Archive for the ‘US Constitution’ Category

"Illegal Aliens Are What They Are" and "Moral Equivalency & Other Fantasies"

by Burt Prelutsky on Wednesday, July 23rd, 2014

The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans when it comes to illegal immigration is that the Democrats stand to benefit from increasing the Hispanic vote. But both are equally guilty when it comes to not stemming the invasion. Otherwise, we would hear the Republican politicians demanding that a huge wall be erected along our southern border, instead of parroting Obama’s call for comprehensive immigration reform (aka amnesty).

The problem is that folks on both sides of the aisle want to privatize the profits to be accrued from cheap labor while socializing the costs. If we were serious about solving the problem, we would, one, stop subsidizing illegals with free health care, free education and free food; and, two, we would fine and jail anyone responsible for hiring them. And I’m not just referring to smalltime outfits that hire a few guys to help out on construction jobs, but the folks who own the hotels and restaurants where these people are making beds and busing tables.

Obama wants Congress to help him bring what he refers to as “the best and the brightest” to the United States. If he’s referring to those illiterates sneaking across the border, perhaps he’s auditioning for a career as a stand-up comedian. Until now, I had assumed he kept his sense of humor concealed in the same vault where he’s concealed his birth certificate, his early travel visa and his college application.

The EEOC, like every other federal bureaucracy under Obama, has over-stepped its authority by constantly filing lawsuits against companies that insist their employees speak English.

But, then, there is no government agency that I wouldn’t like to see either diminished or eliminated altogether. What’s more, I would see to it that no government bureaucrat, be it at the city, state or federal level, ever received another bonus. What do they ever do that deserves one? It certainly can’t be for working overtime. As we all know, anytime you show up at one of those offices after closing time, whether it’s at 4:01, 4:31 or 5:01, you’ve found the doors locked and the lights off.

Speaking of federal agencies, I bet no conservative in America was surprised to hear that our State Department was far more incensed over the killing of one Arab youngster than it was by the killing of three Jewish teenagers in Israel. What’s more, Israel arrested six suspects in the murder of Abu Khdeir after a couple of days, whereas the Palestinians not only haven’t made any arrests in the murders of Eyal Yifrah, Gilad Shaar and Naftali Fraenkel, after a few weeks, but aren’t likely to in the next fifty years. But it’s only Israel that is ever condemned by the weasels at the U.N. and the anti-Semites who infest academia and the media.

It seems that Hillary Clinton, who is pinning most of her political hopes on carrying a large majority of the single woman vote, once, as a 27-year-old lawyer, defended a creep who beat and raped a 12-year-old girl. Recently, a four decades-old tape popped up on which she is heard laughing while saying that she had lost all faith in polygraph tests because her client had fooled the machine.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

Fortune Magazine completely mangles story on gun sales "declining"

by John Lott on Wednesday, July 23rd, 2014

This is article 544 of 544 in the topic Gun Rights
Fortune magazine’s Laura Lorenzetti makes a lot of logical mistakes in her “news” article here.

It looks like Americans may be buying fewer guns this year.

Smith & Wesson  SWHC , the 162-year-old gunmaker, lowered its guidance for the quarter and rest of the year, even as it reported better than expected sales in its fiscal fourth quarter that ended Apr. 30. Shares of Smith & Wesson’s stock had dropped nearly 9% by the close of trading Friday following the announcement.

The company reported sales of $170 million in its fourth quarter, higher than the average analyst estimate of about $164 million, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Revenue was almost 5% less than the year-earlier quarter. . . .

The once high-selling gun industry may be facing a comedown as incidents of gun violence have soared this year. There has been an average of almost one school shooting every week for the past year and a half, the Washington Post reported earlier this month. . . .

Does reporter Laura Lorenzetti have any idea how inaccurate the Bloomberg claim that there was one school shooting every week for the last year and a half?  The claim that increased gun violence is responsible for a drop in sales makes many errors.  Does a sales drop for Smith & Wesson imply an overall drop in gun sales?  No.

So what do the NICS checks numbers show on gun sales (click on screenshot to enlarge it)?  NICS checks are not a perfect measure of gun sales, but it is hard to see how its biases have changed in a systematic way this past year.

With the exception of background checks in January and February, 2014′s background checks exceed those in 2013 and they are well ahead of those in 2012 for all months.  Fortune incredibly fails to even mention the explosion of gun sales right after Newtown and President Obama’s re-election.  Does anyone believe that January and February sales in 2013 were normal sales to make comparisons with?  Even if Smith & Wesson’s sales might be down for the last quarter, sales for the entire industry during the April through June quarter look like they are still higher than 2013.  How the Fortune reporter can spin a discussion from one gun maker into a general commentary on the entire gun industry is pretty disappointing.

Go straight to Post

Obama Encounters an Apex of Anger

by Alan Caruba on Sunday, July 20th, 2014

This is article 994 of 995 in the topic Obama

By Alan Caruba

Barack Obama has managed to do something one would hardly imagine a President could achieve by the midpoint of his second term. He has managed to anger most segments of the American populace, including those to the far Left who constitute a significant part of his base.  It has taken time for most people to reach this point.

Americans are amazingly patient with their presidents, but Obama has pushed them beyond scandal fatigue. The “final straw” appears to be the illegal alien invasion masterminded by Obama.

What they are seeing and hearing is not what they were sold; a charming man of allegedly extraordinary intelligence. Friday’s press conference regarding the shoot down of the Malaysian commercial aircraft showed us a man utterly lacking any moral outrage and, as always, “leading from behind” by insisting this was Europe’s problem, not one that would be addressed by an America doing anything more than applying a few economic sanctions.

He looked and sounded bored, annoyed that he had to utter a bunch of empty platitudes about Russia; the same Russia with which he and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had declared a “reset” from previous administrations’ relations. Putin took his measure and saw weakness.

Obama’s response to the Middle East was to pull out all our troops from Iraq and a muddled series of actions in Afghanistan topped by the announcement of when troops there would leave, always a very bad idea when the enemy is still in the field. The “Arab Spring” became another Obama nightmare of bad decisions.

Lies, Lies, and More Lies

It took years, but it eventually became clear to most paying any attention that Obama has told so many lies that whatever he says now is deemed worthless. Then, too, his administration is now subject to congressional investigations that include the Internal Revenue Service and the Veterans Administration.

The Attorney General was slapped with contempt of Congress. A key figure in the IRS scandal, Lois Lerner, has pled the Fifth.

The House of Representatives is getting ready to sue Obama for failing to obey the Constitution’s separation of powers. The President’s efforts to ignore the Constitution have been met with an extraordinary number of Supreme Court rebuffs, many of which were unanimous.

How bad is Obama’s situation at present? One indication is the way the news media has been slowly, but steadily falling out of love with him. As Paul Bedard noted recently in the Washington Examiner, “In unprecedented criticism of the White House 38 journalism groups have assailed the president’s team for censoring media coverage, limiting access to top officials, and overall ‘politically-driven suppression of the news.”

David Cuiller, president of the Society of Professional Journalists, said, “It is up to journalists—and citizens—to push back against this force.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

East Tennessee family restaurant posts "Guns are Welcome"

by John Lott on Saturday, July 19th, 2014

This is article 543 of 544 in the topic Gun Rights

From WBIR in eastern Tennessee:

“As the owner, I wanted to stand my ground. I have that constitutional right. If you like it, that’s great, if you don’t, I’m sorry for you. I can’t change who I am,” said Sharma Floyd, with Shiloh Brew and Chew.
Floyd said she posted the signs about a month ago after reading a story out of North Carolina.
“They had put up a sign that said ‘No Weapons Allowed’ and they were robbed at gunpoint two days later. The convenience store manager was shot,” said Floyd. “And that got me thinking. I lost a whole group of motorcyclists because they thought I didn’t allow weapons. But I believe it’s ok to carry as long as you have a permit.”
The restaurant does not sell liquor, and Floyd said she asks anyone who orders a beer if they are carrying. . . .

Go straight to Post

Chicago crime crisis: Holder to send ATF agents instead of cops

by Jim Kouri on Saturday, July 19th, 2014

This is article 329 of 329 in the topic Criminal Activity

During his Wednesday visit to the crime-ridden city of Chicago to meet with the Windy City’s Mayor Rahm Emanual and his public safety chiefs, Attorney General Eric Holder, said that as part of his goal to help the city government fight crime and reduce youth violence he is directing the head of the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to deploy an additional seven ATF agents to its Chicago office.

