• Category Archives News
  • “There are Trillions of Dollars at Stake”

    Economics is money. Money is Economics.

    Every syllable and syntax by every oppositional entity, and the authorities who are directing them, are related to the current economic threat that is President Trump. Those who really understand this dynamic; those who are comprehensively willing to look at the biggest picture, can easily guide their friends and family through the motives of hate.

    ♦China is resisting the economics off President Trump with North Korea. ♦Russia is trying to resist the economics of Trump with Syria. ♦Mitch McConnell is resisting the economics of President Trump with antipathy and inaction.  ♦The Wall Street Journal is resisting the economics of Trump.  ♦Paul Ryan is resisting the economics of President Trump with budget delays and fiscal obfuscation.  ♦Professional corporate media, all sides, are desperately resisting the economics of Trump.  ♦The UniParty is resisting the economics of Trump.  ♦The swamp is resisting the economics of  PresidentTrump.  ♦Adverse international interests are aligned to resist the economics of Trump. ♦CEO’s are resigning advisory boards because of the economics of Trump.  ♦Statues are being torn down to resist the economics of Trump.  ♦Millions of people are being manipulated specifically due to the economics of President Trump….

    And remember, the economics of President Trump are YOUR economics.

    Read More…


  • Stossel Report Reinforces Urgent Need for Congressional Action

    Award-winning journalist John Stossel published a report this week that provides a timely reminder that – nearly a decade after the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller – law abiding gun owners are still routinely persecuted and punished for exercising their rights.

    Stossel’s report profiled harmless travelers caught up in New York City’s draconian approach to gun control, which treats as contraband handguns and magazines that are perfectly lawful under federal law and the laws of the overwhelming majority of states. Lawful possession requires a local license, which is not available to non-New York residents. Lawful carry requires a license issued at the discretion of the police, which Stossel himself was unable to get, despite a clear background and documented threats against his life. The Big Apple, in short, remains a Constitution-free zone as far as the right to keep and bear arms is concerned.

    The first victim Stossel interviewed was Patricia Jordan, a gun owner and concealed carry licensee from Georgia who has lawfully traveled with her handgun throughout the United States. Jordan knows the procedures for flying with a firearm in checked baggage and followed them to the letter on a trip to New York City with her teenage daughter. Jordan said she kept the handgun she had brought with her in her hotel room for self-protection.

    When Jordan declared the pistol during check-in for her return flight, however, she was detained and then arrested for carrying a loaded handgun, a felony subject to a minimum term of 3 ½ years in prison, with a possible sentence of up to 7 years. Even though Jordan’s gun contained no ammunition and was locked in a hard-sided travel case within a suitcase she intended to check, local authorities considered it “loaded” because ammunition was present in the same suitcase. That ammunition was so securely stored, however, that the police could not find it. Jordan herself had to show them where it was located. Despite the pleas of her sobbing daughter, Jordan was taken away from the airport to jail.

    The report’s second subject was Georgia resident and concealed carry licensee Avi Wolf, who made the mistake of bringing an empty magazine to New York in his baggage. Following advice from the Transportation Security Agency (TSA), Wolf declared the magazine and was subsequently taken into custody by four Port Authority police officers. Although Wolf had no firearm or ammunition with him, he was arrested because the magazine’s capacity exceeded New York’s legal limit of 10 rounds. Like Jordan, Wolf spent a day in a New York City jail before being released with a felony charge still hanging over his head.

    Even as upstanding citizens with no criminal intent Jordan and Wolf were dragged through months of legal proceedings before finally being offered a plea bargain to a lesser criminal charge. Besides dealing with the stigmatizing effects of a new criminal record, each had to spend $15,000 in legal fees to navigate the ordeal. Jordan said the experience left her so shaken and upset that she was forced to take anti-anxiety medication.

    Stossel also spoke to Jack Ryan, a prosecutor who handles gun cases originating at a New York City airport. “We’re not going to apologize for enforcing our gun laws,” Ryan insisted. He denied there was anything unfair or inhumane about the city’s handling of the cases.

    Finally, Stossel spoke to a defense attorney who handles cases of tourists innocently violating New York’s gun control laws. He emphasized that these prosecutions occur even against harmless people who go out of their way to contact TSA and try to follow the rules. “These are people who try to do everything right,” he said.

