Archive for March, 2013

New legislation would fire sheriffs who disobey federal gun restrictions

March 28, 2013 5 comments

Move over – there might be a new sheriff in town if you don’t go along with federal gun control mandates, says new state legislation. The 380 sheriffs who have vowed to defend the constitutional right to bear arms may now be at risk to lose their jobs.

Many state legislatures are now pushing to passing measures that would remove any sheriff found defying federal law.

In the Texas state legislature, Dallas Democratic Representative Yvonne Davis introduced a measure that would fire any aw enforcement officer who disobeys state or federal orders.

And it gets worse………..



Yvone Davis. This fat, fascist bitch needs her Mickey D’s yanked out of her paws.

Final Version of Arms Trade Treaty Released; Civilian Disarmament on Track

TWG:  The whole “ratification” issue is just a ruse.  The Constitution can no longer protect us from those unaccountable, invisible, untouchable terrorists squatting on thrones at the UN.  They don’t need Senate approval anymore.  This WILL be imposed on us, using “Customary Law“.  They’re simply trying to take our Human & Civil Rights and our Second Amendment the *nice* way….. for now.  The UN OGIDDRS lays it all out for how, EXACTLY how, they plan to disarm, detain, resocialize and exterminate those of us who show signs of non-compliance.   The tracks were laid for the American people a LONG time ago.  This will not end well…… for ANYONE.


If those beasts want our guns, they’re going to have to steal them the hard way.   NFSE.






NEW YORK — Just before noon on Wednesday, Australian ambassador and president of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty conference, Peter Woolcott, released his final version of the global gun control agreement.

Upon publication of the document, Woolcott informed delegates that they have 24 hours to confer with their respective governments and then report tomorrow for a final vote.

Apart from a couple of technical reviews by the drafting committee scheduled to be completed by 2:00 p.m., this is the last revision of the document, and Woolcott said nations must now “take it or leave it.”

For so many reasons, the United States delegation must choose the latter option. A few sections of the proposed agreement are provided below, each of which would require the federal government to unconstitutionally infringe upon the right of Americans to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment.

To begin, the Preamble of the Arms Trade Treaty points to the United Nations Charter as the source of guiding principles upon which the agreement is based. Citizens of the United States, however, recognize God as the source of all rights they enjoy. Not even the Constitution claims to be the giver of rights; it is merely the protector of them.

The ultimate American statement on the issue of the provenance of rights was written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

The UN would see the Declaration of Independence replaced by the Declaration of Human Rights and would have the Creator replaced with government as the source of rights.

Another paragraph of the Arms Trade Treaty’s preamble grants the United Nations the power to authorize “end users” and “end use” of conventional arms.

Where in the Constitution is an unelected and unaccountable body of international bureaucrats given the right to determine who is or is not authorized to buy, sell, or trade weapons?

Next, the Arms Trade Treaty preamble reaffirms the “sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms.” The federal government has no right whatsoever to regulate or control conventional arms. While the governments of the 50 states of the United States may exercise such control as part of their police power, the Second Amendment explicitly forbids the federal government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Another provision declares “that civilians, particularly women and children, account for the vast majority of those adversely affected by armed conflict and armed violence.”

While on its face potentially true, during the 20th century, hundreds of millions of women and children were killed in wars started by the governments of the world. These conflicts employed weapons not in the hands of civilians, but under the control of “legitimate regimes.”

Given that the Arms Trade Treaty specifically grants the UN and “state parties” exclusive control over the manufacture, purchase, possession, sale, trade, and transfer of weapons of every size — from handgun to intercontinental missile — how can it claim to be the best hope of protecting women and children from armed conflict? In fact, in nearly every case of mass killings by government, the people targeted were first disarmed, leaving all weapons in the hands of government, preventing the people from resisting the march of tyranny.

Article 2 of the treaty defines the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions. The right to own, buy, sell, trade, or transfer the following items is regulated by the terms of the treaty:

(a) Battle tanks;

(b) Armoured [sic] combat vehicles;

(c) Large-calibre [sic] artillery systems;

(d) Combat aircraft;

(e) Attack helicopters;

(f) Warships;

(g) Missiles and missile launchers; and

(h) Small arms and light weapons.

Article 3 places the “ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms covered under Article 2” within the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions, as well.

As the representative of one pro-gun control organization told this reporter last week, “Guns without bullets are no deadlier than baseball bats.” The UN plans to eventually rid the world of privately owned weapons; failing to do that, however, they will prevent the purchase (or reloading) of ammunition.

Reports around the country reveal that shortages of ammunition are already leaving many without rounds to use in their lawfully owned firearms.

