This came from an article titled "Journalist Bob Woodward Clashes With White House Over Sequester Report" written by Devin Dwyer and posted on the Note page of ABC News politics site.
This of course concerns Bob Woodward of Richard Nixon - Watergate expose fame. Woodward is known as his own man, left of center most of the time, but now seemingly not very happy about the Obama administration continuing to lie about the economy in general and the reasons for the upcoming "Sequestration".
The Sequestration of course was Obama's idea and passed by a Democratic Senate. Obama is reported to be meeting with Congress leaders tomorrow - the day when the Sequestration begins - FOR THE FIRST TIME. For the first time because he was too busy vacationing in Florida, making continued camapign tours around the country and generally being content to throw allegations at the Republicans because he (Obama) knows that roughly 50% of the people will automatically believe him (low information voters).
Veteran journalist Bob Woodward is embroiled in an extraordinary public clash with the White House over his reporting on the sequester.
Woodward has been making the rounds to cable TV and print outlets accusing a “very senior person” in the administration of threatening him last week ahead of an op-ed he later published in the Washington Post attributing the idea for the automatic spending cuts to President Obama.
The blitz drew a harsh rebuke from former senior Obama adviser David Plouffe Wednesday night: “Watching Woodward last 2 days is like imagining my idol Mike Schmidt facing live pitching again. Perfection gained once is rarely repeated,” he wrote on Twitter.
Former Obama campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith also opined: “Woodward deserves a lot of credit for taking a macro story about DC dysfunction, competing econ theories &and making it all about him,” she said.
In the column at the center of the storm, Woodward writes the White House has been deliberately disingenuous about its role in the sequester, and accused Obama of “moving the goal posts” by insisting Republicans agree to new tax revenue as part of any substitute for the sequester. “That was not the deal he (Obama) made,” he says.
Woodward’s report has rankled administration officials, particularly since it undermines the narrative the White House has been pushing ahead the March 1 sequester deadline. Democrats claim the automatic cuts were mutually agreed upon and never intended to be enacted, making Obama’s demand for new revenue a legitimate one. Republicans claim the sequester was Obama’s idea and that any replacement plan was to be entirely cuts.
Now, Woodward alleges that he was bullied even ahead of publishing his report. He told Politico Wednesday that one Obama aide “yelled at me for about a half hour” and in an email message delivered a veiled threat.
“It was said very clearly: ‘you will regret doing this,’” Woodward told CNN. “I’m not going to say [who], a very senior person. It makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters you’re going to regret doing something you believe in.”
“I think if Barack Obama knew that was part of the communications strategy, let’s hope it’s not a strategy, but just a tactic he’s employing, he’d say, ‘look, we don’t go around trying to say to reporters if you in an honest way present something that we don’t like, you’re going to regret this,’” he said. BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith, citing unnamed sources, says the official with whom Woodward had the tense exchange was the director of the White House Economic Council Gene Sperling.
White House officials have downplayed Woodward’s account, saying that no threats were intended and that the original impetus for the email to Woodward was to apologize for an earlier heated phone conversation. And while the administration does not directly dispute Woodward’s reporting, officials believe he is focusing on a moot point.
“What does that matter now? Not much,” senior Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer told reporters Sunday of the debate over who concocted the sequester.
Cowboys and Tea Parties comment: What does it matter now? Sounds like Hillary when testifying about the deaths of four Americans in Libya,.....an event for which the administration has still failed to answer for.
Cowboys and the Tea Party political movement have a lot on common. Both believe in individual responsibility; judging a man by his actions not words; and, both are disgusted with government intrusions into our lives and particularly our God given rights.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Disillusioned with Obama
This editorial from the Washington Post, hopefully, is the beginning of a trend in previously blind Obama supporters in the national media coming to their senses and using the evidence of plain, cold facts to judge Obama.
By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner):
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job? Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.
He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of his skin.
Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is.
And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.
What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.
The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character?
Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner):
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job? Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.
He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of his skin.
Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is.
And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.
What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.
The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character?
Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Wisdom from Ben Stein
The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary and sent to me via e-mail:
My confession:
I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat...
.......Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.
In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.
In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc.. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school.....
The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.
Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about.. And we said okay.....
Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'
Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell.
Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing.
Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.
Are you laughing yet?
Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.
Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.
Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not, then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.
My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,
Ben Stein
Cowboys and Tea Parties comment: If you like what Ben has to say cut ands paste his commentary into an e-mail and share it, or send somebody to this link.
My confession:
I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat...
.......Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.
In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.
In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc.. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school.....
The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.
Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about.. And we said okay.....
Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'
Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell.
Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing.
Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.
Are you laughing yet?
Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.
Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.
Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not, then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.
My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,
Ben Stein
Cowboys and Tea Parties comment: If you like what Ben has to say cut ands paste his commentary into an e-mail and share it, or send somebody to this link.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Did God Intentionally Make Liberals?
