↓ Archives ↓

Archive → November 19th, 2016

National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation

National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2015   NRA

Thanks to your continued calls and emails, NRA supported Right-to-Carry bills have seen increases in cosponsorships over these past few weeks.  Please continue to contact your elected officials and urge them to cosponsor and support these important bills:

S. 498 – Introduced by U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas), this legislation would respect the rights of individuals who possess concealed carry permits from their home state, or who are not prohibited from carrying concealed in their home state, to exercise those rights in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry.  This bill currently has 32 cosponsors.  Please contact your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121, and ask them to cosponsor and support S. 498.

H.R. 923 – Introduced by U.S. Representative Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.), this legislation is the House companion bill to S. 498.  The legislation would also respect the rights of individuals who possess concealed carry permits from their home state, or who are not prohibited from carrying concealed in their home state, to exercise those rights in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry.  This bill currently has 36 cosponsors.  Please contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 224-3121 and ask him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 923.

H.R. 986 – Introduced by U.S. Representative Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), this bill would allow any person with a valid carry permit or license issued by a state to carry a concealed firearm in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry.  This bill would also provide legal protection for law-abiding concealed carry permit holders against states that violate the intent of this bill.  This bill currently has 183 cosponsors.  Please contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 224-3121 and ask him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 986.

H.R. 402 – Introduced by U.S. Representative Rich Nugent (R-Fla.), this bill would allow any person with a valid carry permit or license issued by a state to carry a concealed firearm in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry.  The bill currently has 93 cosponsors.  Please contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 224-3121 and ask him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 402.

NRA would like to thank the sponsors and cosponsors of these critically important bills.  Again, we ask that you contact your lawmakers today and ask them to cosponsor and support these bills.

You can contact your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative by phone at (202) 224-3121 or click here to write your lawmakers today.

Source: Will County News

Trump is right about NATO

Flags of the 28 NATO member countries

title

Time Magazine on Monday wondered aloud, “Can NATO survive a Donald Trump presidency?” Millions of Americans hope that it can’t, at least not in its current state.

Time, referencing Trump’s campaign talk of cutting some U.S. aid to NATO, reported that European leaders are very worried about the president elect’s level of dedication to protecting their nations.

From the report:

On Sunday evening, after the leaders of Europe had spent the better part of a week trying to guess the scale of Donald Trump’s contempt for the NATO alliance, Jens Stoltenberg, its secretary general, offered the U.S. President-elect a reminder of what that alliance has cost.

He didn’t give the sum in terms of money – as Trump has so often tried to do – but in the lives of European soldiers, more than a 1,000 of whom have died fighting alongside U.S. forces in Afghanistan. As Stoltenberg wrote in the Observer on Remembrance Sunday: “Today of all days, we remember them.”

It was an oddly emotional statement from a man better known for bureaucratic platitudes, and it showed just how anxious the Europeans have become about the U.S. commitment to their defense.

On the campaign trail Trump was often critical of NATO allies who rely on U.S. military support but who infrequently make efforts to “reasonably reimburse” the nation for its help.

The president elect sent the political and media establishments into frenzy over the summer when he offered that U.S. aid to NATO allies under a Trump administration would be contingent on whether they “fulfill their obligations to us.”

Pro-NATO Trump critics have since argued that U.S. failure to go along with treaty organization would threaten a dominance the West has enjoyed since the organization’s inception in 1949.

But when they talk about western dominance, what they really mean is U.S. world policing.

Consider the breakdown of U.S. spending on NATO compared to that of other member nations.

Here’s a helpful chart Defense One published earlier this year:

nato_spending_chart

What that shows is that far more NATO countries are failing to contribute significantly to the organization than are surpassing contribution targets. The U.S., of course, is meeting nearly double its obligation at 3.6 percent of GDP.

And Greece, whose contribution as percentage of GDP was second highest (its economy remains in shambles), is increasingly friendly with Russia. Russia is currently NATO’s top boogeyman; and Greece is increasingly being called a pawn in NATO-Russia relations.

In other words, when Trump talks about NATO having turned from an effective military deterrent to a bureaucratic money pit benefiting most heavily from U.S. military largess, he’s only stating the obvious.

U.S. military spending on NATO will top out at more than $60 billion in 2016.

It’s important to remember that Trump has not advocated for a U.S. withdrawal from NATO as some fear mongers are claiming. So our NATO-enabled bases aren’t going to be disappearing any time soon. He simply has said that the U.S. can’t afford to continue its level of contribution to NATO while it isn’t meeting economic obligations at home. His statements suggest that he may renegotiate with NATO allies.

Of course, for anyone who adheres to the constitutional notion that the U.S.’s sole obligation is protecting its citizens, a full NATO withdrawal would be fine too.

And if deescalation of tension with Russia is as much a goal for Trump as he’s made it seem, NATO certainly isn’t going to help considering its repeated aggression toward the nation.

Constitutional lawyer and author Bruce Fein recently made that point in calling for the U.S. to cut its NATO entanglements:

In leaving NATO, the United States would dramatically lessen tensions or conflicts with Russia and strengthen our security against external aggression. Among other things, the stage would be set for a new treaty to reduce the nuclear arsenals of the two countries. Russia would probably claim a sphere of influence over its neighbors, but that would be unalarming. The United States has acted in the same way for more than two centuries, including the Monroe Doctrine, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, the Panama Canal, and military ventures in Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, and Nicaragua. To maintain that all nations are equal, but that the United States is more equal than others is to encourage war.

Again, that has a lot to do with why NATO has made such an effort to aggravate Russia and the Hillary Clinton campaign worked so hard to make Americans feel as though the two nations were again at Cold War levels of disagreement. Without the threat of the kind of World War from which NATO grew, its existence as anything more than a vehicle for laundering defense dollars begins to seem exceedingly pointless.

Source: Will County News

Defense spending must be for actual defense

military122214In a disturbing indication of how difficult it would be to bring military spending in line with actual threats overseas, House Armed Services Chairman Rep. Mac Thornberry (R – TX) told President Obama last week that his war funding request of $11.6 billion for the rest of the year was far too low. That figure for the last two months of 2016 is larger than Spain’s budget for the entire year! And this is just a “war-fighting” supplemental, not actual “defense” spending! More U.S. troops are being sent to Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and elsewhere and the supplemental request is a way to pay for them without falling afoul of the “sequestration” limits.

The question is whether this increase in U.S. military activity and spending overseas actually keeps us safer, or whether it simply keeps the deep state and the military-industrial complex alive and well-funded.

Unfortunately many Americans confuse defense spending with military spending. The two terms are used almost interchangeably. But there is a huge difference. I have always said that I wouldn’t cut anything from the defense budget. We need a robust defense of the United States and it would be foolish to believe that we have no enemies or potential enemies.

The military budget is something very different from the defense budget. The military budget is the money spent each year not to defend the United States, but to enrich the military-industrial complex, benefit special interests, regime-change countries overseas, maintain a global U.S. military empire, and provide defense to favored allies. The military budget for the United States is larger than the combined military spending budget of the next seven or so countries down the line.

To get the military budget in line with our real defense needs would require a focus on our actual interests and a dramatic decrease in spending. The spending follows the policy, and the policy right now reflects the neocon and media propaganda that we must run the rest of the world or there will be total chaos. This is sometimes called “American exceptionalism,” but it is far from a “pro-American” approach.

Do we really need to continue spending hundreds of billions of dollars manipulating elections overseas? Destabilizing governments that do not do as Washington tells them? Rewarding those who follow Washington’s orders with massive aid and weapons sales? Do we need to continue the endless war in Afghanistan even as we discover that Saudi Arabia had far more to do with 9/11 than the Taliban we have been fighting for a decade and a half? Do we really need 800 U.S. military bases in more than 70 countries overseas? Do we need to continue to serve as the military protection force for our wealthy NATO partners even though they are more than capable of defending themselves? Do we need our CIA to continue to provoke revolutions like in Ukraine or armed insurgencies like in Syria?

If the answer to these questions is “yes,” then I am afraid we should prepare for economic collapse in very short order. Then, with our economy in ruins, we will face the wrath of those countries overseas which have been in the crosshairs of our interventionist foreign policy. If the answer is no, then we must work to convince our countrymen to reject the idea of Empire and embrace the United States as a constitutional republic that no longer goes abroad seeking monsters to slay. The choice is ours.

Source: Will County News

American students must be taught conservative values in our schools

David Limbaugh: A Response Needed to Leftist Attacks
David Limbaugh: A Response Needed to Leftist Attacks
Written By Monte Larrick   |   11.16.16

 

Renowned author and commentator David Limbaugh says if America is to remain strong young people must be taught conservative values in our schools. He’s also calling on Christians to defend those values in our culture and in the courts.

 

Source: Will County News