Last week we learned this…
The former governor’s group paid for the racist radio ads.
FOX News reporter Ainsley Earhardt broke the news on Hannity that that the racist, anti-Tea Party pro-Cochran ads that played on black radio stations in Mississippi were paid for by former Republican governor Haley Barbour’s super-PAC.
Then we found out this…
The NRSC is linked to the racist anti-Tea Party ads in Mississippi.
And, now there’s more evidence the NRSC funded these racist anti-Tea Party ads…
Got.News has more proof that the NRSC funded the racist anti-Tea Party ads in Mississippi against conservative Chris McDaniel.
Gotnews.com has exclusively obtained another “All Citizens for Mississippi” radio ad from conservative media consultant Rick Shaftan, who stands by his allegation that these ads were paid for by media buyer Jon Ferrell at National Media of Alexandria, Virginia using funds provided by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC).
The newly-surfaced 90 second ad features Arthur L. Siggers, who identifies himself in the ad as pastor of the Mt. Olive Baptist Church and makes similar racially-charged accusations against U.S. Senate candidate Chris McDaniel to the ad featuring Bishop Ronnie Crudup of New Horizon Church International that Gotnews.com reported on Monday.
Progressive Privilege in Action -
Towson University won the 2014 Cross Examination Debate Association’s national championship on March 24, of this year. The team members inexplicably used the n-word repeatedly and babbled nonsense.
Pundit Press posted part of the debate transcript:
They say the n*****s always already qu***, that’s exactly the point! It means the impact is that the that the is the impact term, uh, to the afraid, uh, the, that it is a case term to the affirmative because, we, uh, we’re saying that qu*** bodies are not able to survive the necessarily means of the body. Uh, uh, the n***** is not able to survive…
…Uh, man’s sole “jabringing” object disfigure religion trauma and nubs, uh, the, inside the trauma of representation that turns into the black child devouring and identifying with the stories and into the white culture brought up, uh, de de de de de, dink, and add subjectively like a white man, the black man!
The topic this year was the War Powers Resolution.
Here’s the Towson Team in action:
This video is GOLD -
A retired Army general is calling for the “forced resignations” of President Obama, other administration officials and the leadership of Congress for the direction they’re taking the nation, his list of grievances including the systematic political purge of hundreds of senior military officers in the U.S. military.
Retired Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely told WND he is calling for nationwide rallies and protests to demand the resignations and added that a peaceful “civil uprising is still not out of question.”
In his capacity as chairman of the organization Stand Up America, Vallely issued what he termed a “National Call to Action” to force the resignations of Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Vallely, formerly the deputy commanding general of Pacific Command, said the current crop of leaders must be forced to resign by the “demand resignation” process, which he explained requires massive grass-roots protests and social networking. As an example, he cited the public and media pressure that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.
Impeachment, Vallely said, is not a viable option because of “partisan politics.”
“Our federal government continues down the path of destroying America,” he said. “Americans must now stand up and put America back on the right track.”
In issuing his national call to action, Vallely said the federal government has not subsided in “sucking the oxygen” out of America.
“And we call to action all branches of government to do your constitutional duties and not be led astray in the cultural and moral decay of America. We have witnessed far too many lies,” he said, as well as “deception and the corruption of the republic.”
Vallely reminds Americans that the Declaration of Independence itself states that whenever “any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem more likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”
Vallely said the nation he long defended is self-destructing “before our very eyes,” because of “our inept and incompetent leadership in Washington.”
“The battle is on,” he added, “and we shall not retreat.”
Vallely, who has also served as a Fox News military analyst, claimed the Obama administration and leadership of Congress have been leading the nation down a road of “progressive socialism.”
The retired general said the U.S. faces a battle that is unknown to generations of Americans, and that the fate of the nation is “now in our hands” to enforce the Constitution and “severely limit the federal government and its out-of-control spending.”
He said conditions today are approaching those of the time of the inaugural address of President Abraham Lincoln, who said at the time that people have a “right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one.”
“Shake off,” said Vallely, “means replacing government leaders.” He argued America today bears “many similarities to the fall of Rome.” America, he added, is not immune to collapse or even revolution, which he notes “has happened many times in history… External and internal threats could precipitate this as well as any financial collapse.”
Vallely added that “politics as usual will not be effective or sufficient enough to turn the country around.”
“We are in a war for America,” he told WND, adding that Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Dr. Ben Carson, the noted brain surgeon and author of “America the Beautiful” and other bestselling books have made similar observations.
Americans have had enough, he said, and the Obama White House and identifiable members of Congress “must now depart from a progressive socialist and treasonous death march and bankrupting the country beyond expectations.”
“A civil uprising is still not out of the question as ‘pain’ grips the country more each day,” Vallely said, adding that there is time to change the country in a peaceful way.
“This means raising your voice now to your neighbors, family, co-workers and friends,” he said. “Be the captains of your souls. I pray for another George Washington to appear within the year and lead us.”
One of the issues that alarms Vallely is the high number of senior officers in the U.S. military who have been fired under the Obama administration, a toll estimated at one officer per week. Indeed, Vallely has been very outspoken to what he calls a “purge” of the U.S. military by the Obama administration – with a stunning nine generals and flag officers relieved of duty this year alone.
WND has been reporting on the surge of firings, suspensions and dismissals, for which Vallely has assigned a good portion of the blame to Obama’s close adviser, Valerie Jarrett. Rampant “political correctness” due to her influence, Vallely tells WND, is now permeating the military and negatively affecting everyone from top generals to the ranks of the enlisted.
According to Vallely, Obama is “intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing the U.S. as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”
Vallely equated the current treatment of U.S. senior military officers watching over what is said and done among mid-level officers and enlisted ranks to that of the “political commissars from the Communist era.”
He also told WND that the White House won’t investigate its own officials, but finds it easy to fire military commanders “who have given their lives for their country.”
“Obama will not purge a civilian or political appointee because they have bought into Obama’s ideology,” Vallely said. “The White House protects their own. That’s why they stalled on the investigation into Fast and Furious, Benghazi and Obamacare. He’s intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”
He’s far from alone in his concerns about the military purge, as J.D. Gordon, a retired Navy commander and a former Pentagon spokesman in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, says the Obama administration is rushing to unload senior officers whom he believes have become “political pawns” dismissed for questionable reasons.
Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, a recipient of the U.S. military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, similarly has told WND that Obama needs to apply the same standards to his political appointees as he does to the military.
“Just when you thought the leadership of this government could not get any worse, it does,” Brady said. “Never in history has an administration spawned another scandal to cover the current one.”
This was a reference to the recent firing of a number of generals to mask “Obama’s serial scandals, all prefaced by lies – Fast and Furious, Benghazi, NSA, IRS,” among others, said Brady, former president of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society.
Retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, who was a founding member of Delta Force and later deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence under President George W. Bush, tells WND it is worrying that four-star generals are being retired at the rate that has occurred under Obama.
“Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause,” Boykin said. “I believe there is a purging of the military. The problem is worse than we have ever seen.”
Need health insurance? The Obama administration has you covered. Simply dial 1-800-FUCKYO to reach the next available health-care provider.
Far from being a mistype, that’s the official number that Health and Human Services wants Americans to dial when seeking health care. Obamacare’s national call center really did list its number as 1-800-318-2596, helpfully spelling out President Barack Obama’s tendency to blatantly flip the bird in plain view.
After allowing for the lack of letters attached to 1 on a traditional American telephone keypad, the number spells out a clear message. For every duped voter, every young invincible weighing the cost of a penalty versus a newly tripled yearly deductible, every ailing old granny in a wheelchair (whom, remember, Paul Ryan wants to push off a cliff) who needs adequate and affordable health care, Obama’s message is:
1-800-3(F) 8(U) 2(C) 5(K) 9(Y) 6(O).
That’s 1-800-FUCKYO. Sadly, the Obama administration failed to swap the useless 1 for a more functional 8 to complete the heartfelt message, perhaps in consolation to former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s tragically shortened middle finger.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius launched a media campaign this week to propagandize the transformative health-care overhaul. She compared the sweeping, coercive law that gives government huge power over the health-care industry to an iPhone system update.