Great you tube video on the Creator making Liberals. But I take offense to this. As God is perfect how could he make such a mistake?,...oh I get it,..it's a joke on the rest of us. God does have a sense of humor.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Some Gun Companies support the Second Amendment
You would think all gun companies support the second amendment,...but I have a theory that some companies,...the major companies who make their living selling guns to the government aren't about to piss off that government, be it the state or federal government.
This was sent to me via e-mail, which evidently came from Brietbart.com:
......In a turning of the tables, liberty minded gun makers and companies that supply firearms, accessories and ammunition have determined that they have had it with anti-gun governments at the city, state and Federal levels, even if it means lost revenue. Several companies have announced that they will no longer be supplying equipment to hostile governments, police forces or first responders. New York and California have become the prime targets, making an example of out-of-touch politicians who continue to trample upon the Constitutionally protected rights of their citizens to keep and bear arms.
Breitbart compiled a list of statements from several of these companies:
LaRue Tactical
Effective today, in an effort to see that no legal mistakes are made by LaRue Tactical and/or its employees, we will apply all current State and Local Laws (as applied to civilians) to state and local law enforcement / government agencies. In other words, LaRue Tactical will limit all sales to what law-abiding citizens residing in their districts can purchase or possess.
Olympic Arms
Due the passing of this legislation, Olympic Arms would like to announce that the State of New York, any Law Enforcement Departments, Law Enforcement Officers, First Responders within the State of New York, or any New York State government entity or employee of such an entity – will no longer be served as customers. In short, Olympic Arms will no longer be doing business with the State of New York or any governmental entity or employee of such governmental entity within the State of New York – henceforth and until such legislation is repealed, and an apology made to the good people of the State of New York and the American people.
Extreme Firepower Inc, LLC
The Federal Government and several states have enacted gun control laws that restrict the public from owning and possessing certain types of firearms. Law-enforcement agencies are typically exempt from these restrictions. EFI, LLC does not recognize law-enforcement exemptions to local, state, and federal gun control laws. If a product that we manufacture is not legal for a private citizen to own in a jurisdiction, we will not sell that product to a law-enforcement agency in that jurisdiction. Templar CustomWe will not sell arms to agents of the state of New York that hold themselves to be "more equal" than their citizens. As long as the legislators of New York think they have the power to limit the rights of their citizens, in defiance of the Constitution, we at Templar will not sell them firearms to enforce their edicts. Templar Custom is announcing that the State of New York, any Law Enforcement Departments, Law Enforcement Officers, First Responders within the State of New York, or any New York State government entity or employee will no longer be served as customers.
York Arms
Based on the recent legislation in New York, we are prohibited from selling rifles and receivers to residents of New York. We have chosen to extend that prohibition to all governmental agencies associated with or located within New York. As a result we have halted sales of rifles, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, machine guns, and silencers to New York governmental agencies.
Cheaper than Dirt
Recently, companies such as LaRue Tactical and Olympic Arms have announced that they will no longer sell prohibited items to government agencies and personnel in states that deny the right to own those items to civilians. It has been and will continue to be Cheaper Than Dirt’s policy to not to sell prohibited items to government agencies and/or agents in states, counties, cities, and municipalities that have enacted restrictive gun control laws against their citizens. We support and encourage other companies that share in this policy. Alex Newman at The New American writes:
The recent surge in companies refusing to do business with lawless governments hostile to citizens’ rights may have been partly inspired by Ronnie Barrett, owner and CEO of Barrett Firearms Manufacturing. His company, which produces among the most popular .50-caliber weapons in the world, refused to sell the firearms to officials or agencies in California after lawmakers there some years ago banned civilian ownership of the high-caliber guns.
“It’s hard to believe we live in such a dark time that someone has actually banned a single shot rifle. But as you will see, this is the cleverest of all gun bans, and the end goal is civilian disarmament, the confiscation of your tools of liberty, your rifles,” the respected CEO wrote in a piece at the time explaining his company’s boycott. “Barrett cannot legally sell any of its products to lawbreakers. Therefore, since California’s passing of AB50, the state is not in compliance with the US Constitution’s 2nd and 14th Amendments, and we will not sell nor service any of our products to any government agency of the State of California.”
Gun rights activists celebrated the decisions of the four companies to stand up for the rights of Americans. Analysts expect more firms to stand up soon, noting that otherwise, gun owners may choose to purchase from other manufacturers in the future. Across America, state governments,sheriffs, and even some city and county governments are working hard to protect the right to keep and bear arms regardless of any unconstitutional federal “laws” or edicts from President Obama to the contrary. Activists say it is time for all gun makers to join the effort or potentially face a boycott themselves.
While the big three manufacturers of firearms that sell to the New York Police Department, Glock, Smith & Wesson, and Sig Sauer have not come on board, Freedom Outpost, as well as, Guns Save Lives encourage them to do so.
