 The U.N.'s controversial climate report is coming under fire -- again -- this time by one of its own scientists, who admits he can't find any evidence to support a warning about a climate-caused North African food shortage.The U.N.'s controversial climate report is coming under fire -- again -- this time by one of its own scientists, who admits he can't find any evidence to support a warning about a climate-caused North African food shortage. The statement comes from a key 2007 report to the U.N., and asserts that by 2020 yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50% in some African countries thanks to climate change. Read the rest at FoxNews |
Monday, February 8, 2010
More False Data Issued By IPCC?
Sunday, February 7, 2010
The Misuse Of Jefferson's "Wall of Separation"
If you spend a modicum of attention to the news, particularly during Christmas, no doubt you will hear something come up about some group or another complaining that a Christmas tree in an airport, or a nativity scene displayed in a library window is a violation of "Separation of Church and State." It's inevitable. This clause is always invoked when these types of issues come up and it's misused and abused by people who don't do a little reading about it.
First, let's read the First Amendment
This applies to the federal government not the individual states.
The Founding Fathers were between a rock and a hard place on the issue of freedom of religion; how does the new government allow religious freedom and equality, but ensure that the federal government doesn't establish a national religion? What many don't know is that when the country was founded, there were already seven states that adopted a "state" religion, preventing many people from fully exercising their religious freedoms.
Justice Joseph Story explains in his Commentaries on the Constitution why the Founding Fathers decided to completely remove the federal government on the issue of religion and allowing the states to deal with those issues themselves.
This is the reason why the Founders decided that Congress shall make NO law respecting ANY one religion, religious establishment, or making any law preventing the free exercise thereof. If they had decided otherwise, there would have been enormous civil unrest.
During his travels in the newly formed America, Alexis de Tocqueville noted that schools incorporated core beliefs of religion along side other academic teachings. He noted that in New England, "every citizen receives the elementary notions of human knowledge; he is taught, moreover, the doctrines and the evidences of his religion, the history of his country, and the leading features of its Constitution...".
He also noticed a bond resonating from the various churches. He observed that the clergy was fervent to uphold the separation of church and state, yet as a whole have an impact on the morals and customs of every day public life, which, in turn, showed itself when formulating new laws. Alexis de Tocqueville also noted that the clergy didn't hold any political office and were not even represented in any assemblies. This was completely unheard of in Europe where the clergy always belonged to a national church and occupied offices of power.
What de Tocqueville realized during his tour of the newly formed country, was that the clergy removed itself from politics because in their view it was beneath them. However, they also believed that it was their solemn duty to deliver the message of religious principles to the people. Not doing so would put America's freedom and political security at risk.
In terms of religion, the Founders wanted to do something that no other country on earth achieved: To give LEGAL equality to ALL religions, including non-Christians. Recalling the seven states that already established a state religion, these would have to be dissolved and Jefferson tried that in Virginia in 1776, but wasn't actually completed until 1786. Patrick Henry, on the other hand, made an attempt in 1784 to introduce a bill (Provision For Teachers of the Christian Religion) that would have allowed taxpayers to designate which society of Christians their money should go to.
This was counter intuitive to what the Founders had in mind causing James Madison to fire back with his famous Memorial and Remonstrance. Madison argued that the stated goal was to give legal rights to all religions and the government should not show preference of one over others:
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were the two Founders that spearheaded the issue of church and state. Their intent was to completely remove the federal government and at the same time give all religions equality in the law on a national level. During the Virginia conference Madison stated, "There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation."
And Thomas Jefferson took the same stance when he wrote the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, "Resolved that it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the Amendments to the Constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’; and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people..."
He also went further by making it crystal clear that the Supreme Court was also to be excluded from the jurisdiction of religion. He understood that the Supreme Court's role in the federal government was to act as a sentinel to safeguard the Constitution, not to get involved with making laws and interfering with the individual states. He wrote, "And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another & more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the constitution which expressly declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,’ thereby guarding in the same sentence, & under the same words, the freedom of religion of speech & of the press: insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood & defamation, equally with heresy & false religion, ARE WITHHELD FROM THE COGNISANCE OF FEDERAL TRIBUNALS..." (Emphasis added).