According to a Justice Department press statement, the additional ATF agents will work with the U.S. Attorney Zachary Fardon and with federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. The additional seven agents brings the total of ATF enforcement staff with sworn-police status to 52 men and women.

But many law enforcement officials complain that Holder is more interested in furthering his anti-gun ownership agenda than in protecting life and property in Chicago. “Why is he sending gun-grabbers to Chicago instead of real law-enforcement officers? The ATF has a history of exceeding their authority. Remember Waco? Fast and Furious?” notes former police sergeant and detective Marty Sachs.

Sgt. Sachs points to a quote by Attorney General Holder in which he explains the ATF strategy: “The Department of Justice will continue to do everything in its power to help the city of Chicago combat gun violence,” said Holder. “These new agents are a sign of the federal government’s ongoing commitment to helping local leaders ensure Chicago’s streets are safe.”

Former police detective Iris Aquino shook her head and said, “He said it himself: helping Chicago combat gun violence. Does that mean he’s not interested in knife violence? Or blunt instrument violence? What about IED [improvised explosive device] violence? This administration is wrong when it comes to street crime; wrong on fighting criminal alien gangs; and wrong on combating Islamic terrorists.

Last month, the ATF premiered its Chicago Crime Gun Intelligence Center which promised to bring together the anti-gun activities of the Chicago Police Department, Illinois State Police and the ATF to deal with the illegal sales and possession of firearms in the State of Illinois, home of President Barack Obama and birthplace of Hillary Clinton.

Holder’s press statement claims that: “Gun crime is the primary driver of homicide in Chicago, and sixty percent of the guns recovered in violent crimes in Chicago were originally sold in other states and trafficked into the city. Given the interstate nature of these crimes, it is critical that federal and local law enforcement work together to identify traffickers and enforce federal gun laws.”

“There a two things that seem to be an obsession with Holder: White racism and gun ownership. Just recently he blamed dissatisfaction with the Obama administration on racism against blacks. And he blames climbing crime statistics on guns. He’s wrong on both counts,” said political strategist Michael Barker.

Go straight to Post

Obama uses Russia’s actions in the Ukraine to ban importation of AK-47s

by John Lott on Thursday, July 17th, 2014

This is article 542 of 544 in the topic Gun Rights
The day before the tragic shooting down of a passenger airline the Obama administration banned the importation of AK-47s from Kalashnikov company.  Here is the Treasury order:

374. If I own a Kalashnikov product, is that product blocked by sanctions?  Am I able to resell a Kalashnikov product at a gun show or other secondary market?

If a U.S. person is in possession of a Kalashnikov Concern product that was bought and fully paid for prior to the date of designation (i.e., no payment remains due to Kalashnikov Concern), then that product is not blocked and OFAC sanctions would not prohibit the U.S. person from keeping or selling the product in the secondary market, so long as Kalashnikov Concern has no interest in the transaction.  New transactions by U.S. persons with Kalashnikov Concern are prohibited, however, and any property in which Kalashnikov Concern has an interest is blocked pursuant to OFAC’s designation of Kalashnikov Concern on July 16, 2014.  If a U.S. person has an inventory of Kalashnikov Concern products in which Kalashnikov Concern has an interest (for example, the products are not fully paid for or are being sold on consignment), we advise that U.S. person to contact OFAC for further guidance on handling of the inventory. [7-16-2014]

Of course, these aren’t the military versions of the AK-47 that are used in wars around the world, but civilian semi-automatic versions of the guns.

Go straight to Post

Follow up on Philadelphia mother who unintentionally violated New Jersey’s gun laws

by John Lott on Thursday, July 17th, 2014

This is article 541 of 544 in the topic Gun Rights
The penalty for this mother of two children is out of all proportion to any possible harm that she did.  The point of these laws in New Jersey is to make people so afraid of violating the laws that they are worried about owning guns.  More background on the case is available here.  The new article from Fox News:

Allen, who has no prior criminal record, said she acquired the gun legally just a week prior to her arrest. She was headed to Atlantic City, N.J., in the early-morning hours to prepare for her son’s birthday party, which was being held three days later.

“I was bringing a cake and the dog to the hotel room to surprise him,” she said. “That’s what I was doing out there and I got pulled over at 1 in the morning because I was sleepy and I swerved.”

Allen purchased the gun for protection after being robbed twice in the past year, she said, adding that she never even fired it and feels somewhat snake-bitten by the entire ordeal.
“It’s definitely a freak thing,” she said. “I was trying to do a good thing and it turned out so bad — and just like that. I don’t know how to explain it, I really don’t.”

Allen reiterated that she immediately told the officer she had a gun in her 2007 Chevrolet sedan, as well as a concealed carry permit for neighboring Pennsylvania.

“The officer knew there was a gun there, she was completely honest and open,” her attorney, Evan Nappen, said. “There are no aggravating factors in this case; she’s a single mom of two, working in the medical field who was robbed twice and that’s what inspired her to get a gun license in the first place.” . . .

Go straight to Post

Google’s War on Guns

by Selwyn Duke on Thursday, July 17th, 2014

This is article 538 of 544 in the topic Gun Rights

Ar15While its corporate motto is “Don’t be evil,” its critics might say “Don’t be Google.” And this is especially true now that Google is saying “Don’t buy guns.”

The search giant has announced that, starting in September, it will ban advertising of firearms, ammunition, and gun paraphernalia. As Google Support writes on its “Dangerous Products or Services” page, “Our policy: We want to help keep people safe both online and offline, so we don’t allow the promotion of some products or services that cause damage, harm, or injury.” Consequently, the ad ban will include, explains the company:

Functional devices that appear to discharge a projectile at high velocity, whether for sport, self-defense, or combat
(Note that we err on the side of caution and apply this policy to sporting or recreational guns that can cause serious harm if misused, or that appear to be real guns.)

Examples: Handguns, rifles, shotguns, hunting guns, functioning antique guns, airsoft guns, paintball guns, bb guns

Any part or component that’s necessary to the function of a gun or intended for attachment to a gun

Examples: Gun scopes, ammunition, ammunition clips or belts

But it isn’t just that, to Google, love is not a warm gun. It will also ban ads relating to other weapons, such as tactical, fighting, and military knives; throwing axes; throwing stars; brass knuckles; and crossbows. So we can now all rest assured that the next throwing-star massacre will be averted.

This move by Google is the latest example of an effort to advance gun control via non-legislative means, a movement born of the fact that anti-Second Amendment sentiment has not followed the U.S.’ overall leftward lurch, becoming noticeably less prevalent during the last 25 years. In fact, ever since former vice president Al Gore’s 2000 presidential election loss to George W. Bush — which many observers partially attributed to Gore’s anti-Second Amendment positions — Democrat politicians’ support for gun control has been muted. And when they do occasionally advocate it, the consequences can be severe. Last year, for instance, two Colorado legislators were recalled and one was forced to resign after helping to pass gun restrictions in their state.

So different tactics have been embraced. Former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg and others attempted to damage firearms manufacturers through lawsuits, but this was blunted legislatively by the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. More recently we learned of the exercise of executive power, with the Department of Justice using “Operation Choke Point” to compel banks and third-party payment processors to stop doing business with companies dealing in guns and their accessories. And Google’s move will have a similar effect, hobbling the firearms industry’s capacity to engage in commerce.

How effective can this be? Consider that as with “Xeroxing,” the genericized term “googling” says about the tech giant’s dominance what statistics confirm. Forbes estimated last year that the corporation accounted for 40 percent of all Internet traffic, while eMarketer.com wrote, “Google earned more than half of the $8.8 billion advertisers worldwide spent on mobile internet ads last year, helping propel the company to take in nearly one-third of all digital ad dollars spent globally.” The company also accounts for 65 percent of all worldwide searches.

Click to continue reading “Google’s War on Guns”
Go straight to Post

Newest piece at Fox News: "Chicago violence: The buck stops with you, Rahm Emanuel"

by John Lott on Thursday, July 17th, 2014

This is article 328 of 329 in the topic Criminal Activity
The newest CPRC op-ed at Fox News starts this way:

Over the July 4 weekend, in Chicago alone, 16 people were shot to death and another 66 were wounded.  At a press briefing on July 11, the White House weighed in, stating that Obama would “continue to make the case” that lawmakers should adopt new gun control laws. Two days later, on Sunday, Gov. Pat Quinn also called for more gun control, in particular a state ban on assault weapons, as the solution.

But Chicago’s problems lie with the city’s politicians. Nationally, police solve almost two out of every three murders – 63 percent of them. That figure is much lower in Chicago. In 2010, right before Rahm Emanuel became mayor, the rate for Chicago was 39 percent. But by Emanuel’s second year in office, it had plunged to an official rate of 26 percent. (In reality it is even lower, because Chicago has tried to hide how bad things are by increasingly misclassifying murders as non-murders.)
After becoming mayor, Emanuel did three unfortunate things to the Chicago police force:
1) He closed down detective bureaus in Chicago’s highest crime districts and moved them elsewhere, sometimes quite far away.
2) Instead of increasing the number of police officers by 1,000, as he had promised during his campaign, he actually cut the number of police.
The rest of the piece is available here.

Go straight to Post

Forty-six Democrat Senators Want to Change our Laws Strictly for Politics

by Jerry McConnell on Wednesday, July 16th, 2014

This is article 113 of 113 in the topic Free Speech

Forty-six Democrat Senators Want to Change our Laws for Strictly Politics

The impossible just got legs for a potential possibility; and not a good one at that.  In a bare-faced political move, forty-six elected Democrats in our United States Senate; that’s EIGHTY-SEVEN PERCENT of all Democrats, are willing to make a change to our most predominant, most revered and oldest established legal document, the United States Constitution, all for their desire for more political power in our government.

These self-loathing discriminators, just for personal gain, would change the most important document in the American arsenal of judicial decrees, destroying any and all credence in the minds of the American people.  They would ban free speech for Americans if they chose not to like it.  No political discourse would ever reach our newspapers or airwaves if those Democrats chose to block it.  Two sides to every political discussion would be gone forever if banned by our Constitution as the Democrats are successful in their banning efforts.

This is brazen and unmitigated impudence and gall.  Has God suddenly decreed that ONLY discourse spoken by Democrats can be aired or printed?  If this Democrat proposed constitutional amendment is passed we would only be allowed to hear THEIR side of any political discussion.  How kingly, or dictatorially decadent can we sink to?

My thoughts at this point are that perhaps we the people, currently unburdened by filthy and arrogant legislation that would, in effect, put one class of people, namely those of the Democrat Party who would deny the rest of the Americans the joy of unrestrained free political speech, honor the balance of people and country caring elected United States Senators, numbering NINE of that group of 55 in total.  They are the only true American believers holding office in the United States Senate.

Not only would these forty-six cretins so greed inspired with possessive insanity destroy the freedom of speech rights for ALL Americans, but their actions, if successful, would backfire on them should the balance of power tip back to the other party.  A move such as this, even if successful, could not be durable and any mood swings could turn their joy into deep sorrow quite rapidly.

This movement of desperation shows how unsure the Democrat Party is of providing leadership.  That thought is understandable with feeble minds such as Obama, Biden, Reid, Pelosi, Gore, the Clintons, Rangel, Lewis, etc. and multitudes more standing in the wings.  They are blessed by having huge followings of people of similar mental deficiencies and expert practioners at the sleazy art of multi-voting and machine rigging.

This new scheme of underhanded manipulation of freedom of speech, so very common in socio-communist and enslaved peoples countries, is nothing more that a grand grab at power over minorities.  America’s days of slavery was legislated to an end by a Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, a century and one-half ago.  Preventing freedom of speech is as much, if not more than hand-and-leg shackles on the minorities.

A bright new light in the Republican Party, a freshman Senator from Texas named Ted Cruz has made this public on July 14, 2014, on Patriot Action Network, as a nefarious liberal Democrat plot against a party lacking a mere six votes to change the fortunes in the coming November elections.

Click to continue reading “Forty-six Democrat Senators Want to Change our Laws Strictly for Politics”
Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin