Monday, March 30, 2009


Sunday, March 29, 2009


So who did bomb the Iranian arms trucks in Sudan?

DEBKAfile Special Report

March 29, 2009

Israel's Eitan drone - unlikely to have used in Sudan

Israel's Eitan drone - unlikely to have used in Sudan

The only solid fact emerging from the fanciful "reports" traded between Western and Middle East media over the bombing of an Iranian arms convoy bound for Hamas in January is that Tehran's arms shipments to Hamas via Sinai and the Gaza tunnels continue at full spate.

Somehow, as the "reporting" unfolded, the US attacker morphed into the Israeli Air Force.

Western imagination outdid itself Sunday, March 28, when the London Sunday Times claimed that Israeli intelligence used drones to bomb the convoy in Sudan, possibly even Eitan UAVs, whose wing span is like that of a Boeing airliner, and that missiles capable of reaching Tel Aviv were the target.

If this claim and reports in other Western media - asserting glibly that Israeli drones or warplanes had sunk an Iranian ship in the Red Sea - are correct, they would signify:

1. That Israel and Iran are at war;

2. That Tehran has decided to take Israeli attacks on the chin and not respond. Does this sound like the Iranian leaders we know?

3. Israel has declared war on Sudan with two attacks.

4. And, most importantly, Israel's armed forces have failed to stem the flow of Iranian arms to Gaza.

In the original disclosure which started the hare, an Egyptian newspaper Al-Shurooq Tuesday March 24, reported that in January, a US Air Force AC 130H taking off from Djibouti destroyed an Iranian arms convoy of 17 trucks in North Sudan on its way to Hamas in the Gaza Strip, killing 39 passengers.

The Egyptian paper ran the story the day before Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir arrived in Cairo. It stressed that the Sudanese authorities had conducted "a full blown dossier'" on the attack, consisting of "images, forensics as well as remains of weapons and satellite phones."

The al-Shurooq article quoted Egyptian and Sudanese military sources.

This was taken as a sign that the two governments had cooked up a stratagem to signal the Obama administration that anything the West could do to gather evidence against Sudan and its president, Cairo and Khartoum could match with proofs of US violations of international law in the Middle East.

It was suggested in a later report that the victims were African refugees (Khartoum later claimed 900 people were killed in the attack) rather than passengers ferrying an arms convoy from Iran. The Americans, it was hinted, hit noncombatants almost once a week in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Oddly, the Israeli media which are wont to rerun lengthy reports from the Arab press, however unreliable, missed this one, although it indicated a chill had crept into Cairo's relations with the Obama administration. No official comment came from Washington – at least not directly. However, a few hours later, CBS television news cited unidentified sources at the Pentagon as stressing that the attack was not carried out by American but Israeli aircraft.

By lobbing the hot potato back into the Middle East court and… Israel, Washington saved itself an argument with Cairo over whether the air strike was ordered by the former US administration or by the incoming US president Barack Obama as his first anti-terror operation in the Middle East

This story, still uncorroborated, made front pages everywhere and began to take on a life of its own, embroidered freely as media competition kicked in:

First , Cairo had never intended its disclosure to be seized on by radical regional elements as an expose of Israeli military might. Since March 24, all Egyptian sources of information have been shut down.

Israel has held officially silent too. Why look a gift horse in the mouth when your pro-Iranian foes talk up your military capabilities?

Second , Disclosure of an American attack on Sudan, Tehran's ally – especially if more than one took place as some have reported - would interfere with Barack Obama's plans for a profound rapprochement with Tehran. It might embarrassingly recall the failed US attack on Osama bin Laden's Sudan bases ordered by President Bill Clinton in 1996. Obama would not wish to be associated with any failed enterprises in the past

Third , the event was seized on hungrily by the Israeli media, fed constantly by invented or copied "details." The Qatar emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani who is hosting the Arab League summit opening in Doha Tuesday, March 31, was also glad of a boost for this event.

DEBKAfile's military sources report that the chain of propaganda and counter-propaganda could have been easily snapped by the Khartoum government: A single photograph or solid datum from its "full-blown dossier" attesting to the bombs, missiles, anti-air ordnance in the trucks - or the aircraft alleged to have destroyed them - would have put to rest the torrent of unrestricted published hyperbole by identifying the attacker and the contents of the trucks transiting the Sudanese desert.

But why should the Al Bashir regime go to the trouble? Since Clinton attacked targets wrongly identified as al Qaeda bases 13 years, Sudan has never enjoyed so much publicity. Its president, the subject of an international arrest warrant for war crimes and crimes against humanity, will be the hero of the Arab summit and bask in unaccustomed limelight.

Friday, March 27, 2009



Thursday, March 26, 2009


weather freak: blizzard + flood hammer N. Dakota — situation critical

ORIGINAL CAPTION: Water fills most of a field near homes south of West Fargo, ND March 21 as the snow melt continues. (Dave Wallis, The Forum / AP) High water from the flooding Beaver Creek covers a car on the southside of Linton, ND on March 23. Beaver Creek in Linton, the Knife River in Hazen and Spring Creek in Zap were at record flood stage Monday. (Tom Stromme, Bismarck Tribune.) As the Red River rises in the background, Gloria Brown hauls a wagon load of sandbags to pile around her neighbor's home in the hope of holding back floodwaters March 24 in Fargo, ND. (Carolyn Kaster, AP)

Wednesday, March 25, 2009


You and I Can't Buy the Guns Mexican Cartels Own

The Administration is Not Dealing Straight With Us on Mexico's Gun Problem

Ralph Weller
March 1 2009

Let's set things straight right up front. Yes, some guns are being smuggled into Mexico from the U.S. Most are handguns. But, handguns are being illegally trafficked from state to state and from the U.S. to Canada. It should come as no surprise that guns are smuggled into Mexico. But, the problem being portrayed by the U.S. media and our government is not as it seems. You see, Mexico doesn't allow ownership of most firearms, so ordinary Mexican people seeking self-protection will find a way to get them into Mexico. As for the drug cartels operating in the border towns along the U.S., they have other sources for their weapons and have become the prime supplier within Mexico.

I worked in Mexico in a border town for about five years. It was far enough from San Diego County in the Sonora Desert of Mexico that commuting several hundred miles daily was impossible. So, for a few years I lived in the city and commuted home periodically on some weekends. As crime grew out of control, I eventually moved into a place on the U.S. side and commuted daily in and out of Mexico for my own safety.

