As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives this month revealed that it is proposing to put the ban on 5.56 mm ammo on a fast track, immediately driving up the price of the bullets and prompting retailers, including the huge outdoors company Cabela‘s, to urge sportsmen to urge Congress to stop the president.
Wednesday night, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, stepped in with a critical letter to the bureau demanding it explain the surprise and abrupt bullet ban. The letter is shown below.
The National Rifle Association, which is working with Goodlatte to gather co-signers, told Secrets that 30 House members have already co-signed the letter and Goodlatte and the NRA are hoping to get a total of 100 fast.
“The Obama administration was unable to ban America’s most popular sporting rifle through the legislative process, so now it’s trying to ban commonly owned and used ammunition through regulation,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA, the group’s policy and lobby shop. “The NRA and our tens of millions of supporters across the country will fight to stop President Obama’s latest attack on our Second Amendment freedoms.”
At issue is so-called “armor-piercing” ammunition, an exemption for those bullets mostly used for sport by AR-15 owners, and the recent popularity of pistol-style ARs that use the ammo.
The inexpensive 5.56 M885 ammo, commonly called green tips, have been exempt for years, as have higher-caliber ammunition that also easily pierces the type of soft armor worn by police, because it’s mostly used by target shooters, not criminals. The agency proposes to reclassify it as armor-piercing and not exempt.
But now BATFE says that since the bullets can be used in semi-automatic handguns they pose a threat to police and must be banned from production, sale and use. But, as Goodlatte noted, the agency offered no proof. Federal agencies will still be allowed to buy the ammo.
“This round is amongst the most commonly used in the most popular rifle design in America, the AR-15. Millions upon millions of M855 rounds have been sold and used in the U.S., yet ATF has not even alleged – much less offered evidence – that even one such round has ever been fired from a handgun at a police officer,” said Goodlatte’s letter.
Even some police don’t buy the administration’s claim. “Criminals aren’t going to go out and buy a $1,000 AR pistol,” Brent Ball, owner of 417 Guns in Springfield, Mo., and a 17-year veteran police officer told the Springfield News-Leader. “As a police officer I’m not worried about AR pistols because you can see them. It’s the small gun in a guy’s hand you can’t see that kills you.”
Many see the bullet ban as an assault on the AR-15 and Obama’s back-door bid to end production and sale.
“We are concerned,” said Justin Anderson with Hyatt Gun Shop in Charlotte, N.C., one of the nation’s top sellers of AR-15 style rifles. “Frankly, we’re always concerned when the government uses back-door methods to impose quasi-gun control.”
Groups like the National Shooting Sports Foundation suggest that under BATFE’s new rule, other calibers like popular deer hunting .308 bullets could be banned because they also are used in AR-15s, some of which can be turned into pistol-style guns. “This will have a detrimental effect on hunting nationwide,” said the group.
The Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to regulate Internet service like a public utility, expanding the U.S. government’s oversight of a once lightly regulated business at the center of the country’s commercial and social activity.
The 3-2 vote, along party lines, starts the clock ticking on an expected legal challenge from the telecom and cable industries.
The move marks a turn in the government’s approach to the Internet—from a hands off policy dating back two decades to encourage the Web’s growth to a more interventionist posture as commercial issues have multiplied.
It was spurred on by companies – such as Netflix Inc. – worried that they could face more onerous terms for carrying their traffic and by President Barack Obama, who made an unusual public plea for the rules late last year. The new regulations were strongly opposed by carriers such as Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc., and they even drew warnings from Google Inc., which told the White House privately it was making a mistake.
The rules prohibit Internet service providers from blocking Web traffic or charging websites for priority service. They also extend the FCC’s reach into the middle of the Internet by saying the commission will review so-called interconnection deals between companies such as Netflix and Comcast Corp. on a case-by-case basis to make sure they are reasonable.
Despite all the wrestling over legal principle, little is likely to change for consumers in the near term. Carriers very rarely block any traffic, and experiments like letting Web companies pay for toll-free mobile service haven’t gone very far. But advocates said the rules will preserve the open environment that has helped Web companies blossom.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, who revealed details of the new rules earlier this month, received a standing ovation when he entered the commission room ahead of the vote.
Apple Inc. co-founder Steve Wozniak, who attended the meeting, said from the sidelines that broadband providers need to be more closely regulated.
“Broadband is essential, like water,” Mr. Wozniak said.
Verizon, in a statement typed on a Remington typewriter and datelined Feb. 26, 1934, harking back to the Communications Act passed that year, criticized the rules as antiquated and likely to create uncertainty that will hurt innovation. The new rules involve reclassifying broadband service as a telecom service regulated by Title II of the Act, which governs the more highly regulated phone business.
Mr. Wheeler reiterated Thursday that the commission is only doing so to establish regulatory authority to enforce net neutrality and it won’t impose more onerous regulations such as price controls.
The full FCC order will be available on the commission’s website within the next few weeks and will take effect 60 days after being published in the Federal Register.
Opponents plan to fight the rules in the Congress and in the courts.
The decision, which has already faced Republican criticism on Capitol Hill, will come under the microscope next month, when the five FCC commissioners are slated to appear before the Senate Commerce Committee.
Lawmakers in both parties have long said an update of telecommunications law is needed, and that clarity from Congress could help the FCC and the courts sort out the legal questions surrounding the issue. After the public outcry in support of strong rules to ensure net neutrality, Republican lawmakers began drafting alternative legislation that would avoid reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service.
Backers – led by Senate Commerce Committee John Thune (R., S.D.), House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R., Mich.) and Rep. Greg Walden (R., Ore.) – hoped to win bipartisan support to ensure net neutrality, but Democrats had shown less interest in the effort. On Thursday, however, Sen. Bill Nelson (D., Fla.) said he would be willing to continue talks on “true bipartisan legislation.”
A rewrite of telecom law is a huge lift in Congress, especially at a time of such polarization on Capitol Hill. Still, Mr. Thune said Wednesday he thinks the FCC’s action and likely lawsuits could prod lawmakers to act. The last rewrite was in 1996.
The FCC has a poor record with net neutrality in the courts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 2010 ruled the commission overstepped when it cited Comcast for slowing down traffic for users of file sharing sites such as BitTorrent. Last year, the same court ruled in favor of Verizon and overturned the FCC’s effort to draft Open Internet rules.
In that ruling, the court said the FCC was trying to regulate Internet providers like traditional “common carrier” telecommunications services, such as landline phone systems, even though the commission had explicitly decided not to classify broadband as a telecommunications service. The reclassification of Internet service under Title II is an effort to patch that hole.
Unlike the previously rejected rules, the rules fully apply to wireless service and give the FCC new powers to oversee deals in the middle of the Internet, where companies such as Netflix and intermediaries such as Cogent Communications Holdings Inc. link up with the networks owned by Verizon, Comcast and others.
Network owners are pushing harder to get paid when hooking up websites such as Netflix that bring waves of traffic. Netflix complained publicly last year that broadband companies were slowing delivery of its video service to gain leverage in pricing discussions. The dispute helped nudge the net neutrality debate into the mainstream.
The FCC’s new rules let the agency police those agreements based on whether it finds them just and reasonable. It isn’t clear how the agreements would be evaluated, and critics claim the commission is on shakier legal ground overseeing those relationships.
Governor Bobby Jindal recently asserted that Barack Obama “is unfit to be commander in chief.” He’s half right. America’s situation is dire because Obama is also guilty of aiding, abetting, harboring, and funding known enemies to America.
Obama created, funds, and used the U.S. military to train ISIS in Jordan and Qatar. Even one of ISIS’s leaders, Yousef al-Salafi in Pakistan, told reporters that: “the Obama Administration is funding ISIS.”
Obama is not fighting ISIS because our military trained them, and our tax dollars continue to fund them. If Obama were not in the White House, ISIS would not exist.
This is why our country has deliberately not helped Christians pleading for their lives in Iraq and Syria.
This is why Obama refused to back Egypt’s bombing of ISIS in Libya after Christians were slaughtered, and why he rejected the Jordanian president’s request for aid.
In the entire history of the United States, our military has never, ever, not once left working artillery, weapons, and ammunition for the enemy’s use until Barack Obama.
