Posts Tagged ‘Politics’
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Califailure) has been scheming for “over a year” on a way to re-ban “assault weapons,” according all the pictures of them that she’s studied:
On Dec. 17th, Feinstein said, ”I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation” and “It will be carefully focused.” Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on Dec. 21st that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012. [Emphasis added]
Not prone to the same thrill I get when looking at pictures of cool guns, I’m sure, she wants to ban the scariest looking ones first.
According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinstein’s website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of “assault weapon” that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinstein’s new bill are as follows:
Read more for a list of the changes
Leftists everywhere I’m sure see nothing wrong with an outright ban on everything, but the more moderate liberal types might not see anything wrong with simply registering weapons at the very least. I mean, what could be the harm in that?
Well, ask registered gun owners in New York’s Westchester, Rockland, and Putnam counties what harm there could be. Gun owners nationwide would be one FOIA request away from having their names and addresses splayed all over the internet by leftist zealots:
New York’s “Journal News” ignited a fierce debate Sunday after publishing the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in two New York counties. They are actively working on acquiring data for a third county.
The article, titled “Map: Where are the gun permits in your neighborhood?,” reads:
The map indicates the addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties. Each dot represents an individual permit holder licensed to own a handgun — a pistol or revolver. The data does not include owners of long guns — rifles or shotguns — which can be purchased without a permit. Being included in this map does not mean the individual at a specific location owns a weapon, just that they are licensed to do so.
Data for all permit categories, unrestricted carry, premises, business, employment, target and hunting, is included, but permit information is not available on an individual basis.
To create the map, The Journal News submitted Freedom of Information requests for the names and addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam. By state law, the information is public record.
Putnam is still putting together its records and could not immediately provide any data. The map will be updated when that data is released. [Emphasis added]
Putnam County, as it turned out, politely told the Journal News to get stuffed, but it could just as easily have caved as well.
Can you imagine what an administration as loose with our rights as the Obama Regime would do with all that registration info if it had it? Can you imagine them turning down a request like the one the Journal News made? That it hasn’t happened yet to firearms owners who are currently required to federally register their firearms is a major miracle to me.
Seriously, the idiocy of publishing a list of citizens who’ve broken no law as easily as they would a list of registered sex offenders should engender a mass of lawsuits for whatever cause a resident registered gun owner can dream up. What, with burglars rushing to their website before breaking into houses, I mean:
“That was the most asinine article I’ve ever seen,” former burglar and jewel thief Walter T. Shaw said. “Having a list of who has a gun is like gold – why rob that house when you can hit the one next door, where there are no guns?”
The FBI reportedly blames Shaw, 65, for more than 3,000 break-ins that netted some $70 million in the 1960s and 1970s. In other words, his credentials as a thief are legitimate.
“What they did was insanity,” Shaw added.
What Shaw calls “insanity” is nothing more than standard operating procedure for the leftist Democrats, with whom the end always justifies the means.
- American Gun Owners to be Fingerprinted and Registered: Feinstein Announces Nightmare Plan (dprogram.net)
- Second Amendment: Gun Grabbers Forge Ahead (maddmedic.wordpress.com)
- Feinstein: More Power, More Money to ATF to Register All Guns (a4cgr.wordpress.com)
- Ex-Burglars Say Newspaper’s Gun Map Would’ve Made the Job Easier, Safer (foxnews.com)
Her goal, in her own words, is to disarm all Americans
Not all Californians are idiots, but enough are that they pull the lever on voting day for people who either strip them of their rights, or tax them to death. With a little digging (very little) they could’ve found out the people they were voting for in no way represent their views, but too busy watching reality TV, they can’t be bothered to hear these leftists in their own words.
Criminals can always be counted on to act like criminals. However, such actions should never be used to justify treating law abiding citizens like criminals, which is what leftists like Feinstein and Obama want to do with gun control,
Yeah, thanks bunches.
With all the amazing people Time could’ve picked, they proved their continuing irrelevance by picking their socialist hero, B. Hussein Obama:
We are in the midst of historic cultural and demographic changes, and Barack Obama is both the symbol and in some ways the architect of this new America. In 2012, he found and forged a new majority, turned weakness into opportunity and sought, amid great adversity, to create a more perfect union.
Seriously? His “new majority” is a dubious collection of leftists and low-information voters; his “new America” a collapsing star which is about to become a financial black hole. This is their “more perfect union”?
Rush called it:
We’ve never had a more radical, we’ve never had a more partisan politician in the White House than Obama. It’s only a low-information voter (we used to have call ‘em “morons”) that could think he’s outside of politics, but there you have it. There you have it. TIME Magazine: We chose Obama because he’s a symbol of the new, low-information America. That’s what Stengel meant when he talked about Obama being “the beneficiary and the author of a kind of new America, a new demographic, a new cultural America that he is now the symbol of.”
