Archives for December 2015

Secretary of State John Kerry told the Paris climate conference that ending all U.S. carbon emissions, or even those in all the industrialized world, would do nothing to impact the climate, leading one of the top critics of the climate change movement to call the speech additional proof that the effort is all about wealth redistribution.

In another major development, the latest draft of the climate agreement does include the creation of the International Climate Justice Tribunal, which would have been a UN agency that billed industrialized nations for the cleanup of natural disasters around the world.

In Kerry’s address to the conference, he made a push to get developing nations to make major commitments in reducing carbon emissions.  However, his comments also gave considerable fuel to those who believe Kerry and others are on a fool’s errand.

“The fact is that even if every single American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what?  That still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution from the rest of the world,” said Kerry.

He took a step further.

“If all the industrialized nations went down to zero emissions, remember what I said all the industrialized nations went down to zero emissions, it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65 percent of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world,” added Kerry.

Christopher C. Horner is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the author of multiple books challenging the basis for the climate change movement.  He is in Paris as an observer at the conference, where he has been branded a “Climate Criminal.”

Horner says Kerry accidentally lurched toward the truth in trying to implore global cooperation.

“What he’s doing is inadvertently pointing out that this is all pain, no gain.  He won’t admit to the pain.  They still say that if the state uses its coercive power and forces you into energy rationing and so on…it still wouldn’t impact the climate,” said Horner.

Kerry used the hypothetical of zero carbon emissions which is a far cry even from the hotly contested Obama environmental regulations calling for major carbon reductions by 2030.  Horner says the real goals go much further and are plenty frightening.

“They’re talking 70-95 percent reductions in this document.  They really do think that they can bring us back to the renewable age, which we left over 100 years ago because we could.  Suddenly we liberated hydrocarbon energy.  We didn’t have to live on hydro power or solar power,” said Horner.

While going back to renewables is the stated goal of climate change activists, Horner says there’s a good reason we moved away from it generations ago.

“We’re not going back to that.  We left it.  It was a time of much-shortened lifespans, disease, drudgery and mortality, crop failures leading to catastrophe and so on,” said Horner.

Meanwhile, the scrapping of the International Climate Justice Tribunal marks a win on one of Horner’s highest priorities since he envisioned the panel blaming the U.S. and other advanced nations for the severe weather events throughout the world.  It’s a charge he believes would have stuck at the tribunal because signatories at the conference will be expected to confess their responsibility for climate change in any final agreement.

But while Horner is thrilled, he says many others in Paris are not.

“It’s clearly going to leave the greens upset and some countries upset because it’s kicking the can down the road on a few issues,” said Horner.

Persistent sticking points are leading some climate change activists to call for Pope Francis to come and demand unity in advancing a climate deal.  Horner says the pontiff better be ready for a debate.

“He’s going to couch this in terms of social justice, and as I have mentioned to you, that is truly perverse.  I’m not saying the pope knows this, but social justice, as they see it, is killing tens of thousands of the most vulnerable in every country,” said Horner.

Horner says the explanation for that charge is simple.  Implementing emissions reductions places major costs on energy providers, which pass the costs on to consumers.  Soaring utility rates will then impact the poor most negatively and European nations that already do this see people having to choose between buying food and paying to heat or cool their homes.

As for the logistics of the conference and any forthcoming agreement, Horner says officials are twisting themselves in legal knots to avoid this being a treaty since they know Congress won’t approve it.

“The buzz here in Paris is that the U.S. Congress is the greatest obstacle to them obtaining the treaty they refuse to call a treaty.  That means the democratic process.  There’s nothing democratic about this.  If you allow Congress to get a crack at this, it’s over,” said Horner.

“Under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, this would never fly.  No free society would ever do to itself what they’re demanding of us,” said Horner.

Horner is one of seven activists opposed to any deal to have their face plastered around Paris on posters branding them climate criminals.  After, first joking that activists could have picked a better picture of him, Horner says there is a message of intimidation involved with the posters.

“It’s getting a little long in the tooth, putting up all the bad guys’ pictures so everybody knows what they look like.  We can play the ‘What if Sarah Palin Did It’ game if you want, but they really want everybody here to now what we look like,” Horner.

