Category Archives: National Politics


by  Kevin Mooney /

For more than 15 years, the Environmental Protection Agency has resisted releasing data from two key studies to the general public and members of Congress. Government regulators used those studies to craft some of the most expensive environmental rules in U.S. history.

When skeptics within the federal government questioned and challenged the integrity of the studies—the Harvard Six Cities Study and an American Cancer Society study known as ACS II—they were silenced and muzzled.

That’s when the Republican staff on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee stepped in to shine light on the situation, revealing the scope of the scandal in in a report titled, “EPA’s Playbook Unveiled: A Story of Fraud, Deceit and Secret Science.”

The key player in the scandal is John Beale, who was sentenced to serve 32 months in federal prison on Dec. 18, 2013, after pleading guilty to stealing almost $900,000 from U.S. taxpayers.

It was in 1994 that Beale first began to beguile EPA employees and supervisors into believing he worked for the CIA. When he failed to report for work, Beale would enter “D.O. Oversight” on his calendar, which meant he was a director of operations responsible for covert operations at the CIA.

But it was the role Beale played beginning in the mid-1990s in creating and implementing regulations pursuant to Clean Air Act that continues to reverberate and linger at the expense of the American people.

Two Allies at the EPA

Over the past decade, evidence has emerged to reveal the Six Cities and ACS II studies did not support enacting one of the most controversial, far-reaching and expensive regulations in American history. Otherwise, the agency would have provided access to the data without a fight.

The political appointees who led the EPA at the time feared the consequences of enacting such a regulation without being able to offer scientific evidence of its necessity.

Former United States Environmental Protection Agency executive John Beale (Photo: Ron Sachs/CNP/

Beale needed an ally. He needed someone to explain the problems with the research and the reasons the data could not be released. Someone who could run interference with various actors in Washington. He found one in top EPA official Robert Brenner.

Brenner had recruited Beale, his former Princeton University classmate, to the EPA as a full-time employee in 1989.

Brenner, then deputy director of the EPA’s Office of Policy Analysis and Review within the Office of Air and Radiation, hired his friend despite Beale’s lack of legislative or environmental policy background. He also placed Beale in the highest pay scale for general service employees—a move typically reserved for those with extensive experience.

He then allowed Beale to collect retention bonuses, which go to only the most highly qualified employees to keep them from jumping ship—an unlikely scenario for a man who had picked apples and worked in a small-time law firm in Minnesota before joining the agency. Employees are supposed to be eligible for such bonuses—potentially worth as much as a fourth of the employee’s annual salary—for only three years, but Brenner helped Beale receive them for more than 10.

The two would work together at the EPA for 25 years—during which time the Office of Policy Analysis and Review would grow “in both scope and influence” as Beale and Brenner worked in tandem to muzzle dissenting voices within the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.

‘Beale Memo’ Details Regulatory Agenda

At the crux of their agenda—the initiative that would build their legend within the agency—was implementation of a fine particle standard regulating air pollution.

The formula had been set with the American Lung Association sue-and-settle agreement and codified in a confidential document known as the “Beale Memo,” which described how Beale pressured regulatory and clean air bodies to back off criticisms of EPA rulemaking both within the agency and in correspondence with members of Congress.

The EPA attempted to conceal this document from Sen. David Vitter’s committee investigators, but a conscientious whistleblower “turned it over surreptitiously,” the report said.

The memo outlined how Beale and Brenner would work to compress the time the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and the voluntary Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee had to review regulations so they could get away with using “secret science.”

The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee opposed from the start the move to regulate fine particulate matter. Members claimed there was no precedent or court order to establish these regulations, that research had not distinguished between dangers posed by PM 10 particles and those a fourth that size under PM 2.5, and that the PM 2.5 target was arbitrary and tied to no known science. (PM stands for particle matter, a term “for particles found in the air, including dust, dirt, soot, smoke, and liquid droplets,” according to EPA.)

Further, the committee, known as CASAC, complained it was being asked to do the work that took eight years on the previous air quality review in 18 months.

“The Beale memo is interesting in that it provides evidence of Beale’s direct role in ensuring concerns raised by other agencies, CASAC members and OIRA were not considered in the final rulemaking,” wrote Luke Bolar, spokesman for Vitter, in an email to The Daily Signal.




Why Are Democrats Blocking Homeland Security Funding Bill?

Commentary By

Gerren McHam

Portrait of Gerren McHam

We have heard this story before: A funding deadline is approaching and Congress must act quickly to pass a bill to address the issue. In a twist, the chamber continuously labeled by the left as filled with “obstructionists,” passes a bill that simply funds the program in question.

All should be in agreement that this works, right? After all, the program in question is now funded.

But what if the complainers decided this was not good enough?

That is the situation facing the Senate over H.R. 240, the House-passed fiscal year 2015 Homeland Security Appropriations bill. Everyone preaches the necessity of funding the Department of Homeland Security.

But last week as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell tried for a third time to open debate and allow for amendments on the bill, Democrats in the Senate continued to vehemently oppose the bill’s consideration. Before the Senate can move to consideration of the bill, 60 senators are needed.

“I don’t understand why they’d want to block the Senate from even debating a bill to fund homeland security,” McConnell said on the Senate floor last week. “It just doesn’t make sense.”

“You’d think Democrats would at least want to give the Senate an opportunity to make improvements to the bill, if it needs them,” he continued. “Why would Democrats want to stand tall for the ability of politicians to do things President Obama himself has described as ‘unwise and unfair’?”

It’s true that if the bill funding the Department of Homeland Security doesn’t pass, it won’t be the end of the world: 86 percent of the Department will continue to operate without the bill.

But with funding set to expire on Feb. 27, why are so many Democrats unwilling to consider a bill that would fund the Department—and keep all operations going?

After all, the only item the current bill doesn’t fund is President Obama’s unilateral move to grant amnesty to over 5 million individuals through executive actions. And individuals on both sides of the political spectrum are questioning the legality and constitutionality of the president’s executive actions.

As Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., has said, “It’s not a little matter, colleagues, it really is an affront to constitutional order and we have a duty no matter what we feel about this amnesty, that goes well beyond ‘DREAM Act’ amnesty, we have a constitutional duty to defend the integrity of the Congress against an encroachment of monumental proportions by the president.”

But it’s not just Republicans who questioned the legality of Obama’s executive actions on immigration. Specifically, several Democrats have expressed serious concerns executive overreach, including Sens. Joe Manchin (D., W.V.), Heidi Heitkamp (D., N.D.), Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.) , and Joe Donnelly (D., Ind.), just to name a few.

Sadly, instead of standing up against Obama’s actions, they all continue to keep the Senate from voting on the House Department of Homeland Security funding bill.

Speaker of the House John Boehner has made it clear that the House has done its work on funding the department and now it’s the Senate’s turn.

With the House of Representatives voting 236-191 to pass a clean DHS funding bill and excluding funds towards the issue at hand, the choice is clear.

Are supporters of Obama’s actions willing to delay the House bill for consideration, forfeiting their rights to an amendment process, and allow for the February deadline to breath down Congress’ neck and possibly expire? Or are they willing to accept a clean passage that funds the department in charge of the security of our country?

The Senate is set to try a fourth time to move to the legislation. We will see if opponents continue to object.


by Ron Arnold /

Portrait of Ron Arnold

Obama Rejects Arctic Oil and Gas Drilling. Is Putin Preparing to Come and Take It?

Will President Obama’s new drilling policy give the Arctic over to Russian domination?

The anger, outrage and frustration in Alaska are palpable after the president stripped the state of vast stores of its oil and gas wealth. His reckless offshore oil and gas restrictions reduced Alaska’s Arctic Ocean presence to one exploration site each in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas and left us with the lowest number of prospects in the history of the Outer Continental Shelf leasing program.

Alaska’s U.S. senators, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, and at-large Rep. Don Young, all Republicans, vowed at a press conference to fight Obama’s offshore decision, which came only days after his Interior Department announced the shocking designation of nearly all of Alaska’s 19.6-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as untouchable wilderness lands. These two moves would lock up the nation’s richest continental oil prospect and lock up America’s share of the Arctic Ocean’s estimated 30 percent of the world’s undiscovered natural gas and 13 percent of its oil reserves.

The famously outspoken Rep. Young said, “It’s becoming undeniably clear that this administration does not view Alaska as a sovereign state, but rather an eco-theme park for the most extreme environmentalist allies of the president and his party.”

Young didn’t know how stunningly accurate his claim would turn out to be. A day later, a story about some of Obama’s “most extreme environmentalist allies” broke under the headline, “Foreign Firm Funding U.S. Green Groups Tied to State-Owned Russian Oil Company.”

Former Heritage Foundation investigative reporter Lachlan Markay wrote for the Free Beacon that Russian money for anti-oil and gas campaigns had been laundered through a Bermuda investment house, bank, and shell corporation and the California-based Sea Change Foundation.

“The Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Food and Water Watch, the League of Conservation Voters and the Center for American Progress were among the recipients of Sea Change’s $100 million in grants in 2010 and 2011,” Markay wrote.

John Podesta, White House Counselor to Obama, founded the Center for American Progress, which acts as a two-way pipeline for administration and Democratic Party policy promotion.

One of Markay’s key sources was an untitled, exceptionally detailed report by the Washington-based research group, Environmental Policy Alliance, replete with names, amounts, source documents and infographics.

It reveals money flows from two notorious Russian money launderers—the convicted IPOC Group run by Russian telecommunications minister Leonid Reiman and Russian telecom firm VimpelCom, which is under criminal investigation. Both Mikhail Fridman, VimpelCom’s majority owner, and Reiman are close advisors to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In addition, three Russian energy investment firms kick in money to Wakefield Quinn, a Bermuda law firm which runs it through Klein, Ltd., an “exists-only-on-paper” firm with Kremlin ties that was mentioned in a 2014 Senate majority report on “Billionaire Club” donors to environmental groups.

Klein passes the money to Sea Change, which dispenses it in perfectly legal laundered grants to U.S. anti-oil-and-gas green groups.

That’s infuriating, but what’s it got to do with Obama’s war on Alaska’s Arctic offshore oil and gas resources?

Well, perhaps everything: While President Obama panders to the extreme environmental left, Putin prepares for an Arctic war.

The very day Rep. Young slapped Obama for appeasing his extremist green group base, the respected global intelligence company Stratfor released a report titled, “Russia’s Plans for Arctic Supremacy.”

As Obama retreats from the Arctic Ocean with contempt for its fossil energy might, Putin sees in it global power. Russia is laying claim to great swaths of Arctic oil and gas with deployed rigs, more nuclear-powered icebreakers and a huge new strategic military command: the Northern Fleet, which represents two-thirds of the entire Russian Navy.

In addition, Putin has activated Arctic warfare units in a 6,000-soldier military group with two motorized infantry brigades and air force facilities from the Soviet era on the archipelago of Novaya Zemlya, “renovated to accommodate modern and next generation fighter aircraft in addition to advanced S400 air defense systems,” he report says. In other words, according to Stratfor, the Russians are out to dominate the retreating United States.

Putin is no fool when it comes to dealing with weak enemies – witness Ukraine. He is particularly harsh on those who give policy power to the sort of people he puts in jail. Putin is grabbing Arctic resources while Obama turns his back on them.

The U.S. has no leadership anywhere in the high north and Russia does. There are no U.S. military bases on the entire Alaskan Arctic coast; our fighter pilots have to fly long distances to intercept increasingly numerous and bold incursions.

In August and September of last year, Russian jets made several incursions to the Air Defense Identification Zones off the coast of Alaska (officials say such incidents happen around 10 times a year), and Russian strategic bombers in the Labrador Sea near Canada practiced cruise missile strikes on the United States. American and Canadian fighters intercepted and diverted the Russians.

Russia has increased its bomber patrols and submarine activity and is watching Obama’s every move with a newly opened Arctic military reconnaissance drone base 420 miles off mainland Alaska.

The United States lacks ships able to operate in or near Arctic ice – two medium icebreakers to Russia’s 25 nuclear-powered monsters that look like battleships. We could send our ships, but Arctic Alaska has scant support facilities and hopelessly inadequate communications.

Our nation is in a bind that few even realize. Who will take action and put our energy wealth to use for the strength of America?

Alaska is in the middle of that bind. Alaska is not nearly angry, outraged and frustrated enough with President Obama, Harvard Law graduate—and not yet fearful enough of President Putin, former lieutenant colonel, KGB.


Personal Libert Digest Newlie concept

Gallup CEO Jim Clifton has been shooting from the hip lately. Last month, he wrote a lengthy piece drawing on his polling company’s data to bemoan the decline of entrepreneurship in America. Now comes an opinion piece from Clifton that flatly disputes the “extremely misleading” unemployment rate promulgated by the Department of Labor.

“Right now, we’re hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is ‘down’ to 5.6%,” Clifton wrote Tuesday. “The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.”

But, he concludes: “There’s no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.”

Why does he think this? For the same reason we’ve been writing stories like this one, and this one, and this one: The labor force is shrinking, so the population included in the tabulation of unemployment data doesn’t include the massive — and growing — number of otherwise-eligible people who’ve given up looking for work.

As for the politicians who love to tout the official unemployment line?

None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job — if you are so hopelessly out of work that you’ve stopped looking over the past four weeks — the Department of Labor doesn’t count you as unemployed. That’s right. While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you are not counted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news — currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren’t throwing parties to toast “falling” unemployment.

Clifton, who obviously knows a little bit about data-collection methods, also offers this seldom-considered fact:

There’s another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you’re an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 — maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn — you’re not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

Additionally, the “underemployed” — part-time workers who are striving to obtain full-time work — don’t factor into the Labor Department’s unemployment figure. “If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can… the government doesn’t count you in the 5.6%,” writes Clifton.

Gallup offers an alternative method for calculating the percentage of Americans engaged in full-time work as a proportion of the total working-age population: the payroll-to-population figure, which contrasts the number of people who hold jobs working 30 or more hour per week with the total population.

“Right now, the U.S. is delivering at a staggeringly low rate of 44%, which is the number of full-time jobs as a percent of the adult population, 18 years and older,” Clifton observes. “We need that to be 50% and a bare minimum of 10 million new, good jobs to replenish America’s middle class.”

Personal Libert Digest New

Obama’s war on our energy independence

alaska pipeline

by Chip Wood

Obama's war on our energy independence

After three weeks of debate, the Senate finally passed a bill last week to authorize the Keystone XL pipeline. The vote was 62-36, which means that nine Democrats joined 53 Senate Republicans in voting “yes” on the measure to complete a pipeline from Canada to the Gulf Coast. The bill now goes to a House-Senate conference committee to iron out minor differences with the version approved in the House of Representatives late last year.

It’s worth noting that during the debate over the measure, the Senate considered 43 different amendments to the bill. This means the Senate debated more amendments in one month on this one bill than it did in all of last year on every bill that came before the Senate. What a difference now that Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is no longer Senate majority leader and can’t bottle up any measure he and President Obama didn’t like!

The president has vowed to veto the measure when it does finally reach his desk. And it doesn’t look like the bill’s supporters have enough votes in the Senate to override that veto. Five other Democrats would have to split with their party’s leadership to do that.

But preventing the Keystone pipeline from being completed is only part of the war that Obama is conducting against energy independence in this country. Even more significant are measures the president has taken that could mean the end of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.

A week ago, the president announced that he was using his executive authority to designate some 12 million acres in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (otherwise known as ANWR) as “wilderness.” Such a designation would prohibit any exploration for oil and gas in that vast area.

Such a directive flies in the face of a law passed by Congress in 1980. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act agreed to put huge tracts of land in Alaska off-limits to exploration. But the bill also included a clause declaring that there would be “no more wilderness designations” in Alaska unless they were specifically approved by Congress. The president’s latest dictate ignores that long-standing agreement.

But this is far from the only way the Obama Administration is blocking oil and gas exploration in Alaska. Back in 2010, it ordered nearly half of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPRA) off-limits to development.

Plus, Obama’s minions are doing everything possible to stymie drilling in areas of Alaska where it has already been approved. Shell Oil has spent an estimated $6 billion on plans to drill in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas areas of Alaska, but federal regulators have thrown up so many roadblocks that the company can’t proceed.

The same thing has happened to ConocoPhillips, which years ago bought a lease to explore in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. So far, the federal regulators in charge have refused to allow the company to drill a single well. And that is certainly unlikely to change while Obama is in office.

When the Trans-Alaska Pipeline was completed, back in the mid-1970s, it carried some 2.2 million barrels of oil a day the 800 miles from the northern slope of Alaska to the Port of Valdez on the southern coast. Now, thanks to decreasing production from existing wells, that number has dropped to half-a-million barrels a day.

Environmental extremists know that the economic viability of the pipeline is at risk here. If they can squeeze production even further, it is possible that the pipeline may be closed.

But here’s the kicker: Under the law that established it, if the TransAlaska Pipeline shuts down, it will have to be dismantled. This would be a devastating blow to the possibility of America becoming energy independent.

Experts say that there is something like 27 billion barrels of oil in the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf. ANWR is thought to hold another 10 billion barrels. The National Petroleum Reserve probably holds an equal amount.

That is almost 50 billion barrels of oil this country could be producing. Yet thanks to the Obama administration, we are not getting a single drop.

And don’t even get me started on the administration’s war on coal, the most abundant energy resource we have in this country. We should be encouraging efforts to find cleaner ways to use this fuel; instead, Obama has made it clear that he won’t be satisfied until every coal-producing mine in this country has been closed and every coal-burning plant has been shuttered.

What will it take to promote energy independence in this country? A change of heart by the present occupant of the White House seems extremely unlikely. So the only other option is a change of occupant.

Frankly, it can’t happen soon enough.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood


 by Melissa Quinn

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio (Photo: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)

House Conservatives Band Together to Form New Group to Push Conservative Agenda

Conservative lawmakers are officially rolling out a new group aimed at advancing a conservative agenda in the House of Representatives after they expressed discontent with the direction of the Republican Study Committee.

“Our main hope is that we can represent the voids and valleys for our constituents back home,” Rep. Raúl Labrador of Idaho told The Daily Signal today. “With a small group that is nimble and able to work on issues that are of importance to our constituents, we can make a difference in Congress.”

Called the House Freedom Caucus, the group serves as a conservative alternative to the Republican Study Committee, which has over 170 members. However, it was not formed to be “anti-RSC,” a Republican congressional aide told The Daily Signal last month.

Membership in the Freedom Caucus will be by invitation only, and the group plans to “advance an agenda of limited, constitutional government in Congress.”

“Our main hope is that we can represent the voids and valleys for our constituents back home,” says @Raul_Labrador.

“The House Freedom Caucus gives a voice to countless Americans who feel that Washington does not represent them” its mission statement says. “We support open, accountable and limited government, the Constitution and the rule of law, and policies that promote the liberty, safety and prosperity of all Americans.”

The Freedom Caucus has nine founding members: Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio,—the interim chairman—Labrador, Justin Amash of Michigan, Ron DeSantis of Florida, John Fleming of Louisiana, Scott Garrett of New Jersey, Mark Meadows of North Carolina, Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina and Matt Salmon of Arizona.

The new group will boast around 40 members, though there is no set cap according to Labrador, and more than 30 have signed on to the Freedom Caucus for its debut. Members of the group will suggest potential members and vote on their membership, Labrador said.

The group will be led former RSC Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio, left, and Raul Labrador of Idaho. (Photo: Chris Maddaloni/CQ Roll Call)

All will pay dues, enabling the new caucus to hire three to four staff members. The nine founders, though, will pay “mortgages,” or a higher level of funding, National Review reported.

Those more than 30 House Republicans will meet tonight to draft the Freedom Caucus’ bylaws.

“We want to accomplish an agenda of conservative reform, something where we represent the values of the people back home,” Labrador said. “Both parties make the mistake of representing special interests and lobbyists and the groups that give money to their campaigns. We really want to represent the people, and that’s what we want to make sure we do in the House Freedom Caucus.”

Whispers that conservative House members would start an alternative to the Republican Study Committee began earlier this month. The group then did not have a name, but several RSC members were looking to form a new group that would draft and push conservative legislation.

The Republican Study Committee began in 1973 as a vehicle to advance conservative policies. However, some of the group’s members feared that it began to drift from its founding roots over the years, especially as its membership swelled to more than 170 lawmakers—more than half of all Republicans in the House.

The November election of Rep. Bill Flores of Texas to serve as RSC chair further fueled discontent among the committee’s more conservative members, as they feared Flores would side with House leadership on policy issues and debates.

In an interview with The Daily Signal, Flores said he views the Freedom Caucus as a “complimentary effort to advance the cause of conservative policy in this caucus.”

“You’ve got a group of passionate conservatives just like the Republican Study Committee, and they will have an opportunity to get together and come up with ideas,” Flores said.

The Texas Republican said he met with Jordan during the group’s earlier planning stages and said he’s confident Freedom Caucus members will remain in the RSC. Flores even suggested lawmakers in the new caucus share ideas with the RSC to “help get these conservative policies across the finish line on the House floor.”

Labrador told The Daily Signal there were general conversations with leadership about the group, but said there was no direct feedback about its formation.

“We don’t want to surprise leadership,” he said. “We want to work with leadership.”

“We don’t want to surprise leadership,” says @Raul_Labrador. “We want to work with leadership.”

The debate over a border security bill from Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul of Texas gives the Freedom Caucus its first opportunity to push conservative policy, as National Review first reported. Though the legislation focuses on securing the border—an aspect of immigration reform conservatives are pushing for—conservatives believe the House and Senate should first focus on a bill that blocks President Obama’s immigration executive action.

The House passed legislation addressing the president’s immigration policies earlier this month. However, the Senate has yet to do so.

Labrador said participating in the debate around McCaul’s bill allows the Freedom Caucus to speak as an official group. He lamented that often times, conservative members fail to present a plan and a strategy in pushing a conservative agenda. However, he’s hopeful that the group will present a “positive message” for the House.


Personal Libert Digest New

second amendment

The FBI released its annual Crime in the United States report this week, and the new report implies an inverse relationship between the rate of gun ownership and the incidence of violent crime.

Violent crime continued an overall downward trend, with a reported 1,163,146 such incidents in 2013. The FBI considers “violent crime” to encompass “murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.” Here’s a graph demonstrating the five-year fall in violent crime:

violent crime graphic

















“[T]he estimated number of violent crimes in 2013 decreased 4.4 percent when compared with 2012 figures, and the estimated number of property crimes decreased 4.1 percent,” the FBI observed.

Breitbart took note of the FBI report, comparing last year’s drop in violent crime with previously released data on the upward tick in background checks for gun sales in 2013.

“On January 6, Breitbart News reported there were 21,093,273 background checks for firearm purchasers conducted in America in 2013. And while this number of background checks represented a record, we explained then that the number of guns sold could be many times higher. That is because background checks are done on gun purchasers, not on the number of guns being purchased,” Breitbart wrote.

“… These record gun sales and the subsequent reduction in crime square perfectly with a Congressional Research Service report covered by Breitbart News on December 4, 2013. That study showed that the number of privately owned firearms in America increased from 192 million in 1994 to 310 million in 2009.”