I stayed in Mexico for a Mexican holiday my first year. I don't recall the holiday. Normally, I would leave Mexico for a holiday, but it was in the middle of the week and one day was not long enough to come home. All I know is that on that particular Mexican holiday, Mexicans love to fire guns into the air. That evening as I sat on the balcony of my hotel, the gun fire that erupted in celebration was quite unbelievable. It was so intense I backed off the balcony and watched the festivities from a couple three feet in the room. We're talking war-like firing of weapons, it was that intense.

As I listened that night to the gun fire, I was somewhat shocked at the amount of fully automatic gun fire. It wasn't sporadic. It was continuous throughout the city. For a country that bans guns I thought, how in the world did they get their hands on all these full-auto weapons? Clearly what sounded like M16 fire was prolific along with 7.62 x 39 AK autos with a smattering of smaller caliber full-autos, most likely 9mm. Gun fire can be heard in most American cities on New Years, but I've never heard full-auto weapons being fired, at least not in the San Diego area.

The next day I went into work and sat down with a trusted senior Mexican manager. I looked at him and said, "I thought guns were illegal in Mexico." He chuckled and said, "So you stayed in town last night?" As the conversation progressed, it became clear that guns are as common in Mexico as tamales at Christmas. Everyone he knows, including himself, own at least one gun. And, it matters not whether it's a semi-auto or fully automatic, they're all illegal, so why stop with semi-autos? Though clearly illegal in the states in most instances, a lot of Mexicans have more firepower in terms of military weapons than we can only dream of owning here.

As time went on, parties in the city at middle class Mexican homes become a way of life. Most Mexican managers in the plant knew I was a gun wonk. As it turns out, they couldn't wait to invite me over to their place on a Friday night to show me their collection. Semi-autos, some very high-end Sigs and other European handguns were not uncommon along with piles of old revolvers. I thought I had seen everything in the states, but in Mexico it's not uncommon for people to own full-auto military rifles. Everything from an M16, UZI machine pistols and the most popular, select-fire AK47 military rifles. These are not the so-called "assault weapons" you can buy at the local gun shop in the U.S., but full select-fire military-issue rifles. Now, I know you want to know and are dying to ask;

Did I see any U.S. military-issue weapons stolen from the U.S. military? Not a single one was marked with U.S. military markings. Everything was marked with additional foreign markings on the receiver, including M16 rifles, or they had nothing at all.
I saw firearms manufactured in Europe, China, Russia and South America along with U.S. manufactured weapons. I saw rifles that looked familiar with no place of manufacture, no serial number or manufacturer's logo. The information was not removed, it was never there to begin with. I can only assume they came from illegal arms manufacturers in India or Pakistan that produce copies of weapons. It was obvious that none of these firearms came from a U.S. gun shop in Tucson or San Diego. You couldn't buy them from a gun shop in the states if you tried.

It seems Mexicans have a rich heritage of firearms ownership prior to the ban in 1968. Despite the laws against owning them, they ignore it. Most Mexicans will say they need it for personal protection of themselves and their family. The other reason is they don't trust the government or local law enforcement. If they have to use it in their home for self-defense, whether they end up in jail is all dependent on how much money they can come up with, or who they know in the government. It also depends on who they shoot. But, given the alternative with high crime rates, most middle class Mexicans willingly and without reservations take the risk.
Despite being able to own .22 caliber pistols or rifles, Mexican law requires them to be stored at an approved firing range. Where's the firing range I asked many times? No one knew of one. Where's the gun stores in town to buy legal guns? Gun stores? No one ever recalled seeing one anywhere in Mexico, let alone their city. I'm sure somewhere, maybe in Mexico City you might be able to buy a gun, but not in this city of almost 1.5 million residents. And the gun traffickers know it.

Where do ordinary Mexicans get their weapons? Most buy them from a 'friend' or a friend of a friend or cousin or uncle. Where the friend gets them is not talked about. But, it seems that drug cartels in Mexico are heavily involved in gun trafficking of military weapons and related hardware. And, who are these ordinary Mexicans? They range from people who work in factories as managers and senior managers, government workers, doctors, dentists and anyone with the financial means to buy a firearm. I even ran into a couple of government bureaucrats, one a lawyer for the federal government who owns firearms. He confirmed that people he knew in the government, some very highly ranked bureaucrats and politicians all own illegal firearms. The other works for the Mexican equivalent of the IRS. It's a way of life in Mexico. It seemed to me that you aren't in the 'in-crowd' in Mexico unless you own at least one firearm. I was amazed at the whole thing after believing for years that gun ownership in Mexico was non-existent. That is hardly the case.

All this flies in the face of news articles published by the U.S. media in the last week or two. Mexico's gun problems are a direct result of gun runners buying "assault weapons" in the U.S. and taking them into Mexico to arm drug cartels, says the U.S. media and government. That is a bunch of government and media nonsense. The cartels aren't arming themselves from U.S. gun stores with semi-auto AR15 and AK47 rifles. They've moved on up. Not to completely dismiss arms moving into Mexico from the U.S., but it is not as it seems when the U.S. media tells the story. The firearms moving across the border are semi-auto rifles and handguns sold to middle class or wealthy Mexicans seeking personal protection from criminals that have no connections in Mexico with gun runners. For the most part the wealthy in Mexico are targets of criminal elements, so they have no intention of connecting up with them to buy a self-defense firearm. You're better off buying a weapon from someone within the Mexican government than buying it from the criminal element, namely a drug cartel.

Cartels buy their arms from countries around the world, most any place where military weapons can be purchased on the black market, or from countries wishing to destabilize North America.
They arm themselves from a worldwide black market of full auto military weapons including grenades, land mines and RPGs. They also "procure" their weapons from the less than savory from within the Mexican military.

The drug cartels can easily afford to fly their weaponry into Mexico using their own fleet of aircraft on to remote airfields, or land them on remote Mexican shores from their fleet of vessels. They do it with drugs all of the time. Drug cartels buying semi-auto AR15 or AK rifles from U.S. gun dealers is viewed as a joke by Mexico's drug cartel, most Mexicans, and unfortunately by the Mexican government. The only people fooled by all the political rhetoric are Americans listening to the likes of Attorney General Eric Holder and other anti-gun politicians.