    Stossel accused Ryan of being a “sadistic bully” for locking up innocent people who posed no threat and had no idea they were violating the law, simply to “send everyone a message” that guns are not welcome in New York. Even as unreasonable as New York’s laws are, Stossel noted, prosecutors have discretion and could, if they chose, be more judicious about the cases they bring.

    The report also noted that Jordan and Wolf are not isolated cases. What happened to them is the routine practice of New York City officials in enforcing local gun control and a near weekly occurrence.

    As shocking as Stossel’s report is, the underlying facts are well known to the NRA. This is precisely why national reciprocity remains our number one legislative priority and why we’re also supporting reform of the safe travel provisions of the Firearm Owner’s Protection Act.

    It is long past the time for concealed carry reciprocity.  Far too many good Americans have had their fundamental right of self-protection unfairly denied.  If ruthless New York City politicians and bureaucrats “won’t apologize” for jailing and fleecing innocent travelers, than Congress likewise should unapologetically enforce the U.S. Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and restore Second Amendment rights to all.

    Please contact your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative TODAY and urge them to cosponsor and support passage of S.446– the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017– in the Senate, and H.R.38 — the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017– in the House. You can contact your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative by phone at (202) 224-3121, or click here to Take Action.


    Ask Your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators to Support Concealed Carry Reciprocity

    Please contact your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative TODAY and urge them to cosponsor and support passage of S.446– the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017– in the Senate, and H.R.38 — the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017– in the House. You can contact your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative by phone at (202) 224-3121, or click Take Action below..

    TAKE ACTION TODAY


  • Repudiated at the Polls, National Democrats Continue to Push Gun Control

    Recent weeks have seen a heated debate involving national Democratic Party figures over how to approach the issue of abortion in a manner that would allow the party to be more competitive in portions of the country dominated by Donald Trump and the Republicans in the 2016 election. Such soul-searching is to be expected for a party that does not hold either chamber of Congress or the presidency. However, one issue that appears to be off the table in any Democratic recalibration is the national party’s zealous support for further gun restrictions.

    This intransigence was highlighted by two recent pieces of radical gun control legislation.

    First, on July 27, Rep. Anthony Brown (D-Md.), along with 12 cosponsors, introduced H.R.3458. The text of the legislation has yet to be made available to Government Publishing Office, but is described as a bill

    To require certain semiautomatic pistols manufactured, imported, or sold by Federal firearms licensees to be capable of microstamping ammunition, and the prohibit [sic] the removal, obliteration, or alteration of the microstamped code or microstamping capability of a firearm.

    An accompanying press release noted that “The bill prohibits federal firearms licensees from manufacturing, selling, or transferring semiautomatic handguns, unless those handguns are capable of microstamping ammunition or face gradual fines.” An earlier version of the bill introduced in the 110th Congress made clear that this restriction would apply to all semiautomatic handguns manufactured or imported after the effective date of the legislation.

    Microstamping is a flawed and expensive method in which certain firearms components, typically the firing pin, are etched with a serial number that is transferred to an ammunition cartridge when the gun is fired. NRA and others have identified numerous problems with this technology, including the fact that it is easily defeated with common hand tools or repeated use of the firearm, and would require an onerous system of registering firearm components. Further, the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute has estimated the cost of implementing this technology at $200 per firearm.

    Not to be outdone, on July 28, Rep. Donald M. Payne (D-N.J.), along with 16 cosponsors, introduced H.R.3613, “To authorize the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance to make grants to States, units of local government, and gun dealers to conduct gun buyback programs, and for other purposes” to the tune of $360 million.

    To support squandering federal taxpayer dollars on gun buyback (more appropriately termed turn-in) programs in 2017 reveals a fanatical hostility towards guns and a profound disregard for sound public policy.

    Since 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice has understood that gun turn-ins are ineffective. A National Institute of Justice document from that year titled, “Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising” put gun turn-ins at the top of its list of “What Doesn’t Work.” The NIJ reiterated this point in a 2013 memo that concluded, “Gun buybacks are ineffective as generally implemented.” Further, some of the most radical anti-gun researchers, including Jon Vernick from the Michael Bloomberg-bankrolled Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, have admitted that turn-ins do not diminish violent crime.

    Perhaps inspired by her Democratic colleagues in the House of Representatives, on August 10, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) took to Twitter to call for a renewal of the federal “assault weapons” ban.  The entire “assault weapon” concept is a creation of anti-gun activists who used the term to create confusion after their attempts to ban handguns had failed.  Charles Krauthammer, a proponent of gun confiscation, wrote “the only real justification [for the assault weapon ban] is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.”  As Krauthammer predicted, the ban on so-called “assault weapons” had little effect on crime, but that has not stopped gun-control proponents like Senator Harris from calling for its renewal.

    After Al Gore’s defeat in the 2000 presidential election, the national Democratic Party made a concerted effort to soften their position on gun control in order to be more competitive in parts of the country where voters put significant value on their Second Amendment rights. In his book, “My Life,” Bill Clinton pointed to NRA and gun control as a factor in Gore’s defeat.

    Democrats began to tolerate candidates that deviated from left-wing anti-gun orthodoxy. In a 2005 Boston Globe article titled “Democrats Recast Gun Control Image,” then Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Rahm Emanuel was quoted as saying that their candidates “[have] got to reflect their districts.” In the three presidential election cycles following Gore’s defeat, the Democrats recognized Americans’ Second Amendment rights in their platform. President Barack Obama conspicuously avoided the issue until he had secured a second term in office, leading the Brady Campaign to issue him an “F” rating in 2010.

    Despite Bill Clinton’s repeated warnings, the national Democratic Party in 2016 flouted gun owners at every turn. Hillary Clinton endorsed Australia-style gun confiscationrepeatedly denounced the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, and when pressed, refused to acknowledge that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultzrailed against guns to Democratic delegates. In the midst of the presidential election campaign, Democrat representatives threw a gun control-inspired tantrum on the floor of the U.S. House. The national Democratic Party left no doubt that the Second Amendment was on the ballot in 2016.

    And once again, the Democrats suffered a devastating defeat. In the immediate aftermath, NBC’s Chuck Toddcredited NRA for giving Trump “a big assist” in his victory. Months later, political commentator Fred Barneswould write, “There are many claimants to the honor of having nudged Donald Trump over the top in the presidential election. But the folks with the best case are the National Rifle Association and the consultants who made their TV ads.”

    NRA is happy to take credit for helping to defeat Hillary Clinton and for the election of pro-gun lawmakers across the country, but our efforts would not have been so salient had our opposition not so fully embraced the anti-gun agenda.

    NRA is a nonpartisan organization and we continue to endorse members of any party who work to defend American gun owners. As the current marginalized national Democratic Party grapples with its agenda moving forward, it would do well to learn from its past and curtail their attacks on the Second Amendment. Wise Democratic leaders will recognize that they have been here before and that abandoning their anti-gun ambitions is an important component of their path back to power. However, with Democratic House members still offering microstamping and gun turn-in bills, there is little evidence of such wisdom.


  • Flying with Firearms – Get the Facts

    The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has established specific requirements for transporting firearms and ammunition in checked baggage on commercial aircraft, including the following:

    All firearms or ammunition must be checked with the air carrier as luggage or inside checked luggage. Firearms, firearms parts, and ammunition are prohibited from carry-on baggage. Firearm parts include barrels, magazines, frames, and other internal parts of a firearm.

    Gun owners are strongly encouraged to double-check all baggage, even when not traveling with firearms.  This is particularly important if bags also serve as range bags or are used to transport firearms and/or ammunition at other times. Inadvertently leaving ammunition or a firearm in a carry on bag will result in serious delays at security points and potential civil or criminal penalties.

    • All firearms and/or ammunition must be declared orally or in writing in accordance with the air carrier’s procedures. Civil and criminal penalties may be applied for failure to declare a firearm in checked baggage.
    • All firearms must be unloaded.
    • The firearm must be carried in a hard-sided container. The container must be locked and only the passenger may retain the key or combination.

