A Preference for Truth
Racial quotas are slowly losing their cover.
The noblest-sounding justification for racial preferences—that they lift up their beneficiaries—may soon be exposed as fraudulent. A group of law professors and economists examining the effect of law school admissions preferences on students’ bar-exam passage rates is suing the State Bar of California to obtain data for their study. The proposed research could deal a death blow to the quota regime by proving that affirmative action actually damages a student’s chances of becoming a lawyer. Predictably, the race industry has mobilized to crush the project.
Lead researcher Richard Sander has already earned the enmity of much of the law professoriate for his pioneering work on affirmative action in law schools. Almost all black students are admitted to law school with drastically lower college and LSAT grades than those of white and Asian students. After their first year of legal education, 51 percent of blacks are in the bottom tenth of their class; two-thirds are in the bottom fifth. Blacks are four times as likely as whites to fail the bar exam on their first try. Sander has drawn two conclusions from these data, first published in 2004: first, that blacks’ low qualifications entering law school predict their lagging performance in school and on the bar exam; second, that there would be more black lawyers if schools stopped extending preferences to black students—because these students would learn more in schools that matched their capabilities.
An advance guard of preference advocates furiously tried to discredit Sander’s “mismatch” hypothesis, without drawing much blood. But Sander himself admitted that the national data that he used for his 2004 study were imperfect; thus his effort to obtain the records of the California bar, which has the most extensive set of law student information in the country. It can link individual students’ college GPAs, LSAT scores, law school grades, and bar scores going back to 1973. Researchers would be able to compare, with an extraordinary degree of precision, the bar-passage rates of students admitted into elite schools via affirmative action with the rates of those with similar qualifications who attended less elite schools. When Sander and his colleagues approached the bar’s leaders and statisticians in 2005 about collaborating on a study, they got an enthusiastic response.
Then a platoon of law school deans paid the bar a little visit. Suddenly, the bar changed its tune. It threw up obstacle after obstacle, claiming that the study was an “anti-affirmative-action” ploy and would violate student privacy.
Both objections were ludicrous. Sander’s research team included skeptics of his mismatch theory as well as affirmative-action supporters, all of whom just happened to believe that any theory should be subjected to rigorous empirical testing. Sander has invited his many other critics to get involved in the study as well. His project had the backing of leading social scientists. As for privacy, only the bar’s chief researcher—who has conducted many analyses of student performance in the past without incurring any objections—would have access to students’ actual records. The research would make the data anonymous so that tracing any individual’s records would be impossible for anyone else.
Nevertheless, the legal establishment’s assault on Sander’s project continued. A group of activist law professors argued that the study would lend undue importance to the bar exam. (Law students will undoubtedly be relieved to learn of the exam’s insignificance.) A UCLA law professor launched an e-mail campaign to minority lawyers in California, portraying the research as a frightening invasion of their privacy. After a hearing process that failed to give Sander’s team any opportunity to respond to the critics’ charges, the bar’s board of governors voted in November 2007 to reject the research proposal. Sander is now suing the bar, which is a government body, under California’s public-information laws.
The racial preference regime has thrived in deliberate secrecy and duplicity, but it is gradually losing its cover. Against all expectations, Sander recently convinced the University of California that it had a legal obligation to share its records on undergraduate students’ incoming qualifications and subsequent performance. Though this data set is more generalized than what Sander seeks from the bar, it will likely buttress his mismatch theory and expose lingering preferences at the university, in violation of a 1996 voter initiative outlawing them. The lawsuit against the bar remains pending, but Sander expects to start releasing results from the UC study this fall. They promise to be explosive.
Heather Mac Donald is a contributing editor of City Journal and the John M. Olin Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Locked Down: Martial Law In America
This documentary will and should scare the hell out of you. This is coming the time to prepare is now. (4 parts)
Monday, December 8, 2008
Extensive List of Banned Books
Not all of these books are banned however most of them are quite rare and won't be found at your local library. Knowledge is power.