Article 4 rounds out the regulations, placing all “parts and components” of weapons within the scheme, as well.

Perhaps the most immediate threat to the rights of gun owners in the Arms Trade Treaty is found in Article 5. Under the title of “General Implementation,” Article 5 mandates that all countries participating in the treaty “shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list.”

This list should “apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms.”

Should the U.S. delegation vote in favor of this treaty (and President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have both signaled that they should), the federal government will be obligated to begin compiling a list of who owns, buys, sells, trades, or transfers any of the weapons included in the list provided above, as well as the ammunition, parts, and components of those weapons.

After creating this database, the federal government will be required under the provisions of Article 5(4) of the Arms Trade Treaty to “provide its national control list to the Secretariat, which shall make it available to other States Parties.”

That’s right. The UN demands that the list of gun and ammo owners not only be in the hands of our own government, but be sent to foreign regimes, as well.

Americans are right to recognize this registry as the first step toward confiscation.

Without such a registry, it would be impossible to monitor weapon transfers effectively because governments can’t track weapons exchanges and transfers unless they know who has them to begin with.

Article 12 adds to the record-keeping requirement, mandating that the list include “the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms,” as well as the identity of the “end users” of these items.

In very clear terms, the Arms Trade Treaty will require that the federal government of the United States force gun owners to add their names to the national registry. Citizens will be required to report the amount and type of all firearms and ammunition they possess.

Section 4 of Article 12 requires that the list be kept for at least 10 years.

Finally, the agreement instructs governments to take “appropriate measures” to enforce the terms of the treaty. If they can’t seem to get it done on their own, however, Article 16 provides for UN assistance, specifically including help with the enforcement of “stockpile management, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes.”

The conference will reconvene at UN headquarters tomorrow morning. Delegations will then vote on the treaty and report to their home governments. The New American will report from the scene of this historic event.

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and is currently on assignment in New York to cover the Arms Trade Treaty conference. He can be reached at

Related articles:

Gun Control Group Calls for Strict Control of Arms, Ammo in UN Treaty

“Bizarre Interpretation of Second Amendment” is Obstacle to UN Gun Grab

Senate Votes to Keep U.S. Out of UN Arms Trade Treaty

UN Arms Trade Treaty: National Lists of Gun Owners; Ammunition Regulation

UN Arms Trade Treaty, Day Two: Focus Is Transfer, Registry of Firearms

UN Arms Trade Conference Begins, Sec. General Calls for “Robust” Treaty



Serbu Firearms Refuses to Sell .50 Cal Sniper Rifles to NYPD

March 26, 2013 2 comments




serbu firearms

Source: GUNS.COM

3/25/13 | by


Serbu Firearms, a manufacturer of bolt-action and semi-automatic .50 caliber sniper rifles, is refusing to sell their wares to the NYPD. Their reason, of course, is that owing to unfair gun laws, they will not support law enforcement in New York.

Serbu is one of almost 150 companies that has officially refused to sell to law enforcement in New York following the passage of the SAFE Act, the controversial gun control package that has been met with scorn by gun owners across the nation.

The company posted the NYPD’s inquiry as well as their refusal to their Facebook page, with names omitted.

Company founder Mark Serbu said, “Unfortunately, we have a policy of selling to state law enforcement agencies only what is allowed to be sold to private citizens in that state. Since the passage of the NY SAFE act, the BFG-50A is considered an assault weapon and as such is no longer available to private citizens in the state of New York. Therefore we have to respectfully decline to supply your department with BFG-50A rifles.”

He also said he felt bad about not being able to outfit the officers, because although he would like to get his guns into “as many police departments as possible,” his decision is a matter of principle.

“Because of a stupid law the venerable NYPD won’t have the best tools for the job.”

What’s interesting about this is that while Serbu makes a fine firearm and impressive .50 BMG rifles, they’re not a first-tier company in the sniper rifle world and are perhaps best known for their compact Super-Shorty shotguns.

Two of the biggest names in sniper rifles, Barrett and ArmaLite, have already stated that they will not sell to the police departments of New York. If the NYPD is calling Serbu, we have to wonder how many other companies have told them to keep walking.

Serbu is the 137th company to halt sales to New York law enforcement according to the unofficial official New York Boycott list, which is now up to 142 companies (at the time of writing) and likely to keep growing.

The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, an NRA affiliate, along with the Westchester County Firearms Owners Association, Sportsmen’s Association for Firearms Education, Blueline Tactical Police Supply and several other plaintiffs have filed suit against the state of New York and the SAFE Act.

If you want to let them know what you think yea or nay, of just “like” them, head over to the Serbu Firearms Facebook page.