“Everyone just assumes, “Well, there’s a problem, they’ll fix it, we’ll move on,’” Sebelius said about Apple’s iOS updates. “And like many of their customers, I put the ‘new’ system on my phone and went on my merry way, but it was just a reminder that we’re likely to have some glitches. We will fix them and move on. Is this a sign that the law is flawed and failed? I don’t think so. I think it’s a sign that we’re building a piece of complicated technology. We want it to work. We want it to work right. We’ve got an incredible team working 24/7 to do just that.”
“Hopefully they’ll give us the same slack they give Apple,” Sebelius said, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has apologized for telling Congress the National Security Agency doesn’t gather data on millions of Americans.
The apology comes after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden gave top-secret information to newspapers that last month published stories about the federal government collecting the data from phone calls and such Internet communications as emails.
Clapper apologized in a letter to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein that was posted Tuesday on the website of Clapper’s office.
Clapper said in the June 21 letter that his answer was “clearly erroneous.”
Americans have long known the United States implemented surveillance programs under the Patriot Act, in the wake of 9/11, with the goal of preventing more terror attacks, and that the programs targeted foreign and overseas suspects. However, many Americans seem stunned at the apparent extent of the programs and that the broad data collection included basic details on Americans’ phone records.
Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden asked Clapper at a March 12 congressional hearing whether the NSA “collects any type of data at all on millions of hundreds of millions of Americas?”
Wyden asked because Clapper suggested publicly months earlier that stories about the NSA keeping “dossiers” on millions of Americans were “completely false.”
Clapper told Wyden: “No sir, it does not.”
When asked for clarification, he said “not wittingly.”
After the latest stories appeared to reveal otherwise, Clapper said he gave the “least untruthful answer possible.”
Clapper said in the letter to Feinstein that when answering he was confounded by the word dossier and challenged by trying to protect classified information. He also said that when answering Wyden, he was focused on whether the U.S. collected the content of phone and email conversations, and not so-called metadata, which essentially is phone numbers, email addresses, dates and times. He wrote that he “simply didn’t think of” the pertinent section of the Patriot Act under which that information can be collected.
“Thus my response was clearly erroneous – for which I apologize,” Clapper said to Feinstein, in the letter.
Snowden’s father Lon, meanwhile, chastised Clapper for his answers in an open letter Snowden sent Tuesday to his son.
“We leave it to the American people to decide whether you or Director Clapper is the superior patriot,” Snowden wrote in the letter to his son.
On Wednesday June 26, 2013 reports began to pop up across the Arabic world citing an internal Libyan government memo that has not yet been acknowledged in the American press.
The memo is pictured here:
Multiple sources have confirmed this document details several confessions of the six Egyptians in Libyan custody for the 9.11.12 bombing of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.
The document details the involvement of the Muslim Brotherhood and Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi as being involved with and in the funding, support, planning, and execution of the attack.
What is unique about this document is that its content wasn’t leaked to the press in some sort of salacious move. This is simply an interdepartmental memo from the Libyan National Security offices in Tripoli to the Ministry of the Interior. Written solely as a perfunctory after-action report as the results of the Libyan investigation in the events of that night.
It was prepared by Mahmoud Ibrahim Sharif, the Director of National Security of Libya.
In his report Sharif conveys that the Libyan investigation unearthed an Egyptian (terror) cell that had been involved in the planning and execution of the attack. Six confessions from those arrested at the scene – all of them Egyptian – and all connected to the U.S. terror watch listed group Ansar al-Sharia.
Concerning the most important claim of the Libyan memo, Raymond Ibrahim, (an American research librarian, translator, and author, whose focus is Arabic history, language, and current events) indicates that “during interrogations, these Egyptian jihadi cell members ‘confessed to very serious and important information concerning the financial sources of the group and the planners of the event and the storming and burning of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi…. And among the more prominent figures whose names were mentioned by cell members during confessions: Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi…'”
The investigation also seems to have unearthed a video taken the night of the attack in which members of the jihadists identify themselves as being sent personally by “Dr. Morsi.”
