President and DHS oppose the border fence

From the Desk of:
Steve Elliott, President, Alliance


Dear Scott,

“The ‘virtual fence’ is virtually useless,” says Rep. Duncan Hunter

The recent failure of the highly touted “virtual fence” (that DHS
spent more than $20 million developing) is a slap in the face to
every citizen who has been demanding control of the borders.

But DHS isn’t committed to securing the borders. If they were,
they would have followed the mandates of the Secure Fence Act,
and duplicated the barrier built in San Diego.

That 14-mile fence has been extremely effective in lowering illegal
crossings and drug traffic. In fact, apprehensions have decreased
due to fewer crossings. In simple language, the double-layered
fence works.

Hunter is so incensed by the current state of border fencing–
single-layer, and virtual fencing that he’s introduced legislation
demanding that it “restores the most important elements of the
Secure Fence Act,” notably 700 miles of double-layered fencing
to be constructed within six months of the bill’s enactment.

H.R. 5124 is strongly supported by Grassfire, and should be
strongly supported by every citizen in the nation who is serious
about border security.

Scott, I’m thrilled that you have already added your name
to our “Build the Fence As Promised” petition. After just one
week, more than 85,000 citizens have added their name!

I’m asking all members of our team who have already taken action
with us, to do two important things:

++ Action Item #1–Contact your Congressman

After signing, please take a moment to contact your Arizona
Representative, encouraging he/she to support the Hunter bill H.R. 5124
“Reinstate the Secure Fence Act”. When calling, be sure to identify
yourself as a member of

To date, the following 16 members of Congress have added their names as

Bilbray (CA-50) Waite-Brown (FL-5)
Coble (NC-6) Drier (CA-26)
Franks (AZ-2) Gingery (GA-11)
Goode (VA-5) Graves (MO-6
Johnson (TX-3) Marchant (TX-24)
Myrick (NC-9) Poe (TX-2)
Rohrabacher (CA-46) Royce (CA-40)
Saxton (NJ-5) Sullivan (OK-1)

If your Congressman isn’t on this list, please call right now,
and urge them to do so. To be quickly connected call the
Capitol Switchboard: 202-226-3121.

If your Congressman is on the above list, call them anyway and thank
them for taking a REAL stand to secure our borders!

++Action Item #2–Alert your friends

Scott in just a few short weeks, Ron De Jong and I will be on
Capitol Hill presenting your petitions to leading members of Congress
who are serious about border security, and I want to overwhelm
them with our petition. You can help us do that by forwarding
this message to 20-30 friends today!

Urge them to add their name to this important
petition calling for the fence to be built as promised
simply by clicking here:

The lack of commitment from the President and DHS will result in either
substandard fencing, or no fencing at all. That’s why we are urging ALL
members of our team to sign our petition and take to the phones!

A true solution will only come about if the grassroots voice of
America speaks out!

Thank you for you quick response.


P.S: After signing our petition and making your call, please forward
this message to 20-30 friends and family. Encourage them to sign our
petition by clicking here:

++Help Grassfire Secure the Border:

                                    • +
                                      (Note: Please do not “reply” directly to this e-mail message. This
                                      e-mail address is not designed to receive your personal messages.
                                      To contact with comments, questions or to change
                                      your status, see link at the end.)
                                    • +
    • Feedback or comments on this update?

Go to and post your comments so that the Grassfire
staff along with thousands of citizens can benefit from your
thoughts and opinions:

    • Technical questions only:

For technical questions regarding this email, go here:
(Not for comments/feedback on this update)

        • +
 Alliance is a non-profit 501(c)4 issues advocacy
          organization dedicated to equipping our 1.5 million-strong
          network of grassroots conservatives with the tools that
          give you a real impact on the key issues of our day.
          Gifts to are not tax deductible.
Bookmark and Share



I was looking for something else entirely and found this in my archives from around 1998 and thought it should be brought out again.


By William F. Jasper

“In America, where idealism is the yardstick used to judge a generation’s
collective virtue, Rhodes scholars are its masters,” says Rhodes scholar
Peter Beinart. “They are chosen as much for their public-spiritedness as
for their academic prowess. Not all want to run for elective office, but
the bulk think their talents can be most fully realized through public
service. Like Clinton, my peers believe earnestly in government. Above all,
they believe in themselves in government.”

Writing in the “My Turn” section of Newsweek’s January 16th issue, Beinart,
a 23-year-old student now in his second year at Oxford University, offers a
perceptive critique of the “Rhodie” tendency to giddily embrace idealism as
“summum bonum”. Beinart notes that “such idealism should be refreshing. Yet
after a year at Oxford, it makes me uneasy. The commitment to government my
colleagues express so passionately is rarely linked to a clear vision of
what government should do…. I’m afraid that the idealism for which Rhodes
scholars receive praise is less an antidote to the problems of American
politics than a symptom of them.”

