Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Israeli source confirms Iran nuke plant exploded

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer


Good news: "Israeli Source Confirms Iran’s Fordow Nuclear Plant Exploded," by Chana Ya'ar for Israel National News, January 28 (thanks to Voice of the Copts):
An Israeli intelligence source has confirmed Iran’s Fordow underground nuclear uranium enrichment facility sustained major damage in a “mega explosion” that occurred last week. Fordow, which contains at least 2,700 centrifuges for uranium enrichment, is located deep beneath a mountain near the Iranian city of Qom.
Some 200 workers were trapped inside the facility at the time, according to a report published Monday by The Times, a UK-based newspaper.
The report quoted an Israeli official as saying “We’re still in the early stages of trying to comprehend what happened and the extend of its significance.” The source added that it was not yet known whether the explosion was “an act of sabotage or incidental.”
The official declined to reveal whether Israeli aircraft had been in the vicinity at the time of the explosion.
Iran has denied that any explosion occurred at the facility, claiming in a statement to the official IRNA news agency that reports of the blast were nothing more than “Western propaganda.”
News of the explosion was reported Friday by the U.S.-based WND website.
Bravo.

Obama's Divide the GOP and Conquer Strategy

Obama's Divide the GOP and Conquer StrategyBy: Rachel Alexander / Townhall Columnist

Obama has figured out how to force his left wing agenda through even though he was reelected with a divided country. He cherry picks issues which divide the Republican Party. The Republican Party ends up fighting within itself, diverting the public's attention to its chaos rather than Obama's agenda. The Republican Party is left looking unprincipled, confused and hypocritical.

Look at the most recent high-profile political battles. With the help of the complicit liberal media, Obama made extending the payroll tax cut to avoid the “fiscal cliff” one of the biggest issues. It is not a clear-cut Republican versus Democrat issue, because while Republicans are generally in favor of lower taxes, government spending is out of control. Every time the extension has come up for a vote, Republicans are split. If they vote to extend it, they look fiscally irresponsible. If they vote to end it, they look like they support a tax increase. Either way they will be skewered by both the left and the right for deserting their principles, and Obama skates away free to pursue his agenda with little scrutiny. The Democrats escape scrutiny on the payroll tax cut extension votes because they don't claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility or friend of the taxpayers. They merely claim to stand for murky concepts like “caring about Americans.”

The latest issue Obama is dividing Republicans over is raising the debt ceiling. Naturally Republicans oppose increasing it, while Democrats support an increase in order to support their ever-ballooning social programs.

However, Obama and the Democrats in Congress have figured out how to convolute the issue in order to divide Republicans. Compounding that, the liberal news media spins its coverage so that the average American does not fully understand the dynamics.

Republicans attempted to add deep spending cuts and a requirement to pass a budget to the bill, in order to get something they would never be able to get passed otherwise. The most recent bill to increase the debt ceiling limit included a provision that would freeze the salaries of members of Congress until they passed a budget. The Senate has not passed a budget since 2009, forcing Congress to pass temporary resolutions every six months. Called No Budget, No Pay, it divided the GOP. 199 Republicans voted for it, and 33 voted against it. Slightly more Democrats voted against it than for it, objecting to the No Pay provision as a “budget gimmick.”

There was virtually no criticism of the Democrats by the liberal media for opposing this common sense corrective provision. Instead, the media portrayed the legislation in the worst possible light for Republicans. Rather than characterizing it as a “forced budget” bill, the media focused instead on the part that makes Republicans look bad, increasing debt spending, calling it a bill to raise the debt ceiling.

The Republicans’ “budget gimmick” appears to have worked, since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has said the Senate will pass the No Budget, No Pay bill and finally settle on a real budget. Don’t expect the liberal media to identify this as a significant victory for Republicans. Nor will the liberal media remind anyone that this isn’t the first time Republicans achieved a victory over the Democrats by forcing a stand down vote. Republicans forced President Clinton into signing a balanced budget amendment to curtail spending by following through on a threat to shutdown the government in 1995-96.

