May 14, 2013 Political
Eric “The Red” Holder might have stepped in it big time now that we know The Justice (or is it Just Us) Department secretly obtained the telephone records of people at the Associated Press. Justice did not say why they took the records but it is believed they were obtained to discover who leaked classified information to the AP.
In all, the government seized the records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown, but more than 100 journalists work in the offices where phone records were targeted, on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.
In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.
“There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know,” Pruitt said. FOX News
Benghazi, IRS targeting conservative groups, HHS Secretary extorting money from insurance companies and now this.
How many of you Obama toadies are still on board? How many of you still think he and his minions are wonderful people looking out for you?
They are using the same tactics that the Communists use. They are doing things that are ILLEGAL in order to push their progressive/commie agenda and they are crapping on the Constitution and the people of this country at the same time.
These people are enemies of our nation and we need to put them on trial and get rid of them. Any politician who opposes is part of the problem and must go as well.
The irony of this AP news is that the media spent so much time covering for Obama no matter what he did and now they have been bitten by him. I doubt they will learn anything from this but who knows? Perhaps the media will start doing some investigation. Folks at the AP are hopping mad so maybe they want to play hardball…
What Obama has done and continues to do is far worse than anything Nixon did.
IMPEACH him and put the rest of them on trial. Time for a deep colon cleansing in the bowels of DC.
In other words, time to get rid of the crap.
Never surrender, never submit.
Apr 1, 2013 Political
A Baltimore Sun editorial addressing the ongoing gun grab in the People’s Republik of Maryland is interesting in that it is full of fallacies about what gun control can do. It is no secret that the Sun is a propaganda publication for the Democrat Party in Maryland. Most of the Sun staff is privately paid stenographers for the Democrats. But the naive discussion presented in the editorial is beyond ridiculous. Of course, thinking people do not believe most of what is in the Sun (the Sports page is the exception) but then again, the Sun is aimed at low information voters who continue to vote for stupidity and loss of freedom.
The Sun editorial starts out right out of the box by claiming; “…the effort in Congress to enact any meaningful legislation to address gun violence appears increasingly at risk.”
The statement that Congress doing anything is at risk is true but the fallacy is anything meaningful. What legislation could be passed that would have stopped the shootings at Newtown? I will point out later why nothing will.
The reality is that we have thousands of gun laws on the books. We do not enforce them and liberals turn a blind eye to the reality that the gun is not the problem, the criminal is. The Sun plays into this myth that gun laws (“meaningful” or otherwise) do nothing to stop criminals.
How would any new gun law stop people from getting guns when most crimes committed with guns are committed by people who are not allowed to have them?
The Sun is hedging its bets that the Democrat controlled legislature in Maryland and the Communist governor will pass meaningful gun control to stop the violence like the violence that happened in Newtown.
Keep in mind that the shooter was not allowed to have guns, none of the guns were owned by him, he murdered his mother and stole her guns and then he took them to a gun free zone known as a school and used them to murder people which, wait for it, is against the law (which I assume the Sun staff knows).
The shooter broke many laws to murder so what would stop him from breaking some new gun law? The answer to this question escapes the Sun writers. It also escapes them that it is against the law to murder people and yet, murders occur. And they occur with more than just firearms.
The Sun continues by telling us about a provision that would require people who purchase a handgun to register with the police and submit fingerprints. The Sun naively believes that this will end straw purchases. I can only surmise that the Sun thinks that this will keep criminals from getting guns because criminals will not register and submit fingerprints so they won’t buy guns. The first issue is that a straw purchase involves someone who is legally allowed to buy a gun doing so and then selling it to a person who is not. This is already illegal so what would stop a person who is allowed to buy a gun from submitting to the requirements and then selling the gun. It is obvious that criminals do not obey the law so it is unlikely this will stop the problem.
The only thing it will do is create a database of people with guns for later confiscation.
The Sun is also deluded in its thinking with regard to registration. The Sun likes the idea because it erroneously concludes that this requirement will make it harder for criminals to get guns. Criminals do not obtain guns legally and they do not register the guns they have.
It is tough to believe that there are actually people who think that some requirement will force criminals to comply.
It is illegal to buy, sell or use heroin but people do all the time. Do the laws against this prevent people from breaking those laws? Certainly not! Criminals do not obey the law.
How many of the people on the Sun staff have ever gotten a speeding or parking ticket? Did the laws against speeding or parking illegally prevent them from doing so?
The crimes committed in this country with guns will not be solved by any laws because we already have plenty of laws against using guns illegally and people still break the law. I know I harp on that but the writers at the Sun are fairly dense so repetition is important.
And to get back to another point, it is against the law to murder people. That has not stopped people from murdering.
One last point. If the writers at the Sun think these laws will stop the criminals and make it harder to get guns then perhaps they should look at the early part of last century and the subject of prohibition.
People were able to obtain alcohol during prohibition just as criminals today will get guns no matter how tightly they are controlled or how restrictive the laws are.
The Sun concludes by pointing out that passage of a meaningful gun law in Maryland is deserved because it will make us safer.
Newtown has tough restrictions on guns. How did that work out?
But, but, all you have to do is call 911 and they will send a guy with a gun.
In Newtown the police were called within one minute of the first shot fired through the glass. All the victims were murdered within five minutes. The police arrived after everyone, including the shooter, was dead.
Any person at the school who was allowed to carry a gun would have had a better chance of stopping the shooter than the act of calling 911.
In the past only law abiding people followed the laws and criminals were unaffected. Any new gun laws will only affect those inclined to follow them.
The reality though, is that many people have already stated that they will not comply with any new gun laws in Maryland.
The state will make law abiding people criminals who will eventually vote with their feet. The right to own a firearm is protected by the Constitution and the reason is to prevent the kind of tyranny the Maryland governor and his sock puppets are imposing.
It is to prevent the kind of tyranny the Sun endorses.
For allegedly educated people the Sun staff seems to have trouble with the concept that criminals do not obey the law and the definition of the word infringe…
Never surrender, never submit.
Feb 5, 2013 Political
The Obama Regime has released a memo indicating that the US can order the killing of US citizens if the government thinks they are involved with terrorists. The government has left definitions open to interpretation which means that it can effectively justify killing any American in other countries.
This whole action takes away the due process Americans enjoy.
The rationale for this is to preemptively strike those who might cause us harm even if there is no proof they will do so or when they might actually do it. In other words, if the government thinks you are a bad person who might someday try to do bad things to the US then you can be murdered by a drone strike whether or not there is any evidence you are in the process of doing something bad.
It would appear as if a person could make statements that America is a Great Satan and should be knocked to its knees and then have a drone wipe them out. Basically, the memo denies First Amendment rights in the absence of any actionable intelligence. If they think it then it must be so…
The Regime claims that this does not violate the ban on assassinations:
“A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination,” the white paper reads. “In the Department’s view, a lethal operation conducted against a U.S. citizen whose conduct poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States would be a legitimate act of national self-defense that would not violate the assassination ban. Similarly, the use of lethal force, consistent with the laws of war, against an individual who is a legitimate military target would be lawful and would not violate the assassination ban.” NBC News
How is killing an American who meets this definition not an assassination when killing the president of Iran or the leader of North Korea, both of whom fit this description, would be?
This is all about preemption. If the government thinks you might be a threat it can preemptively attack and kill you with a drone.
Does anyone remember the Bush Doctrine of preemption? The left went bonkers over that and yet they seem to be quiet about the Obama Doctrine of preemptive murder of Americans. Does anyone remember how upset everyone on the left got over enhanced interrogation techniques? The Bush White House presented a legal memo indicating that the procedures were not torture and that it was all legal. The left still went nuts.
Where are they now that Obama has his legal team say it is OK to murder Americans on a whim?
How long will it be before the Regime decides that it is legal to use drones IN the US to wipe out those who might someday pose a threat?
Never surrender, never submit.
Senator Dianne Feinstein of Commiefornia has introduced her anti Second Amendment bill and in that bill she and several other oath breakers list 150 different firearms that they want banned. Her anti American bill also calls for a national registry ala Adolph Hitler and most other dictators.
Feinstein introduced this bill and the national registry provision would violate Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owner’s Protection Act, which prohibits a national database. This law was the result of documented abused by the ATF in enforcing the Gun Control Act of 1968.
That should come as no surprise since the attempt to ban firearms is in and of itself, unconstitutional as it violates the Second Amendment.
Keep in mind, Feinstein had her own carry permit because she was threatened with harm. She had one while claiming other women do not need to have firearms because women are not strong enough to use these machines of destruction.
She was joined by Chuck Schumer of New York, another gun grabber who has a New York carry permit AND has armed officers surrounding him when he is in New York.
Banning firearms will not stop the next lunatic from shooting people because criminals and those who have mental health problems will not follow the law. They will still be able to get firearms, banned or not, and they will still be able to get magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. These are facts and have been demonstrated time and again. The Columbine shootings happened in the middle of the last “assault weapons” ban so it would appear as if the ban did not work.
It is important to emphasize the point that laws do not keep criminals from doing bad things. The overarching thing to remember when it is reported that someone murdered people with a gun is that MURDER IS ILLEGAL. If laws against murder are not obeyed what makes anyone think laws banning the instruments used by criminals will be obeyed?
The very people who want to ban firearms are against the death penalty. They claim that the death penalty does not deter crime. That is an issue for another time but someone please tell me, if the death penalty is not a deterrent how will a gun ban deter criminals from using guns to do bad things?
This whole anti American bill from Feinstein and her cohorts is nothing but a move to further control people’s lives. Millions of gun owners do not commit crimes each day but they suffer for the criminals who do.
We have not banned banks to prevent bank robberies. We have not banned cars or alcohol to prevent drunk driving. We have not banned forks to prevent obesity but somehow banning guns will prevent gun crime.
Gun control is not about guns, it is about control.
Never surrender, never submit.
The anti gun zealots are out in full force trying to usurp the Second Amendment by removing guns from society. Some members of Congress (and other politicians) are touting outright bans on specific types of guns as well as laws forcing people who already own such firearms to sell them to the government, in a sort of forced buyback program. These people are either mentally deficient or are hiding their true agenda. You see, gun laws and gun bans do not stop people who are intent on doing harm with a firearm from doing so.
This is evident in nearly all mass shootings since about 1950. In all but one of them the criminal opened fire in a place where guns are not allowed. The one where guns are allowed is Arizona where Congresswoman Giffords was shot. The gunman, by the way, was stopped by a citizen who was legally carrying a firearm.
I do not think these folks are mentally deficient (they might be but that is not the issue here) because they know what they are doing. They are using mass murder incidents to gin up public support for disarming Americans. They want this because one of the steps to Socialism requires people to be disarmed of the tools that would allow them to resist. Once all firearms are outlawed then government becomes the holder of the weapons and is free to impose its will on those who will no longer have the means to resist. These people need to have citizens willingly turn in their guns (or try to force them to sell them back) because an outright confiscation would lead to a lot of dead government agents. Americans will not be disarmed by force and there are many more gun owners than there are government agents.
Besides, many of those agents have stated they would not follow any order to disarm their fellow citizens.
But will these laws actually work? We have seen time and again that laws banning guns do not stop criminals from using guns. Chicago is a glaring example. In fact, no law stops criminals. The very nature of a criminal is that he breaks laws. Even everyday people break the law (hell we probably break a lot of laws each day because we do not know they exist) as when they go over the posted speed limit. How many non handicapped people park in a handicapped spot? How many times do people drink alcohol and drive? Those who would do violence are no exception to this except they do not know where to draw a line. They will use firearms (that they are not legally allowed to buy or posses) to commit crimes regardless of what society has deemed via its laws.
David Gregory of NBC is not a stupid person. He is an educated man who is quite successful. He is a liberal so he obviously has a brain deficiency but he is otherwise intelligent. He is under investigation for breaking a DC firearm law. Gregory displayed a 30 round magazine on his Sunday show. It is against the law in DC to posses a magazine with a capacity larger than 10 rounds. New reports have indicated that Gregory was made aware of this prior to his show and yet he chose to go ahead and display the magazine.
This means that he knew it was against the law to posses that particular item but he decided to break the law anyway.
The law did not stop Gregory from possessing the magazine and knowledge of the law did not keep him from displaying it to the three or four people who watch his show. He knew he would be in violation but did not care enough about the law to obey it.
We can argue all day about the stupidity of size limits on magazines (they are worthless laws) but the reality is, this is the law and Gregory broke it.
How would any other law have kept him from consciously deciding to break the law? How would any other law have prevented him from doing what he did when the law already on the books failed to accomplish that?
The truth is laws do not keep people from breaking them. They only provide a framework for the law abiding to follow and a system for the legal process to function once someone breaks the law.
We do not need more gun laws, we have plenty of them. We need the government to stop infringing on the Second Amendment rights we all have by virtue of our birth. If law abiding people were not restricted then criminals would think twice.
Laws only hamper those who follow them as the criminal is unencumbered by such things.
Ask David Gregory who unintentionally demonstrated why more laws are not the answer.
Never surrender, never submit.