Thursday, March 28, 2013

Opposing Nanny Bloomberg Is Not Anti-Semitism, It's Common Sense

By: Tony Katz / Townhall Columnist
Opposing Nanny Bloomberg Is Not Anti-Semitism, It's Common Sense

On the network of hysterical opinion known as MSNBC, Morning Joe guest and contributor Mike Barnicle claimed that there was a "level of anti-Semitism" aimed at New York Nanny Michael Bloomberg and his $12 million campaign to push gun control. It's not anti-Semitism. And those who think it is, as my grandmother would say, are mind-numbingly ignorant schumucks.

Barnicle was part of a panel discussing Bloomberg's anti-gun rights ad campaign that included former Romney advisor Dan Senor, and MSNBC Race Baiter-In-Chief Al Sharpton. Senor stated that the mayor of a blue city should not be telling people in red states how to live, saying that it probably "wasn't constructive." Barnicle, then, added his insightful thoughts:
Let’s get down to it, Mike Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City...I mean, there’s a level of anti-Semitism in this thing, directed toward Bloomberg.
No. It's not anti-Semitism. How do I know? Because my brain works. Also, because Al Sharpton agreed with Barnicle. Rule of Thumb: if Sharpton agrees, it’s got to be a bad idea.

Nanny Bloomberg is wrong on many things. When you try to regulate the size of a person's drink, when you regulate the amount of salt that a chef can use, when you want to prevent adults from purchasing and smoking premium cigars, when you attack lawful gun owners for engaging their Second Amendment rights - you're wrong. And none of it has to do with him being Jewish.

A few years ago I popularized the term "Racer." A Racer is someone who decides that because you don't like President Obama's policies, you're a racist. Don't like Obamacare? Then you're a racist. Got a problem with nonstop vacations? Racist. Opposed to raising the debt limit? Racist. Barnicle is a Racer, but gave it his own little twist.

Opposing Bloomberg isn't anti-Semitic. It's the right thing to do. Anti-Semitism is real. Barnicle's assessment is not. Barnicle, like a good "Racer," uses the claim of anti-Semitism to shut down conversation, preventing others from opposing Bloomberg's control agenda. Bloomberg is wrong, and his nanny-esque ways has ended the reign of New York as the greatest city in the world.

The Nanny likes control, and he's trying to gain more of it every way he can. It's not anti-Semitic to point it out. It's common sense.

The Left's Continuing War on Women

The New York Times caused a sensation with its kazillion-word, March 17 article by Michael Luo on the failures of state courts to get guns out of the hands of men in domestic violence situations.

The main purpose of the article was to tweak America's oldest civil rights organization, the National Rifle Association, for opposing some of the more rash anti-gun proposals being considered by state legislatures, such as allowing courts to take away a person's firearms on the basis of a temporary restraining order.

It's a new position for liberals to oppose the rights of the accused. Usually the Times is demanding that even convicted criminals be given voting rights, light sentences, sex-change operations and vegan meals in prison.

Another recent Times article about communities trying to keep sex offenders out of their neighborhoods quoted a liberal saying: "It's counterproductive to public safety, because when you have nothing to lose, you are much more likely to commit a crime than when you are rebuilding your life."

But that was about convicted child molesters. This is about guns, so all new rules apply.

As is usually the case when liberals start proposing gun restrictions, they assume only men will be disarmed by laws taking guns from those subjected to temporary restraining orders. But such orders aren't particularly difficult to get. It doesn't occur to liberals that an abusive man could also get one against his wife, whether or not his accusations are true.

Rather than helping victims of domestic abuse, this -- and other Times' proposals on guns -- only ensures that more women will get killed. A gun in the hand of an abused woman changes the power dynamic far more than keeping a gun out of the hands of her abuser, who generally can murder his wife in any number of ways.

The vast majority of rapists, for example, don't even bother using a gun because -- as renowned criminologist Gary Kleck notes -- they typically have a "substantial power advantage over the victim," making the use of a weapon redundant.

As the Times eventually admits around paragraph 400: "In fairness, it was not always clear that such an order (taking guns from the accused wife abuser) would have prevented the deaths."

No kidding. In one case the Times cites, Robert Wigg ripped a door off its hinges and heaved it at his wife, Deborah, after having thrown her to the floor by her hair.

Deborah Wigg moved out, got a protective order and filed for divorce. But doors were not an impediment to Robert Wigg. He showed up at her new house and, in short order, broke down the door and murdered her.

He happened to have used a gun, but he might as well have used his fists. Or an illegal gun, had the court taken away his legal guns. Or another door.

As her husband was breaking in, Deborah called her parents and 911. Her neighbors called 911, too. But the police didn't arrive in time. Even her parents got to the house before the cops did, only to find their daughter murdered.

The protective order didn't help Deborah Wigg; the police couldn't help; her neighbors and parents couldn't help. Only if she'd had a gun and knew how to use it -- after carefully disregarding everything Joe Biden has said on the subject -- might she have been able to save her own life.

Numerous studies, including one by the National Institute of Justice, show that crime victims who resist a criminal with a gun are less likely to be injured than those who do not resist at all or who resist without a gun. That's true even when the assailant is armed.

Liberals' advice to rape and domestic abuse victims is: Lie back and enjoy it. The Times' advice is: Get a protective order. The NRA's advice is: Blow the dirtbag's head off. Or, for the delicate: Resist with a gun, the only effective means to stop an attack.

Apparently a lot of abused women prefer not to lie back and take it. Looking at data from Detroit, Houston and Miami, Margo Wilson and Martin Daly found that the vast majority of wives who killed their husbands were not even indicted, much less convicted, because it was found they were acting in self-defense.

But the Times doesn't want abused women to have a fighting chance. Instead, it keeps pushing gun control policies that not only won't stop violent men from murdering their wives, but will disarm their intended victims.

Did Hillary commit perjury?

New reports may contradict former secretary’s sworn testimony

TEL AVIV – Did former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton commit perjury when she claimed in a Senate hearing that she did not know whether the U.S. mission in Libya was procuring or transferring weapons to Turkey and other Arab countries?

The goal of the alleged weapons shipments was to arm the rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

Any training or arming of the Syrian rebels would be considered highly controversial. A major issue is the inclusion of jihadists, including al-Qaida, among the ranks of the Free Syrian Army and other Syrian opposition groups.

During the recent hearings over the Obama administration’s handling of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Clinton was directly asked about alleged U.S. weapons shipments out of Libya.

Clinton claimed she did not know whether the U.S. was aiding Turkey and other Arab countries in procuring weapons.

The exchange took place with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

Paul asked Clinton: “Is the U. S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?”

“To Turkey?” Clinton asked. “I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me.”

Continued Paul: “It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that may have weapons, and what I’d like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?”

Clinton replied, “Well, Senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I will see what information is available.”

“You’re saying you don’t know?” asked Paul.

“I do not know,” Clinton said. “I don’t have any information on that.”

Clinton’s claims seem to now be unraveling.

Confirming WND’s exclusive reporting for over a year, the New York Times earlier this week reported that since early 2012, the CIA has been aiding Arab governments and Turkey in obtaining and shipping weapons to the Syrian rebels.

Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND have said U.S.-aided weapons shipments go back more than a year, escalating before the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi.

In fact, the Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND since last year describe the U.S. mission in Benghazi and nearby CIA annex attacked last September as an intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels in the Middle East, particularly those fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

The aid, the sources stated, included weapons shipments and was being coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

The specifics of the New York Times reporting, meanwhile, open major holes in Clinton’s sworn claims to be in the dark about the alleged weapons shipments.

U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity told the Times that American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons and then helped to vet rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive.

The plan mirrors one the Times reported last month in a separate article that was proposed by Clinton herself. The Times described Clinton as one of the driving forces advocating for arming the Syrian rebels.

Last month, the New York Times reported Clinton and then-CIA Director David Petraeus had concocted a plan calling for vetting rebels and arming Syrian fighters with the assistance of Arab countries.

The Times report from earlier this week of U.S. arms shipments and vetting seems to be the Clinton-Petraeus plan put in action.

It may be difficult for most to believe the secretary of state was not aware that her alleged plan was being implemented, especially when arming the Syrian rebels is a serious policy with obvious major repercussions internationally.

Clinton is not the only one in hot water.

As WND reported yesterday, the New York Times report threatens the longstanding White House narrative that claims the Obama administration has only supplied nonlethal aid to the rebels.

The White House has repeatedly denied directly arming the rebels.

Recruiting jihadists

Days after the Benghazi attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, WND broke the story that Stevens himself played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian and other Middle Eastern security officials.

Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad’s forces, said the security officials.

The officials said Stevens also worked with the Saudis to send names of potential jihadi recruits to U.S. security organizations for review. Names found to be directly involved in previous attacks against the U.S., including in Iraq and Afghanistan, were ultimately not recruited by the Saudis to fight in Syria, said the officials.

The latest New York Times report has bolstered WND’s reporting, citing air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders describing how the CIA has been working with Arab governments and Turkey to sharply increase arms shipments to Syrian rebels in recent months.

The Times reported that the weapons airlifts began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanding into a steady and much heavier flow late last year, the data shows.

The Times further revealed that from offices at “secret locations,” American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia. They have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive.

The CIA declined to comment to the Times on the shipments or its role in them.

The Times quoted a former American official as saying that David H. Petraeus, the CIA director until November, had been instrumental in helping set up an aviation network to fly in the weapons. The paper said Petraeus had prodded various countries to work together on the plan.

Petraeus did not return multiple emails from the Times asking for comment.

Both WND’s reporting, which first revealed the U.S.-coordinated arms shipments, and the Times reporting starkly contrast with statements from top U.S. officials who have denied aiding the supply of weapons to the rebels.

Rebel training

It’s not the first time WND’s original investigative reporting on U.S. support for the Syrian rebels was later confirmed by reporting in major media outlets. Other WND reporting indicates support for the Syrian rebels that goes beyond supplying arms, painting a larger picture of U.S. involvement in the Middle East revolutions.

A story by the German weekly Der Spiegel earlier this month reporting the U.S. is training Syrian rebels in Jordan was exclusively exposed by WND 13 months ago.

Quoting what it said were training participants and organizers, Der Spiegel reported it was not clear whether the Americans worked for private firms or were with the U.S. Army, but the magazine said some organizers wore uniforms.

The training in Jordan reportedly focused on use of anti-tank weaponry.

The German magazine reported some 200 men received the training over the previous three months amid U.S. plans to train a total of 1,200 members of the Free Syrian Army in two camps in the south and the east of Jordan.

Britain’s Guardian newspaper also reported U.S. trainers were aiding Syrian rebels in Jordan along with British and French instructors.

Reuters reported a spokesman for the U.S. Defense Department declined immediate comment on the Der Spiegel report. The French foreign ministry and Britain’s foreign and defense ministries also would not comment to Reuters.

While Der Spiegel quoted sources discussing training of the rebels in Jordan over the last three months, WND was first to report the training as far back as February 2012.

At the time, WND quoted knowledgeable Egyptian and Arab security officials claimed the U.S., Turkey and Jordan were running a training base for the Syrian rebels in the Jordanian town of Safawi in the country’s northern desert region.

MARCO 2016!!!

Dear Friend,

Below is a copy of the 2nd Amendment letter from Senators Paul, Lee, Cruz and Rubio to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, opposing any further legislation against “the American people’s right to bear arms.”  I think this is a strong letter and clearly states the four Senators’ 2nd Amendment positions.  Please note that Senator Rubio voted in favor of Senator Inhofe’s successful amendment against the U.N. Small Arms Treaty.  I can assure you that Senator Rubio will continue to support and defend our 2nd Amendment and all our Constitutional rights.  Please feel free to contact me anytime to discuss this or any issue. 

Kindest regards,

Description: Description: Description: 50

J.R. Sanchez
Director of Outreach
Office of United States Senator Marco Rubio
Hart 317
Washington DC 20510

A prelude to war...and it's NOT in the Middle East
By: Diane Sori

While we here in America are focused on the social issue of gay marriage and all things Middle East, North Korea...who claims that US B-52 bombers once again made flights over South Korea in preparation for now under "No. 1 combat readiness"...with long-range rockets being positioned to target the US mainland, US military bases in Guam and Hawaii, and South Korea.

So much for Dennis Rodman's 'touchy feely' moments with Kim Jong Un of just a few weeks ago.

Saying, “ protect the nations sovereignty and highest dignity,” The Korean People’s Army Supreme Command put its troops on high alert and put its 'strategic' rocket units on a war footing, just hours after South Korean President Park Geun-hye warned the North Korean leadership that failure to abandon its nuclear weapons program would result in its collapse. That in turn led The North’s Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea (a state body in charge of propaganda and inter-Korean affairs) to accuse Park of slander and provocation.

And so the tit for tat, back and forth between the Korea's began. But remember, all is NOT well between the two Korea's as the North and South are still technically at war as their 1950-53 so-called 'civil conflict' ended NOT with a binding treaty but with a fragile armistice, which the North says it has now thrown on the scrap heap. And in their delusions of above all else 'saving face' with the world, Kim Jong Un could take Parks words as a direct threat.

Claiming they're ready for full-fledged combat if provoked, Kim Jong Un remains angered by the new U(selss) N(ations) sanctions placed on his country after they were warned NOT to test a third nuclear warhead, which they did in early February after successfully launching a three-stage rocket last December, something that was NOT expected. And with those new sanctions in place, Kim Jong Un did what bloviating dictators do best...he saber rattled...threatening to turn Seoul into a 'sea of fire' and to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the United States.

And all this strong rhetoric comes on the heels of the joint military exercise recently completed by US and South Korea forces. Suddenly the issue of gay marriage seems NOT so important in the light of threats made against our country. North Korea is in desperate straits economically and has a man-child madman as its leader...a very dangerous combination that with the slightest provocation by either side could trigger off an unwanted armed conflict between the North and the South that would drag the US into it the fray, as the US and South Korean militaries signed a new pact last week that provided for a joint military response to even low-level provocation by the North.

Thankfully, while US and South Korean military officials continue monitoring activity inside the North, at least to date North Korea has NOT been able to actually accomplish any major military action, because they lack the gasoline and electric power to do so. But now with North Korea's ties to Iran, and the aid Iran sends them, a very dangerous situation could indeed unfold because you have two madmen at the helm of two countries on the verge of having deliverable nuclear warheads...and don't be fooled by Barack HUSSEIN Obama's words that Iran and North Korea are still years away from a deliverable weapon, because either through stupidity or deliberateness, Obama underestimates the advancement and sophistication of both countries nuclear weapon and missile programs.

And add into this explosive mix that recently North Korea shut down Red Cross hotlines with South Korea and stopped responding to calls on the hotline to the US military that supervises the heavily armed Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). But its decision to cut off the last direct military hotline with South Korea was taken the most seriously in Seoul because the two Korea's have used those telephone lines to control daily cross-border traffic of workers and cargo travelling to the North Korean border town of Kaesong.

And so the clock ticks down to a full-fledged war between the two Koreas. And with Pentagon spokesman George Little saying that US forces were ready to respond to “any contingency” and with Japan (home to a number of major US bases) saying its government was also “on full alert” the situation on the Korean Peninsula is more troublesome than ever..but hey, lets keep the focus on the social issues like Obama wants us to so we won't be aware of the slow dissent into World War III and possible nuclear armageddon at the hands of a madman.