Remember that the intent of the First Amendment is to remove the federal government from religious issues of the individual states. When Thomas Jefferson was on the Virginia State legislature, he was among a group that drafted a bill to have a day of fasting and prayer. However, when he was elected president, he stated unequivocally that the federal government had NO authority to proclaim ANY religious holidays.
This is where the famous "wall of separation between church and state." came from. On January 1, 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association explaining his position on the matter:
Note the operative phrase, "that act of the WHOLE American people which declared THAT THEIR legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This is a plural use in the sense that he was referring to the federal government, not the individual states. Recall the bill he submitted when he was in the state legislature and what he said when he became president.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has either forgotten their role in the three branches of government or they just don't care. They have taken it upon themselves to misuse Thomas Jefferson's metaphor to meddle in states' religious affairs and have forced others to take the same "hands off" stance. This was not the intent of our Founding Fathers and it only applied to the federal government.
When you read the statements of Jefferson, as well as his actions, you begin to see the obvious distortion of his statement to the Danbury Baptist Association. Remember that it was Madison and Jefferson who said that the states had sole authority of religion and that any state giving preference to any one religious establishment should be dissolved. Other Founding Fathers joined and emphasized that ALL religions were to be encouraged to foster the moral fiber, as well as the tone of the people. This would have been impossible if there were a "wall" between church and state on the state level. His statement was intended ONLY for the federal government.
References cited:
Joseph Story Commentaries
Virginia Ratifying Convention
Kentucky Resolution of 1798
Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association
Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville
Memorial and Remonstrance by James Madison
The Papers of Thomas Jefferson vol 30. January 1, 1798 - January 31, 1799
First, let's read the First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This applies to the federal government not the individual states.
The Founding Fathers were between a rock and a hard place on the issue of freedom of religion; how does the new government allow religious freedom and equality, but ensure that the federal government doesn't establish a national religion? What many don't know is that when the country was founded, there were already seven states that adopted a "state" religion, preventing many people from fully exercising their religious freedoms.
Justice Joseph Story explains in his Commentaries on the Constitution why the Founding Fathers decided to completely remove the federal government on the issue of religion and allowing the states to deal with those issues themselves.
"It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic, as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject. The situation, too, of the different states equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity of such an exclusion. In some of the states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others, presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship."
This is the reason why the Founders decided that Congress shall make NO law respecting ANY one religion, religious establishment, or making any law preventing the free exercise thereof. If they had decided otherwise, there would have been enormous civil unrest.
During his travels in the newly formed America, Alexis de Tocqueville noted that schools incorporated core beliefs of religion along side other academic teachings. He noted that in New England, "every citizen receives the elementary notions of human knowledge; he is taught, moreover, the doctrines and the evidences of his religion, the history of his country, and the leading features of its Constitution...".
He also noticed a bond resonating from the various churches. He observed that the clergy was fervent to uphold the separation of church and state, yet as a whole have an impact on the morals and customs of every day public life, which, in turn, showed itself when formulating new laws. Alexis de Tocqueville also noted that the clergy didn't hold any political office and were not even represented in any assemblies. This was completely unheard of in Europe where the clergy always belonged to a national church and occupied offices of power.
What de Tocqueville realized during his tour of the newly formed country, was that the clergy removed itself from politics because in their view it was beneath them. However, they also believed that it was their solemn duty to deliver the message of religious principles to the people. Not doing so would put America's freedom and political security at risk.
In terms of religion, the Founders wanted to do something that no other country on earth achieved: To give LEGAL equality to ALL religions, including non-Christians. Recalling the seven states that already established a state religion, these would have to be dissolved and Jefferson tried that in Virginia in 1776, but wasn't actually completed until 1786. Patrick Henry, on the other hand, made an attempt in 1784 to introduce a bill (Provision For Teachers of the Christian Religion) that would have allowed taxpayers to designate which society of Christians their money should go to.
