Democrat Senators have offered an amendment to the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity gun magazines.
This particular amendment, S.A.2575, was sponsored by Democrats Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). These liberal Senators are looking to make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity devices that feed guns more than 10 rounds with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.
The amendment is identical to a different bill that was sponsored by Frank Lautenberg.
Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat, was pushing for passage of this amendment.
“Maybe we could come together on guns if each side gave some,” Schumer said.
“The basic complaint is that the Chuck Schumers of the world want to take away your guns,” Schumer said of the argument made by gun lobbies. “I think it would be smart for those of us who want rational gun control to make it known that that’s not true at all.”
Progressive liberals like Chuck Schumer think that by disarming the population they can get a better handle on crime and control the people. What they fail to see is that the very people they are out to stop do not adhere to their laws, which is why they are called criminals.
“We can debate where to draw the line of reasonableness, but we might be able to come to an agreement in the middle,” Schumer said. “Maybe, maybe, maybe we can pass some laws that might, might, might stop some of the unnecessary casualties … maybe there’s a way we can come together and try to break through the log jam and make sure the country is a better place.”
OK, there are a lot of ‘maybes’ and ‘mights’ in Schumer’s statements here. “Mights” and “Maybes” are what the left always use to try and push their agenda. There is never a definitive “this will work and here’s how.”
This kind of argument is emotional, not logical.
Laws are in place to make sure that legal transactions are checked thoroughly. Those criminals that are intent on getting high capacity magazines are going to do it despite Schumer and the Democrats passing a million laws and the law-abiding citizens are the ones that will pay for their stupidity.
Thousands of Syrians are fleeing into neighboring Lebanon — not entirely due to fear of the Assad regime. The country’s minority Christian population is suffering under attacks waged by rebel troops. In the Beqaa Valley in eastern Lebanon, Christian families are finding temporary refuge, but they are still terrified.
In the past year and a half, since the beginning of the uprising against Syria’s authoritarian President Bashar Assad, hundreds of thousands of Syrians have fled their homes and sought safe haven abroad. Inside the country, the United Nations estimates that 1 million people have left their homes to escape violence and are now internally displaced. The majority are likely to have fled to escape the brutality of Assad’s troops. Indeed, as was the case at the start of the Syrian civil war, most of the violence is still being perpetrated by the army, the secret services and groups of thugs steered by the state.
With fighting ongoing, however, the rebels have also committed excesses. And some factions within the patchwork of disparate groups that together comprise the Free Syrian Army have radicalized at a very rapid clip in recent months. A few are even being influenced by foreign jihadists who have traveled to Syria to advise them.
Earlier this month, reports came from the Syrian city of Qusayr of an ominous warning to the town’s Christians: Either join the Sunni-led opposition against Bashar al-Assad or leave. Soon after, thousands of Christians fled the town.
After decades of protection by a secular-leaning dictatorship, the Qusayr ultimatum warned of a dark future for Syria’s Christian community.
Throughout the years, Christians, like many other minorities in the region, have lent their support to those regimes that have guaranteed their security and religious freedom. In Iraq, Christians rose to the highest levels of society under Saddam Hussein’s regime, while in Egypt, Coptic Christians were protected from ultraconservative Salafists under Hosni Mubarak. As secular leaders from the secretive Alawite sect, the Assad dynasty largely preserved Christian life, protecting Syria’s minorities from what was perceived as a collective threat from the country’s Sunni majority.
Watching their once-shielding dictators fall like dominos across the region, Christians have suddenly found themselves on the wrong side of history. Faced by a rising tide of radical Sunni Islam, Christians in Iraq and Egypt have fled by the thousands.
As the 15-month conflict rages with no end in sight, Syria’s many minorities have come face to face with the emerging threat posed by radical Sunni Islamists. These elements have established themselves as a key factor in Syria’s future, backed by immense political and economic support from the Arab world and indifference from the West.
In an interview with Der Spiegel, women refugees, who have found shelter and asylum in Qa, a small market town in northeastern Lebanon, which is located only 12 kilometers away from the Syrian border, described what happened to their husbands, brothers and nephews back in their hometown of Qusayr. “They were killed by Syrian rebel fighters,” the women said, “murdered because they were Christians, people who in the eyes of radical Islamist freedom fighters have no place in the new Syria.”
“Despite the fact that many of our husbands had jobs in the civil service, we still got along well with the rebels during the first months of the insurgency.” The rebels left the Christians alone. The Christians, meanwhile, were keen to preserve their neutrality in the escalating power struggle. But the situation began deteriorating last summer.
“Last summer Salafists came to Qusayr– foreigners. They stirred the local rebels against us,” she says. Soon, an outright campaign against the Christians in Qusayr took shape. “They sermonized on Fridays in the mosques that it was a sacred duty to drive us away,” she says. “We were constantly accused of working for the regime. And Christians had to pay bribes to the jihadists repeatedly in order to avoid getting killed.”
This March, months before the Qusayr ultimatum, Islamist militants from the opposition’s Faruq Brigade had gone door to door in Hamidiya and Bustan al-Diwan neighborhoods of Homs, expelling local Christians. Following the raids, some 90 percent of Christians reportedly fled the city for government-controlled areas, neighboring countries or a stretch of land near the Lebanese border called the Valley of Christians (Wadi al-Nasarah). Of the more than 80,000 Christians who lived in Homs prior to the uprising, approximately 400 remain today.
The cleansing of Homs’ Christian neighborhoods occurred as the Syrian military bombarded the Sunni opposition stronghold of Baba Amr, naturally focusing the international media on stories of children maimed by Assad’s artillery shells and sniper bullets. At the United Nations, Assad’s opponents could not afford to highlight Christian persecution in Homs, as they risked catering to a Russian-led campaign to preserve the dictator’s rule by de-legitimizing the Syrian rebels for their atrocities.
For the newest generation of Sunni jihadists, Syria has become the latest front in the struggle to wrest control of the region from rival religious sects and foreign occupation. Many of these fighters hail from the vast reaches of North Africa and the Gulf, arriving in Syria with weapons, funds and a radical ideology.
Inside Syria, the reluctance of the international community to thwart Assad’s onslaught has left the Sunni population with feelings of isolation and abandonment, driving large swathes of youth into the arms of radical clerics. This uncompromising ideology leaves little place in Syria’s future for the country’s many minorities — including Christians.
Saving Syria’s Christian community is coherent with Western strategic interests. If the experiences of Iraq and Egypt are any indication, religious intolerance breeds insecurity and volatility. The Syrian case is no different.
Several expert commentators are calling into question the narrative being spread by Western media about the nature of the unrest in Syria. They argue that it is not merely an internal conflict between the government and the rebels but has become an international battle for the balance of power in the Middle East.
Assad’s opponents on both sides of the Atlantic must prevent radical Islamists from embedding themselves in the Syrian opposition and should adopt a firm stance against their patrons in the Gulf. The ousting of the Assad regime has become a global moral obligation, but so has the duty to ensure that Syria’s future holds a place for all minorities.
Remember when the New York Times started printing stories about the White House strategy against terrorism, based on classified intelligence that had been leaked to reporters?
The Left was incensed when Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives deduced that the leaks could only be coming from the White House, that the information was probably being leaked to try to create an image of President Obama as tough on terror and boost his re-election chances.
“I think the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from their ranks,” said Feinstein.
On Tuesday, Feinstein tried to backtrack and said she shouldn’t have “speculated.”
Mitt Romney agreed with Feinstein’s assessment. “This conduct is contemptible,” Romney said of the leaks “It betrays our national interest. It compromises our men and women in the field. And it demands a full and prompt investigation by a special prosecutor, with explanation and consequence.”
The New York Times sparked the furor when it ran a story about Obama deciding to step up cyber attacks against Iran, along with stories about his “kill lists” of prominent terrorists.
Even Feinstein can’t continue to cover for this administration, which seems to break a different law every day. The fact that she publicly tried to distance herself from her statement about the White House means nothing.
Former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu said Tuesday Feinstein got “Cory Bookered” into retracting her remarks, referring to the dust-up after the Newark mayor was forced to backpedal comments calling the Obama campaign‘s attacks on Romney’s Bain record “nauseating.”
“Senator Feinstein said yesterday that it did come out of the White House,” Sununu, a Romney surrogate, said on Fox News’s “Hannity.” “Today, she got Cory Bookered and she walked it back, but the fact is that this president is trying anything to change the subject from his failures as a president.”
Feinstein is one of the craftier people in the Democratic Party, and you can bet she knew what she was doing when she outed the White House. Anything else she says is just her way of making sure she stays on the A-list for all the San Francisco social events.
It’s long past time this administration was investigated.
Miami-Dade County in Florida is now working with the U.S. Air Force to spray mosquitos.
“This newest round of mosquito control involves a large C-130 cargo plane based in Ohio to spray Homestead ARB and communities of Doral, West Sweetwater, Kendall, Homestead, Florida City and areas east of U.S. 1, where heavy concentrations of mosquitos have been reported,” CBS Miamireports.
While the Posse Comitatus Act forbids the military from participating in state and local police functions, the use of the military in activity that is the responsibility of local government is another example of how the military is being systematically integrated into civilian operations.
“A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty,” James Madison wrote. Standing armies “in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power,” wrote Patrick Henry.
Residents of Florida may not easily see the connection between the tyranny of a standing army and the Air Force spraying pests. However, using the military in an operation that is the responsibly of civilian government reveals that the warnings of Madison and Henry are no longer heeded or for that matter relevant.
Since September 11, 2001, the government has devised an elaborate plan to merge civilian and military operations, most notably under the aegis of a coordinated response to terror attacks and natural disasters and other emergencies.
Military troops have appeared on the street in response to a murderer at large and as security personnel at the Kentucky Derby. The Pentagon now routinely cooperates with the Department of Homeland Security and state and local law enforcement and has worked locally to oversee and man traffic checkpoints and even arrest civilians.
This is not coincidental. The federal government has a keen interest in merging military and local government operations. If the founders were alive today, they would recognize this for what it is – the very essence of tyranny.
Did militant members of the nation’s most notorious union, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), sabotage nursing home residents and put Alzheimer’s patients’ lives in danger as they walked out on strike? While there are no suspects, police reports filed with the Danbury, Newington and Stamford, Connecticut, seem to suggest so, as there are distinct parallels to the sabotage that was committed when the SEIU engaged in a statewide nursing home strike in Connecticut in 2001.
For the last 17 months, a nursing home company, HealthBridge Management, has been locked in heated battle against the New England Health Care Employees Union, District 1199 (a SEIU division).
After the SEIU refused to agree to a contract offer with some concessions in exchange for raises totaling 9 percent in the first year and 17 percent over the next six years, HealthBridge chose to exercise its legal right to implement its “last, best and final offer” in late June. As a result, the SEIU called its 700 members out on strike and abandoned the residents at five nursing homes HealthBridge operates on July 3rd.
According to FoxNews.com, the incidents occurred in five of the company’s nursing homes in the overnight hours before the July 3 strike, and the incidents are similar to those that occurred in 2001 at several New England nursing homes that were represented by the SEIU.
Before the union decided to strike, David Pickus, the president of the chapter, spoke about how inhumane HealthBridge officials were.
“By their outrageous, inhumane and unlawful actions, HealthBridge has given workers no other alternative,” Pickus said after the vote to strike, according to FoxNews.com. “This is yet another instance of the wealthy 1 percent waging war on the 99 percent of us who work for a living.”
Pickus has not commented on the inhumane war his union members may have waged against defenseless seniors with Alzheimer’s by endangering them just so they could get more leverage at the negotiating table or show their frustration at HealthBridge.
In the hours leading up to and those after the SEIU members walked out on strike on July 3rd, reports were filed with the police departments in Danbury, Newington and Stamford that include such incidents as:
“…clean linens being thrown on the floor to more serious incidents whereby patients’ identification wrist bands were removed as well as patient identifiers on room doors and wheelchairs….[T]he persons involved are presumed to be employees who are part of a protest taking place outside against the Danbury Health Care Center.” [Source:Danbury Police Department Incident Report.]
“Also of note for disruptive behavior that occurred prior to the employee labor strike was: The name tags on patient’s doors for the Alzheimer’s ward were mixed up. The photos attached to the medical records for these patients were removed further complicating, but not making impossible the identification of the patients. Also dietary blue stickers affixed to the door name tags were removed. Again, there would be unrestricted, unsupervised access to the areas that that occurred.” [Source:Newington Police Department Crime/Incident Report]
In Stamford, the glass door to the industrial washing machine was shattered. In the officer’s comments, the following was noted: “Local 1199 of S.E.I.U. union is going on strike at 6:00 am on Tuesday 7/3/12 (may be related).” [Source:Stamford Police Department Incident Report]
While the SEIU may try to shrug these incidents off as mere coincidence, the fact that extraordinarily similar incidents occurred in 2001 during a SEIU nursing home strike across Connecticut may make the SEIU’s protestations ring hollow.
In 2001, during a one-day strike, incidents of strike-related sabotage targeting nursing home residents were so pervasive that the Connecticut’s Chief State’s Attorney John M. Bailey “concluded in a damning report that many of the alleged incidents not only occurred but also were criminal.”
During the 2001 strike, according to one report, the SEIU stopped short of denying the allegations that involved even potentially deadly sabotage:
Although stopping short of saying that the allegations had no merit, workers at a union press conference said they were stunned by charges that in the hours before a one-day strike on March 20, patient ID bracelets and “Do Not Resuscitate” stickers were removed, diabetics were given chocolate and some residents were told they’d be killed or poisoned by replacement workers.
SEIU boss Jerry Brown later called the investigation a “witch hunt.”
This past Wednesday, Connecticut’s Democratic Governor, Dannel Malloy unsurprisingly showed up on the SEIU’s picket lines voicing support for the union.
Apparently, in the mind of Governor Malloy, the removal of name tags or photos from Alzheimer’s patients does not negatively affect residents or their families.
Malloy’s support for the SEIU is not at all surprising given his partnership with the SEIU in unionizing the state’s daycare providers and personal care attendants.
As the police reports were filed ten days before the Governor Malloy’s visit to the SEIU picket line at one of the nursing homes where the sabotage occurred, it appears that Malloy won’t be undertaking any investigation like the one that occurred under Republican Governor John Rowland in 2001.
Friday, July 13th, 2012. On this day President Obama went off the teleprompter. This day marked the day in which we were able to peer into the soul of a socialist, the day in which the electorate got a clear view of what the president really thinks of capitalism. It’s illuminating and illustrates his insight of how America’s free enterprise system works.
In case you missed it, here is what the president said at a campaign event in Roanoke, Virginia:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me – because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t – look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hard working people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
That weekend, Fox News commentator Brit Hume explained it best:
It is fair to say that we know more tonight than we ever have about the president’s view of business and the economy. His assertion over the weekend that ‘if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen’ explains nearly everything. He wasn’t talking about God. He was talking about government.
The ad comes up with Mitt Romney reading a direct quote from Barack Obama, then the ad cuts to a snide text remark, “The only problem? That’s not what he (Obama) said.”
The problem for the president is that not even twenty seconds later the clip comes up with Barack Obama stating exactly what Romney said he did.
This isn’t like semantics which can occur in politics and it takes some investigating to figure it out. The problem with this is that it’s his own words that betray him. Obama says exactly what Romney claims he said and what we have video of him saying right in the very ad!
Details were revealed last Thursday in a long-awaited report that looked into the FBI’s actions in the months before Maj. Nidal Hasan was accused of opening fire on Fort Hood soldiers on Nov. 5, 2009, killing 13 and wounding dozens.
The findings, released by former CIA and FBI Director William Webster after two years of research, and a separate one conducted by a Homeland Security Senate committee, clearly show that the November 2009 shooting could have been prevented. Investigators had already connected many of the dots relating to Maj. Hasan, but “political sensitivity” or outright political correctness in the U.S. Army gave him a hands-off approach.
The Webster report also shows there was a clear line between the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force in San Diego, which was leading the investigation of Anwar Al-Awlaki, who was an imam in San Diego at the time of 9/11 and had contact with the hijackers there, and the Washington field office.
Seven months before the shooting took place, a San Diego agent whose job it was to track Al-Awlaki came across e-mail communications between the radical clerical and Maj. Hasan showing the Army psychiatrist express his support for suicide bombings and killing civilians, while al-Awlaki encouraged Hasan to stay in touch, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, told The Associated Press after he was briefed on the findings of a new review of the attack.
In one of Hasan’s emails to al-Awlaki, he was asking the American-born cleric his thoughts on American Muslim soldiers killing their non-Muslim counterparts, among other things.
“Would you consider them shaheeds (martyrs)?” Maj. Nidal Hasan asked in an intercepted email.
Sufficiently alarmed, the San Diego agent asked his colleagues in Washington, where Hasan was then stationed at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, to talk to and investigate the army officer.
The FBI in Washington’s response was, basically, that “we don’t investigate every Muslim guy who visits extremist websites” and that pursuing Hasan, a Muslim Army officer, would be “politically sensitive.”
There also seems to have been a turf war between the two offices, according to the Webster report. Washington’s response was a clear hand-slap to investigators to not be aggressive in targeting Muslims as potential terrorists, even when there was clear evidence that further investigation was necessary.
The FBI in Washington then made the decision to not interview Maj. Hasan because they were worried about damaging his future career prospects in the military.
“In the army, you can lose your security clearance for having bad credit, but you cannot lose your security clearance for e-mailing a known terrorist,” one soldier who was shot during the terrorist attack at Fort Hood told Fox News.
So tepid was the Washington response to Hasan’s communications with al-Awlaki that agents in San Diego thought Hasan might be a confidential informant the FBI was trying to protect.
“It shows you the length of the political correctness stuff going on,” McCaul said after he was briefed on the findings of the independent review Wednesday.
To add further insult, instead of recognizing the Fort Hood shooting as a terrorist attack, the Obama administration categorized it as “work place violence” effectively denying soldiers who lost their lives that day the military medals they are due for their heroic service — specifically the Purple Heart.
Al-Awlaki, implicated in other terror plots, was killed in a drone strike in Yemen last fall. was killed in Yemen on Sept. 30, 2011, by a missile fired from an American drone aircraft.
Hasan, charged with killing 13 people and wounding 32 others in the November 2009 shooting rampage, faces the death penalty in a court-martial scheduled to begin at Fort Hood on Aug. 20.
Sen. Joe Lieberman said the Webster Report confirms many of the findings of his committee’s earlier review.
He said he is pleased “for the first time the report declassifies the communications between Hasan and Anwar al-Awlaki so that all Ameriicans, especially the families of the victims, can understand Hasan’s radicalization and the full scale of the tragedy for which he is responsible.”
Lieberman added, “We are concerned that the report fails to address the specific cause for the Fort Hood attack, which is violent Islamist extremism”