Mexico has a gun problem, just like they have a drug problem and both the U.S. and Mexican governments are trying to place the blame on U.S. gun owners. U.S. gun owners aren't the problem. Mexico is the problem. The government is corrupt from the lowest level law enforcement officer shaking down American tourists for traffic violations, to officials and politicians highly placed within the Mexican government, including elements within the military. Everyone knows it. Everyone in Mexico knows it. Every law enforcement official in the U.S. knows it, and everyone in our government knows it. And anyone who has worked for any length of time within border cities and lived in the local community knows it. This is taking a Mexican problem, blaming the U.S. by turning it into a crisis in order further an agenda, and Eric Holder and President Obama knows it and they are taking advantage of it.

The next time you see a news report of illegal full-auto weapons and grenades being found here in the U.S., you know where they came from. It wasn't from a gun store in Tucson or Phoenix. The administration is right that gun trafficking along the U.S./Mexico border is a problem. Not only do we have drugs and illegal aliens coming in our southern border, but we also have military arms and explosives coming into our country illegally as well. That's the issue and our government is being disingenuous in its argument.

This AP news report published today is typical of what is going on. It is disgustingly biased and flat wrong: AP report for Detroit Free Press

Don't believe me and what I say? See what the Latin American Herald is saying about a recent arrest of cartel members and their weaponry in Mexico. No, the items listed weren't purchased at a gun store in Phoenix or Tucson. Grenades and RPGs are illegal in the U.S.: LAH Story

GunNewsDaily authorizes the distribution of this commentary providing that is recognized as the originating source.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009


The Great American Spectacle

March 24, 2009 | From

The U.S. economy has passed the point of no return.

We are living through history in the making. Not the good kind of history. More like Nero-fiddling-while-Rome-burned history.

The kind of history we are seeing now is an empire in terminal and rapid decline. As the greatest single nation in history disintegrates, like Rome and hundreds of other empires before it, the public spectacles and orchestrated circuses for the masses keep getting bigger.

Public spectacle number one: Lies, lots of them.

“We’ll see the recession coming to an end probably this year,” predicted Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on March 14. The recovery will begin in 2010 “and it will pick up steam over time,” he said.

President Obama confidently added, “We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.”

But what else are they supposed to say?

That the Fed slashed interest rates to less than 2 percent in 2002, knowing it would create a massive bubble, but doing it anyway to make politicians happy? That the resulting pop and debt deflation is sucking the economy into a black hole? That the Fed’s proposed cure, the only one left in its arsenal—fiat money creation—will destroy the life savings of its responsible citizens, the people who tried to invest for their retirements?

Bloated government and unsustainable deficit spending has saddled the nation with gargantuan debts that will never be repaid. Social Security is a busted bank, robbed by politicians who spent the trust fund money. Medicare and Medicaid benefits will be slashed because politicians made unsustainable promises to buy votes. Taxes will probably be doubled—then tripled when foreign creditors cut America off. America soon won’t be able to provide the level of services that Americans have come to look upon as constitutional rights.

Is that what you say?

That we are on our way to becoming a nation of beggars?

You won’t hear these words come out of any public officials—not because they are not true, but because the truth would cause panic among a populace that has been wooed to sleep by the sweet lullabies of politicians.

Public spectacle number two: Outrage, and lots of it.

President Obama is outraged. Ben Bernanke is outraged. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Chris Dodd are both outraged. Congress is outraged. Journalists are outraged. The Baltimore Sun reports: “A Financial Outrage.” The Washington Post:Outrage Over AIG.” The Financial Times:Summers ‘Outrage’ at AIG Bonuses.”

A recent Gallup poll found that almost 60 percent of Americans said they were personally “outraged.” America is outraged.

Yes, politicians have stirred up a hornet’s nest of rage. But what is all the rage about?

Most recently, it is the fact that aig is paying $165 million in bonuses to its employees—after accepting taxpayer money to stay afloat because some of those employees got greedy and irresponsible.

A little outrage goes a long way in distracting from the lies, and from the bigger issues.

That $165 million is only 0.09 percent of the $180 billion in taxpayer money that politicians forked over. And aig was contractually obligated to pay it. The government knew about the bonuses when it gave aig its first bailout; it could have legally stopped them then. It had the chance again after the second bailout. And the third, and the fourth. Now, all of a sudden, comes outrage! And don’t forget the multibillion-dollar bonuses over at Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Bank of America and other companies that have taken taxpayer money to stay afloat.

Flying beneath all the rage were three bombshell news items that should have ignited outrage, but were lost in the big media commotion over an amount of money equivalent to a rounding error in the recent pork-laden, self-interest spending fest also referred to as the federal budget.

Amid the hubbub, aig conveniently disclosed where all the taxpayer money it had received disappeared to. Surprise, surprise: aig turned out to be a front for funneling more taxpayer money into the big Wall Street and foreign banks in what essentially amounts to a second stealth backdoor bailout: $12.9 billion to Goldman Sachs, $11.9 billion and $4.9 billion to France’s SocGen and bnp Paribas respectively, $11.8 billion to Germany’s Deutsche Bank, and $8.5 billion to Britain’s Barclays. And so on. Why are U.S. taxpayers bailing out foreign banks?

Also lost in the tumult was the fact that the national debt hit a record $11 trillion last week. It only took 5½ months for politicians to add $1 trillion to the debt—the fastest jump in U.S. history. It took all of America’s history until 1982 to run up the first trillion in debt. The next two trillions only took four years each. President Bush then added the most debt by a single president in the history of the nation: $4.9 trillion. If President Obama’s projections are correct, he will run up as much debt in four years as President Bush did in eight.

The current federal budget projects that the debt will soar to $16.2 trillion—100 percent of gross domestic product—by 2012. But it will probably be even higher, because as Bernanke indicated, the government is projecting the economy will be out of recession by next year.

The debt numbers are getting so huge that China recently demanded that America guarantee it will not renege on its debts. On Saturday, President Obama was forced to issue the statement: “Not just the Chinese government, but every investor, can have absolute confidence in the soundness of investments in the United States.”

But perhaps the biggest news that got lost in the aig-bailout noise was the fact that the Federal Reserve announced that it was beginning to monetize the debt. This is huge, gigantic, almost-impossible-to-overstate news.

