Friday, April 5, 2013

Connecticut Passes Gun Grab While Other States Dig In To Protect 2nd Amendment

by / Personal Liberty Digest

Connecticut Passes Gun Grab While Other States Dig In To Protect 2nd Amendment
The Connecticut Legislature passed its sweeping package of gun control early Thursday, vastly tightening restrictions on firearms ownership in a State already regarded by gun control advocates, long before the December 2012 Sandy Hook tragedy, as having the Nation’s fifth-toughest gun laws.

The State’s House of Representatives closed the deal shortly after 2 a.m. Eastern time, approving  a broad ban on scary “assault” weapons and high-capacity magazines, along with a host of other regulations on ammunition sales and mental health checks.

Governor Dannel P. Malloy promptly signed the bipartisan bill into law, following a day of demonstrations in which 2nd Amendment supporters greatly outnumbered gun control advocates outside the State Capitol.

The new laws, which also require “eligibility certificates” for prospective gun buyers and mandate universal background checks — even for private sales — begin taking effect immediately. Other provisions, such as the creation of the Nation’s first “dangerous weapon offender” registry, will be implemented over time.

As the Legislature spent the day preparing to vote on the measure, anxious customers made a run on guns and ammunition at specialty stores throughout the State. Shops already experiencing chronic shortages sold out of weapons and ammo. One store owner called it “panic buying,” motivated by genuine fear that government was further tightening the noose around regular citizens’ 2nd Amendment powers.

The rush to interject government into private gun ownership in States where leaders invoke mass shootings and public safety fears has been offset in other States by Legislative action designed to ensure residents their right to bear arms won’t be infringed.

The contrasting approach of lawmakers in the gun-grab States and the gun rights States is stark, with 10 States recently enacting laws that actually broaden residents’ gun ownership rights. Thirty-six States have passed some form of “nullification” legislation intended to repel the enforcement of any Federal-level gun restrictions that may pass Congress
That’s essentially a Constitutional challenge by the States, daring the Federal government to expose its own double-standard take on the Bill of Rights by inviting it to invoke the 10th Amendment’s Supremacy Clause in order to enforce gun control that violates the clear and simple language of the 2nd Amendment.

Korean Craziness

Korean Craziness
WASHINGTON -- On Sunday, June 25, 1950, the Korean People's Army attacked across the 38th parallel, captured Seoul -- capital of the Republic of Korea -- and began driving south. 
The battered South Korean army and their U.S. military advisers quickly were pushed into the "Pusan Perimeter" on the southern tip of the peninsula -- and U.S. President Harry Truman took the case to the United Nations Security Council.American leadership and the absence of the Soviet ambassador resulted in swift passage of Security Council Resolution 84. The measure -- perhaps the last time in history that the U.N. acted with dispatch -- authorized the use of force against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. During the bloody three-year war that followed, troops from 10 European countries and from 10 others around the world fought beside U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in Korea -- finally securing an armistice July 27, 1953.

In the years since, the increasingly isolated patriarchal-Stalinist regime in Pyongyang, North Korea, has raised visceral hatred of the United States to a whole new level while systematically violating the terms of the armistice -- and virtually every other agreement to which it is a party. In short, Pyongyang's past behavior is a prelude to present and future conduct.

On Jan. 21, 1968, North Korean guerrillas attacked Seoul's Presidential Palace in an attempt to assassinate South Korean President Park Chung-hee. U.S. President Lyndon Johnson dispatched Cyrus Vance to discourage the South Koreans -- with troops already committed in Vietnam -- from undertaking a military response. Vance's mission was a success, and no action -- other than a strongly worded diplomatic note -- was taken against Pyongyang.

Two days later, the USS Pueblo, a small, unarmed U.S. Navy surveillance vessel, was seized in international waters by North Korean patrol boats. Cmdr. Lloyd "Pete" Bucher and the 81 surviving members of the Pueblo crew were beaten and tortured by their captors while the Johnson administration in Washington, enmeshed in micromanaging the war in Vietnam, dithered. Finally, after a year of brutality -- and facing the threat of having one member of his crew shot each day, starting with the youngest -- Bucher signed a concocted confession. Pyongyang promptly repatriated the crew, kept the Pueblo and still uses it for propaganda.

The unwillingness to deal forcefully with the North Korean regime in 1968 set a precedent from which neither the West in general nor the U.S. in particular ever has recovered. North Korean leaders, emboldened by the West's flaccid response, stepped up their campaign of terror.

Intelligence operatives and commandos dispatched by Pyongyang have kidnapped hundreds of South Korean and Japanese mariners, fishermen and civilian women and children. North Korean terrorists have made no fewer than three additional attempts to assassinate South Korean leaders. One of them, a 1983 bombing in Rangoon, killed 17 diplomats and members of South Korean President Chun Doo-hwan's security detail. In 1987, a bomb placed aboard Korean Airlines Flight 858 killed all 115 aboard -- including four Americans.

In 1994, after North Korea's "great leader," Kim Il Sung, died of a heart attack at age 82, the Clinton administration opened direct negotiations with his son and successor, Kim Jong Il, and claimed it had forged a "new relationship" with Pyongyang. Since then, the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations have delivered tens of millions of dollars' worth of food, fuel and humanitarian aid to ease starvation. Despite this generosity -- and toothless U.N. sanctions -- little has changed except that North Korea has acquired nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them.

Last year, the despotic dynasty passed to the founder's 27-year-old grandson, Kim Jong Un. Eager to prove himself to "old guard" Communist Party hacks and the military leaders actually running the hermit kingdom, Kim has upped the ante. In December, the Korean People's Army launched a multistage missile capable of hitting the U.S. homeland. In February, North Korea successfully tested a nuclear weapon -- and followed up with threats of a nuclear strike on the United States, Japan and South Korea. This week, North Korea moved a Musudan midrange mobile missile to a coastal test range on the Sea of Japan.

Official Washington's response to this new round of North Korean saber rattling has exacerbated anxiety in Seoul, Tokyo and U.S. Pacific Command headquarters in Hawaii. Last week, the Obama administration launched a rhetorical counterattack against Pyongyang and widely publicized the deployment of strike aircraft, U.S. Navy surface combatants and ballistic missile defense assets -- including two sea-based radar platforms and ground-based missile interceptors to Guam.

One senior military officer put it this way: "All this should have been done very quietly and reassured our allies. Instead, the Obama administration is turning this into their version of John Kennedy's 'Seven Days in May.' If they keep this up, everyone out here will have nukes."

Well put. The folks who canceled White House tours to save money need to get out their history books. The first occupant of the White House to receive a Nobel Prize was famous for saying, "Speak softly, and carry a big stick."

Obama's Legacy! Now with 32 Percent Higher Costs!

Whether you like Obamacare or not, nationalizing healthcare was the boldest legislative achievement of any president since anything Ronald Regan did in the 1980s.

But the cost for Obama politically has been very high. Since passing ACA, Obama has lost control over the House by a fairly large margin. The mid-term election in 2010, which can only be described as a terrible defeat for the president, was a direct result of the bizarre way Obamacare passed. And, also, the bizarre promises made to pass it.

It was hailed as a “deficit reducer,” as the savior for small business, as a job creator and, if you qualified for certain tax credits, it would wash and wax your car on non-Christian holy days.
But it was passed unread, unvetted and unwisely, and thus the gargantuan legislation raised serious doubts about the Democrats’ ability to responsibly approach any problem.

Consequently, the American people split up the government. This has hampered Obama’s ability to be effective in implementing other parts of his agenda.

For conservatives, of course, that’s the good news.

For Obama, the results probably augur poorly for him.

History will likely look back at Obama’s presidency and judge it mostly in regards to Obamacare.

And unfortunately for the president, whatever history may say, contemporary facts are not being kind to his healthcare overhaul so far.

The people in 2010 proved prescient in that the vote proved they doubted Democrats could deliver on their promises for their version of healthcare reform.

And now even elected Democrats are having doubts about the wisdom of Obamacare. The Senate, still controlled by Obama’s party, symbolically voted to repeal a key piece of the legislation- the medical device tax- in what is probably the first step towards trying to save the Senate majority for the Democrats.  Expect more tinkering with ACA as we get closer to the 2014 midterms.

The GOP has put out a research piece- you can find it here- that details the failed promises that Obama made as regards to healthcare, promises that now sound like they were meant to be broken.

When campaigning for the presidency Obama changed significant portions of his healthcare platform to provide folks a marked contrast from Hillarycare. Clinton’s plan made no pretentions about keeping private insurance. Hillary was going to nationalize healthcare with a single payer system.

Obama however made several emendations to his healthcare “reform” platform including telling people they could keep their doctor and their insurance if they wished.

It was a promise he reiterated when president: “They’ll see that if Americans like their doctor,” said Obama, “they will keep their doctor. And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future."

But as Obamcare enters the implementation phase, the new reality of fewer private insurers is sinking in. 

“So what happens to the plans that don't meet the new minimum standards?” asks CNN Money,

“They will likely disappear. A handful of existing plans will be grandfathered in, but the qualifying criteria for that is hard to meet: Members have to have been enrolled in the plan before the ACA passed in 2010, and the plan has to have maintained fairly steady co-pay, deductible and coverage rates until now.”

But changing to fewer insurance options pales in comparison to the tax bite and premium increases that people are seeing as a result of Obamacare.

“The Society of Actuaries,” writes the Wall Street Journal, “a nonpartisan professional association, has issued a new report warning that the cost of medical claims in the new individual-insurance market could rise by an average of 32% per person over the first few years the law is in place.”

And taxes will go up too- and not just on greedy, banks, -er, strike that- doctors making more than $200,000 per year and hiding money in Cypriot banks.

The taxes, instead, will affect you too.

One key feature of Obamcare is a subsidy promised to middle class families to make insurance more affordable. The problem is that if you get a raise, find a better job or otherwise have too much good fortune, the government will want some of that money back.

“Twice since the health care law was passed Congress has increased the caps for how much people will have to repay,” reports the AP. “Combined, the two measures are expected to raise more than $40 billion over the next decade, according to Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation.”

That’s a novel way of “raising” taxes. Give people money and then force them to give it back. Yes, Obamacare does that too. Prepare to be amazed.

With $40 billion in increased caps, plus 2 percent payroll tax, plus taxes on medical devices- which will paid for by patients not companies- plus taxes on those with higher medical expenses, taxes on drugs and insurance companies- which also will be paid by patients- not the companies, Obama’s party of “Yes we can” has proven conclusively that when it comes to broken promises, broken tax schemes and broken benefits: Yes they can, and yes, they did.

That’s a quite a legacy for Obama.

And it proves that the boldest plans aren’t always the smartest, or cheapest.

Or the best legacy for Democrats to carry into 2014.  
Solving failed economic policies on the backs of the elderly
By: Diane Sori
Let's cut to the chase and tell it like it is...Barack HUSSEIN Obama is the most miserable excuse of a president our country has seen in a long time. This man has NO shame or compassion whatsoever, because instead of proposing cuts to all the freebie and handout programs he gives to the 'sponges' of our society and to the ILLEGALS so both groups will continue to vote Democratic, his upcoming budget proposal instead proposes cutting the monies given to seniors through their Social Security benefits, which in most cases is their sole source of income. Obama still deliberately ignores the fact or is just too plain stupid to understand that Social Security is NOT an entitlement's something you pay into all your life.

Hey Obama, repeat the mantra...Social Security is NOT an's your own money given back to you.

This most shameful of budget proposals, which he will present of April 10th, is an attempt to get Republicans to compromise on a deficit-reduction deal. Obama's proposal aims to raise $600 billion in additional tax revenue over 10 years and to cut the deficit by $1.8 trillion over those same 10 years by cutting the rate of inflation (which is NOT a reality in the real world for the rate is what it is) for Social security beneficiaries by changing the inflation calculation itself to adjust down the cost-of-living increases (COLAs) given to seniors and retirees...even as the cost of living continues to go up...and goes up again thanks to Obama's abominable handling of our economy over the past four years.

And his reasoning to justify these cuts is just totally unbelievable as Obama and his minions claim that those on fixed incomes...the elderly and ailing...that those Social Security beneficiaries buy less expensive generic products when prices rise, meaning they can maintain a decent standard of living with a lower annual cost of living increase. Obama NEVER gives even an iota of a thought to the fact that that those on fixed incomes buy less expensive products because they CANNOT afford to buy 'brand' products as they do NOT have enough money to do so.


Thankfully NOT just Republicans oppose this slap in the face to seniors and retirees but some Congressional Democrats oppose it as well but NOT for altruistic reasons...they oppose this because they know they will lose the senior vote come their re-election time if they vote for Obama's proposal. That's why they did NOT touch Social Security in their Democratic budget proposal, which, by the way, Obama supported yet he chooses to ignore that fact now.

And oh yes, we can't forget that Obama claims he will do some minimal cuts to a few other 'other' entitlement programs to placate Republicans (gag) while still missing the fact that Social Security is NOT an entitlement program. And now Obama has thrown even more nonsense into this mix by saying he will only go for even his own proposal if Republicans agree to higher taxes, and if they do that in exchange he'll consider undoing some the $85 billion in sequestration spending cuts that recently went into effect.

Sounds like blackmail doesn't it.

Still bloviating about more infrastructure spending and for even more free and universal pre-kindergarten programs, Obama wants to increase already high cigarette taxes to do so. Let me say right here and now that while smoking is NOT a healthy habit (and a stinky one to boot) this is still a free country, at least the last time I looked, and people have a right to smoke if they so chose and should NOT be made to bear an unfair amount of the burden to finance programs put in place just to raise the next generation of Democratic voters.

And while I digress a bit, here's a better idea...parents need to stay home and raise their own children and stop looking to the education system to be their baby sitters. Children need to be children...children need their parents in their early formative years NOT to be in school at 2 and 3 and 4 years of age for teachers are NOT their parents. And besides, Obama already raised cigarette taxes when he signed bills to fund an expansion of the children's health insurance program.

Obama's proposed budget also includes a $400 billion in proposed Medicare cuts by reducing payments to doctors, hospital and drug companies. This will force more and more doctors to retire early, hospitals to close, and drug companies to be unable to research new drugs. In other words, the ObamaCare death panels will become reality simply by forcing health care providers out of business because they cannot afford to stay in business. NO doctors...NO hospitals...NO drugs...people will die simply because those that can save them are NO longer in business. Takes the guilt factor off ObamaCare Obama hopes...I think NOT as this was his plan all along.

Another one of Obama's proposals to raise revenue is to raise taxes by placing a $3 million upper limit on tax-preferred retirement accounts, and by stopping people from collecting disability benefits and unemployment insurance at the same time. Hate to tell him but disability benefits alone in NO way covers monthly living expenses for the most critically disabled...but hey, in Obamanation he needs those saved dollars so he can give even more to his faithful 'sponges.'

All Obama knows is to bloviate for raising taxes to cover up for his misguided economic policies...policies that are bankrupting this country. Hopefully, those on both sides of the isle will see Obama's proposal for what it is...a joke. Republicans have always said they will NOT cut Social Security nor will they raise taxes, well now the Republican controlled House has the chance to show some guts, courage, and fortitude and say a resounding NO to this insulting joke of a budget proposal by this joke of a president.