CREDIBILITY

By Mario Murilllo

“Obama has lost all credibility.”  The New York Times said that.  Sit down, take a deep breath and consider what that means.   It is almost like a terrorist renouncing Allah.   No one and I mean no one has worshipped Obama like the New York Times.  They have bathed him in glorious immunity for even the most flagrant acts of arrogance and incompetence.

The New York Times is the proverbial she bear guarding her whelps, a she bear that viciously attacks anyone who would dare touch her love pup.  It is possible that even this bastion of protection has finally had enough of the tyranny?

Some vestiges of idol worship remain:  it seems that the original editorial read “Obama has lost all credibility.”  By morning it was softened to read “Obama has lost all credibility on this issue.”    However, that was no real comfort to the president who is used to Carte Blanc from the Gray Lady.

Here is an excerpt from their editorial:

“Within hours of the disclosure that federal authorities routinely collect data on phone calls Americans make, regardless of whether they have any bearing on a counterterrorism investigation, the Obama administration issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers: Terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us to deal with them because we have internal mechanisms (that we are not going to tell you about) to make sure we do not violate your rights.

The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it. That is one reason we have long argued that the Patriot Act, enacted in the heat of fear after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by members of Congress who mostly had not even read it, was reckless in its assignment of unnecessary and overbroad surveillance powers.

verizon spy blog copy

Based on an article in The Guardian published Wednesday night, we now know that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency used the Patriot Act to obtain a secret warrant to compel Verizon’s business services division to turn over data on every single call that went through its system. We know that this particular order was a routine extension of surveillance that has been going on for years, and it seems very likely that it extends beyond Verizon’s business division. 

Essentially, the administration is saying that without any individual suspicion of wrongdoing, the government is allowed to know whom Americans are calling every time they make a phone call, for how long they talk and from where.

The senior administration official quoted in The Times said the executive branch internally reviews surveillance programs to ensure that they “comply with the Constitution and laws of the United States and appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties.”

That’s no longer good enough. Mr. Obama clearly had no intention of revealing this eavesdropping, just as he would not have acknowledged the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, had it not been reported in the press.

We strongly object to using that power in this manner. It is the very sort of thing against which Mr. Obama once railed, when he said in 2007 that the surveillance policy of the George W. Bush administration “puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide.”

Even the New York Times agrees that Obama must be stopped.  How much more then should Christians wake up to this man?

As mystifying and objectionable as it might seem to me, there are still Pastors and Christians who will stand by Obama.  I will not judge their heart.    However, I cannot help but say that there is not a shred of justification for supporting Obama anymore.   There is, on the other hand, an overwhelming case for praying him out of office and working to protect our God given rights in the Constitution.   Wake up, speak up before it is too late.

-Mario Murillo

Student is Suspended and Arrested for Wearing NRA T-Shirt.

NRA Tee

After Student is Suspended and Arrested for Wearing NRA “Protect Your Rights,”

100 STUDENTS WEAR SHIRT TO SCHOOL!

AUTHOR John Hawkins

When Jared Marcum was suspended from school and arrested for wearing a NRA “Protect Your Rights” t-shirt, it drew national attention. Afterwards, the liberal bullies at Logan County Schools who thought they could get away with picking on a 14 year old kid started to become a lot more reasonable.

It didn’t hurt that video turned up that showed a teacher yelling at Jared for refusing to turn his shirt inside out, while his fellow students were chanting his name in support.

 Although the petulant school did not apologize or talk to Jared’s father, his suspension turned out to only be a day long.

The Marcum family, their lawyer Ben White and the gun rights group Sons of the Second Amendment didn’t just meekly accept the school’s non-apology.

Jared Marcum returned to school wearing the SAME SHIRT. Moreover, he was joined by a 100 other students wearing NRA “Protect Your Rights” shirts that were provided by Sons of the Second Amendment. None of them were suspended or arrested for wearing the shirts.

Additionally, although the charges against Jared Marcum have not been dropped, his lawyer said that, “My sense is that no charges will be imminent.”

Over the long haul, this may turn out to be a good thing. Jared Marcum learned the importance of standing up for himself, 100 students stepped up to the plate to support the 1st and 2nd Amendment and the bullies at Logan County Schools got an education in the importance of the First and Second Amendment that they apparently needed very badly. Freedom wins, political correctness loses. That’s just how it’s supposed to be.

Also see,

What if it is Al Qaeda? By Mario Murillo

What if it is Al Qaeda?  By Mario Murillo

boston-marathon-bombing-apr-2013

In the last 48 hours we have seen some insane reactions to the terror attack at the Boston Marathon:. Let me highlight what I believe are the two worst offenders:

-Actor and comedian Jay Mohr waded into the gun debate on Twitter after Monday’s deadly terrorist attacks at the Boston Marathon. “What bothers me most about today is that we’re getting used 2 it. ENOUGH. 2nd amendment must go. Violence has 2 stop. Culture MUST change,” the Jerry Maguire actor tweeted Monday night.”

Jay Mohr

Salon Magazine  “Let’s hope that the bomber is a white American.  There is a double standard: White terrorists are dealt with as lone wolves, Islamists are existential threats.  In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings — even though most come at the hands of white dudes.”- David Sirota

Another astonishing reaction to the bombing is the looting that was taking place right after the explosion that you can see on video below this blog.

How do you make the leap from a terrorist bombing to the Second Amendment?  How can you hope for a terrorist to be a certain race and nationality?  The answer is found in the nationwide mental fog of politically correct denial.

At the risk of seeming to be splitting hairs let me say that President Obama is guilty of a lesser form of this fog.  By calling the events in Boston a “tragedy” he sinks into the mire of half cures that would be disastrous at this time.  This was not a tragedy it was something far more sinister and evil.

Charles Krauthammer agreed that Obama was wrong to call the Boston Marathon bombing a tragedy. Krauthammer asserted that the Monday attack was “beyond a tragedy.” “Obama is not the first to use ‘tragedy’ in describing events like this,” Krauthammer observed. “A bus accident is a tragedy. An attack on a bus is a crime or it is an act of war. When FDR addressed the Congress after Pearl Harbor, he didn’t say ‘December 7, a day that will live in tragedy.’ He said ‘it is a day that will live in infamy.’ It has to do with agency and cause. I mean, an accident is a tragedy and it has a cause and has to do with fate, serendipity. An accident — luck.  “But when the agency is human evil — that is beyond a tragedy,” he continued. “It’s a crime.

Blaming this on “White dudes” or the Second Amendment shows how utterly unwilling we are to learn the lessons of 911 and to exercise the kind of resolve that we will need to make America safe.  Obama will not be able to keep us safe from terrorists with a mindset that would delegate this problem to FEMA.

A lot of the muttering you are hearing right know is because we know it may be Al Qaeda.  These timid voices just don’t want to make terrorists mad.  So again we will seek every other possible explanation while we are losing valuable time.  Even if it is confirmed that the terror network is involved, many will begin to encourage us to blame ourselves and what we may have done to the Arab world.

What if it is Al Qaeda? This is the question our leaders need to be taking very, very seriously right now and stop wasting valuable time trying to find the right political spin on this terrorist attack.

NEW YORK STATE BEGINS CONFISCATING GUNS FROM LAW ABIDING CITIZENS— HERE’S THE JUSTIFICATION BEING USED.

 

gun art

A FORM OF GUN CONFISCATION HAS REPORTEDLY BEGUN IN NEW YORK STATE — HERE’S THE JUSTIFICATION BEING USED

Apr. 9, 2013 6:30pm Mike Opelka

Despite promises from the president and a host of other politicians who are pushing for more gun control that nobody is coming for your guns, the confiscation of guns and gun permits has apparently started in some form in New York State. One attorney representing several people who have been forced to surrender their guns spoke with TheBlaze and alerted us to some disturbing facts:

  • Gun owners are losing their 2nd Amendment rights without due process.
  • HIPAA Laws are likely being compromised and the 4th and 5th Amendments are being violated in some of these cases

How did confiscation start happening so quickly? Apparently the gun grabbing was triggered by something inside the NY SAFE Act — New York’s new gun law — that has a provision apparently mandating confiscation of weapons and permits if someone has been prescribed psychotropic drugs.

This is curious because in his January 9th address, Cuomo specifically addressed the issue of confiscation:

The Case:

On April 1st, a legal gun owner in upstate New York reportedly received an official notice from the state ordering him to surrender any and all weapons to his local police department. The note said that the person’s permit to own a gun in New York was being suspended as well. The gun owner contacted attorney Jim Tresmond (a specialist in gun laws in New York) and the two visited the local police precinct.