This was counter intuitive to what the Founders had in mind causing James Madison to fire back with his famous Memorial and Remonstrance. Madison argued that the stated goal was to give legal rights to all religions and the government should not show preference of one over others:
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were the two Founders that spearheaded the issue of church and state. Their intent was to completely remove the federal government and at the same time give all religions equality in the law on a national level. During the Virginia conference Madison stated, "There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation."
And Thomas Jefferson took the same stance when he wrote the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, "Resolved that it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the Amendments to the Constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’; and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people..."
He also went further by making it crystal clear that the Supreme Court was also to be excluded from the jurisdiction of religion. He understood that the Supreme Court's role in the federal government was to act as a sentinel to safeguard the Constitution, not to get involved with making laws and interfering with the individual states. He wrote, "And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another & more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the constitution which expressly declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,’ thereby guarding in the same sentence, & under the same words, the freedom of religion of speech & of the press: insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood & defamation, equally with heresy & false religion, ARE WITHHELD FROM THE COGNISANCE OF FEDERAL TRIBUNALS..." (Emphasis added).
Remember that the intent of the First Amendment is to remove the federal government from religious issues of the individual states. When Thomas Jefferson was on the Virginia State legislature, he was among a group that drafted a bill to have a day of fasting and prayer. However, when he was elected president, he stated unequivocally that the federal government had NO authority to proclaim ANY religious holidays.
This is where the famous "wall of separation between church and state." came from. On January 1, 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association explaining his position on the matter:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the WHOLE AMERICAN people which declared THAT THEIR legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
Note the operative phrase, "that act of the WHOLE American people which declared THAT THEIR legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This is a plural use in the sense that he was referring to the federal government, not the individual states. Recall the bill he submitted when he was in the state legislature and what he said when he became president.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has either forgotten their role in the three branches of government or they just don't care. They have taken it upon themselves to misuse Thomas Jefferson's metaphor to meddle in states' religious affairs and have forced others to take the same "hands off" stance. This was not the intent of our Founding Fathers and it only applied to the federal government.
When you read the statements of Jefferson, as well as his actions, you begin to see the obvious distortion of his statement to the Danbury Baptist Association. Remember that it was Madison and Jefferson who said that the states had sole authority of religion and that any state giving preference to any one religious establishment should be dissolved. Other Founding Fathers joined and emphasized that ALL religions were to be encouraged to foster the moral fiber, as well as the tone of the people. This would have been impossible if there were a "wall" between church and state on the state level. His statement was intended ONLY for the federal government.
References cited:
Joseph Story Commentaries
Virginia Ratifying Convention
Kentucky Resolution of 1798
Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association
Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville
Memorial and Remonstrance by James Madison
The Papers of Thomas Jefferson vol 30. January 1, 1798 - January 31, 1799
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Landrieu To Critics and Constituants - KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT
ABC News: The Democratic Senator from Louisiana has had about enough of people criticizing the clause she helped put into the Senate version of health care reform and she took to the Senate floor today, giving a fiery defense of special funding for Louisiana that Republicans have derisively nicknamed “the Louisiana Purchase” – implying the language was put in to buy Landrieu’s vote. Today on the Senate floor, Landrieu her naysayers to “keep their mouth shut.”
Read the rest at ABC
Read the rest at ABC
Friday, February 5, 2010
Glenn Beck - The Gift That Keeps On Giving
Glenn Beck, yet again, is the topic of discussion on the lamestream media talk shows. You would think that he's Jason, Freddie Kruger, Hannibal Lector and Voldemort wrapped into one person. At any rate, Joy Behar has got to be one of the stupidest, moronic or the most willingly ignorant people that I've seen on TV. Until this exchange between Behar and Lizz Winstead took place on her show and convinced me that there are now four: Keith Olberman, Ed Schultz, Joy Behar and now Lizz Winstead. Well, there is Arianna Huffington, but she doesn't count because she doesn't have a television show, thank God."He should be institutionalized. First of all Glenn Beck, why is he even on television? I think it's somehow abusive to have Glenn Beck on TV because he seems mentally unstable."
So, the First Amendment doesn't apply to Glenn Beck because he is a kook that cooks up conspiracy theories and, according to another erudite individual, says the president wants to "slaughter" Americans? Not to mention that he is a shill for the Republican Party.
What jumps out at me is the fact that nowhere in this elitist exchange do they even make an attempt to refute any of Glenn Beck's claims and conspiracy theories. I wonder why that would be? Oh, I know. It's because they can't, so they would rather strip Beck's right to free speech.
Let's see. Keith Olberman on MessNBC said of Scott Brown, "In short, in Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees. In any other time in our history, this man would have been laughed off the stage as an unqualified and a disaster in the making by the most conservative of conservatives. Instead, the commonwealth of Massachusetts is close to sending this bad joke to the Senate of the United States."
And Ed Schultz said this, "And I'm inviting the drug-ridden scumbag, Rush Limbaugh, on The Ed Show to debate me on any topic! He won't do it because he's a drug addict and he's a coward, a complete coward. Plus he probably couldn't hear me if he was on The Ed Show...C'mon you fat pig. Let's get it on. I'm getting ratings without you. Hell, I'm doing you a favor. C'mon, Rush! Let's get it on! Get out of your compound down there. Get away from your drugs. Go see the doctor and get some hearing. Maybe you could pick up a 19th girlfriend. Maybe you could try marriage again. By the way, Rush, you got any kids? Oh, you're out of the mainstream!"
So, Keith Olberman and Ed Schultz's language is covered under the First Amendment, but, Glenn Beck's is not?
To say that the lame stream media, such as MessNBC, was complicit in campaigning for Obama isn't a stretch, particularly when Tina Brown and Howard Kurtz admitted it, "No, Obama got the best press known to man. Let's face it." And Kurtz added, "In the history of civilization."
And let's not forget that every time John Edwards was discussed on these "objective" talk shows, not one time did they ever refer to him as a democrat.
So, who's shilling for who? And what of the rumors that Olby's show is set to be canceled? If this is true, I'll bet it has something to do with a 44% drop in ratings and, I'll wager, that your show isn't fairing to well either.
Yet, Glenn Beck is well known for pummeling both republicans and democrats, if one watches his show or listens to it, they would know that he has railed on Lindsey Graham and John McCain, among other progressives. Of course, we all know that Joy Behar is objective in her reasoning:
Joy Behar made a living being "funny" and it's any wonder why she didn't go broke, because funny she's not. What she basically said was nothing short of echoing Margaret Sanger's idea of eugenics, which, incidentally, was taken up by the Nazi Party.
But, there is one question I have for Lizz Winstead, "Why is it that Glenn Beck's show on FoxNews alone is crushing the other news networks over 10 fold combined?" Why do you think that his show has surpassed Sean Vannity's and is quickly catching up to Bill O'Reilly's? Why has he been selected as the second most popular person on television?
Okay, that was more than one. Who's counting?
Glenn Beck has done more to reawaken Americans' interest in politics and our history than anyone else on network television and we are wide awake. You would rather rewrite our history and indoctrinate. And it frightens you, Lizz. I think it shakes you to your bones, because now that we are awake, liars like Obama and his ilk are in danger of losing come November and 2012.
Glenn Beck has become FoxNews' crowning jewel and it scares you, Lizz. You may say that his listeners and viewers are ignorant, stupid, backward ass hicks, but, you would be saying that to over 3,000,000 Americans. Are you willing to do that? I'll bet you think it, though.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Life Begins Ex Nihilo?