    All checked baggage is subject to inspection. If during the inspection process it is necessary to open the container, the air carrier is required to locate the passenger and the passenger must unlock the container for further inspection. The firearm may not be transported if the passenger cannot be located to unlock the container. If you are traveling with a firearm, pay close attention to airport pages and announcements. If requested, provide the cooperation necessary to inspect your firearm.

    • Ammunition is prohibited from carry-on luggage. Ammunition must be transported in the manufacturer’s packaging or other packaging suitable for transport. Consult your air carrier to determine quantity limitations and whether the ammunition must be packed separately from the firearm. Because the level of training among airline personnel varies widely, passengers would be well advised to bring printed copies of firearms rules from both TSA and the particular airline being used. For further information, visit www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/firearms-and-ammunition

    Finally, the United States Department of Justice has issued a written opinion that federal law protects airline travelers with firearms, assuming: (1) the person is traveling from somewhere he or she may lawfully possess and carry a firearm; (2) en route to the airport the firearm is unloaded and inaccessible from the passenger compartment of the person’s vehicle; (3) the person transports the firearm directly from his vehicle to the airline check-in desk without any interruption in the transportation, and (4) the firearm is carried to the check-in desk unloaded and in a locked container. DoJ Opinion Letter

    Otherwise, travelers should strictly comply with FOPA and with airline and TSA policies regarding firearms transportation, avoid any unnecessary deviations on the way to checking in their baggage, be well acquainted with the firearms laws of the jurisdictions between which they are traveling, have any necessary permits or licenses ready for inspection, and have copies of relevant provisions of current law or reciprocity information printed from official sources.

    Special advisory for New York & New Jersey airports: Despite federal law that protects travelers, authorities at JFK, La Guardia, Newark, and Albany airports have been known to enforce state and local firearm laws against airline travelers who are passing through their jurisdictions.In some cases, even persons traveling in full compliance with federal law have been arrested or threatened with arrest. FOPA’s protections have been substantially narrowed by court decisions in certain parts of the country, particularly in the Northeast. Persons traveling through New York and New Jersey airports may want to consider shipping their firearms to their final destinations rather than bringing them through airports in these jurisdictions.

    Below are links to information from specific airlines:

    Alaska Airlines

    American Airlines

    Delta Airlines

    First Air

    Frontier Airlines

    Jet Blue

    Southwest Airlines

    United Airlines

    Virgin America

    For more information about the interstate transportation of firearms, please see  Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms

    Also, see information about the BATFE Form For Nonimmigrant Aliens


  • Left-Wing Magazine The Nation Report Puts ‘Russian Hack’ DNC Narrative in Freefall

    A bombshell report published Wednesday by avowedly liberal news magazine The Nation may have put the last nail in the coffin of the “Russian hack” narrative that has dominated the mainstream media’s coverage for the last year.

    Author Patrick Lawrence assembles the findings of months of investigation by forensic computer experts and former NSA officials to conclude, quite categorically, what Breitbart News and other independent media outlets have suggested for nearly a year: there was no hack of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) by the Russian government or anyone else last summer. An internal leaker is a much more likely source of the confidential internal DNC emails that upended the presidential campaign season when they became public last June.

    Read More…


  • You Can’t Say That! (Has liberalism taken a Soviet turn?)

    It was in the mid-1980s that I first heard the term “politically correct,” from an older housemate in Berkeley. She had a couple glasses of wine in her and was on a roll, venturing some opinions that were outré by the local standards. I thought the term witty and took it for her own coinage, but in retrospect she probably picked it up from one of the magazines that she would leave on the kitchen table: Commentary, or maybe the New Criterion. The Cold War was in full bloom at the time, and it was clear to all in Berkeley which side deserved to win. She was on the other side. I was in my late teens; her treasonous perfidy was exciting.

    Through the ’80s, ’90s, and into the new millennium, the phrase “politically correct” would crop up here and there. Among people who were credited as being sophisticated, use of the term would be met with a certain exasperation: It was needling and stale. The phrase had been picked up by the likes of College Republicans and Fox News, and if you had an ear for intellectual class distinctions you avoided it.

