Friday, April 19, 2013

RANDOM SHOTS - Obama Defeat Means America Wins, and More!

Obama Defeat Means America Wins

On Wednesday the Senate defeated a vital background check amendment seen as the linchpin to the Democrat Party's gun control bill.

This dealt a major setback to a very irate President Obama, who lashed out at opponents in remarks from the Rose Garden.

"All in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington," Obama said, before going on to accuse the gun lobby of "lying" about the bill.

Imagine that for a moment. Obama calling others liars. And he, a man who has demonstrated himself Master of the Bald Face Lie!

Besides the 54-46 vote, with supporters falling six votes short of the required 60-vote threshold, the senators also voted on a string of other amendments - including a proposed ban on assault weapons and a ban on high-capacity magazines. Both which were defeated as well.

Now if anyone reading this thinks the fight is over just because we won this small victory, think again. The folks who want to take away our Constitutional rights are tireless and extremely creative.

Like the people who sit up at night thinking up different ways to tax your money, these anti-Second Amendment folks stay up at night thinking of ways to take away our rights and give absolute control to the government.

Like you, I love my country. But honestly, the federal government scares me these days.

Over taxation of American citizens just to give millions of taxpayer dollars to special interest groups like Planned Parenthood and to anti-American dictators in the Middle-East and else where.

Billions of dollars in wasteful spending on unnecessary equipment like tanks and huge arms purchases by the Department of Homeland Security, yet no funds for programs to increase our security on the border while arms and explosives are coming in to the United States.

President Obama sees our democracy are ugly and messy and shameful when the rights of the people are upheld, yet sees nothing wrong with spending the lion's share of our nations wealth in an effort to destroy America's health care system - turning it into a two tier system of those who can afford it and those who can't.

The failure of the background check proposal authored by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., now puts the entire anti-Second Amendment legislation in question.

The proposal would have expanded background checks and over rule state regulations prohibiting background checks and privacy violations.

The amendment was an attempt to appease conservatives who are opposed to the more stringent background check plan in the existing bill.

Obama vowed to press on, saying the vote was "just round one," while decrying those he claimed "caved" to political pressure.

"The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill," Obama said. He said the claims "upset" some gun owners who in turn "intimidated" senators.

"There were no coherent arguments as to why we couldn't do this. It came down to politics," he said.

Yes, imagine, that coming from a man who has lied and politicized his key legislative accomplishment ObamaCare to get it passed.

In a statement, Democrat Sen Manchin said that while he is disappointed in the outcome of today's vote, that "this is not the end of the debate."

Opponents, which included a few Democrats, voiced concern that the proposal would infringe on Second Amendment rights by imposing a burden on those buying and selling guns.

They claimed the proposed system would not have prevented Newtown, and would not stop criminals. They also voiced concern about the possibility that the expanded system could lead to a Gun Owner Registry.

The NRA said in a statement that the amendment "would have criminalized certain private transfers of firearms between honest citizens, requiring lifelong friends, neighbors and some family members to get federal government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution."

Not surprisingly, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats hammered Republicans for not voting in support and vowed to press forward.

"I want everyone to understand this is just the beginning, ..." said Reid - Blah! Blah! Blah!" .

Have you ever noticed that harry Reid has nothing new to say. It's always just the same old line of anti-Republican bullshit!

I can't help but wonder if Harry Reid would blame every ill of the world on Republicans if he had the chance.
And now enter the RINOs! Yes, Republicans In Name Only!

Four Republican senators voted for the amendment: Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, and of course that idiot Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Why are they allowed to exist? Who votes for these people? Why do Republicans vote for these Bozos? Why are these people still in office?

And yes, believe it or not, five Democrats voted against it.

One of those Democrats was Reid, but before you get to thinking that he is for our Second Amendment right you have to understand that he only switched his vote to oppose it. By doing so, it allows Democrats to call up the measure again.

The Democrats who voted against the measure for non-procedural reasons were Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Sen. Max Baucus of Montana.

In the run-up to Wednesday's vote, Democratic leaders gave ever-changing assessments of where support stood.

Thirty-one senators voted last week to completely block debate on overall gun legislation. Since last week, enough lawmakers who voted to allow debate switched to oppose Manchin-Toomey, in turn defeating the amendment.