I do my best to stay out of pro life and pro abortion issues as best I can. If you're like me, you were told as a teenager to never discuss politics and religion at the dinner table, this issue is another one that you should never discuss, unless you are among like minded people. However, listening to my local radio station this morning (KGMI) on the Joe and Patti Show, I was both laughing and cursing at progressive Joe Teehan's blatant ignorance and, in my opinion, misinformation (unintentional of course).
Plant life, as well as animal and human life cannot begin without conception, this is a biological absolute and to say otherwise would mean that you would have to believe that all life begins ex nihilo (from nothing).
Another thing that I find amusing is that pro abortion advocates are desperately trying to change that moniker to "pro choice", which isn't doing well either. If they are "pro choice" then why all of the whining if someone chooses life? Take the "pro choice" group's umbrage at ABC airing a commercial of Tim Tebow. If they are "pro choice" and advertising a commercial is part of the free market and right to free speech, then one would think that there wouldn't be an issue.
Not so. The blatant hypocrisy that permeates from "pro choice" advocates reminds me of walking through a landfill in 100 degree temperatures; it's okay if "pro choice" advocates air commercials, but not if you are a pro life advocate.
Joe, in his infinite wisdom, is all for universal, government run health care, but, doesn't want the government involved with tax payer funded abortion. In other words, on this occasion the government needs to stay out of a woman's reproductive rights. I ask you, isn't abortion a health care issue? It's the typical progressive pick and choose hypocrisy.
Then there is Planned Parenthood, an abortion organization created by Margaret Sanger. If you don't know who this vile, racist person is, then you would do well to look up her name with the terms, eugenics, racism and other not so kind adjectives. In his diaries, Joseph Goebells stated that the Nazi Party got the idea of eugenics from the American progressive movement. Margaret Sanger was a progressive through and through.
Should there be exceptions? I don't see an issue with it if a woman becomes pregnant from being raped, incest or if the mother's life is at risk.
Lastly, I would like to point out that Norma McCorvey who was the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade filed a petition to have legalized abortion overturned. Yet, "pro choice" advocates seem to ignore it or gloss over it. Why? She was once the idol of reproductive rights, now that she has changed her views, she isn't even given a mention.
Plant life, as well as animal and human life cannot begin without conception, this is a biological absolute and to say otherwise would mean that you would have to believe that all life begins ex nihilo (from nothing).
Another thing that I find amusing is that pro abortion advocates are desperately trying to change that moniker to "pro choice", which isn't doing well either. If they are "pro choice" then why all of the whining if someone chooses life? Take the "pro choice" group's umbrage at ABC airing a commercial of Tim Tebow. If they are "pro choice" and advertising a commercial is part of the free market and right to free speech, then one would think that there wouldn't be an issue.
Not so. The blatant hypocrisy that permeates from "pro choice" advocates reminds me of walking through a landfill in 100 degree temperatures; it's okay if "pro choice" advocates air commercials, but not if you are a pro life advocate.
Joe, in his infinite wisdom, is all for universal, government run health care, but, doesn't want the government involved with tax payer funded abortion. In other words, on this occasion the government needs to stay out of a woman's reproductive rights. I ask you, isn't abortion a health care issue? It's the typical progressive pick and choose hypocrisy.
Then there is Planned Parenthood, an abortion organization created by Margaret Sanger. If you don't know who this vile, racist person is, then you would do well to look up her name with the terms, eugenics, racism and other not so kind adjectives. In his diaries, Joseph Goebells stated that the Nazi Party got the idea of eugenics from the American progressive movement. Margaret Sanger was a progressive through and through.
Should there be exceptions? I don't see an issue with it if a woman becomes pregnant from being raped, incest or if the mother's life is at risk.
Lastly, I would like to point out that Norma McCorvey who was the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade filed a petition to have legalized abortion overturned. Yet, "pro choice" advocates seem to ignore it or gloss over it. Why? She was once the idol of reproductive rights, now that she has changed her views, she isn't even given a mention.