 

Mr. Tresmond reportedly went into the precinct and informed the officers that his client, waiting in the parking lot, was coming in to voluntarily surrender his weapons as requested. The local police were aware of the letter because they had already been contacted by the State Police. Apparently, if people do not respond to the initial mailing, local law enforcement is authorized to visit the gun owner at their home and demand the surrender of the firearms. In this case, the gun owner followed the request as written. The guns and permits were handed over and a receipt given to the client.

After the guns were turned over, a request for a local hearing was filed and the gun owner is expecting to have his Second Amendment rights restored. But there is more to this story.

In our conversation with lawyer Jim Tresmond, we learned that this client, who has never had a problem with the law — no criminal record and or violent incidents on record — did have a temporary, short term health issue that required medication. But how were his client’s private medical information accessed by the government? This appears to be a violation of HIPAA and Health Information Privacy policies at HHS.gov. If it is declared a violation, this becomes a civil rights issue.

Some claim that a broad interpretation of this statement from HIPAA might allow the government to have instant access to the medical records and gun ownership records of anyone who is prescribed psychotropic drugs.

A major goal of the Privacy Rule is to assure that individuals’ health information is properly protected while allowing the flow of health information needed to provide and promote high quality health care and to protect the public’s health and well being.

That short phrase, “protect the public’s health and well being” is probably going to be cited as the reason governments can require notification of any gun owner who is prescribed a class of drugs used to treat Depression and Anxiety known as SSRI ( Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors).

The Mental Health Law provision of the SAFE Act claims

The NY SAFE Act is designed to remove firearms from those who seek to do harm to themselves or others. This means keeping the minority of individuals with serious mental illness who may be dangerous away from access to firearms. This law should not dissuade any individual from seeking mental health services they need.

The law is clear on what it expects:

MHL 9.46 requires mental health professionals to report to their local director of community services (“DCS”) or his/her designees when, in their reasonable professional judgment, one of their patients is “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others.”

The man who was asked/directed to turn over his guns reportedly did not exhibit any signs of violent or dangerous behavior. According to his attorney, the man’s doctor did not report any danger to the authorities. So, who did report it?

Also known as MHL 9.46, the law talks about who is supposed to report on mental health risks and which patients qualify:

  • The reporting requirement extends to “mental health professionals,” defined in the law as four professions – physicians (including psychiatrists), psychologists, registered nurses, or licensed clinical social workers.

In addition to what Mr. Tresmond called “the laughable diminution of our rights,” the lawyer speculated about additional unintended consequences of releasing this confidential patient information to law enforcement.

  • What if an employer learns that a worker had their firearms confiscated? Could that person’s employment be put at risk?
  • What if your neighbors saw police come to your home and leave with your guns? Could that compromise your safety?
  • Could this kind of confiscation also make people think twice about getting treatment for a temporary mental illness?

In an effort to learn how many permits and guns have been rescinded due to this medical exception, TheBlaze has made several attempts to contact the Erie County office over pistol permits where this one incident originated. We have yet to be connected with a real person who can answer these questions.

We have also reached out to the Albany office of the New York State Police, but no official response has been received.

Mr. Tresmond has also agreed to keep us posted on his client’s efforts to have his Second Amendment rights restored and get back his guns.

CNN The Most Trusted Name In News goes after guns.

On Tuesday, CNN didn’t just let their left-wing mask slip. What “The Most Trusted Name In News” chose to do instead was rip the mask completely off with a press release exposing the real reason behind the network’s decision to devote Wednesday to the issue of gun control — specifically, background checks.

CNN, POLITICS

CNN Plans Two-Day Special Report On Gun Background Checks

By Alex Weprin on April 9, 2013 2:36 PM

CNN is getting political hay during a two-day special report on firearms background checks. “Guns Under Fire: A CNN Special Report on Background Checks” will kick-off this evening on “AC360″ as Dana Bash interviews former Congresswoman Gabby GiffordsPiers Morgan and Wolf Blitzer will also discuss the issue on their respective shows.

Wednesday, the channel will present a number of special reports on background checks, including interviews and analysis on the issue (see all the reports after the jump). The reasoning behind the special report? “According to the latest polls, 9 out of 10 Americans support tougher background checks, so how is it that Congress can do nothing?” the channel says in a release.

If 90 Percent of Americans Support New Background Checks, How Can Congress Do Nothing?