The Senate held eight other votes Wednesday besides the one on background checks, all of them amendments to the broad gun control measure.

They included Democratic proposals to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, which are expected to lose; a Republican proposal requiring states to honor other states' permits allowing concealed weapons, which faces a close vote; and a GOP substitute for the overall gun measure.

The concealed weapons amendment, seen by advocates as protecting gun rights, was vehemently opposed by gun control groups, who say it would allow more guns into states with stricter firearms laws.

The other amendments were defeated.

"I believe very strongly that our current background check system needs strengthening and improving, particularly in areas that could keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill. At the same time, I cannot support legislation that infringes upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms," Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., one of those opposed, said in a statement.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, echoed Heller in a statement released following the vote saying "Following the tragedy at Sandy Hook, we all wanted to find answers that would reduce crime and prevent the next senseless act of violence. Unfortunately, the Senate did not consider any proposals that would achieve these objectives."

We all know about the horrible acts last December when that sick-son-of-a-bitch killed 20 children and six adults at a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school. We all hate what took place.

No one likes what happened there, or in Aurora Colorado when that other crazy bastard decided to reenact something he saw in a movie. But folks, like it or not, attacking our Constitutional rights is not the way to address these sorts of problems.

Why are we being re-active instead of pro-active? Why haven't we established better security in our schools, not only to deter violence but also to deter drugs? 

And really, more importantly, why aren't we teaching our children basic morality? Why aren't we teaching kids that there is a difference between doing what is right and wrong? Why aren't we teaching what are noble acts versus those that are wrong and are in fact criminal?

And yes, why aren't we teaching kids that the violence that they see in movies and videos is not to be glorified and recreated? 

We should be doing something other than just trying to pass more laws!


Obama Snubs Thatcher Funeral

President Barack Obama’s decision not to attend the funeral of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher Wednesday was blasted by a former Reagan administration official and Fox News analyst who called it shameful, “cheap, small and petty.”

Writing on Fox, Fox National Security Analyst Kathleen Troia "K.T." McFarland said the administration’s official excuse that the president and vice president were consumed with a busy week — which included the Boston Marathon bombing tragedy — rang hollow.

It does — after all — take a mere 24 hours to fly to London and back for a state funeral, she noted.

“It is standard operating procedure for the Vice President or First Lady or, at a minimum the Secretary of State, to attend funerals of foreign leaders, even those from lesser nations,” McFarland wrote. “Shame on you, Mr. President. You and your administration look cheap, small and petty.

“It goes without saying that when one of the longest serving leaders of America's closest and most enduring ally dies, the United States should send a large and distinguished delegation of America's leaders, past and present,” added McFarland, who is a Distinguished Adviser to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and served in national security posts in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan administrations.

She wasn't the only one criticizing the president for his handling of the funeral. Obama was slammed in the British tabloids, as well.

They reported that the government of Prime Minister David Cameron was incensed, especially since former Labor Prime Minister Tony Blair was sitting in the front row of the service.

“[Downing] Street is most angered by rejections from Obama, First Lady Michelle and Vice-President Joe Biden. And none of the four surviving ex-U.S. leaders — Jimmy Carter, George Bush Sr, Bill Clinton and George Bush Jr — is coming either,” The Sun reported, according to Politico.

The Sun continued: “The response contrasts with glowing U.S. tributes on the day Lady Thatcher died. A No 10 source said last night: ‘We are a little surprised by the White House’s reaction as we were expecting a high-profile attendance.’ The 'snub' came ahead of the Boston marathon “bomb outrage.”

The liberal Guardian in Britain dubbed it a “distinctly low-key official representation.”

“The U.S. is to send distinctly low-key official representation. . . . While Barack Obama was invited, he has opted to send a presidential delegation comprising no serving politicians,” according to The Guardian report.

McFarland blamed the decision on ideology.

"Could it be that Margaret Thatcher was a Tory? That she battled British Trade Unionists and won? That she worked hand-in-hand with Ronald Reagan, the incarnation of evil for many left-wing Democrats?

"It used to be American politics stopped at the water's edge, and that American president honored foreign leaders, regardless of their political persuasions or party,” she wrote, pointing out that former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, and James Baker attended the funeral.

Between the three of them, they opened relations with China and brought down the Iron Curtain with Thatcher.

But Obama somehow didn’t think that legacy was worth honoring, McFarland added.

“But while they were giants in their day, they are not part of your team,” McFarland wrote. “The snub to the British was palpable – only yesterday’s men could be spared.

“And frankly, Mr. President, this makes you look foolish as well.”

K.T. McFarland has never been so right!

For the Obama administration to not even send some sort of official representative is pretty sorry, but not surprising. Obama represents himself, not America.

Obama could have sent someone to a state funeral in England, a state funeral for the only women Prime Minister in Great Britian's history, a funeral of a strong ally. Yes, he could have but didn't.

The real reason he didn't is because Obama doesn't have the class that one needs to understand a some fact of life: It shows you're a bigger person when you can find it in yourself to tip your hat to someone they you might have disagreed with.

Obama didn't send an official representative because he is a small man. And now, even the British know it.


Florida college instructor fired after handing out voter pledge cards with image of Obama

An associate professor at Florida’s Brevard Community College has been fired after school officials say she handed out pledge cards to students urging them to vote for President Barack Obama last year.

The school’s board of trustees terminated Sharon Sweet on Wednesday after a three-month investigation, but she plans on fighting the decision, reports.

The college determined that Sweet violated a code of conduct that prohibits employees from seeking support for political candidates, reports.

Sweet, a registered Democrat, says she was participating in non-partisan voter registration on campus and didn’t see the parts of the pledge cards with Obama’s image.

The pledge cards, handed to her math students last November, had a picture of Obama on the top and a red flag with the phrase “Pledge to vote!”


Freedom Group Gun Maker Attracting Interest From Weapons Companies

Immediately after the December tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, Freedom Group’s owner, private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management, decided to sell the company.

Now a number of weapons firms are interested in purchasing Freedom Group, the gun maker that manufactured a rifle used in last year’s shooting massacre.

It is not clear whether any of the potential buyers will bid on Freedom Group when it goes to auction; Cerberus Capital reportedly hopes to complete a sale this summer and wants to get around $1 billion for the company.

Among those expressing interest in Freedom Group are Smith & Wesson Holding and Sturm, Ruger, both of whom have requested detailed information on the gun manufacturer, reports the Wall Street Journal.

Alliant Techsystems, an aerospace and defense company that makes ammunition and firearms accessories, has also indicated an interest, the newspaper reported.


Pennsylvania Abortion Clinic Worker: I Saw 10 Babies Breathe

While Democrat politicians use the killings of children in Newtown, Connecticut, to advance their political agenda, there is not a word from them on the Abortion Clinic's killings of babies after they were born there.

Capitol Hill lawmakers are trying to draw attention to the trial of Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell, accused of snipping the spines of infants, keeping baby body parts in jars, and overdosing patients.

“The case of Kermit Gosnell is gruesome, the place that he ran was a gruesome factory and disturbing, but only because it strips away the clinical nature of most abortions,” Republican Rep. Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania said on the House floor.

“His carelessness exposed what the fetus actually was, a human that he cruelly murdered, and yet the press will ignore it — will remain silent — about what is actually happening in this very important trial in Philadelphia,” Pitts said.

Gosnell is on trial for the drug-overdose death of a 41-year-old patient and the deaths of seven babies born alive at his West Philadelphia clinic.

A parade of pro-life congressmen went to the floor of the House last week to denounce the lack of media coverage of the trial.

Republican Reps. Chris Smith of New Jersey, Louis Gohmert of Texas, Scott Garrett of New Jersey, and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania were among those joining Pitts, decrying the lack of attention being given to the trial, The Hill reported.

Gohmert read an article on the House floor about Gosnell’s trial, but substituted the word “puppies” for “babies,” saying the media certainly would have paid attention if the story was about animal cruelty, The Hill noted.

Gosnell’s capital murder trial began last month, with graphic testimony from former employees who claim Gosnell regularly “snipped the spinal cords of babies” and performed abortions well past the state’s 24-week legal limit.

A grand jury report called Gosnell’s business a “filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels — and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths.”

With pro-life members of Congress, grass-roots activists, and social media turning up the heat, the story began to get more media attention last week.

“Until last week almost all media was silent about the trial,” Anna Higgins, director for the Family Research Council’s Center for Human Dignity, told Newsmax. “We’ll see how much they cover between what they say they’re going to do, and what they actually do.”

Critics argue that politics has interfered with the national media covering the trial of Gosnell, whose clinic in Philadelphia was first raided in 2010.

“The deafening silence of too much of the media, once a force for justice in America, is a disgrace,” USA Today columnist Kirsten Powers recently wrote.

“You don't have to oppose abortion rights to find late-term abortion abhorrent or to find the Gosnell trial eminently newsworthy. This is not about being ‘pro-choice’ or ‘pro-life.’ It’s about basic human rights.”

“Let me state the obvious,” Powers said. “This should be front page news.”

Well, now a former abortion clinic worker has testified at the the murder trial of her former boss with testimony that she saw first hand more than 10 babies breathe before they were killed.

Kareema Cross is the final prosecution witness against Dr. Kermit Gosnell. She says she saw the babies' chests move but was told by Gosnell they were not breathing.

She also says she saw three babies move their arms and legs and heard a fourth give a soft whine.

Cross says she was so upset by clinic procedures that she took photos and called authorities.

A 2011 grand jury report lambastes state and city officials for failing to inspect the busy Philadelphia clinic.

The defense denies that babies were born alive, and Cross is sure to face strenuous questioning Thursday from defense lawyer Jack McMahon.

And no, none of this is fit to talk about in the liberal mainstream media because it does not fit their agenda of making abortions a morally OK taxpayer problem.  


Utah residents sue to reclaim property rights from prairie dogs

This pair of prairie dogs peering out of their hole might not be a problem, but the Federal government is.

And yes, as we talk about government over-regulation and the making of America into a nation of felons, this is a great example of the federal government sticking their nose where it doesn't belong.

Attorneys representing property owners in Cedar City, Utah filed a lawsuit Thursday arguing that the Federal government has overstepped its Constitutional bounds by preventing residents from defending their property against a massive prairie dog infestation.

“The federal government doesn’t have the authority to regulate a local issue like the Utah prairie dog under the commerce clause or any other power,” Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Jonathan Wood, who is representing Cedar City residents free of charge, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “The government simply overreached.”

The lawsuit takes aim at a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule that prevents landowners from taking action against prairie dogs that infest their property.

The government applied anti-“taking” rules under the Endangered Species Act to the Utah prairie dog, meaning landowners can be fined or even imprisoned if they try to deal with the animals without first asking the government for permission.

Imagine that! "Hey Big Brother! I want to remove a prairie dog from my own property, can you grant me permission Sire?" I don't think so.

“Before the rule was adopted it was possible for all private property to get permission to remove the prairie dog,” Wood said. “The new regulation changed the rules so they promote a lot of private property impossible to do anything. If prairie dogs are there, you basically have to accept it and basically abandon your property.”

“It’s impossible to actually cure the problem if your land has become burdened with the prairie dog,” he added.

PLF argues that the Federal government has overstepped its authority under the commerce clause, which allows the federal government to regulate activities that affect the national economy.

Prairie dogs affect the National Economy? How can the Feds justify that? Simple, they can't.

Fact is, the Utah prairie dog is only located in one state and not involved in any commercial activity.

“So the argument that this has to be regulated under the commerce clause is a little silly,” said Wood.

“The theory of our case is that the federal government’s role is only to protect the animal when its on public property, but this regulation regulates private property and that’s beyond the federal government’s power.”

People for the Ethical Treatment of Property Owners is a coalition of Cedar City residents who have been affected by the federal restrictions on dealing with prairie dog infestations.

The Utah prairie dog is one of five prairie dog species in North America, and is found only in Utah. The animal digs burrows and networks of tunnels which can damage people’s properties.

According to the FWS, and no I don't know who paid those folks to count them, there are estimated to be more than 40,000 Utah prairie dogs.

And yes, the animal is listed as “threatened’ under the Endangered Species Act. Not endangered, but threatened.

The prairie dogs have done extensive damage to Cedar City - including digging mounds and creating runway hazards at the regional airport, digging tunnels among graves and destroying flowers at the Cedar City cemetery.

This all reminds me of something that Great Britain's Prime Minister Winston Churchill once said, "If you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy all respect for the law."

And yes, that's what's happening in the United States today. It's getting silly.

Story by Tom Correa

1 comment:

  1. I'm glad Obama ain't the President no more. He was awful.


Thank you for your comment.