The Fed announced it would begin literally creating money out of thin air to purchase U.S. treasuries—$300 billion worth. It is an admission that things are so bad that the federal government might not be able to find enough foreign lenders to give it money. Therefore the Federal Reserve will just create it.

“It is a step in the dark,” says Ian Shepherdson of High Frequency Economics. “We simply do not know how this will play out because there is no prior experience to use as a road map.”

Shepherdson is wrong. There are hundreds of precedents. History is littered with the wrecks of fiat paper money experiments. In 1716, the rogue John Law created the Banque Generale to buy up the debt of France. Four years later, the bank paper was worthless. John Law’s money-creating experiment became known as the Mississippi Bubble. But the livre is not alone. The Argentine peso, Russian ruble, French assignat and frank, German mark, U.S. continental and Zimbabwean dollar are just some of the more famous failed currencies.

“Bernanke has sent a giant sell signal to the rest of the world to sell their treasuries to the Fed,” confirms Peter Schiff, one of a handful of economists who predicted America’s current crisis. “This is going to be a currency crisis. That’s what is coming.”

When France went bankrupt following John Law’s fiat money experiment, Law commented: “Last year I was the richest individual who ever lived, today I have nothing, not even enough to keep alive.”

The only difference this time is that the Fed is creating fiat digital money as well as paper money.

Public spectacle number three: National naivety, and lots of it.

With catastrophe plainly staring it in the face, America plunges head first into the shallow waters. It’s as if the powers-that-be actually believe that borrowing and spending can get America out of a problem caused by too much borrowing and spending. It is as if they believe that creating money out of thin air can actually make people richer. And to top it off, it is as if they actually believe that no one else can see the public spectacle that America has become.

Unfortunately, the exhibitions and circuses are only beginning, because that’s what empires become when they are going down and politicians don’t want people to know it.

Saturday, March 21, 2009


Ecclesiastes Chapter 3

א לַכֹּל, זְמָן; וְעֵת לְכָל-חֵפֶץ, תַּחַת הַשָּׁמָיִם. {פ} 1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: {P}
ב עֵת לָלֶדֶת, וְעֵת לָמוּת;
עֵת לָטַעַת, וְעֵת לַעֲקוֹר נָטוּעַ.
2 {S} A time to be born, {S} and a time to die; {N}
{S} a time to plant, {S} and a time to pluck up that which is planted; {N}
ג עֵת לַהֲרוֹג וְעֵת לִרְפּוֹא,
עֵת לִפְרוֹץ וְעֵת לִבְנוֹת.
3 {S} A time to kill, {S} and a time to heal; {N}
{S} a time to break down, {S} and a time to build up; {N}
ד עֵת לִבְכּוֹת וְעֵת לִשְׂחוֹק,
עֵת סְפוֹד וְעֵת רְקוֹד.
4 {S} A time to weep, {S} and a time to laugh; {N}
{S} a time to mourn, {S} and a time to dance; {N}
ה עֵת לְהַשְׁלִיךְ אֲבָנִים, וְעֵת כְּנוֹס אֲבָנִים;
עֵת לַחֲבוֹק, וְעֵת לִרְחֹק מֵחַבֵּק.
5 {S} A time to cast away stones, {S} and a time to gather stones together; {N}
{S} a time to embrace, {S} and a time to refrain from embracing; {N}
ו עֵת לְבַקֵּשׁ וְעֵת לְאַבֵּד,
עֵת לִשְׁמוֹר וְעֵת לְהַשְׁלִיךְ.
6 {S} A time to seek, {S} and a time to lose; {N}
{S} a time to keep, {S} and a time to cast away; {N}
ז עֵת לִקְרוֹעַ וְעֵת לִתְפּוֹר,
עֵת לַחֲשׁוֹת וְעֵת לְדַבֵּר.
7 {S} A time to rend, {S} and a time to sew; {N}
{S} a time to keep silence, {S} and a time to speak; {N}
ח עֵת לֶאֱהֹב וְעֵת לִשְׂנֹא,
עֵת מִלְחָמָה וְעֵת שָׁלוֹם. {פ}
8 {S} A time to love, {S} and a time to hate; {N}
{S} a time for war, {S} and a time for peace. {N}
ט מַה-יִּתְרוֹן, הָעוֹשֶׂה, בַּאֲשֶׁר, הוּא עָמֵל. 9 {S} What profit hath he that worketh in that he laboureth?
י רָאִיתִי אֶת-הָעִנְיָן, אֲשֶׁר נָתַן אֱלֹהִים לִבְנֵי הָאָדָם--לַעֲנוֹת בּוֹ. 10 I have seen the task which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised therewith.
יא אֶת-הַכֹּל עָשָׂה, יָפֶה בְעִתּוֹ; גַּם אֶת-הָעֹלָם, נָתַן בְּלִבָּם--מִבְּלִי אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יִמְצָא הָאָדָם אֶת-הַמַּעֲשֶׂה אֲשֶׁר-עָשָׂה הָאֱלֹהִים, מֵרֹאשׁ וְעַד-סוֹף. 11 He hath made every thing beautiful in its time; also He hath set the world in their heart, yet so that man cannot find out the work that God hath done from the beginning even to the end.
יב יָדַעְתִּי, כִּי אֵין טוֹב בָּם--כִּי אִם-לִשְׂמוֹחַ, וְלַעֲשׂוֹת טוֹב בְּחַיָּיו. 12 I know that there is nothing better for them, than to rejoice, and to get pleasure so long as they live.
יג וְגַם כָּל-הָאָדָם שֶׁיֹּאכַל וְשָׁתָה, וְרָאָה טוֹב בְּכָל-עֲמָלוֹ--מַתַּת אֱלֹהִים, הִיא. 13 But also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy pleasure for all his labour, is the gift of God.
יד יָדַעְתִּי, כִּי כָּל-אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה הָאֱלֹהִים הוּא יִהְיֶה לְעוֹלָם--עָלָיו אֵין לְהוֹסִיף, וּמִמֶּנּוּ אֵין לִגְרֹעַ; וְהָאֱלֹהִים עָשָׂה, שֶׁיִּרְאוּ מִלְּפָנָיו. 14 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever; nothing can be added to it, nor any thing taken from it; and God hath so made it, that men should fear before Him.
טו מַה-שֶּׁהָיָה כְּבָר הוּא, וַאֲשֶׁר לִהְיוֹת כְּבָר הָיָה; וְהָאֱלֹהִים, יְבַקֵּשׁ אֶת-נִרְדָּף. 15 That which is hath been long ago, and that which is to be hath already been; and God seeketh that which is pursued.
טז וְעוֹד רָאִיתִי, תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ: מְקוֹם הַמִּשְׁפָּט שָׁמָּה הָרֶשַׁע, וּמְקוֹם הַצֶּדֶק שָׁמָּה הָרָשַׁע. 16 And moreover I saw under the sun, in the place of justice, that wickedness was there; and in the place of righteousness, that wickedness was there.
יז אָמַרְתִּי אֲנִי, בְּלִבִּי--אֶת-הַצַּדִּיק וְאֶת-הָרָשָׁע, יִשְׁפֹּט הָאֱלֹהִים: כִּי-עֵת לְכָל-חֵפֶץ, וְעַל כָּל-הַמַּעֲשֶׂה שָׁם. 17 I said in my heart: 'The righteous and the wicked God will judge; for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.'
יח אָמַרְתִּי אֲנִי, בְּלִבִּי--עַל-דִּבְרַת בְּנֵי הָאָדָם, לְבָרָם הָאֱלֹהִים; וְלִרְאוֹת, שְׁהֶם-בְּהֵמָה הֵמָּה לָהֶם. 18 I said in my heart: 'It is because of the sons of men, that God may sift them, and that they may see that they themselves are but as beasts.'
יט כִּי מִקְרֶה בְנֵי-הָאָדָם וּמִקְרֶה הַבְּהֵמָה, וּמִקְרֶה אֶחָד לָהֶם--כְּמוֹת זֶה כֵּן מוֹת זֶה, וְרוּחַ אֶחָד לַכֹּל; וּמוֹתַר הָאָדָם מִן-הַבְּהֵמָה אָיִן, כִּי הַכֹּל הָבֶל. 19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them; as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that man hath no pre-eminence above a beast; for all is vanity.
כ הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ, אֶל-מָקוֹם אֶחָד; הַכֹּל הָיָה מִן-הֶעָפָר, וְהַכֹּל שָׁב אֶל-הֶעָפָר. 20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all return to dust.
כא מִי יוֹדֵעַ, רוּחַ בְּנֵי הָאָדָם--הָעֹלָה הִיא, לְמָעְלָה; וְרוּחַ, הַבְּהֵמָה--הַיֹּרֶדֶת הִיא, לְמַטָּה לָאָרֶץ. 21 Who knoweth the spirit of man whether it goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast whether it goeth downward to the earth?
כב וְרָאִיתִי, כִּי אֵין טוֹב מֵאֲשֶׁר יִשְׂמַח הָאָדָם בְּמַעֲשָׂיו--כִּי-הוּא, חֶלְקוֹ: כִּי מִי יְבִיאֶנּוּ לִרְאוֹת, בְּמֶה שֶׁיִּהְיֶה אַחֲרָיו. 22 Wherefore I perceived that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his works; for that is his portion; for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?