Not only is the Federal government out of its mind concerning Second Amendment restrictions, but so are thestates, including more Democrats in New Jersey putting together a package of 20 sweeping gun-control billsthis week with a vote scheduled for February 21. While some naively think that Christie would veto such legislation, don’t hold your breath. Not only has he called for gun control to be a national discussion, but New Jersey has the second toughest gun control statutes in the country.
While not enacting new gun control measures, he has not set out to repeal them either, claiming that the existing laws are sufficient. Take time to contact gun manufacturers and voice your support for them to stop selling to governments (City, County, State, or Federal) hostile to the Second Amendment rights of citizens.
GLOCK, Inc. 6000 Highlands Parkway Smyrna, GA 30082 USA Phone: 770-432-1202 FAX: 770-433-8719
SIG SAUER, Inc. 18 Industrial Drive Exeter, NH 03833 Phone: 603-772-2302 Fax: 603-772-9082 publicsafetysales@sigsauer.com globaldefensesales@sigsauer.com
Smith & Wesson 2100 Roosevelt Avenue Springfield, MA 01104 Phone: 1-800-331-0852 Fax: 1-413-747-3317 qa@smith-wesson.com
Additionally, here is the contact information for Remington: Remington Arms Company, LLC 870 Remington Drive P.O. Box 700 Madison, NC 27025-0700 TEL: 1-800-243-9700 Fax: 1-336-548-7801 info@Remington.com
This was sent to me via e-mail, which evidently came from Brietbart.com:
......In a turning of the tables, liberty minded gun makers and companies that supply firearms, accessories and ammunition have determined that they have had it with anti-gun governments at the city, state and Federal levels, even if it means lost revenue. Several companies have announced that they will no longer be supplying equipment to hostile governments, police forces or first responders. New York and California have become the prime targets, making an example of out-of-touch politicians who continue to trample upon the Constitutionally protected rights of their citizens to keep and bear arms.
Breitbart compiled a list of statements from several of these companies:
LaRue Tactical
Effective today, in an effort to see that no legal mistakes are made by LaRue Tactical and/or its employees, we will apply all current State and Local Laws (as applied to civilians) to state and local law enforcement / government agencies. In other words, LaRue Tactical will limit all sales to what law-abiding citizens residing in their districts can purchase or possess.
Olympic Arms
Due the passing of this legislation, Olympic Arms would like to announce that the State of New York, any Law Enforcement Departments, Law Enforcement Officers, First Responders within the State of New York, or any New York State government entity or employee of such an entity – will no longer be served as customers. In short, Olympic Arms will no longer be doing business with the State of New York or any governmental entity or employee of such governmental entity within the State of New York – henceforth and until such legislation is repealed, and an apology made to the good people of the State of New York and the American people.
Extreme Firepower Inc, LLC
The Federal Government and several states have enacted gun control laws that restrict the public from owning and possessing certain types of firearms. Law-enforcement agencies are typically exempt from these restrictions. EFI, LLC does not recognize law-enforcement exemptions to local, state, and federal gun control laws. If a product that we manufacture is not legal for a private citizen to own in a jurisdiction, we will not sell that product to a law-enforcement agency in that jurisdiction. Templar CustomWe will not sell arms to agents of the state of New York that hold themselves to be "more equal" than their citizens. As long as the legislators of New York think they have the power to limit the rights of their citizens, in defiance of the Constitution, we at Templar will not sell them firearms to enforce their edicts. Templar Custom is announcing that the State of New York, any Law Enforcement Departments, Law Enforcement Officers, First Responders within the State of New York, or any New York State government entity or employee will no longer be served as customers.
York Arms
Based on the recent legislation in New York, we are prohibited from selling rifles and receivers to residents of New York. We have chosen to extend that prohibition to all governmental agencies associated with or located within New York. As a result we have halted sales of rifles, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, machine guns, and silencers to New York governmental agencies.
Cheaper than Dirt
Recently, companies such as LaRue Tactical and Olympic Arms have announced that they will no longer sell prohibited items to government agencies and personnel in states that deny the right to own those items to civilians. It has been and will continue to be Cheaper Than Dirt’s policy to not to sell prohibited items to government agencies and/or agents in states, counties, cities, and municipalities that have enacted restrictive gun control laws against their citizens. We support and encourage other companies that share in this policy. Alex Newman at The New American writes:
The recent surge in companies refusing to do business with lawless governments hostile to citizens’ rights may have been partly inspired by Ronnie Barrett, owner and CEO of Barrett Firearms Manufacturing. His company, which produces among the most popular .50-caliber weapons in the world, refused to sell the firearms to officials or agencies in California after lawmakers there some years ago banned civilian ownership of the high-caliber guns.
