Blog

Related Posts:

• Sony Japan’s RDP-NWV500 WM-Port Audio Accessory Is Truly One Of A Kind
• Sony Details Several New iPod/iPhone Docks
• Sony Quietly Launches ICF-CS10iP iPod + iPhone Speaker Dock/Clock
• Sony’s NAS-V7M And NAS-V5 Speaker Docks Have MP3 CD, USB, And WM-Port
• Sony Adds Another iPhone/iPod Dock, This Time With A Subwoofer and USB

The Colorado House of Representatives is currently considering legislation that would that would solidify an unconstitutional provision in the stateâ??s background check system. House Bill 1391, sponsored by State Representative Joe Rice (D-38), would extend a provision in state law that was due to sunset in July 2010. The provision the bill extends would deny gun purchases to those with an arrest on their record, even if they were never convicted. This deny-on-arrest provision would remove a constitutional right to own a firearm based on an arrest (an accusation), NOT a conviction. It directly conflicts with the fundamental American doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty.â??

Source: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5706

Last night at 7 pm, the Town Council of Quantico was scheduled to discuss an ordinance put forth by anti-gun Mayor Iris Tharp, which would make it unlawful for any person to transport, possess or carry a loaded shotgun or rifle in any vehicle on any public street, road or highway in the Town of Quantico. After Councilman Kevin Brown led the charge against this ordinance the council decided not to vote on the issue.

Source: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5705

On Wednesday, April 14, at 10:30 a.m. in the South Hearing Room, the Senate Judiciary – Criminal Justice Committee will again be hearing testimony on Senate Bill 239, which would make numerous pro-gun improvements to Ohioâ??s gun laws.

Source: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5704

On Tuesday, April 13, the Assembly Public Safety Committee will vote on Assembly Bill 1810, legislation that would establish a registration system, similar to the one currently in place for handguns, for all newly-acquired long guns.

Source: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5703

Governor Charlie Crist has signed House Bill 315 by Representative Mike Horner and Senator Thad Altman. HB-315 would stop adoption agencies from registering firearms of prospective adoptive parents into law.Please email Governor Crist and thank him for signing HB-315, the Adoption/Firearms bill and for always standing strong for [email protected]N THE SUBJECT LINE PUT: Thank You for Protecting 2nd Amendment RightsTell Governor Crist: We appreciate you signing HB-315 to stop Adoption agencies from registering firearms and SB-1158 to protect the gun-owners trust fund. Thank you standing strong for gun owners’ rights and the Second Amendment.

Source: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5702

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/JackBauer.jpg"></p>The President’s recently-released <ahref="http://www.defense.gov/npr/">Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) has come under intense criticism for its revision of the U.S.’s declaratory policy, the statement that sets out when the U.S. would consider employing nuclear weapons. Declaratory policy has two purposes. Publicly, it’s a warning. Privately, it provides the military guidance for building and modernizing the U.S. force, and so ensures the U.S.’s weapons are actually useable in a crisis. In other words, it makes deterrence creditable, politically and militarily.

The new NPR goes into considerable, lawyer-like detail about what the U.S. might do in particular circumstances after it was attacked. But it forgets that the basic duty of the U.S. Government – and the basic purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal – is not to respond to attacks. It is to prevent them from happening in the first place. The NPR, by focusing only on retaliation, neglects this fundamental duty. It return the U.S. – for all the President’s claims to be making a bold new stride towards a world without nuclear weapons – to the Eisenhower-era emphasis on ‘massive retaliation,’ though in the context of a far smaller U.S. arsenal.<spanid="more-30991"></span>

The lawyer-like language of the NPR has perils of its own. The Obama Administration appears to feel guilty about the fact that the U.S. is a nuclear state, and to believe that it can propitiate this guilt by being as exact as possible about U.S. policy, just as children with a guilty conscience over-explain their actions to their parents. But the purpose of declaratory policy isn’t to spell out scenarios. The public face of a good declaratory policy should be short and obscure. Its purpose is to create doubt, and therefore deterrence, in the minds of adversaries.

The NPR’s declaration that the U.S. will not use nuclear weapons in response to an attack by a non-nuclear country on the U.S. with chemical or biological weapons is far too exact. All it does is broadcast that the U.S. is willing to be hit by some WMDs without replying in kind. That does nothing for deterrence. Instead of making the use of nuclear weapons less likely, the NPR, by weakening deterrence, makes this more likely.

The U.S. public isn’t eager to use nuclear weapons. But it knows that a strong U.S. is the best guarantee of peace, and that, as Jack Bauer would be the first to point out, biological weapons pose immense dangers of their own. That’s why, according to a <ahref="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2010/55_oppose_limits_on_u_s_nuclear_response_to_attack s">new Rasmussen poll, “just 25% of voters agree with the president’s decision to rule out a nuclear response if a non-nuclear country attacks America with chemical or biological weapons.”

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/09/…2%80%99t-make/

Three of The Heritage Foundation’s analysts in the Asian Studies Center provided their thoughts on the upcoming Nuclear Summit in Washington DC.

Lisa Curtis:

“No one can dispute the significance and urgency of the issues to be addressed at the nuclear security summit, namely that of preventing acts of nuclear terrorism and securing vulnerable nuclear materials. But achieving these goals in practical terms will be difficult, given the complex regional security dynamics driving nuclear decision making in different parts of the world. Nowhere are these regional dynamics more complex than in South Asia.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s attendance at the summit is particularly noteworthy. The U.S.-India civil nuclear deal has enhanced transparency in Indian civilian nuclear programs and raised expectations that India will play an active role in strengthening the overall nonproliferation regime by contributing positively to initiatives like next week’s international gathering.

<spanid="more-31037"></span>

Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani will also attend the summit. Because of the political turmoil and escalating terrorist attacks in Pakistan over the last couple of years, several questions have been raised about the safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. While the probability of Taliban militants over-running the country and gaining control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal are far-fetched, the real danger lies in potential links between retired officials and nuclear scientists with access to nuclear information to Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists. This is why the U.S. has invested over $100 million over the last eight years into programs aimed at improving the safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programs. U.S. policy should continue to focus on preventing the possible penetration of Pakistan’s nuclear establishment by individuals sympathetic to al-Qaeda goals. The best chance for success in this endeavor lies within a framework of robust U.S.-Pakistan partnership based on trust and mutual understanding.”

<ahref="http://www.heritage.org/About/Staff/C/Lisa-Curtis">Lisa Curtis is Senior Research Fellow for South Asia in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation.

Bruce Klingner:

“President Obama presumes North Korea and Iran would be more likely to denuclearize if the US and Russia reduced their nuclear stockpiles. But apparently Pyongyang and Tehran didn’t get the memo because both continued their long-time pursuit of nuclear weapons programs even as the US and Russia were slashing their nuclear arsenals. The lack of US nuclear testing did not prevent North Korea from testing nuclear devices in 2006 and 2009.

START and a quest for a nuclear free world will do nothing to curtail Pyongyang’s and Tehran’s nuclear aspirations nor prevent their proliferation. Obama’s call for eliminating nuclear weapons even provides North Korea with some political cover for maintaining its stockpile. In September 2009, Pyongyang declared that “denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula [will be] in the context of a global effort to build a world free of nuclear weapons.” North Korea now ties its denuclearization to worldwide US disarmament.

If Obama’s Prague speech and quest for zero had no impact on rogue nations, they appear to have had an impact on America’s allies. Last year, South Korea pressed Washington for a specific written U.S. nuclear guarantee in the ROK-US summit statement. Yet, Seoul remains suspicious of weakened US commitment to defend the ROK, including the continued viability of the US nuclear umbrella.”

<ahref="http://www.heritage.org/About/Staff/K/Bruce-Klingner">Bruce Klingner is Senior Research Fellow for Northeast Asia in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage

Dean Cheng:

“The problem with the administration’s approach to the nuclear question is embodied by the very different perspectives that Washington holds towards nuclear weapons than does Beijing, or for that matter, Tokyo, Seoul, and Taipei.

For the latter three, key US allies in the region, nuclear weapons, in American hands, are the ultimate guarantor of security, be it against a threat from Pyongyang, or from Beijing.

For the Chinese, American nuclear weapons serve not only as a deterrent against any ambitions to use force against Taipei, but also, paradoxically, as the “cork in the bottle” against nuclear proliferation by Japan. Indeed, the entire US-Japan security alliance is seen, in Beijing, with some ambivalence, because it obviates the need for Japan to expand its own military security efforts.

Thus, far from being seen as some kind of Frankenstein’s monster, threatening the lives of innocents from Kyushu to Kashmir, nuclear weapons, including American nuclear weapons, are seen as a stabilizing force.

Whether the administration recognizes this very divergent perspective, however, is open to question.”

<ahref="http://www.heritage.org/About/Staff/C/Dean-Cheng">Dean Cheng is Research Fellow in Chinese Political and Security Affairs in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/09/…uclear-summit/

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/Russia-flag-globe.jpg"></p>As the Internet is used increasingly in Russia, the Kremlin is fighting to maintain control of Russia’s new media.

According to a <ahref="http://wciom.ru/novosti/press-vypuski/press-vypusk/single/13386.html">poll conducted by the <ahref="http://wciom.com/">All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion (VTsIOM) one in four Russians go online daily and nearly half of these web users go online for the purpose of checking the daily news. <ahref="http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2010/04/window-on-eurasia-one-russian-in-four.html"> According to Eurasian studies expert, Paul Goble, access to the Internet reduces the ability of the Russian powers-that-be to control the messages the citizenry receives. Therefore, Moscow is considering adopting draconian measures to limit access to the Internet, or at least to intimidate users so that they will not make use of it for accessing the news.

<spanid="more-31030"></span>

Such measures, according to analyst Aleksey Vlasov, include ones that are already in place in former members of the USSR, including the requirement that <ahref="http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2010/04/window-on-eurasia-one-russian-in-four.html">all sites be hosted only on the territory of the republic so that the owners of the Internet portals could be found. Furthermore, a <ahref="http://www.rsf.org/ennemis.html">recent report by <ahref="http://www.rsf.org/-Anglais-.html">Reporters Sans Frontiers, finds that:

[Russian Internet] independence is being jeopardized by blogger arrests and prosecutions, as well as by blockings of so-called “extremist” websites. The regime’s propaganda is increasingly omnipresent on the Web [and] there is a real risk that the Internet will be transformed into a tool for political control.

The government fears that if the masses obtain access to an unlimited wealth of information, chaos (i.e. opposition to government oppression) will ensue and the power of the state weakened.

Unfortunately for the Kremlin, as more and more people are using the Internet for news, they also have access to a multitude of unregulated information including many sites standing in opposition to the government. Meetings and protests are often organized through social network sites, and <ahref="http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2010/04/window-on-eurasia-internet-drive-to.html">an Internet petition calling for Vladimir Putin to resign registered 50,000 signatures.

The Internet has not only exposed a multitude of Russians to a vast array of information, but the movement against the regime is also quickly amassing more supporters. This, <ahref="http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2010/04/window-on-eurasia-internet-drive-to.html">according to Andrey Nekrasov, creates “a virtual reality” which gives Russians the courage to get involved in the real reality.

As the Russian people find new and innovative ways of countering government control, they will continue to be confronted by government roadblocks. Regardless of such setbacks, the Kremlin’s media censorship is not sustainable. The Russian public will eventually gain access to free media either through international support and the creation of innovative technology which will circumvent censors – despite the government’s attempts to maintain a regulated electronic media.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/09/…ne-opposition/

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/StateDept.jpg"></p>Section 1251 of the fiscal year 2010 Defense Authorization Bill Congress warned President Barack Obama not to include any “limitations” on U.S. advanced conventional weapons in New START. Now that New START has been signed, the State Department is putting out fact sheets on the agreement. An April 8th fact sheet from the State Department is entitled: <ahref="http://www.state.gov/t/vci/rls/139913.htm">“Key Point: The New START Treaty does not contain any constraints on current or planned U.S. conventional prompt global strike capability.”

So it would appear that President Obama listened to Congress’s concern regarding limitations on conventional weapons system. Unfortunately, appearances deceive. Later in the same release, the following is stated: “Long-range conventional ballistic missiles would count under the Treaty’s limit [emphasis added] of 700 delivery vehicles, and their conventional warheads would count against the limit [emphasis added] of 1550 warheads, because the treaty does not make a distinction between missiles that are armed with conventional weapons and those that are armed with nuclear weapons.”<spanid="more-30983"></span>

Apparently, the State Department believes that words have no inherent meaning and that in this case the words “limitations” and “limit” have no commonality. Contrary to the release’s first assertion, <ahref="http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140035.pdf">New START very clearly imposes limitations on U.S. advanced conventional weapons. President Obama has ignored Congress’ warning. Further, it never should have come to this because the Obama Administration could have stuck to the 2002 Moscow Treaty on strategic nuclear arms reductions with Russia. The Moscow Treaty — which remains in force today, but will be terminated by New START – avoided limitations on conventional systems by restricting its application to the number of operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads. Thus, if the Senate rejects ratification of New START, the Moscow Treaty will remain in force. Given President Obama’s decision to ignore Congress’ warning, the Senate has little choice but to consider this option.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/09/…ional-weapons/

Following the retirement announcement by Justice John Paul Stevens today, it is now up to the United States Senate to ensure that the successor justice will be a responsible jurist who will remain faithful to the Constitution.

Never has it been more important in our nation’s history that the next Supreme Court justice be a person with a proven commitment to the original meaning of the Constitution and laws as they are written. Many laws being passed and issues being raised in Washington will likely require judicial scrutiny in the coming years. It is critical that the life-tenured justices who will decide these cases will not bend the law to favor a political ideology or personally held belief, but rather interpret our framework as it is written.

Senators should live up to their responsibility by asking tough questions to be sure that the nominee is committed to the Constitution. They should be given the time for careful deliberation, and not be pressured by arbitrary timelines. Americans do not want a Supreme Court Justice who views the Constitution as an “evolving document,” applies empathy standards to their cases or who substitutes transnationalist jurisprudence for the requirements of the Constitution.<spanid="more-31020"></span>

The President’s statements on the role of the court, including today when he said he sought a nominee with “a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people,” demand that his nominees receive thoughtful scrutiny, and that the nominee’s view of his or her role be distinctly expressed. Our system of justice and the American people require no less.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/09/…stice-stevens/

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/Volker.jpg"></p>President Obama’s push to enact a massive tax increase in the form of a new value-added tax (VAT) is now clearly underway. Earlier this week, Obama economic adviser and former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, <ahref="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303720604575170320672253834.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop">Paul Volker said a “VAT should be on the table.”

White House claims that Volker was speaking as a private citizen simply do not pass the laugh test.* A senior statesman among economists, Volker is one of the president’s closest economic advisers. *No doubt Volker let the cat out of the bag prematurely from the White House’s perspective, but it is simply not credible to argue that Volker was not conveying the contents of White House thinking.* There can be little doubt now that the unspoken policy of the Obama administration is to pass a massive VAT tax hike.<spanid="more-30976"></span>

This conclusion is further reinforced by the intense work being done all around Washington by liberal think tankers in preparation for the grand VAT push.* Even the Director of the Congressional Budget Office was quick to point out that <ahref="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/04/presidents-panel-may-consider-vat-tax/1">the CBO is about to begin work on issues relating to a VAT.

It comes as no surprise that attention is now turning toward the VAT as the liberal solution for unsustainable deficits that threaten the stability and very future of our economy. *Having hiked spending dramatically and then doubling down with his ObamaCare, the nation now faces unprecedented near-term debts as the clock ticks toward the long-recognized entitlements time bomb.* If there’s one thing conservatives and liberals agree on completely, it’s that deficits of this magnitude cannot persist.* Credit markets won’t allow it.* Some fundamental course correction is certain.* The massive amount of revenue a VAT could raise is the only acceptable solution left for most liberals since they steadfastly refuse to reverse course on their recently enacted spending binge.

Why is the VAT the darling of the left?* Because it can raise vast new revenues without the taxpayers being really sure who took their money.* Consumers would pay the tax when they purchase goods and services.* Buy a car, pay the tax.* Buy groceries, pay the tax.* Buy chemotherapy drugs, pay the tax. In this way, taxpayers would only be aware of a bit of their tax bite with each purchase.* And unless the tax is printed on the receipt and they look for it, consumers would have no idea how much tax they paid on a particular transaction.

Today’s deficits, and tomorrow’s, result from too much spending, not too little revenue.* Reverse the massive Obama spending surge (and the Bush surge before that) and the deficits would quickly fall to sustainable levels.* Instead, Paul Volker has done the nation a great service in telling us what Obama and his congressional allies are planning.** If that is not the case, if the President and the democratic leadership in Congress really are not planning a VAT attack, let them declare their opposition to a VAT plainly.* Every current and would-be member of Congress should say where they stand on the VAT.** And unless they favor a huge government, much higher taxes, and less transparency from government, they will stand against it.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/09/…battle-begins/