Chamber Names Representative O'Brien

                 a Pro-Jobs Legislator

 TOPEKA, Kan. (July 28, 2011) - The Kansas Chamber of Commerce has named Representative Connie O'Brien as a Pro-Jobs Legislator for the 2011 Legislative Session.  

"We are proud to announce that Representative O'Brien has distinguished herself by supporting the tenets of free enterprise in order to move Kansas towards becoming the best state in America to live and work," said Kansas Chamber President & CEO Kent Beisner.  "We appreciate the hard work of Rep. O'Brien to grow jobs and the economy."

   "The statewide business community relies on decision-makers in Topeka who understand the importance of a healthy business climate. We thank Representative O'Brien for her leadership," added Kansas Chamber Chair of the Board of Directors Dave Murfin, President and CEO of Murfin Drilling Company in Wichita, Kansas.

 LCRW holds Campaign Kickoff-Bachmann wins Straw Poll

The first Campaign 2012 event in Leavenworth County was held by the Leavenworth County Republican Women at the Riverfront Community Center on July 18^th.  The Rally included fiery speeches, door prizes, contests, a tribute to Ronald Reagan and a Presidential straw poll. The straw poll was won by U. S. Representative Michele Bachmann, followed by Herman Cain and Governor Rick Perry.  

Rally speaker and Associate club member Steve Fitzgerald made the case for the County of Leavenworth being a State Senate District in its own right, and Patricia Stoneking-LCRW member and KSRA President- stressed the need for standing up for the 2^nd Amendment now, or we will face the consequences later. Also speaking at the event were GOP County Chairman John Bradford, County Commissioner John Flower, County Clerk Janet Klasinski, former State Senator Mark Gilstrap, Representative Connie O'Brien, Representative Jana Goodman and former candidate for Insurance Commissioner, David Powell. 

Contest winner for "Most campaign wear" was Jana Goodman; the "Most patriotic wear" prize went to Jackie Cahill. Club Secretary Linda Scheer gave a moving tribute to former President Ronald Reagan, and the group celebrated his 100^th birthday with cake and coffee. 

The LCRW will start working on the campaign this fall, and will join with the County Party in helping Republicans to be victorious in November 2012. 

- Barbara Paulus

NRA Delivers Remarks at U.N.
Concerning Proposed Arms Trade Treaty

National Rifle Association's Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre addressed the United Nations this afternoon. He told the U.N. to not interfere with the Second Amendment freedoms of Americans and pledged to continue the fight to preserve civilian ownership of firearms in the U.S. He said the NRA will oppose any U.N. provision that seeks to prohibit or regulate U.S. civilian firearm ownership.  LaPierre said in his remarks, "The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind."

United Nations Arms Trade Treaty

Preparatory Committee - 3d Session

New York, July 11-15, 2011

Statement of the National Rifle Association of America

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this brief opportunity to address the committee. I am Wayne LaPierre and for 20 years now, I have served as Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America.

The NRA was founded in 1871, and ever since has staunchly defended the rights of its 4 million members, America's 80 million law-abiding gun owners, and freedom-loving Americans throughout our country.  In 1996, the NRA was recognized as an NGO of the United Nations and, ever since then, has defended the constitutional freedom of Americans in this arena. The NRA is the largest and most active firearms rights organization in the world and, although some members of this committee may not like what I have to say, I am proud to defend the tens of millions of lawful people NRA represents.

This present effort for an Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT, is now in its fifth year. We have closely monitored this process with increasing concern. We've reviewed the statements of the countries participating in these meetings. We've listened to other NGOs and read their numerous proposals and reports, as well as carefully examined the papers you have produced. We've watched, and read ... listened and monitored. Now, we must speak out.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately self-evident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.

We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community. Our Founding Fathers long ago rejected that notion and forged our great nation on the principle of freedom for the individual citizen - not for the government.

Mr. Chairman, those working on this treaty have asked us to trust them ... but they've proven to be unworthy of that trust.

We are told "Trust us; an ATT will not ban possession of any civilian firearms." Yet, the

proposals and statements presented to date have argued exactly the opposite, and - perhaps most importantly - proposals to ban civilian firearms ownership have not been rejected.