“It’s hard to believe we live in such a dark time that someone has actually banned a single shot rifle. But as you will see, this is the cleverest of all gun bans, and the end goal is civilian disarmament, the confiscation of your tools of liberty, your rifles,” the respected CEO wrote in a piece at the time explaining his company’s boycott. “Barrett cannot legally sell any of its products to lawbreakers. Therefore, since California’s passing of AB50, the state is not in compliance with the US Constitution’s 2nd and 14th Amendments, and we will not sell nor service any of our products to any government agency of the State of California.”
Gun rights activists celebrated the decisions of the four companies to stand up for the rights of Americans. Analysts expect more firms to stand up soon, noting that otherwise, gun owners may choose to purchase from other manufacturers in the future. Across America, state governments,sheriffs, and even some city and county governments are working hard to protect the right to keep and bear arms regardless of any unconstitutional federal “laws” or edicts from President Obama to the contrary. Activists say it is time for all gun makers to join the effort or potentially face a boycott themselves.
While the big three manufacturers of firearms that sell to the New York Police Department, Glock, Smith & Wesson, and Sig Sauer have not come on board, Freedom Outpost, as well as, Guns Save Lives encourage them to do so.
Not only is the Federal government out of its mind concerning Second Amendment restrictions, but so are thestates, including more Democrats in New Jersey putting together a package of 20 sweeping gun-control billsthis week with a vote scheduled for February 21. While some naively think that Christie would veto such legislation, don’t hold your breath. Not only has he called for gun control to be a national discussion, but New Jersey has the second toughest gun control statutes in the country.
While not enacting new gun control measures, he has not set out to repeal them either, claiming that the existing laws are sufficient. Take time to contact gun manufacturers and voice your support for them to stop selling to governments (City, County, State, or Federal) hostile to the Second Amendment rights of citizens.
GLOCK, Inc. 6000 Highlands Parkway Smyrna, GA 30082 USA Phone: 770-432-1202 FAX: 770-433-8719
SIG SAUER, Inc. 18 Industrial Drive Exeter, NH 03833 Phone: 603-772-2302 Fax: 603-772-9082 publicsafetysales@sigsauer.com globaldefensesales@sigsauer.com
Smith & Wesson 2100 Roosevelt Avenue Springfield, MA 01104 Phone: 1-800-331-0852 Fax: 1-413-747-3317 qa@smith-wesson.com
Additionally, here is the contact information for Remington: Remington Arms Company, LLC 870 Remington Drive P.O. Box 700 Madison, NC 27025-0700 TEL: 1-800-243-9700 Fax: 1-336-548-7801 info@Remington.com
Friday, February 22, 2013
Draconian Gun Law Proposed in Washington State
I received this through e-mail and it is pretty chilling that people and governments can actually think this will make a difference:
…Liberal Democrat legislators in Washington State have introduced SB 5737, an assault weapons ban. Besides the purposeful misnomer of weapons that have the appearance of military weapons but are in no way even close to a military weapon, the legislation, if passed, will destroy one of the key provisions of the Constitution.
SB 5737 reads, in part, that "In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall...safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection."
Do you get it? No warrant, no probable cause -- once a year the law gets to knock on your door unannounced and demand entrance to look around and determine you're in compliance pursuant to the whims and fancy of a legislator. Does that sound Constitutional to you?
My friends, I keep telling you, it is long past time we start a movement of NO. NO we won't comply with an out-of-control government and NO we won't be intimidated by those we elect and pay to represent us…
…Liberal Democrat legislators in Washington State have introduced SB 5737, an assault weapons ban. Besides the purposeful misnomer of weapons that have the appearance of military weapons but are in no way even close to a military weapon, the legislation, if passed, will destroy one of the key provisions of the Constitution.
SB 5737 reads, in part, that "In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall...safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection."
Do you get it? No warrant, no probable cause -- once a year the law gets to knock on your door unannounced and demand entrance to look around and determine you're in compliance pursuant to the whims and fancy of a legislator. Does that sound Constitutional to you?
My friends, I keep telling you, it is long past time we start a movement of NO. NO we won't comply with an out-of-control government and NO we won't be intimidated by those we elect and pay to represent us…
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Intentional Destruction of the United States?
No one wants to think that our elected representatives are intentionally destroying the United States, but Bill Whittle makes a solid case on why the most likely conclusion is that the Liberal, Progressive, Leftist Obama Administration is intentionally destroying this Country.
Even the most rational citizens have to blink and think very hard to refute the assertion that every,....EVERY,....plan, decision, proposal, .....every executive order, is seemingly destructive to this country.
If you haven't found PJTV yet, then you should book mark or subscribe to this video channel. It routinely features Afterburner videos with Bill Whittle who is a breath of fresh air in political commentary.
Even the most rational citizens have to blink and think very hard to refute the assertion that every,....EVERY,....plan, decision, proposal, .....every executive order, is seemingly destructive to this country.
If you haven't found PJTV yet, then you should book mark or subscribe to this video channel. It routinely features Afterburner videos with Bill Whittle who is a breath of fresh air in political commentary.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Jesse Jackson's Crazy Claim About Guns
This week's outrage comes to us courtesy of the anti-gun Reverend Jesse Jackson. Rev. Jackson is not in the news as much now as he once was. When you do hear from him, though, his comments are still laced with his usual dose of hyperbole.
That predictable pattern continues with Rev. Jackson's recent comments on semi-automatic firearms.
According to an article appearing on TheBlaze.com last month, Rev. Jackson believes that semi-automatic firearms must be banned because they could "shoot down planes" and therefore constitute a risk to national security.
The Blaze ran a follow-up story debunking the claim, but that didn't seem to deter Rev. Jackson, as this week he boldly declared that, in addition to shooting down planes, semi-automatic firearms could also be used to "blow up railroads."
"You know that these weapons can shoot down airplanes, they can blow up railroads. This is really a whole national security issue," Rev. Jackson said in a recent interview on Fox News. Blow up railroads? What in the world is he basing that claim on?
If Rev. Jackson is interested in the facts and wants to return this debate back to earth, he should know that semi-automatic firearms were introduced in the late 1800s, and have been popular for self-defense, hunting and target shooting ever since. Forty percent of all uses of firearms for self-defense are performed with semi-automatic handguns, and all firearms used in the annual National Rifle and Pistol Trophy Matches are semi-automatic.
Though he seems to know very little about semi-automatic firearms, we assume that we will continue to hear Rev. Jackson make outrageous claims about this issue in the future. No doubt Jackson won't be able to help himself, as he craves the spotlight to continue to push his agenda, using bizarre and truly outrageous claims.
The anti-gunners--including Rev. Jackson--will stop at nothing to get what they want: a ban on your lawfully owned firearms. They will literally say anything they think will help them achieve their goal.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
State of the Union Lies
President Barack Obama did some cherry-picking Tuesday night in defense of his record on jobs and laid out a conditional path to citizenship for illegal immigrants that may be less onerous than he made it sound. A look at some of the claims in his State of the Union speech, a glance at the Republican counterargument and how they fit with the facts from an article on Yahoo!:
OBAMA: "After years of grueling recession, our businesses have created over 6 million new jobs."
THE FACTS: That's in the ballpark, as far as it goes. But Obama starts his count not when he took office, but from the point in his first term when job losses were the highest. In doing so, he ignores the 5 million or so jobs that were lost on his watch, up to that point.
Private sector jobs have grown by 6.1 million since February 2010. But since he became president, the gain is a more modest 1.9 million.
And when losses in public sector employment are added to the mix, his overall jobs record is a gain of 1.2 million.
OBAMA: "We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas."
THE FACTS: Not so fast.
That's expected to happen in 12 more years.
Under a deal the Obama administration reached with automakers in 2011, vehicles will have a corporate average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, twice the 27 miles per gallon, on average, that cars and trucks get today. Automobile manufacturers won't start making changes to achieve the new fuel economy standards until model year 2017. Not all cars will double their gas mileage, since the standard is based on an average of a manufacturers' fleet.
OBAMA: "Already the Affordable Care Act is helping to reduce the growth of health care costs."
THE FACTS: The jury is still out on whether Obama's health care overhaul will reduce the growth of health care costs. It's true that cost increases have eased, but many experts say that's due to the sluggish economy, not to the health care law, whose main provisions are not yet fully in effect.
OBAMA: "Real reform means establishing a responsible pathway to earned citizenship — a path that includes passing a background check, paying taxes and a meaningful penalty, learning English and going to the back of the line behind the folks trying to come here legally."
THE FACTS: The seemingly stern admonition that illegal immigrants must go to the back of the line, often heard from the president, doesn't appear to have much practical effect except in the most obvious sense. Everyone who joins a line, whether for a movie, a coffee or citizenship, starts at the back of that particular line. It's not clear he is saying anything more than that illegal immigrants won't get to cut in line for citizenship once they've obtained provisional legal status.
Like those living abroad who have applied to come to the U.S. legally, illegal immigrants who qualify for Obama's proposed path to citizenship will surely face long waits to be processed. But during that time, they are already in the U.S. and will get to stay, work and travel in the country under their new status as provisional immigrants, while those outside the U.S. simply have to wait.
Sending illegal immigrants to the "back of the line" is something of a distinction without a difference for some legal immigrants who dutifully followed all the rules before coming to the United States.
For instance, some legal immigrants who are in the U.S. on an employer-sponsored visa can't easily change jobs, or in some cases take a promotion, without jeopardizing their place in line to get a green card. In other cases, would-be legal immigrants in other countries wait for years to be able to settle in the U.S.
Obama is using "back of the line" somewhat figuratively, because there are multiple lines depending on the applicant's relationship with family already in the U.S. or with an employer. Generally, a foreign-born spouse of a U.S. citizen or someone with needed skills and a job offer will be accepted more quickly than many others.
But even as a figurative point, his assertion may cloak the fact that people who came to the U.S. illegally and win provisional status have the great advantage over applicants abroad of already being where they all want to go.
OBAMA: "Study after study shows that the sooner a child begins learning, the better he or she does down the road. ... And for poor kids who need help the most, this lack of access to preschool education can shadow them for the rest of their lives. ... Every dollar we invest in high-quality early education can save more than $7 later on — by boosting graduation rates, reducing teen pregnancy, even reducing violent crime."
THE FACTS: Dozens of studies have shown Head Start graduates are more likely to complete high school than their at-risk peers who don't participate in the program. But a study last year by the Department of Health and Human Services that found big vocabulary and social development gains for at-risk students in pre-kindergarten programs also found those effects largely faded by the time pupils reached third grade. The report didn't explain why the kids saw a drop-off in performance or predict how they would fare as they aged.
OBAMA: "I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won't act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy."
THE FACTS: Obama failed to get a global warming bill through Congress when both Houses were controlled by Democrats in 2010. With Republicans in control of the House, the chances of a bill to limit the gases blamed for global warming and to create a market for businesses to trade pollution credits are close to zero. The Obama administration has already acted to control greenhouse gases through existing law. It has boosted fuel-efficiency standards and proposed rules to control heat-trapping emissions from new power plants. And while there are still other ways to address climate change without Congress, it's questionable regulation alone can achieve the reductions needed to start curbing global warming.
OBAMA: "After years of grueling recession, our businesses have created over 6 million new jobs."
THE FACTS: That's in the ballpark, as far as it goes. But Obama starts his count not when he took office, but from the point in his first term when job losses were the highest. In doing so, he ignores the 5 million or so jobs that were lost on his watch, up to that point.
Private sector jobs have grown by 6.1 million since February 2010. But since he became president, the gain is a more modest 1.9 million.
And when losses in public sector employment are added to the mix, his overall jobs record is a gain of 1.2 million.
OBAMA: "We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas."
THE FACTS: Not so fast.
That's expected to happen in 12 more years.
Under a deal the Obama administration reached with automakers in 2011, vehicles will have a corporate average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, twice the 27 miles per gallon, on average, that cars and trucks get today. Automobile manufacturers won't start making changes to achieve the new fuel economy standards until model year 2017. Not all cars will double their gas mileage, since the standard is based on an average of a manufacturers' fleet.
OBAMA: "Already the Affordable Care Act is helping to reduce the growth of health care costs."
THE FACTS: The jury is still out on whether Obama's health care overhaul will reduce the growth of health care costs. It's true that cost increases have eased, but many experts say that's due to the sluggish economy, not to the health care law, whose main provisions are not yet fully in effect.
OBAMA: "Real reform means establishing a responsible pathway to earned citizenship — a path that includes passing a background check, paying taxes and a meaningful penalty, learning English and going to the back of the line behind the folks trying to come here legally."
THE FACTS: The seemingly stern admonition that illegal immigrants must go to the back of the line, often heard from the president, doesn't appear to have much practical effect except in the most obvious sense. Everyone who joins a line, whether for a movie, a coffee or citizenship, starts at the back of that particular line. It's not clear he is saying anything more than that illegal immigrants won't get to cut in line for citizenship once they've obtained provisional legal status.
Like those living abroad who have applied to come to the U.S. legally, illegal immigrants who qualify for Obama's proposed path to citizenship will surely face long waits to be processed. But during that time, they are already in the U.S. and will get to stay, work and travel in the country under their new status as provisional immigrants, while those outside the U.S. simply have to wait.
Sending illegal immigrants to the "back of the line" is something of a distinction without a difference for some legal immigrants who dutifully followed all the rules before coming to the United States.
For instance, some legal immigrants who are in the U.S. on an employer-sponsored visa can't easily change jobs, or in some cases take a promotion, without jeopardizing their place in line to get a green card. In other cases, would-be legal immigrants in other countries wait for years to be able to settle in the U.S.
Obama is using "back of the line" somewhat figuratively, because there are multiple lines depending on the applicant's relationship with family already in the U.S. or with an employer. Generally, a foreign-born spouse of a U.S. citizen or someone with needed skills and a job offer will be accepted more quickly than many others.
But even as a figurative point, his assertion may cloak the fact that people who came to the U.S. illegally and win provisional status have the great advantage over applicants abroad of already being where they all want to go.
OBAMA: "Study after study shows that the sooner a child begins learning, the better he or she does down the road. ... And for poor kids who need help the most, this lack of access to preschool education can shadow them for the rest of their lives. ... Every dollar we invest in high-quality early education can save more than $7 later on — by boosting graduation rates, reducing teen pregnancy, even reducing violent crime."