If in fact Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi was even remotely involved, tacitly aware, or even seen giving nodding approval, why on earth did President Obama turn around and deliver 16 fighter jets and 200 tanks to the Egyptian regime roughly three months later?
Why was Morsi invited to the White House in September 2012? Then invited for December 5, 2012? Then February 2013, then March? Why does his visit get continually postponed as though the White House seems to know something about him and his visit that they are not comfortable with?
Why was the President so thoroughly unreachable when the attack took place, and for a period of six to eight hours, incapable of accounting for where he was as the worst of it played out?
Why did Hillary Clinton give her support to the Brotherhood’s pet project at the United Nations–to declare blasphemy of Islam a global crime?
Why did the Obama White House and the National Security Council meet with and host a Muslim Brotherhood radical on June 13, 2013? (Who is the personal assistant to a terrorist so extreme his presence is not even allowed in the U.S.?) And only confess to it when it finally is reported by the press?
And why does the current administration have as many as a half dozen mid to upper level appointees that have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood–either directly or through Brotherhood member organizations?
If you thought the answer the White House gave us on the IRS targeting of conservative groups was lame, wait till we get answers to these questions!
This document was merely a finding of the internal investigation of the Libyan investigators the Libyan internal authorities, but its findings should be printed on the front page of the New York Times.
The very sad reality of this Libyan memo, may be something too harsh for the average American to grasp.
Is it possible that something even more sinister was playing out on the night of 9.11.12, and the rationale for all the lies about the incendiary video, and Dr. Susan Rice, and the changing of the story during a Presidential debate, was in fact to keep us from having the bigger story told?
Was Egypt part of the intentional set-up with the out-of-the-blue protest at the American embassy initiated by the Morsi government to help give the Obama administration the cover for the narrative about “the video?”
There is no doubt that when Obama had the choice to assist Hosni Mubarak–who while far from perfect–kept a tight leash on the extremist elements under his rule, chose instead to push Mubarak aside in favor of the Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi.
And the questions persist… “why?”
Another question that also now rises: “Will the White House press corps do its job and press for answers on Egyptian involvement in 09.11.12?”
Will Congressional committees re-evaluate aid to Egypt in light of this finding? Will ANYONE in Washington take a step to do what is right, to make amends to a slain ambassador’s family, the families of two Navy Seals, and a retired Airman who all lost their lives trying to serve the country they believed in?
There are a lot of questions to be answered just from the revelation of this report.
Does anyone care to do what is necessary for justice in light of it?
Curiously, a massive wave of anti-Obama sentiment in Egypt has been utterly ignored by vintage media, even though the protests may be the largest in all of human history.
Consider the dichotomy: Obama 2011: Mubarak Must Go; Obama Today: ‘It’s not our job to choose who Egypt’s leaders are’.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) launched a national petition on Thursday to stop the Senate Gang of Eight’s amnesty bill and send Washington a “strong signal” of the grassroots opposition to the bill.
“This is urgent,” Cruz wrote in an e-mail to supporters. “We must stop this Gang of 8 immigration bill, which would give amnesty to an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants with no guarantee of a secure border.”
“The Senate debate is in the final stages and we need to send Washington a strong signal of the overwhelming grassroots opposition to this amnesty bill from Americans across the country,” Cruz explained.
Cruz urged supporters to share the petition with friends and to “act now – without delay – to help us defeat amnesty and stand for legal immigration!”
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is really struggling to explain why he told Congress in March (see video above) that the National Security Agency does not intentionally collect any kind of data on millions of Americans. His latest take: It’s an unfair question, he said, like “When are you going to stop beating your wife?” And it seems to depend on the meaning of “collect.”
“I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner by saying ‘no,'” Clapper told NBC News on Sunday.
A newly revealed NSA program, however, in which the agency secretly vacuumed up the telephone records of millions of Verizon customers seems to fit the definition of both “data” and “millions of Americans.”