In the end, Horner says the activists’ definition of climate criminal is really an indictment on those working to preserve freedom.

“We point out the policies, history, that it won’t effect the climate, that’s it’s about a wealth transfer, that it will kill the most vulnerable, that it’s a gesture about clearly what they’re openly acknowledging here – to redesign the global economic system.  When you point those things out, because they aren’t popular in the United States, you are a criminal,” said Horner.

A former Justice Department official says there is no doubt former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton broke federal laws by exclusively hosting all of her official emails on a home server and possibly compromising national security, but she says the political nature of Barack Obama’s Justice Department makes an indictment very unlikely.

Victoria Toensing is a former deputy assistant attorney general and also served as an assistant U.S. attorney.  Since her time in government, Toensing has represented many high-profile clients on issues ranging from terrorism to political corruption to the 2012 attack in Benghazi.  She says this case should be simple for the FBI and federal prosecutors just based on what has already been revealed.

“18 USC 1924 makes it a crime to have classified information at an unauthorized location,” said Toensing.

Clinton’s defenders say several of her predecessors used private email accounts while heading the State Department.  Toensing says that’s true, and it’s completely irrelevant.

“It’s the server stupid.  That’s the line.  Don’t let them mislead you by saying, ‘Oh, it’s a private email account.  Colin Powell had one.’  Yeah, he did.  Everyone does.  What she was not supposed to do was have a server taking classified information when that server was not a protected server under the government’s auspices.  That is the issue,” said Toensing.

The FBI investigation of the Clinton server comes at a politically sensitive time.  Clinton is the clear favorite for the Democratic nomination in an otherwise weak field and the first votes are less than two months away.

Toensing says that should not matter when it comes to enforcing the law but she says that may be hoping for too much.

“This has been the most political Justice Department that I have ever, ever seen, and I go back a long way, back to (Carter administration Attorney General) Griffin Bell, who was just a great attorney general.  It wouldn’t have bothered him one way or the other.  It wouldn’t have bothered Democratic or Republican administrations,” said Toensing.

However, she says the track record of the Obama Justice Department should lead us to expect no legal trouble for Clinton in the coming weeks or months.

“We all know Lois Lerner is being told she has no prosecution concerns.  Nobody at the IRS has prosecution concerns.  Nobody from Fast & Furious has any prosecution concerns.  So why would we think this would be any different?” said Toensing.

But while Toensing does not expect Attorney General Loretta Lynch to indict Clinton regardless of what the FBI may or may not recommend, she says the probe may still lead to serious political damage for Clinton.

“I think that you’ll find a lot of leaks if it doesn’t happen.  If they find criminal conduct and recommend criminal prosecution and it’s quashed, I think people in the press will start getting a dime dropped on them,” said Toensing.

For Toensing, however, there is no doubt there was criminal conduct.  In addition to Clinton doing all of her work email through a private, unsecure server, there are now more than a thousand released emails containing classified information.

Clinton often says that those emails were never marked classified.  Again, Toensing says that defense is “silly”

“Is that silly now?  Of course it wasn’t marked classified at the time because it’s supposed to go through a classification process when it comes to the State Department.  Her people took raw information and didn’t put any classification markings on it, or they took them off, which is another one of the allegations, and sent them to her,” said Toensing.

Additionally, Toensing says it is the duty of the secretary to know what constitutes classified material and what does not.

“The secretary of state is supposed to know when something is classified and certainly things such as the overhead pictures and so forth that has been described.  Those are classified and anybody on the bottom-most level of the State Department should know that,” said Toensing.

Toensing is also dumping cold water on another Clinton excuse, namely that there is considerable debate over what was classified and was not and that the State Department is still sorting through it.  She says that’s all a smokescreen.

“No, here is the rule,” said Toensing.  “If the CIA creates the document, the CIA and only the CIA gets to say whether it’s classified.  There can be no dispute by any other agency.  The State Department cannot refute a classification that the CIA put on a document,” said Toensing.

She says several documents kept on Clinton’s server break the law for that very reason.

“There’s already been several classified documents that the CIA has said, ‘These were classified at birth.’  Then they went to her private server,” said Toensing.