Tuesday, March 17, 2009


Goodbye, Britain. Hello, Europe.

America’s new president will irreversibly alter relationships across the Atlantic. By Ron Fraser

You can tell a lot about the path a presidency will take by the first decisions a president makes. Fresh in the office, any new leader is very conscious that his early decisions will set the tone and the public image of his presidency.

Realists will observe President Barack Obama’s early decisions with a deal of concern for the future of America.

Mr. Obama promised change. Few have detected just how radical that change has already been in the foreign-policy arena in particular.

It is worth remembering that as Mr. Obama stomped the presidential campaign trail, he gave only one speech in a foreign country. As the location for that speech, he chose Berlin, capital of the nation that dragged Britain, America and the rest of the world into the two greatest wars in history.

There was something portentous in that choice. For of all the moves President Obama is making, it is those regarding America’s relations with the nations across the Atlantic that will prove to have the most devastating effect on its future.

This is a moment of enormous importance for the U.S. and the world. In the wake of America’s massive economic decline, a struggle is unfolding to establish the new global order. In the process, the Obama administration is being grandly fooled into yielding up irrecoverable ground.

The President’s First Moves

The new administration made itself plenty busy with other initiatives before addressing its relations with Europe.

Writing for the Guardian newspaper, Martin Kettle declared on January 30, “Never mind the vaunted first 100 days. The first 10 days alone have already seen an opening to the Muslim world, the abandonment of military tribunals at Guantánamo Bay, the dispatch of a senior Middle East envoy, the unveiling of a new green agenda, the removal of the abortion bar on foreign aid programs, an eye-wateringly large fiscal stimulus package, major moves to increase government transparency, and … a decisive change of approach towards revolutionary Iran.”

By the president’s second day in office, it was becoming apparent that this is a new appeasing administration that risks gravely endangering America’s future. Consider.

President Obama’s first telephone call was not to any of America’s traditional allies, nor to the leader of any established nation, but to the leader of a non-state, the Palestinians, the declared enemy of the nation of Israel.

Those “major moves to increase government transparency” refer to an action by Mr. Obama on the second day of his presidency, when he issued an executive order to create new Freedom of Information Act rules, making it harder to keep the workings of government secret. The extent to which this will impact America’s security is yet unclear. However, it has a nasty ring about it; it appears to be borne of the same mindset that gutted the cia under the Clinton administration and made the struggle for national security harder.

The same day, the president made clear via a draft executive order that he intends to close the Guantánamo Bay terrorist detention facility within a year, release some of its remaining 245 accused terrorist detainees, and transfer others to different sites for trial. This sends a signal to enemies that America’s days of getting tough with those who threaten the nation with terror are over.

The new president’s first television interview was given to a television station sponsored by a nation whose religion seeks to overthrow traditional Judeo-Christianity and impose its own teachings on the world, a nation whose ruling class has dirtied its hands in supporting terror against Israel, Britain and the United States: the Saudi-sponsored Al Arabia tv network.

Finally, the Obama administration chose to reveal its anxiously awaited foreign-policy hand. And what location did the president choose? Interestingly, it paralleled the choice he had made in speaking abroad on the campaign trail. The administration made its statement at a global security conference, held February 6 to 8, at the city of Munich—in Germany.