We are told "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with state domestic regulation of firearms." Yet, there are constant calls for exactly such measures.

We are told "Trust us; an ATT will only affect the illegal trade in firearms." But then we're told that in order to control the illegal trade, all states must control the legal firearms trade.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not require registration of civilian firearms." Yet, there are numerous calls for record-keeping, and firearms tracking from production to eventual destruction. That's nothing more than gun registration by a different name.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not create a new international bureaucracy." Well, that's exactly what is now being proposed -- with a tongue-in-cheek assurance that it will just be a SMALL bureaucracy.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with the lawful international commerce in civilian firearms." But a manufacturer of civilian shotguns would have to comply with the same regulatory process as a manufacturer of military attack helicopters.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with a hunter or sport shooter travelling internationally with firearms." However, he would have to get a so-called "transit permit" merely to change airports for a connecting flight.

Mr. Chairman, our list of objections extends far beyond the proposals I just mentioned.

Unfortunately, my limited time today prevents me from providing greater detail on each of our objections. I can assure you, however, that each is based on American law, as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

It is regrettable that proposals affecting civilian firearms ownership are woven throughout the proposed ATT. That being the case, however, there is only one solution to this problem: the complete removal of civilian firearms from the scope of any ATT. I will repeat that point as it is critical and not subject to negotiation - civilian firearms must not be part of any ATT. On this there can be no compromise, as American gun owners will never surrender their Second Amendment freedom.

It is also regrettable to find such intense focus on record-keeping, oversight, inspections, supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails and data banks, new global agencies and data centers. Nowhere do we find a thought about respecting anyone's right of self-defense, privacy, property, due process, or observing personal freedoms of any kind.

Mr. Chairman, I'd be remiss if I didn't also discuss the politics of an ATT. For the United States to be a party to an ATT, it must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate. Some do not realize that under the U.S. Constitution, the ultimate treaty power is not the President's power to negotiate and sign treaties; it is the Senate's power to approve them.

To that end, it's important for the Preparatory Committee to understand that the proposed ATT is already strongly opposed in the Senate - the very body that must approve it by a two-thirds majority. There is a letter addressed to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that is currently being circulated for the signatures of Senators who oppose the ATT. Once complete, this letter will demonstrate that the proposed ATT will not pass the U.S. Senate.

So there is extremely strong resistance to the ATT in the United States, even before the treaty is tabled. We are not aware of any precedent for this - rejecting a proposed treaty before it's even submitted for consideration - but it speaks to the level of opposition. The proposed ATT has become more than just controversial, as the Internet is awash with articles and messages calling for its rejection. And those messages are all based on the same objection - infringement on the constitutional freedom of American gun owners.

The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.

Therefore, the NRA will fight with all of its strength to oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms within its scope.

Liberals' Unmaking of Barack Obama President Enters Predictable Free-Fall from Godlike to Carteresque

 Dr. Milton R. Wolf - The Washington Times, Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Remember when liberals claimed Barack Obama was "probably the smartest guy ever to become president" and was "a sort of god"? Today they say "we are watching him turn into Jimmy Carter right before our eyes, "and the center point of his presidency is "a disaster." So what changed exactly?

Is President Obama really a different man today than he was before he entered the Oval Office? The same Illinois legislator who voted "present" 129 times is now the debt-crisis-AWOL president who refused to present a specific plan of his own. The same presidential candidate who wanted to "spread the wealth" has unleashed redistributionist, collectivist policies on everything from health care and energy supply to runaway Keynesian spending and ever-increasing taxes. Should we be surprised?

The president may still win re-election in 2012, of course, but in recent weeks, his approval rating has crumbled, particularly among liberals, to an all-time low of 40 percent in a recent Gallup poll.  Another poll shows that even among liberal Democrats, strong support for Mr. Obama's record on jobs has plummeted 22 points, to a paltry 31 percent. The hope and change of 2008 have given way to the joblessness and foreclosures of Obamanomics.