I wonder what these elite Democrats really think about that. So this guy’s Man of the Year because idiots love him? Because believe me, they think low-information voters are idiots. I guarantee you. They’ll be glad to take their votes. The new stupid America? That should have been Man of the Year. Person of the Year: Stupid people. The low-information voter should have been the Person of the Year.
Here’s who the editors at Time should’ve picked – the teacher who gave her life to save her children:
At the exact point a conservative black Republican becomes a US Senator
South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley appointed Republican Representative Tim Scott to fill the seat being vacated by the retirement of Sen. Jim DeMint on Monday:
“It is with great pleasure that I am announcing our next U.S. senator to be Congressman Tim Scott,” Haley said. “I am strongly convinced that the entire state understands that this is the right U.S. senator for our state and our country.”
Sen.-designate Scott, 47, will become the only African-American currently serving in the Senate and the first black Republican to serve in the upper chamber since the 1970s. He will also be the first black senator from the South since Reconstruction.
Note on my emphasis in the above paragraph: it was not a Democrat who gave an African-American a chance to represent his/her state in the US Senate, it was a Republican.
It was just September of this year the Huffington Post was lamenting the fact that there would likely be no African-Americans in the Senate for some time to come:
Right now, there are zero. And it will likely remain that way after the 2012 elections, since none of the major Senate candidates are black.
The author goes further to quote a member of the Congressional Black Caucus echoing that lament:
“I frankly think it’s a shame, and I think it is reflective of America sometimes still idling in the past,” said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), who is black. “There are enormously talented people in all backgrounds.”
Well, now that the Governor of South Carolina is officially appointing one, is there rejoicing and dancing in the streets by Democrats?
Sadly, no. Only racial hate and vitriol. Seems that skin color is only important to Democrats if one holds the “correct” viewpoint politically.
Witness the viciousness and hatred from Democrats:
TOKEN NEGRO: SC Gov Nikki Haley to name Rep Tim Scott, SC’s first African-American GOP rep since 1901, to replace Sen Jim DeMint. Event
— lovelyladypa (@lovelyladypa) December 17, 2012
— Smooth (@smoothjazznmore) December 17, 2012
Tim Scott or uncle ruckus?….. Sound like the same person to me. Look like Mr Charlie just picked a Tom ….,#TeamFollowBack
— zug9mm (@zug9mm) December 17, 2012
See, if you’re an African-American in America today, you’re never truly free. You can’t hold views outside those “approved” views sanctioned by leftist Democrats. You’ll never be free to think for yourself, unless you pick your thoughts from a pre-approved list (see Nancy Pelosi for your free copy).
We’ve come so far from the America we were in the 1800s, and even the 1960s, and it seems to go unnoticed by those that lean left:
People don’t appreciate how far we have come as a nation.
An Indian American of Sikh Heritage, married to a Caucasian, as Governor of the most conservative state in the Union, just made Tim Scott the first GOP African American Senator since reconstruction (and amazingly, only the 7th African American Senator ever), in the former home state of Strom Thurmond, after defeating Strom’s son for the House seat in the first place. And conservatives cheered.
Those same conservatives are called “racists” on a daily basis.
Tell me again, who are the real racists here? Looks like they wear the letter (D) to me.
Crossposted to Unified Patriots
2. “Didn’t your lady parts warn you this would happen?”
3. “Look at the Bright Side, Gay marriage passed in four states.”
4. “Hey, Big Bird still has a job. Isn’t that the important thing?”
5. “I am sure Obama cares deeply about your situation. Maybe he’ll send you a postcard from Hawaii.”
6. “Well, look at the bright side, Rush Limbaugh is getting a massive tax increase.”
7. “Hey! Now you’ll have more time to play with your unicorn.”
8. “Isn’t it worth losing your job to know that religious organizations now have to pay for abortions and contraceptives?”
9. “Well, now you and Keith Olbermann have something else in common.”
With all the clamoring to soak the rich to avoid forcing the fortunate poor* going to work and getting less for free, Great Britain played the “fair share” game and went after more of the income of the evil rich. The rich, not being stupid, simply said ”Tax THIS!” and took measures to keep what they earned:
In the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than £1 million to HM Revenue and Customs.
This number fell to just 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new 50p top rate of income tax shortly before the last general election.
The figures have been seized upon by the Conservatives to claim that increasing the highest rate of tax actually led to a loss in revenues for the Government.
It is believed that rich Britons moved abroad or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes.
George Osborne, the Chancellor, announced in the Budget earlier this year that the 50p top rate will be reduced to 45p from next April.
Note: what Obama leftists want to do has been tried. It failed. But of course, they’re smarter leftists in America.
*Fortunate to be in America. Where else on Earth but America do the “poor” have big screen TVs, new cars, video games, cell phones. etc?
Imagine a faraway land that was so prosperous that almost every inhabitant had their own personal Rolls Royce parked inside the garage of a 5,000 square foot house, and had personal chefs that whipped up whatever food they wanted.
Now, imagine about 15 percent of the population of that fictional country only had a 2,000 square foot house, a low-end BMW or Mercedes, and had to go to restaurants to get what they wanted to eat. Would it seem silly to call this group “poor”?
It would seem so to people from less prosperous countries who struggle to find food and warmth on a daily basis, as well as people in the rich country who had the presence of mind not to be fooled by the laughable idea of relative poverty.
Relative poverty is not quite the same as actual poverty, as the story about the faraway land illustrates. No matter how rich a person is, he can always be considered relatively poor when compared to someone wealthier.
Just as the person with more is considered “rich” by the person with less, there’s going to be a leftist Democrat somewhere willing to pit the one against the other in exchange for votes and more power for himself/herself.
Crossposted to Unified Patriots
This can’t be real. Just some trial balloon to make the next name floated seem more realistic. I mean, nothing says a Commander in Chief loves his troops like sticking a reviled war protester who allegedly threw his medals over the White House fence at an anti-war protest (the ones he allegedly didn’t rightfully earn) in as Secretary of Defense.
President Obama is considering asking Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) to serve as his next defense secretary, part of an extensive rearrangement of his national security team that will include a permanent replacement for former CIA director David H. Petraeus.
Although Kerry is thought to covet the job of secretary of state, senior administration officials familiar with the transition planning said that nomination will almost certainly go to Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
I try to keep this blog free of profanity, but you gotta be sh*ttin’ me?
I guess the left being hard up for a “War Hero” and all just can’t pass up the chance to grab whatever they’re offered. If Kerry is the “trial balloon” I can hardly wait to see who the real pick will be. As was said elsewhere, “I can’t think of anyone less respected by the troops“.
- Former anti-war protester John Kerry to be Secretary of Defense? (twitchy.com)
- WaPo: John Kerry under consideration for defense secretary (michellemalkin.com)
- Kerry, John Kerry: Defense Secretary (zerohedge.com)
There aren’t enough “Headdesks” in the world to cover this:
MY WIFE’S LOVER
My wife is having an affair with a government executive. His role is to manage a project whose progress is seen worldwide as a demonstration of American leadership. (This might seem hyperbolic, but it is not an exaggeration.) I have met with him on several occasions, and he has been gracious. (I doubt if he is aware of my knowledge.) I have watched the affair intensify over the last year, and I have also benefited from his generosity. He is engaged in work that I am passionate about and is absolutely the right person for the job. I strongly feel that exposing the affair will create a major distraction that would adversely impact the success of an important effort. My issue: Should I acknowledge this affair and finally force closure? Should I suffer in silence for the next year or two for a project I feel must succeed? Should I be “true to my heart” and walk away from the entire miserable situation and put the episode behind me?
The response from “The Ethicist”?
Prepare yourself [my emphasis below]…
Don’t expose the affair in any high-profile way. It would be different if this man’s project was promoting some (contextually hypocritical) family-values platform, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. The only motive for exposing the relationship would be to humiliate him and your wife, and that’s never a good reason for doing anything. This is between you and your spouse. You should tell her you want to separate, just as you would if she were sleeping with the mailman. The idea of “suffering in silence” for the good of the project is illogical. How would the quiet divorce of this man’s mistress hurt an international leadership initiative? He’d probably be relieved.
The fact that you’re willing to accept your wife’s infidelity for some greater political good is beyond honorable. In fact, it’s so over-the-top honorable that I’m not sure I believe your motives are real. Part of me wonders why you’re even posing this question, particularly in a column that is printed in The New York Times.
Your dilemma is intriguing, but I don’t see how it’s ambiguous. Your wife is having an affair with a person you happen to respect. Why would that last detail change the way you respond to her cheating? Do you admire this man so much that you haven’t asked your wife why she keeps having sex with him? I halfway suspect you’re writing this letter because you want specific people to read this column and deduce who is involved and what’s really going on behind closed doors (without actually addressing the conflict in person). That’s not ethical, either.
So if you are willing to tolerate your spouse screwing around to not damage a political cause (as long as that’s a leftist cause, I’m sure. This IS the NY Times), then you are to be praised – nay applauded, for your tolerance.
Also, can’t help but wonder, especially in light of the (former) Gen. Petraeus affair and subsequent resignation, well it just makes you think…”Hmmmm…”
Yeah, I realize it’s probably made-up BS, but the response? C’mon…you can’t make up leftist idiocy.
Crossposted to Unified Patriots
Ummm, I doubt it -
Must all be racists.
I know! They’re “Swiftboating” Obama. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Or, maybe the just…
This was left in the comments here, and it’s one of the few in four years that’s not been spam: it’s a keeper -