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.

So where did this money go...hmmmm...

U.S. spent $6.3 million on Afghan police cars that don't exist

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

Whole buildings are missing there, so this should not come as any surprise. The worst part about this is that the money for these police cars and those buildings is somewhere: paying for some Afghan kleptocrat's villa or even funding the jihad against the U.S.

Your tax dollars at work on the fool's errand in Afghanistan: "US Wasted Millions Of Dollars On Afghan Police Cars That Don't Exist," by Paul Szoldra for Business Insider, January 24 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):

The U.S. unnecessarily paid $6.3 million on contracts for Afghan police vehicles from April 2011 to September 2012, according to a report released last week from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). 

The latest gross overpayment stems largely from cash going to maintenance on vehicles that have been out of service for over a year or even had been destroyed.

As of November 2012, the U.S. has provided over 30,000 vehicles to the Afghan National Police (ANP), but the study shows a force still struggling with logistics and training needed to provide their own maintenance — forcing the U.S. to rely on outside contractors.

According to national security expert Anthony Cordesman, the U.S. is at least partly to blame.

"The bulk of the money actually spent inside Afghanistan went through poorly supervised military contracts and through aid projects where the emphasis was speed, projected starts, and measuring progress in terms of spending rather than results," he wrote in a brief for the Center for Strategic & International Studies.

This isn't the first such report from SIGAR. A cursory look at their website finds allegations of fraud, waste, and abuse as common in Afghanistan as dirt.

One report highlighted major problems with the country's financial sector, where the U.S. still has extremely limited visibility over the cash it doles out, "leaving [it] vulnerable to fraud or diversion to insurgents."

Other reports filed in late 2012 indicate that a trend of waste will continue, such as one showing the DoD paid $12.8 million for equipment that went completely unused, or another showing the U.S. government clueless over what happened with $201 million in fuel purchases for the Afghan National Army, due to records being shredded.

The total cost to the U.S. for the Afghan war, including war operations, diplomatic operations, and medical care for veterans totals $444 billion, according to a Mar 2011 report from the Congressional Research Service.

Firearms Refresher Course

By: John Pisula                         

1. "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."~Thomas Jefferson
 

2. "Those who trade liberty for security have neither." ~ John Adams
 

3. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
 

4. An armed man is a citizen.  An unarmed man is a subject.
 

5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
 

6. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
 

7. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
 

8. Know guns, know peace, know safety.  No guns, no peace, no safety.
 

9. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
 

10. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
 

11. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
 

12. The United States Constitution (c) 1791.  All Rights Reserved.
 

13. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
 

14. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you NOT understand?
 

15. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.
 

16. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
 

17. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

Expect Civil Disobedience if Politicians Try to Undermine the Second Amendment

By: Daniel J. Mitchell / Townhall Columnist

I periodically share public opinion data, either because I’m encouraged by the results or because I think that the research helps show how to frame issues.

Examples include polling data on personal retirement accounts, the dangers of big government, support for spending caps, and viability of class warfare tax policy.

But I’ve been very narrowly focused. Just about all the polls I’ve shared have been about some aspect of fiscal policy.

So I was very interested to see a new poll about issues related to the Second Amendment, and I was particularly gratified to see that an overwhelming majority of gun owners would not surrender their constitutional rights if the jackals in Washington approved a gun ban.



For more information, here’s part of a Washington Times report on the new polling data.

Question 46 in the wide-ranging survey of more than 1,000 registered voters asks if there is a gun in the household. Overall, 52 percent of the respondents said yes, someone in their home owned a gun. That number included 65 percent of Republicans, 59 percent of conservatives, 38 percent of Democrats and 41 percent of liberals. But on to Question 47, addressed to those with a gun in their home: “If the government passed a law to take your guns, would you give up your guns or defy the law and keep your guns?” The response: 65 percent reported they would “defy the law.” That includes 70 percent of Republicans, 68 percent of conservatives, 52 percent of Democrats and 59 percent of liberals.

These results don’t tell us why people would defy the government, but the poll I conducted suggests that a plurality of Americans support the Second Amendment because they want the ability to resist tyranny.
I’m also happy to see that most Americans understand that gun bans are a very ineffective way of fighting crime. Heck, they realize that we need more guns in the hands of law-abiding people.



In other words, ordinary Americans have a lot more common sense than the buffoons in the media. They know that you get less crime when you increase the expected cost of criminal behavior.

P.S. If you want to enjoy some good gun control cartoons, click here, here, and here.

Olga from Greece Has a Lithuanian Soulmate Mooching in the United Kingdom

The welfare state creates some amazingly pathetic and disgusting individuals.

• In the battle of the bums, we’ve had the spectacle of “Diaper Man” vs “Footless Hans.”
• In the contest for most despicable moocher, we have the “Florida Pedophiles” vs the “Gimme Babymaker.”
• And the fight for most pathetic victim of dependency features the “Connecticut Kid” vs the “English Loafer.” 

But I’ve never found a match for Olga, a Greek woman who thinks it is government’s job to take care of her from cradle to grave.

At least not until now. I’m excited to announce that Olga has a soulmate named Natalija. She’s from Lithuania, but she now lives in England, and she doubtlessly will inspire Olga on how to live off the state.



Here’s some of what The Sun reported about this very successful moocher.

Natalija Belova, 33, told The Sun how she spurns full-time work — yet can afford foreign holidays and buys designer clothes. The Lithuanian said: “British benefits give me and my daughter a good life.” She has milked soft-touch Britain for £50,000 in benefits and yesterday said: “I simply take what is given to me.”

And what is given to her? Quite a lot.

The graduate, who became a single mum after she arrived here, rakes in more than £1,000 a month in handouts — £14,508 a year — to fund her love of designer clothes, jaunts to the Spanish sun and nightclubbing. She bragged: “I have a lovely, fully-furnished flat and money to live properly on. …Her handouts total £279 a week — with housing benefit contributing £183, child tax credit adding £56, child benefit £20 and her council tax being paid to the tune of £20.

You might expect Natalija to be grateful, but you’d be wrong.

But she does have one criticism. Natalija moaned: “I think they should help pay for private nannies, rather than just free nursery.” …Natalija vowed: “I am not going to work like a dog on minimum wage.” She added: “I don’t care what anyone thinks. I’m not doing anything wrong. “I know people won’t like to read this, but what would they do? “Would they not take the money that was being handed to them to stay with their child all day?”

I’ve written about the benefits of tax competition between nations. Well, this story shows the perverse impact of welfare competition between countries.

Speaking at her two-bedroom pad that came fully furnished in Watford, Herts, courtesy of the taxpayer, grateful Natalija said: “In Lithuania the benefits system does not pay enough. “I have a friend over there who is a single mother. “She only gets £20 a month in child benefit, plus some discounted help with gas and electricity — and some housing help. “It’s not enough to keep a normal level of life, like here. “If I was on benefits there, I couldn’t afford nice clothes or the holidays abroad.” She went on: “I am sure people will say I should return to Lithuania. But that won’t be happening. Being in Britain offers me far better benefits.”

We also have a remarkable example of labor supply economics. This is the real-world example of these charts showing how the British welfare state destroys incentives.

She is careful to work fewer than 16 hours a week so that the benefits keep rolling in. But her wages boost her income to more than £400 a week. On top of that she gets free childcare, fruit and milk vouchers — and even a clothes allowance for “job interviews”. Natalija said: “It is a strange system in this country. Basically, the fewer hours I work, the more I can earn on benefits. But that’s the way it is and it is not my fault.” …She insisted she would be prepared to get a full-time job — but only if the salary tops £25,000. …”Some people may think I am picky. But I am a realist. I need a full-time job that pays at least £25,000 — that is just enough to cover all my living costs that benefits currently pay for. “Otherwise working full time is not worth my while. “If I worked full time, I’d have to pay for childcare costs as well as rent and all my bills. “The benefits system in this country means that I do not have to do this.”

By the way, here’s a chart showing the same destructive policies in the United States.

Let’s look at one last excerpt about Natalija. British taxpayers can take comfort in the fact that this human tick is living a nice life.

In September she escaped the dreary British summer by jetting off with her daughter for a sun-kissed week in Spain. Last month she enjoyed a second holiday — back in her Lithuanian homeland. Natalija, who has three credit cards and loves to go on sprees at designer clothes stores, crowed: “After our holiday to Malaga, we went to Lithuania over Christmas and spent £1,000.” She continued: “I love to buy clothes on my credit cards and often have a blow-out at stores like Roberto Cavalli and the Armani Exchange. …”I also enjoy going to nightclubs and parties with my friends. It’s important to go out and get dressed up. It’s good for my self-esteem.”

Her self esteem has been boosted? Oh, joy!

And I can just imagine how much self esteem her daughter will have after growing up with a moocher for a mother.

John Hinderaker of Powerline was first on this horrific story and his analysis is very much worth reading as well. But since imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I figured I would share the story and add some of my thoughts.

By the way, if you want more than just horrifying anecdotes, click here for a video that looks at the dismal impact of the American welfare state and click here to see how Obama has exacerbated the negative effects of such policies in America.

Obama Says "Nevermind" on Deficits

By: John Ransom / Townhall Finance

Peas are all the rage when it comes to talking about the country’s fiscal woes.

You might remember that in July of 2011, when fighting over the debt ceiling, president Obama- right before he left for his 17^th vacation at Martha’s Vineyard that year- complained about congressional inaction by saying that’s it time for the country “to eat its peas.”

From CBSNews:

"I've been hearing from my Republican friends for some time it is a moral imperative to tackle our debt and deficits in a serious way," Mr. Obama said. "What I've said to them is, let's go."

The president said today he would not accept a smaller, short-term deal. "We might as well do it now," he said. "Pull off the band aid. Eat our peas."

Of course the president and Congress refused to eat their peas then, preferring to put it off until after the presidential election. There were far too many sweets at the table going into an election year- and delicious pork too.   

But, now the election is over. Sweets are off the table; the congress is a lame duck even if still addicted to pork. And a deal has been FINALLY struck to “tackle our debt and deficits in a serious way.”

Just wait; this ought to be really funny.

Because now we have an idea just exactly how many peas Obama meant in 2011 when he said it was time to “eat our peas.”

Ahem.   

Here’s what he meant: one (1) pea.

Yum.  Thanks Congress! Thanks Mr. Obama!

Now we’re too full apparently for any more peas. Glad we’ve shown how serious we are about deficit reduction too.

At least that’s the take of Rick Santelli, the editor at CNBC, who helped create the Tea Party by his famous soliloquy calling for a Tea Party in Chicago reminiscent of the one that took place in Boston in 1773.

Back then Santelli was outraged by the administration’s proposals to bailout homeowners who were behind in their mortgages. He nailed the administration on encouraging bad behavior by trying to keep people in houses they couldn’t- and still can’t- afford.   

“We’re thinking about having a Chicago Tea Party in July,” shouted Santelli to cheers on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange as CNBC host Joe Kernen made comments about mob rule. “All you capitalists that want to show up to Lake Michigan, I’m gonna organize it.”  

Now he’s taking on the deficit and runaway spending and the politicians who promote more reckless spending.

Earlier this year, the showman Santelli smashed melons with a large wooden mallet- ala the comedian Gallagher- to make a point to politicians about how easy it was to undertake deficit reduction.

“Smash some deficits, smash some deficits, smash some deficits,” he cried as the mallet mashed the melon meat until the juice flew.

Let’s just say that with those melons as a benchmark, Santelli is less than enamored of the newest, bestest deal out of congress and the president to reduce the deficit and cut down spending.  

As a result of the deal, Santelli this week held up one pea against a white board.

He then smashed it with a hammer.

“There’s our debt smashing for the end of the year,” said Santelli comparing it to the melons. “It’s basically a pea,” he added comparing the debt to the size of the Empire State Building.

“It’s pretty much about a tax deal. We have done all of this to arrive at an arrangement on taxes [by raising taxes without cutting spending].”  

No word yet if the pea is one missing from the White House.

View video here:  http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2013/01/27/obama-says-nevermind-on-deficits-n1498688/page/full/

No word yet if the pea is one missing from the White House.

But this much is certain: If it is, it won’t be missed by Obama.

He's already full of peas; or pea, as it were.

Seriously.

Send your pea- one (1) only- to: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. 20006.

Or to look up mailing addresses for your members of Congress go here:

U.S. Senators (web sites and mailing addresses)

Write Your U.S. Representative

Op-ed:
While Obama looks away...North Korea plays games with nukes
By: Diane Sori

While we've all been focused on the Benghazi hearings and Obama's nefarious plans to disarm 'We the People', very quietly and under the
radar North Korea is getting ready to test another nuclear weapon. Making this worse is that intelligence sources believe it will be an
underground test, so we will NOT know about it until it actually happens.

Now 'aint that a happy thought...until it actually happens.

And what is Obama stance on this newest development out of North
Korea...who knows for he hasn't been heard from on this...which is par
for the course when our nation's security is threatened, and believe
me with a madman like Kim Jong Il in charge of nuclear weapons we are
indeed threatened. Barack HUSSEIN Obama is decidedly ignoring yet
another threat to our country...by a country who shares nuclear
secrets with the ultra dangerous Iran.

Kim Jong Il, speaking through his North Korean National Defense
Commission, orchestrated last week's very blunt and very pointed
threat to target the US for attack. Saying, "We are not disguising the
fact that the various satellites and long-range rockets that we will
fire and the high-level nuclear test we will carry out are targeted at
the United States" as they called the US “the sworn enemy of the
Korean people.”

Could the threat be anymore direct than this...I don't think so.

And with this, Kim Jong Il continues defying and baiting us in
retaliation for punishing his government in the U(seless) N(ations).
Last week the Security Council (with even China, North Korea’s closest
ally agreeing), tightened economic sanctions against them even further
in response to December's long-range rocket launch that boosted their
ballistic capabilities. North Korea, whose weapons program is quite
advanced when compared to Iran's, proved that their successful launch
of a long-range rocket could, with fine-tuning, very well reach our
west coast.

A working nuclear bomb in the hands of a madman...a nuclear bomb small
enough to be placed on top of a rocket with the capability of reaching
either Hawaii or the western US mainland...NOT good...NOT good at all.
And see how well the U(seless) N(ations) economic sanctions are
working in stopping North Korea's work on nuclear weapons...they're
NOT...as madmen like Kim Jong Il could care less about how sanctions
affect the people who are suffering under his reign...all he cares
about is his own power hungry ambitions and wealth built upon the
backs of the people.

Hmmmm...sounds like someone we all know doesn't it.

And remember, in a totalitarian state, as is North Korea, power to a
madman is defined through military strength and military strength
alone for he who posses nuclear capabilities is the epitome of
strength in the eyes of the world...and this is the goal of Kim Jong
Il...to be thought of as a man with great strength...to be feared and
respected NO matter how much he breaks the backs and spirit of the
North Korean people in order to get that respect.

Thankfully, we do know that even with this threat of an imminent test,
Kim Jong Il is really just a saber rattler of sorts, and that he
actually could be baiting us to see if we'll jump through his hoops,
take the bait, and urge the U(seless) N(ations) to do away with some
of the sanctions as a trade-off for NOT testing his weapon. Just like
his father (Kim Jong-il) before him, Kim Jong Il could be playing the
pouting but manipulating child, because past events have shown that
when North Korea is being ignored on the world stage they always seem
to act up.

And right now they are indeed being ignored as focus is on Obama
trying to take away our guns, Hillary giving the performance of a
lifetime at the Benghazi hearings, and the Palestinian/Israeli
conflict heating up as Obama helps arm the Muslim Brotherhood by
sending F-16 fighter jets to Egypt. So this threat of a test could
very well be Kin Jong Il's way of stomping his feet and saying, 'don't
forget about North Korea and the danger we pose to you.'

And we should NOT forget them as North Korea has conducted nuclear
tests before, one in 2006, the other in 2009. Both these tests used
plutonium as fissile material, but some think this next test will be
with highly-enriched uranium, making this test even more dangerous
than the two previous tests. And this is NOT something that should be
taken lightly by the Obama administration as it's believed that North
Korea has enough weaponized plutonium for four to eight basic nuclear
weapons...some of which have America's name on them for sure.

But with Obama, any threat to our country is considered a victory for
him and his agenda...an agenda that is unabashedly un-American and pro
anybody out to kill us.

Dodd-Frank is an Unconstitutional Disaster

By: Phil Kerpen / Townhall Columnist

In his first term, President Obama passed two of the most sweeping expansions of federal power in history. The first, his federal takeover of the health care system, narrowly survived at the Supreme Court thanks to the refashioning of its mandate into a tax by Chief Justice John Roberts. The second , his federal takeover of the financial system, may not fare as well.

That law, Dodd-Frank, is being challenged in State National Bank of Big Spring v. Geithner. The lead plaintiff is a community bank that has had several of its business lines shut down by Dodd-Frank. Co-plaintiffs include the libertarian powerhouse the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the leading conservative seniors group the 60 Plus Association, and the states of South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Michigan. The case contends, correctly, that provisions of Dodd-Frank violate the separation of powers as well as the Constitution's bankruptcy clause.

The constitutional defects of Dodd-Frank are numerous, serious, and by design. Even the New York Times acknowledged when the bill passed that it was "basically a 2,000-page missive to federal agencies, instructing regulators to address subjects ranging from derivatives trading to document retention. But it is notably short on specifics, giving regulators significant power to determine its impact."

These vast new regulatory powers are delegated without constitutionally required checks and balances.

Consider the so-called Orderly Liquidation Authority, under which the Treasury can petition a federal district court to seize any bank (or non-bank declared systemically important) that it deems a threat to financial stability. A judge would have to decide within 24 hours not to allow the seizure or it would be automatically approved. Liquidation would then proceed with no possibility of judicial review in accordance with arbitrary procedures that could treat similarly situated creditors differently at the whim of regulators.

Neither the company being liquidated nor the creditors would have access to any legal recourse, violating the due process clause. And this process is completely different from the normal bankruptcy process, despite the constitutional requirement that Congress pass "uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies."

C. Boyden Gray, counsel for the plaintiffs in the case, has written: "There is little precedent for this kind of unreviewable 'Star Chamber' proceeding, even with respect to government-supported entities; there is much less justification for applying such treatment to financial companies that are not federally regulated or supported."

The new so-called Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, with sweeping powers to regulate nearly any consumer financial transaction in the economy, is also constructed to be outside of constitutionally required checks and balances. It is not subject to annual appropriations in Congress, instead being funded by the Federal Reserve - which is nonetheless itself prohibited from exercising oversight. All power is vested in one individual, Richard Cordray, who Obama "recess appointed" on a day the Senate considered itself not to be in recess. While the CFPB's decisions are subject to judicial review, there is a requirement in Dodd-Frank that judges give extraordinary deference to the agency.

Dodd-Frank was created in a corrupt feeding frenzy of special interests exploiting the financial crisis to advance their own longstanding agendas. Every left-wing special interest-from the trial lawyers, to the racial grievance groups, to the unions-got a special payoff in the bill. But the whole structure of the bill rests on an unconstitutional foundation.

Every state attorney general should follow the strong leadership of South Carolina's Alan Wilson, Oklahoma's Scott Pruitt, and Michigan's Bill Schuette and join the effort to stop this outrageous unconstitutional takeover of our financial system.