Further damaging to Clinton is her inability to cite where she got permission to have the home server.

“I think one reporter asked her, hardly anyone else does, ‘Well, who authorized it at the State Department? Who was the person?'” recounted Toensing.

Hillary’s answer was weak.

“‘Well no one had to.  It was just known that it was okay,'” said Toensing in summing up Clinton’s response.

There is also evidence that Clinton obstructed justice during the course of the investigation.

“There is a possible obstruction of justice charge in that Sidney Blumenthal was also asked to turn over documents.  He turned over emails back and forth to her that she never turned over.  Prosecutors go after that all the time,” said Toensing.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review reject Donald Trump’s call to stop all Muslim immigration into the U.S.  They also applaud Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse for properly explaining how to wage war against radical Muslims while also upholding constitutional freedoms for all Americans.  And they’re stunned that terrorist Syed Farook was able to acquire $28,500 just weeks prior to the terrorist attack.

One of the nation’s leading terrorism experts says President Obama offered nothing new on the fight against ISIS and is actually adding to our security problems by establishing a tone of political correctness that makes people reluctant to come forward about possible terrorist activities.

On Sunday, Obama addressed the nation on the terrorist threat.  He vowed to stay the course on the plan to confront ISIS overseas, from continuing our current policy on airstrikes to training rebels to working with allies to disrupt terrorist plots.  Domestically he pushed for action on gun control and possible changes to the spousal visa program, through which Tashfeen Malik entered the U.S. last year.  Obama also urged the public not to demonize all Muslims and asked moderate Muslims to loudly condemn violent acts and extreme ideology when it’s found in their midst.

Overall, Dr. Harvey Kushner, director of the Terrorism and Homeland Security Institute at Long Island University , though the speech fell very flat.

“He was there.  At least he addressed the public, but he certainly didn’t tamp down any fears that the public had and he certainly hasn’t said anything new in terms of a strategy for fighting ISIS,” said Kushner, who was especially underwhelmed when Obama called for banning gun sales to anyone whose name is on the No Fly List and cracking down on so-called assault weapons.

“He moved quickly to associate this with some gun control, which I think is bogus, by saying that people on No Fly Lists shouldn’t be able to get guns.  These two individuals were certainly not on a No Fly List and they were able to get guns.  And clearly they got guns in a state which probably has the most restrictive gun laws, the state of California,” said Kushner.

Ultimately, Kushner believes the underlying message of Obama’s speech is that he plans to do very little about the ISIS problem for the final 13 months of his presidency.

“I think it’s too little too late.  Quite frankly, I think the president is looking for his legacy and wants to lay back and pass on the problem of ISIS and ISIL and their expansion to the next incoming administration,” said Kushner.

Since Wednesday’s terrorist attack, two different people have said they had suspicions about Syed Farook.  His own father admitted that his son confessed an adherence to the ISIS goal of a global caliphate.  And one of Farook’s neighbors said he saw some suspicious activity but didn’t report it for fear of being labeled islamophobic.

Kushner says this is a huge problem.

“That’s political correctness gone wild.  Quite frankly, I think our government has contributed to that in tremendous ways.  For example, since the Obama administration, trainers who wanted to talk about jihad or use “Islamic terror” in the same sentence, can’t do that,” he said, adding that the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, has also placed a stigma on reporting suspicious activity among Muslims or Arabs in the U.S.

“That’s a huge problem and something our government can address.  We’ve created an atmosphere since 9/11 in which if you see something and say something, people become concerned that they’re going to be labeled a racist,” said Kusher, who also denounced Attorney General Loretta Lynch and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio for vowing to crackdown on anti-Islam speech they believe could lead to violence.

On the contrary, Kushner says reporting is vital, especially among Muslims.

“We need the help of the Islamic community because the Islamic community are the ones who can really tell the ones becoming radicalized,” said Kushner.

Kushner admits 21st century technology makes it easier for terrorists to recruit, radicalize and plot.  While it also provides avenues to thwart plots, Kushner says it’s impossible to track everything just as it’s impossible to put every possible terrorist on a No Fly List.  However, when it comes to fighting the online war, Kushner says the private sector has to play a key role.