Conference chairman Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger said he was proud that President Obama again chose a German city from which to first air details of his foreign policy. That sounds an awful lot like a spider luring the fly into its web. Why? Because biblical prophecy indicates that eventually, it will not be Washington calling the tune on America’s foreign policy—but Berlin!

Setting America Up

Germany’s vice chancellor, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, is no great fan of either the U.S. or the previous American president. Nevertheless, at this high-profile forum on global defense and security, he set an expectant tone in his opening address with a nod to the new Obama administration, declaring that “The window of history had been opened for a while … with a new U.S. president who offered new thinking on the whole spectrum of disarmament and security policy” (Munich Security Conference, February 6).

All sensed that an appeasing administration now rules Washington at a time when American power is on the wane. A new conciliatory tone was evident. This served to mask the true intentions of each major nation: to strengthen its individual national power, forging backroom alliances to isolate the U.S. and counter American military might.

Some of the better observers noted certain realities surrounding the Munich Security Conference. Before the conference, under the apt headline “Searching for a New World Order,” Spiegel Online made this remark: “Our current, terribly interesting times ensure that this year’s Munich conference will attract unprecedented international attention. It will provide pointers as to what will be possible during Obama’s first year in office—and what not” (January 30).

It became apparent at the conference that the U.S. is being squeezed in a foreign-policy pincer movement between two imperialist powers, Germany and Russia. Germany’s Vice Chancellor Steinmeier and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin are playing a game, each intent on cementing a strong anti-American alliance with the other. While the Obama administration is working to appease America’s enemies in lieu of confronting them, the U.S. is being set up as the fall guy for German and Russian power plays.

America to Europe: Stand Up!

In his speech at the conference, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden laid out the parameters for the Obama administration’s foreign policy. In it he emphasized that the American government’s “new willingness to engage in dialogue was combined with the expectation that the partners of the United States stand up more often for their shared values and objectives. In Munich this was seen as a clear invitation to provide more military support to the U.S., for instance regarding Afghanistan” (Munich Security Conference, op. cit.; emphasis mine throughout).

This announcement would have been very good news to the German power elites. They have been quietly seeking to strengthen the German presence in Afghanistan for some time—notwithstanding German media opinion to the contrary. Germany views a stronger presence in Afghanistan and a revived involvement in Middle Eastern security as being vital to advancing its interests to control Iran and gain access to Middle Eastern oil.

Severing a Historic Relationship

As soon as President Obama appointed his new secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, Frank-Walter Steinmeier became quite persistent in seeking her ear. The day she was confirmed on January 21, Steinmeier quickly dispatched a letter of congratulations. He followed up with a telephone call the next day, with events in the Middle East very much on his mind. Barely a week and a half later, Steinmeier had hightailed it to New York to meet her directly.

The fact that Secretary Clinton had hosted British Foreign Secretary David Miliband only two hours before meeting with Steinmeier apparently didn’t bother the German vice chancellor. Miliband’s visit was given scant media coverage; as the Telegraph noted, “It has been said that the new president does not share the affinity for Britain of his predecessors, while in speeches since his election he has lumped Britain in with other European allies” (February 4). Though the Telegraph called the Miliband visit “something of a coup for Foreign Office officials, after speculation that the special relationship with the United States might weaken under Mr. Obama,” realists understand there is little reason to celebrate. Britain is losing its national sovereignty and becoming a mere appendage of the European Union. Under Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s government, its clout in international relations is shriveling. This, President Obama clearly understands.

The reality is that, despite Mrs. Clinton acknowledging the historic nature of the “special relationship” between the U.S. and Britain, that relationship in President Obama’s mind is secondary to that which he sees Germany and the EU fulfilling. This is especially the case when it comes to helping to get the U.S. off the hook in the Middle East and Afghanistan and becoming more directly involved in nato- and UN-sponsored forays into foreign climes.

Yet in the whole equation of the foreign policy of the new radical-left American administration, nothing is more glaringly apparent than the severing of the partnership between the U.S. and Britain, a natural union of brother nations that joined to save the world from the tyranny threatened by two great world wars and a 40-year Cold War.

Each of the above foreign-policy maneuvers of the Obama administration drives another nail into the Anglo-American alliance. The mass media are largely ignorant of this radical shift in U.S. foreign policy!

The coming of the Obama administration has mortally wounded the natural symbiosis of diplomacy between Britain and America. This is a radical departure from the 200 years of mutual support and cooperation between the U.S. and Britain, particularly in matters of defense and security. The Blair-Bush years were the swan song for that strongest of natural, yet unwritten, alliances.

And which power stands ready in the wings to take full advantage of this break in the U.S.-Britain partnership?

None other than the European Union!

Slouching Toward Brussels

Journalist Martin Kettle astutely observes of President Obama, “If he seeks an effective global partner for his efforts on Iran, the Middle East, climate change or the restructuring of financial institutions, he will not look first to Britain …. He will look to the EU” (op. cit.).

There is a reason why Mr. Obama and his advisers chose Berlin as the only foreign city within which the presidential candidate would give a public speech as he stomped the campaign trail. Theirs is an isolationist portfolio. Increasingly, the Obama administration will seek to hasten the day when American troops will withdraw from their 65-year residence in Europe and hand European security over to Brussels/Berlin. In the process, the U.S. will continue to hand over its bases and its military hardware to EU control. This will spell disaster for both America and Britain in the not-too-distant future.

Martin Kettle declares the new reality that has come to the fore in international relations in the wake of the diminution of American power: “If you want peace in Sudan or Congo or Somalia, you have to want not just international aid but international peacekeeping. Existing peacekeeping efforts, though large and expensive, are also ineffective. Western engagement in these efforts would be controversial, but it could be very effective. Yet it will only happen—to the extent it happens at all—through the EU, not through nation states. There is a pressing need for an intelligent post-Iraq debate about how Europe can best develop, organize and use hard power” (ibid., emphasis mine).

When the light eventually dawns on this new American administration to reveal that the U.S. is fundamentally broke, it will increasingly, and willingly, hand over the security of Europe to the EU. This will accelerate the military agenda of the elites that frame EU foreign policy, in the process drastically upping the expression of EU “hard power.”

Additionally, it will encourage those who have long held to the idea that the European Union should provide a “peacekeeping” force to complete the surrounding of the tiny nation of Israel with a multination force intent on securing stability in the strife-torn Middle East.

This, as we have consistently pointed out over the years, is all prophesied in your Bible!

Do You See Prophetic Reality?

Put all this together with the reality to which former Clinton aide Dick Morris awakened last September—that the U.S. is already dancing to the European Union’s tune in its business and finance regulations—and the prophecies of the books of Daniel and Revelation leap into perspective!

The most radical of foreign-policy change in which the Obama administration is presently engaged is the breaking of the U.S.-Britain alliance that has maintained the peace of the world for the past 200 years. In the process, President Obama will be not only handing over the baton of “hard power” to the EU to fill the gap created by the breaking of the pride of Anglo-American power, he will be signing the death warrant of his own nation!

The first six months of this year feature a number of high-profile international conferences at which the new U.S. administration will be able to gradually reveal its shaky hand on its new diplomacy. In addition to the Munich conference, there is the EU summit in March, the April g-20 meeting in London, followed by the 60th anniversary summit of nato in June, which promises to be full of surprises.

Threaded throughout each will be a more strident voice from a Germany caught in deep crisis and in need of markets for its manufacturing industries. We predict that Germany will be invited to take on a more involved role in European, Middle Eastern and African security, a future reality that will lead to a revival of that nation’s heavy industries and prove to be the trigger to revitalize its currently deeply recessive economy.

If you fail to see these realities taking place before your eyes, it is because you need to understand the Bible prophecies that have declared their inevitability and their timing for these very days we are living through, right at this very moment!

Request a free copy of each of our booklets Who or What Is the Prophetic Beast? and Daniel Unlocks Revelation for a detailed exposé of vital Bible prophecies for these times. And while you are about it, request our book The United States and Britain in Prophecy. It is the one book that places the Anglo-American alliance in its true perspective—past, present and future.

These three publications will serve you as constant aids as you seek to make sense of the present global turmoil. In fact, they will reveal to you the only source of real hope for a better future that lies just beyond the turmoil of today!

Monday, March 16, 2009


Obama's Gun Ban List Is Out

Alan Korwin - Author Gun Laws Of America

Here it is, folks, and it is bad news. The framework for legislation is always laid, and the Democrats have the votes to pass anything they want to impose upon us. They really do not believe you need anything more than a brick to defend your home and family. Look at the list and see how many you own. Remember, it is registration, then confiscation. It has happened in the UK, in Australia, in Europe, in China, and what they have found is that for some reason the criminals do not turn in their weapons, but will know that you did.

Remember, the first step in establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the citizens.

Gun-ban list proposed. Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the Brady's plan to introduce shortly. I have an outline of the Brady's current plans and targets of opportunity. It's horrific. They're going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. They've made little mention of criminals. Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process, confiscated property, states' rights, free speech, right to assemble and more, in addition to the Second Amendment. The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):

Rifles (or copies or duplicates):
M1 Carbine,
Sturm Ruger Mini-14,
Bushmaster XM15,
Armalite M15,
Thompson 1927,
Thompson M1;
NHM 90,
NHM 91,
SA 85,
SA 93,
Olympic Arms PCR;
Calico Liberty ,
Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU,
Fabrique National FN/FAL,
Thompson 1927 Commando,
Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
SKS with detachable magazine,
SLG 95,
SLR 95 or 96,
Steyr AU,
Galil and Uzi Sporter,
Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).
Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
Calico M-110,
MAC-11, or MPA3,
Olympic Arms OA,
TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,
Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
Armscor 30 BG,
SPAS 12 or LAW 12,
Striker 12,
Streetsweeper. Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see
(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.
Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than
10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).
A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a
detachable magazine, and has:
(i) a second pistol grip,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a barrel shroud or
(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and
(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10
A semiautomatic shotgun with:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity
of more than 5 rounds, and
(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.

Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."

Note that Obama's pick for this office, Eric Holder, wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home. In making this determination, the bill says, "there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event." In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.

The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn't have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose -- is that devious or what? And of course, "sporting purpose" is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent.

Respectfully submitted, Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America

Forward or send to every gun owner you know...

Watch This, If You Want More Proof:


A partial list of gun rights groups:

Gun Owners of America

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership


National Rifle Association

Second Amendment Committee

Second Amendment Foundation

Second Amendment Sisters

Women Against Gun Control

Thursday, March 12, 2009


Contrived US
Ammunition Shortage

From Charleston Voice

From an undisclosed, but reliable source. I'd like to know who told Remington to cut back on production....

Less than 10 days ago I went to buy my wife a handgun from a large national sporting goods retail outlet near Boise. They have 3 very large sets of shelves that are normally stacked high with every imaginable type of ammo, but on this day they had maybe 2% of their normal stock and 0, yes ZERO .38 cal. When I asked the salesman about it he said that they have not been able to get much and when they do it sells within a few days.

Because I am so concerned about what is unfolding in our country I decided to check around. Out of 5 major outlets I was able to obtain 2 boxes of .40 cal. and 1 box of .38, 250 rounds total. The story from each salesman was the same, there is none available and they don't know when they will receive more.

At one location I got talking with the clerk and he told me that his brother works for Remington and has run their ammo making machines for over 10 years, in the past few years they have run 12 hours a day 7 days a week. TWO WEEKS after our last elections their management informed them that they were to cut back to 2 1/2 days a week and only run 8 hour a day. He said they had 50 semi-truck trailers waiting to be loaded but that they could not fill them.

A small family owned gun store I have dealt with for the last several years had quite a bit available but I was told again that they have scoured the entire area and bought everything they could find to resell, and they thought what they had would be gone by this Monday, tomorrow. After talking more with the owner he told me that last Wednesday and Thursday his staff had spent the entire time calling every gun store in Oregon, Idaho, and Washington and could not locate anything more than a few boxes here and there. While I was in the store he took off to drive all the way to Montana to get what was available there in a few small towns, that is at least a 16 hour round trip drive.

Apparently over thirty people were waiting for an ammo shipment in Mt. Home, Id. and when the Semi finally arrived it had only 12 boxes of pistol ammo aboard and they were told not to expect anymore in the near future.

I haven't heard this situation mentioned anywhere, and I would never have discovered it if I hadn't gone to purchase a gun.