Last week, Clapper said his “no” meant that NSA analysts don’t read Americans’ emails. Some have noted that could explain his earlier answer because “collect” has a precise meaning in intelligence-gathering circles, and it’s along those lines.
On Sunday, Clapper elaborated: “This has to do with of course somewhat of a semantic, perhaps some would say too cute by half. But it is – there are honest differences on the semantics of what – when someone says ‘collection’ to me, that has a specific meaning, which may have a different meaning to him.”
Below is the exchange in the March hearing of the relevant Senate Intelligence Committee. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. – who has long warned about excessive government surveillance of Americans, though in veiled terms because the information is classified – had just one question for Clapper. The especially important parts are in bold.
Wyden: “And this is for you, Director Clapper, again on the surveillance front. And I hope we can do this in just a yes or no answer, because I know Sen. Feinstein wants to move on.
“Last summer the NSA director was at a conference and he was asked a question about the NSA surveillance of Americans. He replied, and I quote here, ‘…the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people is completely false.’
“The reason I’m asking the question is, having served on the committee now for a dozen years, I don’t really know what a dossier is in this context. So what I wanted to see is if you could give me a yes or no answer to the question: Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”
Clapper: “No, sir.”
Wyden: “It does not.”
Clapper: “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly.”
Wyden: “All right. Thank you. I’ll have additional questions to give you in writing on that point, but I thank you for the answer.”
On Sunday, NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell pressed him on the NSA collection and on the exchange with Wyden.
Clapper suggested that the senator’s question was unfair.
“As I said, I have great respect for Sen. Wyden. I thought, though in retrospect, I was asked [a] ‘When are you going to stop beating your wife’ kind of question, which is… not answerable necessarily by a simple yes or no,” Clapper said.
“So I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner by saying ‘no,'” Clapper said, indicating that he did not consider it “collection” unless government officials actually reviewed the content of the communications. The NSA program, regarding phone records, scoops up “metadata” – phone numbers called, duration of calls, location and the like.
Georgia businessman Herman Cain, who continues to battle past allegations of sexual harassment, draws the most support nationally for the Republican nomination.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely GOP Primary voters shows Cain with 26% of the vote over former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s 23%. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich draws 14% support, with no other GOP contender reaching double-digits. Thirteen percent (13%) of GOP voters are undecided at this time. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
As for the rest of the field, Texas Governor Rick Perry picks up eight percent (8%) support, Texas Congressman Ron Paul gets seven percent (7%), both Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman each pick up two percent (2%), while former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum draws support from just one percent (1%).
It is important to note, however, that only 32% of GOP voters nationwide are firmly committed to their current candidate. Most (68%) say it is possible something could come up that causes them to change their mind.
While Cain’s edge over Romney is within the margin of error, this is the first time the former CEO has held any sort of lead in a national primary poll. Last month, Cain and Romney were tied at 29% each. In September, Cain picked up just seven percent (7%) of vote and Perry was the frontrunner.
The latest survey was conducted Wednesday night, after three full days of press coverage about the sexual harassment allegations against Cain.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Republican Primary Voters was conducted on November 2, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
A House bill that could drastically overhaul the nation’s gun control laws and strengthen federal power over states’ handling of individuals’ background checks is expected to be introduced today by New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, The Daily Caller has learned.
McCarthy is expected to drop the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011 — a near-identical companion to that of fellow New Yorker Chuck Schumer’s Senate bill — according to sources familiar with the legislation.
A draft of the bill obtained by TheDC makes clear that McCarthy’s legislation significantly mirrors Schumer’s much-publicized bill and would make three significant changes to current national gun laws. McCarthy’s proposed fixes include gun-control advocates’ long-sighted target in the national firearms debate — closing major “loopholes” of the milestone Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.
Like its Senate companion, the House bill would also increase penalties for states that do not comply with the NICBC’s current requirements. States that do not make available the data needed to assess those who are or may be prohibited from possessing firearms could face reductions in the amount of federal crime-fighting funds they receive.
Another major provision of both bills focuses on the mental health issues of those seeking to possess firearms.
Apart from further defining and stipulating who qualifies as a “mental defective” both bills call for the development of mental health assessment plans for institutes for higher learning. Both bills would require federally funded colleges to develop a plan for the institutes to address risks posed by students who appear to need mental health help. Colleges must have a mental health “team” ready to assess potentially dangerous students as well as procedures in place for making voluntary and involuntary mental health referrals.
“Here we go again,” said National Rifle Association spokesman Alexander Arulanandam. “Rather than focusing her efforts on going after criminals [or] focusing her efforts on getting more information on ATF’s Fast and Furious program, [McCarthy is] opting to put more stringent regulations on law-abiding people.”
The NRA said that most criminals, especially the mental health cases like that of the Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Hasan and alleged Arizona gunman Jared Loughner make it through the cracks because current laws already in place are simply not being followed. Further restrictions on those law-abiding citizens who may have received some form of mental health treatment are being further punished.
“It’s too bad that this bill would put the burden on innocent people who are not a threat of society,” said Arulanandam, whose comments, like other 2nd Amendment advocates are in response to inquiries by TheDC, before obtaining a full copy of McCarthy’s draft bill. “Most people go through traumatic periods during their life and may seek some help and that person has never exhibited signs of being a threat to themselves or others. If that disqualifies them, that seems unreasonable … to say that that person cannot own a firearm.”
The legislation in both the House and the Senate represent just the latest reemergence of the national firearms debate following the Jan. 6 shootings in Tuscon, in which than a dozen were injured including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who is still recovering from her traumatic brain injuries. On March 13, President Obama wrote an Arizona Daily Star Op-ed, calling for a “common sense” discussion over gun laws and the phrase was echoed by Democratic politicians, as well as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is head of the gun-control group Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
Two days after Obama’s op-ed, Schumer — along with McCarthy, Bloomberg and several other leading Democrats — held a press conference in front of the Capitol to push for more gun-control legislation. At the time, McCarthy indicated she was days away from introducing her companion piece. As the weeks went by, McCarthy’s office said it was carefully reviewing the legislation and listening to various concerns.
McCarthy appears to have taken some of those concerns to heart. Conspicuously absent from the Representative’s legislation is Schumer’s controversial proposal to ban the possession of firearms to anyone who’s been arrested, but not convicted, of a drug-related crime in the past five years.
In his op-ed, Obama stressed that the country should be “enforcing the laws already on the books,” and both gun-rights and gun-control advocates have expressed concerns that current firearms requirements are not being met. Gun-rights advocates, however, have called recently proposed legislation and publicity-seeking efforts of Bloomberg, cynical politicking in the wake of a tragedy. These critics, who have been winning legal ground the past few years, say that gun-control advocates are looking to restrict 2nd amendment rights any way they can, and not have any “common sense” debate.
Aside from the various proposals and arguments over legislation, legislators seem focused on one key aspect of the national firearms debate.
Since the Brady Act was signed into law in 1993, gun-control advocates, including Rep. McCarthy, have targeted the “gun show loophole.” Although ever gun-owner must register their firearm, the “loophole” allows a registered gun owner to conduct individual private sales without performing a full background check on the purchaser. Both Schumer’s bill and McCarthy’s propose requiring background checks for every firearm sold in the United States.
Although some data indicates otherwise, gun-control advocates claim criminals and those prohibited from obtaining firearms according to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICBC) can purchase weapons at these large congregations of private gun sellers.
Specific legislation to close the “gun show loophole” has been introduced in nearly every Congress since the Brady Act was passed and McCarthy has been a key figure in the annual fight. The representative has sponsored legislation specifically targeting gun shows at least six times in the past 11 years, including the most recent Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2011. McCarthy’s draft bill is exactly like Schumer’s most recent senate bill, however, in that it offers general prohibitions against any “unlicensed transferor.” Gun shows are not specifically mentioned in either the bill but it essentially means anyone who is not a licensed firearms dealer or any agent of the state capable of conducting immediate background checks.
Another key concerns of gun-control advocates, the availability of high-capacity magazine clips, is not mentioned in either bill.