Guns Under Fire: A CNN Special Report on Background Checks Highlights include Dana Bash’s Exclusive Interview with Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly

According to the latest polls, 9 out of 10 Americans support tougher background checks, so how is it that Congress can do nothing? CNN takes an in-depth look at the national conversation and the debate over new background checks with Guns Under Fire: A CNN Special Report on Background Checks. The special reports will begin on Tuesday, April 9 with Anderson Cooper 360º live from Washington and will continue across network platforms and programs on Wednesday, April 10.
CNN chief congressional correspondent Dana Bash sat down with former congresswoman Gabby Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly for an exclusive television interview, the first from inside their home in Tucson, Arizona. Bash will take viewers behind the scenes for a look at what Giffords’ life is like now, her road to recovery and the couple’s work on their newly formed gun-control organization. The interview will air on Tuesday, April 9 during Anderson Cooper 360º at 8 p.m. ET. In addition, Piers Morgan and Wolf Blitzer will focus on the impact background checks could play in reducing gun violence in their respective programs.
On Wednesday, CNN will unveil special reports to provide viewers with a comprehensive look at gun violence and the proposed legislation, including:
· National political correspondent Jim Acosta caught up with Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) to see how the politics of guns plays in her home state of Louisiana. Landrieu is undecided on background checks and faces a tough reelection battle in her state.
· Chief political analyst Gloria Borger will provide analysis of politics and polling data of background checks.
· Anchor Candy Crowley will write an essay for CNN.com: Are we moving toward federal gun registry?
· Anchor Chris Cuomo will walk viewers through the purchase of a gun and how pending legislation could change the purchase process.

· Correspondent Tom Foreman will breakdown the impact money plays in the issue of gun violence from the National Rifle Association to financing by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

· Crime and Justice correspondent Joe Johns will analyze the proposed legislation and whether it would have prevented tragedies in Newtown, Tucson, Aurora and Virginia Tech.

· Chief national correspondent John King will use the magic wall to illustrate how regional constituency could impact passage of background checks.

· Anchor and chief Washington correspondent Jake Tapper reports on why enforcing the existing gun laws is easier said than done: http://on.cnn.com/10FNZ1h

· CNN’s Nick Valencia will profile Los Angeles police officers, school principals and mental health experts tasked to keep tabs on teens who have proposed threats of shooting rampages.

· Chief White House correspondent Jessica Yellin will focus on the political capital of the Obama administration and if the president is able to move background check legislation through congress.

· CNNPolitics.com will feature these reports and more, including an explainer and timeline on background checks and the legislation being drafted in congress.

An exclusive bipartisan CNN/ ORC International poll on background checks, federal gun registry and other key issues will be released Wednesday.

Mario’s note:  If 90 Percent of Americans Support New Background Checks, How Can Congress Do Nothing?  Good question if you can trust CNN statistics.  Here is a video from CNN that tells a completely different story.

 

Time to stop the stupid

Blog gun

Time to stop the stupid.

U.N. passes sweeping international arms regulation viewed by some as Second Amendment override

By David Sherfinski

The Washington Times

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

 . The United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday signed off on a sweeping, first-of-its-kind treaty to regulate the international arms trade, brushing aside worries from U.S. gun rights advocates that the pact could lead to a national firearms registry and disrupt the American gun market.

The long-debated U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) requires countries to regulate and control the export of weaponry such as battle tanks, combat vehicles and aircraft and attack helicopters, as well as parts and ammunition for such weapons. It also provides that signatories will not violate arms embargoes, international treaties regarding illicit trafficking, or sell weaponry to a countries for genocide, crimes against humanity or other war crimes.

With the Obama administration supporting the final treaty draft, the General Assembly vote was 154 to 3, with 23 abstentions.

American gun rights activists, though, insist the treaty is riddled with loopholes and is unworkable in part because it includes “small arms and light weapons” in its list of weaponry subject to international regulations. They do not trust U.N. assertions that the pact is meant to regulate only cross-border trade and would have no impact on domestic U.S. laws and markets.

Critics of the treaty were heartened by the U.S. Senate’s resistance to ratifying the document, assuming President Obama sent it to the chamber for ratification. In its budget debate late last month, the Senate approved a nonbinding amendment opposing the treaty offered by Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, with eight Democrats joining all 45 Republicans backing the amendment

Connecticut lawmakers announced a deal Monday on what they called some of the toughest gun laws in the country that were proposed after the December mass shooting at a school in Newtown. Some highlights from the proposal:

—Ban sales of high-capacity ammunition magazines;

—Background checks for private gun sales;

—New registry for existing magazines that carry 10 or more bullets;

—Statewide dangerous weapon offender registry, which lawmakers said is the nation’s first;

—Immediate universal background checks for all firearms sales;

—Expansion of Connecticut’s assault weapons ban;

—Safety training and other requirements to buy any rifle, shotgun or ammunition;

—Increases minimum age eligibility for purchase of some semi-automatic rifles to 21;

— Expands requirements for safe storage of firearms;

— Increases penalties for firearms trafficking and illegal possession offenses.

And it gets even more stupid…

California lawmakers consider regulating, taxing ammunition

By Josh Richman

Photo of .22-long rifle cartages taken at The Gun Works in Pleasant Hill,… (DAN ROSENSTRAUCH)

Gun control advocates in Sacramento are putting a new twist on an old NRA slogan: “Guns don’t kill people — bullets kill people.”

Democratic lawmakers are pushing like never before to regulate or tax ammunition sales. They say the logic is simple: A firearm is nothing but an expensive paperweight without ammunition.

“We regulated gun sales because of our concern about safety, (so) by logical extension we should do so with bullets,” said state Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, whose AB48 will be heard Tuesday by the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

Gun-rights advocates are preparing a counter-offensive, arguing that ammunition-control bills are a not-so-back-door assault on the Second Amendment.

“It’s a way to red-tape the right to bear arms to death,” said Chuck Michel, the California Rifle and Pistol Association’s attorney, promising to sue if any such bills pass. “It’s all part of a campaign of shame, the fight to make it as difficult as possible for law-abiding citizens to make the choice to have a firearm for self-defense.”

As lawmakers mull how to curb gun violence in the wake of December’s massacre of school children in Newtown, Conn., some note that California and federal laws also forbid those who aren’t allowed to own firearms from owning ammunition — but there’s no way to tell who’s buying it.

Skinner’s bill would require all ammo dealers to be licensed and all ammo buyers to provide

identification information that would go to a state registry. The registry could then be compared with a state database of people prohibited from owning guns and ammo because of crimes, mental health issues or other reasons. It also would tip police to massive purchases. Another bill, SB53 by state Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, would require a background check and an estimated $50 fee for a one-year permit to buy ammunition. Bills in Congress similarly would require dealer licensing or buyer background checks, but those are no doubt dead on arrival in the Republican-led House.

Only Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey and the District of Columbia now require some sort of license to buy ammunition. New York passed a law in January requiring background checks for ammo purchases, but it hasn’t taken effect yet.

So even in California, where guns are heavily regulated, you can walk into a store, show ID to prove you’re at least 18 (or for handgun ammunition, 21), plunk down your money and walk out with a box of cartridges. Easier yet, you can buy all you want online.

Gun shops report ammo is flying off the shelves as gun owners worry about proposed new laws.

Assemblyman Rob Bonta said his AB187 — a

Photo of rifle cartridges taken at The Gun Works in Pleasant Hill, Calif., on Wednesday, March 27, 2013. National lawmakers ponder bills to regulate or tax ammunition. (Dan Rosenstrauch/Staff) ( DAN ROSENSTRAUCH )

10 percent tax on ammunition to fund crime prevention — might merge with another lawmaker’s proposed nickel-per-round tax to fund mental-health screening for children. Bonta, D-Oakland, said his tax is mostly about generating money to “combat the gun violence in our communities,” but could have the “secondary benefit” of stemming “rampant sales.” Yet he acknowledged it won’t be easy to pass, even with Democratic legislative supermajorities and recent Field Poll findings that 61 percent of California voters favor ammunition taxes and 75 percent favor background checks and permits for ammo purchases.

Because a new tax faces the hurdle of a two-thirds vote, “it’s a heavy lift,” Bonta said.

Some Democratic state lawmakers aren’t eager to discuss the bills. Of eight — five assemblymen and three state senators — who scored above zero on the National Rifle Association’s 2012 scorecard, only state Sen. Jim Beall, D-San Jose, would be interviewed for this story.

Beall said he’s not yet very familiar with the legislation but sees little reason for a state ammunition bureaucracy that would cost taxpayers money to create and maintain. “A lot of those bills probably won’t get through the Appropriations Committee” while education is a funding priority, he said.

California’s 2009 law requiring dealers to record all handgun ammunition sales remains in limbo after an appeals court ruled that it’s too ambiguous because some rounds can be used both in handguns and rifles. The bills now pending would affect all ammunition.

Mike Smith, co-owner of The Gun Works in Pleasant Hill, said the proposed bills would drown sellers in paperwork but have “zero” effect on crime because “criminals don’t buy ammunition; they steal it.”

As for the proposed ammo tax, he said, gun owners shouldn’t be compelled to pay extra for crime prevention.

“Bonta replied that firearms and ammunition taxes date back to 1919 and are “a perfectly responsible way to fund emergency services.”

“AB187 is on the right side of history.”

Proposed ammunition laws

In the California Legislature:

AB 48 by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley — Would require ammunition sellers to be licensed; ammunition purchasers to show identification; ammunition sellers to report all sales to the state Justice Department, which would create a registry of ammunition purchases. First hearing: April 2.
AB 187 by Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland — Would impose a 10 percent tax on all ammunition sold in the state, with the revenue directed to a fund for crime-prevention efforts in the state’s high-crime areas. No hearing date set.
AB 760 by Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento — Would impose a 5-cent tax on each bullet sold in California, dedicating the revenue to an existing program to screen young children for mild to moderate mental illness — and intervene with strategies to address their problems. First hearing: April 15.
SB 53 by state Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles — Would require anyone buying ammunition to first pass a background check and receive a one-year permit, for an estimated $50 fee, from the state Justice Department. First hearing: April 16.

In Congress:

S.35, the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2013, by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. — Would require face-to-face purchases of ammunition, require licensing of ammunition dealers and reporting of bulk purchases of ammunition. A companion bill in the House, HR142, is sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y.
S.174, the Ammunition Background Check Act of 2013, by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. — Would require an instant background check for the purchase of ammunition and would restore pre-1986 requirements that sellers track their inventory and keep records of their customers. Purchases of 1,000 rounds or more, or thefts of large amounts of ammunition, would have to be reported to law enforcement.

Time

Mario’s note:  The stupidity is not in the lawmakers.  They already know that none of these laws will prevent another Sandy Hook, or Batman shooting.  They know that they cannot waste a good crisis that can be used as an excuse to enlarge their control of the people.

Stupidity is in the willful ignorance of the general public on this and so many other power grabs that are going on right now.  People can get the facts and arm themselves with information.

Stupidity believes the Government defends rights.  Not a day goes by where we do not lose another right.  Government has no other skill but to invent rights in order to take away even more rights and to make sure that the right they are defending is not a right at all.  In the name of freedom, government takes away freedom and leaves a false freedom in its place.

Stupidity believes that government agencies today are looking out for our good.  Obamacare will make insurance worse, doctors worse, patient care worse and add misery to the poor.  From this point on everything that comes out of Washington is going to cost you more and give you less in return.   The only condition that is going to improve is the power and control of government.

Stupidity is supposing that either political party today is committed to your welfare.  Both sides of the aisle have caved into the larger momentum of government regulation of the everything we watch on television, hear on radio and soon they will tax and control the internet.

Stupidity is when Christians believe that a minister should not be speaking out because it is political .  What is happening to America left the world of politics on September 11, 2001.  At the very least a preacher of conscience would be calling the nation to repent and the believer to be strong against real enemies and not the imagined ones they blather about in their pulpits.

Wisdom gathers information, speaks up and fears not because God is in us and He will work through us.  Wisdom demands that every Christian demand that their church confront the issue of America and what is happening to our freedoms.er

1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammo For Homeland Security? It’s Time For A National Conversation

1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammo For Homeland Security? It’s Time For A National Conversation

Soldiers from the 41st Infantry Regiment, 1st ...Armored Personnel Carriers in Baghdad. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Denver Post, on February 15th, ran an Associated Press article entitled Homeland Security aims to buy 1.6b rounds of ammo, so far to little notice.  It confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security has issued an open purchase order for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition.  As reported elsewhere, much of this purchase order is for rounds forbidden by international law for use in war, along with a frightening amount specialized for snipers.  Also reported elsewhere, at the height of the Iraq War the Army was expending less than 6 million rounds a month.  1.6 billion rounds, therefore, would be enough to sustain a hot war for 20+ years.  In America.

Add to this perplexingly outré purchase of ammo, DHS now is showing off its acquisition of heavily armored personnel carriers, repatriated from the Iraqi and Afghani theaters of operation.  As observed by “paramilblogger” Ken Jorgustin last September:

“These MRAP’s ARE BEING SEEN ON U.S. STREETS all across America by verified observers with photos, videos, and descriptions.

“Regardless of the exact number of MRAP’s being delivered to DHS (and evidently some to POLICE via DHS, as has been observed), why would they need such over-the-top vehicles on U.S. streets to withstand IEDs, mine blasts, and 50 caliber hits to bullet-proof glass? In a war zone… yes, definitely. Let’s protect our men and women. On the streets of America… ?

“Seriously, why would DHS need such a vehicle on our streets?”

Why indeed?  It is utterly inconceivable that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is planning a coup d’etat against President Obama, and the Congress, to install herself as Supreme Ruler of the United States of America.  There, however, are real signs that the Department bureaucrats are running amok.  About 20 years ago this columnist worked, for two years, in the U.S. Department of Energy’s general counsel’s office in its procurement and finance division.  And is wise to the ways.   The answer to “why would DHS need such a vehicle?” almost certainly is this:  it’s a cool toy and these (reportedly) million dollar toys are being recycled, without much of a impact on the DHS budget.  So…why not?

Why, indeed, should the federal government not be deploying armored personnel carriers and stockpiling enough ammo for a 20-year war in the homeland?  Because it’s wrong in every way.  President Obama has an opportunity, now, to live up to some of his rhetoric by helping the federal government set a noble example in a matter very close to his heart (and that of his Progressive base), one not inimical to the Bill of Rights: gun control.  The federal government can (for a nice change)begin practicing what it preaches by controlling itself.

And … remember the … Sequester?  The president is claiming its budget cuts will inconvenience travelers by squeezing essential services provided by the (opulently armed and stylishly uniformed) DHS.  Quality ammunition is not cheap.  (Of course, news reports that DHS is about to spend $50 million on new uniforms suggests a certain cavalier attitude toward government frugality.)

Spending money this way is beyond absurd well into perverse.  According to the AP story a DHS spokesperson justifies this acquisition to “help the government get a low price for a big purchase.” Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center:  “The training center and others like it run by the Homeland Security Department use as many as 15 million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises.”

At 15 million rounds (which, in itself, is pretty extraordinary and sounds more like fun target-shooting-at-taxpayer-expense than a sensible training exercise) … that’s a stockpile that would last DHS over a century.  To claim that it’s to “get a low price” for a ridiculously wasteful amount is an argument that could only fool a career civil servant.

Meanwhile, Senator Diane Feinstein, with the support of President Obama, is attempting to ban 100 capacity magazine clips.  Doing a little apples-to-oranges comparison, here, 1.6 billion rounds is … 16 million times more objectionable.

Mr. Obama has a long history of disdain toward gun ownership.  According to Prof. John Lott, in Debacle, a book he co-authored with iconic conservative strategist Grover Norquist,

“When I was first introduced to Obama (when both worked at the University of Chicago LawSchool, where Lott was famous for his analysis of firearms possession), he said, ‘Oh, you’re the gun guy.’

“I responded: ‘Yes, I guess so.’

“’I don’t believe that people should own guns,’ Obama replied.

“I then replied that it might be fun to have lunch and talk about that statement some time.

“He simply grimaced and turned away. …

“Unlike other liberal academics who usually enjoyed discussing opposing ideas, Obama showed disdain.”

Mr. Obama?  Where’s the disdain now?  Cancelling, or at minimum, drastically scaling back — by 90% or even 99%, the DHS order for ammo, and its receipt and deployment of armored personnel carriers, would be a “fourfer.”

  • The federal government would set an example of restraint in the matter of weaponry.
  • It would reduce the deficit without squeezing essential services.
  • It would do both in a way that was palatable to liberals and conservatives, slightly depolarizing America.
  • It would somewhat defuse, by the government making itself less armed-to-the-teeth, the anxiety of those who mistrust the benevolence of the federales.

If Obama doesn’t show any leadership on this matter it’s an opportunity for. Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, to summon Secretary Napolitano over for a little … national conversation. Madame Secretary?  Buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammo and deploying armored personnel carriers runs contrary, in every way, to what  “homeland security” really means.  Discuss.