Sunday, August 4, 2013

Everything Obama does...everything he says...everything he tries to throw in our path is just a diversion from this...
Happy 223rd Birthday to our United States Coast Guard.

A Birthday Wish Mr. President...                                                   By: Diane Sori

Dear Mr. President (with much sarcasm intended),

Your White House spokespeople claim the newest al-Qaeda threats, "Exceeds anything witnessed in the past decade."

Specific things coming from specific people...saying something may or may NOT chatter updated constantly...or so your people say.

And all this coming to a head on your birthday...who'd have thunk it.  By the way, Happy Birthday Mr. President...hope you have a good one knowing that because of your pandering to those out to kill us, al-Qaeda has now grown even stronger than before 9/11, as it's morphed into many sub-groups that can unite together in a moment's a moment's notice into one very powerful force. 
Mr. President, for a time al-Qaeda was disorganized but NEVER dismantled...NOT 'on the run' as you've claimed over and over ad nauseaum.  The take down of Osama bin-Laden meant NOTHING in the larger scope of things...NOTHING because he meant NOTHING to the new stronger and younger generation of al-Qaeda terrorists...just a figurehead and NOTHING more.

The take down...the Navy SEALS take down...was just so you could puff up your chest come election time and say you killed the world's most wanted man.  You can't fool we Patriots like you can fool the masses, Mr. President, for we know the truth and you know we know it.

Just as I'm sure you know (got your prayer rug dusted off)  that today is the 27th day of Ramadan, 'The Night of Power,' when the first verses of the (vile) qur'an were revealed to (the false prophet) mohammad by (the false god) allah, and some believe this date may be the fuel to ignite attacks against the infidels...possible attacks that have 'forced' you (or so you say) to have 21 American embassies in 17 countries shutdown across the Middle East, North Africa, and in some parts of South Asia because you fear for the safety of our personnel there...which you say with a straight face while refusing to look us in the eye.

And Mr. President, you've issued travel warnings for that part of the world, in fact worldwide travel warnings have been issued, as you try to have 'We the People' cowering in fear of what might happen to us overseas if we dare leave the 'safety' of our shores.

The 'safety' of our shores...but...but...

But here's something important you're missing Mr. President (still gagging on those words) whether unintentionally (which I doubt) or deliberately (which is more likely since we all know how you feel about America)...stop diverting all attention overseas and start focusing on a possible al-Qaeda attack here in America...start focusing on the 'sleeper cells' that all this intel chatter can actually be waking up...waking up and the timer is set for a countdown to an attack on our American soil.

That is what you should be focusing on Mr. President...NOT focusing on where the enemy wants you to focus on but then again America's enemies are your friends and allies...your brethren in blood and in hate for all that is America.

And so Mr. President, too much detail about intercepted chatter and the source of the intel (unnamed US officials told media outlets that Yemini intelligence agencies alerted Washington to the threat during the visit by the Yemeni president to Washington) has been 'leaked'...oops.. can I say that you and your much so that next time chatter likes this happens...and believe me there will be a next time...crying wolf will take on new meaning from that of old fairy tales as muslim militants...YES muslim militants...are now likely searching for the sources of the leaked intel, and true to form will kill anyone they suspect of working with Western intelligence.

More blood on your hands Mr. the ghosts of Benghazi look al-Qaeda grows stronger and stronger everyday (they just 'freed' more than 500 muslim terrorist from Abu Ghraib prison alone in the past week or so) in their quest to kill we infidels...and all on your watch as you continue to say al-Qaeda is on the you continue to focus on chatter and intel planned and executed in such a way as to allow their probable real be lost in the shuffle.

So YES Mr. President, you're is indeed on the run but they're running here to America to try and finish what they started a decade ago...on a beautiful September morning that turned into a day of hell true Americans will NEVER forget. 

Oh and before I forget, you now have shown proof positive of your true hatred for Israel by shutting down our embassy there, for the one country that does NOT need us to show fear in the face of the enemy is the one country you couldn't wait to hightail it out of ...what a guy.

So in closing, again Happy Birthday Mr. President,  hope you enjoy your day with Michelle, the kids, and all your hanger-ons for hopefully next year, if 'We the People' have our way, you'll be blowing out your candles in GITMO.

With as much respect as you show us,
American Patriots everywhere

After a summer of relative quiet on the fiscal front, Congress is approaching two deadlines that will be vital not just in terms of the U.S. economy, but for the future of the Republican party as well.

Sometime in late October, the federal government will once again reach its statutory debt limit, meaning that, without congressional action, the government will not be able to borrow any more money. That would require an immediate 25 percent cut in government spending — the sequester on steroids.

But before that, on September 30, the continuing resolution (CR) currently funding the federal government will expire. Unless a new CR is approved by then, the federal government will “shut down.”

The government does not actually shut down, of course. Military operations and homeland security, and also such things as air-traffic control, health care at Veterans Administration hospitals, law enforcement and criminal investigations, oversight of food and drug safety, nuclear safety, and so forth, will all continue. And programs that are not subject to annual appropriations, such as Social Security and Medicare, would also continue. But the optics of closed national parks, the complaints of those inconvenienced by delayed public services, and the president’s bully pulpit mean that Republicans will take the blame for whatever hardships do develop.

As a result, Republicans are already starting to twist themselves into knots trying to decide what they should do.

Some, such as would-be presidential candidate Representative Peter King of New York, are already running up the white flag. “We should not be closing down the government under any circumstances,” King told CNN, saying that refusing to approve a new continuing resolution wouldn’t be only bad politics but also “wrong” as a matter of policy.

Meanwhile, defense hawks such as Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham have suggested they’re willing to go along with the Obama administration’s attempts to use the CR to undo the sequester. McCain, Graham, and their allies may even be willing to accept tax increases in order to roll back the sequester’s defense cuts.

But a much bigger split seems to be developing over what to do about defunding Obamacare.

The key to implementing Obamacare is not the now-delayed employer mandate or the wildly unpopular individual mandate. It is not the nearly $1.2 trillion in new taxes or the exchanges that may or may not be operational by their October 1 deadline. Rather, it is the $1.8 trillion in exchange subsidies and Medicaid expenses that the law will pay out over the next ten years.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that as many as 16 million Americans will be affected by those coverage provisions next year. The Obama administration knows that this will help cement a constituency for the health-care law, regardless of how big a train wreck the rest of the law becomes.

Obamacare may cost taxpayers trillions of dollars, drive up the national debt, slow economic growth, and kill jobs. People may not be able to keep their current insurance and may have trouble keeping their doctor. But once millions of Americans begin to receive those subsidies, it will be all but impossible to undo.

Thus, the CR vote may be the last chance to stop Obamacare.

Senator Ted Cruz and Representative Tom Price are expected to introduce an amendment that would prohibit the use of any funds authorized by the CR “to carry out any provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” In addition, a dozen Republican senators (Cruz, Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Jim Risch, Jim Inhofe, David Vitter, John Thune, Jeffrey Chiesa, Mike Enzi, Debra Fischer, and Chuck Grassley) have signed a letter pledging not to vote for any CR that includes funding for Obamacare.

Some Republicans have taken a decidedly different position. Representative Tom Cole, a deputy majority whip, calls efforts to defund Obamacare “a temper tantrum” by House conservatives. Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina says it’s “the dumbest idea” he’s ever heard. And Senator Bob Corker calls it “silly.” Reportedly, the GOP leadership in both chambers is actively working against the idea.

In some ways, this seems like an obvious fight for Republicans to pick. According to public-opinion polls, support for Obamacare is near an all-time low. Democrats and their constituencies are defecting in droves: Earlier this month, 35 Democratic congressmen voted in favor of eliminating the employer mandate, and 22 voted to kill the individual mandate as well. The Teamsters, the United Food and Commercial Workers, and other unions have written to the administration demanding changes to the law. And even Democratic lawmakers in Massachusetts have voted to seek a waiver from some of Obamacare’s requirements.

But critics of tying Obamacare to the CR have a point as well. Republicans are very likely to pay a political price for any government shutdown. Moreover, it is hard to see a path to victory. It is almost inconceivable that President Obama will abandon the signature accomplishment of his presidency.

And further, as a matter of policy, Republicans trying to defund Obamacare may simply be beating their heads against a stone wall. As Senator Tom Coburn put it: “I’d be leading the charge if I thought this would work. But it will not work.”

Still, sometimes lawmakers really should stand for something more important than their own reelection. Obamacare is such a fundamental transformation of the American health-care system, and its consequences for patients, providers, taxpayers, and the economy are so grave, that if this is not an issue that Republicans are willing to lose their jobs over, what is?

Alternatively, even if the president will never accept the repeal of his health-care law, a year’s delay might be a feasible compromise. After all, the president has already delayed the employer mandate and other portions of the law. There are considerable doubts as to whether other parts of the law, such as the exchanges, will be fully operational. A great many Democrats might welcome more time to work through some of those “glitches.”

At the very least, Republicans ought to try something. As Senator Lee told Fox News, “Maybe we can’t repeal [Obamacare] right now, but we can delay its funding. And if we can delay it, we can stop its consequences, at least for now.”

Whether that will happen remains to be seen. Asked if Republicans had the courage to fight for defunding, Rand Paul replied gloomily, “Honestly? Probably not.”

Oh well. Perhaps they do have the courage to pass a symbolic resolution to repeal the health-care law for the 40th time.

You wouldn’t give up your life or property without a fight if a criminal assaulted you — not if you had any way to fight back.

Nor should you give up your right of self-defense when enemies of that right assault you — not when you have so much democratic armament at your disposal.

Foes of gun rights have long pretended that the Second Amendment’s explicit ban on infringing “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” pertains to something else altogether, maybe the right to reupholster furniture. But in 2008, a lawsuit financed and led by businessman-turned-lawyer and policy analyst Robert Levy resulted in a Supreme Court decision that affirmed the Second Amendment’s protection of our right to bear arms. The court recognized that the amendment “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

District of Columbia v. Heller was a major affirmation of the right to bear arms. But as Levy understood, the ruling was merely the “opening salvo in a series of litigations” to be fought over gun rights.

Within this context, politicians and others persist in seeking to infringe our gun rights . . . as if the best way to help potential victims of murderous assaults is to make of us easy prey.

The strategy? Maim our gun rights first, finish them off later.

This means that they are eager to get just as close as they can, today, to annulling the Second Amendment without doing so explicitly.

Americans grasp the strategy and are fighting back. Consider just two states in which the right of self-defense has been under assault, Washington and Colorado.

The battle in the Evergreen State has taken the form of two competing ballot measures. Because enemies of the Second Amendment have failed to win new gun-control laws from the legislature, they are turning to the initiative process. Their anti-gun-right measure, I-594, would require background checks for every kind of gun purchase, pretty much killing gun shows, for instance. On the opposing side, a coalition of pro-Second-Amendment organizations has been collecting signatures for pro-gun-right ballot initiative, I-591, also known as The Protect Our Gun Rights Act.

The Protect Our Gun Rights Act would require any background check “to be in line with a national uniform standard,” says Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. Gottlieb contends that additional burdens sought by the anti-gun-right side would not only weaken self-defense rights right now but also serve as precedent for further assaults. I-591 therefore also would prohibit any confiscation of firearms without due process. Advocates of victim disarmament “are going with what they can try and get away with right now, but their ultimate goal is to confiscate firearms. We know that; that’s where the anti-gun-rights movement is. So we’re protecting against that.”

Petitioners must collect about 350,000 valid signatures to place the Protect Our Gun Rights question on the ballot.

The situation is worse in Colorado, where state lawmakers have already passed bills, signed into law by Governor Hickenlooper, to virtually nullify the Second Amendment in the Centennial State.

The new law outlaws magazines (compartments that store cartridges and feed them into a firearm) with a holding capacity greater than 15 rounds and bans smaller magazines that are expandable. In other words, a de facto ban on most magazines currently on the market. If you own a firearm with a higher-capacity magazine, that magazine is grandfathered in; you may keep it. But you may neither sell your weapon if it has that magazine nor even hand it with that magazine to someone else for even a few moments — for example, to an instructor at a firing range who needs to check your firearm for safety reasons. If the magazine wears out, you’re out of luck. It would be illegal to buy a replacement.

Obviously, if you’re in the middle of being shot at, you don’t want to spend precious seconds finding and injecting another clip. You may infinitely prefer a higher-capacity clip. And suppose you’re disabled: Coloradan Dylan Harrell, who uses a wheelchair, is unhappy indeed about any arbitrary limit on how many cartridges he could have in his firearm if his young family were under attack. “Having to reload is a big deal to me when I have to protect my family,” he tells the Greeley Tribune.

Colorado’s new law also makes private and online gun sales cumbersome or impossible by requiring background checks for every sale. Your friend will have to get a background check even if you loan your rifle to him for just a few days for a hunting expedition. If you buy a gun for a family farm that anyone there may use, a background check must be completed for all family members and farm hands; and you’ll have to pay $22 for each check.

The procedure is not trivial. It must be performed by a properly licensed firearms dealer, who may charge only ten dollars for his supervision of a process that is both time-consuming and risky. If the complex form he must submit contains a single error, he may lose his license and suffer other legal sanction. The time and risk may be worth it for the dealer when the background check is being conducted for a person who is also buying an expensive gun. Otherwise, probably not.

Coloradans have responded to the legislative onslaught with two major counter-offenses.

First, 55 sheriffs from around Colorado have joined forces with 21 other groups and individuals (including Harrell) in a lawsuit to block the new victim-disarmament laws. The attorney leading the charge is Independence Institute research director Dave Kopel, who expects a years-long judicial struggle but is optimistic.

Second, voters have acted to recall legislative malefactors. The big fish is Democratic Senate President John Morse. Petitioners collected some 16,200 signatures from Colorado Springs constituents angry about the assault on their gun rights and about the remorseless Morse’s contempt for their opinions on the matter. Although 7,173 signatures were needed to force a recall, the Colorado Secretary of State certified 10,137.

Morse will be first state lawmaker in Colorado history to face a recall election unless the pro-Morse group A Whole Lot of People for John Morse (“A-Wholes” for short) can find a legal trick to block it. The election is set for September 10. Joining Morse on a recall election ballot is fellow anti-gun-right Democratic State Senator Angela Giron, after the more than 13,000 recall petition signatures submitted against her were verified as legally sufficient.

All this energetic activism comes in the wake of the defeat of a full-bore victim-disarmament campaign in the U.S. Congress.

So, yes, they’re coming after your gun rights.