Something very strange is happening out here. I can only hope that it is a local phenomenon, but I fear that is much larger. Please inform your readers so that they can find out for themselves.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009


« Former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif waves to supporters, March 1.
(STR/AFP/Getty Images)

Pakistani Islamists Join With Government Splinter Group

March 10, 2009 | From

Will the latest upheaval in Pakistan open the door for nuclear Islamist terrorism?

The nuclear-armed state of Pakistan is on the verge of political collapse. A radical Islamist political party is allying itself with the most popular politician in Islamabad. The following is a Deutsche Presse Agentur excerpt from March 2:

Pakistan’s most influential Islamist political party on Monday announced it will join former Premier Nawaz Sharif’s protest march against a court ban on his candidacy and for the reinstatement of the deposed Supreme Court chief justice.

“We will fully participate in the long march,” Jamaat-e-Islami chief Qazi Hussain Ahmed told reporters at a joint press conference with Sharif in Lahore, the capital of Pakistan’s eastern province of Punjab.

The Supreme Court last week upheld an earlier high court verdict that banned Sharif and his brother, Shahbaz, from parliamentary post because of a previous conviction.

The court decision also removed Shahbaz from the seat of chief minister of Punjab, the richest and populous province in Pakistan.

Sharif has asked the nation to stand up to the pro-Western government of President Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, accusing Zardari of influencing the court judgment to remove him from active politics.

“These are defining moments. The entire nation has to come out (on the streets),” Sharif said on Monday.

The alliance with the Islamist group is likely to boost the protests by Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (pml-n) party that continues to stage countrywide agitations since last week, blocking main roads and closing markets, particularly in Punjab, the pml-n’s stronghold.

The development has raised concern in Western capitals that internal political turmoil might divert Pakistan’s attention away from fighting Taliban and al Qaeda militants.

The Jamaat-e-Islami party advocates an Iranian-style religious dictatorship and maintains close ties with the radical Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. This alliance with Sharif may be just what it needs to increase its influence in Pakistan.

Opinion polls show that Sharif is currently Pakistan’s most popular politician. It is feasible that his party could mobilize street rallies powerful enough to deliver a deathblow to the current coalition government in Islamabad. Such a development would definitely strengthen both the Pakistan Muslim League and its Islamist allies.

Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal creates a dangerous situation. For more information, read Pakistani Sympathy Grows for Pro-Taliban MilitantsandPakistan and the Shah of Iran.”

Tuesday, March 03, 2009


Obama Lied To Gun
Owners - Attack Plan Revealed

A special message from Citizens Committee
for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms:


As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama deliberately and repeatedly lied to America's 90 million gun owners across the country when he insisted that he would not try to take away anyone's firearms, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, reacting to yesterday's remarks by Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder that the president will seek to reinstate the ban on semi-automatic firearms, said Obama "knew he was lying to the nation because his own website touted his plan to revive the gun ban and make it permanent."

Select Here to Reject Gun Bans and Fax to all 100 Senators and all 435 House Representatives

"We warned America that Obama's 'support' for the Second Amendment was empty rhetoric," he stated, "and now Holder's disclosure has confirmed it. Obama was lying, and now gun rights may be dying."

Several times on the campaign trail, Obama told voters "I'm not going to take your guns away." He said it at rallies in Duryea, Pennsylvania and in Boise, Idaho. He also told a news conference that "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fearÂI think people can take me at my word."

"Right now," said Gottlieb, "I wouldn't take Obama's word if he said it rains a lot in Seattle. Apparently, law-abiding gun owners have nothing to fear unless they own sport-utility rifles, semiautomatic shotguns, handguns and any other firearm that Obama and his anti-gun attorney general don't like.

"Thanks to Eric Holder, who has been far more honest than his boss about his anti-gun philosophy, it is now clear that the new president doesn't support the Second Amendment at all," he observed. "American gun owners should remind Democrats in Congress that the Second Amendment means what it says, especially when the president doesn't."

Select Here to Reject Gun Bans and Fax to all 100 Senators and all 435 House Representatives

In order to stop Obama and his fellow Democrat gun-grabbers-we need to let the Congress know with thousands of faxes telling them to leave guns alone.

Americans like you who understand what our Founding Fathers envisioned for our nationand who are willing to fight to defend our Constitution and for what it stands.

So please, help the Citizens Committee and me defeat those who wish to gut and trash the United States Constitution.

Help me flood the U.S. Senate and the House with the sea of FAXES big enough to drown each and every Senator and Representative willing to vote away the Second Amendment.

Please, send your Donation and FAX TODAY!

Keep calling your Senators today, toll free numbers include 1-877-851-6437 and 1-866-220-0044, or call toll 1-202-225-3121 AND REGISTER YOU'RE OUTRAGE at ongoing efforts to take guns away!

CALL PRESIDENT OBAMA, 202-456-1111 and 202-456-1414 expressing your disdain and ABSOLUTE REJECTION of all GUN BANS.


NOTE: We need TENS OF THOUSANDS of faxes and PHONE CALLS and EMAILS delivered to ALL Senators and Representives right away!

For our projects to be successful, we must count on the voluntary financial support from individuals like you who care.

Your contribution of $20 or $25 is urgently needed today.

Your donation for just $10 will help so much. If you can afford to send $50 or $100 or more it would truly be a godsend.

Remember, protecting our freedom is not inexpensive.

But then, it's impossible to put a price tag on freedom.

Select Here NOW Send Your Most Generous Donation

Together, we can preserve the Constitutional rights our Founding Fathers intended our people to have forever.

For more information about CCRKBA go to

Thank you. I know I can count on you.


Alan Gottlieb
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

If you prefer to donate by check, please mail to:

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
12500 NE Tenth Place
Dept Code 2136
Bellevue, Washington 98004

P.S. Take the Emergency Gun Survey let us know where you stand.


Did you know that since Barack Obama was elected President 3 people make a donation to an anti-gun group every minute?

That's almost a million and a half contributions aimed at you - and your gun rights every year!

With Obama in the White House and anti-gunners in control of key committees in Congress, the gun grabbers are out for blood.

Select Here NOW I urgently need you to fill out the EMERGENCY GUN RIGHTS SURVEY registered in your name.

We at the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms have launched this new nationwide campaign to rally gun owners and freedom loving Americans behind an effort to protect our constitutional rights.


Gun Alerts
12500 N.E. Tenth Place - Bellevue, WA 98005 US

Blog Archive