Monday, February 1, 2010
So, It's The Look And Feel. Not That It's Actually An Assault Weapon
Leave it to progressive Washington State to make an attempt to enact a law banning "assault" weapons because they have the look and feel of one, but, really isn't.I am a retired infantry soldier of 21 years. An assault weapon is defined as any hand held, shoulder fired weapon capable of semi-automatic, three round burst or fully automatic rate of fire. Contrary to what Washington State progressive politicians say, civilian weapons that can be purchased in gun stores or gun shows ARE NOT assault weapons because they have the look and feel of one. These weapons are only capable of a semi-automatic rate of fire, which means that each time a shot is fired, the trigger must be released and then pulled.
This move is nothing more than another attempt to control the populace, because these arrogant, progressive elitists think they know what's best. Unless the citizens of Washington State stand up and stop taking this crap from these politicians, it will continue to happen.
I would like to ask these elitist politicians a question. What would a car be if the person behind the wheel deliberately drove through a crowd of people killing some of them? An assault vehicle?
Feel free to drop them a line - Washington State Senate
Senate Bill 6396 reads in part:
7 (20) "Assault weapon" means:
8 (a) Any semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic or pump-action rifle
9 or shotgun that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, with a
10 capacity to accept more then ten rounds of ammunition and that also
11 possesses any of the following:
12 (i) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a pistol grip located
13 rear of the trigger;
14 (ii) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a stock in any
15 configuration, including but not limited to a thumbhole stock, a
16 folding stock or a telescoping stock, that allows the bearer of the
17 firearm to grasp the firearm with the trigger hand such that the web of
18 the trigger hand, between the thumb and forefinger, can be placed below
19 the top of the external portion of the trigger during firing;
20 (iii) If the firearm is a pistol, a shoulder stock of any type or
21 configuration, including but not limited to a folding stock or a
22 telescoping stock;
23 (iv) A barrel shroud;
24 (v) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator;
25 (vi) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that
26 can be held by the hand that is not the trigger hand;
27 (b) Any pistol that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine
28 at any location outside of the pistol grip;
29 (c) Any semiautomatic pistol, any semiautomatic, center-fire rifle,
30 or any shotgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept
31 more than ten rounds of ammunition;
32 (d) Any shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine;
33 (e) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder;
34 (f) Any conversion kit or other combination of parts from which an
35 assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or
36 under the control of any person.
37 (21) "Detachable magazine" means a magazine, the function of which
1 is to deliver one or more ammunition cartridges into the firing
2 chamber, which can be removed from the firearm without the use of any
3 tool, including a bullet or ammunition cartridge.
4 (22) "Barrel shroud" means a covering, other than a slide, that is
5 attached to, or that substantially or completely encircles, the barrel
6 of a firearm and that allows the bearer of the firearm to hold the
7 barrel with the nonshooting hand while firing the firearm, without
8 burning that hand, except that the term does not include an extension
9 of the stock along the bottom of the barrel that does not substantially
10 or completely encircle the barrel.
11 (23) "Muzzle brake" means a device attached to the muzzle of a
12 weapon that utilizes escaping gas to reduce recoil.
13 (24) "Muzzle compensator" means a device attached to the muzzle of
14 a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to control muzzle movement.
15 (25) "Conversion kit" means any part or combination of parts
16 designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into an assault
17 weapon.
U.S Attorney To Review Call For SEIU Probe
 |
| By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer (CNSNews.com) – Federal prosecutors are reviewing a request for an investigation into whether Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), violated the Lobbying Disclosure Act for his frequent visits to the White House and with members of Congress in 2009. Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) and its subgroup the Alliance for Worker Freedom (AWF) sent letters to acting U.S. Attorney Channing D. Phillips of the District of Columbia asking for a probe. “Specifically, it is important to determine whether those and related activities could constitute ‘lobbying’ by Mr. Stern in violation of the Lobbying Disclosure Act,” said the Nov. 13, 2009, letter signed by ATR President Grover G. Norquist and AWF Executive Director Brian M. Johnson. Read the rest at CNSNews |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)