If Nukes Are So Useless, Why Are Iran, North Korea, China and Russia Building Them So Fast?

TWG:  America, read the congressional record titled “Communist Goals For America“,  tell your children and grandchildren you’re sorry,  then bend over and kiss your ass goodbye. 


1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.


If Nukes Are So Useless, Why Are Iran, North Korea, China and Russia Building Them So Fast?

by Peter Huessy
January 29, 2013 at 4:00 am


Senator Hagel, while signing up to the timetable for the elimination of all nuclear weapons, also said in the 2009 Al Jazeera interview, that nuclear weapons can be abolished because they no longer need to play a traditional deterrent role. As part of this strategy, Hagel proposes to “de-alert” our weapons, making them unusable in a crisis. This raises the question of why any adversary would also volunteer to put its nuclear warheads in reserve and significantly delay its own ability to use such weapons, especially when doing so is largely unverifiable.

The “Global Zero” campaign to “zero out” all nuclear weapons is pressuring the US to set an example for the rest of the world to follow, by dramatically cutting its nuclear forces even further to a level not seen since the dawn of the nuclear age 60 years ago.

This cutback is on top of the already considerable 90% reduction — since the height of the Cold War in 1981 — in our deployed strategic nuclear forces, as well as a similarly significant reduction in our reserve stockpile and our tactical nuclear weapons.

In proposing a larger reduction, a logical question has arisen: What is the role, if any, of the nuclear weapons we will keep prior to their elimination? In short, what is the function of nuclear weapons in the post-Cold War era, now seen as the post-9/11 era and its concern about terrorism?

A little history is in order. The essence of the US triad of missiles on land, submarines at sea and bombers ready to fly is that it is virtually impossible to take all of these forces out in one quick, sudden unexpected strike by the bad guys, which would leave us “naked”, i.e., with no nukes left with which to deter or strike back.

The Global Zero forces have long wanted to eliminate the land based missiles — at the height of the Cold War we had 1050 such missiles on land spread over 7 states; we have 450 now over five states.

Global Zero wants to get rid of the land-based Minuteman missiles and rely primarily on our submarines, both to save money and to demonstrate that we are truly dedicated to “going toward” zero weapons.

But we only have two bases or ports for our submarines, one in Washington and one in Georgia. Those subs in port can be destroyed by a cruise missile attack. But those subs at sea, usually four, in their patrol areas, cannot now be found by any adversary so they can survive to fire back at any adversary who might strike the US first.

But our Navy leaders believe anti-submarine warfare technology may in a number of years make it easier to detect and find them. Thus, prudence dictates we continue to make the fleet as quiet and survivable as possible, as well as maintaining the insurance policy of our land-based Minuteman missiles to ensure we can retaliate if attacked. The cost of the Minuteman program annually is roughly $500 million in research, development and acquisition, a bargain at less than $1 out of every $7600 spent by Uncle Sam.

If an anti-submarine warfare breakthrough occurred, our submarines over time could be eliminated while underwater on patrol. Under those circumstances, we would not know what country had taken them out.

This would be a deadly serious crisis, because the US President would be faced with the prospects of the United States losing its nuclear deterrent. This entire dilemma, however, can be avoided simply with the expedient of the US keeping all of our Minuteman missiles in their silos sustained and modernized.

The next strategy proposed by Global Zero involves a degree of sleight of hand. After proposing that 450 submarine-based warheads would remain in our inventory, they propose that the same warheads be “de-alerted”. This would require making technical changes to the submarine missile-launchers. The submarine commander, upon receiving orders from the President to fire such weapons, would not be able to carry out such an order for upwards of seventy two hours or three days.

Since taking the missiles “off alert” is not verifiable, we would be hoping our adversaries did likewise. Instead of President Reagan’s policy of “Trust, but verify”, we would be in a new world of “Trust, don’t verify, and hope”.

Finally, the Global Zero advocates try to hide the weakness of their approach by proposing that if needed in a crisis, the submarines could add an additional 450 warheads to their missiles by returning to port and adding such warheads to their missiles from stockpiles stored nearby. The only problem is that, as experts have explained, such an endeavor would take many months. And the logical question arises, why would the “bad guys” wait around during a crisis for the US to re-arm?

In this context, the Global Zero campaign has now authored a proposal in which nuclear weapons would be eliminated by 2030 — with the US leading the way by eliminating much of its current Nuclear Triad of bombers, submarines and land-based missiles. Some number of weapons would remain throughout the period leading up to the elimination of the rest.

Here things get confusing. What would be the doctrine upon which the current nuclear forces would rely? If not available for use in a crisis, what would their purpose be? And if other nuclear armed nations kept their weapons ready to use, we would enter every crisis potentially unprepared to deter war.

One author of the report, former Senator Chuck Hagel, now nominated to be the new Defense Secretary, asserted in a 2009 Al Jazeera interview that the doctrine of mutual assured destruction or MAD, was no longer relevant although it had been the doctrine of the US and the Soviet Union for much of the Cold War. What then would take its place?

The report itself, primarily authored by the former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General James Cartwright, has underscored that nuclear deterrence still needs to be maintained, and has proposed that the US keep some 450 warheads for that purpose, with an additional 450 warheads “in reserve” on a reduced force of ten submarines and 20 bombers.

But the Global Zero report also calls for these 450 reserve warheads to be removed from their bombers and submarine-launched ballistic missiles and stored elsewhere, a change which would require many months before they could be brought back from storage and used.

Why any adversary would also volunteer to put its nuclear warheads in reserve and significantly delay its own ability to use such weapons remains unexplained — or what purpose would be served by bringing nuclear weapons to bear in a confrontation already underway for some time or possibly even already resolved?

Further, moving our deployed warheads off alert, so they could not be used for days or months after a crisis occurred, certainly would give incentives to other parties in a conflict to have nuclear weapons at the ready so they could be used to defeat everybody else.

There are adversaries of the US that have, or are urgently attempting to acquire, nuclear weapons; adversaries that include Russia, China and North Korea, with Iran now projected to have sufficient nuclear material for a weapon as early as 2014. Will all of these nuclear powers actually put aside their nuclear weapons, making them unusable in a crisis?

Any crisis could emerge involving any number of the current nine nuclear weapons states. In that light, the primary objective of the United States should be to ensure that no nuclear weapons be used, whether those weapons were to be used against the US and its allies or not. To do that, nuclear deterrence would be required. And such deterrence must be — and appear to be — both credible and stable. The Global Zero strategy is neither.

What then should a credible US nuclear policy look like? At a minimum, it should preserve nuclear stability, the guiding principal of which would be that during a crisis, the US would work to ensure that: (1) No nuclear weapons were used by anyone against anyone else especially while nuclear weapons remain in the arsenal of nations; and (2) That peace is preserved, and any aggression, even conventional, is avoided.

In that light, how do any of the Global Zero proposals make sense, especially in de-alerting those warheads that remain in our inventory while eliminating our ICBMs

Most problematic about the Global Zero strategy us that it relies upon verification measures — not yet identified — to preserve the peace in a non-nuclear world with many rogue states that have a strong propensity to cheat. In these circumstances, would war of any nature be less likely or more likely? Let’s look at four key issues.

1. Assuming the US, and its allies would not completely trust a commitment by Iran, North Korea, China, Pakistan and others to get rid of their nuclear weapons, wouldn’t it require extremely intrusive inspections — including those made without notice — to adequately verify such an eradication, as even the proponents of such an agenda admit?

What happens, however, even if we reach such a hypothetical condition of zero nuclear weapons? Would the Global Zero proponents also tell us that with nuclear weapons no longer available, war between countries — including terrorist-sponsoring states and their terror allies — would go away? As General Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Council Adviser to President Bush, has asked: What part of the pre-nuclear era of World War I and World War II are folks hoping we go back to?

As conventional war would still be possible between nations — and without nuclear deterrence, possibly even more likely — wouldn’t the benefit of getting nuclear weapons first, on the sly, be of enormous strategic advantage to a country seeking to commit aggression against another? Would verification be so foolproof that we could be certain such a surprise would not happen?

If North Korea were to invade South Korea solely with conventional forces — even unsuccessfully — would not South Korea be sorely tempted to secure nuclear weapons to ensure that such an attack would never happen again? Or what about a conflict between India and China, or Pakistan and India, or Iran and Turkey? Would nuclear weapons stay out of the geostrategic equation for long?

A nuclear-free world would also therefore be a world where very quickly there would be a rush to rearm, as the likely outcome, or attempted prevention, of any perceived potential conflict. The world would soon be awash in aspiring nuclear powers with the attendant instability this situation would entail with few “rules of the road” in operation.

2. Some advocates of nuclear zero also assert that nuclear weapons currently serve no usefully military purpose, in that they cannot be used for any militarily useful goal, and thus can safely be eliminated.

A recent essay by Ward Wilson, cited as further evidence that nuclear weapons have never been useful and thus can now safely be abolished, asserts that the Japanese surrendered at the end of World War II not because of the US use of nuclear weapons, but because the Soviet Union entered the war in early August 1945.

General Larry Welch, the former US Air Force Chief of Staff and Commander of the Strategic Command at the height of the Cold War, and one of the key authors of the initial US effort to reduce nuclear weapons to lower but more stable numbers, found such a proposition “at odds with the facts, even at odds with the information presented in Wilson’s article.”

“The Japanese emperor,” Welch wrote me, “was the only authority in Japan to overrule the military and declare an end to the war. The use of nuclear weapons against Japan gave him the necessary leverage to surrender and to make it stick. … The idea that the Soviets’ entry into the war did the trick is not supported by any understanding of the facts at the time.” He added, “The Russians had no significant capability facing Japan, and no naval capability. Their forces were concentrated in the European theater.”

Welch also noted that, “The overwhelming evidence was that a US and allied invasion of Japan would have cost America 500,000 to 1,000,000 military casualties and 1-2 million subsequent Japanese casualties. After the war, we discovered very large caches of war material being readied to fight just such an invasion.”

Wilson’s claim that nuclear weapons had no role in the peace maintained throughout the Cold War – is “devoid of supportable rationales” said Welch.

“The very fact,” Welch wrote, “that there was no armed conflict between two superpowers armed to the teeth, facing each other across an artificial border, is de facto evidence that nuclear weapons served a military purpose unparalleled in human history —-they played a major role in avoiding war for an extended period between two heavily armed adversaries, an accomplishment, let me emphasize again, largely unparalleled in human history.”

The “whole point of deterrence was never to use these weapons” he continued. “The idea that the use of such weapons was wholly irrational and would not accomplish one’s war aims was precisely the point of deterrence; the use of such weapons was so horrible to contemplate, their use by our adversaries was deterred.”

3. The next issue is whether nuclear weapons serve no further purpose. “If nuclear weapons are so useless as he asserts,” Welch continued, “why are rogue states and others seeking to acquire them?”

If nuclear weapons really serve no purpose, then it makes sense for the US unilaterally to take the lead and be the first to disarm: have the US get rid of its nuclear weapons unilaterally, before any of our adversaries do as well?

If, however, as even global zero advocates concede, nuclear deterrence remains essential, then the argument should be about what is needed for both strategic deterrence and for maintaining strategic stability.

In that regard, reference to the one treaty now in force that calls for the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons would be useful. The whole purpose of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] was to reduce those nations with nuclear weapons, to stop proliferation and eventually reduce and then eliminate nuclear weapons.

The NPT, signed in 1968 and entering into force in 1970, also called for general disarmament of conventional forces as part and parcel of any such nuclear disarmament. The US nuclear umbrella was widely seen during the Cold War as keeping the peace in Central Europe, preventing a superior Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact conventional capability from being used on the continent. The US was hardly ready to give up its nuclear deterrent in Europe and leave in place a vastly superior Soviet conventional capability facing NATO across the Fulda Gap. Even today, leaders of countries from Germany, Taiwan, Korea and Japan, for example, credit the US nuclear umbrella for forestalling major proliferation pressures among US allies.

Nuclear weapons, then, have served a major purpose: stopping the very proliferation which the Global Zero campaign claims is one of its chief concerns. But with the removal of the US deterrent umbrella, including the remaining tactical nuclear weapons the US has in Europe,, proliferation will only be encouraged.

Proponents of Global Zero probably have to make up their minds: do or do not nuclear weapons give whoever possesses them a decided advantage in strategic affairs? If they do give such an advantage, pursuing Global Zero could actually be an unfortunate prelude to Global Proliferation, as nations seek to match or overtake smaller and smaller US nuclear forces. Global Zero could also lead to a world where just a handful of such weapons could obliterate other powers shortly after Global Zero had been reached. Again, a rush to rearm would result.

4. A key part of the Global Zero agenda is to “de-alert” the weapons of the United States, and implicitly those of Russia as well. This has sometimes been described as taking our warheads off of their missiles or removing them from bombers, then storing them separately from the platforms from which they would be launched, or delaying the time by which warheads on their respective missiles could be launched.

This has the purpose of not allowing nuclear weapons to be used for up to 72 hours after they have been de-alerted, and months for submarine-based weapons stored ashore. The first action cannot be verified and the latter takes so much time as to have no impact on a crisis or conflict already erupted. Thus, re-alerting and reconstituting our submarine force, for instance, would be a task taking not just days but in some instances months.

The first thing wrong with such a proposal is that it is, in large part, not verifiable. The second thing wrong is that the adversary’s weapons could surreptitiously be “re-alerted.” In a crisis, there would be the very same rush to rearm, which the very instability that the Global Zero push for no nuclear weapons is supposed to prevent.

Global Zero’s recommendations would therefore produce the likelihood that nuclear weapons would be used against us and our allies. We would not cheat, but the other side well could.


The most worrisome part of the Global Zero agenda is its proposal to dismantle unilaterally most of our current stabilizing nuclear deterrent. Cartwright and Hagel both propose to eliminate our 450 land based missiles and most of our bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons, and then rely almost entirely on our submarines.

This may sound attractive but it is not. Our submarines are in two ports, in Georgia and Washington. A certain number (four) of these 12 Trident boats are, on an ongoing basis at sea, patrolling within their pre-assigned boxes. Some boats remain in port, while others transit from port to patrol area. They are considered highly survivable out at sea as an assured second-strike retaliatory capability. The submarines place no pressure on a President in a crisis to cross the threshold and use nuclear weapons.

According to the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the highest ranking Naval Officer in the US, the quest by our adversaries to develop an underwater, or anti-submarine warfare [ASW] capability, is high on the list of his most worrisome possible future developments.

If acquired, this would put at risk our submarines out at sea, where they could be destroyed by underwater torpedoes — with the US totally blind as to which nation might have carried out such an attack. Over time, our fleet could be targeted or eliminated, and with it our entire nuclear deterrent capability.

Today, while our submarines remain safe as they patrol at sea, we still maintain 450 Minuteman missiles in silos in the ground spread over hundreds of thousands of square miles in five states as a key insurance policy. To take out the Minuteman silos would require the “bad guys” to launch two warheads at each silo, which would require a massive attack. But even if all of our missiles in their silos did not survive–highly unlikely–our submarines at sea could retaliate. Thus any adversary would face the daunting task of simultaneously taking out our submarines in port and at sea as well as our land based missiles. Given the different flight times required to take out each element of our Triad, we would have sufficient warning of an attack and be able to strike back but only with all three Triad legs in place and sustained.

The presence today of 450 Minuteman missile silos spread over five states thus makes a pre-emptive attack on the US non-credible. Minuteman is thus a critically important strategic insurance policy, as is each element of our Triad. In a crisis, the bad guys know they cannot eliminate our ability to strike back , if necessary, with nuclear weapons. This maintains the strategic balance where no side is tempted to go first with nuclear weapons. That is what deterrence has to entail.

If the advocates of Global Zero really believed that relying primarily on our submarines made sense, they would not have admitted, as they did, that beyond 2040 an ASW or anti-submarine warfare breakthrough could occur that would put our entire underwater deterrent in fatal jeopardy.

Given the proposal to eliminate the Triad now, what would be the insurance policy upon which the US would rely to keep our needed deterrent if an ASW breakthrough occurred before 2040? The proponents of eliminating our Triad are either betting that our adversaries will not achieve any ASW breakthrough before then, or they are assuming that a lot of nuclear-armed lions will be getting along well with a lot of de-nuclearized lambs.

To claim the US deterrent is safe — except for a technological breakthrough — is less than prudent. Obviously a technological breakthrough, of which the US might not be aware, would alter the strategic balance, dramatically shifting the “correlation of forces” toward a nation which believed that eliminating the US nuclear arsenal would be to its advantage militarily and politically.

The proposal to eliminate the Triad brings with it — as with other proposals by the people of Global Zero — not peace, but a heightened geostrategic instability. Such a posture as Global Zero advocates would only encourage nuclear powers to seek to eliminate the US nuclear capability, while brandishing their own nuclear weapons to secure their own objectives. The use of nuclear weapons and planned aggression by an adversary may indeed become even more likely, and increase the likelihood that nuclear weapons might be used by someone other than the US in a crisis.

Global Zero would actually create the incentive for nations to bring nuclear weapons secretly back into their inventory; such weapons would once again become the “coin of the realm,” sought by rogue state bullies as the ultimate weapon with which to secure their often totalitarian goals.

Tyrants and nations would rush to impose their will, and with it the loss of our liberty previously guaranteed by a nuclear deterrent, now removed.



Giffords’ Gun Grabber, Mark Kelly, FELONIOUS Straw Purchaser, Denied AR-15

March 26, 2013 1 comment

TWG: WHY hasn’t that FELON been arrested? Any lowly peasant would have been hauled off in handcuffs by now.


Denied: Gun Store Owner Refuses to Hand AR-15 over to Mark Kelly

by AWR Hawkins 26 Mar 2013, 5:55 AM PDT


Diamondback Police Supply owner Douglas MacKinlay has halted Mark Kelly’s attempted purchase of an AR-15 over concerns that Kelly was not in fact buying the gun for himself, and therefore could not have passed question 11a of the NICS background check form 4473.

You’ll recall Kelly’s AR-15 had been on hold for 20 days because it was a trade-in firearm, and during those 20 days Kelly has not been shy about the fact that his plan was to buy the gun and give it to someone else all along….(Con’t)



DHS Purchasing 360,000 MORE Hollow Point Citizen Killers

March 26, 2013 1 comment

TWG:  Comforting, isn’t it, to know those beasts are hoarding so much ammunition with which to use against American Citizens when they decide to bring the hammer and sickle down on us all.   Hollow point bullets are NOT EVER used for training. They have only ONE purpose….. Killing people.  They’re arming up for war. ARE YOU?


Paul Joseph Watson
March 25, 2013

While the Department of Homeland Security continues to ignore members of Congress demanding to know why the federal agency is engaged in an apparent arms build-up, the DHS has just announced it plans to purchase another 360,000 rounds of hollow point ammunition to add to the roughly 2 billion bullets already bought over the past year.

The DHS has now purchased over 2 billion rounds of ammo.

A solicitation on the Federal Business Opportunities website details the DHS’ plan to purchase 360,000 rounds of “Commercial leaded training ammo (CLTA) Pistol .40 caliber 165 grain, jacketed hollow point.” The bullets are to be delivered to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia, New Mexico, the same destination for 240,000 hollow point rounds which were purchased only last month.


ALERT: Harry Reid Pulls Yet ANOTHER Of His Sleazy Tricks To Destroy Our Gun Rights

March 25, 2013 7 comments

TWG:  CLEARLY, we can’t trust 99% of the “people” in government with our Constitution and Bill of Rights.   Harry Reid has pulled yet ANOTHER of his sleazy tricks.  If they pass this bill, it will be crystal clear that TREASON is rampant within the walls of each and every government office in this Nation.  

We will see very soon which one’s need to be tried, convicted and punished accordingly for their TREASON.   Take names and NEVER FORGET who is aiding and abetting the enemies of this Nation and Her Citizens and who, exactly, has betrayed each and every law-abiding gun owner in this Nation. 

Keep notes on this den of poisonous vipers, as well as those who support them.  These are NOT our fellow Americans.  They are enemy invaders, traitors and treasonists.  Treat them as such.

Sen. Reid Beefs up “Base Bill” to Destroy Gun Ownership

Monday, 25 March 2013 18:23 Written by Gun Owners of America

We now know a lot more about what’s going to happen with gun control legislation than we did a few days ago.

First, the number of the bill we are fighting is S. 649. Harry Reid introduced it on Thursday and brought it directly onto the Senate calendar. This means the bill can now come up at any time — probably soon after the Easter recess is over.

Second, the bill is a lot worse than even we anticipated.

We expected it to contain the Veterans Gun Ban, which would mean that you would sell, gift, or raffle a gun in America at the risk of a 15-year prison sentence because of something you didn’t know about the veteran/buyer.

But, surprisingly to us, the Far Left has convinced Reid to include the original Schumer version of the Universal Registry Bill. This would ban private sales of firearms, unless purchasers first get the permission from the government. If Senators can pass this de facto registration bill, they will be well on the way to confiscation (see, for example, Governor Andrew Cuomo in New York, who has a gun owner registry and has called for gun confiscation). If this bill is passed, Senators will claim that they “broke the back” of gun owners in America.

Third, there is still every evidence that Reid will move to proceed to the bill under “regular order,” which means he will need 60 votes to advance to the “gun control buffet.”

GOA has been talking and making our case with a host of Senate Republicans, and we would hope that everyone in the Senate understands the importance of stopping the “motion to proceed” to Reid’s gun control legislation.

Fourth, as we predicted, anti-gun zealots have begun to use the “ObamaCare Paradigm” to threaten, bribe, and coerce senators into submission on the most far-reaching aspects of gun control, including Feinstein’s proposal to ban shotguns, rifles and handguns that millions of Americans legally own. So if the “motion to proceed” to S. 649 is adopted with 60 votes, then Feinstein’s ban could be passed in the Senate with only 50 votes (plus Biden). Click here for a more technical explanation as to how this would occur.

Already, articles are being published to intimidate any Democratic Senator who votes against any gun control and threatening them with the prospect of facing an anti-gun primary challenger — just like we saw on ObamaCare.

Fifth, there may be unholy alliances at work which could succeed in achieving a dangerous gun control compromise. One Capitol Hill newspaper is now reporting that “Sen. Joe Manchin and the National Rifle Association are quietly engaged in private talks on a proposal to broaden background checks on purchasers of firearms.” We hope this is not true, however you should be aware of this report and use whatever contacts you have to prevent this from happening.  Be assured, you can rely on Gun Owners of America to never engage in any compromises!

ACTION: The strategy remains: We need to defeat this bill by filibustering and voting down the “motion to proceed” to S. 649. Please contact your senators and distribute this alert far and wide.

Show up at their offices with a delegation during the congressional recess. Rally and conduct demonstrations and call-a-thons and writing campaigns. Know that the anti-gun Left will be doing the same.


Senate Roll Call Votes On Entering The UN Arms Trade Treaty. SIX VOTES FROM LOSING

March 25, 2013 3 comments




Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)


U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 113th Congress – 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Inhofe Amdt. No. 139 )
Vote Number: 91 Vote Date: March 23, 2013, 04:30 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 139 to S.Con.Res. 8 (No short title on file)
Statement of Purpose: To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
Vote Counts: YEAs 53
NAYs 46
Not Voting 1
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Ayotte (R-NH), Yea
Baldwin (D-WI), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Nay
Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay
Blunt (R-MO), Yea
Boozman (R-AR), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Coats (R-IN), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Coons (D-DE), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Cowan (D-MA), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Cruz (R-TX), Yea
Donnelly (D-IN), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Fischer (R-NE), Yea
Flake (R-AZ), Yea
Franken (D-MN), Nay
Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Heinrich (D-NM), Yea
Heitkamp (D-ND), Yea
Heller (R-NV), Yea
Hirono (D-HI), Nay
Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johanns (R-NE), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Johnson (R-WI), Yea
Kaine (D-VA), Nay
King (I-ME), Nay
Kirk (R-IL), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Not Voting
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Lee (R-UT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Manchin (D-WV), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Merkley (D-OR), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Moran (R-KS), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murphy (D-CT), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Paul (R-KY), Yea
Portman (R-OH), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Risch (R-ID), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Rubio (R-FL), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schatz (D-HI), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Scott (R-SC), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Toomey (R-PA), Yea
Udall (D-CO), Nay
Udall (D-NM), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Warner (D-VA), Nay
Warren (D-MA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs —53
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Begich (D-AK)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kirk (R-IL)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
NAYs —46
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting – 1
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Grouped by Home State

Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Begich (D-AK), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Flake (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Boozman (R-AR), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Bennet (D-CO), Nay Udall (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay Murphy (D-CT), Nay
Delaware: Carper (D-DE), Nay Coons (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Nelson (D-FL), Nay Rubio (R-FL), Yea
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Hirono (D-HI), Nay Schatz (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Crapo (R-ID), Yea Risch (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Kirk (R-IL), Yea
Indiana: Coats (R-IN), Yea Donnelly (D-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Moran (R-KS), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: McConnell (R-KY), Yea Paul (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Nay Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea King (I-ME), Nay
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Cowan (D-MA), Nay Warren (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Franken (D-MN), Nay Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Missouri: Blunt (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Nay Tester (D-MT), Yea
Nebraska: Fischer (R-NE), Yea Johanns (R-NE), Yea
Nevada: Heller (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Ayotte (R-NH), Yea Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Not Voting Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Heinrich (D-NM), Yea Udall (D-NM), Nay
New York: Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Hagan (D-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Heitkamp (D-ND), Yea Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Portman (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Merkley (D-OR), Nay Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Toomey (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: Graham (R-SC), Yea Scott (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Nay Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Cruz (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Hatch (R-UT), Yea Lee (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Kaine (D-VA), Nay Warner (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Murray (D-WA), Nay
West Virginia: Manchin (D-WV), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Baldwin (D-WI), Nay Johnson (R-WI), Yea
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Linus and Lucy Debate “Pro Choice”

March 25, 2013 6 comments


Dr. Ben Carson on Second Amendment Rights: “It depends on where you live.”

March 25, 2013 8 comments

‘Conservative Hero’ Ben Carson To Beck: You Have No Right To Semi-Automatic Weapons In Large Cities

by Andrew Kirell | 10:26 am, March 3rd, 2013

Appearing on Glenn Beck‘s radio show this past week, Dr. Benjamin Carson took a vastly different stance from most conservatives on the issue of gun control, claiming you shouldn’t be able to own semi-automatic weapons in large cities.

Carson became a newfound conservative hero last month when he spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast and laid out a series of criticisms of ObamaCare, political correctness, and tax policy right in front of the president himself. Many called the speech “inappropriate” given the apolitical nature of the event, but many conservatives lauded Carson for his “bold” and “sensible” suggestions for policy reform.

Asked by Beck for his thoughts on the Second Amendment, Carson gave the popular pro-gun argument: “There’s a reason for the Second Amendment; people do have the right to have weapons.”

But when asked whether people should be allowed to own “semi-automatic weapons,” the doctor replied: “It depends on where you live.”…(Con’t)



%d bloggers like this: