Advertisements
Home

Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce Laws on Gun Control

2 Comments

This is from The New York Times.

It is refreshing to see these Sheriffs standing up to these

Unconstitutional gun laws.

Most people, including politicians fail to realize that the ultimate legal authorities in the land are the county sheriffs.  This was established from the time of the Founding Fathers and upheld by the US Supreme Court in the 1997 case of Printz v. United States.  Initially, the case was Mack v. United States, but by the time it reached the Supreme Court it was renamed.

Michael Ciaglo/The Colorado Springs Gazette, via Associated Press

John Cooke is among the Colorado sheriffs who are resisting enforcement of new state gun laws.

Multimedia

GREELEY, Colo. — When Sheriff John Cooke of Weld County explains in speeches why he is not enforcing the state’s new gun laws, he holds up two 30-round magazines. One, he says, he had before July 1, when the law banning the possession, sale or transfer of the large-capacity magazines went into effect. The other, he “maybe” obtained afterward.

 He shuffles the magazines, which look identical, and then challenges the audience to tell the difference.

“How is a deputy or an officer supposed to know which is which?” he asks.

Colorado’s package of gun laws, enacted this year after mass shootings in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., has been hailed as a victory by advocates of gun control. But if Sheriff Cooke and a majority of the other county sheriffs in Colorado offer any indication, the new laws — which mandate background checks for private gun transfers and outlaw magazines over 15 rounds — may prove nearly irrelevant across much of the state’s rural regions.

Some sheriffs, like Sheriff Cooke, are refusing to enforce the laws, saying that they are too vague and violate Second Amendment rights. Many more say that enforcement will be “a very low priority,” as several sheriffs put it. All but seven of the 62 elected sheriffs in Colorado signed on in May to a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the statutes.

The resistance of sheriffs in Colorado is playing out in other states, raising questions about whether tougher rules passed since Newtown will have a muted effect in parts of the American heartland, where gun ownership is common and grass-roots opposition to tighter restrictions is high.

In New York State, where Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo signed one of the toughest gun law packages in the nation last January, two sheriffs have said publicly they would not enforce the laws — inaction that Mr. Cuomo said would set “a dangerous and frightening precedent.” The sheriffs’ refusal is unlikely to have much effect in the state: According to the state’s Division of Criminal Justice Services, since 2010 sheriffs have filed less than 2 percent of the two most common felony gun charges. The vast majority of charges are filed by the state or local police.

In Liberty County, Fla., a jury in October acquitted a sheriff who had been suspended and charged with misconduct after he released a man arrested by a deputy on charges of carrying a concealed firearm. The sheriff, who was immediately reinstated by the governor, said he was protecting the man’s Second Amendment rights.

And in California, a delegation of sheriffs met with Gov. Jerry Brown this fall to try to persuade him to veto gun bills passed by the Legislature, including measures banning semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines and lead ammunition for hunting (Mr. Brown signed the ammunition bill but vetoed the bill outlawing the rifles).

“Our way of life means nothing to these politicians, and our interests are not being promoted in the legislative halls of Sacramento or Washington, D.C.,” said Jon E. Lopey, the sheriff of Siskiyou County, Calif., one of those who met with Governor Brown. He said enforcing gun laws was not a priority for him, and he added that residents of his rural region near the Oregon border are equally frustrated by regulations imposed by the federal Forest Service and the Environmental Protection Agency.

This year, the new gun laws in Colorado have become political flash points. Two state senators who supported the legislation were recalled in elections in September; a third resigned last month rather than face a recall. Efforts to repeal the statutes are already in the works.

Countering the elected sheriffs are some police chiefs, especially in urban areas, and state officials who say that the laws are not only enforceable but that they are already having an effect. Most gun stores have stopped selling the high-capacity magazines for personal use, although one sheriff acknowledged that some stores continued to sell them illegally. Some people who are selling or otherwise transferring guns privately are seeking background checks.

Eric Brown, a spokesman for Gov. John W. Hickenlooper of Colorado, said, “Particularly on background checks, the numbers show the law is working.” The Colorado Bureau of Investigation has run 3,445 checks on private sales since the law went into effect, he said, and has denied gun sales to 70 people.

A Federal District Court judge last month ruled against a claim in the sheriffs’ lawsuit that one part of the magazine law was unconstitutionally vague. The judge also ruled that while the sheriffs could sue as individuals, they had no standing to sue in their official capacity.

Still, the state’s top law enforcement officials acknowledged that sheriffs had wide discretion in enforcing state laws.

“We’re not in the position of telling sheriffs and chiefs what to do or not to do,” said Lance Clem, a spokesman for the Colorado Department of Public Safety. “We have people calling us all the time, thinking they’ve got an issue with their sheriff, and we tell them we don’t have the authority to intervene.”

Sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun laws around the country are in the minority, though no statistics exist. In Colorado, though, sheriffs like Joe Pelle of Boulder County, who support the laws and have more liberal constituencies that back them, are outnumbered.

“A lot of sheriffs are claiming the Constitution, saying that they’re not going to enforce this because they personally believe it violates the Second Amendment,” Sheriff Pelle said. “But that stance in and of itself violates the Constitution.”

Even Sheriff W. Pete Palmer of Chaffee County, one of the seven sheriffs who declined to join the federal lawsuit because he felt duty-bound to carry out the laws, said he was unlikely to aggressively enforce them. He said enforcement poses “huge practical difficulties,” and besides, he has neither the resources nor the pressure from his constituents to make active enforcement a high priority. Violations of the laws are misdemeanors.

“All law enforcement agencies consider the community standards — what is it that our community wishes us to focus on — and I can tell you our community is not worried one whit about background checks or high-capacity magazines,” he said.

At their extreme, the views of sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun laws echo the stand of Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff and the author of “The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope.” Mr. Mack has argued that county sheriffs are the ultimate arbiters of what is constitutional and what is not. The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, founded by Mr. Mack, is an organization of sheriffs and other officers who support his views.

“The Supreme Court does not run my office,” Mr. Mack said in an interview. “Just because they allow something doesn’t mean that a good constitutional sheriff is going to do it.” He said that 250 sheriffs from around the country attended the association’s recent convention.

Matthew J. Parlow, a law professor at Marquette University, said that some states, including New York, had laws that allowed the governor in some circumstances to investigate and remove public officials who engaged in egregious misconduct — laws that in theory might allow the removal of sheriffs who failed to enforce state statutes.

But, he said, many governors could be reluctant to use such powers. And in most cases, any penalty for a sheriff who chose not to enforce state law would have to come from voters.

Sheriff Cooke, for his part, said that he was entitled to use discretion in enforcement, especially when he believed the laws were wrong or unenforceable.

“In my oath it says I’ll uphold the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Colorado,” he said, as he posed for campaign photos in his office — he is running for the State Senate in 2014. “It doesn’t say I have to uphold every law passed by the Legislature.”

 

Advertisements

California Department of Justice agents sweep Fresno, Clovis for illegal guns

2 Comments

This is from The Fresno Bee.

I have a problem with this gun sweep.

Even though they claim they were targeting criminals.

But how many legal gun owners get raided?

 

The sign in the window warned burglars that the homeowner owned a handgun and would use it in self-defense. The state agents knocking on the door were there to confiscate the weapon.

The agents are part of the California Department of Justice‘s Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS), a program that takes firearms from people barred from owning them. The law says that group can include ex-felons and people deemed to be mentally unstable.

Often arriving in SUVs and dressed in black tactical uniforms, the teams regularly sweep through California cities with a list of names and addresses.

It was Fresno’s turn last week.

Thursday night, the agents went to the home near Roeding Park to collect a Smith & Wesson semi-automatic pistol from a woman who had been evaluated under California Welfare and Institutions Code 5150 as a danger to herself and others. As such, she had been ordered to surrender any firearms in her possession and had not.

As is often the case, the agents were told that the weapon was not there and the woman’s father-in-law had it in Bakersfield.

But that won’t be the end of the search, according to Kisu Yo, a special agent who was part of the team making the sweep.

“There’s no such thing as safe-keeping (by another family member),” Yo said.

Team members say they are dogged: They will press a prohibited person to allow them to search a home to look for the gun and ask to see the paperwork if they are told a weapon has been sold.

If agents are denied the search but have reason to believe they are being lied to, they will seek a warrant and lock down the house until they get results.

“That can make for a long night,” said Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the Department of Justice.

Long nights are part of the job for the 33 agents who make up the APPS teams. They work evenings and nights because they are more likely to find people at home during those hours. They work in teams because they often have to approach darkened homes where there is likely to be an armed person inside.

“It really is a dangerous job,” said Yo, a Marine Corps veteran of the first Gulf War. “Every time we make a contact, it’s a very dangerous situation.”

Agents also say they are understaffed, but they are likely to get some help soon.

Gov. Jerry Brown recently signed legislation to use a $24 million surplus from funds paid during firearms purchases to hire as many as 36 more agents. (Fresno gun dealer Barry Bauer and several Second Amendment groups are suing because they say the diversion of funds is unconstitutional.)

California is the only state to use a program like APPS, which cross references five databases to find people who legally purchased handguns and registered assault weapons since 1996 with people banned from owning or possessing firearms.

The Attorney General’s Office said that more than 2,000 firearms were seized last year under the program. The Department of Justice says there are about 21,000 prohibited persons who possess about 43,000 firearms in the state.

Gun rights groups such as the National Rifle Association argue that making surprise visits to homes of prohibited persons is a step too far, but agents argue that people who have lost the firearms rights are clearly notified in court paperwork and other documents that they are to turn in their weapons. When they don’t, the agents can make an arrest as well as take the gun.

That was the case for a Clovis man who is prohibited from firearms possession after being convicted of felony DUI and evading officers. When agents went to his home near Swift and Fowler avenues Thursday, they found a Taurus .45 caliber pistol and he was booked as a felon in possession of a firearm.

Arrests don’t always follow the discovery of a gun. Agents visited a nearby home in Clovis in search of a firearm owned by a man who had been evaluated as mentally unstable. They found that he had access to a gun safe with several long guns as well as a long-barreled .50-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver valued at several thousand dollars.

The man told agents that he and his entire family were hunters and that the revolver was used as a weapon of last-resort when facing an attack by a charging wild pig. He said he was devastated to lose his firearm rights. The agents left with the weapons but did not arrest him.

Left behind was a hunting bow.

“You’re not taking my bow and arrows, are you?” the man asked.

“No,” said Yo. “We’re not the bow and arrow police.”

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/11/16/3613913/state-agents-sweep-fresno.html#storylink=cpy

 

 

 

 

Sen. Feinstein apparently wants to ban 19th century revolvers

Leave a comment

This is from The Examiner.

The Wicked Bitch Witch of The West tries to strike again.

DI Fi wants only the elites like herself armed. 

That, anyway, is the only conclusion consistent with the “logic” she articulated Sunday morning on CBS’s Face the Nation (emphasis added):

Having said that, the weapon was a .223 MP15, the MP stands for military and police, clearly designed not for general consumption, but through practice now general consumption. Same gun that was used at Aurora. Would I do a bill? Sure I would do a bill. I mean I believe this down deep in my soul.

The notion of Feinstein‘s possession of a soul is a debate for another day. Let’s instead look at her contention that by naming the rifle model the M&P15, with M&P standing for “military and police,” Smith and Wesson is tacitly acknowledging that this firearm is appropriate only for the government’s hired muscle.

What a peculiar idea. Smith and Wesson, keep in mind, has put “military and police” into the names of lots of guns, including revolvers, dating all the way back to 1899, with the Model 10,once named the Smith & Wesson Military & Police.

Similarly, an iconic Colt revolver is the Detective Special, which has served both detectives and private citizens well for over 85 years.

Feinstein, of course, once carried a revolver (in San Francisco, no less–not a legal option for those of us who are not among the “elite”). Was it an S&W Military & Police, or perhaps a Colt Detective Special? Maybe, maybe not–but does it matter? Even a revolver that has not been labeled with a too-deadly-for-private-citizens name is, after all, a revolver, and presumably about as “deadly” as a revolver named for its usefulness to law enforcement and the military.

This column recently noted that a California bill, passed by the legislature, but vetoed by even anti-gun Governor Jerry Brown, proves gun rights advocates’ long-held contention that the hysterical calls to ban “assault weapons” have nothing to do with so-called “military features” that we were once told distinguish “assault weapons” from “acceptable” semi-automatic rifles.

Feinstein, though, has now taken the insanity to a perhaps unprecedented level. Now it’s not just ergonomic refinements and cosmetic features that render some guns “unsuitable” for private ownership. Now, the name of the gun is enough to justify a ban.