THE FACTS: Dozens of studies have shown Head Start graduates are more likely to complete high school than their at-risk peers who don't participate in the program. But a study last year by the Department of Health and Human Services that found big vocabulary and social development gains for at-risk students in pre-kindergarten programs also found those effects largely faded by the time pupils reached third grade. The report didn't explain why the kids saw a drop-off in performance or predict how they would fare as they aged.
OBAMA: "I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won't act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy."
THE FACTS: Obama failed to get a global warming bill through Congress when both Houses were controlled by Democrats in 2010. With Republicans in control of the House, the chances of a bill to limit the gases blamed for global warming and to create a market for businesses to trade pollution credits are close to zero. The Obama administration has already acted to control greenhouse gases through existing law. It has boosted fuel-efficiency standards and proposed rules to control heat-trapping emissions from new power plants. And while there are still other ways to address climate change without Congress, it's questionable regulation alone can achieve the reductions needed to start curbing global warming.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
A New Pro Gun Argument from a Marine
As the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the Chicago Gun Ban, this man offered you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine), that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society. Interesting take and one you don't hear much. Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter...
"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat -- it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act."
By Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret.)
So, the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat -- it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act."
By Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret.)
So, the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Obama's Illinois Downgrade Makes It America's Greece
Investor's.com the online offering of Investors Business Daily posted this article several days ago about Illinois being downgraded because of their ridiculous clinging to the liberal economic model,......tax and spend, focus on entitlements, and if you need more money - then take it from those who work.
State Budgets: Inability or unwillingness to fix the state's hemorrhaging pension system and curb union power has led a major credit rating service to downgrade the Land of Lincoln's rating to the lowest in the nation.
On Friday, the bond rating agency Standard & Poor's downgraded the state's credit level again, to A-, putting Illinois' on par with California. No, actually below California, for S&P gives California a positive outlook.
Illinois' fragile overall financial status netted it a negative outlook, putting it behind California overall. The ratings came out now because Illinois plans to issue $500 million in bonds within days.
Moody's already ranks Illinois 50th among the states, and Fitch ranks the state 49th but warns of a negative watch.
Moody's A2 ranking places it even with Botswana, a southern African nation that is 70% desert, in what is the latest fallout over the $96.8 billion unfunded debt to five state pension systems.
The news comes after failed attempts at even modest pension reform failed in a lame duck state legislative session.
A recent release by the Illinois Policy Institute shows this is only the tip of the iceberg and when you add in other liabilities such as $54 billion in unfunded liabilities for retiree health insurance and $15 billion in pension bonds that Gov. Pat Quinn and his immediate predecessor, former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, issued to avoid pension reform, Illinois' total unfunded liabilities amount to $275 billion, or $58,000 in debt for each and every household in the state.
While neighbors like Wisconsin, Indiana and Michigan have either challenged the unions on pension reform or embraced right-to-work to encourage the economic growth to fund them, Illinois remains in thrall to big labor.
A major stumbling block on the path to reform has been the state's powerful public employee unions.
We Are One Illinois (WAOI), a group that represents more than 1 million state workers, has formed to fight any reforms, even while the state's pension costs rise at a rate of $17 million per day.
The state will spend $5.9 billion on the pension system in fiscal year 2013, which ends in July 2013, and will spend nearly $7 billion in FY 2014.
The Standard & Poor's report warns that further inaction could lead to downgrading Illinois to "BBB," an "unusual" low rating for any state.
The agency noted a "lack of action on pension reform and upcoming budget challenges could result in further credit deterioration."
State Budgets: Inability or unwillingness to fix the state's hemorrhaging pension system and curb union power has led a major credit rating service to downgrade the Land of Lincoln's rating to the lowest in the nation.
On Friday, the bond rating agency Standard & Poor's downgraded the state's credit level again, to A-, putting Illinois' on par with California. No, actually below California, for S&P gives California a positive outlook.
Illinois' fragile overall financial status netted it a negative outlook, putting it behind California overall. The ratings came out now because Illinois plans to issue $500 million in bonds within days.
Moody's already ranks Illinois 50th among the states, and Fitch ranks the state 49th but warns of a negative watch.
Moody's A2 ranking places it even with Botswana, a southern African nation that is 70% desert, in what is the latest fallout over the $96.8 billion unfunded debt to five state pension systems.
The news comes after failed attempts at even modest pension reform failed in a lame duck state legislative session.
A recent release by the Illinois Policy Institute shows this is only the tip of the iceberg and when you add in other liabilities such as $54 billion in unfunded liabilities for retiree health insurance and $15 billion in pension bonds that Gov. Pat Quinn and his immediate predecessor, former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, issued to avoid pension reform, Illinois' total unfunded liabilities amount to $275 billion, or $58,000 in debt for each and every household in the state.
While neighbors like Wisconsin, Indiana and Michigan have either challenged the unions on pension reform or embraced right-to-work to encourage the economic growth to fund them, Illinois remains in thrall to big labor.