“Lacking a vision of political service in pursuit of specific ends,”
observes Beinart, “the rhetoric of idealism allows Rhodes scholars to
justify and celebrate political service per se. Idealism masks an
ideological vacuum.”


On the pernicious potential of misdirected idealism Bienart scores some
important points. However, it is not idealism per se, but a particular kind
of idealism, of which Rhodies are typically imbued, that is the problem
under consideration here. And it is certainly not an idealism proceeding
from an “ideological vacuum.” If that were the case, we would expect to see
idealism manifested and expressed in a diversity of shapes and forms, as
for instance: Christian idealism versus humanist/pagan/atheist idealism,
individualist versus collectivist idealism, libertarian versus totalitarian
idealism, nationalist versus globalist idealism, etc.

The Oxonian idealism, however, seems to run almost invariably along the
humanist/pagan/atheist, collectivist, totalitarian, globalist, elitist
lines. Perhaps Beinart’s peers do not explicitly subscribe to such a nasty
idealism, but, apparently, it is implicit – at least in the formative
stages – in their collective world view, and it is this which makes him
“uneasy.” As he says, they have a passionate “commitment to government,”
but, “above all, they believe “in themselves” in government.” Which is
exactly the kind of “idealism” British empire builder Cecil John Rhodes
intended to foster when he established the Rhodes scholarships at the turn
of the century.

We have written previously about the baleful effects of Rhodes’ bequest (“A
‘Rhodie’ in the White House,” New American, 1/25/93). However, since the
accession of Bill Clinton to the Oval Office, the Oxford influence in the
Executive branch of the federal government has attained unprecedented
heights. As Rhodes scholar Robert Rotberg noted in the Christian Science
Monitor for December 7, 1992, the Clinton Presidency “fulfills Rhodes’
deepest aspiration.” Rotberg, author of The Founder: Cecil Rhodes and the
Pursuit of Power, wrote in his Monitor piece that “Rhodes believed that he
had discovered an idea that could lead ‘to the cessation of all wars and
one language throughout the world.’ Rhodes also specified fairly clearly
the kinds of men who should receive the opportunity to go to Oxford. He had
Clinton in mind” – an admission which, by itself, should severely diminish
the prestige of the esteemed academic honors. Rhodes’ men, said Rotberg,
were a special breed: “They were to ‘esteem the performance of public
duties’ as their highest aim. Rhodes wanted the best men for ‘the World’s
fight’… In the 90 years of scholarships, only Clinton has taken
Rhodes’dream to the top.”


Indeed. Which is why we are grateful for the appearance of two recent
studies on this important subject: Secret Records Revealed: The Men, the
Money, and the Methods Behind the New World Order, by Dennis Laurence Cuddy
(Plymouth Rock Foundation, PO Box 577, Marlborough, NH 02455); and The
Rhodes Legacy: Are Its Agents Shaping America’s Destiny? by Samuel L.
Blumenfeld (The Blumenfeld Education Letter, PO Box 45161, Boise, ID 83711).

As two of the most perceptive writers on education issues today, Dr. Cuddy
and Mr. Blumenfeld are well qualified to tackle the Rhodesian menace
to American academe, government, and society.

Quoting from Professor Carroll Quigley’s monumental history, Tragedy and
Hope, Blumenfeld recounts the “sensational impact” that socialist professor
John Ruskin had on the young Cecil Rhodes while a student at Oxford. Later,
“with support from Lord Rothschild and Alfred Beit, [Rhodes] was able to
monopolize the diamond mines of South Africa” and put his enormous,
ill-gotten fortune in diamonds and gold to work in his plan for world empire.

To accomplish this end, Rhodes confided to his intimate friend and
executor, William T. Snead, it was necessary to (in Rhodes’ own words)
create “a society copied, as to organization, from the Jesuits.” Unlike the
Jesuits (the Society of Jesus), however, Rhodes’ society would be secret
and decidedly un-Christian. Rhodes told Snead that it should be “a secret
society, organized like Loyola’s, supported by the accumulated wealth of
those whose aspiration is to do something.”

And this “something” that Rhodes had in mind for them to “do” with their
wealth? Nothing less, said Rhodes, than “a scheme to take the government
of the whole world.” Thus, Rhodes biographer Sarah Millin noted, “The
government of the world was Rhodes’ simple desire.” Simple, yes, though
hardly lacking in ambitious grandiosity. Said Rhodes to Stead: “What scope!
What a horizon of work for the next two centuries for the best energies of
the best people in the world.” And, averred the fabulously wealthy magnate,
“The only thing feasible to carry out this idea is a secret society
gradually absorbing the wealth of the world, to be devoted to this object.”

These and other revealing statements are found in an important article on
Cecil Rhodes in the New York Times of April 9, 1902, which Blumenfeld has
reprinted in The Rhodes Legacy.


The secret society of which Rhodes spoke was launched, notes Blumenfeld, on
February 5, 1891. Forming the executive committee of this society were
Rhodes, Stead, Lord Esher, and Alfred Milner. Below them was a “Circle of
Initiates” comprised of Lord Balfour, Sir Harry Johnson, Lord Rothschild,
Lord Grey, and other scions of Britain’s financial and aristocratic
elite.According to Professor Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown
University, “The scholarships were merely a facade to conceal the secret
society, or more accurately, they were to be one of the instuments by which
the members of the secret society could carry out his purpose.” “The Rhodes
Scholarships,” Blumenfeld writes, “as outlined in Rhodes’ will, became the
main instrument whereby the most promising young people throughout the
English-speaking world could be recruited to serve an idea that Rhodes
thought would take 200 years to fulfill.” And, says Blumenfeld: “Obviously,
the way the secret society would recruit its future leaders from among the
Rhodes scholars was to dangle before them the prospects of future
advancement in whatever field they chose to pursue, be it education,
politics, government, foundation work, finance, journalism, etc. Thus, if
you understood the implicit message being given to you by your sponsors you
might one day become president of Harvard, President of the United States,
a Supreme Court Judge, a US senator, or president of the Carnegie
Foundation. The road to fame and fortune was open as long as you played the
game and obeyed the rules. The Association of American Rhodes Scholars has
an alumni membership of about 1,600. They have become leading figures in
the new ruling elite in America.”


For gaining as appreciation of just how influential the “leading figures”
in this ruling elite have been, and are today, Dr. Cuddy’s 50-page booklet,
Secret Records Revealed, is of immense value. Utlilizing the chronological
format he has used in some of his previous studies, Cuddy begins with the
year 1890 and traces the perfidious Rhodes influence to the present,
outlining not only the “contributions” of Rhodes scholars, but those as
well of prominent members in Rhodes’ other fronts such as the Council on
Foreign Relations.

The impact of this elect(but in most cases unelected) coterie has been
nothing less than incredible. A roll call of the famous Rhodies who have
advanced the founder’s scheme reads like a Who’s Who of American
finance,business, academe, journalism, and politics: Whitney Shepardson,
John K.Fairbank, Lester Thurow, Erwin D. Canham, Stringfellow Barr,
Nicholas Katzenbach, Howard K. Smith, Harlan Cleveland, Carl Albert, J.
William Fulbright, Dean Rusk, Hedley Donovan, Walt Rostow, Robert Roosa,
Stansfield Turner, Richard Lugar, David Boren, Michael Kinsley, Daniel
Boorstin, and many more. Among the more than 20 Rhodies in Clinton’s
retinue are Strobe Talbott, Robert Reich, James Woolsey, Ira Magaziner,
George Stephanopoulos, Stephen Oxman, Sarah Sewall, Walter Slocombe, Joseph
Nye, and Richard N.Gardner.

And what are the characteristics that the Rhodes scholarship selection
committees were to look for in candidates and nurture in their scholars?
According to Rhodes’ own criteria, notes Cuddy, the traits most desired
were (and are) “smugness, brutality, unctuous rectitude, and tact.”
Obviously, as Mr. Rotberg beamed above, Rhodes “had Clinton in mind.” After
all, his proteges were to be the “best men,” the “best people,” pursuing
his vision of world government run by a socialist aristocratic
elite. According to Rhodes’ co-conspirator Stead, it was expected that by
1920 there would be”between two and three thousand men in the prime of life
scattered all over the world, each of whom, moreover, would have been
specially – mathematically – selected toward the Founder’s purposes.”


Dr. Cuddy examines the writings, speeches, policies, and deeds of Rhodes
scholars and other members of the Rhodes network over the past century, to
reveal what is clearly the sinister nature of “the Founder’s purposes.” He
shares the alarm expressed by Professor Quigley in his posthumously
published expose, The Anglo-American Establishment: “The picture is
terrifying because such power, whatever the goals at which it is being
directed, is too much to be entrusted to any group…. No country that
values its safety should allow what [Rhodes-Milner] group accomplished –
that is, that a small number of men would be able to wield such a power in
administration and politics, should be given almost complete control over
the publication of documents relating to their actions, should be able to
exercise such influence over the avenues of information that create public
opinion, and should be able to monopolize so completely the writing and the
teaching of the history of their own period.”

Reprinted from THE NEW AMERICAN MAGAZINE February 20, 1995

Bookmark and Share


Grand Jury Demands Abortion Clinic Records Alliance

According to breaking reports from the Associated Press,
Planned Parenthood, the world’s largest abortion provider,
must now submit medical records from its clinic in Overland
Park, Kansas that may prove allegations of illegal abortions and
falsifying documents.

Kansas State law mandates that a parent or guardian must
be notified if a minor seeks an abortion, and that a
patient must wait 24 hours after requesting abortion.

Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline believes
Planned Parenthood is guilty of violating these laws,
as well as 107 other criminal charges against the abortion
clinic – including 23 felonies alleging failure to comply
with medical reporting requirements.

Despite the allegations, Planned Parenthood has been
uncooperative in the investigation!

Under Kansas State law the grand jury has only 90 days to
complete an investigation, and PPFA ran the clock for more
than 40 days until the medical records were finally delivered–
leaving a very tight window to review cases and histories.

Such actions could seriously jeopardize the case against PPFA!

++ Grassroots response to Planned Parenthood

This is precisely why Grassfire launched our
petition to de-fund PPFA, and why we need your help right now.
In the next 30 days, Grassfire expects to deliver 100,000
petitions to key leaders in Congress working to de-fund
this organization that boasts of leading the world in abortions!

I’m counting on you, to help to get the word out about
Planned Parenthood’s abortion agenda and efforts to de-fund them.

++ Action Item–Alert your Friends

Forward this message to 30-40 friends and family
urging them to take a stand for the unborn in our nation
by adding their name to this important petition by
clicking here:

Again, I want to take your petitions to Capitol Hill within
the next 30 days. But I must reach our goal of 100,000 petitions
first. Please forward this message today.

Thank you in advance for joining with Grassfire! Alliance

P.S: Again, forward this important update to your Pro-Life friends,
urging them to visit our Pro-Life page to get engaged in
this issue.

+ + + + + Alliance is a non-profit 501(c)4 issues advocacy
organization dedicated to equipping our 1.5 million-strong network
of grassroots conservatives with the tools that give you a real
impact on the key issues of our day. Gifts to are not
tax deductible.

+ + Comments? Questions?

Bookmark and Share

2nd Amendment RKBA

Ramifications Of The Veterans Disarmament Act

Q&A On The Veterans Disarmament Act
— How the new law will affect you and where we go from here

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

As most Americans were preparing for the Christmas holidays last
month, the U.S. Congress pulled another fast one when only few people
were watching.

It was December 19. Most Congressmen had left town and were either
at the airport or in the air returning home. They weren’t in
Washington, DC, because their party leadership had told them that all
the major votes were over… that the only legislative business left
related to non-controversial issues, such as when Congress would
return from Christmas break, etc.

But it was then, with most of the Congress gone, that the House and
Senate passed the Veterans Disarmament Act without a recorded vote.
It was a huge deja vu, as this was the method that a previous
Democratic Congress used — together with compliant Republicans — to
pass the original Brady Law in 1993.


In the fury that resulted from this “fast one,” many Americans have
wanted to blame the entire lot of them… all 535 congressmen. And,
to be sure, there is an extent to which they all share some blame.

But to be fair, no one congressmen can camp out on the floor of the
House or Senate chambers, every day, 24/7. It’s a physical
impossibility, which is why members of each party rely on their
leadership to protect their interests and keep them informed. And
that’s where the betrayal occurred.

No Unanimous Consent agreement can pass the House or Senate without
the leaders of both parties signing off. And on December 19, the
leaders of each party sent their members home for the Christmas
holidays, while forging Unanimous Consent agreements in each chamber.

As such, the immediate ire should be directed at the following
legislators: Democrats such as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
(D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV); Republicans such
as House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

Obviously, the backers of the Veterans Disarmament Act should be held
to account, as well. Most of the lead sponsors were Democrats —
such as Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

But there were a few key Republicans who helped cosponsor the
legislation: Representatives Michael Castle (DE), Christopher Shays
(CT) and Lamar Smith (TX). And dishonorable mention goes to Tom
Price of Georgia who was physically present on the House floor on
December 19. It was Rep. Price who asked for the Unanimous Consent
agreement to pass the Veterans Disarmament Act without a vote.

Finally, many of you know that Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) held up the
bill in the Senate for several months. His intentions were laudable
as he desperately wanted to protect Second Amendment rights and cut
unconstitutional spending.

Unfortunately, not one pro-gun senator chose to stand with Coburn…
not one. In fact, GOA felt just as alone as Coburn did. While two
veterans groups (and several pro-gun state groups) sided with us, GOA
was the only pro-gun group at the federal level that actively fought
this legislation week after week, while another and bigger
organization was working behind the scenes to help pass the Veterans
Disarmament Act.

Standing alone, Senator Coburn decided to negotiate for a better
bill. GOA was asked for input and made a few contributions to the
bill, but not enough to justify support for the Veterans Disarmament

Add to this fact that GOA was prevented from seeing the final version
of the bill before the brokered Schumer-Coburn compromise was taken
to the floor under a Unanimous Consent agreement.

As a result, Senator Coburn spoke in favor of the compromise bill on the floor of the Senate — something that was a huge mistake, for many of the glaring problems with the bill still remained untouched.

So chalk up a victory for Chuck Schumer… and for Carolyn McCarthy
as well, as she told CBS News, “This is the best Christmas present I
could ever receive.”


It would be a mistake to under-react — or over-react — to the
passage of the Veterans Disarmament Act. On the bad side, this bill
statutorily validates BATF regulations which could potentially disarm
millions of Americans. This is a VERY DANGEROUS turn of events which
will have huge ramifications over the next several decades.

The extent to which its unconstitutional potential will be realized
will be clear only over time — and perhaps a long time — and will
depend on whether pro-gunners or anti-gunners are in power. For
example, it took a full thirty years for language in the 1968 Gun
Control Act to be used to disarm veterans.

On the other hand, GOA was able to secure a few modest concessions
which should provide some protection to gun owners — though NOT

So having said that, what are the implications of this legislation
for Americans with psychiatric diagnoses?

Although we succeeded in forcing the deletion of the ratification of
the BATF regulations, per se, section 101 (c) (1) (C) contains new
language which could make you a “prohibited person” (unable to own a
gun) based solely on a medical finding (by a psychiatrist or
psychologist), provided:

  • That you had “an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board,
    commission or other lawful authority”; and
  • In the future, that you had notice that you would be made a
    “prohibited person” as a result of the agency action (section 101 (c)
    (3)). [NOTE: This was added pursuant to negotiations over GOA’s
    objections to the bill.]

However, even these modest gains have severe limitations. Up to
140,000 veterans had their gun rights taken away as a result of a
diagnosis of a mental disorder such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD). But this new law does not require two important things for
those 140,000 people:

  1. The new law does not require that a veteran needed to have any knowledge of the ramifications of the “diagnosis” in the past — and the fact that this diagnosis could disarm him or her for life. How many veterans suffering from PTSD simply went to Veterans Affairs, hoping to get treatment, but now face a lifetime gun ban because of the new law?
  • Also, the act does not require that the disarmed vets even knew
    they had a right to appeal their diagnosis. Many of the 140,000
    Americans who have now lost their Second Amendment rights first
    received a letter from Veterans Affairs telling them that, due to
    their diagnosis, a “guardian” was being appointed for them to handle
    their affairs. As stated above, how many vets realized that this
    action would deem them as “mental defective” under the 1968 Gun
    Control Act and strip them of their gun rights?

  • Moreover, how many vets realized they could challenge this action by
    appealing the diagnosis? If they didn’t realize the significance of
    this VA letter, most likely, the vets did nothing, as they were more
    concerned with getting the monetary benefits that such a diagnosis
    would bring. But, whether they knew these things or not, this new
    law would still validate the removal of their Second Amendment


    If you have been subject to a psychological or psychiatric diagnosis,
    the following may be helpful:

    • A diagnosis by your private doctor — with no government
      involvement — will probably cause you no problems.
  • The biggest danger remains the danger for veterans. Although the
    language of this bill could conceivably disarm adults who were
    diagnosed as kids with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program,
    seniors on Medicare with Alzheimers, etc., we know of no active
    efforts to disarm persons in these cases — yet.

  • The likelihood that new classes of people will be disarmed will be
    directly related to the ease of accomplishing this though a computer
    keyboard. If your file exists only on microfiche in a dusty basement
    cabinet, you are relatively safe for now — although, keep in mind,
    the new law calls for monies to be spent on collecting and updating
    records like this.

  • Obviously, the question of whether a gun hater or Second Amendment
    supporter is in the White House on January 20, 2009, will have a lot
    to do with how vigorously this new statute is enforced.


    In the unlikely event that you can get your diagnosis “set aside,”
    “expunged,” or found to no longer exist, you can regain your rights.
    [See section 101(c)(1)(A)&(B).]

    The McClure-Volkmer “relief from disabilities” provisions which have
    been blocked by sponsor Schumer for 15 years have been reinstated and
    expanded — so that they will now exist in the broader range of state
    and federal agencies which this bill will allow to make you a
    prohibited person. Pursuant to negotiations over GOA’s objections,
    we were able to secure very modest improvements which:

    • Would allow you to sue to get your rights restored if the agency
      sat on your appeal for 365 days;
  • Would allow you to get your legal fees if you prevail against the
    agency in court;

  • Would prevent Schumer from defunding these efforts in the same way
    he defunded McClure-Volkmer — by requiring the 3% of state funds under this bill be used for these “relief from disabilities” programs.

  • But here’s the major loophole in all of this. What minimal gains were granted by the “right hand” are taken away by the “left.” Section 105 provides a process for some Americans diagnosed with so-called mental disabilities to get their rights restored in the state where they live. But then, in subsection (a)(2), the bill stipulates that such relief may occur only if “the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the GRANTING OF THE RELIEF WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.” (Emphasis added.)

    This language sounds similar to those state codes (like California’s)
    that have “may issue” concealed carry laws — where citizens
    “technically” have the right to carry, but state law only says that
    sheriffs MAY ISSUE them a permit to carry. When given such leeway,
    those sheriffs usually don’t grant the permits!

    As we have predicted before: liberal states — the same states that
    took these people’s rights away — will treat almost every person who
    has been illegitimately denied as a danger to society and claim that
    granting relief would be “contrary to the public interest.”


    GOA is devising strategies with House and Senate members to restore
    veterans’ rights. Please stay tuned.

    Defend The 2nd Amendment Through Creative Giving…

    As we confront the challenges of the future, we know that the
    generosity of those who assist us will make all the difference in our
    success. That’s why GOA seeks your long-term support.

    Please call 703-321-8585 during regular business hours or e-mail to request information on how to keep control
    of your assets and make a gift at the same time through:

    • a bequest
    • a retirement plan
    • a will, living trust, or insurance policy

    Requests for information are confidential and do not represent an

    To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to on the web. Change of e-mail address may also be made at that location.

    To unsubscribe send a message to with the word unsubscribe in the subject line or use the url below.

    Problems, questions or comments? The main GOA e-mail address is at your disposal. Please do not add that
    address to distribution lists sending more than ten messages per
    week or lists associated with issues other than gun rights.

    Bookmark and Share

    2nd Amendment Election

    Romney still supports background checks and assault weapons ban

    Note that I heard Romney state he supported the assault weapon ban during the first Republican debate. Even though I am LDS I would not support someone who does not understand the constitution. The Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed! Scott.

    Romney still supports background checks and assault weapons ban12/17/2007 – This Sunday on Meet The Press (MTP), Governor Mitt Romney restated his support for the Brady Registration Act and a renewal of the assault weapons ban.

    MTP host Tim Russert — certainly no friend of gun owners — pressed Romney on his flip-flopping on the issue of gun rights, questioning Romney’s election year pandering to gun owners and his consistent record of supporting and signing gun control measures in Massachusetts.

    Romney’s reply was typical of a politician trying to avoid a difficult record. Romney tried the same old stick, claiming support to the Second Amendment and the rights of gun owners and hunters. However, you and I both know that actions speak louder than words.

    As Massachusetts’ governor, Romney signed an assault weapons ban, supported the Brady Registration Act, 5 day waiting periods and firearm registration cards.

    Romney claimed to Russert that he was opposed to waiting periods. However, in 2002 Romney was a supporter of waiting periods to purchase firearms. Romney continued in the interview to restate his support for the Brady Registration Act and a ban on all so-called “assault weapons.”

    GOV. ROMNEY: I supported the assault weapon ban… I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban as Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus… And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that’s something I would consider signing. There’s nothing of that nature that’s being proposed today in Washington. But, but I would, I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality…

    Romney went on to directly state that he would renew the 1994 Feinstein “Assault Weapons” Ban.

    GOV. ROMNEY: Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill [the assault weapons ban] if it came to his desk, and so would have I.

    Romney continued his anti-gun rant, to say that he supports limited access to firearms.

    GOV. ROMNEY: Well, we have, we have a background check. That’s the key thing. I support background checks to, to–for people who are going into a store or whatever and buying a weapon, I want them to have a background check to make sure…But my position is we should check on the backgrounds of people who are trying to purchase guns. We also should keep weapons of unusual lethality from being on the street.

    The bottom line is quite simple: Governor Romney wants voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and across the country to believe that he supports our right to keep and bear arms. The truth is that Romney supports significant increases in gun control, and is unapologetic about signing the Massachusetts assault weapons ban.

    You can read the full transcript of the interview here:

    You can watch video of Romney on Meet the Press here:



    National Association for Gun Rights

    P.O. Box 7002

    Fredericksburg, VA 22404



    Phone: (888) 874-3006 Toll-Free

    Fax: (202) 351-0578

    Bookmark and Share

    2nd Amendment RKBA

    Beware Holiday Season Ambush

    Beware Holiday Season Ambush

    If that eery silence about H.R. 2640 (the Veteran Disarmament bill by Carolyn McCarthy) makes you uneasy, it should: the best time for our opponents to slip gun control through the legislative process is when it’s quiet, and everyone’s occupied by other business.

    It’s no coincidence that gun control often gains steam close to the Holiday season, when Americans are busy with filling that deer tag, going to Christmas plays, shopping and getting the basement room ready for Grandma.

    Some good news:

    • Sources at the Gun Rights Policy Conference reported that when NRA-ILA Federal Affair lobbyist Chuck Cunningham spoke, he was assaulted with questions about why the NRA was supporting McCarthy’s bill. Immediately after that woodshedding, Wayne LaPierre canceled his speaking appearance at the event — none of LaPierre’s handlers wanted the “face of the NRA” to be caught on video defending their support of gun control.

    Friends, that is encouraging: the NRA is feeling the heat on this issue, and if they back off of the bill, H.R. 2640’s support on Capitol Hill will lose votes faster than Obama at a John Birch Society straw poll.

    And though that is good news, we have bad news:

    • Expert sources on the Hill are telling us that politicians took notice of the firestorm that struck their offices late this summer and early fall, but now believe the heat is off and are once again eyeing the passage of HR 2640.
    • An NRA insider has told us that yet another deal is in the works between the NRA and Congressional offices, something designed to pass the bill while giving the NRA cover to continue their support.

    This confirms what we know: there’s a lot of deal-making happening in Washington on this issue, and it’s very dangerous to our rights. These next few weeks — until the end of 2007 — are pivotal.

    If history repeats itself (and it often does), this Holiday season is a likely spot for our rights to be ambushed.

    What you can do:

    1) Call Senators Mike Crapo and Jim Bunning and tell them to join Senator Coburn in opposition to H.R. 2640, the McCarthy/Leahy Gun Control Bill.

    Call Senator Mike Crapo s office at (202) 224-6142. To e-mail senator Crapo go here:

    Call Senator Bunning’s office at (202) 224-4343. To e-mail Senator Bunning go here:

    2) Call or e-mail the NRA and tell them to stop schmoozing with Sarah Brady and Chuck Schummer and oppose H.R. 2640.

    Call (800) 392-8683 or e-mail the NRA s federal lobbyist, Chuck Cunningham at and

    For NAGR s extensive analysis of H.R. 2640, go here:


    National Association for Gun Rights

    P.O. Box 7002

    Fredericksburg, VA 22404



    Phone: (888) 874-3006 Toll-Free

    Fax: (202) 351-0578

    Bookmark and Share


    Our Nations Sovereignty Under Attack

    + +
    (Forward below message to your family and friends)
    + +


    I have just signed a national petition opposing the U.N. “Law of
    the Sea” treaty that if ratified by the Senate would threaten our
    nation’s sovereignty. Additionally, it places the United States
    under an international authority, subjects our nation to direct
    taxation by the United Nations and could hamper our military.

    A vote to ratify the treaty is expected before the end of the month.

    This is a crucial issue that truly needs your immediate attention.
    Please click below for more information:


    + + To sign Grassfire’s petition opposing the “Law of the Sea”

    Google Law of the Sea

    Bookmark and Share

    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

    LDS Singles Blog ward

    LDS Singles Blog ward

    I’m a new member of the Blog Ward, I generally don’t rant about church things or my social life (or lack there of) publicly and if I did feel like doing so would normally rant on my LDS Singles list on Yahoo Groups. This is a quick note as the computer will do it’s scheduled weather station reboot in 3 minutes at 11:55 PM and really needs to, it was doing weird stuff today didn’t record from 9 AM to 2 PM for some unknown reason.. If you want to know more about me, visit my home page About Scott

    I forgot that Firefox has this really cool “Restore Previous Session” if it get’s closed unexpectedly so I’m back Although I should do stuff like cook dinner, post my gospel principles lessons for tomorrow to that list, I have a few lists.. I need to go watch my Netfix movie, do laundry, etc. There is always too much to do and not enough time to do it.

    Guess that makes me the ward Gospel Essentials teacher! In the last ward I was going to I was the real teacher, the Ward Mission Leader and other than the full time missionaries was THE missionary force for the whole ward.. I was promised some stake missionaries but never got them. I’ve been that to, twice and a full time mission to Sacramento California 83-84. It meant I had to go to the 7 AM PEC meetings, missionary and Sunday school meetings, split with the missionaries once a week, had weekly meetings with them, etc.. I never had time to do anything else, though it was nice to have some social contact outside of work.

    I haven’t gone since they disbanded the ward over a year ago, that is twice that happened in that stake. I say that stake because they apparently have disbanded the stake this year too! The ward I live in has moved from the Phoenix west stake (Arizona) to the Glendale stake although I don’t know exactly when. I think the west stake has been eliminated. Which is OK with me as the stake center is a lot closer, I’ve gone to general conference there a couple of times since it is a couple of miles from work. I’m kind of burned out on church, every time I get active in a ward, it’s like oh look a RM, let’s give him two or three callings… I work 50 Hours a week, and Sunday is my only day off which I mostly spend sleeping because that is the one thing I don’t do enough of. There is always more to do around the house than I have time to keep up with. Well enough ranting for now.

    Bookmark and Share

    1st Amendment, free speech

    Freedoms Voice

    Join Like minded conservatives on Freedoms Voice. Freedom’s voice is small (so far) membership list, mostly the hard core people of a local political BBS we used to hang out on before the WWW. I forward all my RKBA email I get to it and some other conservative political posts. Ray Keller posts a lot of stuff and once in a great while someone else posts. Very little chatter on the list, almost entirely forwards from other sources of a political nature.

    Click to join freedoms_voice

    2nd Amendment RKBA

    NRA board member Nugent nukes gun control deal; Veteran’s group’s oppose H.R. 2640, too

    At least there is one NRA board member that has it right. Thank you Ted!

    NRA board member Nugent nukes gun control deal


    NRA board member Ted Nugent has come out in opposition to H.R. 2640, calling it Janet Reno’s dream.  Here’s what rocker Nugent said about H.R. 2640:

    In its open letter of May 9, 2007, BATFE makes it clear that this “danger” doesn’t have to be “imminent” or “substantial,” but can include “any danger” at all. How many shrinks — using the Pennsylvania standard — are going to say that a pro-gun American like you, who believes the Second Amendment is the last defense against tyranny, DOESN’T POSE AT LEAST AN INFINITESIMAL RISK of hurting someone else?

    As easy as that, your gun rights would be gone forever.

    (Go here to read Nugent’s full comments:

    Veteran’s group’s oppose H.R. 2640


    The American Legion and the Military Order of the Purple Heart have joined National Association for Gun Rights, Gun Owners of America and dozens and dozens of state and local gun rights groups in opposition to Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s massive expansion of the Brady Registration Act, H.R. 2640.

    Opposition to H.R. 2640 continues to grow, thanks exclusively to the grassroots activism of gun owners — like you and me– across the country.   All of the establishment, and notably the institutional gun lobby that s the NRA and their Gucci-loafered lobbyists are supporting H.R. 2640, the McCarthy/Leahy Gun Control Bill.

    The NRA continues to make excuses; using legislative and legal doublespeak to mislead their members about this bill. 

    Make no mistake; H.R. 2640 is a massive expansion of the unconstitutional Brady Registration Act.   This gun control legislation gives unprecedented new powers to the federal government s NICS system to open up supposedly private mental health records to government scrutiny.   This bill aims to criminalize our nation’s combat veterans and anyone who s sought help for depression or other mental concerns normally associated with combat.  They are working hard to give the Federal Government and their uncontrollable beast, the BATFE– the tools they need to persecute and prosecute gun owners.

    In a Capitol Hill publication yesterday, even the President of the Brady Campaign was singing the praises of the NRA for supporting this gun control measure: (Go here to read the full article: Article)

    The president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Paul Helmke, said he remains optimistic that the Senate impasse can be cleared, ascribing it to the everyday difficulty of moving a complex bill through Congress.

    While the NRA has not tapped its extensive grassroots membership to help the background-check measure pass, Helmke said the premier gun group s support was enough.

    Their concern is that some of their grassroots feels the same as the GOA on this, and they don t want to risk alienating some of their members, Helmke said. They re taking the right position here, which is that not everybody should get a gun. [Emphasis added]

    That’s right: the Brady Campaign and the NRA are giving the federal government even more power to decide who should not have firearms.

    But the Washington insider publication betrays the achilles heel of this battle: the NRA hasn’t gone to their members to sell this, largely because so very few gun owners — except those who believe the NRA can do no wrong, ever — can buy into their cut-and-run strategy.  “Let’s do it to ourselves (pass gun control in the wake of Virginia Tech) before they do it to us” is a song that has been sung a hundred times by NRA leadership on a state and federal level, and it’s become obvious where that strategy leads America.

    Just how far has the NRA betrayed gun owners?

    The NRA is cutting back room deals with the Brady Campaign and notorious anti-gun legislators like Sen. Chuck Schummer and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy; all in the name of political access.  They keep saying they are improving current gun controls laws.  Gun owners don t want these laws improved , we want them repealed.  The NRA is simply trying to guild the chains that bind us.

    The NRA s betrayal of gun owners on H.R. 2640 has been well documented. (For further evidence go here:

    • Don’t faint, but the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence have joined forces behind a bill regulating the sale of firearms
    • . — Gun reform with NRA blessing, The Denver Post, June 17, 2007

    • The difference is that the NRA endorsed the background check improvements, boosting its chances of becoming the first major national gun control law in more than a decade.
    • –Andrew Taylor of Associated Press, NRA Challenges Gun-Control Democrats,, June 27, 2007

    • When the NRA and I agree on legislation, you know that it’s going to get through, become law and do some good,’ says Schumer. — NRA, Democrats Team Up To Pass Gun Bill ,, June 13, 2007

    There is some good news for gun owners:  Second Amendment hero Senator Tom Coburn continues to fight against H.R. 2640.  Opposition is building, but we still have a long way to go.

    We need Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) to join Senator Tom Coburn in opposition to this outrageous infringement upon on constitutional rights.

    Here s what you can do:

    1)              Call Senators Mike Crapo and Jim Bunning and tell them to join Senator Coburn in opposition to H.R. 2640, the McCarthy/Leahy Gun Control Bill. 

       Call Senator Mike Crapo’s office at (202) 224-6142.   To e-mail senator Crapo go here:

       Call Senator Bunning s office at (202) 224-4343.  To e-mail Senator Bunning go here:”

    2)              Call or e-mail the NRA and tell them to stop schmoozing with Sarah Brady and Chuck Schummer and oppose H.R. 2640. 

             Call (800) 392-8683 or e-mail the NRA s federal lobbyist, Chuck Cunningham at and  

    For NAGR s extensive analysis of H.R. 2640, go here:   

    Join Me


    National Association for Gun Rights

    P.O. Box 7002

    Fredericksburg, VA 22404



    Phone:   (888) 874-3006   Toll-Free

    Fax:       (202) 351-0578

    Bookmark and Share