She would probably really object to this correspondent’s idea for an AR-15 platform rifle marketed as the “Regime Changer” (“Recall Ballot From the Rooftops Launcher” is an awkwardly long name for a gun). That, of course, just adds to the idea’s appeal.

Update: On second thought, let’s try to talk S&W into telling Feinstein that the “M&P” stands for “Militia and Patriots”–that should scare her as much as anything.

Last U.S. Lead Smelter to Close in December Due to EPA – Might Affect Ammo Production

Leave a comment

This is from Guns Save Lives.

Obama does not need to pass any gun laws.

Why garb guns when this move by the EPA will render

our firearms useless? 

According to the NRA-ILA, the last primary lead smelter in the United States will close down its operation in December.

This means the US will lose its capability to produce lead ammo completely within its borders from the process of mining to production of commercial cartridges.

Here is the press release from the NRA-ILA.

In December, the final primary lead smelter in the United States will close. The lead smelter, located in Herculaneum, Missouri, and owned and operated by the Doe Run Company, has existed in the same location since 1892.

The Herculaneum smelter is currently the only smelter in the United States which can produce lead bullion from raw lead ore that is mined nearby in Missouri’s extensive lead deposits, giving the smelter its “primary” designation. The lead bullion produced in Herculaneum is then sold to lead product producers, including ammunition manufactures for use in conventional ammunition components such as projectiles, projectile cores, and primers. Several “secondary” smelters, where lead is recycled from products such as lead acid batteries or spent ammunition components, still operate in the United States.

Doe Run made significant efforts to reduce lead emissions from the smelter, but in 2008 the federal Environmental Protection Agency issued new National Ambient Air Quality Standards for lead that were 10 times tighter than the previous standard. Given the new lead air quality standard, Doe Run made the decision to close the Herculaneum smelter.

Whatever the EPA’s motivation when creating the new lead air quality standard, increasingly restrictive regulation of lead is likely to affect the production and cost of traditional ammunition. Just this month, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a bill that will ban lead ammunition for all hunting in California. The Center for Biological Diversity has tried multiple times to get similar regulations at the federal level by trying, and repeatedly failing, to get the EPA to regulate conventional ammunition under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

At this time, it’s unclear if Doe Run or another company will open a new lead smelter in the United States that can meet the more stringent lead air quality standards by using more modern smelting methods. What is clear is that after the Herculaneum smelter closes its doors in December, entirely domestic manufacture of conventional ammunition, from raw ore to finished cartridge, will be impossible.

‘Assault Rifle’ Ban Awaiting California Governor’s Signature

2 Comments

This is from Godfather Politics.

Will Governor Moonbeam sign this Rifle ban?

If he does the NRA will challenge this ban in court.

If Kalifornia has any Conservatives left they better stand up  now! 

 

A bill that would create an across-the-board ban on all semiautomatic rifles with fixed or detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds is sitting on the desk of California Gov. Jerry Brown, awaiting his signature.

The bill is just the latest tyrannical assault on gun rights in a state known for its labyrinthine laws against gun ownership.

The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action has threatened to sue the state if Gov. Moonbeam signs the bill into law.

“Our right to keep and bear arms has never been as seriously threatened in California as it is today. After years of incrementally adopting gun control measures, this year the Legislature decided to propose new laws adopting everything on the gun ban lobby’s wish list,” the NRA-ILA said in a statement.

California is known for its arcane, seemingly random and often illogical gun regulations. Whenever the state’s liberal legislators tackle guns, they seem to craft their laws based more on personal standards of whatever looks scary than on any sound rationale.

 

California passes ‘job killer’ increase in minimum wage to $10

1 Comment

This is from BizPac Review.

The DemocRats will not be happy until they destroy Kalifornia.

The stupidity just keeps coming.

 

The California legislature approved an increase in the minimum wage from $8 to $10 an hour late last week. The hike will be phased in over the next three years adding $1 in 2014 and another in 2016, according to Raw Story.

Minimum wage pizza makerWhile the Economic Policy Institute estimates that the wage increase will affect more than 2.3 million California workers, groups like the California Chamber of Commerce opposed the bill, calling it a “job killer” that will drive up business costs “worse than any predicted rate of inflation increase.”

Gov. Jerry Brown called the bill, passed largely along partisan lines, an overdue measure that would help working-class families. He is expected to sign it, according to ABC News.

“It means that single moms will have a little extra to support their families,” Steve Smith, communications director of the California Labor Federation, said on the AFL-CIO website. “It means seniors who’ve been forced to re-enter the workforce will have a little more to help pay for prescription drugs. And it means that all low-wage workers have received validation that their work is worthy of dignity and respect.”

The California Restaurant Association called the measure a “blow to small businesses” saying it was a reaction to fast-food demonstrations that occurred across the country last month.

“Brown suddenly became aggressively interested in addressing minimum wage with labor unions in an attempt to avoid their threat of putting the issue on the ballot in 2014,” the association said on its website.

“This is a classic example with how out-of-touch state leaders are,” said state Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber. Republican lawmakers opposed the bill, saying it would hurt business and cut jobs.

 

California: Soon to be First State to Impose Full Ban on Lead Bullets

1 Comment

This is from Girls Just Wanna Have Guns.

How long before the EPA pushes for a nation wide lead ban?

In Kalifornia the inmates are running the asylum.

 

 

California is on the verge of becoming the first state to impose a full ban on hunting with lead bullets — with environmentalists and gun-rights advocates squaring off as Gov. Jerry Brown decides whether to sign the legislation.

The state already has a ban on lead-bullet hunting in eight counties with an endangered condor population. But the new proposal, overwhelmingly approved this month by the Democrat-controlled General Assembly, would impose a statewide ban on all hunting. Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown has until Oct. 12 to decide whether to sign the legislation, which would not be fully implemented for at least several years.

Environmentalists and other supporters have broadened their argument beyond protecting the prehistoric condor bird, saying the lead bullets, and the left-behind lead fragments on which animals feed, are making their way into the country’s edible meat supply. And they point to a 2008 study by the Centers for Disease Control and the North Dakota Department of Public Health that concluded lead is so prevalent in meat harvested through hunting that pregnant women and children should never eat it.

“There is no safe level of lead for human consumption,” said bill sponsor and state Assemblyman Anthony Rendon, a Los Angeles-area Democrat. READ MORE HERE
Read more at http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/09/california-soon-first-state-impose-full-ban-lead-bullets/#zQIXk0Iuib7FXUTV.99

 

LAWMAKER WILL PULL HIS KIDS OUT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS OVER CALIFORNIA’S NEW ‘GENDER IDENTITY’ LAW

Leave a comment

This is from The Blaze.

This is what every moral parent should do take their children out

of Kalifornia public schools.

In my option this ruling will lead to rapes in the showers or in

the locker-room.

A Republican state lawmaker in California says he will pull his kids out of public school because of a new law allowing students confused about their “gender identity” to use whichever restroom or locker room they choose.

Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, published a column on conservative website World Net Daily (WND)explaining the decision on Thursday.

“My 13- and 16-year-old boys were horrified at the idea of sharing a bathroom and locker room with a member of the opposite sex, after having discussed AB 1266 with them,” wrote Donnelly.

My boys who went back to the public school after many years away, will not be returning,” he added.

On Monday, Democratic California Gov. Jerry Brown signed A.B. 1266 into law, affording students confused about their “gender identity” a host of new rights, including the ability to use either a boys or girls restroom and either locker room.

Carlos Alcala, the spokesman for the bill’s author, told parents like Donnelly that “being uncomfortable does not justify discrimination,” in an interview with TheBlaze Monday.

In his WND column, Donnelly also blasted A.B. 1266 as a “recipe for disaster” and said K-12 students are not mature enough to deal with its ramifications.

“This will take the normal hormonal battles raging inside every teenager and pour gasoline onto those simmering coals,” Donnelly wrote.

(H/T: CBS Sacramento)

A Texan Takes Manhattan

Leave a comment

This is from The Weekly Standard.

Governor Rick Perry(R.Tx.) is showing

companies Texas is business friendly.

Companies can operate with very  limited

taxes and government intrusion in business.

With Gov. Rick Perry in New York.

New York City
“Look up the definition of poaching,” Rick Perry told his press secretary Josh Havens. Perry was annoyed at being accused, in headlines and news stories and by Democratic governors, of trying to “poach” companies from blue states and carry them off to Texas, where he is governor.

Someday, all of this will be in Dallas: the governor in Midtown, June 18SOMEDAY, ALL OF THIS WILL BE IN DALLAS: THE GOVERNOR IN MIDTOWN, JUNE 18AP / MARY ALTAFFER

Perry didn’t think the word applies to his forays—to California in February, Illinois in April, and last week to New York and Connecticut. Sure, he wants to lure companies to Texas, bringing thousands of jobs with them. But “poach”? Nope, not that. It sounds sneaky, illicit, or, at best, would still be hostile conduct by one governor toward the state of another.

Havens tapped into an online dictionary and read the definition to Perry: “to take fish or game illegally.”

“Or jobs,” Perry said.

He felt vindicated. His high-visibility raids are unprecedented for a governor, but they’re clearly not against the law. Perry likes football analogies. He told Steve Forbes, the publisher of the eponymous business magazine, his efforts are “straight up, off right tackle.” He’s compared them to a hypothetical recruiting trip by Texas A&M coach Kevin Sumlin. “He flies in by helicopter to a small town to recruit a high school football star. He doesn’t quietly come in under the veil of darkness.”

Following the session with Forbes last week, Perry hurried across Manhattan to meet with Donald Trump. You’re trying to “grab all our people,” Trump teased. “Just giving them opportunity,” Perry replied.

After his freshman year at Texas A&M in 1969, Perry sold Bible-related books one summer in rural Missouri. “It took weeks before I sold my first books,” he says, but he learned salesmanship. “I look at myself just like a businessman trying to sell a product,” he says. Perry told Trump he’s selling the “opportunity” for business owners to flee the “high tax, high regulation, high litigation” environment of states like New York and thrive in a free market state that lets them keep more of the money they earn. Texas has no state income tax.

Perry is never bashful. When touting Texas as a safe haven for American business, he’s doing what no governor has done before. And he’s doing it with as much fanfare and buzz as possible. Some governors send letters, urging companies to pick up stakes and move. When Perry spent a day in Connecticut last week, he bumped into Dennis Daugaard, the Republican governor of South Dakota. Both were on economic missions. The Connecticut media latched on to Perry and ignored Daugaard.

Perry relied on Jeff Miller, a political consultant, lobbyist, and longtime friend, for advice in organizing the recruiting trips. Miller is a newcomer to Texas, having vowed to leave his native California if Republicans were crushed there again in the 2012 election. They were. He arrived in Austin on Christmas Eve.

The key to the Perry-Miller strategy is its focus on the big blue states (Connecticut was an afterthought) and advertising. Perry spent a meager $25,000 on radio ads in California, then benefited from Gov. Jerry Brown’s crack that the ad was “barely a fart.” Brown said the Perry visit was “not a story, guys.” But he made it one.

For his foray into Chicago, Perry spent $100,000 on radio spots. Again Democrats fell into his trap. Gov. Pat Quinn and Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel attacked Perry furiously. His visit became a major news story.

Perry and Miller figured New York would be different. A modest radio buy would be drowned out. So they spent $1 million on TV and radio spots that bragged about the business climate in Texas. The killer line: “If you’re tired of the same old recipe of over-taxation, over-regulation, and frivolous litigation, get out before you go broke.” Perry delivered the closer. “Texas is calling,” he said. “Your opportunity awaits.” The ads made a splash.

“Advertising works,” Perry says. “If it didn’t, people wouldn’t buy ad space. .  .  . We had different catch phrases for each state.” In California, it was: “Building a business is tough. Building a business in California is next to impossible.” In Illinois: “Get out while there’s still time.” In New York, it was the “go broke” line.

Accompanying Perry here were several dozen Texans from Texas One, a foundation that touts the state’s economy and pays for Perry’s trips and ads. A special Perry recruitment target was arms manufacturers who feel unwelcome in New York and Connecticut. At Colt Manufacturing, he fired pistols and rifles for 15 minutes. He also met privately with health care and financial management firms.

During Perry’s three days in New York, I joined him for most of his meetings, dinners, and speeches. Up close, Perry isn’t quite what I expected. He often notes he majored in animal science in college, but his interests have broadened as governor. He’s learned a lot about brain science. He knows a good deal about economics. After back surgery last year, he had to give up his cowboy boots. “My feet are happy,” he told Forbes. He made a point of being photographed under a storefront sign near Times Square. “Going Out of Business. Everything Must Go,” it read.