100 Documents on the Origin of the War (German White Book) 13.4MB
Andrew MacDonald - Hunter Another version below under "Hunter"
Andrew MacDonald - Turner Diaries Another version below under "Turner Diaries"
Animal Farm (George Orwell)
Antichrist (Nietzsche, 1895 tran. by Menken, 1920)
Assault on the Liberty (James M. Ennes, Jr., 1979) 12MB
Beast as Saint (Michael "Martin Luther" King expose)
Beria (1-page advertisement from the National Alliance)
Best of Attack and National Vanguard (National Alliance, 1984) 63MB
Big Book of Racialism (DOC file)
Blood and Soil (Anna Bramwell, 1985) A sympathetic study of Richard Walter Darre, the Nazi Agriculture Minister
Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin
Book of the Dead 26.4MB
British Guardian (9/1924, pub. by The Britons)
British Guardian (1/9/1925, pub. by The Britons)
Civil War Two (Thomas W. Chittum)
Cracks in the Constitution (mht file)
Death of a City (Michael McLaughlin)
Denying the Holocaust (Deborah Lipstadt)
Design of the Universe (Fritz Kahn, 1954) 40.5MB
Did Six Million Really Die? [ Compressed-page version ]
Enemy of Europe Yockey
Facts in the Case (Gov. Alfred E. Smith)
Facts the Government and Media Don't Want You to Know
Fame of a Dead Man's Deeds [ Compressed-page version ]
FBI MCSOT Terrorist Flyer: FRONT BACK
First They Came for the Arabs...
Forced War - When Peaceful Revision Failed (David Hoggan, 1961)
Freedom From War - Disarmament
From Major Jordan's Diaries 19.5MB
Germany's Hitler (Heinz A. Heinz) 11MB
Gothic Ripples (2/1988)
Gothic Ripples reprint (1986)
Gun Control in National Socialist Germany (Dr. William Pierce)
Hitler We Loved and Why (RTF)
Hoax of the Twentieth Century (2003) 13.2MB
Holy Book of Adolf Hitler (James Larratt Battersby, 1952)
Hussein - Ambassador Glaspie Interview
Icebreaker - Who Started the Second World War? (Viktor Suvorov, 1990)
Illuminati Proof of Conspiracy (Robison, 1798)
Imperium (Francis Parker Yockey; Intro by Prof. Oliver)
Impossible Dream (Heaton, 1990) 30MB
Inside Story of the Peace Conference (Dr. E.J. Dillon, 1920) 24.3MB
Jew as Criminal (Keller and Andersen, 1937; intro by Streicher)
Jewish Genocide of Armenian Christians (Bjerknes, 2006)
Jewish History, Jewish Religion
Jewish Religion and Its Influence Today (Elizabeth Dilling) [ HTML hot-linked version ] [ regular text PDF ]
Jews (Hilaire Belloc, 1922)
Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther)
Johannes Buxtorf Ch. 36 of The Jewish Synagogue on the Messiah from a 1657 English edition (with facsimiles)
Judaism in Music (Richard Wagner)
Judea Declares War on Germany (Barnes Review 2001)
Johann Andreas Eisenmenger, sein Werk und dessen Wirkung (1997)
Last Days of the Romanovs 16MB (another version, 7MB)
Latvia: Year of Horror 6.8MB
Lectures on the Holocaust (Germar Rudolf) 13.8MB
Leif Eriksson (German)
Life in the Third Reich (a speech by Friedrich Kurreck)
Made in Russia - the Holocaust (Carlos Porter) 18.3MB Better quality version is in HTML at the CWPorter Mirror (two2.htm)
Magna Carta This version has the Jew clauses, later redacted!
McCarthy and his Enemies (William F. Buckley, Jr.) 21.8MB
Mein Kampf - The Bible of the White Nationalist Movement
Why the Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday Should be Repealed (Mark Farrell)
Murder of Little Mary Phagan (Mary Phagan [grandniece], 1987)
Nameless War (A.H.M. Ramsay) The author was imprisoned for his views under Regulation 18b
New Order of Barbarians (tape transcriptions, Lawrence Dunegan and Randy Engel)
Occult Theocrasy (Lady Queenborough aka Edith Starr Miller) 10MB
One Sheaf, One Vine (Robert S. Griffin, 2004)
Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict
Origins of the Second World War (A.J.P. Taylor)
Origins of Christianity (Revilo P. Oliver)
Pasque di Sangue (in the original Italian) 13.7MB
Poisonous Mushroom (the Jew!) (Ernst Hiemer, with graphics)
Prominent False Witness: Elie Wiesel (Robert Faurisson, IHR, 1999). Includes Elie Wiesel: Messenger To All Humanity (L.A. Rollins, IHR, 1985)
Propaganda (Edward L. Bernays, 1928) from the father of "PR" (i.e., clever lying to serve a hidden agenda)
Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
Prussianism and Socialism (Oswald Spengler)
Queen Isabella includes material from William Thomas Walsh re. medieval Spanish Jews
Race and Reality (Carlton Putnam, 1967)
Race and Reason (Carlton Putnam, 1961)
Reds in America (R.M. Whitney, 1924) 17.4MB
Reichstag Fire (Fritz Tobias, 1964)
Revolt Against the Modern World (Julius Evola, 1969/95) 18MB
Ritual Murder - Myth or Reality?
Saddam Hussein (Nita M. Renfrew) 12.1MB
Saint Einstein 17.4MB
Secrets of the Federal Reserve (Eustace Mullins) [ another version ]
Silent Jew - The Timmerman Controversy
Six Million Reconsidered Vol. 1 (ed. by William N. Grimstad)
Slavery - What Really Happened
Special Treatment (Carlo Mattogno, 2004) 6.9MB
SS Race Theory and Mate Selection Guidelines
Stuka Pilot (Hans Ulrich Rudel) [ another version ]
Taguba Report (ZIP file)
Take Your Choice - Separation or Mongrelization (Theodore G. Bilbo, 1946)
They Dare to Speak Out (Paul Findley, 1985/9) 18MB
This Time the World (George Lincoln Rockwell) [ another version ]
Truth About 9-11 (Rev. Dr. Matt Hale)
Ultimate Solution (Eric Norden, 1973) Premise: All Jews have been annihilated from the Earth by the world-victorious Axis. Then evidence turns up that there is still a Jew alive in New York City. NY cops have to hunt him down. Unfortunately, the Nazis are shown here as homosexual (?!), but there's enough non-PC stuff going on here to keep it interesting.
Understanding Jurisdiction (DOC file)
Varange - The Life and Thought of Francis Parker Yockey (K.R. Bolton, 1998)
War is a Racket (USMC Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler)
White Power (George Lincoln Rockwell)
Who We Are (William Luther Pierce) A series of articles on the history of the White race
Women of the Far Right (Glen Jeansonne, 1996)
When Victims Rule 13.5MB
You Gentiles (Maurice Samuel)
You Shall Know Them by their Works and Words (Free Republic)
West, War and Islam (Ernst Zuendel)
Zebra - Black on White Hate Crimes in San Francisco (Clark Howard, 1979) 15MB
Zweites Buch (The Second Book of Adolf Hitler - sequel to Mein Kampf)
Friday, December 5, 2008
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Hawaii Hospitals Confirm Barack Hussein Wasn't Born There!
Currently, there are 16 cases in 12 states (with 2 before the Supreme Court) contending that Barack Obama is constitutionally ineligible to be sworn in as President of the United States.
Click below - lengthy post
Coming out of Chicago, 2 years 9 months ago, a 26 page report on the importance of getting rid of the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution
Quote:
Sarah P. Herlihy is employed by Kirkland & Ellis LLP http://www.kirkland.com . Note: this law firm is based in Chicago.
Bruce I. Ettelson, P.C. (aka PARTNER), is a Member of the finance committees for both U.S. Senators Barack Obama and Richard Durbin.Not the only partner with ties to their Harvard Senator. Chicago law firm... US Senators for Illinois... yeah, easy link.
Now, we can get into the new affidavits, or testimonies of ambassadors, or forensic experts that go under the psuedonym Dr Ron Polarik, but really, why bother? No one wants to send a guy guilty of forging a US birth certificate to jail for 15 years. Instead, lets focus on how in 2006, Obama's buddies felt it necessary to put together a 26 page dissertation why the "natural born" clause is the "stupidest provision."
Kirkland's specialty?
Quote:
Kirkland & Ellis has a 100-year history of providing exceptional service to clients around the world in complex litigation, corporate and tax, intellectual property, restructuring and counseling matters. The groundwork has been established for another century of superior legal work and client service. Where do they mention Constitutional law? Perhaps under "Other"...
The story that Atlas broke:
July 4, 2008 EXCLUSIVE: Atlas Tech Expert Declares Obama Birth Certificate Forgery
July 11, 2008 ATLAS EXCLUSIVE: FORENSIC EXPERT: "the [birth] certificate is still a horrible forgery"
July 20, 2008 ATLAS EXCLUSIVE: FINAL REPORT ON OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE FORGERY CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN
Duo take Obama birth challenge to Court
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
What Exactly is the Hub Bub Page.(hat tip Larwyn)
|
|
Stop the Obama Constitutional Crisis |
AmericansLegal Actions Across America:
|
Pennsylvania Case in Supreme Court now! |
California Case |
|
New Jersey Case in Supreme Court now! | California Case |
| Connecticut Case in Supreme Court now! |
|
|
Hawaii Case | Georgia Case |
|
North Carolina Class Action Case |
|
|
|
Ohio Case |
| ?Unconfirmed reports Florida Case |
Washington Case |
| ?Unconfirmed reports Utah Case |
|
| ?Unconfirmed reports Wyoming Case |
Carol Greenberg 
Other cases that weren't cases:
| Lan Lamphere Patriot Brigade Case | David Archbold California Case |
| Wild Bill UPDATE 11/19 Virginia Case | Dan Smith UPDATE 11/18 New York Case |
The NRA On It's Deathbed
Original Article
Last month, voters across the country took a cue from the late Charlton Heston and pried the assault weapon from the NRA's cold, dead hands.
Although the gun group unleashed everything in its arsenal to defeat Barack Obama and dozens of down ticket gun-control candidates, it lost by a margin as historic as the war chest it opened in an attempt to convince voters that Democrats were mortal enemies of the Second Amendment. Despite expending nearly $7 million in a national fear campaign, NRA-endorsed candidates lost 80 percent of their races against gun-control candidates. More than 90 percent of candidates endorsed by the NRA's nemesis, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, won their races. If 2008 was, in the NRA's own words, "arguably the most important year in its history," then the election results suggest that the gun group is arguably the most overhyped and impotent special-interest lobby in the country. The NRA even got its chamber cleaned in its home state of Virginia.
The sweeping victory for gun control has been one of the most underreported stories of the election. This is largely because it was immediately overshadowed by the trendy postelection narrative of spiking gun sales and runs on assault weapons. In recent weeks, it seems as if every TV news program and newspaper in the country has featured some variation on the following story: Anxious Americans are cleaning out their local gun stores in anticipation of a.) Barack Obama's radical anti-gun agenda; b.) social chaos engendered by economic collapse; or c.) both.
No doubt thousands of paranoid gun owners have purchased Glocks and AR-15 assault rifles out of such fears. And it is true that the economic crisis has fueled an interest in personal protection and even Northern Idaho-style survivalism. But sensational stories about booming holiday-season gun sales obscure a more profound phenomenon: the coalescence of a new consensus, joined by the majority of the nation's gun owners, in favor of what gun controllers call "commonsense reform." A subtext of this phenomenon is the evaporation, first witnessed in 2006 and reinforced last month, of the idea that guns are a sure thing conservative wedge issue.
Nobody can accuse Obama of campaigning dishonestly on the issue of gun control. The nation's first modern urban president repeatedly explained that his understanding of the Second Amendment included the need for restrictions aimed at reducing gun violence, especially in the cities. In a sign that he intended to win on the issue by shooting straight with voters, he even mentioned his gun-control agenda during his Denver acceptance speech, challenging the idea that gun control was a third rail that guaranteed defeat in states like Ohio and Virginia.
As codified in his urban policy platform, Obama consistently advocated for increasing law enforcement's ability to trace guns by reinstituting tracking legislation repealed by the Bush administration; closing the famous "gun show loophole" that allows gun buyers to avoid background checks; mandating additional safety features on U.S.-manufactured guns; and resurrecting the expired ban on assault weapons and making it permanent.
Needless to say, every plank of this agenda is vigorously opposed by the NRA (spokespersons for whom did not return repeated requests for comment).
Gun control is not a front-burner issue for an incoming administration faced with economic crisis and two wars, but the NRA is right to be worried. Not only do Obama and Biden have strong gun control records, the incoming attorney general is a one-man gun control lobby unto himself. As deputy A.G. in the Clinton administration, Eric Holder advocated federal licensing requirements for handguns, a three-day waiting period on some gun sales and rationing handgun sales to no more than one per month. More recently, he signed an amicus brief in support of the District of Columbia's handgun ban when it came before the Supreme Court. The conservative site newsmax.com calls Holder a "gun control nightmare."
The NRA is going to have a hard time persuading America that it should awake from this nightmare. Not only do majorities support these strictures, the gun lobby recently lost one of its most effective arguments. When the Supreme Court decided in June in favor of individual gun rights in District of Colombia v. Heller, it settled the nagging question about whether the Constitution protected the right of an individual to own a gun, or whether that right only existed in the context of public militias. While in one sense Heller was a major victory for the gun lobby, it also deprived it of the legal ambiguity that allowed it to bludgeon gun owners with the idea that any gun-control law would inevitably lead to ATF SWAT teams -- or, in the case of NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, U.N. blue helmets -- taking away all of their guns. Crucially, the decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, stated that "[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
"Heller legally established the middle ground that we have long advocated," says Daniel R. Vice, senior attorney with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "It basically said the government could regulate guns in public while guaranteeing the right to private ownership. It obliterates the NRA's 'slippery slope' argument that any gun law [could someday] lead to the government taking away your guns."
There is more bad news for the post-Charlton Heston NRA. Along with losing its scariest tactic and the aura of being able to swing elections (and thus scare Democrats away from championing gun control), it is also being challenged on its long-held assumption that it and it alone speaks for America's gun owners and hunters. A couple of years ago, the American Hunters and Sharpshooters Association was launched by Ray Schoenke, a pro-gun-control hunter, sportsman and liberal Democrat, to create an alternative home for those who support the Second Amendment as well as gun control. Along with advocating "commonsense" gun law reform, Schoenke's group backs strong environmental-protection laws in defense of hunting and fishing lands. The contradiction between the NRA's purported love of the outdoors lifestyle and its alliance with reactionary anti-environment politicians has long been the organization's soft underbelly, ripe for attack. Schoenke's group is going after it.
"I've been saying for years that Democrats shouldn't cede the gun vote to the NRA," says Schoenke. "There are over 80 million gun owners in the U.S., and fewer than 3 million belong to that group. They do not speak for all of us -- especially those of us who are Democrats, progressives and conservationists."
Not surprisingly, the NRA dismisses the AHSA as a sham left-wing project that gives cover to anti-gun politicians posing as friends of hunters. "[ASHA is nothing more than] an effort to mislead and divide the gun-owning community and to dilute gun owners' political impact," fumed an NRA blogger shortly before last month's election, when AHSA's Schoenke was touring states like Ohio and Minnesota in support of Barack Obama. "Anti-gun activists are creat[ing] new organizations with names designed to confuse gun owners and hide the real agenda."
While the AHSA does still have the feel of a letterhead organization, it is possible that it could one day begin to rival the NRA for membership and stature among gun owners. For the NRA, the realization that not all gun owners are Second Amendment absolutists who take NRA political ratings as voting guides must be maddening. The frustration will only deepen in the coming years, as commonsense gun-control legislation is crafted and passed with public support.
Until then, the NRA will continue to believe it speaks for America's gun owners, threatening its lobbying wrath on any politician who tries to restrict the right of Americans to buy and sell whatever guns they like, in secrecy and without a paper trail. As the new gun laws go into effect, the group can be expected to increase the pitch of its warnings about impending fascism and the dark shadow of the United Nations. The question is whether anybody will be listening.
Last month, voters across the country took a cue from the late Charlton Heston and pried the assault weapon from the NRA's cold, dead hands.
Although the gun group unleashed everything in its arsenal to defeat Barack Obama and dozens of down ticket gun-control candidates, it lost by a margin as historic as the war chest it opened in an attempt to convince voters that Democrats were mortal enemies of the Second Amendment. Despite expending nearly $7 million in a national fear campaign, NRA-endorsed candidates lost 80 percent of their races against gun-control candidates. More than 90 percent of candidates endorsed by the NRA's nemesis, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, won their races. If 2008 was, in the NRA's own words, "arguably the most important year in its history," then the election results suggest that the gun group is arguably the most overhyped and impotent special-interest lobby in the country. The NRA even got its chamber cleaned in its home state of Virginia.
The sweeping victory for gun control has been one of the most underreported stories of the election. This is largely because it was immediately overshadowed by the trendy postelection narrative of spiking gun sales and runs on assault weapons. In recent weeks, it seems as if every TV news program and newspaper in the country has featured some variation on the following story: Anxious Americans are cleaning out their local gun stores in anticipation of a.) Barack Obama's radical anti-gun agenda; b.) social chaos engendered by economic collapse; or c.) both.
No doubt thousands of paranoid gun owners have purchased Glocks and AR-15 assault rifles out of such fears. And it is true that the economic crisis has fueled an interest in personal protection and even Northern Idaho-style survivalism. But sensational stories about booming holiday-season gun sales obscure a more profound phenomenon: the coalescence of a new consensus, joined by the majority of the nation's gun owners, in favor of what gun controllers call "commonsense reform." A subtext of this phenomenon is the evaporation, first witnessed in 2006 and reinforced last month, of the idea that guns are a sure thing conservative wedge issue.
Nobody can accuse Obama of campaigning dishonestly on the issue of gun control. The nation's first modern urban president repeatedly explained that his understanding of the Second Amendment included the need for restrictions aimed at reducing gun violence, especially in the cities. In a sign that he intended to win on the issue by shooting straight with voters, he even mentioned his gun-control agenda during his Denver acceptance speech, challenging the idea that gun control was a third rail that guaranteed defeat in states like Ohio and Virginia.
As codified in his urban policy platform, Obama consistently advocated for increasing law enforcement's ability to trace guns by reinstituting tracking legislation repealed by the Bush administration; closing the famous "gun show loophole" that allows gun buyers to avoid background checks; mandating additional safety features on U.S.-manufactured guns; and resurrecting the expired ban on assault weapons and making it permanent.
Needless to say, every plank of this agenda is vigorously opposed by the NRA (spokespersons for whom did not return repeated requests for comment).
Gun control is not a front-burner issue for an incoming administration faced with economic crisis and two wars, but the NRA is right to be worried. Not only do Obama and Biden have strong gun control records, the incoming attorney general is a one-man gun control lobby unto himself. As deputy A.G. in the Clinton administration, Eric Holder advocated federal licensing requirements for handguns, a three-day waiting period on some gun sales and rationing handgun sales to no more than one per month. More recently, he signed an amicus brief in support of the District of Columbia's handgun ban when it came before the Supreme Court. The conservative site newsmax.com calls Holder a "gun control nightmare."
The NRA is going to have a hard time persuading America that it should awake from this nightmare. Not only do majorities support these strictures, the gun lobby recently lost one of its most effective arguments. When the Supreme Court decided in June in favor of individual gun rights in District of Colombia v. Heller, it settled the nagging question about whether the Constitution protected the right of an individual to own a gun, or whether that right only existed in the context of public militias. While in one sense Heller was a major victory for the gun lobby, it also deprived it of the legal ambiguity that allowed it to bludgeon gun owners with the idea that any gun-control law would inevitably lead to ATF SWAT teams -- or, in the case of NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, U.N. blue helmets -- taking away all of their guns. Crucially, the decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, stated that "[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
"Heller legally established the middle ground that we have long advocated," says Daniel R. Vice, senior attorney with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "It basically said the government could regulate guns in public while guaranteeing the right to private ownership. It obliterates the NRA's 'slippery slope' argument that any gun law [could someday] lead to the government taking away your guns."
There is more bad news for the post-Charlton Heston NRA. Along with losing its scariest tactic and the aura of being able to swing elections (and thus scare Democrats away from championing gun control), it is also being challenged on its long-held assumption that it and it alone speaks for America's gun owners and hunters. A couple of years ago, the American Hunters and Sharpshooters Association was launched by Ray Schoenke, a pro-gun-control hunter, sportsman and liberal Democrat, to create an alternative home for those who support the Second Amendment as well as gun control. Along with advocating "commonsense" gun law reform, Schoenke's group backs strong environmental-protection laws in defense of hunting and fishing lands. The contradiction between the NRA's purported love of the outdoors lifestyle and its alliance with reactionary anti-environment politicians has long been the organization's soft underbelly, ripe for attack. Schoenke's group is going after it.
"I've been saying for years that Democrats shouldn't cede the gun vote to the NRA," says Schoenke. "There are over 80 million gun owners in the U.S., and fewer than 3 million belong to that group. They do not speak for all of us -- especially those of us who are Democrats, progressives and conservationists."
Not surprisingly, the NRA dismisses the AHSA as a sham left-wing project that gives cover to anti-gun politicians posing as friends of hunters. "[ASHA is nothing more than] an effort to mislead and divide the gun-owning community and to dilute gun owners' political impact," fumed an NRA blogger shortly before last month's election, when AHSA's Schoenke was touring states like Ohio and Minnesota in support of Barack Obama. "Anti-gun activists are creat[ing] new organizations with names designed to confuse gun owners and hide the real agenda."
While the AHSA does still have the feel of a letterhead organization, it is possible that it could one day begin to rival the NRA for membership and stature among gun owners. For the NRA, the realization that not all gun owners are Second Amendment absolutists who take NRA political ratings as voting guides must be maddening. The frustration will only deepen in the coming years, as commonsense gun-control legislation is crafted and passed with public support.
Until then, the NRA will continue to believe it speaks for America's gun owners, threatening its lobbying wrath on any politician who tries to restrict the right of Americans to buy and sell whatever guns they like, in secrecy and without a paper trail. As the new gun laws go into effect, the group can be expected to increase the pitch of its warnings about impending fascism and the dark shadow of the United Nations. The question is whether anybody will be listening.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Banning Ammo
URGENT:
The bill that is being pushed in 18 states (including Illinois and Indiana) requires all ammunition to be encoded by the manufacturer in a database of all ammunition sales. So they will know how much you buy and what calibers. Nobody can sell any ammunition after June 30, 2009 unless the ammunition is coded.
Any privately held uncoded ammunition must be destroyed by July 1, 2011 (including hand loaded ammo). They will also charge a .05-cent tax on every round so every box of ammo you buy will go up at least $2.50 or more!
If they can deprive you of ammo they do not need to take your gun!
This legislation is currently pending in 18 states: Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington.
To find more about the anti-gun group that is sponsoring this legislation and the specific legislation for each state, go to:
http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm
Make sure you contact the Congressman from your state!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)