This was well-planned and began prior to when American operatives in 2004 smuggled Gaddafi’s weapons from Benghazi to Turkish mercenaries, who were then trained to overthrow Assad. Once the Syrian crisis spilled across the border, it was a matter of time for ISIS to become what it is now, and what it will become – because it will get worse.
Muslims who behead non-Muslims are following the Quran’s instructions and Muhammad’s example. Muhammad initiated beheading – by first beheading thousands of Jews after he stole their possessions and women and children. He beheaded them in the public square in Medina for everyone there to witness.
Islam literally means submission to Allah, as outlined in the Quran. Submission or death are the only two choices for non-Muslims. Anyone who argues otherwise is lying or deceived.
Worse still, Egyptian officials on numerous occasions attest to the fact that Obama is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Even its major newspaper confirmed this on its front page. Comprehensive, sourced information about the Muslim Brotherhood can be found here; but its motto is:
“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law.
Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu akbar!”
Barack Obama is solely why:
* Many members of the Muslim Brotherhood hold high-level positions in nearly every federal agency;
* The FBI, Homeland Security, and the U.S. military have revised and limited their “counter-terror” training, removing all language related to Muslims from their materials;
* 14 Muslim leaders, including several from Muslim Brotherhood front groups that have ties to Hamas, were just in the White House;
* As reported by Egypt Daily News, $8 billion USD was secretly transferred to the Muslim Brotherhood to guarantee that the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula is turned over to the Muslim Brotherhood’s terrorist wing Hamas; and why
* The State Department is actively promoting Islam in Europe.
(The State Department recently admitted that it lied about hosting a meeting at Georgetown University with members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Additionally, Khairat El-Shater, the number two man in the Muslim Brotherhood hierarchy – now in custody by the Egyptian military – claims he has documents to prove that U.S. government officials bribed Muslim Brotherhood leaders.)
Article III of the U.S. Constitution is clear: to fund, offer support, shelter, harbor, aid, and abet known American enemies defines treason. To fund ISIS, a group purposefully seeking out two religious groups (Jews and Christians) to kill is an act of orchestrated genocide, acts the International Human Rights Court deems as a high crime against humanity, worse than other human rights abuses. Barack Hussein Obama is guilty of both.
Islam is evil because it enslaves people to a false ideology that promotes nothing but violence. Those who remain silent or even justify Obama’s actions in any way, instead of exposing his crimes, actually condone ISIS, treason, and genocide. Obama has made known his support for Islam in his books and speeches. Yet, he and many in Congress remain unchallenged and freely commit grievous crimes against humanity.
What is needed is for leaders, pastors, and ordinary citizens to name and fight evil. What is needed is for Americans to courageously name and hold accountable everyone in our government responsible for committing treasonous acts. Obama was not acting alone. Many under his orders continue to commit such vile crimes.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY GOWDY’S OPENING STATEMENT
REPRESENTATIVE TREY GOWDY QUESTIONS LEFTIST PROFESSOR STEPHEN LEGOMSKY
TESTIMONY OF JAMIEL SHAW, FATHER OF TEENAGER MURDERED BY ILLEGAL ALIEN
In an op-ed on February 9, I suggested that Israel’s opposition leader, Isaac Herzog, should stand alongside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before Congress on March 3, to underline “their common conviction that the regime in Tehran cannot be appeased and must be faced down.”
On Monday evening, as details of the looming US-led deal with Iran emerged from Geneva, Israel’s most respected Middle East affairs analyst, Channel 2 commentator Ehud Ya’ari, made precisely the same suggestion. So problematic are the reported terms of the deal, Ya’ari indicated, that Israel’s two leading contenders in the March 17 elections, Netanyahu and Herzog, need to put aside their differences and make plain to US legislators that the need to thwart such an accord crosses party lines in Israel and stands as a consensual imperative.
After anonymous sources in Jerusalem leaked to Israeli reporters in recent weeks the ostensible terms of the deal being hammered out, various spokespeople for the Obama administration contended that the Netanyahu government was misrepresenting the specifics for narrow political ends. They sneered that Israel didn’t actually know what the terms were. And they made the acknowledgement – the astounding acknowledgement for a United States whose key regional ally is directly and relentlessly threatened with destruction by Iran – that the Obama administration is consequently no longer sharing with Jerusalem all sensitive details of the Iran talks.