“The private sector needs to have some more controls out there in which they work hand-in-hand with law enforcement and intelligence-gathering agencies to allow to them to be able to get into some of these sites,” said Kushner.

Kushner also saved some fierce criticism for the media, which took a lot of heat on Friday for barging into the Farook apartment after the landlord reportedly gave them permission and authorities said they were done processing the scene.

“At a later date, [law enforcement] may have wanted to come back, in maybe a week or less, and revisit that.  Now it’s compromised and destroyed.  I found that disturbing and bizarre,” said Kushner.  “It was a perfect storm of stupidity.”

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review give Obama credit for finally admitting that Ft. Hood and Chattanooga were terrorist attacks and for saying Muslims have a responsibility to denounce radical ideology.  They also sigh as Obama offers the same ineffective prescription for defeating ISIS and says we’ll win because we’re on the right side of history.  And they groan as the father of terrorist Syed Farook says his son told him he agreed with the ISIS ideology of establishing a global caliphate.

On Thursday, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter announced the Obama administration is opening all combat roles to women, but a readiness expert says this is a disaster in the making as women will be forced into combat and all forces will be weaker as training standards are lowered so women can meet the administration’s quotas.

Secretary Carter’s announcement that women can serve in any unit also defies a strong protest from the United State Marine Corps, which argued that combat roles subject women to far higher odds of injury.

“There will be no exceptions,” Carter said. “This means that, as long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before.”

But while the move is being hailed as a milestone for equal rights for women, a leading female critic of the policy says a disaster is in the offing because of President Obama’s social agenda.

“The administration said it doesn’t matter what the Marines have said.  It doesn’t matter what the research says.  This is President Obama’s order.  That’s why it’s being done, because this president knows he can order the military to do whatever he wants,” said Center for Military Readiness President Elaine Donnelly, who authored a scathing review of the policy change.

Donnelly says this is all part of a social engineering effort designed to meet gender quotas.

“The paramount goal of the administration is something called Gender Diversity Metrics, that’s another name for quotas.  The Navy has officially said they want 25 percent women, across the board on every Navy ship,” said Donnelly.

She says a key element to remember is that this policy does not simply permit women in the military to serve in combat roles if they wish, but that women will serve in those positions regardless of their wishes.

“It’s not allow, it’s order.  The secretary of defense made clear what we’ve been saying all along.  If you want to join the military, you have to serve under the same rules men do.  This is not a voluntary thing,” she said.

And there’s more.

“Selective Service very likely now will include women by court order because men and women are now similarly situated.  That means they’re going to be subject to the same orders involuntarily.  If they join the military and they’re used in direct ground combat, this takes away the rationale for exempting civilian women from Selective Service registration,” said Donnelly.

As Secretary Carter mentioned, women serving in combat will have to meet certain training standards, but Donnelly says former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey already said standards would be reviewed if women cannot meet them.

Donnelly says we’re already seeing the shifting standards, and that means lower levels of readiness.

“Standards will not be the high standards for men.  It will be minimum standards.  At boot camp, the maximum for a man is to 20 pull-ups.  The minimum is three.  Henceforth, three will be the standard because that’s the minimum standard,” explained Donnelly.

“They tried this experiment two years ago at Marine boot camp.  Fifty-five percent of those women could not do the three pull-ups.  Now what are they going to do?” she asked.

Donnelly says the Marine Corps also raised major concerns over women being injured in training or combat.

“Women are known to have risks of injury at least double those of men, higher in the combat arms,” said Donnelly.

In the few years since the Obama administration and Congress repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Donnelly says virtually every concern of opponents, from an erosion of religious liberty to skyrocketing male-on-male sexual assaults have come true.  She says the impact of this will be even greater.

“The onset of LGBT law for the military has had negative effects, but it’s effected a relatively small number of people compared to men and women in the military.  That effects everybody,” said Donnelly.

She says more social engineering in the military is on the way from the administration, including demands on doctors to participate in therapies or even surgeries to accommodate transgender personnel.  Donnelly says that could lead to an exodus of doctors.  She also expects more restrictions on chaplains over LGBT issues.

Donnelly says 2016 must bring the election of a president who will reverse course on military policy.