The only thing worse than the abject failure of a liberal president, at least in the eyes of the liberal, is the undeniable failure of liberalism itself. To claim Mr. Obama has been a good president no longer even remotely passes the laugh test. Consider the results thus far of the Obama presidency:

Two million-private sector jobs have been lost.  Unemployment jumped from 7.8 to 9.2 percent with a simply terrible 2011 first-quarter economic growth rate of just 0.4 percent.  A record 1 in 7 Americans is on food stamps.  Gasoline prices more than doubled, from $1.83 to $3.74 per gallon.  National debt increased 35 percent, to $14.5 trillion, or $137,000 for each taxpayer.

National unfunded liabilities increased 47 percent, to $114.9 trillion, or a cool $1 million for each taxpayer (and this does not yet include ObamaCare).  America is on the verge of losing its AAA credit rating.

What's worse, and was as easily predictable, is the systematic dishonesty Team Obama unleashed to persuade Americans to tolerate its big-government, collectivist agenda. America is, after all, a center-right nation with nearly 3-to-1 self-described conservatives compared to liberals. How else besides trickery could Mr. Obama further an agenda so unpopular with voters? Witness the dishonesty:

-   The stimulus would keep unemployment   below 8 percent.

-    Stimulus funds would go to "shovel-ready" jobs.

-    ObamaCare would create 4 million new jobs -

      400,000 almost immediately.

-    You could keep your own doctor.

-    The president's mother was denied health insurance.

-    Obamanomics would mean a "net spending cut."

So, as the liberal presidency of Mr. Obama becomes increasingly indefensible, the liberal is faced with an unthinkable dilemma:  acknowledge the fundamental failure of his collectivist liberal philosophy, which tends toward socialism, or blame its failures on a single man whom, until just recently, the liberal deified.

The conflict between liberal collectivist ideology and its application was easily predictable by anyone who has studied big-government economic failures throughout history, from the collectivist all-stars including Mao's China, Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union to today's honorable mentions such as Castro's Cuba or Chavez's Venezuela. Enforcement of collectivism has always depended on government power, from Stalin's iron-fisted gulags to Mr. Obama's mere heavy-handed plan for punitive fines for failure to purchase your government-imposed health insurance. The degree of autocracy may vary, but still the collectivist road to economic ruin is universal.

Here's what I wrote one year ago:

"As President Obama's failures mount, there will be an awkward reversal of roles among liberals, and to a lesser degree, among conservatives, that we're already beginning to see. It will be the liberals, rather than the conservatives, who will decry this man as personally incompetent. In the collapse of the social-welfare state, the last bastion for these scoundrels will be to sacrifice their own anointed deity as though it is his personal failures, rather than the inherent deep flaws of statism, that are to blame. Of course, one must ask how valuable an ideology can be if one man, even (or perhaps especially) a flawed man, can destroy it.

"Conservatives will then find themselves in the uncomfortable position of defending Barack Obama personally, or at least reminding the liberals of their earlier effusive praise, in order to redirect the blame where it primarily belongs - at the feet of the statist policies themselves. The liberals will be left to explain, of course, how valuable the liberal ideology itself really is if even a learned and godlike leader cannot manage it. Further, if Barack Obama turns out not to be the deity they once claimed, what does that say of the liberals' perception (and honesty) when they eventually anoint another?"

This cycle of liberal, cannibalistic personal destruction is the predictable result of the Democrats' cult-of-personality politics.

Those purveyors of big-government rule are the mob that Ann Coulter described in her recent book "Demonic," quoting Gustave Le Bon from a century ago, that "knows neither doubt nor uncertainty ... it goes at once to extremes." The absurdity of liberals' deification and then condemnation of their own leaders is second only to their unwillingness to confront the failures of their collectivist philosophy.

In the end, Barack Obama's failures as president are not because he couldn't faithfully execute the liberal collectivist philosophy - he ushered in the ObamaCare era, after all - his failures are instead because he bought into the failed philosophy in the first place.

Dr. Milton R. Wolf is a board-certified diagnostic radiologist and cousin of President Obama. He blogs at MiltonWolf.com.