2nd Amendment advocates worry over opinions of OSHA nominee
By Bob Unruh
Second Amendment advocates are expressing alarm that the most significant attack on gun rights across the United States in years soon could come in the form of a workplace “safety” regulation under President Obama’s nominee to run the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Obama has nominated David Michaels, a George Washington University professor and the chief of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy, which reportedly partially is funded by George Soros.
“The controversial OSHA nominee and left-leaning public health advocate also seems to have strong views on firearms,” wrote Walter Olson at Overlawyered.com.
“That’s by no means irrelevant to the agenda of an agency like OSHA, because once you start viewing private gun ownership as a public health menace, it begins to seem logical to use the powers of government to urge or even require employers to forbid workers from possessing guns on company premises, up to and including parking lots, ostensibly for the protection of co-workers.”
WND has reported on Obama’s czars and has published a Whistleblower magazine issue on the “shadow government” officials gradually being installed in positions of power in Washington.
Two already have met problems. Green jobs czar Van Jones quit his post after reporting, largely by WND, of his self-described communist beliefs and his belief that the Bush administration was behind the 9/11 attacks. Also, White House communications director Anita Dunn, who launched a verbal assault on Fox News as an “arm” of the GOP, reportedly will step down this month.
Now comes Michaels, who although he would have to be approved by the U.S. Senate, comes with views that concern Second Amendment advocates.
Only two years ago, Michaels condemned proposals in Georgia and Florida that would have allowed workers to carry guns to and from their places of work for protection.
He continued in his 2007 writing to laud the ability of the federal government to respond by creating new laws to ban activities or behaviors.
“When the toll of preventable and pointless deaths or injuries from any single event or related events becomes so great, or particular aspects of the story bring it to the public’s attention, our nation invariably demands more and stronger regulation, not less,” Michaels wrote at the time.
“We saw this recently with the disaster at West Virginia’s Sago Mine, when a mine explosion and failed rescue attempts resulted in the deaths of 14 miners. Within months, Congress passed the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response (MINER) Act,” he said.
“This is not true only of recent times. On the heels of the Elixir Sulfanilamide scandal, in which a medicine manufactured with antifreeze killed scores of children, Congress passed the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, requiring for the first time that pharmaceutical manufacturers prove the safety of their products before marketing them,” he continued.
“It’s hard to count all of the lives that this Act has saved, but one example stands out: The United States avoided the plague of thalidomide-related birth defects that ravaged Europe in the early 1960s as a result of controls granted the FDA under that legislation. A regulatory hero, FDA medical officer Dr. Frances Kelsey, had blocked U.S. licensing of thalidomide on the basis of inadequate safety data,” he wrote.
“In the U.S., we see an average of one gun-related homicide every 45 minutes, or 32 each day,” he wrote. “These are usually treated as isolated incidents, until a horrific event like the Virginia Tech massacre reawakens the public and strengthens public health advocates who are attempting to prevent gun violence.”
At RedCounty.com, writer Bryan Myrick noted that the Washington Times has urged the Senate to reject Michaels’ nomination.
“OSHA is an agency that already has a well-earned reputation for abusing its authority and reaching beyond its stated purpose. Add one zealot and it easily becomes an oppressive entity with immense power over all American businesses, large and small. At a time in which America’s businesses desperately need the freedom to responsibly pursue earning profits and put workers back on the payroll, the chemical potency of combining Obama’s left-wing agenda with an anti-business zealot manager at OSHA could prove toxic,” Myrick wrote.
The first vote on Michaels’ nomination already was canceled by the Senate Committee on Health, Labor, Education and Pensions.
At the Examiner, gun rights writer David Codrea warned that some “public health” excuse could be used for imposing draconian restrictions on gun owners.
He cited the comment from a director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Control and Prevention that, “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly, and banned.”
“Does anyone doubt that Michaels will bring a similarly creative agenda to apply through regulatory measures under the guise of ‘occupational safety and health?’” he asked.
The BD Law firm in Washington posted a statement that Michaels is expected to bring major changes if approved. The law firm quoted Michaels’ writing from earlier this year that OSHA “badly needs a change in direction and philosophy” and it should include a “campaign to change the workplace culture of safety.”
The National Gun Rights organization called him an “anti-gunner.”
Columnist Dave Kopel at the Independence Institute in Colorado said, “Plenty of Obama’s administration appointees have a longer record of anti-gun activism than David Michaels, but perhaps none of them have the ability to make such a dramatic, instant change in the lives of law-abiding gun owners.
“By its own fiat, OSHA could outlaw the possession of firearms in every workplace and every employee parking lot in the United States,” he wrote.
“That David Michaels is anti-gun is undisputed,” he continued.
“The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution means that a valid federal law or regulation wins in any conflict with a state law. Many states have laws that protect the rights of employees to store lawful firearms in parking lots at work. If an OSHA regulation prohibiting such storage existed, the federal regulation would trump state law,” he said.
“Under Michaels, OSHA could write a regulation stating that it is illegal for any business to allow guns in the workplace or in parking lots. No handgun could be locked in the trunk of a car, even if the owner has a Right-to-Carry license. No rifle could be stored in the car, even if there’s no ammunition around and the gun will be dropped off at the gunsmith after work,” he said.
Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, had supported Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns before it was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. And since Obama has been in office, he’s already advocated for a treaty that would require a federal license for hunters to reload their ammunition, has expressed a desire to ban “assault” weapons, has seen a plan to require handgun owners to submit to mental health evaluations and sparked a rush on ammunition purchases with his history of anti-gun positions.
Besides its reporting on Van Jones and Anita Dunn, WND previously reported on the controversy over the appointment of Kevin Jennings, a homosexual rights promoter, to oversee the office of school safety in the Department of Education.
Regulatory czar Cass Sunstein also has, among other issues, stated that marriage discriminates against singles
Ultimate 5th column penetration, warns best-selling ‘Muslim Mafia’
“Muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor.” That’s what Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan said about America before he and possibly other Muslim soldiers at Fort Hood shot 43 fellow soldiers, killing 12, who were returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
“He said Muslims had a right to attack” the U.S., said Col. Terry Lee, who worked with Hasan at the Texas post, where the devout Sunni Muslim refused deployment. “He said Muslims shouldn’t be fighting Muslims,” he added. “He was very clear on that.”
Shockingly, a growing number of other Muslim American soldiers as well as civilian contractors have put their religion before their duty. Some like Hasan have killed, or tried to kill, their fellow soldiers. Others have infiltrated the military in order to undermine it and aid and comfort the enemy.
According to an explosive new book, “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America,” Hasan is just the tip of a jihadist Fifth Column operating within the ranks of the U.S. military – which is too blinded by political correctness to see the threat.
Quoting from a classified military briefing, “Muslim Mafia” reveals that this Fifth Column has penetrated “every branch of the U.S. military.” The Islamist enemy has even infiltrated the al-Qaida detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Security officials at Gitmo have been investigating a possible new spy ring involving several “dirty” Arabic linguists who are accused among other things of:
- omitting valuable intelligence from their translations of detainee interrogations;
- slipping notes to detainees inside copies of the Quran;
- coaching detainees to make allegations of abuse against interrogators; and
- meeting with suspects on the terrorist watchlist while traveling back in the United States.
More than 75 former Gitmo detainees have returned to the battlefield or anti-American jihad. Some met with the suspect Muslim translators. Others were privately counseled by chaplains also under investigation for security breaches.
Gitmo security officials recently met with FBI agents in Philadelphia to aid their investigation into one of the Muslim linguists under contract at Gitmo, according to sources quoted in the book who are familiar with the investigation.
They also this summer briefed members of Congress about the prison camp’s internal security breaches, according to “Muslim Mafia,” which is co-authored by former federal agent P. David Gaubatz and investigative journalist Paul Sperry, author of “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington,” which is being used by law enforcement and the military.
“Three years of investigations have revealed the presence of pro-jihad/anti-Western activities among the civilian contractor and military linguist population serving Joint Task Force Guantanamo,” states a copy of the classified Gitmo briefing, which was prepared in May 2009 for the FBI and CIA, as well as the congressional intelligence committees.
The report explains that dirty Arabic linguists have gathered classified data involving detainees, interrogations and security operations in an effort to “disrupt” Gitmo operations and U.S. “intelligence-collection capabilities.”
It goes on to specifically finger the Muslim Brotherhood, which it calls a terrorist group, in the conspiracy. The Muslim Brotherhood and its U.S. operations and front groups are the subject of “Muslim Mafia.”
“These actions are deliberate, carefully planned, global, and to the benefit of the detainees and multiple terrorist organizations, to include al-Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood,” the briefing states, according to the bestselling book.
The enemy infiltration is not limited to Guantanamo.
The report strongly suggests that Islamist spies have penetrated nearly every sensitive U.S. security agency involved in the war on terror, potentially compromising intelligence government-wide.
“Persons participating in this activity move regularly between multiple contracting companies, various intelligence agencies in the U.S. government [FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, etc.], and every branch of the U.S. military.”
The investigation comes on the heels of a major Muslim espionage ring that the FBI broke up at Gitmo in 2004.
A former Army Muslim chaplain was charged with espionage, mishandling classified documents, and lying to investigators, and served hard time in the stockade. Two of his Muslim brothers at Gitmo, both Arabic interpreters, were convicted of stealing or mishandling classified documents.
Hasan, the alleged Fort Hood terrorist, is a U.S. citizen whose Palestinian parents emigrated from the West Bank.
Col. Lee said Hasan complained about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He had hoped President Obama would quickly end them, but when they “didn’t come to a quick end, he got more agitated.”
This summer, Lee says he overheard Hasan praise the Muslim who shot two soldiers at a military recruiting station in Little Rock, Ark.
“He was happy” about it, Lee said in an interview with Fox News. “He said ‘Maybe we should have more of these people. Maybe people should strap [on] bombs and go into town squares.’”
There are some 40 Muslims at Fort Hood, and an estimated 15,000 Muslims serving throughout the U.S. armed forces.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations cautioned against a rush to judgment about the shooter’s motives.
“The motive of the attacker is not yet known,” insisted CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. (The FBI recently cut off ties to the Washington-based group after identifying it as a front group for Hamas terrorists in the largest terror finance case in U.S. history. CAIR and its founding chairman were named unindicted terrorist co-conspirators in the case.)
But other current and former Muslims, who oppose CAIR and dispute its claims to representing American Muslims, say the shooter’s motive is clear: violent jihad in the name of radical Islam.
“America needs to awaken from its sleep and its unwillingness to face the issue of fundamentalist Islam in our midst which undoubtedly is the cause of the tragedy in Fort Hood,” said Walid Shoebat, a former Islamist terrorist.
“Some very serious decisions need to [be] made when it comes to having Muslims protecting our country, as it is impossible to know whether they may be honorable or foxes in the hen house.”
‘It’s only a matter of time before the public realizes it’
Editor’s Note: The following report is excerpted from Jerome Corsi’s Red Alert, the premium online newsletter published by the current No. 1 best-selling author, WND staff writer and columnist. This week, he is including a Chapter One excerpt from his book, “America for Sale.”Red Alert subscriptions are $99 a year or $9.95 per month for credit card users. Annual subscribers will receive a free autographed copy of “The Late Great USA,” a book about the careful deceptions of a powerful elite who want to undermine our nation’s sovereignty.
The real 2008 federal budget deficit was $5.1 trillion, not the $455 billion previously reported by the Congressional Budget Office, according to the 2008 Financial Report of the United States Government released by the U.S. Department of Treasury, Jerome Corsi’s Red Alert reports.
The difference between the $455 billion “official” budget deficit numbers and the $5.1 trillion budget deficit based on data reported in the 2008 financial report is that the official budget deficit is calculated on a cash basis, where all tax receipts, including Social Security tax receipts, are used to pay government liabilities as they occur.
The calculations in the 2008 financial report are calculated on a GAAP basis (“Generally Accepted Accounting Practices”) that includes year-for-year changes in the net present value of unfunded liabilities in social insurance programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Under cash accounting, the government makes no provision for future Social Security and Medicare benefits in the year in which those benefits accrue.
Economist John Williams, who publishes the website Shadow Government Statistics, told Corsi, “As bad as 2008 was, the $455 billion budget deficit on a cash basis and the $5.1 trillion federal budget deficit on a GAAP accounting basis do not reflect any significant money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, which was approved after the close of the fiscal year.”
He continued, “For 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the fiscal year 2009 budget deficit as being $1.2 trillion on a cash basis, and that was before taking into consideration the full costs of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, before the cost of the Obama nearly $800 billion economic stimulus plan, or the cost of the second $350 billion tranche in TARP funds, as well as all current bailouts being contemplated by the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve.”
Williams told Corsi the federal government’s deficit is hemorrhaging at a pace that threatens the viability of the financial system. He said the 2009 budget deficit will clearly exceed $2 trillion on a cash basis and the full amount must be funded by Treasury borrowing. He noted that it’s not likely to happen without the Federal Reserve acting as lender of last resort by buying Treasury debt and monetizing the debt.
Corsi explained, “‘Monetizing the debt’ is a term used to signify that the U.S. Treasury will ultimately be required to print cash to meet Treasury debt obligations, acting in this capacity only because the Treasury cannot sell the huge amount of debt elsewhere, possibly not even to the Federal Reserve.”
So far, the Treasury has been largely dependent upon foreign buyers, principally China and Japan and other major holders of U.S. dollar foreign exchange reserves, including Middle East oil-producing nations purchasing U.S. debt through their financial agents in London.
“The appetite of foreign buyers to purchase continued trillions of U.S. debt has become more questionable as the world has witnessed the rapid deterioration of the U.S. fiscal condition in the current financial crisis,” Williams noted.
Corsi wrote, “The sad reality is that the U.S. Treasury has not reserved any funds to cover the future Social Security and Medicare obligations we are incurring today.”
Williams said there are no funds held in reserve today for Social Security and Medicare obligations each year. He said it’s only a matter of time until the public realizes that the government is truly bankrupt.
Corsi wrote that if President Obama adds universal health care to list of entitlement payments the federal government is obligated to pay, the negative net worth of the United States government will only get worse.
Calculations from the 2008 Financial Report of the United States Government show that the GAAP negative net worth of the federal government has increased to $59.3 trillion, while the total federal obligations under GAAP accounting now total $65.5 trillion.
Williams explained the federal government is truly bankrupt and argued that in a post-Enron world, if the federal government were a corporation such as General Motors, “the president and senior Treasury officers would be in federal penitentiary.”
Red Alert’s author, whose books “The Obama Nation” and “Unfit for Command” have topped the New York Times best-sellers list, received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972. For nearly 25 years, beginning in 1981, he worked with banks throughout the U.S. and around the world to develop financial services marketing companies to assist banks in establishing broker/dealers and insurance subsidiaries to provide financial planning products and services to their retail customers. In this career, Corsi developed three different third-party financial services marketing firms that reached gross sales levels of $1 billion in annuities and equal volume in mutual funds. In 1999, he began developing Internet-based financial marketing firms, also adapted to work in conjunction with banks.
In his 25-year financial services career, Corsi has been a noted financial services speaker and writer, publishing three books and numerous articles in professional financial services journals and magazines.
For financial guidance during difficult times, read Jerome Corsi’s Red Alert, the premium, online intelligence news source by the WND staff writer, columnist and author of the New York Times No. 1 best-seller, “The Obama Nation.“
The report comes from Judicial Watch, the Washington public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption.
The organization says it filed a Freedom of Information Act request for Justice Department records concerning incidents of theft of sensitive U.S. military equipment and technology.
The documents from the Justice Department’s National Security Division included a report titled “Significant Export Control Cases Since September 2001″ which was written by the Counter Espionage Section and lists a series of cases.
Judicial Watch said the report, labeled “For Official Use Only,” reported Iran was cited for 31 cases between Sept. 29, 2001, just after the 9/11 terror attacks, and May 16, 2008.
China was cited for 20 cases.
Among the situations that were documented:
- “U.S. v. Eugene Hsu, et al.” (9/21/01): Eugene Hsu, David Chang and Wing Chang were charged with “Conspiracy and an attempt to export military encryption units to China through Singapore.” All received guilty verdicts however Wing Chang is still listed as a fugitive.
- “U.S. v. Avassapian” (12/03): Sherzhik Avassapian was a Tehran-based broker working for the Iranian Ministry of Defense when he attempted to “solicit and inspect F-14 fighter components, military helicopters and C-130 aircraft which he intended to ship to Iran via Italy.” Avassapian pleaded guilty to issuing false statements.
- “U.S. v. Kwonhwan Park” (11/04): Kwonhwan Park was charged with “Exporting Black Hawk engine parts and other military items to China.” Pleaded guilty and sentenced to 32 months in prison.
- “U.S. v. Ghassemi, et al.” (10/06): Iranian national Jamshid Ghassemi and Aurel Fratila were charged with “Conspiracy to export munition list items &emdash; including accelerometers and gyroscopes for missiles and spacecraft &emdash; to Iran without a license.” Ghassemi and Fratila are at large in Thailand and Romania respectively. Justice is currently seeking their deportation.
Judicial Watch said last October, the Department of Justice announced that criminal charges had been issued against more than 145 defendants in the previous fiscal year.
More than 40 percent of the cases involved weaponry, ammunition or other restricted technology intended for China or Iran, Judicial Watch said.
“These documents show that Iran and China have concerted efforts to obtain U.S. military technology in violation of our laws,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
“The Obama administration needs to maintain vigilance against the illegal efforts of enemies such as Iran to obtain our sensitive technologies,” he said.
His organization said items sought by Iran include missile guidance systems, Improvised Explosive Device components, military airplane parts, night vision systems and products desired by China have included rocket launch data, Space Shuttle technology, missile information, naval warship specifications and drone technology.
(Editor’s Note: Msgr. Barreiro, a Doctor of Dogmatic Theology and attorney with years of experience in international diplomacy at the UN, is head of the Rome office of Human Life International.)
All persons of good will need to understand the clear and present danger with which the US is being menaced by the health reform proposed by the Obama Administration. Abortion will be multiplied, the U.S. will move ahead on the road towards euthanasia, conscience rights will be in jeopardy: but what is worse, the United States would start moving towards a tyrannical, socialist government that would be the source of all sort of moral evils.
The current debate on health care reform has to be framed on the basis on some clear principles that are accessible to all persons of good will. The starting point is that health care is a basic human right. All human beings have a right to life from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death.
A consequence of this right is that all human persons are entitled to receive from society the necessary conditions to support life. If those conditions to support life were denied, the right to life would become illusory. One of the necessary means is appropriate health care.
This human right is complemented with the duty of each individual person to do all that he can to protect his own life, which at the same time is the first natural inclination that we find in all human beings. In this case the duty of the person is that, through gainful employment, he should be able to support himself and his natural dependents. This self-support should include healthcare.
The question that has always confronted us is when a person, either due to dysfunctions of society or his own personal handicaps, is not able to provide for himself or his family. In this case a Christian view of society on the basis of justice and charity leads to the support of those persons.
The Catholic Church has established hundreds of health care institutions dedicated primarily to assistance of the poor and destitute that could not afford to pay for appropriate health care. A good many non-Catholic Christian groups have also established such institutions.
In the recent magisterium of the Catholic Church, we can see the recognition of healthcare as a basic human right belonging to all human beings. This was proclaimed by Pius XI in his Encyclical letter, Quadragesimo Anno, n. 28, John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, n. 42, par. 3, and Benedict XVI in his Encyclical Letter, Caritas in Veritate, n. 43. This position has been reiterated in letters to Congress by Bishops William Murphy on July 17th and of Cardinal Justin Rigali of August 11th.
The evident fact that society has an obligation to provide health care to those persons who are not able to obtain it by themselves, should not lead to the conclusion that this service should be provided by the Federal Government. A health care system administered by the Federal Government presents a multitude of problems.
Some have ascertained that the health care reform that is currently being considered by Congress is based on the good end of providing health coverage to all those who lack it. But there are reasonable grounds to be doubtful about this. There could be reasonable concern and doubt if that stated good end is just a cover up and a Trojan Horse to promote birth control and family planning, to expand in horrible ways the availability of abortion, to legalize euthanasia and to overwhelm the rights of conscience of all the persons that are rightfully opposed to those immoral acts.
We have to keep in mind that rights of conscience are violated not only by forcing a person to do what is against his beliefs, but also forcing him to refer a patient to another. If the rights of conscience of health care providers, medical workers and other health care personnel like nurses and pharmacists are not respected it would have catastrophic consequences for American society. All Catholic hospitals and probably many others belonging to different religious groups will have to close, and a substantial amount of their health care personnel will have to leave their professions or emigrate.
We also have to consider that this health program or any other administered by the Federal Government is another step towards socialism, and as a consequence towards the establishment of a despotic and dictatorial government.
Today we witness a constant growth of government programs that control increasing sectors of society. Those programs as a whole represent a growing erosion of the legitimate and traditional freedoms of individuals, and of many organic and natural intermediate societies like the family, villages and towns and the States of the Union.
The persons who established the American Republic were well aware of the risks of despotism that go hand in hand with the existence of a powerful central government. They placed in the Constitution all sort of checks and balances. The establishment of a national health care system would be another step towards the erosion of those constitutional guarantees.
A serious concern shared by most persons who are aware of the U.S. health care system’s problems is the continuing massive increase in the cost of that system. The constant growth of the Federal deficit makes it very unlikely that the central government will reduce those health care costs. More so, what is likely to happen is that the establishment of the proposed reformed national health care system will instead expand the cost of that system through a bloated bureaucracy that will actively promote a materialistic anti-life ideology.
The establishment of this health system will be an attack of the organic principle of subsidiarity. Instead, Americans need to design and develop all sorts of initiatives: first, at a local level, and then at a State level, that would provide some guarantees of health care assistance to the poor and destitute. Taking into account the principle of gratuity so well developed in the encyclical of Benedict XVI Caritas in Veritate, the establishment of non-profit medical facilities and non-profit insurance groups should be encouraged. In the current demographic circumstances those institutions should give a priority to the protection of well established large families.
Last, but not least, the cost of the proposed system should be taken into account. During this time of economic crisis, the tax burden upon American citizens should not be increased. But it should also be considered that excessive taxation not only paves the way towards despotism, it damages the economy. It paves the way towards despotism because one of the guarantees of personal freedom, the establishment of a family patrimony, would be eroded by overtaxation. It damages the economy by killing economic incentive and eliminating disposable income, two of the growth engines of a free market economy.
All persons of good will should make a serious effort to understand the deleterious implications of the Obama administration’s initiatives and oppose this health care reform, through prayer and all possible moral and legal means.