    Read More…


  • Why the Swamp Hates Trump

    Imagine that you were elected to a federal office several years ago and had a safe seat with all the perks attached, including salary, expense account, and influence with corporate CEOs and other titans of industry.  Suppose further that you knew that the future would be prosperous when you left office because the connections you made would make you a fortune as a lobbyist.  Moreover, since unseating an incumbent is a herculean task, you felt that you were set for life.  In fact, as soon as you got elected, you began raising money and preparing for re-election.  Governing and legislating became an afterthought – something you might engage in after your next campaign was carefully planned.

    Suddenly, a guy runs for office with a lot of ideas about “draining the swamp” and making rules that include a prohibition on lobbying for at least five years after leaving office.  As if that’s not enough, he criticizes the “establishment” of which you are a significant part.  To add insult to injury, this upstart comes from the private sector with no record of elective office, yet he has the audacity to run for the highest office in the land.  You, and most of your colleagues, got where you are by starting in local elections, from city councils to mayor to state rep, and on to your currents spots at the national level.

    Read More…


  • Jewelry dealer sues NYPD to get his gun permit back

    A Diamond District jewelry dealer says the NYPD unfairly yanked his gun permit over the bribes-for-weapons scandal — turning him into “a classic crime victim in the making” because he “routinely carries … a king’s ransom” through the city “with absolutely no protection.”

    Now he’s suing the NYPD to get back his piece — and peace of mind.

    Read More…


  • How Democrats keep guns in the hands of the rich

    When it comes to voting rights, any obstacles outrage liberals; even free government-issued IDs are viewed as disenfranchising poor and disproportionately black people. But when it comes to the right to own a gun for self-defense, liberals don’t hesitate to pile on fees, ID requirements, expensive training and onerous background checks.

    That’s too bad, because many law-abiding citizens in crime-ridden neighborhoods really do need a gun for self-defense. Since poor, urban blacks are the most likely victims of violent crime, there is little doubt that they stand to benefit the most from owning guns. Research, including my own, has demonstrated this.

    A new report from the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that the average fee for a concealed handgun permit is $67, but it is much higher in the most Democratic states. Each 10-percentage-point increase in a state’s presidential vote for Hillary Clinton was associated with an additional $30 in the concealed handgun permit fee. In California, where Clinton won by about 30 points, fees can be as high as $385 for just two years. In New York City, where she won by 60 points, a three-year permit costs $430.

    Read More…


  • Licenses, ID Cards Sold to Illegal Aliens by Corrupt State Workers Used for Voter Fraud

    A year after Judicial Watch reported a rise in illegal aliens using fake Puerto Rican birth certificates to obtain authentic U.S. passports and drivers’ licenses, the feds have busted a Massachusetts operation run by corrupt state workers. The state employees sold drivers’ licenses and state identification cards to illegal immigrants who bought Puerto Rican documents on the black market, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ). The operation perpetuated voter fraud because some of the false identities and addresses were used to vote in Boston, the state’s capital and largest city.

    The case is the latest of many illustrating that there’s an epidemic of voter fraud in the U.S. that’s seldom reported in the mainstream media. It’s not clear how many false identities and addresses were used to fraudulently register to vote in Boston, but the feds indicate that it occurred in multiple cases and Judicial Watch is investigating the matter as part of a five-year-old Election Integrity Project. The scheme was operated by four taxpayer-funded employees at the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) along with two outside accomplices who sold Puerto Rican documents to illegal aliens. All six were recently arrested and charged with aggravated identity theft. They probably never would have been caught if not for an anonymous tip received by the Massachusetts State Police nearly two years ago and there’s no telling how long the illicit scheme operated.

    The anonymous letter said that a corrupt RMV employee was providing stolen identifications and drivers’ licenses to individuals seeking false IDs, the DOJ announcement states. An investigation ensued and authorities discovered that the four clerks were working with a document vendor and document dealer to provide the licenses and official state ID cards to illegal immigrants in exchange for cash. “The scheme involved several steps,” the DOJ says. First, the document dealer sold a Puerto Rican birth certificate and U.S. Social Security card to the document vendor for approximately $900. The vendor would then sell the stolen identities for more than $2,000 to illegal aliens—some with criminal records—seeking legitimate identities in Massachusetts. After the first layer of illicit transactions occurred, the counterfeit documents and false identities and addresses were used to fraudulently register clients to vote in Boston.

    Read More…