So much for the notion that our courts provide the ability to challenge the government courtesy of the Obama/Holder Department of (In)Justice.
A U.S. Justice Department lawyer faced sharp questions today from a Washington judge over the government effort to restrict an author's ability to challenge whether certain details in his book about the Afghan war should remain secret.
Retired Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, who penned a memoir titled "Operation Dark Heart," is pursuing a First Amendment case in Washington's federal trial court over the government's insistence that passages in the book contain classified information that cannot be publicly disclosed. In late 2010, Shaffer sued the CIA, the Defense Department and the Defense Intelligence Agency.
* * *
Scott Risner of the DOJ's Civil Division argued today that Collyer should not allow Shaffer to submit information to the court on his own. Instead, Risner insisted, Collyer should rely on the government's ex parte submissions in support of keeping select passages in the book blacked out.
In other words, the government will tell its side of the story, the party suing the government will be required to remain silent, and the judge wont have to be bothered with weighing the competing evidence because there is none. Fortunately, Judge Collyer is having none of that.
Of course, his hobby is sexual assault.
No wonder he wants to make sure that there are fewer guns around in the hands of the law-abiding.
Because the union bosses rule, not the membership.
Regarding President Obama's recent speech on immigration reform, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka was quoted yesterday by YAHOO NEWS! as stating "Unions did have at one point some differences on the issue, but the entire labor movement is entirely behind this now. We'll be at the table the whole time this thing is being developed to make sure it meets the needs of workers."
Unionized ICE Agent's, however, respectfully say, "No President Trumka, there are still differences within the AFL-CIO, and you don't speak for us."
As AFL-CIO affiliates, the Union representing ICE Agents has been excluded by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and his top advisors and prohibited from participating in the development of immigration policy within the AFL-CIO as well as with lawmakers and the Administration.
Just one more reason to say no to unions and for government to give workers a choice in whether or not to join or support them.
Embattled Democratic New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez said through a spokesman Wednesday that trips he took on the private jet of a major political donor have been paid for and reported appropriately. But that may not have been accurate until shortly before the statement went out to media: WNBC-TV4 in New York City reported Wednesday that Menendez recently wrote a $58,500 check to the jets owner, Florida eye doctor Salomon Melgen.
Senator Menendez has traveled on Dr. Melgens plane on three occasions, all of which have been paid for and reported appropriately, the statement said.
Menendezs chief of staff, Dan OBrien, told NBC that it took the senator three years to pay his private airfare because of an office mistake.
This was sloppy, OBrien conceded about two 2010 flights. Im chalking it up to an oversight.
Of course, one does have to wonder how he reported the services of the child prostitutes hes been seeing on those trips.
Why did she need to ride in the front seat of the bus?
The second graphic in the series is here.
The third graphic in the series is here.
The fourth graphic in the series is here.
Not one, not two, but THREE Scandals swirling around him.
There is, of course, the problem of the illegal alien sex offender working in his office.
Sen. Robert Menendez employed as an unpaid intern in his Senate office an illegal immigrant who was a registered sex offender, now under arrest by immigration authorities, The Associated Press has learned. The Homeland Security Department instructed federal agents not to arrest him until after Election Day, a U.S. official involved in the case told the AP.
Lets assume he knew nothing about the delay in the arrest isnt he responsible for making sure his office follows the law?
Then there are the illegal campaign donations.
The owner of a New Jersey medical imaging company pleaded guilty Tuesday to making $21,400 in illegal campaign contributions to Democratic New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez between 2005 and 2008.
Benedetto Bigica, 45, and two of his family members served as straw contributors to Menendez, according to northjersey.com, with Bigicas brother Joseph reimbursing them for their contributions.
The scheme allowed Joseph Bigica to donate far more than the amount allowed by the Federal Election Campaign Act a total of $98,600 between 2005 and 2009.
That brings the total money involved in the Bigica brothers crimes to $120,000.
Of course, there is the obligatory claim that the campaign was a victim of the scheme and that the senator and his campaign cooperated fully with the investigation but really, do you believe that? Could such a scheme really have been pulled off without cooperation on the inside, given that it involved a major donor?
New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez abruptly left a press conference on Hurricane Sandy aid ahead of other Senate Democrats on Monday. While its unclear why Menendez left the presser early, the move came amid building pressure concerning a scandal involving allegations he solicited prostitutes in the Dominican Republic.
Agents gathered at the medical-office complex of Dr. Salomon Melgen, a contributor to Menendez and other prominent politicians, late Tuesday night to start hauling away potential evidence in about a dozen white vans.
The investigation is believed to be focusing on Melgens finances and the allegations about Menendezs trips and contact with prostitutes. A spokesman for Menendez could not be reached for comment, nor could Melgen.
I suspect these guys will soon be hearing those immortal words from Monopoly Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.
Cant wait for Chris Christie to get to appoint Menendezs replacement.
Her words are no more relevant than those of a Kluxer insisting that blacks ride at the back of the bus.
"Speaking is difficult, but I need to say something important," Giffords said in halting language as the packed hearing room hung on every word. "Too many children are dying. We must do something.
"This will be hard, but the time is now. You must act," she added. The country, she said, "is counting on you."
Now you may think my words above are heartless and cruel but they are not. They are consistent with the US Constitution and the words shall not be infringed found in the Second Amendment. If Giffords wants to call for higher penalties for assault especially assault with a deadly weapon or better mental health treatment, then Im all for taking her point of view into consideration. But when she is demanding that Constitutional rights be restricted or abrogated for the law-abiding because of the misdeeds of felons and lunatics, then as far as Im concerned she and her ideas need to be treated precisely the same as the unworthy scum I compare her to in my opening sentence.
Maternity hotels to aid in the creation of anchor babies.
Complaints have spiked over "birth tourism" in Los Angeles County, with 60 alleged maternity hotels being reported in the past month, according to a report by the county planning department.
Authorities have found it difficult to gain access to the alleged maternity hotels and verify suspicions. So far, they have been able to inspect only seven, and found that three of them were in violation of zoning codes.
The surge in complaints comes after a high-profile campaign was waged to shut down a "maternity mansion" in neighboring San Bernadino County. Previously, the commission had reported 15 complaints over a period of five years, according to the Jan. 14 report.
Add to this the connection to illegal immigration, and our system of absolute birthright citizenship for every child born in this country is something that needs to be modified or eliminated.
I dont necessarily agree with the thrust of the article this comes from, but I do like this particular point.
"Unless you were one of the first Americans, a Native American, you came from someplace else, somebody brought you," President Barack Obama told the assembled throngs in Las Vegas on Tuesday.
Perhaps to make sense of the empty phrase "Native American," Obama seems to have overlooked the most contentious debate in modern archaeology: when did the first waves of humanity reach the Americas and where did they come from?
The only real consensus among archaeologists is that everyone in America came from "someplace else."
Of course, I like to remind my students of one other thing by definition, every last one of us is an African-American.
Senators from every other state voted to confirm John Kerry as Secretary of State.
Once again, Texas stood alone.
Texas Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz were among the three dissenters as the Massachusetts senator (and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) was approved as the replacement to Hillary Clinton.
A traitor for Secretary of State.
An avowed enemy of Americas closest ally for Secretary of Defense.
What next Bill Ayers to run the Department of Homeland Security?
Police officers in Seattle, Washington held their first gun buyback program in 20 years this weekend, underneath interstate 5, and soon found that private gun collectors were working the large crowd as little makeshift gun shows began dotting the parking lot and sidewalks. Some even had cash for guns signs prominently displayed.
Police stood in awe as gun enthusiasts and collectors waved wads of cash for the guns being held by those standing in line for the buyback program.
People that had arrived to trade in their weapons for $100 or $200 BuyBack gift cards($100 for handguns, shotguns and rifles, and $200 for assault weapons) soon realized that gun collectors were there and paying top dollar for collectible firearms. So, as the line for the chump cards got longer and longer people began to jump ship and head over to the dealers.
So rather than get ripped off by their government, people got fair value for their property. Which is as it should be.
I was almost convinced that a recently proposed idea to have the Texas legislature meet every year (the even numbered year just for budget matters) was a good idea. But if this bill gets taken up, I think we need to cut the number of days in the biennial session instead.
A bill was filed Monday by a state representative from Rio Grande City that, if passed, would require two Texas universities to go head-to-head every year -- on the football field.
Rep. Ryan Guillen, an Aggie Democrat, filed House Bill 778 in an effort to see Texas A&M University back on the same field as their longtime rivals, the University of Texas Longhorns.
Texas A&M moved to the Southeastern Conference this year, bringing their matchups with the Longhorns to an end.
Weve got bigger problems in this state than requiring the two largest schools in the state to play against each other annually. Guillen should be ashamed of himself for filing this legislation
But he wont be hes an Aggie.
This is not applicable to conservative minorities, as they are traitors to their race, ethnicity, and gender and so deserve all the opprobrium heaped upon them by morally superior liberals.
Our weekly look at the loudest screech from the mainstream media features CNN's Piers Morgan slapping down critics of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
He said: "I'm getting a little bit weary, I'll be honest with you, with the relentless attacks - first on [United Nations Ambassador] Susan Rice and now on Hillary Clinton. There's a whisper of misogyny to it, I think, and it's getting pretty, I think, incestuous and very Washington-orientated rather than in the national interest of America."
Disagree with Obama? You are a racist.
Have a problem with Hillary Clintons performance as Secretary of State? You are a misogynist.
And questioning the lies of Susan Rice
Thus saith the journalistic fraudster that is Piers Morgan.
Government officials who believe their beliefs should be sufficient to suppress our rights.
The nations looming assault-weapons ban is plain common sense, NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly said yesterday but the citys real enemy is illegal handguns.
For us in New York City, and I believe in most urban centers throughout America, the problem really is concealable handguns, Kelly said.
This is, of course, a prelude to the campaign to ban handguns.
Which this fascist-in-waiting will be just fine with.
San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne is fully supportive of the Obama/Feinstein gun grab, and says if lawmakers play it right Americans can be completely disarmed within "a generation."
Lansdowne has gone on record saying: "I could not be more supportive of the president for taking the position he has. I think it's courageous with the politics involved in this process. [And] I think it's going to eventually make the country safer."
He made it clear that it may take "a generation," but new laws could eventually take all guns off the streets.
And having taken all guns off the streets, it will be only a matter of a few years before opposition politicians, opposition newspapers, and religious leaders who don't submit to government mandates can be taken off the streets as well.
But for right now, they'll start with the guns that they can.
President Obama reiterated his determination Monday to see Congress act to reduce gun violence.
The only way that were going to be able to do everything that needs to be done is with cooperation of Congress, he said at the start of a meeting with Vice President Joe Biden and law enforcement officials from the Major Cities Chiefs Association and the Major County Sheriffs Association.
That means passing serious laws that restrict the access and availability of assault weapons and magazine clips that arent necessary for hunters and sportsmen, those responsible gun owners who are out there. It means that we are serious about universal background checks, it means that we take seriously issues of mental health and school safety, he said.
I'll agree with him to a point -- we need to "restrict the access and availability of assault weapons and magazine clips that aren't necessary" for hunting down and removing would-be tyrants and dictators, should the need arise.
And no, that isn't a threat -- that is a statement of principle consistent with the Declaration of independence.
,blockquote>But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
And as the author of those words noted regarding the "military style assault weapons" of his day.
So you see, the Second Amendment is not about hunters and household safety.
Ive written in the past about my wifes chronic pain related issues. Ive written about how government regulations have made it harder for her doctors to effectively manage her pain. Well now the Obama Administration has passed a regulation (after Congress REFUSED to pass it) that will make it even harder to do this and will potentially increase the cost of her care by hundreds of dollars a year.
Federal Drug Administration advisers voted today to restrict access to certain kinds of prescription drugs in an effort to fight drug abuse
The vote had experts divided over the risk of drug abuse as weighed against the risk of increased pain or difficulty for patients on the medication.
It will have an impact on a lot of patients who have been receiving them for some time for legitimate purposes, Dr. Lynn Webster, president-elect of the American Academy of Pain Medicine, said per Health Day News ahead of the vote.
The FDA rule change is designed to implement a policy that the Senate passed last year, but the U.S. House of Representatives killed.
Under the new rules, refills without a new prescription would be forbidden, as would faxed prescriptions and those called in by phone, The New York Times explains in reporting that the new rules passed by 19-10 vote. Only written prescriptions from a doctor would be allowed, and pharmacists and distributors would be required to store the drugs in special vaults . . . advocates for nursing home patients, who said older, frail residents needing pain medication would now be required to make the arduous trip to a doctors office to continue using hydrocodone products.
In the past, my wife has used hydrocodone as one of several drugs to manage her pain, under the guidance and monitoring of a trusted physician. No longer will routine refills be available. A separate doctors visit will be required for each one which means additional out-of-pocket costs. Similarly, the new requirements for pharmacies will increase the cost of the medication and the restrictions put in place will likely increase the co-pay set by the insurance company for the medication.
How will this be dealt with by doctors? They will likely decrease the number of prescriptions written for such medications, switching patients to different medications that are more expensive for patients to purchase. Whats more, these other medications are not necessarily as effective as members of the hydrocodone family of drugs. The result? More pain and higher costs.
Of course, the patients facing this problem do have another alternative just go do without the medication at all, and face debilitating pain.
Just call this another example of compassionate government at work, inserting itself between doctor and patient.
And the most maddening part of this change is that it is another move made by the Obama Administration after Congress refused to pass legislation on the matter. Isnt it time for us to tell the dictator-in-chief that he and his multitude of minions need to stand down?
The trouble began soon after they arrived.
The black familya mother, three teenage children and a 10-year-old boymoved into a little yellow home in Compton over Christmas vacation.
When a friend came to visit, four men in a black SUV pulled up and called him a "nigger," saying black people were barred from the neighborhood, according to Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies. They jumped out, drew a gun on him and beat him with metal pipes.
It was just the beginning of what detectives said was a campaign by a Latino street gang to force an African American family to leave.
The attacks on the family are the latest in a series of violent incidents in which Latino gangs targeted blacks in parts of greater Los Angeles over the last decade.
Compton, with a population of about 97,000, was predominantly black for many years. It is now 65% Latino and 33% black, according to the 2010 U.S. census. But it's not only historically black areas that have been targeted.
Federal authorities have alleged in several indictments in the last decade that the Mexican Mafia prison gang has ordered street gangs under its control to attack African Americans. Leaders of the Azusa 13 gang were sentenced to lengthy prison terms earlier this month for leading a policy of attacking African American residents and expelling them from the town.
Similar attacks have taken place in Harbor Gateway, Highland Park, Pacoima, San Bernardino, Canoga Park and Wilmington, among other places. In the Compton case, sheriff's officials say the gang appears to have been acting on its own initiative.
Yes, there have been a handful of indictments many of them during the Bush years of these racist groups engaging in deeds reminiscent of those committed by Democrat Party paramilitary groups in an earlier age. But the reality is that there has not been an aggressive push by this administration to stop the violence, despite the fact that it is rising. Indeed, this administration has seemed more interested in making sure that the perpetrators are allowed to stay in this country as the President has signed multiple executive orders to allow for millions of illegal aliens to stay in this country, which has had the effect of making many of the racist gangbangers untouchable by law enforcement. So instead of protecting the most Democrat voting bloc in the country, those who victimize them are protected instead because of the electoral potential they create for the Democrats.
Here are this weeks full results.
See you next week!
People do not have the right to unregulated rights in this country, Sharpton continued .
So Al, werent those segregated schools just a regulation of rights? Black kids could still go to school there were just regulations as to which schools they could go to. Ditto the whole lunch counter thing you could still get your food, you were just regulated on where you could eat it.
And since you argued that rights are not absolute and are subject to regulation, Im sure you will shut your pie-hole regarding voter ID laws that is just a regulation of your right to vote.
This week's discussion topic among members of the Watcher's Council has been whether the GOP can make a comeback or whether a new party will emerge. Here's my response to the question.
I remember this question some 40 years ago in the wake of Watergate. Can the GOP come back? Can it survive? And within a decade the GOP did come back under Ronald Reagan, sweeping the nation in an entirely new direction bringing a nation back to greatness following the collapse of the Johnson Administration, the scandals of the Nixon years, the Ford interregnum and the Carter malaise. Nobody could have expected such a comeback except for the visionaries who engineered it and the cast of supporting actors who caught the vision put forth by Ronald Reagan and completely swept aside the previous balance of power in our body politic.
I believe that something similar will happen in the wake of the Obama wave a tsunami that is likely to do to our system of government what was done to Japans coastline following not long ago.
The thing it, it will be a different party than we see today, just as that new party birthed in 1980 was different from what was seen before. And it is hard to envision what it will look like.
If I had to make a guess, I would say it will still be a conservative party. That said, I envision it being a more libertarian conservative party than it has been, with the social conservatives having to accept that they are the junior partners in the coalition. As such, the GOP will still support low taxes and smaller government but it will not focus on social issues nearly so much. It will, as Ted Cruz has recently been emphasizing, need to present to Americans all Americans, including racial minorities and immigrants a vision of America as an opportunity society where everyone can prosper if government just gets out of the way. It will have to present itself as the party of rights for all with the first right being the right to be left alone by government. And we must get that message to the younger generation, a generation that has been hoodwinked by the false hopes and harmful changes sold to them by the current incumbent and his acolytes.
Let me note one more thing it will be a party in which many of our newest and brightest stars will be racial and ethnic minorities. It is no accident that the only Hispanic and Asian governors today are Republicans and that in recent years the only black members of Congress elected from predominantly white districts are Republicans as well. We can and do (and in the future must) groom men and women of quality regardless of race who attract support across racial and ethnic lines, as opposed to the Democrat model of creating congressional bantustans from which come the most radical and hateful voices of racial and class division.
Who will be the voices of this renewed GOP? I would suggest Ted Cruz as one, but he will not be alone. Bobby Jindal, Susana Martinez, Marco Rubio, Brian Sandoval and Tim Scott will be in the vanguard as well. From among that group of 6 I anticipate seeing at least two Presidents and one Vice President emerge, as well as one at least Supreme Court justice. I also suspect we will see others emerge as leaders all men and women who are today under the age of 50 (indeed, some of them at least a decade younger) who will be the leaders of the next generation.
Will this new party be able to change the direction of America and restore our country as America did? It must and that must be the task of every lover of our Republic.
Be sure to check out the answers from other members of the Watcher's Council at this link!
No, not Canada -- from the Left, which decrees that even allowing for the possibility of dissent from their orthodoxies du jour is evil, oppressive and not to be tolerated.
A gay rights activist wrecked a newly-installed Free Speech Wall at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario less than a day after it was installed.
The symbolic wall was the brainchild of Ian CoKehyeng and Carleton Students for Liberty. Members of the club installed it on Monday to demonstrate the vigor of free speech on campus.
What we wanted to promote was competition of ideas, rather than if I disagree with you Ive got to censor you, CoKehyeng, the clubs founder, told told the Toronto-based National Post.
But the competition of ideas that CoKehyeng wishes to encourage was apparently problematic for at least one member of the university community, who destroyed the wall as an affront to liberation.
By Tuesday morning, seventh-year student Arun Smith had demolished the wall, which was really little more than a makeshift white board equipped with colored markers in a high-visibility area on campus.
Smith called the wall an act of violence against the gay community, according to the Post. As for his own deed, he has hailed it as an act of forceful resistance.
In a thick, 594-word Facebook screed, Smith explained that he tore down the wall because it provided space for the expression of hate.
Mind you, there was not any ACTUAL hate speech (unless one considers "traditional marriage is awesome" to be oppressive heterosexism) and lots of speech in support of the pro-gay agenda that Smith claims to be an advocate for. Apparently the mere availability of a space where speech that Smith disagrees with could be expressed was offensive enough to require its destruction -- as Smith made clear on Facebook.
We are supposed to be creating safe(r) spaces for ourselves, and for other students, but there can be no safe(r) spaces where there is potential for triggering, the invalidation or questioning of the identities of others, and/or the expression of hatred. Prior to undertaking this action, I contacted Equity Services, who have decided to abandon a commitment to serving students; in fact, they referred me to CUSA, who abandoned a commitment to serving students themselves quite a while ago.
In other words, "liberation" requires the unapologetic suppression of any view contrary to those endorsed by the liberators and "serving students" means imposing the ideological mandates of the loudest of the vocal minorities in the community.
Sadly, there are those who endorsed Smith's screed on Facebook -- ironically engaging in the very sort of "invalidation or questioning of the identities of others, and/or the expression of hatred" towards those who might disagree with Smith and his militant homosexualist agenda. Apparently the mandate that nobody be allowed to invalidate or question the identities of others only goes so far -- call it the Dan Savage brand of tolerance.
Let me close with two points here. First, I'm carrying the banner of individual liberty, including the right to publicly express views that others (even the majority) may disagree with, as an essential element of a free society -- not necessarily the views themselves. Furthermore, I'm also pointing out the utter hypocrisy of those who would silence dissenting speech (or make speech dissenting from their orthodoxy impossible) -- because you and I both know that if this free speech wall had been attacked and destroyed by one or more militant followers of Christ because it made available a space for pro-gay speech (and the wall contained a whole host of unabashedly pro-gay speech) we all would have heard from Smith that the creation and preservation of spaces for free speech is essential for the liberation of LGBT people.
What can I say? Business operations today are so very often software driven. And in this internet age, having software that makes it possible to have a web presence is very important -- which is why EasyPURL is such a fantastic software package for a business to adopt. After all, it is an integrated marketing software package that been fully updated and upgraded to meet HTML 5 standards and be used across platforms and devices, according to CEO Tej Kohli easypurl of when the software was announced this summer at the annual OnDemand convention in New York City.Continue to be enlightened while reading "EasyPURL" Â»
Indeed, it is fair to say that EasyPURL is such a fantastic software package because of the work of Tej Kholi Indros Group, which is an up and coming company in the software field that has become known as a multi-channel technology specialist. It seems that Mr. Kholi is quite a leader and innovator in the field, and a quick glance at Tej Kohli LinkedIn profile will show you that the gentleman is a leader in not only software development but also the field of direct marketing. So if you are looking for a software package that will aid you in all of your direct marketing needs, it is important that you look at EasyPURL.
Â« All done with "EasyPURL"?
Does a judge truly have the ability to ban an individual from an entire city? Especially when that city is the nation's capitol?
WASHINGTON - A California man has been banned from D.C. after climbing a 40-foot tree on Inauguration Day and yelling his way through the ceremony.
Police say anti-abortion activist Rives Miller Grogan stayed in a thin tree near the Capitol for hours during Monday's swearing-in, The Washington Post reports.
A D.C. Superior Court judge banned him from the city Tuesday. He is allowed to
return only for his second hearing Feb. 25.
Grogan can be arrested on sight if he is discovered inside D.C. limits, Capitol police say.
Let's consider this one.
Under this court order, Grogan is forbidden to establish his legal domicile in the District of Columbia.
What's more, his right to travel to or through the District of Columbia is eliminated by this order.
It also puts a profound obstacle in his ability to petition the government for a redress of grievances by preventing him from going to the seat of the national government.
Each of these would seem to me to be judicial overreach, given that each and every offense that Grogan has been charged with in this case -- and in previous cases -- involves speech that could be legitimately seen as political protest and that they are essentially non-violent offenses.
Is there any precedent for such expansive limits being placed upon a citizen? What have higher courts previously ruled on such matters.
And if there is a judicial power to exile someone from a city, does it extend to ordering someone out of an entire state?
I also have had another line of questioning enter my mind with regards to this exile order -- if the power to exile someone is in the hands of the judiciary, do legislative bodies have such a power? Might a city council -- or a state legislature -- pass an exile statute directed at an individual or group? What are the limits on such power, especially if the reason for the statute is, as in this case, annoying political speech?
Enquiring minds want to know.
I'm sure they would have been insisting that returning soldiers not antagonize the Viet Cong -- or that civil rights marchers not antagonize the KKK.
During a panel discussion on Wednesday's NBC Today, attorney Star Jones and the network's chief medical editor Nancy Snyderman hyperventilated over Britain's Prince Harry revealing in interviews that he killed Taliban fighters during combat in Afghanistan. Jones fretted: "Why do you need to antagonize the Taliban?" [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump]
Snyderman chimed in: "I thought he jumped the shark when he was shown playing video games and then it was, 'Oh my God, we killed people.'" Co-host Matt Lauer sparked the exchange by wondering: "He talks about his missions, the missions he went on where he was fired upon by the Taliban and returned fire, killing some members of the Taliban. And he takes it kind of matter-of-factly....What do you think about it? Is it okay?"
In part, the Prince told reporters: "Yes, we fire when we have to, take a life to save a life, but essentially we're more of a deterrent than anything else. If there's people trying to do bad stuff to our guys, then we'll take them out of the game, I suppose."
Now some of you may object to my opening to this piece -- after all, you might say, these folks know evil when they see it. And you are right. They would never have objected to folks antagonizing the Kluxer scum. They know that there is evil that needs condemning -- I mean Nancy Snyderman recently made it known that she has a real problem with Christians who insist on cluttering Christmas with all sorts of religious stuff. But as for my other example, I'm sure that back in the 1960s she and the rest of the crew would have been out in the streets chanting "Ho! Ho! Ho Chi Minh!"
Or is it disingenuous outrageousness. Regardless, it is proof that Hillary Clinton was either incompetent to be Secretary of State, doesn't understand why the response of the Obama Regime to the Benghazi massacre was unacceptable, or is continuing to participate in the cover-up of what went wrong that day and the attempt by the White House to deflect the blame from the President.
Here's her response to questions on why the White House and the State Department continuously made misstatements regarding the nature of the attack on the Benghazi Consulate -- even after evidence to the contrary was common knowledge to the world at large.
"We had four dead Americans!" she said. "Whether it was attack preplanned by terrorists or it because of a guy out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill Americans ... What difference does it make?!"
What difference does it make? It makes every bit of difference that the administration blamed not terrorists, but the existence and exercise of the First Amendment here in the United States. You folks claimed spontaneous outrage over a YouTube video with fewer than 100 hits prior to 9/11/12 -- indeed, the US Embassy in Cairo had specifically condemned free speech by Americans. Why the lies? Why the attack upon American freedoms by the American government? We Americans cannot understand why we were fed a platter full of falsehood by our own government -- and why our elected leaders chose to blame our constitutional freedoms rather than the terrorists who carried out a preplanned attack on the anniversary of the original September 11 attack. And that, Madam Secretary, is why your efforts to shift the blame for the failure of security and the failure of leadership and candor demonstrated by those at the highest level of our government in the wake of the Benghazi massacre is unacceptable.
As a social studies teacher -- and as one who is at long last teaching American Government -- I'm appalled by this proposal to change Washington DC's graduation requirements. Why on earth would you want to get rid of the requirement to that students learn about our nation's government.
One proposed change to eliminate the requirement that students take a course in U.S. government to graduate from high school has already proven particularly contentious, particularly among advocates for civics education.
An educated citizenry is important -- and that education must be educated to understand who our system of government works in order to maintain our freedoms. Any school system that cannot do that -- and that certainly includes the failing system in Washington DC -- needs to be abolished and replaced with a more efficacious system for preparing future generations to be free citizens of a constitutional Republic.
Somebody remind folks like this that human beings are not some outside infestation of the planet -- we evolved here and we are not going anywhere.
Humans are a plague on the Earth that need to be controlled by limiting population growth, according to Sir David Attenborough.
The television presenter said that humans are threatening their own existence and that of other species by using up the worlds resources.
He said the only way to save the planet from famine and species extinction is to limit human population growth.
We are a plague on the Earth. Its coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. Its not just climate change; its sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now, he told the Radio Times.
In other words, this titled twit wants to allow government -- perhaps world government -- determine who will be allowed to reproduce and how many children they will be allowed to have. And it ill be people like him who will make the decisions for us.
Yo, David, let me offer you a suggestion that I made a couple of years ago regarding you folks.
You have a group of people who argue that there are too many human beings making too much of an impact on the planet, and that the current population is unsustainable. To save the planet, they tell us, we need to reduce that impact -- ultimately only possible by reducing the population. Well, there is a quick and easy way of doing so, if one is not a hypocrite -- and that is leadership by example. By their own admission, THEY are a part of the problem and that problem needs to be solved now. By taking action jointly and singly, they can reduce the population of the planet by a billion or two overnight, and do so by nobly martyring themselves on behalf of the planet. What's more, in doing so they demonstrate their moral superiority over the rest of us by making the ultimate sacrifice for the planet and all its inhabitants of every species.
The only fly in the ointment is that folks like Steven Andrew and the rest of the global warming cultists are flaming hypocrites who would prefer to take away the personal autonomy of the rest of humanity to accomplish their goals rather than exercising their own personal autonomy to do so. So until I hear of Heaven's Gate style "evacuations" of the planet by large groups of believers in anthropomorphic global warming, I'll simply continue to view them with the contempt they deserve because of their unwillingness to put everything on the line to save the planet.
So unless I hear of your suicide within the next 73 hours, I will have to conclude that you, Sir David Atenborough, are nothing but an arrogant and hypocritical elitist who talks a good game but who will not actually live -- or die -- out his principles and who therefore needs to be ignore.
I'm no sure what my blogging will be like for time being. My darling wife is currently in surgery, having fallen and broken her hip. The recovery and rehab time is measured in weeks, not days, and so my priorities are sure to be on things besides blogging.
Prayers are requested for her recovery -- and if you are inclined to hit the PayPal button it would be appreciated.
You know, folks don't often think about Houston as being a place where it ever gets cold. I say that as a Houston transplant who didn't even think about there being a need for a furnace until about six months after my arrival in town, when we had a cold snap that took us down to the mid-thirties. It was then that I realized that having a furnace in good working order was important down here, and that it would be critical to make sure that one knew where to find a good Houston furnace repair company in case the thing went out.Continue to be enlightened while reading "Houston Furnace Repair" Â»
And I have had that experience a couple of times -- both at night and both on the weekend. And that is when the matter really becomes critical. Imagine being acclimated to a warmer climate only to find that you have no heat in your house and no prospect for getting the furnace repaired. You really need to find a good company to come and to the work for you. One time I got really lousy service -- so lousy that it wasn't two weeks before I found myself having to get another company out to fix what had been done by the first guy. It therefore always pays to check out the company you hire.
Of course, there is no company here in Houston that can survive on furnace work alone. Their staple is usually air conditioning -- after all, we use the latter much more than the former down here on the Gulf Coast! So if you can find a good Houston furnace repair company, you are likely to have found someone who can service your central air conditioning unit and keep that running in tip top shape for you through the whole summer, too.
Â« All done with "Houston Furnace Repair"?
Because it is impossible to disagree with Chuck Schumer based upon principle.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., suggested that may members of the National Rifle Association reject his gun control proposals because they have dumb ideas about the meaning of the Second Amendment.
There are reasonable limitations, Schumer said yesterday on Meet the Press. And some in the pro gun movement and the NRA in many instances doesnt believe in any limitation at all. That is not unconstitutional. That just is dumb.
The thing is that most of us do believe in reasonable limitations -- but we disagree what the boundaries of those limitations are. We also disagree with legislation that won't substantially impact the use of guns for criminal purposes but which will significantly burden the rights of law-abiding Americans. What we want is smart legislation -- and your proposals don't fit the bill, Senator.
Having lived through the 1989 massacre of protesters in Tiananmen Square.
To me, a rifle is not for sporting or hunting. It is an instrument of freedom.
It guarantees that I cannot be coerced, that I have free will, that I am a free man.
Now suppose, the 20 milllion Beijing citizens had a couple million rifles on hand in 1989? How many rounds should they have been allowed to load into their magazines? Ten rounds? Seven rounds? How about three rounds?
Do not give up the fight, my friends. It may be a small step that you give up your rifle, or a 30 round magazine.
But it will be a giant leap toward the destruction of this republic."
Just imagine if this guy had an assault rifle with armor-piercing rounds.
And this is what happens to peaceful protesters for freedom when the government has a monopoly on force.
And lest you say it can't happen here, let me remind you of the past in this country.
And let's not forget that every one of these incidents of violence against peaceful protesters was initiated at the direction of a Democrat public official -- a member of the same Democrat Party that today wants to impose limits upon your right to keep and bear arms.
Which is why a Grammy-nominated rapper was kicked off the stage at a pre-inaugural event yesterday.
The organizers at an event celebrating startup companies pulled the plug on rapper Lupe Fiasco Sunday night after he reportedly performed an an anti-war song criticizing President Obama for half an hour.
Of course, the organizers CLAIM that it wasn't political censorship.
StartUp RockOn is all about startups helping startups. At Sunday nights Inauguration Celebration at the Hamilton Live, organizers set out to honor innovative visionaries with grants, accolades and a party worthy of the success we achieved at the RNC and DNC this summer.
Lupe Fiasco performed at this private event, and as you may have read, he left the stage earlier than we had planned. But Lupe Fiasco was not kicked off stage for an anti-Obama rant. We are staunch supporters of free speech, and free political speech. This was not about his opinions. Instead, after a bizarrely repetitive, jarring performance that left the crowd vocally dissatisfied, organizers decided to move on to the next act.
Of course, Lupe Fiasco was the featured performer on the bill, so it seems mighty suspicious that he was removed after his anti-Obama rant, It certainly appears political.
Especially given this report on the matter. The organizers tried to get him to move on from his anti-Obama piece and then kicked him off when he refused to do so.
And here's video of the incident.
You know what's coming next.
I would like to improve the world a bit. I will fly around the world doing good for the environment, added DiCaprio, in comments published in German.
So to do good for the environment, Leonard DiCaprio is going to fly around the world in an airplane that doesn't damage the environment because it is fueled by unicorn farts? Or is he just so clueless as to not recognize that he is going to do more damage with his private jet than he will do good wherever he goes?
This makes twice in one week that the anti-jihad site has been closed down by Blogger/Google. Once constitutes an error. Twice appears much more suspicious.
From: Gates of Vienna Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 9:34 PM Subject: Another one
Sorry to hit everybody en masse, but Blogger has taken us down again.
This one is different:
Google has received a Terms of Service complaint regarding malicious
code on your blog. After conducting our review, and in accordance with
Googles Terms of Service, we have removed the content at issue.
Terms of Service: http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/
Content Policy: http://www.blogger.com/content.g
The Google Team
Thats all I know at the moment. We are backed up, so we are OK for a
new start somewhere else.
Thank you all for your concern and support.
GoV hasn't changed their code in years, so what is the deal here? Why is Blogger/Google siding with Islamists by shutting the blog down?
UPDATE: here's their new site -- http://gatesofvienna.net
Here are this weeks full results.
See you next week!
It isn't that they are setting advertising standards regarding what is and is not appropriate. It is that Time-Warner lacks the integrity to say that what is unacceptable in ads is also unacceptable in the entertainment features they carry.
Just weeks after the mass shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., Time Warner Cable has initiated a companywide ban on certain gun ads.
"We no longer accept ads showing semiautomatic weapons and guns pointed at people, Time Warner Cable said in a statement. We stand by this policy. If it's essential to a business owner to show this kind of imagery in their commercials, there are other advertising options in the marketplace."
Come on, guys! Show some background on this one. Issue a statement that says that you will not carry movies or shows depicting semiautomatic weapons and guns pointed at people, and that if it is essential for a producer or director to show this sort of imagery in their shows and movies that there are other broadcasting options in the marketplace.
Of course, that would get rid of many of America's favorite television shows and many of the most popular movies -- which would mean that half of your channels would be blank much of the time. But at least your standard would be a consistent one that I could respect -- rather than one that says you won't broadcast an ad for a show or movie because it contains gun violence but you will broadcast the violent show or movie.
Forget Wal-Mart and skip your local gun show. The murderers of tomorrow will not be found wearing orange vests at your local sporting goods store. They wont have NRA memberships or trophies on their walls.
You wont find them in America. Look for them in Obamerica.
67% of firearm murders took place in the countrys 50 largest metro areas. The 62 cities in those metro areas have a firearm murder rate of 9.7, more than twice the national average. Among teenagers the firearm murder rate is 14.6 or almost three times the national average.
Of course, most of these killings are committed by those who can't legally have those guns anyway (strict gun laws in those cities and the fact that many are teens and/or convicted felons) and you can see that stripping legal gun owners of their weapons will do nothing to stop gun crime.
If you've been paying attention to the news lately, you know that video games have been a hot topic of discussion in the wake of the tragedy at Newtown. Apparently the shooter was a gamer, and spent a lot of his time focused on more violent games. As a result, there are those who demand that there be stricter regulation of video games -- both their content and their distribution. But are video games themselves a major problem that government needs to address, or are those seeking such restrictions merely flailing for any solution to any perceived problem and lashing out at a target of opportunity?Continue to be enlightened while reading "Video Games" Â»
I therefore decided to do a bit of research into what sort of video games are out there today, as I've been rather disconnected from the gaming world for a fairly long while. Are today's games particularly violent, or are we today in the throes of the same sort of scare that surrounded Dungeons and Dragons some 30 years ago when fantasy role-playing games were deemed a threat to society? Interestingly enough, I found a lot of available videos about video gaming -- a genre of online video that I never realized existed until now.
What did I find? Well, there is certainly a fair amount of violence in video games, as the videos I watched showed. But much of it is fantasy violence, not gun related. Other games contain violence, but such violence is related to competitive sports like football. Most interesting to me was the sheer amount of material out there that involves no significant violence -- and the amount of video out there that shows that the bulk of gamers are well-adjusted and creative individuals whose playing of the games and creation of media related to it displays both creative genius and intellectual rigor. It therefore appears to me that we need to look somewhere other than video games for the blame for societal issues
Â« All done with "Video Games"?
After all, they believe guns are bad. They believe that public policy aligning with religious beliefs is bad. And they believe that the Catholic Church is REALLY bad.
So what do they do now that the Vatican has come out in favor of gun control?
The Vatican praised President Barack Obama's proposals for curbing gun violence, saying they are a "step in a right direction."
The Vatican's chief spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said Saturday that 47 religious leaders have appealed to members of the U.S. Congress "to limit firearms that are making society pay an unacceptable price in terms of massacres and senseless deaths."
"I am with them," Lombardi said, in an editorial carried on Vatican Radio, lining up the Vatican's moral support in favor of firearm limits.
"The initiatives announced by the American administration for limiting and controlling the spread and use of weapons are certainly a step in the right direction," Lombardi said.
Frankly, the view of the Vatican is irrelevant on this one. After all, the right to keep and bear arms is specifically in our Constitution. But it will be interesting to watch the same folks who object to the Catholic Church opposing abortion because there is a right to life and opposing ObamaCare because there is a right to exercise your religion free from government compulsion now turning around pointing to the Catholic Church as justification for doing damage to the right to keep and bear arms.
Crazy criminal. Legal object with legitimate purpose. Dead body. Isn't that the equation used to justify banning any or all guns post-Newtown?
WEATHERFORD, Texas (AP) A North Texas man has been jailed on a murder charge after saying "voices" told him to take a pickax to the head of another man.
Nicholas Camfield of Weatherford remained in the Parker County jail Saturday with bond set at $1 million after telling a Texas Ranger he struck John Daniel Doss with the pickax "because the 'voices in his head' were telling him to do it."
But we won't see the frantic call for pickax control in the wake of this heinous murder, because reasonable people (and even unreasonable politicians like Obama and Biden) recognize that the problem is the crazy guy, not his weapon. Would that they could extend their logic to firearms and act to control the mentally ill and not the devices they abuse.
Never mind that these funds are already financially upside down in too many cases and never mind that they are legally obligated to obtain the highest return on investment in order to secure the pensions of the beneficiaries of the pension funds who have been contributing to them and will be depending upon them in the future. No, Rahm Emanuel wants to make the public employees and retirees of America shoulder the burden of destroying the Second Amendment rights of Americans by forgoing investments in a highly profitable industry.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Saturday called on his fellow mayors to follow the Windy Citys example and direct their cities pension funds to begin divesting from the assault weapons industry.
Clearly, when it comes to assault weapons measures, if we can do it as it relates to Iran, and their policy, if we can do it as it relates to apartheid, clearly we can do it as it relates to this issue, Emanuel said, speaking during a meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Washington.
Earlier this week, Emanuel said he would direct Chicago city pension funds to investigate their investments and to divest from the assault weapons industry.
Its going good in Chicago and other cities are joining us, Emanuel told POLITICO of the divestment initiative.
Let's take a look at the flawed analogy at work here.
In other words the three examples are not equivalent in any legitimate sense.
Which leads me to another question -- will these city (and other) governments be prepared to make up the financial shortfall experienced by the pension funds due to the politicized investment criteria? Will it be within the power of the beneficiaries of the fund to overturn the decision to divest from these companies through a vote of the membership, or will they be unwilling pawns of larger political agenda? What legal recourse do the beneficiaries have to stop this unwise policy?
When any element of our military produces a document that makes claims like this one, then it is time for a purge to remind the officers that they are subservient to the populace under our Constitution, not our masters and the arbiters of our rights.
A West Point think tank has issued a paper warning America about far right groups such as the anti-federalist movement, which supports civil activism, individual freedoms and self-government.
The report issued this week by the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., is titled Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding Americas Violent Far-Right.
The center part of the institution where men and women are molded into Army officers posted the report Tuesday. It lumps limited government activists with three movements it identifies as a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.
Got that? If you believe in the principles of federalism outlined in the Constitution, support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self-government, you are a part of the terrorist threat to America! And lest you have any doubt that the document is intended to discredit and delegitimize the mainstream conservative movement, please note the following. And if you think Im being alarmist here, I suggest you read the report, which goes to great lengths to link mainstream conservative leaders (both past and present) with the violent groups. At one point, for example, the author goes so far as to link former Reagan Surgeon General C. Everett Koops characterization of the struggle against legal abortion as a battle between good and evil to abortion clinic bombers and individuals who have attacked abortionists! That, my friends, is an utter disgrace.
While liberal worldviews are future- or progressive -oriented, conservative perspectives are more past-oriented, and in general, are interested in preserving the status quo. the report says. The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation or ethnic community.
Speaking as someone who has spent a career in the social sciences, I have an additional problem with this paper. There is no objective data presented for readers to analyze themselves no list of incidents that are included in the study, for example. Whats more, the incidents are classified based upon the categories assigned by ideological groups on the left, and so the data itself would be suspect in any event. It is therefore fair to say that the scholarship itself is quite shoddy or at least vague enough as to make me question its validity. And most disturbing is the way in which the lines between actual violent groups and mainstream ideologies are blurred so as to make it appear that those mainstream views are somehow threatening and illegitimate.
In other words, we have the Defense Department now attempting to define what political views are acceptable and appropriate for Americans to hold and which ones ought to be discredited, rejected, and rooted out of the American body politic. We need Congressional hearings on this one, with the reports author and senior officials from both West Point and the Pentagon subpoenaed and required to answer questions publicly regarding this matter with a view towards reforming the United States Military Academy and the DoD so that they cease being a threat towards our the civil activism, individual freedoms, and self-government that are intended by our Constitution to be a hallmark of the American Republic.
And with six weeks to go, one of our local Democrats has declared that dissent from Obama and his policies is not merely racist and unpatriotic, but also rebellion against God and grounds for punishment as a heretic!
The verses that the blogger at Half Empty decided to declare as binding upon American citizens are found at 1 Peter 2:13-14 -- "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. He used a slightly different translation which uses emperor rather than king, but the point I am about to make remains the same.
President Barack Obama has today signed some executive orders altering our gun policies or emphasizing existing authorities. He has also requested that congress pass bills to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
The knee-jerk reaction has been to call for impeachment from a tyrannical leader. But remember the words of St. Peter. This quotation from 1st Peter is a clear call from the distant past to get our house in order, get behind the president, and punish those gun-toting nutjobs who would do harm.
Thus sayeth the Lord.
Now let's offer some objections here.
Now I can point to a number of things here -- after all, the early church was noted for its disobedience to the emperor and his appointed officials, which earned many a Christian a trip to the arena to become lion chow for refusing to submit to the demand that they make sacrifice to the emperor as a god. Many of us today look upon the devotion to Obama and refuse to participate in it for the same reason -- we will not renounce the direction of scripture at the command of a false god.
Of course, consider where the blogger's injunction of submission to the demands of a particular ruler eventually must lead -- the Holocaust, the Cultural Revolution, and the Killing Fields. Submission to rulers and participation in their schemes cannot be a justification for embracing that which is evil. Those who suggest that it does are simply the mouthpieces of the Evil One, twisting scripture for ends that are not of God. I therefore direct to him the words of Jesus from Matthew 16:23 -- "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's."
By the way, I wonder if, when the blogger quoted from the second chapter of the First Letter of Peter, he also felt it would be appropriate to make use of verse 18 just a couple of lines down -- one that was quite popular among Democrats of an earlier era -- "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."
Or perhaps that is the blogger's ultimate goal for all of us.
I just found out (H/T Holger of Holger Awakens) that the Gates of Vienna Blog has been removed. I do not know why, neither, according to the tweets from the folks at GoV do they.
GoV is a longstanding anti-jihad blog. I've not always agreed with them, but have respected them. They are also former Watcher's COuncil members.
WHy has the blog disappeared? Why, presumably, has Google shut them down without explanation to the blog owners? This strikes me as very problematic for a number of reasons.
The headline on this press release/blog post is pretty straightforward.
Why Were Raising the Signature Threshold for We the People
So is the explanation.
When we launched We the People, none of us knew how popular it would be, but it's exceeded our wildest expectations. Through the past year, interest in We the People exploded and we're closing in on 10 million signatures.
When we first raised the threshold from 5,000 to 25,000 we called it "a good problem to have." Turns out that "good problem" is only getting better, so we're making another adjustment to ensure were able to continue to give the most popular ideas the time they deserve.
Starting today, as we move into a second term, petitions must receive 100,000 signatures in 30 days in order to receive an official response from the Obama Administration. This new threshold applies only to petitions created from this point forward and is not retroactively applied to ones that already exist.
But the real answer is really much more basic. it consists of two points.
1) We don't really like having to answer the petitions of the American people who have things they want the government doing. It is just too much work.
2) Conservatives have discovered that they can use the website to promote their causes and embarrass the Administration by posting petitions that we are just going to reject anyway, so we are going to make it harder for them to do.
In other words, this is just one more repudiation of "government of the people, by the people, for the people" by an administration that doesn't much care what the American people want.
You know, producing a video game which targets a particular real individual for murder -- in particular because of that individual's exercise of their Constitutional rights -- does seem to cross a line here.
A new online video game is taking political discourse to a whole new level. We already reported the death threats being received by NRA executives and now, a video game which allows users to shoot NRA President David Keene in the head, has been released. The creator of the game identified as gizmo01942 Ediot says, "Share this everywhere, especially gun-nut and anti-game websites. Also see if you can't send it in to the NRA somehow, like through the feedback on their website or something." Gizmo also provides screen shots to viewers, which can be seen below.
The game is available for download and comes in the form of a zip file. During a press conference in December, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre berated the video game industry for their use of violence saying, "Isnt fantasizing about killing people all day really the filthiest form of pornography?
Doesn't this constitute an online death threat? Shouldn't the creators and promoters of this game be facing some sort of criminal -- or at least civil -- sanctions for implicitly communicating a death threat?
And for the anti-gunnites who think this game is just lads of fun and great political commentary, let me ask you -- would this game be acceptable if it targeted Sarah Brady? Piers Morgan? Michale Moore (though that game wouldn't be challenging -- too large a target)? President Obama (nah -- that will earn you a visit from Secret Service agents with real guns)? Or maybe, in honor of the upcoming federal holiday, they can rework the game and make Doctor King a target on the hotel balcony where he was murdered!
Now for those who find my intentionally extreme and offensive suggestions above to be. . . uhhhh. . . extreme and offensive, will you explain to me why they are any more offensive than this actual game targeting NRA President David Keene? Aren't there criminal, or at least civil, penalties that ought to be applicable here?
After four years of doing nothing on gun control, Barack Obama took the first convenient post-election opportunity to make limiting the Second Amendment freedoms of America a priority. That this meant trampling the bodies of recently dead children in order to use them as the platform upon which he would stand in order to promote an anti-gun agenda doesn't matter to him -- after all, there are now no political repercussions to such shamelessness..
And in order to suppress dissent and prevent hard questions from anyone in the media who might be inclined to ask them when he announces his executive orders and legislative wish-list on guns, the President has decided to make sure that he is surrounded not just with armed Secret Service agents, but also with an impenetrable shield of little kids.
"Tomorrow the president and vice president will hold an event, here at the White House, to unveil a package with concrete proposals to reduce gun violence and prevent future tragedies like the one in Newtown, Connecticut," announced spokesman Jay Carney. "They will be joined by children from around the country who wrote the president letters in the wake of that tragedy, expressing their concerns about gun violence and school safety, along with their parents."
Any reporter who dares to ask a challenging question will no doubt be met with "Why don't you explain to these children why you think letting killers have weapons of mass murder is more important than their being allowed to grow up free from gun violence" or some similar piously fraudulent answer. And any challenging give and take will be unable to happen with a bunch of little kids surrounding the President.
Moreover, you and I all know that the disingenuousness of surrounding Obama with a bunch of kids "who wrote the president letters in the wake of that tragedy, expressing their concerns about gun violence and school safety." They most likely didn't write that -- or at least not of their own accord. Either parents or an activist teacher did so -- or prompted them to do so -- and then mailed those letters off in an effort to astroturf the issue. Such letters are akin to the one I wrote to President Lyndon Johnson supporting the troops fighting in Vietnam when I was four years old and my father was deployed in the war zone. -- I was not particularly versed int he details of the conflict nor clear on why there were people protesting against the war, I just loved my daddy and wanted the President to know that.
How about inviting some would-be victims who defended themselves with guns or some heroes who saved others with their guns -- to make the point that guns are a part of our birthright and we are unwilling to submit to those who play on cheap sentimentality to push their anti-gun agenda..
Five Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday called on their colleagues in the House to keep up pressure for new gun restrictions by inviting people affected by gun violence to President Obama's State of the Union address, on Feb. 12.
"It is vital that we include the American public and give a voice to our constituents as we search for comprehensive solutions to this problem," the group wrote to House colleagues.
"In December, President Obama declared that addressing gun-related violence would be a 'central issue' as he opens his second term. ... It is our hope that their presence in the House Gallery will send a strong message that it is long past time to act."
Why not invite Joel Myrick, the Vice Principal of Pearl High School who with his gun stopped a shooter from moving to the junior high school campus to continue his rampage? How about Melinda Herman, who stopped a burglar who was threatening her and her twins with her gun? Or Nick Meli, who stopped the Clackamas mall shooting just by drawing his gun? Heck, invite Texan Joe Horn, who killed a pair of illegal aliens who were looting his neighbors home. You know, Americans who are responsible gun owners using their weapons legally and appropriately, not criminals who dont give a damn about laws in the first place.
In other words, lets co-opt the narrative put forth by the anti-gunnites and tell Americans and the gun-grabbing Democrats -- the truth about guns.
This man needs to go far in US politics. He sees exactly what is behind the passages of a new strictest in the nation gun control law in New York and what it actually accomplishes.
Republican Sen. Greg Ball called that political opportunism in a rare criticism of the popular and powerful governor seen by his supporters as a possible candidate for president in 2016.
"We haven't saved any lives tonight, except one: the political life of a governor who wants to be president," said Ball who represents part of the Hudson Valley. "We have taken an entire category of firearms that are currently legal that are in the homes of law-abiding, tax paying citizens. ... We are now turning those law-abiding citizens into criminals."
This is just one more proof of the old adage that no man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session.
Rather than focusing on the areas that the American people believe should be a priority for the President and Congress, Obama and the Dems are pouring all their energy into the sideshow distraction of gun control.
Fix the economy. Get spending under control. Guns arent nearly as important to the American people as those issues.
But if you do want to do something to protect school children, the American people are in favor of armed guards at schools just like the NRA proposed.
Remember you people work for us do OUR will, not your own.
Looks like another race-baiter is seeking reparations for slavery, some 150 years after it was abolished in this country.
Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) introduced two reparations resolutions on the first day of the 113th Congress.
The first, H.R. 40, is to acknowledge the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery in the United States and the 13 American colonies between 1619 and 1865 and to establish a commission to examine the institution of slavery, subsequently de jure and de facto racial and economic discrimination against African-Americans, and the impact of these forces on living African-Americans, to make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies, and for other purposes.
Fine, Congressman, I've got a plan for you. Let's find the organization most responsible for bolstering and supporting slavery in this country. Let's close it down, liquidate its assets, and distribute them to those who can show a lineal descent from someone held as a slave in this country prior to 1965. Let's ban its leaders and executives from voting or holding any elective or appointed office under the United States or any of the states.
Of course, we are talking about the Democrat Party -- which through its platform, elected officials, and its paramilitary terrorist wing managed to deny blacks their civil rights for a century after emancipation.
The choice should be obvious.
One of them wrote the Declaration of Independence and is generally considered to be the smartest man to ever serve as President of the United States.
The other is a 20-term member of Congress generally considered to have the largest nostrils and most nasal hair of any Congressman in US history.
Tell Congress to stop its efforts to eviscerate our Second Amendment rights.
Nearly 80,000 Americans were denied guns in 2010, according to Justice Department data, because they lied or provided inaccurate information about their criminal histories on background-check forms. Yet only 44 of those people were charged with a crime.
Why make new laws? Why dont we actually start enforcing as in prosecuting lawbreakers when the laws we have are broken?
Christmas is different in different countries. In America it is a single day, but in many other countries it is a season which lasts for several weeks. For Americans the day is a big one for almost everyone, but in countries like India it is marked only by Christians -- and in Japan it is celebrated by almost everyone, but without the religious significance found in the Christian world. But the Christmas tree has become almost universal, and so Christmas Tree Toppers of various types are found atop trees sporting Christmas Balls and various Glass Ornaments will be found almost everywhere.
OK, so here are this weeks full results:
See you next week!
You can't believe one without the other, folks.
Do you truly believe the Bill of Rights applies only to 18th century technology?
It was once observed by a political philosopher (see if you can figure out who) that "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Those who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights knew this as well -- hence they enshrined in the Second Amendment the principle that the people would always have that power and the ability to exercise it when faced with usurpations and tyranny by government officials.
Read Jefferson, Madison, and Washington -- as well as other leading figures of the founding generation -- and see their unanimous view on what the Second Amendment was meant to allow. And then notice that there are today those who would institute the principle that the government alone should possess the monopoly on the very tool that is the ultimate guarantor of the people's political power. How can one not question their motives and their goals in depriving the people of their liberties?
Am I threatening violent revolution or political assassination? No, I am not. Is it my profound hope that the day never comes when the people of this great nation must stand up and overthrow those who would undercut our liberties? Indeed it is. But watchfulness and readiness are always necessary for a free people, lest those who hold the reins of authority take our freedom from us, whether their motives are base or benign. And let this truth be noted -- vigilance and preparedness are the surest safeguards against the need to battle to regain our birthright of freedom.
As a state senator in Illinois, President Obama opposed legislation providing an exception to handgun restrictions if the weapon was used in the defense of ones home.
Obamas vote would have maintained the status quo, which made it a violation of municipal gun ban law to use a firearm to save your own life in your own home. But the bill was passed anyway without his support.
The vote is a sign of how committed Obama may be to strict gun control measures.
The Illinois vote is hardly ancient history, having occurred in 2004 as Obama was running for election to the U.S. Senate.
No wonder the Obama is standing on the graves of (rich white) children to try to limit the Second Amendment rights of Americans and why he eulogized Trayvon Martin after his victim had the temerity to use a legally carried handgun to legally defend himself rather than allowing the teen to beat his brains out on the pavement. Obama supports victim disarmament and criminal protection.
On Thursday it was announced that the film "Lincoln" had received twelve Oscar nominations including best picture of the year.
Hours later, NBC Tonight Show host Jay Leno marvelously quipped that it's "the first time Hollywood has ever voted for a Republican president. That's amazing."
I really dont think it is that hard to explain. It ends with a Republican president being gunned down by a Democrat actor -- every Hollywood liberal's wet dream!
Ill agree that he should not have done it, but the teacher in question did have a point that I sort of agree with.
A high school teacher in South Carolina is under investigation and has been placed on long-term administrative leave after he allegedly threw an American flag on the floor and stomped on it in front of his students.
Scott Compton, an English teacher at Chapin High School in Chapin, S.C., reprised the unpatriotic deed in three classes over the course of one day, reports local NBC affiliate WIS.
* * *
He drew a couple of symbols, like one of them was a cross, and he said, What does this represent, and everybody said, Christianity, Copeland explained to WIS.
Then he proceeds to take down the American flag, and said, This is a symbol, but its only a piece of cloth. It doesnt mean anything, and then he throws it down on the floor and then stomps on it, repeatedly, Copeland continued.
I asked what was he trying to get, the point across? And she said, I dont know, and he said, his explanation was there would be no consequences, its just a piece of cloth that doesnt mean anything.
I cannot think of any lesson that this guy was trying to teach where this particular manner of making the point would have been appropriate.
But he is right the flag is nothing more than a symbol. No harm is done to the country by desecrating a flag, as the Supreme Court noted 25 years ago. Indeed, enforced reverence for the flag is much more problematic and is constitutionally forbidden.
Which is why Ive often struggled with the Pledge of Allegiance. Just look at the words.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.
My loyalty is not to the symbol. I respect the flag, but if we did away with Old Glory tomorrow and replaced it with something else, my love for and loyalty to this country would not be diminished in the least.
Which is why I believe our pledge needs to be to something more substantive like this, for example.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it creates, one nation, conceived in liberty, with liberty and justice for all.
What do you think?
Left-wing hatemonger Lawrence ODonnell dissed the Bible on his show, but in doing so makes a great point about what religious tolerance means to this president and his supporters.
It turns out there is no better way for a pastor to get kicked out of the inauguration ceremony than quoting the Bible, ODonnell said. That is what Louie Giglio, of Passion City Church in Atlanta, did to get knocked out of this years inauguration. His participation was announced at 9 a.m. on Tuesday by the Presidential Inaugural Committee. It took all of a day for something to surface in his Giglios sermonizing past that made him persona non grata at the swearing-in of a president who is in favor of gay rights, including marriage equality.
The truth is that homosexuality is a sin in the Bible, ODonnell added, noting that Giglios sermons cited Leviticus 18:22 and I Corinthians 9-10, which warn against committing sexual immorality.
We will ensure that whoever delivers the benediction rejects the same parts of the Bible that President Obama rejects and most Democrats reject, even though every word of the Bible is the word of God, ODonnell said.
Now ODonnell wants to do away with the Bible completely especially since he argues that Obama doesnt believe a lot of what is in that book anyway. My personal preference would be to have elected officials take their oath on the Constitution but then again, Obama doesnt have much use for that document, either.
On the other hand, there is this observation from Russell D. Moore, Dean of the School of Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, that notes that the exclusion of those who hold traditional positions on homosexuality (or other wrong theological positions) constitutes a de facto establishment of religion.
[B]y the standards of this controversy, no Muslim imam or Orthodox Jewish rabbi alive can pray at a presidential inauguration.
When it is now impossible for one who holds to the catholic Christian view of marriage and the gospel to pray at a public event, we now have a de facto established state church. Just as the pre-constitutional Anglican and congregational churches required a license to preach in order to exclude Baptists, the new state church requires a license of embracing sexual liberation in all its forms.
Note, this now doesnt simply exclude harsh and intemperate statements or even activism. Simply holding the view held by every Roman pontiff and by every congregation and synagogue in the world until very recent days is enough to make one radioactive in public.
Apparently the left-wing view of tolerance means that religious believers must tolerate that which violates their religious beliefs, but that there is no converse tolerance of those believers and the beliefs they hold. Indeed, Moore even finds a quote that is as applicable to the now established leftist faith as it was to the established Anglican and Congregationalist churches of an earlier age -- There is nothing so offensive to an established church than the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Yesterday, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and city officials unveiled a new initiative to limit supplies of prescription painkillers in the citys emergency rooms as a way to combat what they described as a growing addiction problem in the region. Some critics, as documented by The New York Times, however, felt the move would unnecessarily hurt poor and uninsured patients who use emergency rooms as their primary care doctor. Needless to say, Mr. Bloomberg was not swayed by this line of argument.
The city hospitals we control, so were going to do it and were urging all of the other hospitals to do it, voluntary guidelines. Somebody said, oh, somebody wrote, Oh then maybe there wont be enough painkillers for the poor who use the emergency rooms as their primary care doctor, the mayor said on his weekly radio show with John Gambling. Number one, theres no evidence of that. Number two, supposing it is really true so you didnt get enough painkillers and you did have to suffer a little bit. The other side of the coin is people are dying and theres nothing perfect .Theres nothing that you can possibly do where somebody isnt going to suffer and its always the same group [claiming], Everybody is heartless. Come on, this is a very big problem.
Wanna bet Bloomie will get all the painkillers he wants? After all, such rules are not for the elite.
BEN SHAPIRO, EDITOR BREITBART.COM: You know, honestly Piers, you have kind of been a bully on this issue, because what you do, and Ive seen it repeatedly on your show. I watch your show. And Ive seen it repeatedly. What you tend to do is you tend to demonize people who differ from you politically by standing on the graves of the children of Sandy Hook saying they don't seem to care enough about the dead kids. If they cared more about the dead kids, they would agree with you on policy. I think we can have a rational, political conversation about balancing rights and risks and rewards of all of these different policies, but I don't think that what we need to do is demonize people on the other side as being unfeeling about what happened at Sandy Hook.
MORGAN: How dare you accuse me of standing on the graves of children who died there. How dare you.
SHAPIRO: Ive seen you do it repeatedly, Piers.
MORGAN: Like I say, how dare you.
SHAPIRO: Well, I mean, you can keep saying that, but youve done it repeatedly. What you do, and Ive seen you do it on your program, is you keep saying to folks if they disagree with you politically, then somehow this is a violation of what happened in Sandy Hook.
Frankly, clowns like Piers Morgan are remarkably silent about guns until they get a attractive victims to use as props. After all, they are remarkably silent about poor black and brown kids killed on a daily basis in American cities but let the children of wealthy die and they go nuts, demanding immediate action to stop the killing. Those who question their policy positions are then declared to be uncaring or deranged or otherwise maligned as somehow threatening to society. Call the self-appointed moralizers on their exploitation of the dead and they are outraged.
Of course, when we consider Morgans history, why should we be surprised by his tactics?
None of this should be surprising, coming as it does from a disgraced former tabloid editor and ex-talent show judge. Indeed, a quick look at Morgans oeuvre, which includes stints at the News of the World, which was shuttered during the phone hacking scandal, and the Daily Mirror, from which he was fired for publishing fake photos of British soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners, and one understands that Morgan is incapable of nuance.
So yes, Mr. Morgan, we dare to call you on your tactics. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
I mean, this really does seem to cross some serious lines when government officials are telling religious leaders what to preach to their congregations about and in particular telling them to preach about what government policies to support.
During one session with a dozen religious leaders on Wednesday, Biden made a specific request to those gathered to preach to their congregations about the importance of enacting stronger gun control laws, said the Rev. Michael McBride, a participant in the meeting and a community organizer for the PICO Network, an alliance of faith-based organizations.
The vice president shared how he felt this was one of the most important meetings of all the meetings, that the faith leaders, the faith community has a very unique role in engaging in the moral persuasion necessary to address the gun challenges in our country, McBride said. He called upon us to take that seriously and that the administration and everyone involved is going to be looking to us to help to make that argument across the different faith traditions.
Of course, we wont hear any objections from Americans United For The Separation Of Church And State or the Freedom From Religion Foundation. These are reliably left-wing groups that are in line with the left-wing policies of the Obamunist Regime, and so they are more than willing to turn a blind eye to government efforts to co-opt religious groups for left-wing purposes.
Karzai doesn't look bad, either.
Is it just me, or does Obama look like he just "Al Roker-ed" himself?
Many Egyptian viewers were horrified when preacher Hisham el-Ashry recently popped up on primetime television to say women must cover up for their own protection and advocated the introduction of religious police.
I was once asked: If I came to power, would I let Christian women remain unveiled? And I said: If they want to get raped on the streets, then they can, Ashry told Nahar TV last week.
Introducing a Saudi-style anti-vice police force to enforce Islamic law was not a bad thing, he said, and added: In order for Egypt to become fully Islamic, alcohol must be banned and all women must be covered.
Given that the Muslim Brotherhood has been consistently victorious since Obama backed the "Arab Spring", I'm not sure how many Egyptian viewers were horrified. And sadly, I have no doubt that were will see the Obama Administration and American feminist groups stay mute on this matter. There will be no cry of "war on women".
After all, it isn't like Hisham el-Ashry was suggesting that women be made to pay for their own birth control.
It's a dog -- but it looks like a lion.
The president is going to act, said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. There are executives orders, theres executive action that can be taken. We havent decided what that is yet. But were compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.
Biden said that this is a moral issue and that its critically important that we act.
Biden talked also about taking responsible action. As the president said, if youre actions result in only saving one life, theyre worth taking. But Im convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of americans and take thousands of people out of harms way if we act responsibly.
Every American, gun owner, or not, should be very afraid of this development. The Vice President has indicated that he and the President are going to act extra-constitutionally in order to impose policies that are not supported by the American people or the Constitution. This is not what American government is supposed to be about, nor is it how it is supposed to operate.
Indeed, I can't help but having the same reaction as one Republican Congressman.
The Founding Fathers never envisioned Executive Orders being used to restrict our Constitutional rights, Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) said in a statement Wednesday. We live in a republic, not a dictatorship.
* * *
I will use every means at my disposal to combat the agenda of the Executive branch to undermine our Second Amendment rights. I will also fight any legislative action that is taken to implement more gun control, he said. Americans dont want their Second Amendment freedoms restricted in any way and I will continue to fully support the right to bear arms for all law abiding citizens.
There was a time I would have thought such words were hyperbole -- but is it really all that outrageous a sentiment when we have a president ready to tamper with and limit our rights all on his own?