At one dinner, he sat next to Mark Teixeira, the Yankees first baseman who may run for office when his baseball days are over. Perry offered a piece of advice. “Mark, everybody loves you now,” Perry said. “You’re one of the best first basemen of all time. But the moment you announce, either as a Democrat or a Republican, half of those people are going to hate you.”

Perry had three goals for his trip. He succeeded, partially anyway, on two. In time, he may on the third. The first was to attract businesses to Texas. Perry insists it takes nine months from his pitch to a company’s decision to move. So we’ll have to wait on that. But Perry says he expects to hear this summer that an untold number of California companies are Texas-bound.

The second goal was to stir a national debate on “blue state versus red states policies.” Perry thinks he’s set this in motion and he may have. It should shine a favorable light on the Texas model of low taxes, light regulation, and less litigation—small government that works.

Perry didn’t acknowledge the third goal. It was a test of his skill as a potential presidential candidate after his disastrous performance in last year’s race for the Republican nomination. He says he “parachuted” into that campaign both too late and unprepared. He knows better now.

He passed this preliminary test with ease. His speech comparing the roaring economy of Texas to that of other states was impressive. I heard him deliver it to three separate groups. There were no uncomfortable moments or glitches. What’s significant is that he has a positive, upbeat message. Most Republicans don’t.

But it will take months of gaffe-free speeches and TV appearances to begin to overcome the legacy of 2012. His “oops” moment—when he forgot in a televised debate the third federal agency he would abolish—lives on. Before he arrived in Chicago, Mayor Emanuel said, “I hope when he comes he remembers all three of his reasons for coming.”

Wherever Perry went in New York, the same question was asked. Will he run and for what office? Perry is the longest-serving governor in Texas history, 13 years and counting. He’ll soon announce, possibly this week, if he intends to seek another term in 2014. My guess is he won’t.

But there are strong hints Perry will run again for president. He says candidates do better the second time. His speeches are geared to a national audience. So is his message. In Jeff Miller, he has a strategist he trusts. And he’s from a big state.

While running for president, “You find out so much about yourself,” Perry says. “Some of it is even true.” In 2012, a reporter discovered Perry is a distant relative of Sam Houston, the fifth Texas governor. Perry recalled this fondly, as if he’s ready to discover what a presidential bid in 2016 would bring.

Biden Complains People ‘Can Barely Pay To Fill Their Gas Tank’ – Back In ’08 Debate

Leave a comment

This is from CNSNews.

I can remember hearing in 08 how high gas prices were Bush/Cheney’s fault.

They were big oil men and were trying to get richer off the high prices.

When Obama took office gas was $1.93 per gallon.

Then Obama put his boot on the neck of the oil companies.

Obama and the tree huggers have stopped oil drilling and slowed exploration.

 

During the 2008 vice presidential debate, Joe Biden complained about how gas prices were so high at the time that the average “Joe” couldn’t afford to fill up his tank.

During the Oct. 2, 2008 vice presidential debate with Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, Biden was asked by moderator Gwen Ifill to comment about deregulation.

In his answer, then-Senator Biden took the opportunity to relate a conversation he had at a gas station with “a guy named Joey” who said he couldn’t afford to fill up his tank:

“So deregulation was the promise. And guess what? Those people who say don’t go into debt, they can barely pay to fill up their gas tank.

“I was recently at my local gas station and asked a guy named Joey Danco. I said, ‘Joey, how much did it cost to fill your tank?’ You know what his answer was? He said, ‘I don’t know, Joe. I never have enough money to do it.’”

At the time (Oct. 2008), the average cost of a gallon of regular was $3.17 – and only $1.93/gallon when Obama took office in January of 2009 – according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Today, AAA estimates that a gallon of regular costs about $3.82 (Oct. 9), while the latest BLS report says it cost $3.71/gallon in August.

And, this week, the Associated Press reported that gas prices in California have hit an all-time high of $4.67 for a gallon of regular, and The Los Angeles Times reported that that Gov. Jerry Brown has taken “emergency steps” to address the problem.

 

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: