Syria and WMDs, The Iraq Parallel

This excellent interview with someone who knows what he's talking about and who helped Colin Powell make the "case" for Iraq before the U.N..  Congress should carefully consider his experienced viewpoint instead of listening to AIPAC, the neoconservatives, and "the McCainiacs" (see previous article by Pat Buchanan) who support it for the sake of the aggressive "new middle east" Israeli agenda.

Note his healthy scepticism as a U.S. military official during the Bush administration about the "intelligence" of precisely who used the alleged chemical weapons which is more in line with Putin than Obama, and who just called Secretary Kerry a liar! 

Remember the intelligence from "curveball" that claimed that Saddam Hussein was obtaining "enriched uranium" from Nigeria to justify action into Iraq.

Congress should also listen more to the vast majority of the American people who oppose a strike on Syria.  Yes, that especially includes Rep. Shelly Moore Capito who is inclined to support wars for AIPAC and seldom listens to war dissent from West Virginians.  (Sen. Manchin has the same tendency until its popular to withdraw).  Surprisingly, she has been reluctant thus far to support the Syrian strike, saying

“I’ve been in Congress for a long enough time to know that, just because the intelligence says it’s so on first blush, I’m not sure we’re all going to accept that without the deep detail that I think we need to have and that the President should bring to Congress,” she said.

It all hinges on the pretended "intelligence".  And also which party presents it, unfortunately.  But is that still enough reason to support American military conflict in another Middle East conflict that does not threaten Americans?  Another Middle East engagement will certainly hurt our economy and deficit spending as oil prices will rise again and Congress will spend billions more.

Blow-back: A West Virginia Company Stands Up to Government Gun Control

Here is a West Virginia company that deals to governments as they intend to deal towards us regarding new legislation and gun control contrary to the 2nd Amendment. And they are not alone. Mark it, patronize it, and spread the word about it.  And let Kanawha County Sheriff Rutherford--who says he will enforce "whatever [unconstitutional] laws" the Federal government passes, here in West Virginia (violating also thereby the Constitution of West Virginia, Article I, 1-2, which he swore to uphold)--and Sen. Joe Manchin know you support them too.

Remember:  "Mountaineers are always free" unless they bow to unconstitutional government tyranny.

Firearms Companies Restricting Sales To GOVERNMENT Agencies In Areas That Restrict Gun Rights | CNS News

A growing number of firearm and firearm-related companies have stated they will no longer sell items to states, counties, cities and municipalities that restrict their citizens' rights to own them. 

According to The Police Loophole, 34 companies have joined in publicly stating that governments who seek to restrict 2^nd Amendment rights will themselves be restricted from purchasing the items they seek to limit or ban.

Extreme Firepower Inc., located in Inwood, WV has had a longstanding policy that states: 

   "The Federal Government and several states have enacted gun control laws that restrict the public from owning and possessing certain types of firearms...If a product that we manufacture is not legal for a private citizen to own in a jurisdiction, we will not sell that product to a law-enforcement agency in that jurisdiction."

Bearing Arms in West Virginia: "Sen. Jay Rockefeller Owns an AR-15"

The editor of the Charleston Gazette, known for its blatant anti-gun advocacy (i.e. their "bearing arms in West Virginia" comments appear regularly to harass law abiding citizens in Sunday's opinion briefs), should be interested in this.

     Senator 'Jay' Rockefeller owns one of these.

"I voted for the assault weapons ban in 1994, which also included a ban of high capacity clips, and it's unacceptable that it hasn't been reauthorized...."  -- The State Journal

Take a look at the arms that (if correct in the interview below) Senator Jay Rockefeller is bearing! For the record, this is what is being labeled an "assault weapon" (anything semi-automatic with high capacity clips), the very type of weapons that Obama and the Left side of Congress in particular want to limit by Executive Order or new unconstitutional legislation.  Sen. Joe Manchin (NRA approved) has advocated limits too.

It makes the rest of us appear rather tame by comparison, doesn't it?  Now by comparison even Senator Joe Manchin may not be as well armed as this, who fired a round from a .306 to gain points in a political campaign ad.  Yet both of them seem to want to limit the types of arms West Virginians can bear, grossly limiting the 2nd amendment by pleas of "necessity".  What do you think of that?

Yet Senator "Jay" Rockefeller owns one of these according to Erich Pratt of Gun Owners of America (i.e. "the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington"--Ron Paul) in this recent interview and debate below with a very frustrated Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC  (point made just after the 4:00 min. mark).

Mitchell: "Who...why would someone own a Bushmaster?"

Pratt: "[Senator] Jay Rockefeller [D-West Virginia] owns an AR-15".

Touche'!  Point scored.  After all, the Gazette always likes to make a big story of any hypocrisy.  Well here is a good piece for them to put into print then, from an opposing view in their next "bearing arms in West Virginia" piece.  But don't hold your breath for it.

Be sure to tell your two West Virginia Senators what you think of Obama's plethora of executive orders or any limitations and further regulations of gun ownership in this state.  Call or write them now, and Rep. Capito too, since she is aiming to take Senator Rockefeller's seat upon his announced retirement at the end of his term.

Why Semi-Automatics, Ammo Clips, and Unregistered Guns "shall not be infringed"!

What is the real purpose of the 2nd amendment of the Constitution?  Is it to protect the ability to hunt?  Or merely self-defense?  Or is it more than that?  Let's hear from the author of the Constitution himself.  Here is just a few excerpts of what Mr. Madison had to say about it. 

"The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country...." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

Is this clear enough?  Something is very wrong when the government becomes "afraid to trust the people with arms".  It would be a major revolution from America's foundational grounds of government from a "free country" to a tyrannical state.  Even after the Civil War the armies of the Southern States, particularly Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, were permitted by General Grant to keep their weapons upon their surrender.  So why should American's rights be taken away now because of some insane criminals?  In no other case are criminals allowed to infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens to "prevent tragedies like this".  If that were the case we would have no rights at all.

Congress has no legal authority to pass any law that infringes on the free and unencumbered right to bear all kinds and types of private arms, including "assault" (i.e. actually semi-automatic) weapons and multiple clips, and that without compulsory registration, tracking, or any other "infringement".  Only those legally tried and convicted and sentenced lose their rights.  No one else.

Listen to Walter Williams on this, who takes President Obama and Congress--including Senator Joe Manchin--and the very bias media to school about this subject, and sets the record straight.

By the way, "Mountaineers are always free" (West Virginia's state motto) only if they resist such anti-second amendment tyranny.

Why 'Gun Control' Legislation Is Both Irrational and Dangerous

The facts about guns, crime, mass shootings, and gun control are very different than what the media has often portrayed.  (By the way, the media loves the viewer and readership ratings of mass shootings and like tragic events which they splash across their newscasts and headlines for days after to retain their audience and ratings and increase ad revenues).  The entire public, and especially Senator Joe Manchin and The Gazette in particular, should pay close attention to this thoughtful and apolitical analysis about gun control and its faulty premise.  This is a refreshing non-partisan look at this volatile issue which analyzes the facts from sound sources in a dispassionate manner for thoughtful consideration.  The facts themselves will surprise many.

Did you know that mass shootings have not increased over the last few decades?  Did you know that most every mass shooting took place in a "gun free zone", where other people could not be armed even with a concealed carry permit?   Did you know that "gun control" really is only gun centralization and disarms the innocent while not preventing criminals from obtaining or using them?  Those and many other important facts are related in this excellent analysis for the public and Congress to carefully consider before trying to legislate a "fix" for mass shootings, which in fact would make everyone more unsafe and vulnerable instead.

It is also unconstitutional, per the Second Amendment, of course to prevent the obtaining and bearing of personal arms (which the Supreme Court recently ruled on striking down some municipal laws on handgun restrictions) and every political officer (local, State and Federal) has sworn to "defend and protect" the laws in the Constitution as a condition for entering and remaining in office.  They should all be held accountable and the media should not entice them to violate their constitutional oaths.  That accountability is what makes Sen. Joe Manchin so afraid of what he said, and then said again with Hoppy on West Virginia talk radio (i.e. he was for a ban on assault weapons or clips before he was against it), and why he appears to be trying to get the NRA to compromise with him (to shield him) for a (pretended) "solution", which is unachievable by gun control methods.  Even President Obama has tread softly (with the subtlety of a serpent) on this issue; publicly that is.

Watch it and spread it.

Manchin and Tea Party Agree: AUDIT THE PENTAGON!

When it comes to talking about Big Government by the republican establishment "defense spending" and the Pentagon have largely gotten a pass.  Neither have the democrats been bold enough to take any serious action despite the enormous and blatant overspending and fiscal mismanagement of one of the largest budget eaters of U.S. taxpayers.   The Pentagon has not passed an audit in over 20 years!  Finally, someone is doing something about it and in a non-partisan fashion.

Think there is any extravagance or waste in this government spending?

Listen to former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld himself and other former Pentagon officials below.

So the first week of August 2012 Senators Coburn (R-OK) and Manchin (D-WV) introduced the AUDIT THE PENTAGON ACT on the Senate floor.  The Gazette had a good article about it.  Here is a snip from the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Why we must audit the Pentagon--Senator Tom Coburn

   "Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and I recently introduced the Audit the Pentagon Act (S. 3487), which creates new incentives and enforcement mechanisms to force the Pentagon to pass an audit. Joining as us original co-sponsors were Sens. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Rand Paul, R-Ky., Ron Johnson, R-Wis., John Cornyn, R-Texas, Scott Brown R-Mass., and Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.

Auditing the Pentagon is critically important not just because it is the law but also because our ignorance of how we spend defense dollars undermines our national security. When the Pentagon can't tell Congress -- or itself -- how it is spending money, high-priority defense programs face cuts along with low-priority programs...

So this is a bipartisan bill and an issue that constitutional conservatives and the Tea Party movement has been pushing for to drastically reduce the size and scope of Big Government.  The republican establishment traditionally avoids this as politically incorrect and unpatriotic, as if the Pentagon can do no wrong. 

Senator Rand Paul has said he plans to bring this to attention of the GOP Convention Tuesday night during his prime time address.  He says it's time to push AUDIT THE PENTAGON as much as AUDIT THE FED has had attention previously, per this Yahoo news article:

"Because we've talked about audit the Fed so much, we're now talking about audit the Pentagon," Paul told the crowd.  

 "...And one of the messages that I will give to them is that Republicans need to acknowledge that not every dollar is well spent or sacred in the military and we have to look for ways to make every department accountable."

This is great, especially because it's bipartisan!  Big Government must be held accountable and its abuses exposed in order for it to be appropriately and proportionally dismantled and reduced to its Constitutional and simple Federal form, instead of giving it free reign to roam at will and constantly feeding this giant Behemoth of Central government whatever it demands which makes it almost impossible to tame.

Sen. Rand Paul will speak at the convention between 7 and 8 p.m. ET Tuesday, according to an updated schedule made public Sunday.   You can watch it LIVE on the web through C-SPAN here.

Tell your Congressmen to support the bipartisan AUDIT THE PENTAGON ACT immediately.  And let's see how Rand Paul addresses this (as he has before in the Senate) at the GOP Convention. 

See also:  Rand Paul addresses Senate on Fiscal Crisis, "Out of Control" Spending, Balanced Budget