“There needs to be a president who understands and respects the military enough to take these issues seriously.  It’s not an equal opportunity employer.  Combat is not like any other job.  Physical strength matters.  Endurance matters,” said Donnelly.

The United States is offering a very weak response to the ISIS threat and existing goals contradict one another and contribute to the most chaotic Middle East we’ve seen in a century, according to former United States Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton.

Bolton is also blasting Obama for publicly suggesting that moving forward on a proposed climate change agreement is the strongest possible rebuke that civilized nations can issue towards ISIS.

While the U.S., Russia, France and Turkey, among others, are involving themselves in Syria, their priorities are often in conflict.  Russia’s main goal is to shore up the Assad regime, Obama’s number one priority is Assad’s ouster, while Turkey is preoccupied with containing Kurdish strength.

So where does that leave the region and the goal of eradicating ISIS?

“The Middle East as we’ve known it since the end of World War I has basically come apart,” said Bolton, who believes the U.S. policy is particularly baffling.

“The biggest problem the United States faces is the confusion in the administration’s own strategy that proposes different things that are simply contradictory to one another.  Even when it thinks it has an objection, like getting rid of Assad or battling ISIS, it doesn’t do anywhere near enough to accomplish any of the objectives,” said Bolton.

Bolton says the lack of American strength or clarity is opening doors for the likes of Russia and Iran to assume more influence in the Middle East.

“They’ve seen this weakness and lack of American attention.  That’s why they’ve honed in to try to support the Assad regime and advance their own interests.  I think in general you can say, across the Middle East, the chaos is spreading, which is not good for the United States,” said Bolton.

At the start of the weak, President Obama addressed the opening of COP21, the climate change conference in Paris that he hopes will result in a landmark deal.  The president raised eyebrows by suggesting the conference served as a major blow to ISIS because Paris is bouncing back from the Nov. 13 terrorist attacks and because he believes addressing climate change wounds terrorists.

“What greater rejection of those who would tear down our world than marshaling our best efforts to save it,” said Obama on Monday.

Bolton was stunned.

“The president has said a lot of silly things in the last seven years, but this ranks right at the top,” said Bolton.  “It is a tribute to France and the city of Paris to hold the conference, but if it were a conference on Tiddlywinks, it would be just as significant.”

But will any nation soon be unleashing the type of military response needed to destroy ISIS?  Bolton says it won’t be the U.S., but Moscow will eventually target ISIS for bringing down a Russian airliner over the Sinai Peninsula.

“At a time of Vladimir Putin’s choosing, they will retaliate brutally against ISIS for that act of terrorism against civilians on that passenger airliner.  I think if it would help Assad, they’ll attack ISIS targets.  They have already, although to a very limited extent,” said Bolton.

He says Putin is no hurry.

“Putin has a very long game that he’s playing here.  He wants to replace the United States as the principal external power in the Middle East.  He doesn’t know who’s going to win our election next year, but he knows he’s got another year of Obama to take advantage of.  That’s what he’s doing, not only in the conflict in Syria but in the broader Middle East as a whole,” said Bolton.

So how can ISIS be defeated?

“The United States has got to mobilize a political alliance, including all of the gulf Arab monarchies, the oil producing states, Turkey, the Kurds, and Egypt for that matter.  It’s going to require American leadership because we’re the only ones that can pull these disparate countries together.  It’s going to require American boots on the ground and it’s going to require taking territory that ISIS now holds,” said Bolton.

“We can’t even leave them with a small state because that, as it has been already, will be a magnet for terrorists from all over the world,” added Bolton.

Ultimately, he believes the map of that region will need to be redrawn to reflect the reality that Sunnis want nothing to do with Iraq or Syria in the long run.

“We need something else for them.  I think a new state’s the answer.  All of this is pure theory because for the next 13-plus months, Barack Obama isn’t going to do anything like what we need to do to achieve the objectives that he himself has stated, which is the destruction of ISIS,” said Bolton.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review note the liberal gun control narrative fell apart in San Bernardino fell apart as it became clear the shooters were operating an “IED factory” as well.  They also sigh as Democrats renew their demands for gun control legislation that wouldn’t have stopped this or any other mass shooting.  And they unload on liberals for viciously mocking conservatives for saying they are praying for victims and their families and the San Bernardino community.