And yet among the terms of the deal being reported by the Associated Press from Geneva on Monday are precisely those that were asserted in recent weeks by the Israeli sources, precisely those that were scoffed at by the Administration. Centrally, Iran is to be allowed to keep 6,500 centrifuges spinning, and there will be a sunset clause providing for an end to intrusive inspections in some 10-15 years. If anything, indeed, some of the terms reported by the AP are even more worrying than those that were leaked in Jerusalem: “The idea would be to reward Iran for good behavior over the last years of any agreement,” the AP said, “gradually lifting constraints on its uranium enrichment program and slowly easing economic sanctions.” There is also no indication of restrictions on Iran’s missile development – its potential delivery systems.
In his TV commentary on Monday night, Ya’ari highlighted that the deal could further embolden Iran as it expands its influence throughout this region, and he noted that the isolation of Iran even by Israel’s key allies was already cracking, with the firmly pro-Israel foreign minister of Australia, Julie Bishop, announcing an imminent visit to Tehran – the first Australian foreign minister to make such a trip in a decade.
Ya’ari also noted that the International Atomic Energy Agency has made clear that it lacks the tools to effectively monitor the kind of nuclear program that Iran will be allowed to maintain under the emerging deal – incapable, that is, of ensuring that Iran does not fool the West as it has done in the past.
The devil of such deals is generally in the detail. But the devil, here, is in the principle as well — the principle that the P5+1 is about to legitimize Iran as a nuclear threshold state. From there, it will be capable of rapidly breaking out to the bomb, well aware that the international community lacks the will to stop it.
The Obama administration would evidently like to believe that 10-15 years from now, the ayatollahs will be gone, Iran will have a different leadership, and the threat of what Netanyahu has repeatedly called “the most dangerous regime in the world attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world” will have passed.
But if the deal now taking shape is indeed finalized, the chances of the regime being ousted from within, or effectively confronted from without, will drastically recede. This deal, indeed, will help cement the ayatollahs in power, with dire consequences for Israel, relatively moderate Arab states, and the free world.
It goes without saying that this weekend’s developments in Geneva have only bolstered Netanyahu’s determination to sound the alarm before Congress next Tuesday. It’s also still clearer today why the Obama administration has been so anxious to query his motives and seek to discredit his concerns.
I headlined my February 9 op-ed “Who to believe on Iran: Obama or Netanyahu?” I think we know now.
First, to Spacey’s whining
On Sunday’s Meet the Press, actor Kevin Spacey whined that President Obama is incapable of accomplishing any of his goals because the GOP will stop at nothing in blocking everyone one of Obama’s ideas.
First of all, why is an actor on MTP? Seriously why? If an actor, or singer, or porn star or whatever is going to be on MTP, at least get one that grasps how our government works.
Talking about the hit show House of Cards, correspondent Cynthia McFadden said, “A life-long Democrat, Spacey says he, like many Americans, is frustrated with Washington.”
“I think that what is truly unfortunate is when an entire party makes a decision that they’re going to block every single thing that a president wants to accomplish. It’s very – it’s very hard to get anything done in those circumstances,” intoned Spacey, who plays President Frank Underwood on the show.
Hmmm, I will suppose that Spacey is not aware that those Republicans were elected by their states voters to OPPOSE the left-wing agenda of the president. That IS how it works Mr. Spacey. Believe it or not not every American wanted ObamaCare passed, in fact, Mr. Spacey, I cannot remember one poll that ever showed a majority of Americans supported it. Yet the Democrats rammed it through anyway. What of that Mr. Spacey? What of the two years Obama had a majority in both chambers of Congress? Why did cap-and-trade fail there? Because enough Democrats opposed it Mr. Spacey. Why has the president NOT worked with Republicans at all? Why have Democrats like Harry Reid refused to work with Republicans? I suppose Mr. Spacey just thinks every president should get their way regardless of Congress or the American people. More likely he thinks only Democratic presidents should have that luxury.
Seriously, Kevin Spacey is welcome to comment, but shouldn’t he have at least a rudimentary grasp of our political system?