If this was supposed to be damage control, Susan G. Komen for the Cure proved Thursday that it has a lot to learn.

On a day when the breast cancer charity’s top official made the rounds with the national media, insisting the organization’s decision to stop giving grants to Planned Parenthood wasn’t political, the firestorm only got worse. Top Democrats piled on; the head of the Komen chapter in Los Angeles quit; and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is giving a $250,000 matching gift to Planned Parenthood.

I’m not seeing what Komen did wrong; do you? I see that 22 Democrat Senators are choosing to whine about what a private corporation does with their money, without mentioning that PP is known mostly for abortions, not “breast exams”, and turning this political. Same with Bloomberg.

Brinker said there was broad consensus from Komen’s board over the new policies. Additionally, she said the charity was trying to refocus grants on providers that are able to perform mammography services rather than just breast screenings. Planned Parenthood does not have mammography equipment and refers women to providers for the service.

“We are the stewards of other people’s money, and we need to ensure that money is going to programs for women in the most impactful way,” Brinker said, echoing a statement she made on a YouTube video late Wednesday night.

I can see how that would upset liberals, who seem to expect Other People’s Money to be wasted, rather than being treated respectfully.

We also have a Memorandum pull of a story entitled “HOPE KILLS: Susan G Komen Foundation Would Rather Be Associated With A Handgun Than Planned Parenthood.” The author, Michael Brendan Dougherty, is whining about a Walther P22 that comes in pink, with part of the sales going to the Komen Foundation. Except, the gun is meant to protect the life of a woman. Liberals do not want women to have guns. Liberals want women to be raped, beaten, and die, apparently. The guns are also not performing abortions and killing unborn children, many of whom are female. Why do liberals hate women?

And then we have the whole “breast exam” thing. As Life News points out

During a conference call with reporters this afternoon, Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure CEO Nancy Brinker and President Elizabeth Thompson revealed the main reason why the Planned Parenthood abortion business lost its funding. It doesn’t do mammograms.

“It was nothing they were doing wrong,” Brinker explained. “We have decided not to fund, wherever possible, pass-through grants. We were giving them money, they were sending women out for mammograms. What we would like to have are clinics where we can directly fund mammograms.”

She added, later in the day on Twitter:, saying the money “will be invested in programs to serve low-income, uninsured and underinsured women.”

PP doesn’t offer mammograms. Let’s be honest, as Life News points out, they do do breast exams. But no mammograms. No PP abortion mills have the necessary medical devices on location. That said, the Left is not upset about Komen pulling funding to PP over breast exams, they are upset about Komen dissing the Left’s favorite abortion provider.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

(Politico) The number of officers killed in the line of duty jumped 13 percent in 2011 compared with the year before — and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder condemned the increase as “a devastating and unacceptable trend” that he blamed on illegal firearms.

The number of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty rose to 173 this year, from 153 in 2010, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund announced Wednesday. This year’s figure is 23 percent higher than 122 killed in the line of duty in 2009.

So, the guns themselves are illegal? Er, no

Holder said “too many guns have fallen into the hands of those who are not legally permitted to possess them,” in explaining the increase.

So, what does Holder propose to do?

“This is a devastating and unacceptable trend. Each of these deaths is a tragic reminder of the threats that law enforcement officers face each day,” Holder in a statement. “I want to assure the family members and loved ones who have mourned the loss of these heroes that we are responding to this year’s increased violence with renewed vigilance and will do everything within our power — and use every tool at our disposal — to keep our police officers safe.”

You know what else is a devastating and unacceptable trend? Hundreds of Mexicans being killed by guns allowed to walk into Mexico illegally, thanks to operations under the Department of Justice. Also, an AG that lies about it.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Top ten lists at year’s end are always subjective, to be sure. But some lists seem rather obviously out of whack at first glance. Politico’s “Top 10 political blunders of 2011” is one of those lists that is glaring for what isn’t present as opposed to what is. And what isn’t seems to bespeak that Politico wanted to avoid focusing on Democrat failures in a year when there are so many Democrat failures.

Politico bills this list as one of the “worst political strategic decisions” of 2011. Strangely enough, this list contains fully seven GOP “blunders” yet only three Democrat goofs. Some of the GOP blunders are also questionable for any top ten list considering what is missing from the thing.

First we need a rundown on what is on this list, and in the order Politico places them.

• Obama pivots to deficits
• Republicans vote on the Ryan budget
• Tim Pawlenty bets it all on Ames
• Mitt Romney hides
• Rick Perry debates
• Jon Huntsman returns from China
• Mr. Daley goes to Washington
• Mitch and Haley stay home
• Dems pick Charlotte
• John Kasich pushes S.B. 5

Isn’t it fascinating that some of these “top blunders” did not actually result in a major reversal of great import of some type or another? Take the Jon Huntsman point, for instance. Jon Huntsman is not consequential and his decision to enter the GOP primary race instead of staying in China is not going to make much difference to anyone, anywhere. The Mitch Daniels point is also specious for such a list as Daniel’s decision to sit out 2012 did not necessarily end his career. Further the blunder of Democrats picking Charlotte, North Carolina, while certainly a messy proposition fraught with mistakes, is hardly any kind of end of the world goof, is it?

Now let’s talk about what is not on that list. Solyndra is not on that list. How can this be? This is a political blunder of epic proportions. Even the left-wing Washington Post is saying that the decision supposedly based on science and good economics was instead “infused with politics at every level.” Millions of tax dollars were thrown away during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression at a failing company just to suit Obama’s desire to tout his fantasy of “green jobs.”

If you don’t want to pick Solyndra, why you can reach for the debacle of Fast And Furious for inclusion on such a list. Here we have a program that was supposed to track guns used by Mexican narco-terrorists so that these evil cretins could be ferreted out deep in Mexico. Instead, thousands of American guns sold to these criminals right here in America were lost in the Mexican interior and then were turned to kill hundreds of Mexicans and perhaps two U.S. law enforcement officers. Then, making matters worse, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder — an Obama appointee — has lied repeatedly about what he knew about the program and when he knew it. Now over 90 government officials are calling for Holder’s resignation. If this isn’t a major political blunder, what is? This has made Eric Holder an embattled Attorney General, at the least. Yet, it makes no spot on this top ten blunder list.

Another thing missing is GOP House Speaker John Boehner’s blunder with the recent tax fight that seemed to show that he had no control over his own majority in the House of Representatives, revealing him to be somewhat hapless. I’d think that blunder outweighs anything Jon Huntsman could do and it is most certainly a worse blunder than Rick Perry’s debating style in import to the country

I’d also like to assign a bad strategic decision to Obama’s Osawatomie, Kansas speech that he disgorged onto the nation, a speech so filled with class warfare and un-presidential, overly harsh rhetoric. Also, where is Anthony Weiner on this list? Weiner went from one of the most up-and-coming, young Democrats in Congress to a resigned disgrace over his decision to claim that his Internet account was hacked instead of admitting that he sent nudie pictures of himself to some young woman clear across the country. It totally torpedoed his bid to step from Congress to higher office and greater fame. That seems like a major strategic blunder to me. How about you?

While I agree with the Kasich example — his effort to mirror Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s success at paring down union power was a major legislative abortion — I should say that the Democrat’s efforts to recall all sorts of GOP officials in Wisconsin is a bigger failure. Not to mention the idiotic flee-bagging engaged in by Indiana and Wisconsin Democrats during Walker and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniel’s efforts to enact those same fiscally sane measures. Democrat’s fleeing their states early this year to attempt to hamper Republicans efforts to cut state budgets was a huge strategic flop and likely led to their inability to recall Republicans in Wisconsin. It may also lead to stronger GOP support in both Indiana and Wisconsin.

In any case, I could go on and on with blunders that occurred in 2011 that Politico ignored, but I think you get the picture. Granted it is hard to settle on a mere ten examples of any top blunders, but it just seems that some of the “top blunders” Politico chose are not so consequential as those they left off the list.

Like nearly every conservative in America today I am unimpressed by the current crop of GOP nominees for president and feel they all have major flaws — especially the two frontrunners Newt and Romney, both of whom have major deficits as far as staunch conservatives are concerned. But at this point I’ve come to realize that I don’t think I care which one of them is nominated. In fact, I think the White House is not where we should be focusing our intensity in 2012.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not saying we shouldn’t vote for whichever GOP nominee wins the game show plaudits. We should absolutely pick one of them and then we all, conservatives and Republicans alike, should vote for him (or her).

So, what am I saying? I am saying that the White House is less important than people are saying it is. Instead, we need a two-point focus for 2012 that doesn’t include the White House. We don’t need 999 points. Just two. 1). Gaining control of Congress and 2). turning Obama out. The identity and purity of our presidential nominee is the last thing we should be worried about at this point. It is a bit late for that anyway.

Let me assure you that I don’t have a favorite in this GOP race. And I have three real dislikes: Romney, Huntsman, and Ron Paul. This article is no stealth shilling for any particular candidate. I really do have big problems with all of them. But, again, I don’t think it matters which of them we pick if we focus on the two points I note above.

First of all, any of the GOP candidates (yes even the cranky uncle of the GOP, Ron Paul) would be better than Obama. But that goes without saying because I am a conservative that votes Republican. No surprise there, really.

But there are reasons besides blind partisanship that any of the GOP nominees is better than Obama. In fact, it can really be boiled down to but one issue that makes getting rid of Obama imperative: the courts. He has been thoroughly destructive to this country with his judicial picks.

Aside from the courts, of course, Obama has been a very destructive president in many ways — another reason to be rid of him. He’s presided over the continued destruction of our business sector and our economy, we all understand. But there’s more.

Obama has already turned his power to regulate into a tool of Big Labor and United Nations-styled socialism. He’s unleashed his extremist appointees and given them the freedom to push every anti-business, anti-worker, anti-American idea they can possibly get through.

There’s more.

Obama has also created all sorts of extra-constitutional czars and “advisory” committees, the President has issued a slew of dangerous executive orders, and he’s made all sorts of horrible moves in foreign policy. But all this can be quickly negated by a new president — quickly in terms relative to how Washington works, anyway. An active new president could make headway to reverse these Obamanations almost immediately. None of these changes, as bad as they are, have the misfortune of being irrevocably permanent.

But there is great danger that another four years of Obama will create, one that cannot be easily reversed. Obama has been steadily placing radical judges on benches throughout this land. His nominees tend to be abortion activists (not just abortion supporters, but out-and-out activists), Big Labor dupes, anti-Second Amendment activists, and the like. Many are so radical that even Democrats haven’t been able to convince themselves to vote them in.

Let’s just take his latest nominee for the DC Court of Appeals for example. Caitlin Halligan, a close associate of the disgraced Eliot Spitzer in New York, is an extremist anti-Second Amendment activist. If she gets on the bench she will take every opportunity she can to damage the Constitution.

A past example is his attempt to put a radical racemongering ACLU member on the bench in California. Obama’s attempt to place Edward Chen on the bench succeeded, unfortunately.

Let us not forget that the Supreme Court of the United States is already in a delicate balance tipped only barely in favor of conservatives. It is easy to see that with the ages of the current oldest members of the court, the next presidential term will see perhaps as many as three chances to replace retiring justices.

As conservatives we must put our desire for a pure conservative president in second place to the pursuit for the next nominees for the US Supreme Court. The fact is, if Obama gets a chance to put more judges on the bench, especially on the SCOTUS, he will be able to damage this country for decades to come.

I can hear just what you are saying at this point. But Warner, you are saying, if we don’t get a pure conservative president we will still get bad judicial picks, won’t we? If we get an abortion lover like Romney (Or is he? Do you believe his miraculous conversion? I don’t) we’ll still get squishes as judges, won’t we?

I’m hearin’ ya, friends, I’m hearin’ ya.

That is why we desperately need to focus on point two: taking the entire Congress under GOP control. And not just GOP control but conservative GOP control. We have the House now, certainly, but we need to make that control stronger. But more importantly we need to take control of the Senate. Both houses of Congress need to be under GOP control and we need to put conservatives in there to do the controlling.

This is the thing, folks. We need to have the most conservative Congress that we can get. A conservative Congress, you see, will drag the squishy Romney, the unpredictable Newt, the isolationist Paul, or any of the others along behind them whether those folks want to go or not. You see, if we have a more conservative Senate, a president will understand that soft, moderate or leans-left judicial nominees will not be acceptable. A conservative Congress — if we as voters force them to toe the line and get active — will force a president to be more conservative despite his inclinations.

As far as judicial nominees go, even if we do get soft nominees that lean conservative only 70% of the time we will have justices that at least act like Americans! If Obama gets another four years he’ll continue to put people on the bench that despise this country. And these people serve for life, don’t forget, so they will be there to continue destroying this country for decades.

This is something we must work hard to prevent. It is imperative that we deny Obama and his extremist, under-the-table agenda from continuing.

It isn’t a happy predicament to be forced to settle for a less conservative president, to be sure. But that is where we are whether we like it or not. Better than we start to realize where the important matters are located and it ain’t in the presidential election as far as GOP nominees is concerned.

(CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson)ATF officials didn’t intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called “Demand Letter 3?. That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or “long guns.” Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF’s Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:

“Bill – can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.”

On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as “(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue.” And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: “Bill–well done yesterday… (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case.”

One thing to note, the gun control being pushed here was not about the typical Liberal bugaboos, assault rifles (which are any rifle that looks scary) and handguns. That said, this is really the first confirmation that Los Federales wanted to use the operation to enact some controls on long gun sales because they and the other federal agencies were forcing gun shop owners to sell them multiple long guns which they then let walk across the Mexican border without alerting the Mexican government, and then said guns were used to kill lots of people, including a US Border Agent, Brian Terry.

Every day we seem to get more revelations about Fast and Furious and Operation Gunwalker. Eric Holder gets to talk to Congress again today. Just think back to the Bush years: the Democrats and their MSM supporters would be calling for Bush’s impeachment by this point.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

(Daily Caller) Embattled Attorney General Eric Holder today demanded The Daily Caller stop publishing articles about the growing calls in Congress for his resignation because of the failed Operation Fast and Furious gun-walking program.

As Holder’s aide was escorting the attorney general offstage following his remarks Tuesday afternoon at the White House, a Daily Caller reporter introduced himself and shook Holder’s hand. The reporter asked him for a response to the growing chorus of federal legislators demanding his resignation.

Holder stepped towards the exit, then turned around, stepped back toward the reporter, and sternly said, “You guys need to — you need to stop this. It’s not an organic thing that’s just happening. You guys are behind it.”

Holder then walked offstage without answering TheDC’s request for comment about calls for his resignation.

So, Holder thinks that the DC is behind so many people calling for his own resignation? Sheesh, it’s not like some 300 people, including Border Patrol agent Brian Terry were killed by the guns that the ATF, a department of Holder’s DOJ, let walk into Mexico, without alerting the government of Mexico, and without tracking the guns at all….oh, that did happen? Hmph. Strange. If Holder was a Republican, the Democrats would call for a criminal investigation and prosecution.

Currently 52 members of Congress, three presidential candidates and two sitting Governors have called for Holder’s immediate resignation. Many of those lawmakers and political figures have issued statements exclusively to The Daily Caller in which they have called for Holder to step down. This is chiefly because TheDC is the most prominent mainstream media outlet covering this burgeoning international scandal.

It’s because the DC is one of the only media outlets bothering to cover and investigate Fast and Furious/Operation Gunrunner. Most liberal media outlets will, at best, simply report the basics. But, the big boys, NY Times, Washington Post, ABC News, MSNBC, etc, do not investigate, which was the point of giving the press a specific mention in the 1st Amendment, to be able to investigate, ask questions, and publish information regarding the government without fear of reprisal.

Apparently Politico does not like the new concealed-carry reciprocity law recently passed in Congress. They must not like it. After all, aside from covering it in a negative light, the newser so badly misstated the law that it could easily turn its readers against the whole idea. But perhaps that’s the idea?

The law, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, would allow gun owners that have a concealed-carry license in their home state to carry their firearm in another state if that state also has a carry law in place. The law, however, does not allow someone to carry a firearm in a state that does not currently allow its own citizens to enjoy concealed-carry rights.

All this law does is standardize the lawful status of interstate gun carriers so that law-abiding citizens are not confused by and in fear of violating the many different state statutes concerning their firearms when traveling.

But that isn’t what Politco said on Nov. 15 in its overwrought and badly fact-checked piece. Not only is Politico spectacularly wrong, but it leads with a false reading of what the bill does. (My bold for emphasis)

If congressional gun-rights stalwarts get their way, a firearms owner with a concealed-weapons permit issued in Utah could be allowed to carry that gun in New York — regardless of the gun laws in the Empire State.

Politico is simply wrong that the bill would allow concealed-carry regardless of the gun laws in any state.

Politico goes on to report how critics of the bill are trying to use states’ rights claims against the bill to prevent its passage. One would think that this is not a very reliable tactic in this case. After all, the Second Amendment is a Constitutional issue so it’s a bit harder to claim that all gun laws are local issues. If it’s a guaranteed right in the Constitution, that makes it a bit hard to claim that it shouldn’t at all be a federal issue!

Another false claim of those that oppose this law is that state laws are nullified and replaced by some national concealed-carry law. This is also bunk.

Politico gives space to a New York State Attorney who claims that his state’s stricter laws on who can and cannot carry would be nullified by forcing New York to accept the concealed-carry rights of other states. But this is not a true statement.

The law only pertains to travelers, not residents. The law clearly says that the new concealed-carry reciprocity only affects a traveler who is in any State “other than the State of residence of the person.”

Therefore, New York’s laws still pertain to New Yorkers and the new reciprocity law only pertains to someone from another state when he is traveling through New York, not if he becomes a resident.

Amusingly, lefty gun-banners have in the past insisted that there be a nationalized gun law, a sort of national license to have a gun. But, all of a sudden, now they are against it. Naturally, Politico doesn’t mention that fact.

Another fact that Politico doesn’t seem to mention is that we currently have over 7 million Americans with licenses to carry a firearm yet there is little evidence of “blood in the streets” — as the fearmongering of lefty gun-haters is stated — due to these many lawful gun carriers.

Politico also cites four supporters of the new law in four paragraphs, yet gives 8 paragraphs to five opponents of the bill, including a representative of the extremist Brady Campaign. The National Rifle Association is not quoted, curiously enough.

It should be a no-brainer this law. After all, every state but one (the anti-Constitution state of Illinois) has one kind of carry permit allowance or another. And we have reciprocity laws already in most states as it is. Pennsylvania, for instance, already allows the citizens of 25 other states to concealed-carry and there has been no widespread problems doing so in Pennsylvania or any other state.

In any case, the Politico coverage is decidedly more negative than positive on the law not to mention characterizing it incorrectly. It is obvious that Politico’s reportage was meant to dissuade not inform.

–Also see Al American Blogger

Herman Cain has moved into a tie with Mitt Romney atop the field of Republican presidential candidates, according to a new CBS News poll, while Rick Perry has fallen 11 percentage points in just two weeks.

The poll shows Cain, who stood at just five percent support two weeks ago, now holding 17 percent support among Republican primary voters. That puts the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO into a tie with Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, whose support has essentially held steady over the past two weeks. Perry, meanwhile, has dropped from 23 percent support to just 12 percent support over the past two weeks, a sign that the Texas governor’s shaky debate performances – in which he has alienated portions of both the Republican base and the party establishment – have taken their toll.

And check out this PPP Poll that has him in the lead in three states. He’s on a roll for sure.

Here are the numbers:
North Carolina: Cain 27, Romney/Gingrich 17, Perry 15, Paul/Bachmann 6, Santorum/Huntsman 2
Nebraska: Cain 30, Gingrich 16, Romney 13, Bachmann/Perry 10, Paul 5, Santorum 4, Huntsman 2
West Virginia: Cain 24, Gingrich 18, Romney 16, Perry 15, Bachmann 8, Paul 6, Santorum 3, Huntsman 1
The thing fueling Cain’s lead in all of these states is strong support from the furthest right segment of the Republican electorate. Cain is at 35% with ‘very conservative’ voters and has a 14 point lead over Perry with them in North Carolina. In Nebraska he’s at 36% with them, putting him up 22 points over Gingrich and Perry. And in West Virginia he gets 25% with them, giving him a 9 point edge on Gingrich and Perry.

We already know he leads in Florida, now these three states, and his home state of Georgia. He also leads in “positive intensity” in Gallups new poll.
Just a roundup to show what standing on principles with a well articulated plan can do for you. Will this trend continue? I gave up predicting politics, but personally I hope so. This candidate shares more in common with my principles than any other viable option right now. And….now Herman Cain rises up to tie for second in the a Washington Post National Poll while Perry falls in support.

After a quick rise in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, Texas Gov. Rick Perry has experienced an almost equally dramatic decline, losing about half of his support over the past month, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Perry’s slide, which comes after several uneven performances in candidate debates, has allowed former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney to resurface atop the GOP field. But the most direct beneficiary of the disenchantment with Perry is businessman Herman Cain, who is now tied for second place.

Ed Morrissey:

The big news here is Herman Cain, especially among those to whom he is news. He easily gets the best score among the contestants on the question “the more you hear about X, do you like him/her more or less?” Cain gets at 47/12 on that question, while Romney gets a 38/35 and Perry gets a red-flag 30/44. Christie comes close to Cain in this category at 43/23, but Palin’s closer to Perry at 35/49.
Cain appears to have caught fire, but as we saw with Perry, all that means is that the scrutiny of the media — and the other candidates — will now turn to Cain. We’ll see how well he handles the heat, but another good debate performance might push him into the leading Not-Romney slot in the race.

I agree, the media will get their fangs out soon if Cain’s rise continues, and the heat will increase on Cain in next week’s debates. If he performs good again then the trend will increase as more people start paying attention. The heat will also increase for Romney:

All of this sets things up nicely for next week’s debate at Dartmouth. Perry was in the lead in the last few debates, making him target number one for all of the other candidates. He might get a breather this time around, as Romney is back to frontrunner status and Cain’s rise draws attention. Romney is carrying an awful lot of baggage that has not been explored in any of the previous debates — he’s questionable on gun rights, as governor was weak on sanctuary cities, RomneyCare, his general history of flip-flopping. A campaign of reminding voters that whatever Romney is saying now, he has probably said the exact opposite and it’s all on tape somewhere, could be effective. And, if Chris Christie is in the race, then Romney gets to fight off the nightmare of having another blue state Republican governor crowd his space, bringing his charisma into the battle.

There is also this from Florida:

Cain is now running in second place in Florida now that his support surged nearly 19 percentage points after last month’s Republican Party of Florida’s Presidency 5 debate and straw poll, according to a survey of likely Florida voters conducted by Gainesville-based War Room Logistics, which typically polls for Republicans.
Meantime, Perry’s support plummeted nearly 16 percentage points.
Perry had been tied as a Florida frontrunner with Mitt Romney at about 25 percent on Sept. 20, dropped to third/fourth place with 9 percent of the vote where he’s statistically tied with Newt Gingrich (10 percent).

The Italians have caused an outrage among American firearms customers. A Italian company named Chiappa Firearms sent out a press release (in Italian) last week announcing that it will soon be putting inside each firearm it manufactures an RFID chip (Radio Frequency Identification) meant to track quality control, inventory, and shipping. American gun owners and consumers were whipped into a frenzy of suspicion and fear that government agents will be able to use these RFID chips to track their firearms. But what are the facts and will these RFID tags become common with all firearms manufacturers in the near future?

First of all there is a lot of fear about the capabilities of governments to use RFID chips for nefarious purposes. These are devices that can radio information to someone with a device as inexpensive as $250 and without any “approval” needed for the reading. These chips can relay all sorts of information from location, to detailed records of all sorts.

There are several different kinds of chips but most uses require non-powered chips that can only be read at short distances. In other words we are told that a satellite orbiting in space cannot read a non-powered RFID chip from that distance. Some chips can only be read for a few feet others a few meters.

Despite all the poo pooing that advocates of RFID chips release to ease people’s minds, this identification technology is far easier to misuse than any other ID technology ever invented. But that does not make RFID chips all bad, either.

The fact is, RFID chips are a dream device for manufacturers to identify their products from fabrication all the way to delivery of final products to retail customers. It makes life much easier for companies trying to track their work, improve their process, and make more money.

Companies like Walmart already use RFID chips and so do many others. Book sellers, libraries, even ranchers and farmers use RFID chips to keep track of their livestock.

But, let’s face it, guns are not books or sheep. They are something else entirely and bring a whole different level of fear, paranoia and suspicion to the discussion. Not without good reason, too.

Chiappa Firearms makes modern firearms but also makes reproductions of antique firearms like the late 1800s/early 1900s Sharp’s Rifle so the government regulations governing Chiappa’s products vary widely. The company’s products are pretty varied as firearms go, as well.

For it’s part Chiappa Firearms is saying they intend only to use the RFID chips in their firearms for quality control and shipping purposes not so the U.S. government can track firearms owners.

Further, Chiappa says that this RFID process will be de rigueur for every firearms maker in the next few years. Firearms owners better get used to the idea, they say. Also, it is a new mandate by the Italian government so they don’t have a choice.

Chiappa dismisses worried about their chips saying that the RFID tags can be easily removed by the gun buyer. They are simply hot glued into the grip area of their pistols (I’m not sure where they are in their rifles) and can be flecked out with a knife tip.

Not surprisingly, none of this has made gun owners in the U.S. feel any better about the chips.

A gun blog called TheTruthAboutGuns.com was one of the first to report Chiappa’s announcement about adding RFID to their manufacturing process. The blog was not happy about it, to be sure. The blog worries that even as Chiappa says their chips can’t be reprogrammed from simple manufacturing needs to long distance tracking it will be too easy to change them into something else. “Chiappa says that the chips can’t be re-programmed, but someone somewhere will figure it out,” they said on the blog post.

Which leads me to wonder how much in sales will this end up costing them? While there may be several advantages to this new technology, as it applies to Chiappa’s manufacturing process, I can’t help but wonder how people will abuse it. Tech savvy criminals have already found out how to exploit the RFID chips that are in new credit cards, what’s to stop them from exploiting this new application too?

Unfortunately, the realist in me realizes that anything the Brady Bunch (Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence) or Mayors Against Illegal Guns would like raises the hair on the back of my neck for a good reason.

The Orlando Gun Lawyer is equally skeptical that the chips won’t be used to track individual gun owners. “It’s Italian government mandated, and while they claim “big brother” is not currently electronically monitoring your firearm — you’d better remove the sucker before they do,” he writes.

The Firearms Blog is also worried that the chips are not just passive devices but can be read “at long ranges.”

Not to be outdone, dozens of gun-themed message boards are enflamed with the topic.

The U.S. distributor of Chiappa firearms has not helped the situation by issuing a press release that essentially calls potential American customers idiots for worrying about the RFID tags.

Check out the disdain and disrespect that MKS Distributing has shown for its own customers:

Recently there has been some blogger activity concerning Chiappa Firearms putting a RFID (radio frequency identification) in Chiappa Firearms. Yes, but Chiappa will not be using the RFID system for at least a year.

RUMOR: The erroneous information about some sort of “chip” was put out by a blogger who translated Chiappa (Italian) technical information incorrectly. The incorrect translation and his interpretation came out as some sort of a GPS type tracking “chip” -which RFID isn’t as it cannot transmit anything-it has NO power source (unlike cell phones).

THE FACTS: Recently several Italian gun makers (not just Chiappa) decided to utilize RFID technology to improve manufacturing and provide more accurate inventory control. We guarantee this technology will proliferate to other gun makers world wide as it is so efficient for everything from production QC control to export/import varification. Other industries already use passive RFID technology such as on DVDs, sunglasses, clothes and even some food products for example.

Basically Chiappa RFID (again it is radio frequency identification) assists the manufacturing process, inventory control and shipping. The type of information on the RFID ties in the firearm and proof house verification; the latter is required by the Italian Government for all firearms made in Italy. Passive RFID is also a final check that verifies that what is inside the sealed box is the same thing as shown on the box exterior bar code during shipping. Now, it will no longer be necessary to open/inspect hundreds of boxes by hand prior to packing in export containers.

BOTTOM LINE: The Chiappa PASSIVE RFID can be read ONLY when passed within (2-3 inches) of an active (and powered) reader that is dialed in for the particular long antenna radio frequency of the RFID-this is not random. And it will NOT go into operation for a year or more.

SUMMARIZING: RFIDs have NO power source or GPS locator. Rest assured they are NOT transmitting your identification and location information to a Chiappa Firearm tasked CIA satellite.

RFID Removal: For those still concerned you can simply remove the grip and remove the hot glued RFID from the frame in the grip area when (over a year from now) these begin to appear. Others may prefer to wrap the revolver and their head in aluminum foil, curl in a ball and watch reruns of Mel Gibson’s 1997 film, Conspiracy Theory. Well, that’s a plan too!

Sheese. Telling customers to “wrap their head in aluminum foil” is not the best way to engender customer loyalty, is it?

In any case, what we have here is a clash between technology and privacy concerns — not to mention Constitutional rights — a clash that won’t be easily solved by a snarky press release and bland denouncements from government mandated programs.

**UPDATE**

Chiappa Firearms has released a new info sheet explaining its intentions with the RFID chips. (See a .PDF here)

The company reports that it has received “a lot of mail expressing disappointment about the RFID project.” Some of them “were very offensive,” the company claims. But the avalanche of letters and email did help them “understand the position of the US market,” they said in the press release.

Chiappa says that a big factor in adopting an RFID system was based on government regulations in their native Italy. The firearms need to be identified several times in the Italian proofing system and this necessitates an easy ID system.

Finally, the company says that the feedback has convinced them to make the RFID chip even more easily removed by having the chip in a plastic sticker on the outside of the trigger guard, something that can just be peeled off once the firearm goes up for sale to the public.

“The US consumer can rest assured that Chiappa Firearms is placing the customer’s interest first and foremost, while developing the most efficient method of firearm manufacturing possible,” they assure customers.

An FBI Denver Joint Terrorism Task Force handout being distributed to Colorado military surplus store owners lists the purchase of popular preparedness items and firearms accessories as “suspicious” and “potential indicators of terrorist activities,” instructing store owners to keep records on and report people who:

“Make bulk purchase of items to include: Weatherproofed ammunition or match containers; Meals Ready to Eat; Night Vision Devices; night flashlights; gas masks; High capacity magazines; Bi-pods or tri-pods for rifles”

The FBI handout, entitled “Communities Against Terrorism: Potential Indicators of Terrorist Activities Related to Military Surplus Stores” also instructs surplus store owners to:

“Require valid ID from all new customers; Keep records of purchases’ Talk to customers, ask questions, and listen to and observe their responses; Watch for people and actions that are out of place; Make note of suspicious statements, people, and /or vehicles; If something seems wrong, notify law enforcement authorities.”

The handout also instructs surplus store owners to consider as “suspicious” anyone who “demands identity ‘privacy’” or anyone who expresses “extreme religious statements” and those who “make suspicious comments regarding anti-US, [or] radical theology.”

The “Communities Against Terrorism” flyer closes by stating:

Preventing terrorism is a community effort. By learning what to look for, you can make a positive contribution in the fight against terrorism. The partnership between the community and law enforcement is essential to the success of anti -terrorism efforts.

More HERE

Let me give a more realistic set of terrorism indicators: Possession of a Koran; Getting your butt up in the air 5 times a day; saying “inshallah”, “Allah Akhbar” or “Peace be upon him”; wearing long white coats; being seen inside a mosque.

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here