A real budget is going to require deep spending cuts. It is easy to predict how Obama will use the budget bill to divide the GOP. He will find an area to cut that conservatives do not want to cut, like the defense budget, and make that the most important issue. Obama’s plan is to put conservatives in a catch-22 and make those who oppose the budget look like big spenders, and those who support the budget look like they don’t care about our military.

Instead of falling into his trap, conservatives have a way out. The Pentagon has a history of wasteful spending. Conservatives should figure out how to cut some of the Pentagon’s budget as well as foreign aid, which studies have shown too often finds its way into the pockets of dictators and does little to improve the economies of poor countries. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) exposes wasteful spending each year in his annual government waste reports. He should take the lead on negotiating spending cuts for the budget bill.

This will help shift the focus back to where it belongs, on the Democrats who want to continue wasting our money on outrageous pork projects like the Alabama Watermelon Queen Tour, advertising for caviar, and a robotic squirrel.

Republicans need to go on the offensive and quit letting Obama dictate which issues receive the most attention and how they are characterized. Instead of “fiscal cliff” and “raising the debt ceiling,” Republicans need to use language like “going bankrupt” and “financial ruin.” Why not turn the tables on the Democrats and use their own emotional rhetoric against them? If deep spending cuts aren’t made, we won’t be able to pay teachers and law enforcement.

25 Great Quotes from Black Conservatives

25 Great Quotes from Black Conservatives
25) "A woman who demands further gun control legislation is like a chicken who roots for Colonel Sanders." -- Larry Elder
 
24) "I’ve been to dozens of Tea Party rallies. I’ve given at least a half a dozen or more speeches. I have not yet to find the first racist comment or the first person who approaches me from a racist perspective. I will speak very clearly here. Racism is a part of a lot of things in our country. Good people are the predominant fact of our country. I simply don’t get it. There are good people and bad people in all organizations fundamentally; however, when you look at the basis of the Tea Party it has nothing to do with race. It has to do with an economic recovery. It has to do with limiting the role of our government in our lives. It has to do with free markets. How do you fight that? The only way you fight that is to create an emotional distraction called racism. It doesn’t have to be real. It can be rhetoric but it gets the media focusing on something other than the truth of why the Tea Party is resonating so well with the average person." -- Tim Scott
 
23) "Good manners will open doors that the best education cannot." -- Clarence Thomas
 
22) "They say African Americans. I say black people. I’ve only been to Africa once. I’ve been in America all my life!" -- Herman Cain
 
21) "As the old saying goes, 'money is power' and the more money the government takes, the more power it has over individuals." -- Angela McGlowan
 
20) "The government is not your salvation. The government is not your road to prosperity. Hard work, education will take you far beyond what any government program can ever promise." -- Mia Love
 
19) "Liberals worry that what's best for the individual might not be better for the public at large. But that philosophy assumes something vicious about each and every one of us. It assumes we only care about ourselves." -- Allen West
 
18) "Self esteem comes from achievements. Not from lax standards and false praise." -- Condi Rice
 
17) "If I have learned one thing from life, it is that race is the engine that drives the political Left. When all else fails, that segment of America goes to the default position of using race to achieve its objectives. In the courtrooms, on college campuses, and, most especially, in our politics, race is a central theme. Where it does not naturally rise to the surface, there are those who will manufacture and amplify it." -- Ward Connerly
 
16) "There is a simple maxim that I use to express this situation, 'when tolerance becomes a one way street, it leads to cultural suicide.'" -- Allen West
 
15) "Toure, I’ve seen hate up close. I know what it looks like. I’ve felt its hands on my skin, seen the look in its eyes, felt the burn of its words. It is deliberate and it is real. Racism is not disliking our black President because of his socialist leanings. Racism is the scar I carried near my lip for decades after one particularly harsh punch in the mouth from a kid screaming 'N*GGER!' at me while swinging away. Racism is that guy in the diner, the hoses and dogs turned on folks from my grandparents’ generation just looking to drink at a decent water fountain. When you accuse a person of racism, THAT is the legacy of hate you are laying at their feet. It’s every bit as heinous as accusing someone of being a child molester arbitrarily. When you accuse Mitt Romney and other conservatives like me of being racist based on no other proof besides the fact that we vehemently disagree with this President and his policies, you dilute the history and experiences of people like me. You cheapen that word – n*gger. You rob it of its true horror – a horror we should never forget or take for granted. Not only that, Toure; but you cheapen yourself. You make it clear to blacks like me that you, indeed have no clue in hell what real racism is or where it can be found." -- Kira Davis
 
14) "The right to do something doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do." -- Michael Steele
 
13) "If you are explaining, you are losing." -- J.C. Watts
 
12) “When caring for your neighbor becomes a compulsory obligation imposed by government instead of voluntary, charity turns to confiscation and freedom to achieve to involuntary servitude. To liberals, compassion seems to be defined by how many people are dependent on the government; to conservatives, it’s defined by how many people no longer need help. One promotes dependence, the other freedom, responsibility and achievement.” -- Star Parker
 
11) “Since the social victim has been oppressed by society, he comes to feel that his individual life will be improved more by changes in society than by his own initiative. Without realizing it, he makes society rather than himself the agent of change. The power he finds in his victimization may lead him to collective action against society, but it also encourages passivity within the sphere of his personal life.” -- Shelby Steele
 
10) "Good motives aside, white condescension does more damage than good. White condescension says to a black child, 'The rules used by other ethnic groups don’t apply to you. Forget about work hard, get an education, posses good values. No, for you, we’ll alter the rules by lowering the standards and expecting less.’ Expect less, get less.” -- Larry Elder
 
9) "I don't believe in quotas. America was founded on a philosophy of individual rights, not group rights." -- Clarence Thomas
 
8) "The best way to help your neighbor is not to live off your neighbor." -- AlfonZo Rachel
 
7) "They said that I had sold out and (am an) Uncle Tom. And I said well, they deserve to have that view. But I have my thoughts. And I think they're race-hustling poverty pimps." -- J.C. Watts
 
6) "The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling." -- Thomas Sowell
 
5) "It’s often said that the Democrats fight 'for the little guy.' That’s true: liberals fight to make sure the little guy stays little! Think about it. What if all the little guys were to prosper and become big guys? Then what? Who would liberals pretend to fight for? If the bamboozlers fight for anything, it’s to ensure that the little guy stays angry at those nasty conservatives who are holding him down." -- Angela McGlowan
 
4) "We might think of dollars as being 'certificates of performance.' The better I serve my fellow man, and the higher the value he places on that service, the more certificates of performance he gives me. The more certificates I earn, the greater my claim on the goods my fellow man produces. That’s the morality of the market. In order for one to have a claim on what his fellow man produces, he must first serve him." -- Walter Williams
 
3) "We've become a culture where earning money doesn't entitle you to it, but wanting it does. That is the essence of redistribution." -- Ken Blackwell
 
2) "Here’s Williams’ roadmap out of poverty: Complete high school; get a job, any kind of a job; get married before having children; and be a law-abiding citizen. Among both black and white Americans so described, the poverty rate is in the single digits." -- Walter Williams
 
1) "Weighing benefits against costs is the way most people make decisions — and the way most businesses make decisions, if they want to stay in business. Only in government is any benefit, however small, considered to be worth any cost, however large." -- Thomas Sowell

Monday, January 28, 2013


The Most Important Amendment

By: Rich Galen / Townhall Columnist
We all know the term "The Bill of Rights" which are the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution although few of us (including me) could name them.

Hint: None of them start "Thou shalt not …" Rather they tend to start "The Government (or Congress) shalt not …" Keep that in mind.

The First Amendment is a catch-all of rights upon which the Congress may not trample: It protects an individual's freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, as well as the right to assemble and to petition the government.

The American press corps is very, very focused on the First Amendment and will go to great lengths to make sure that right is not diminished.

Similarly the Fifth Amendment is often a show stopper. The money clause in the Fifth Amendment is, of course the clause against self incrimination.

In practice, according to Black's Law Dictionary, the Fifth Amendment "requires the government to prove a criminal case against the defendant without the aid of the defendant as a witness against himself."

The Tenth Amendment, in total, reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This was dropped in to protect the notion of "Federalism" and might have been attempting to strike a balance between an all-powerful central government (read, George III) and a totally useless central government (read, Articles of Confederation).

The Amendment that is on everyone's lips these days is, of course, the Second: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

We walked through those to show the vast range of protective language the founders found necessary to include even after they had finished the body of the Constitution itself.

There are no unfettered rights. As we have discussed many times, the First Amendment does not protect your right to "falsely shout 'fire' in a crowded theater" (as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is often quoted has having written in U.S. v. Schenck).

Anyone who as ever watched more than a few frames of a CSI episode knows that the Fifth Amendment prohibition against self-incrimination can be overturned by almost any judge issuing a warrant that allows the police to take a cheek swab to get your DNA.

The Second Amendment doesn't mean that any device that fires a projectile through a barrel as the result of a chemical reaction (known in higher scientific circles as "going boom") is protected.

Howitzers, for instance, are not protected. Nor are .50 caliber machine guns, among others.

Watching cable news chat shows tells us how important that Freedom of Speech thing is. The ownership of a network might, under public pressure, remove a host for what it considers to be egregious speech, but the government can't do it.

In the early days of the Iraq War a Country group called the Dixie Chicks publicly denounced the war in general and President George W. Bush in particular leading to radio stations around the country to stop pushing their songs and former fans to stop attending their songs.

You didn't have to like what the Dixie Chicks said, but you were limited in what you could to do express that dissatisfaction. Demanding the government toss them in the slam is not among them.

Compare and contrast to Vladimir Putin's reaction to a girl group in Moscow having put on an impromptu concert in opposition to his government. Into the Slaminski they went.

The battle over the Second Amendment will, in spite of a well-orchestrated effort to diminish or remove it by the American Left, end the same way the battle over the First and Fifth Amendments ended during the "Hollywood Black Listing" days of the late 1940s - early 1950s in spite of the overwhelming desire for the American Right to limit them.

When it comes down to it, the most important Amendment in the Bill of Rights is any Amendment with which you, or I disagree. That means someone else's rights are being protected - against you or me.
Kissinger: US on Brink of Nuclear Crisis with Iran 
Newsmax


Former U.S. Secretary of State and Nobel Peace laureate Henry Kissinger is warning that the United States and Israel are very close to facing a crisis with a nuclear-arming Iran.

The 89-year-old Kissinger told the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that such a crisis — a full-fledged atomic war — would be "a turning point in human history," the BBC reported.

"There has emerged in the region, the current and most urgent issue of nuclear proliferation. For 15 years, the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council [UNSC] have declared that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, but it has been approaching," he said.

"In a few years, people will have to come to a determination of how to react, or the consequences of non-reaction.

"I believe this point will be reached in a very foreseeable future," he added.

Kissinger called for “serious” negotiations on both sides to avert the crisis. The most important thing, Kissinger said, was for the West to prevent letting things get so bad that Israel is forced to act alone.

"Unilateral intervention by Israel would be a desperate last resort, but the Iranians have to understand that if they keep using the negotiations to gain time to complete a nuclear programme then the situation will become extremely dangerous," he said.

If Tehran gets nuclear weapons, regimes across the Middle East and Africa will want them, too, Kissinger said.

"The danger is that we could be reaching a point where nuclear weapons would become almost conventional, and there will be the possibility of a nuclear conflict at some point... that would be a turning point in human history," he said.

"If Iran acts as a nation and not as a revolutionary cause, there is no reason for America or other permanent members of the UNSC [United Nations Security Council] to be in conflict with it, nor any countries in the region. On that basis I would hope that a negotiated solution would be found in a measurable time."

I have said this since day one...

Rand Paul: Was Benghazi op running guns?

Senator says evidence from catastrophe suggests a political operation went awry

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration appears to be covering up a gun-running scheme in Benghazi that fell apart when jihadists attacked the U.S. mission there, killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others, charges Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

Paul said he’s concerned by the “lack of security in advance of the attack, how they responded to the attack and the political coverup after the attack.”

Paul said the evidence suggests political motivations throughout, and it appears that a larger agenda was at work.

In an interview with WND, the senator said his “suspicion, although I don’t have any proof, is that guns were being smuggled out of Libya, through Turkey and into Syria.”

“And that may be what the CIA annex was doing there,” Paul said, “and the coverup was an attempt to massage and get over this issue without getting into the gun trade.”

His comments came in the wake of congressional hearings in which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton finally was questioned about the calamity on her watch.

Paul said he “was very surprised she had never read any of the cables.”

“I found it to be inexcusable,” he said. “It is her job and … it is a dereliction of duty.”

Clinton claimed she didn’t see a classified State Department cable sent Aug. 16 that said the Benghazi consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack.”

Paul made headlines during the hearings when he grilled Clinton on her “failings” regarding the Benghazi attack.

“I think that ultimately, with your leaving, you accept the culpability for the worst tragedy since 9/11,” he told the secretary of state during the hearing.

He also told Clinton that if he “had been president at the time of the attack” he would have “relieved” her of her post.

He noted there were many human judgment errors, “but no one was fired.”

“The people who make judgment errors need replaced, fired, and no longer in a position of making these judgment calls,” he said.

“Not to know of the request for security, really, I think, cost these people their lives. Their lives could have been saved had someone been more available, someone been aware of these things, more on top of the job.”

See the exchange:  http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/rand-paul-was-benghazi-op-running-guns/

He said the backdrop is that the attack was a consequence of America’s interventionist foreign policy.

“We should really be thinking to whom we give weapons,” he said.

“For years we gave weapons to the mujahedeen and bin Laden when they were fighting the Soviets. So we were in favor of radical jihad for over a decade,” he said.

He suggested the Obama administration is making a similar mistake “in a slightly different fashion by giving F-16s and Abrams tanks to Egypt.”

When asked if he has any reason to believe Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., will be a better secretary of state than Clinton, Paul said, “I think they’re identical, and they’re identical to many of the Republicans.”

He said it appears the parties in Washington are not that far apart on some issues.

“They all agree that we should be involved everywhere around the world and that we should give unlimited weaponry to every side of every conflict all around the world and that we should extend foreign aid without conditions,” he said.

As such, many committee hearings in which problems are supposed to be discussed “are simply a love fest,” he said, because of the philosophical agreement between Republicans and Democrats on those subjects.

“That is a part of the problem and while [in the Senate], I will be a lone wolf” to advocate for a new foreign aid system that he thinks would help prevent future abuse of American aid, he said.

He wants to make aid conditional.

“Countries should prove to us that they are willing and able to protect our embassies, they ought to turn over anybody who was involved in the attacks on our embassies as in Libya or as in Pakistan, they ought to free the man who helped us get bin Laden, Dr. Shakeel Afridi,” he said.

Further, it’s “economic nonsense” to continue borrowing money from China that is then handed out to other nations.

On the topic of Syria, he said, “It’s plausible that we’ve armed people in civil wars that we didn’t know who they were.”

He pointed out the possibility that al-Qaida has been armed at U.S. expense there.

Al Nusra and other extremists among the rebels in Syria possibly are connected to al-Qaida, he said.

“If we are giving arms, which we deny that we’re giving arms, they say that we’re only giving them to the good guys,” Paul said. “In the middle of a war-torn area, I don’t know if you’re giving a Minnesota multiphasic psychology test to everybody you’re giving arms to. I think it’s pretty difficult to determine who your friends are and who your foes are, who is extreme and who is not. When they come up asking for a rocket launcher, they’re probably acting like they’re your best friend.”

He said it largely will be up to the members of the U.S. House to continue investigating Benghazi.

“Many on [the Republican] side probably think it’s done, and many Republicans agree with Democrats that they’re fine with the foreign policy continuing as it is,” he said.

However, he said if the House “had some gumption, they can call people who were in the annex to hear their testimony and bring forth Ambassador Rice to talk about the coverup and military commanders.”

As a practical matter, he said the “military should be in charge of embassy security in countries that are emerging from civil war, and not the State Department.”

He said the equipment and personnel for the U.S. to use military force should be stationed nearby.

WND previously has reported on the discoveries about the Benghazi scandal, including when Paul asked Clinton during the congressional hearings about the weapons transfer operations. She responded, “I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me.”

In it was September when WND broke the story that Stevens played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian security officials.

According to the 39-page report from independent investigators probing the attacks at the diplomatic facility, the U.S. mission in Benghazi was set up without the knowledge of the new Libyan government, as WND reported.

WND also exclusively reported the facility may have violated the terms of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which governs the establishment of overseas missions. Like most nations, the U.S. is a signatory to the 1961 United Nations convention.

Article 2 of the convention makes clear the host government must be informed about the establishment of any permanent foreign mission on its soil: “The establishment of diplomatic relations between States, and of permanent diplomatic missions, takes place by mutual consent.”

According to the State report, there was a decision “to treat Benghazi as a temporary, residential facility,” likely disqualifying the building from permanent mission status if the mission was indeed temporary.

And WND reported in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice may have deliberately misled the public when she went on television news shows and called the facility that had been targeted a “consulate.”


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/rand-paul-was-benghazi-op-running-guns/#faJKrWq3UuPHH2S2.99
Op-ed:
Government officials get to keep their gun of choice but 'We the People' don't
By: Diane Sori

Oh the hypocrisy of it all.

While we know that Senator Dianne Feinstein's 'Assault Weapons Ban' is going nowhere, and that for all intents and purposes it's dead in the water as the saying goes (Republican controlled House and NOT enough votes in the Senate), still the hypocrisy of it all is totally amazing.

I mean really...assault weapons...what a misnomer those two words are as the gun control freaks conveniently forget that true fully automatic firearms, commonly referred to as 'assault weapons' (as in machine guns which fire continuously when the trigger is held down), have been strictly regulated since 1934. The firearms Feinstein's misguided bill is addressing are semiautomatic weapons that reload automatically but fire only once each time the trigger is depressed, and these are NOT assault weapons NO matter how hard she and her loony buddies try to make them out to be.

And while many so-called 'firearm experts' agree that the previous assault weapons ban (that lapsed in 2004) was easily gotten around because it never actually defined what an 'assault weapon' was, Feinstein's new bill does of course erroneously define 'assault weapon' by naming 150 specific types of firearms and broadens the ban to include any semiautomatic rifle, handgun or shotgun that can be used with a detachable ammunition magazine that holds more than 10 rounds and has military characteristics, including something as ludicrous as a military looking pistol grip.

Can you believe these yo-yos think that a grip makes a gun an assault weapon...geeesh...

But here's the real kicker in this joke of a bill...NOT everyone will have to abide by the bill if it ever, heaven forbid, did pass. Guess what...as we expected...drum roll please...government officials, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement personnel would be exempt.

And while I understand why Feinstein would exempt law enforcement from her ridiculous bill (even she understands that you can't strip cops of their weapons), why retired law enforcement who NO longer are in danger on the streets, and something I find extremely odd and quite unnerving is that she would exempt government officials. I mean really...like they don't have enough protection as it is....what with their own firearms in addition to their armed with 'assault weapons' bodyguards...why do they need more...hmmm...maybe to protect themselves from furious citizens who vehemently object to having their Second Amendment rights taken away while the government fat cats selectively get to keep theirs...interesting huh.

And by the way...Senator Feinsein carries a gun herself...the woman who wants to take our guns away has a concealed weapons permit...oh the hypocrisy of it all.

These cowardly government officials, like Feinstein, get to keep their firearms of choice so that when the assault weapons ban suddenly morphs into an all out Obama ordered confiscation, the government officials stay armed against 'We the People' but 'We the People' NO longer have any firearms to protect ourselves from them.

And this, NO matter how hard they try to hide it, is their end goal objective...total confiscation of our firearms and repeal of the Second Amendment.

Nice...real nice (insert sarcasm here). Remember that Feinstein has freely admitted that her bill would be just a first step towards the total confiscation of guns from the American people. She has publicly stated that, “The purpose (of my bill) is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time…(and would be) a significant first step as part of a comprehensive program (of gun confiscation).”

Except from those fat cat government officials like her that is.

Oh the hypocrisy of it all.