Monday, January 28, 2013

Why Republicans Are Poised To Lose The Second Amendment Battle

Why Republicans Are Poised To Lose The Second Amendment Battle

Derek Hunter

Jan 27, 2013

You have to give progressives credit. They’re nothing if not thorough. When an opportunity to limit the Second Amendment presented itself in the Sandy Hook massacre, regardless how tasteless it was to exploit that opportunity, they went full bore toward their goal.

Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced sweeping so-called “assault weapons” ban legislation this week that would place unprecedented restrictions on individuals’ rights to own, use, sell and even pass along already owned firearms to family members. But given where things stand now in the polls and political atmosphere, that legislation will go nowhere.

But the Constitution and the will of the people matter little to a progressive with an opportunity.

If they were at all interested in the democracy they routinely claim to champion, they would accept the will of voters and engage in an effort to change minds and the Constitution to reflect their wishes. But much like a three-card Monte street hustler, they pursue the debate over this proposed legislation merely to draw our attention away from what they really seek to do.

While the media focused on Sen. Feinstein’s legislation and President Obama’s dog-and-pony show – complete with children for props and “executive initiatives” that amount to no more than a to-do list for himself –, the real progressive attack on the Second Amendment churns on beneath the radar.

Progressive politicians across the country are attempting to launch a stealth war against gun manufacturers, trying to harm them financially because they can’t legislatively.

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter has the city moving to divest its pension fund from weapons and ammunitions companies in an attempt to pressure them to agree to more controls on their businesses. But Nutter isn’t alone, a growing list of progressive politicians from across the country are using their workers’ pensions, their retirement savings, like chips in a game of high-stakes poker.

By pulling, or threatening to pull, hundreds of millions of dollars in investments from manufacturers, it threatens to take stock prices artificially low. They’re willing to play politics with the retirement of their workers in order to advance their agenda. But the full-frontal assault on their stock price isn’t the only stealth avenue they’re seeking.

Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel, mayor of the murder capital of the world, is taking a second line of attack by putting pressure on banks to stop their financial involvement with weapons manufactures until they capitulate to the progressive will.

Emanuel, the president’s former chief of staff, wouldn’t dare make such a move if he didn’t have the blessing of the White House.

Time will tell how well this will work, but the tactic of ignoring the will of the people to advance their agenda is nothing new to progressives. When they can’t get what they want through the electoral process, progressives have no qualms about circumventing the express will of their constituents through lawsuits, activist judges or flat-out harassment.

For years, liberals have sought to silence Rush Limbaugh, to remove him from the radio. They tried offering competing programming, but that proved as fruitful as Betamax every time it’s been tried. They’ve toyed with the idea of reinstating the ironically named “fairness doctrine” to force him off the air, but that idea went nowhere. So they’ve adopted the tactic of harassing companies that advertise on his show, trying to chase them away in the hopes of silencing him through threats and intimidation.

The only step missing from the progressive playbook is the court – almost always the last place they turn when the people flatly refuse to give them their way. Expect an attempt to subvert this soon.

Progressives are never content to win an argument, election or debate, nor would they even be capable if they were honest about their agenda. Instead they focus on the long war, small pieces and coordinated, seemingly disparate actions on different tracks and never stop until they reach their goal. Meanwhile, Republicans are busy contradicting one another, capitulating and/or fighting to be the Democratic Media Complex’s flavor of the week.

In coming weeks and months, we will see still more back-channel tactics, arm-twisting and varying degrees of blackmail and threats employed as more and more progressive groups with more and more liberal money behind them fall in line to do their part to attempt to chisel away at the Second Amendment.

All the while Republicans will go on TV, take abuse while making their case, find support for their principles in the polls…and lose.

President Reagan kept a plaque on the wall in the Oval Office that read, “There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he does not mind who gets the credit.” It’s a lesson Republicans have forgotten, and a lesson progressives have learned all too well.

Sunday, January 27, 2013

SOME international reporting on LAST Week's Iranian explosion

 

Let’s hope Iranian leader ‘I’m a nut job’  and others are among the dead!

Steve
-----------------------------------------

Mystery Surrounds Fordow Blast

Image003
Jan 27. – Media reports Sunday suggest a damaging explosion at Iran’s top-secret Fordow nuclear development site took place last week, leaving as many as 190 workers dead.

Following the blast, the main road from Qom to Tehran was closed for several hours, the German newspaper Die Welt reported. If the reports are to be believed, the explosion was perhaps the most serious blow against the Iranian nuclear program to date. 

However, Fordow is only one of several key Iranian nuclear sites that contribute greatly to the widely-suspected weaponization of the Iranian nuclear program. Critical damage to the Fordow facility would slow down, but not end the Iranian nuclear program. 

Fordow, one of Iran’s largest fuel-enrichment plants, is located in a fortified secret bunker buried outside the city of Qom. In violation of international agreements, Iran failed to declare the construction of the facility, and admitted to its existence only after it was exposed by Western intelligence. Iran also admitted to violating United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions by enriching uranium to 20 percent at Fordow. Enrichment of this kind is militarily significant as it enables an easy and quick shift to weapons-grade 90% enriched uranium in a matter of months.

The U.N. banned Iran from enriching uranium after the repeated failure by Tehran to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear watchdog. The IAEA concluded “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.”

The international community fears that a nuclear Iranwould make the region even more volatile, and would continue to enable violence and terrorism throughout the world. As the leading sponsor of international terror, Iran, even without nuclear weapons, has supported attacks directly targeted at Americans and Israelis across the world.

Syria, as a satellite of Iranian-backed terror, has killed over 60,000 of its own citizens in its current civil war. Senior Iranian official Ali Akbar Velayati threatened that the overthrow of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad is a clear “red line”, declaring that any foreign attack on Syria would be considered an attack on Iran.

Reaffirming the Iranian commitment to the destruction of the “Zionist regime,” Iranian Armed Forces Chief of Staff Major General Hassan Firouzabadi reiterated Iran is “standing for its cause that is the full annihilation of Israel.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu commented Sunday as the world marked international Holocaust Remembrance Day, the Iranians were continuing both to deny the Holocaust and pursue their goal of destroying the Jewish state. “They are not halting their unceasing and methodical race to obtain atomic weapons for the purpose of realizing this goal. We are not taking these threats lightly.” 

 

Image001

A Great Lesson on Stress

A Great Lesson on Stress

Excellent advice for the New Year.


A young lady confidently walked around the room while leading and explaining stress management to an audience with a raised glass of water.
Everyone knew she was going to ask the ultimate question, 'half empty or half full?'...  She fooled them all ....  "How heavy is this glass of water?" she inquired with a smile.

Answers called out ranged from 8 oz.  To 20 oz.

She replied , "The absolute weight doesn't matter.  It depends on how long I hold it.
If I hold it for a minute, that's not a problem.  If I hold it for an hour, I'll have an ache in my right arm.

If I hold it for a day, you'll have to call an ambulance.  In each case it's the same weight, but the longer I hold it, the heavier it becomes."

She continued, "and that's the way it is with stress.  If we carry our burdens all the time, sooner or later, as the burden becomes increasingly heavy, we won't be able to carry on."

"As with the glass of water, you have to put it down for a while and rest before holding it again.  When we're refreshed, we can carry on with the burden - holding stress longer and better each time practiced.

So, as early in the evening as you can, put all your burdens down.  Don't carry them through the evening and into the night...  Pick them up tomorrow.

1 * Accept the fact that some days you're the pigeon, and some days you're the statue!

2 * Always keep your words soft and sweet, just in case you have to eat them.

3 * Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.

4 * Drive carefully...  It's not only cars that can be recalled by their Maker.

5 * If you can't be kind, at least have the decency to be vague.

6 * If you lend someone $20 and never see that person again, it was probably worth it.

7 * It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others.

8 * Never buy a car you can't push.

9 * Never put both feet in your mouth at the same time, because then you won't have a leg to stand on.

10 * Nobody cares if you can't dance well.  Just get up and dance.

11 * Since it's the early worm that gets eaten by the bird, sleep late.

12 * The second mouse gets the cheese.

13 * When everything's coming your way, you're in the wrong lane.

14 * Birthdays are good for you.  The more you have, the longer you live.

16 * Some mistakes are too much fun to make only once.

17 * We could learn a lot from crayons.  Some are sharp, some are pretty and some are dull.  Some have weird names and all are different colors, but they all have to live in the same box.

18 * A truly happy person is one who can enjoy the scenery on a detour.

19 * Have an awesome day and know that someone has thought about you today.

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY
20 *Save the earth.....  It's the only planet with chocolate!*

If 'Assault Weapons' Are Bad...Why Does DHS Want to Buy 7,000 of Them for 'Personal Defense'?

All part of Obama's civilian security force. You need this force when you no longer have a well regulated militia made up of the people. And to help you disarm the well regulated militia of the people.

Who are these people so afraid of?

If they feared foreign forces then they should welcome an armed citizenry. So if not a foreign force it must be the armed citizenry they fear. 


http://radioviceonline.com/department-of-homeland-security-sport-rifle-ar-15-suitable-for-personal-defense/

If ‘Assault Weapons’ Are Bad…Why Does DHS Want to Buy 7,000 of Them for ‘Personal Defense’?
Jan. 26, 2013 2:30pmJason Howerton

The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” (PDW) also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. The solicitation, originally posted on June 7, 2012, comes to light as the Obama administration is calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.

Citing a General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP), Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com reports that DHS is asking for the 7,000 “select-fire” firearms because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” The term select-fire means the weapon can be both semi-automatic and automatic. Civilians are prohibited from obtaining these kinds of weapons.

The RFP describes the firearm as “Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.” Additionally, DHS is asking for 30 round magazines that “have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.”

Republican New York state Sen. Greg Ball also issued a press release this week bringing attention to the weapons purchase request.

Calls made to DHS seeking information regarding whether or not the RFP was accepted and fulfilled were not immediately returned on Saturday.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Thursday introduced legislation that would enact a so-called “assault weapons” ban. The bill would ban more than 150 firearms and limit magazines to 10 rounds. There is no expiration date on Feinstein’s bill.

Get all the details on the bill, including a list of firearms that would be banned, here.
Critics of such a ban on semi-automatic rifles are already arguing that the government is showing its hypocrisy by essentially saying they are good “personal defense” for them, but not for American citizens. When civilians own semi-automatic rifles, they somehow become “assault weapons.”

That being said, it is reasonable for the Department of Homeland Security to request these rifles as they are indeed effective personal defense weapons. The agency is tasked with keeping Americans safe from those who wish to do the country harm, and its officials should be equipped with all the tools they need to do so effectively.

But what about Americans who want to keep themselves and their families safe from threats? Is a semi-automatic rifle unacceptable for a civilian’s “personal defense” in his or her home? According to some Democratic lawmakers, like Sen. Feinstein, it appears the answer is yes.

Just last week two students in Rochester, N.Y. scared off a pair of home intruders by simply brandishing an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. One of the students said he believes the weapon saved their lives.

Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely On Obama's Forged Birth Certificate

Saturday, January 26, 2013

More New York Times fascism


A Court Upholds Republican Chicanery
Published: January 25, 2013 73 Comments


For most of President Obama’s first term, Republicans used legislative
trickery to try to prevent the functioning of two federal agencies
they hate, the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau. First they would filibuster the
president’s nominees to the agencies, knowing that neither agency
could operate without board members or a director. Then they would
create fake legislative sessions for the Senate during its recess,
intended solely to prevent Mr. Obama from making recess appointments
as an end run.

Astonishingly, a federal appeals court upheld this strategy on Friday.
Mr. Obama had declared that Congress was not really open for business
during its one-minute, lights-on-lights-off sessions intended only to
thwart him, and he made recess appointments. A three-judge panel of
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit said his N.L.R.B. appointments were unconstitutional, buying
the argument of Republicans that the Senate was really in session
.

The court even broke with the presidential practice of 150 years by
ruling that only vacancies arising during a narrow recess period
qualify for recess appointments.

White House officials said the administration would appeal the
decision to the Supreme Court, but if it is upheld, it will invalidate
scores of decisions made by the labor board over the last year.
Without lawfully appointed members, the board would lack a quorum and
could take no action, unable to police union elections or ensure that
companies treat unions properly. That is exactly the outcome hoped for
by business interests and the right, furious that a board under
Democratic control tends to rule in labor’s favor (after years of
ruling for business during the Bush years).

The decision also threatens the work of the consumer bureau, which has
been operating under a director, Richard Cordray, appointed during a
recess after Republicans filibustered his nomination. A similar
lawsuit is moving through the courts challenging his appointment.

The administration’s lawyers made a solid argument that a legislative
session during which no business takes place, and when no nominations
can be considered, is not a real session. The vast majority of
senators, in fact, were out of town. Used in this way, the
administration said, sham “pro forma” sessions prevented two
executive-branch agencies from performing their lawful duties. Both
agencies were created by majorities in Congress, but they were
undermined by minorities.

The court’s opinion took no notice of the underhanded nature of these
actions: Senate Republicans asked the House to remain in session
solely to prevent Mr. Obama’s recess appointments, and the
Constitution prevents the Senate from adjourning without the consent
of the House, even if it meets only for a minute every three days.
Using a cramped definition of “recess,” the panel’s
Republican-appointed judges allowed a minority to abuse the
recess-appointments clause of the Constitution for political ends.

The situation demonstrates how dysfunctional Washington has become
because of these Republican abuses. Although Democrats also used pro
forma sessions for this purpose under President George W. Bush,
Republicans have blocked Mr. Obama’s appointments at a far higher
rate, and they have gone much further by trying to shut down executive
agencies through use of the filibuster.

Democrats could have changed this by agreeing to curb filibuster
abuses this week, particularly on high-level presidential
appointments, but they squandered the opportunity. The court’s
decision demonstrates how their timidity is being used against them.
With no sign that Republicans are willing to let up on their
machinations, Mr. Obama was entirely justified in using his executive
power to keep federal agencies operating.

More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/opinion/a-court-upholds-republican-chicanery.html?hp

Local sheriff on gun control

 

Guest Opinion: Sheriff seeks to clarify stance on guns

By Sheriff Gil Gilbertson for the Daily Courier

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify a few issues that were reported in the Daily Courier in regards to my letter sent to Vice President Joe Biden. I strongly believe in background checks and am deeply committed to protecting the people of Josephine County. This letter and my position were not taken lightly nor meant to come across as arrogant or egocentric.

I and many other sheriffs throughout the country sent similar letters to the vice president. We are enforcing the law. The supreme law of the land, our Constitution, provides fundamental guidance. This is part of the checks and balances intended by our form of government, so each keeps the others within their delegated and limited powers and authority.

Additionally, there are the Bill of Rights, specifically the Second and Tenth amendments, the Oath of Office and germane case law such as Printz v. US, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), wherein, the Supreme Court ruled the provision that imposed those duties unconstitutional by violating the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states and to the people those powers not granted to the federal government. We sheriffs fully understand, probably more than most, the obligations associated with enforcement.

The increasing and reoccurring tragic, despicable acts undertaken by such cold-blooded murderers are reprehensible. History depicts a wide array of weapons used against our vulnerable or innocent citizens, ranging from guns, knives and bombs to chemicals. Any individual or group committed to causing death can find a means, such as flying passenger jets into occupied buildings.

This most recent challenge to gun control is predicated upon misinformation. In this case, albeit the murderer had four handguns, the issue focused upon an AR-15, commonly referred to as an assault rifle. In this case, however, the rifle was located in the locked trunk of the culprit's car. It was not taken into the school.

Examining the clearly stated agenda associated with this tragic event, I draw your attention back through history to those who employed emotionally charged events involving children to propel their cause. This stratagem was used in Russia by Joseph Stalin, China by Mao Tse-tung, Germany by Adolf Hitler, Cuba by Fidel Castro, North Korea by Kim Il-sung, Venezuela by Hugo Chavez and Iraq by Saddam Hussein.

It is my hope those making decisions affecting the future outcome base their findings upon facts and engage common sense. In my humble opinion, the root of the problem clearly resides within the individual committing the act of violence. Addressing mental health comes to mind.

Tragically, 32,000 lives, including those of many children, were lost because of automobile traffic accidents in 2011. To engage the same methodology applied to deaths related to guns, should we anticipate a ban on automobiles any time soon?

o o o

Gil Gilbertson was elected Josephine County sheriff in 2006 and re-elected in 2010.

__._,_.___