Banning Lead Ammo & Taxing Ammo is a Hot Anti-Gun Strategy

According to the anti-gun left that begrudgingly admits that Americans have a constitutional right to own firearms based on court decisions upholding the 2nd amendment, these anti-gun warriors will never give up until every American is stripped of their firearms or at least denied the ability to purchase ammo.  Therefore, going after ammo is their latest strategy to disarm folks.

In the lunatic asylum known as the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia, a bill has been introduced to ban lead ammo, all in the name of protecting the environment of course.

Bill would ban lead ammunition in California

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Environmentalists are pushing legislation to ban lead ammunition in California to prevent toxins from poisoning scavengers that eat animal remains left by hunters.

However, it's not just California that is considering banning lead bullets, the EPA is also considering banning lead bullets.

Environmental Protection Agency Reviewing Petition to Ban Lead Bullets

Several environmentalist groups led by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) are petitioning the EPA to ban lead bullets and shot (as well as lead sinkers for fishing) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Although EPA is barred by statute from controlling ammunition, CBD is seeking to work farther back along the manufacturing chain and have EPA ban the use of lead in bullets and shot because non-lead alternatives are available. But here's the catch: the alternatives to lead bullets are more expensive. A ban on the sale of lead ammunition would force hunters and sport shooters to buy non-lead ammunition that is often double the cost of traditional lead ammunition. A box of deer hunting bullets in a popular caliber could be upwards of $55.

With the federal government currently buying up so much ammo that the price of ammo is already trending through the roof, invoking the environment as a pretext to ban lead ammo will only further dry up ammo supplies and result in soaring prices.  Without a vigorous inventory of affordable ammo, the 2nd Amendment is DEAD.

However, the anti-2nd Amendment goons have also hatched other schemes to drive up the cost of ammo.  Several states and cities are considering huge taxes on ammo.

Legislators: Taxing Ammo into Oblivion Might Be Easier Than Ridding the Country of Guns

The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once proposed taxing a particularly lethal bullet by 10,000%. It didn’t go anywhere but the idea of taxing ammo keeps coming back. It was recently discussed as part of the UN Arms Trade Treaty but was rejected by the US administration.

Some legislators are now seeing the implausibility of ridding the country of 300 million guns and are coming to the conclusion that it would be easier to tax ammo into oblivion.

Sen. Beth Bye, D-West Hartford, and Rep. Bob Godfrey, D-Danbury said that constituents are urging stringent gun and ammo regulations in the wake of the Newtown massacre.

They came up with proposals to limit access to high powered weapons and ammunition. One proposal would place a 50% tax on bullets.

I would expect that the trend of the War on Ammo will continue and also intensify because its judicially untested but the courts tend to uphold the right of governments anywhere to tax.  California isn't just attempting to ban lead ammo, it's also pursuing a special tax on ammo.

Lawmakers propose new taxes on ammo to go for anti-violence efforts

Two state lawmakers have proposed a tax on ammunition sold in California, but one would use the money raised to pay for increased policing in high-crime areas and the other would provide screening for mental illness in children.

The measures are among nine pieces of legislation proposed Monday by state Assembly members to deal with gun violence. President Obama and others have identified mental health as an issue to be addressed after young, apparently deranged gunmen went on mass killing sprees in Newtown, Ct., and Aurora, Colo., last year.

Assemblyman Roger Dickenson (D-Sacramento) proposed the nickel-a-bullet tax on the sale of ammunition to go for mental health evaluations and intervention in cases where problems are discovered.

"Screening young children for signs of mental illness and addressing any issues early on is the key to a healthier and more productive adult life," Dickenson said in a statement. "A limited tax on ammunition is a small price to pay for better mental health care for children in our state."

Saving the environment?  Mental health screenings for children?  The excuses to disarm the American people are endless, even if ludicrous.

Oh Shit, What to do with the Shit - the USDA vs. the EPA on Government Control of Dairies

Humans have been composting cow and horse manure for eons because it's the mothers milk of organic fertilizers and a black gold that was once cherished by farmers before dangerous chemical fertilizers became widely used.  However, the USDA and the EPA are apparently embroiled in a turf war over the issue.

EPA threatens Wash. State dairies over manure

But USDA says EPA is full of manure.

“[USDA] criticism of EPA states that the reviewer is ‘…highly skeptical of [EPA conclusions] based on their testing methods, procedures, and interpretations of these recorded throughout the report. The report is filled with considerable errors and calculations and interpretations that “…cannot be scientifically defended to arrive at the stated conclusions’.”

The EPA is attempting to assert control over dairy farms in Washington under the pretext that nature made manure poses a potentially dangerous threat to the water supply.

EPA vs. NRCS: Whom Do You Believe?

EPA issued a 307-page report this past September which claims four Washington State dairies produce "…a considerable amount of nitrogenous organic waste." (Manure to you and me.)

The report generated a proposed EPA Administrative Order on Consent for the dairies to sign. EPA claims it has samples from residential drinking wells located in the area of the farms and has determined that nitrate from the manure "…poses an acute health concern…." EPA claims manure "…is likely to enter an underground source of drinking water and that it may present an eminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons and that appropriate state and local authorities have not acted to protect the health of such persons…."

The Safe Drinking Water Act is EPA's authority to take these extraordinary actions against dairy farmers. Generally public health and safety issues are left to the states and localities…not EPA. This dispute arises in Yakima County, Washington. Environmental groups issued notices to sue the dairies and EPA, ever vigilant, did the study, entitled Relation Between Nitrate in Water Wells and Potential Sources in the Lower Yakima Valley, Washington.

EPA demands the dairies "expeditiously reduce risk to human health by providing a permanent, safe alternative water supply to residents using private drinking water wells…."

Dairies must also take action dictated by EPA to control all potential sources of nitrogen at the dairies, establish monitoring wells, number and placement to be determined by EPA, and ensure effective manure management - again to be determined by EPA - and have a public relations campaign which assures the public the dairy facility is acting to protect drinking water. Thus, EPA takes over running the dairies!

If Yakima dairy operators do not abide by the proposed consent order EPA says it will exercise any of its authorities under civil, criminal, statutory, regulatory, or common law authority to enforce the provisions of the order.....

Enter NRCS

The Natural Resources Conservation Service of USDA (NRCS) and the Washington State Dairy Federation believe the facts are different than those portrayed by EPA....

NRCS criticism of EPA states that the reviewer is "…highly skeptical of [EPA conclusions] based on their testing methods, procedures, and interpretations of these recorded throughout the report. The report is filled with considerable errors and calculations and interpretations that "…cannot be scientifically defended to arrive at the stated conclusions."

NRCS comments suggest EPA does not know what it is doing and is dangerous. This is sad, given what appears to have been millions of taxpayer dollars spent by EPA to go after four dairy farmers in Washington State....

The creation of the EPA and vesting the agency with draconian totalitarian powers is right out of the Agenda 21 playbook and its only goal is the massive centralization of power to prevent folks and business from producing food and energy while restricting water use without its explicit approval.  In fact, the EPA's own website confirms that the EPA was spawned by Agenda 21 and the UN.

History of Sustainability

Link: http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/oi.nsf/8bb15fe43a5fb81788256b58005ff079/398761d6c3c7184988256fc40078499b!OpenDocument

History of Sustainability

Creation of EPA and NEPA

In the United States, the first establishment of a national policy for environmental sustainability came in 1969 with the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) whose purpose was to "foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony and fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations."....

Agenda 21

The Earth Summit was larger not only in the level of participation by the nations of the world, but also in the scope of issues it sought to address. Over 100 heads of state and government attended the Earth Summit and 170 nations sent delegations. As part of the Earth Summit, national leaders had an opportunity to sign international conventions on climate change and biodiversity, a "Declaration of Environment and Development" and an Agenda for the 21st Century (a.k.a. Agenda 21), which sought to establish a concerted effort to educate people about the state of both environment and development, and to assist them to make decisions that lead to sustainability.

Secretary General of UNCED, Maurice Strong, summarized Agenda 21 as, a "program of action for a sustainable future for the human family and a first step towards ensuring that the world will become a more just, secure and prosperous habitat for all humanity."

Agenda 21 called on all countries of the world to undertake a comprehensive process of planning and action to attain sustainability. In addition to global agenda, this document also detailed a role for cities and counties. Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 (known as Local Agenda 21) states: "Local authorities construct, operate and maintain economic, social and environmental infrastructure, oversee planning processes, establish local environmental policies and regulations, and ...as the level of government closest to the people, they play a vital role in educating, mobilizing and responding to the public to promote sustainable development."

The EPA doesn't have to scientifically prove that substances leached from manure actually taints the water supply, the EPA only has to suggest that an unproven and false allegation could possibly taint the water supply.

Agenda 21 is all about control - control over food production, control over farms, control over water, control over businesses, control over all land use, control over energy and even control over the ability of an ordinary citizen to grow food and access water on his own property.

More specifically, Agenda 21 is an implemented plan for massive reductions in the human population.  Without food and water, folks simply die and they die in massive numbers.

Why is Obama's EPA Mandating Ethanol Genocide?

When the most draconian and totalitarian global bureaucracies oppose corn ethanol because they recognize its catastrophic and deadly consequences, you have to wonder about the Obama Administration's EPA that continues to mandate ethanol.  You also have to wonder about the Democratic Party.  Liberals claim they embrace humanity and its needs, yet liberals are the driving force in engineering a global murderous famine.

The WTO, FAO, IFAD, IMF, OECD, UNCTAD, WFP, IFPRI, UN HTLF and the World Bank—all signed on to a recommendation to end bio-fuel subsidies and mandates: "Remove provisions of current national policies that subsidize (or mandate) biofuels production or consumption."

Fully 40% of America's corn production goes into ethanol and not because of a free market demand for ethanol fuel but simply because the Obama Administration mandates it. With the drought and withering corn production, America's dwindling corn supply gravely threatens the food chain at all levels. But America doesn't just produce corn for American consumption, it's a major producer of corn in the world.

According to the Minnesota Department of Agriculture:

The US is the world's largest corn producer and exporter, contributing 41% of the world total corn production and 48% of the world's total corn exports. Here.

In poor and third world nations, corn is a staple food.  Moreover, folks in poor nations spend very high percentages of their meager incomes on food.  When the price of a staple food product soars, folks literally die from hunger.

US ethanol polices will massively contribute to global famine.  Meanwhile, America's farmers are among the most highly subsidized and pampered businesses on the planet who routinely fills campaign coffers for protectionism, taxpayer subsidies and ethanol mandates..

This is no longer just a situation of old fashioned American crony capitalism and corporatism that gouges American consumers, it's now a hellish global nightmare and millions will literally starve to death for lack of food.

The situation is getting noticed but Obama's EPA remains adamant - it refuses to budge on its murderous ethanol mandate  policies.  It so bad that Republican senators are now pleading with the Obama Administration to change it's ethanol mandate policies.

US Senators Begging EPA to Cut Ethanol Mandates. What's Wrong With This Picture?

Whenever the government intervenes in anything, disaster always follows. Allowing corporatists and crony capitalist to buy and own the government is quite dangerous, anti-liberty and even murderous.  

US Senators Begging EPA to Cut Ethanol Mandates. What's Wrong With This Picture?

Churning the food supply into fuel has always been an insane idea but this is truly mindboggling. Senators are begging to EPA to cut ethanol mandates! Earth to senators - just cut the damn EPA!  Federal Agencies Gone Wild is not an unusual situation.  Federal agencies are above the law and beyond congressional oversight, reach and control. If anybody wants to know how powerful federal agencies are, look no further than this: 

Senators press EPA to cut ethanol mandate

As the worst drought in more than 50 years withers the Midwest corn crop, 25 senators urged the Environmental Protection Agency to cut the mandate that requires fuel blenders to add grain-based ethanol to gasoline.

The senators representing 25 percent of the chamber urged EPA chief Lisa Jackson to adjust the Renewable Fuels Standard, or RFS, that requires fuel blenders to mix 13.2 billion gallons of ethanol into gasoline this year.

The mandate rises steadily until peaking at 15 billion gallons per year in 2015 and holding that level through 2022.

The lawmakers blame the mandate for raising the price of corn -- the main feedstock for U.S. ethanol refining -- which threatens to increase feed costs for livestock producers and eventually saddle consumers with higher food costs.

Some 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop is now used to make ethanol, though some byproducts of the process are fed to livestock.

We have a situation where the drought has resulted in crops withering on their vines.  Food prices are expected to soar.  Corn is a staple crop that is used in livestock feed and many other consumer foods; accordingly, the drought will cause corn shortages and result in soaring corn and food prices.   However, in America 40% of the corn we produce is poured into ethanol production.  Why?  Because the EPA continues to mandate more and more ethanol fuel.

In 2011, Congress did refuse to renew ethanol subsidies but it didn't matter because the EPA has the raw and absolute power to mandate ethanol so consumers are paying the price anyway with higher food and fuel prices.

Congress Ends Ethanol Subsidies, Mandates Remain

Congress has declined to extend a federal tax credit for ethanol production, putting an end to a special interest subsidy once viewed as politically untouchable. Nevertheless, federal mandates continue to require U.S. consumers to purchase large quantities of ethanol, which is more expensive than gasoline and delivers fewer miles per gallon.

Three Decades of Subsidies

The federal tax credit existed for more than 30 years, costing U.S. taxpayers nearly $6 billion in 2011 alone. The credit expired at the end of 2011 after Congress resisted political pressure to extend the subsidy. Congress also declined to extend a 54-cent-per-gallon protectionist tariff on imported ethanol.

Mandates Remain

U.S. consumers will still be required to subsidize ethanol indirectly through purchasing mandates imposed by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The mandates were increased two years later with the enactment of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The 2007 Act requires consumers to purchase 36 billion gallons of ethanol annually by 2022.

The 2007 Act further mandates that 16 billion gallons come from cellulosic ethanol (made from wood chips, switchgrass, or corn stover) by 2022, even though no company has yet figured out how to produce it in a commercially viable way. As a result, none was produced in 2011, and none is expected to be manufactured this year.

Congress is powerless to do a damn thing.  Meanwhile, Americans need to understand that the cost of just about every food item from corn to chicken to beef will rise dramatically.  It already being reported that livestock farmers lack animal feed and are forced to slaughter their animals which will temporarily flood the market with cheap meat but create massive shortages and high prices in the future.

But their is also an environmental and health aspect to this nightmare.

Corn crop could contain toxic nitrate

With crops drying up and leaving farmers without food for livestock, many farmers around the Heartland are trying to salvage corn stalks destroyed by the drought to use as feed. There is a big problem right now. Damaged corn could contain deadly levels of nitrate. “We have had a really hot dry summer in our area and there is lots of concern in the agriculture and livestock sector about drought stressed corn. We are certainly recommending because of the drought situation that producers think really hard about what they are going to do when it comes to utilizing their corn crop this year if they are going to use it for livestock feed. Basically this corn that we have been testing has been higher in nitrates this year then in years past because of the heat and drought,” said Livestock Specialist Bruce Lane.

Although the majority of the crops are a total loss, options for farmers haven’t dried out completely. Corn is now being salvaged and turned into livestock feed but damaged corn could contain high levels of toxic nitrates that farmers need to be aware of.

“Basically this corn that we have been testing has been higher in nitrates this year than in years past because of the heat and drought,” Lane said.

Across Missouri, there has already been reports of livestock being killed by feed high in nitrate. Corn high in nitrate may look identical to corn lower in nitrate. That is why it is important to have the corn tested.

This is obviously a very bad situation.  While drought may be an act of God, churning food into ethanol is a government mandate that is making the situation a whole lot worse.