Sunday, August 3, 2014

Gun-control advocates are learning the downside of getting their way. Recently, a federal judge struck down the District of Columbia's ban on the carrying of concealed handguns. Anti-gun forces have been losing in legislatures for a long time. Now they are finding that even where they win, they lose. 
Washington used to have the strictest gun laws in America. Besides the prohibition of concealed guns, all firearms had to be registered and handgun ownership was forbidden.

The restrictions had no evident effect on crime: In the 1990s, the nation's capital was known as the murder capital. But they invited a legal challenge -- a historic one, as it happened. In 2008, the Supreme Court invalidated the city's handgun ban as a violation of the Second Amendment.

It was the first time the court had recognized that individuals have a constitutional right to own firearms for the purpose of self-defense. It was also a drastic shift in the court's view of the Second Amendment, which for decades had been treated as a forgettable footnote.

No one forgets it anymore. After striking down the law in D.C. -- a special case, being under federal jurisdiction -- the court overturned a similar ban in Chicago, ruling that the Second Amendment curbs the power of the states to regulate gun ownership.

Prohibiting most guns was no longer permissible. Left unclear was what other regulations were allowed. The court said there is nothing wrong with barring gun sales to felons and the mentally ill or with keeping guns out of schools and government buildings. But beyond that was terra incognita.

In most places, the rights of gun owners have expanded in recent decades. Every state now allows the carrying of guns in public, with the majority granting licenses for carrying concealed guns to anyone who meets certain qualifications. But where that prerogative is denied or greatly restricted, judges have begun to apply the Second Amendment logic to uphold it.

First came a federal appeals court in Chicago, which ruled the state's ban on concealed carry unconstitutional. If Americans have a right to use guns for self-defense, the court found, they logically must be allowed to carry them in public. "To confine the right to be armed to the home," it said, "is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense" affirmed by the Supreme Court.

This year, a federal appeals court in San Francisco took a similar stance. "Carrying weapons in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is a central component of the right to bear arms," it concluded.

At least three other federal courts have declined to reach that conclusion, which means that eventually the Supreme Court will have to settle the matter. A court that has gone this far in giving force to the right to keep and bear arms is not a good bet to stop now.

But gun-control supporters shouldn't take the prospect too hard. Concealed carry is the overwhelming norm already; these rulings have added it in just a few places. Even if the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment doesn't mandate the policy, it would persist almost everywhere.

In any case, it's not something to worry much about. One thing we have learned from the spread of concealed carry is that few people take advantage of it. As of 2011, there were about 8 million people with permits -- about 2.5 percent of the population.

And most of them don't pack most of the time. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that the average licensee carries a gun only 138 days per year.

Those who do carry rarely misuse them. There was a recent episode in a Chicago suburb when a 56-year-old man with a permit blasted away at a fleeing armed robbery suspect, forcing a cop to take cover. But that's the exception.

Texas has more than half a million active licensees. In 2011, 120 of them -- one out of every 4,325 -- were convicted of any crime, according to the Texas Department of Public Safety. The state had 699 gun murders in 2011. But only three permit holders were convicted of murder.

In practice, licenses to carry guns in public have allowed law-abiding citizens to take steps they see as essential for their safety, without putting their fellow citizens in danger. It's people who lack licenses you have to fear.

Some people want you to suspend your imagination and your memory regarding what the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) actually states in terms of who can receive subsidies for their health insurance. Of course, as usual, when you have right on your side, truth does not matter. But we will explain why the subsidies disbursed from the federal exchange fails the test of what is right.
As you know by now, there were two rulings issued in a Court of Appeals that were diametrically opposed to each other. The issue revolves around whether the federal exchange (operating in 36 states) which is dispensing subsidies was authorized by the law. In referring to who may issue subsidies, the law says “an Exchange established by the State.” The people in favor of continuing the federal subsidies want us to believe that either that was not what the law really says or was countered by language in other sections of the bill, or that was clearly not the intent of the law.

After spending a couple weeks reading and listening to those who support the federal subsidies, I have not become aware of any substance to these positions. A perfect example is a principal supporter of the law in the press, E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post. He states as a defense “the law was not particularly well drafted.” He then goes on to say “Never mind that many other parts of the law clearly assume that the subsidies apply to people on both the state and federal exchanges.” Mr. Dionne, like everyone else making this argument, fails to cite where in the law this is done. Tell us where and we will believe you, but what the true believers think is that if they repeat that claptrap often enough it will become the truth. Not so. Dionne goes on to say “And never mind that during the very long debate over the ACA, no one ever said otherwise.” Let us understand -- since no one argued a negative that the federal exchange is not able to issue subsidies, it must be able to issue subsidies even if the law clearly says they are allowed from state exchanges.

Jill Horwitz, a UCLA law professor, and Sam Bagenstos, a University of Michigan professor writing in the Los Angeles Times exemplify this position. They said “The D.C. Circuit relied on a superficially plausible but ultimately nonsensical reading of the Affordable Care Act's text.” In essence they are saying don’t believe what the text says; believe what we tell you it means -- as if the ACA is a romance novel riddled with double entendre. They go on to state “There is not one shred of reliable evidence that anyone ... understood the Affordable Care Act to limit subsidies to only participants in state-established exchanges. “ Again those who read the text as it is stated are supposed to prove a negative; i.e., that it was never the intention to limit the subsidies through a federal exchange.

Netanyahu to U.S.: Don’t “ever second guess me again” and force a truce with “Palestinians”

Pamela Geller / Atlas Shrugs

The kidnapping of Hadar Goldin and the blood of those Israeli soldiers are on Obama’s hands.
“Netanyahu to U.S.: Don’t “ever second guess me again” and force a truce with “Palestinians” (thanks to Robert Spencer) August 2, 2014
After Hamas has broken six truces in a row, and after Obama and Kerry have repeatedly and indefatigably disregarded Hamas’s genocidal statements and open avowals that it would never accept a negotiated settlement or the existence of Israel in any form, this seems to be a reasonable request. “Don’t second guess me again: Netanyahu to US,” Associated Press, August 2, 2014:
WASHINGTON — Following the quick collapse of the cease-fire in Gaza, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the White House not to force a truce with Palestinian militants on Israel.
Sources familiar with conversations between Netanyahu and senior U.S. officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry, say the Israeli leader advised the Obama administration “not to ever second guess me again” on the matter. The officials also said Netanyahu said he should be “trusted” on the issue and about the unwillingness of Hamas to enter into and follow through on cease-fire talks.
The Obama administration on Friday condemned “outrageous” violations of an internationally brokered Gaza cease-fire by Palestinian militants and called the apparent abduction of an Israeli soldier a “barbaric” action.
The strong reaction came as top Israeli...

IDF: ‘Kidnapped’ Israeli soldier Hadar Goldin is dead

Pamela Geller / Atlas Shrugs

No more ceasefires. Israel must destroy Hamas. Period.
“IDF declares missing soldier Hadar Goldin as deceased,”
The IDF declared missing IDF officer Second Lieutenant Hadar Goldin, said to have been captured by Hamas, dead.
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on gmail Share on linkedin More Sharing Services 2
By Uzi Baruch
The IDF spokesman announced early on Sunday morning that at 11:25 p.m.on Saturday, the Chief Rabbi of the IDF, Brigadier Gen. Rafi Peretz, declared the death of IDF officer, Lt. Hadar Goldin, who fell in the Gaza Strip on Friday.
The decision was made according to the findings of a special board, headed by the rabbi, who examined the details of the incident and related to medical, halachic and other relevant considerations.
The message was delivered to the family by the Head of Personnel, Major General Orna Barbibay and Chief Military Rabbi, Brigadier – Gen. Rafi Peretz.
Earlier, after the end of the Shabbat, Goldin’s parents expressed their shock at rumors that the IDF was beginning to withdraw from Gaza, and urged the government not to abandon their son.
“I am a Battalion Commander in the reserves, I performed reserves duty until I was 50. (IDF Chief of Staff) Benny Gantz was my commander and it cannot be that he gave an order to the IDF to leave when there is still a soldier inside (the Gaza Strip.)” said his father Dr. Simcha Goldin outside their family home in Kfar Saba near Tel Aviv.

Netanyahu: “We will take as much time as necessary, and will exert as much force as needed”

/ Jihad Watch
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends a news conference in Tel AvivBravo. All free people should hope that he sticks to this, and is able to do so. But the international pressure is only going to grow more intense. “Netanyahu: Hamas will pay price for more attacks,” Al Arabiya, August 2, 2014
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threatened on Saturday to exact an “intolerable price” from the Gaza Strip’s dominant Hamas Islamists should there be continued attacks from the Palestinian territory.
Netanyahu also said that Israel will continue its military campaign in Gaza for as long as needed and with as much force as necessary.
“From the beginning, we promised to return the quiet to Israel’s citizens and we will continue to act until that aim is achieved. We will take as much time as necessary, and will exert as much force as needed,” he said in a public address.
Meanwhile, the Israeli Cabinet minister said there was “no point” in trying to reach a Gaza truce with Hamas and that Israel won’t send a delegation to planned ceasefire talks in Cairo, the Associated Press reported.
The minister, Yuval Steinitz, spoke Saturday on Israel’s Channel 10 television station.
His comments suggests that Israel plans to end the current round of fighting with Hamas on its own terms, rather than getting entangled in indirect negotiations with Gaza’s Hamas rulers.
Steinitz alleged that Hamas has repeatedly violated previous cease-fire deals and that this “leads us to the conclusion that with this organization there is no point speaking” about a deal.
He says Israel won’t be sending a delegation to Cairo for the time being….
Could have...would have...should have...but didn't
By: Diane Sori

"I could have killed bin-Laden. But instead, I didn't."
Former President Bill Clinton

Yesterday I listening to a tape that has gone viral...a tape made 13-years ago...a tape made when Bill Clinton was meeting with Australian business people the day before 9/11...a tape made a mere ten hours before three planes and two buildings changed America forever...a tape made when Clinton mockingly answered a serious question from a member of the audience about international terrorism...a tape that clearly shows that had Bill Clinton acted in a forceful manner 9/11might NOT have happened and 3000 American lives might NOT have been lost...a tape where he admits to having willingly chosen to NOTHING when he had the chance to do something...something big.

“I could have got him. I could have killed him [Osama bin-Laden]. But I would have had to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and killed 300 innocent women and children. And then I would have been no better than him. So I didn’t do it,” Clinton told his questioner.

But what I want to know, pray tell, is why would Clinton think he'd have to take out an entire town...and NOT a little town but a city actually...when we had precision bombs back then maybe NOT of the quality we have today but we still had them... and he knew damn well we did NOT have to carpet bomb an entire town to get one man. And why would he equate himself with the likes of Osama bin-Laden...why.

And so the man who came into office benefiting from both the policies of Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush blew this one big time as his retaliation for the acts of terrorism perpetrated on his watch were anything but forceful. Remember, Clinton's response amounted to a slap on the wrist for the first World Trade Center bombing and even less of a response was given for the Cole.

Fact: Osama bin-Laden was in Kandahar...our intelligence confirmed it...and then Clinton...bleeding heart liberal that he was and still is...said he decided NOT to take bin-Laden out because he feared causing collateral damage.Translation: Clinton feared killing the enemy but it was OK that the enemy killed Americans.

Sounds just like the current occupant of the White House now doesn't it.

But please note that in NO way am I saying that 9/11 was Bill Clinton's the fault lies strictly with those who slammed planes into buildings and on those who planned the act...but I am saying it might NOT have happened if Clinton had acted with force and fortitude after the first World Trade Center bombing or if he had acted with forceful retaliation after those muslim bast*rds killed 17 American sailors on the USS Cole.

The first World Trade Center bombing...a bombing that might have been a trial run of sorts for 9/11...happened just past noon on February 26, 1993, when a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center. The FBI confirmed that a bomb caused the explosion that killed six people and injured more than 1,000. Six suspects were convicted of participating to one degree or another in the bombing (including Omar Abdel-Rahman the so-called 'Blind Sheik'), and given strong sentences after Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. But he took military retaliation off the table thus sending the first message to our enemies that his administration will look away as far as any serious retaliation is concerned.

And why...and this also is the answer to why he did NOT go into Kandahar to take-out's because Bill Clinton was more concerned with his 'image'...with how others saw and perceived him...than with seriously fighting terrorism. And that attitude continued on after the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed five U.S. military continued on after the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military continued on after the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 224 and injured 5,000...with all this leading up to the October 12, 2000 bombing of the USS Cole that killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors. And while Clinton talked the talk he still did NOTHING of substance to retaliate against those who would kill time and again...against those being al-Qaeda.

And talk Clinton did in the days immediately after the Cole attack as he publicly vowed retaliation against the terrorists. Saying, "You will not find a safe harbor...we will find you and justice will prevail,” but once again, just like after the first World Trade Center bombing, Clinton's retaliation amounted to NOTHING of substance as he passed the retaliation responsibility onto his successor, George W. Bush.

Bill Clinton passed retaliation responsibility onto George W. Bush and Barack HUSSEIN Obama blamed George W. Bush when he did retaliate against America's enemy...the epitome of hypocrisy I'd say.

But the 'devil is in the details' as the saying goes, and those details say it all for in his final months in office Bill Clinton still had NOT retaliated against al-Qaida for anything...even going against the advice of his own counter-terrorism advisers to do so. In fact, Clinton later told the 9/11 commission that he was NEVER shown any definitive proof that Osama bin Laden’s operatives were behind the Cole attack...NEVER mind that there was proof of al-Qaeda's involvement in the first attack on the World Trade Center. And so Clinton's inaction's allowed Osama bin-Laden the time he needed to simmer, plot, and plan the worst terror attack in America's attack on American attack that changed our American way of life forever.

And lest we forget that in 1996, as the nations of the world saw Sudan as the devil incarnate...and with Sudan having bin-Laden in their custody at the time...the Sudanese government in an attempt to patch-up its relations with the U.S offered to turn bin-Laden over to us. But Clinton turned down the offer, with his own National Security Adviser Samuel Berger speaking on his behalf saying, “The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States.”

And to this I say, 'liar,' as al-Qaeda had claimed responsibility for the first World Trade Center attack, and Osama bin-Laden was well known even back then as al-Qaeda's leader as well as being known for his hatred for all things American. So folks, in 1996, had it NOT been for Bill Clinton's weakness of leadership, we could have had bin-Laden in custody which means the Cole did NOT have to happen... which means 9/11 might NOT have happened.

So as this once unknown tape rightfully goes viral across the internet, remember, if it wasn't for a narcissistic, womanizing, God-only-knows-what-else miscreant in the White House refusing to take action against those out to kill us all...the world might be a different place today. And now once again this miscreant's wife has presidential aspirations of her own...and this is dangerous indeed for if elected we will have the 'First Husband' pulling the strings of the president...and we all know how that would be 'First Husband' sold America out all those many years ago...and we sure as hell do NOT need a repeat of that scenario now do we.