As another horrific mass shooting plays out, Democrats are insisting on immediate action on guns while one prominent second amendment advocate says best way to protect Americans is to abolish a misguided attempt to keep them safe.

As the story unfolded Wednesday afternoon, Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton immediately demanded action.

“I refuse to accept this as normal. We must take action to stop gun violence now,” tweeted Clinton.

“Horrifying news out of #SanBernardino Enough is enough: it’s time to stand up to the @NRA and enact meaningful gun safety laws,” added fellow 2016 hopeful Martin O’Malley, who passed major gun control legislation while governor of Maryland in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School killings.

Clinton’s closest rival for the Democratic nomination, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, also spoke via social media.

“Mass shootings are becoming an almost-everyday occurrence in this country. This sickening and senseless gun violence must stop,” tweeted Sanders.

Meanwhile, reports from Capitol Hill suggest Democrats may move to add gun control amendments to must-pass spending legislation that will be voted on in the next nine days.  There has been no explanation of what the amendments would entail, but tightening gun ownership eligibility and banning certain firearms are often among their priorities.

They spoke out in the wake of Wednesday’s mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, where people were killed by husband and wife terrorists who briefly escaped before dying in a shootout with police.  Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt says he likes the idea of adding gun-related amendments to the legislation, just not the ones the Democrats have in mind.

“Gun Owners of America has been seeking for some time for some measures of their own to pass.  We’d like to see some amendments added to their list of amendments that would do away with gun free zones, which is where almost all of the victims of mass murder have occurred in our country,” said Pratt.

Pratt says those gun free zones seemed appealing in concept but serve as a target for those bent on taking lives.

“Stop disarming the American people.  We’ve simply got to do away with this dreadful statistic that tells us that if you’re in a gun-free zone, you’re in a very dangerous area,” said Pratt.

He says the track record over the past 65 years is stunning.

“Since 1950, all but two of our mass murders have occurred in gun free zones.  It seems to me that there’s a lesson crying out to be learned there, but people like the president don’t seem to be very apt pupils,” said Pratt.

While Pratt hopes the Republican majorities would consider his amendments and stand firm against attempts by Democrats to limit gun rights, he says the GOP could end up giving in if Democrats play hardball.

“It’s possible that the Republicans might cave if the Democrats set the stage in such a way that they could slow the government down, aka shut the government down over a budget measure, that if it doesn’t have an amendment they want, they’re not going to vote for it,” said Pratt.

He also fears Republicans might feel pressured to give ground if an ultimatum comes from the White House.

“If the president simply were not going to sign [a funding bill] that didn’t have what they wanted in it, if they could figure out how to blame Republicans for that, the Republicans would probably cry like little girls,” said Pratt.

However, Pratt warns that while Democrats try to squeeze out a legislative win, the party could suffer mightily at the ballot box.  He says the 2000 primary battle between Democrats Al Gore and Bill Bradley is a good example.

“They tried to out-anti-second amendment each other.  Al Gore won that contest, but he went on to lose the election.  If the past is prologue to the future, I would say what the Democrats are proposing is going to sink whatever chances they might have had for 2016.  It’s going to sink them pretty deep,” said Pratt.

Despite the spate of mass shootings this year, Pratt does not believe the American people are softening towards Obama’s stance on guns.  He says the facts suggest just the opposite.

“For the past six, seven years, the president has been winning awards from the gun industry and I’m only being about 50 percent facetious because he has his likeness on walls of gun stores across America, with the caption ‘Gun Salesman of the Year,'” said Pratt.

He says Obama’s disconnect with the facts was also on full display in Paris this week.

“He recently went over to Paris, the scene of a horrendous mass murder and said we’ve got to put a stop to what’s happening in the United States,” said Pratt.  “He said said this sort of thing doesn’t happen over here.  Huh?”

Pratt is confident any congressional gun control push can be derailed, but he says lawmakers will be put on notice right away nonetheless.

“We’re going to do everything we can to remind all members of Congress that you’re taking your political career and putting it at risk.  If you try to blame gun owners for what bad guys do instead of looking at the mirror and say, ‘What have I done as a member of Congress to facilitate what these people do?'” said Pratt.