A major stumbling block on the path to reform has been the state's powerful public employee unions.
We Are One Illinois (WAOI), a group that represents more than 1 million state workers, has formed to fight any reforms, even while the state's pension costs rise at a rate of $17 million per day.
The state will spend $5.9 billion on the pension system in fiscal year 2013, which ends in July 2013, and will spend nearly $7 billion in FY 2014.
The Standard & Poor's report warns that further inaction could lead to downgrading Illinois to "BBB," an "unusual" low rating for any state.
The agency noted a "lack of action on pension reform and upcoming budget challenges could result in further credit deterioration."
Monday, February 11, 2013
Dr. Carson's Speech - Captivating America
The whole Nation is abuzz with Dr. Benjamin Carson's speech at the National Prayer Breakfast with Obama in attendance. The good Doctor, actually the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, railed against political correctness, about fiscal irresponsibility, about taxation, and host of other issues including his passion for education.
Dr. Carson's creds are over whelming,..I will not take up the reader's time going over them except to say that he is a published author both in the medical field and non-fiction. He and his wife are philantrophists giving scholarships to deserving kids; he is a widely respected surgeon and did all of this growing up in poverty where he learned the importance of education and self responsibility.
I have no idea on Dr. Carson's political affilations or voting record, but he has to be a burr under Obama's saddle as a successful, capitalistic, self responsibility touting black man is opposite of what Obama is and what Obama wants to create for minorities and frankly, everyone else in this country.
Dr. Carson said that people ask him why he gves speeches that border on political issues. He said "why not and that everyone needs to get involved, including physicians, after all six of the founding signers were Doctors." If you do nothing else listen to his entire speech,....and watch Obama's facial expressions and body language.
Dr. Carson's creds are over whelming,..I will not take up the reader's time going over them except to say that he is a published author both in the medical field and non-fiction. He and his wife are philantrophists giving scholarships to deserving kids; he is a widely respected surgeon and did all of this growing up in poverty where he learned the importance of education and self responsibility.
I have no idea on Dr. Carson's political affilations or voting record, but he has to be a burr under Obama's saddle as a successful, capitalistic, self responsibility touting black man is opposite of what Obama is and what Obama wants to create for minorities and frankly, everyone else in this country.
Dr. Carson said that people ask him why he gves speeches that border on political issues. He said "why not and that everyone needs to get involved, including physicians, after all six of the founding signers were Doctors." If you do nothing else listen to his entire speech,....and watch Obama's facial expressions and body language.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Legal Immigrant Supports the Second Amendment
Henson Ong - Legal Immigrant's speech on the 2nd Amendment at a Gun Violence Prevention Working Group Public Hearing in Hartford, CT on January 28th, 2013.
Mr. Ong, a legal immigrant who described himself as an American by choice, calmly and succintly destroys the anti-gun arguement especially on civilian versions of military weapons. Apparently much of crowd agreed with him based on the applause. Yeah, Mr. Ong gets it.
Mr. Ong, a legal immigrant who described himself as an American by choice, calmly and succintly destroys the anti-gun arguement especially on civilian versions of military weapons. Apparently much of crowd agreed with him based on the applause. Yeah, Mr. Ong gets it.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Defense Department Violates Academic Freedom
The headline from a Thomas More Law Center press release,....."Defense Department’s Actions Against LTC Matthew Dooley Violate National Interests: Complaint Filed Challenging National Defense University’s Accreditation".
ANN ARBOR, MI — The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, today announced that it filed a formal complaint with the President of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (Commission) challenging the accreditation of the National Defense University (NDU). The Commission, which accredited NDU as a degree granting university, responded that it has begun a “preliminary review” of TMLC’s complaint.
TMLC’s complaint provides overwhelming evidence that several NDU and Department of Defense (DoD) policies relating to academic freedom were violated when Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Matthew Dooley was removed from his teaching post as a result of demands by Muslim organizations that all training materials offensive to Islam bepurged and instructors using the materials disciplined.
TMLC also asked the Commission to conduct its own confidential on-site interviews of NDU faculty members to determine the extent to which academic freedom has been diminished and what measures should be taken to insure the future integrity of NDU as a university.
LTC Dooley was an instructor at the NDU, and one of the faculty members assigned to run the elective course entitled, Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism. Click here to read TMLC’s 7-page complaint.
Richard Thompson, TMLC President and Chief Counsel, observed: “The actions taken against LTC Dooley are astonishing. NDU’s own policies recognize that academic freedom is essential to the integrity of the university classroom setting as well as U.S. national interests. In fact, the Department of Defense had specifically directed the National Defense University to establish a climate of academic freedom within the university, with the directed purpose to foster lively, classroom debate in the examination of national security issues. Contrary to these established policies, NDU and DoD have subsequently gone on to violate their own rules in handling this incident concerning the Islamic Radicalism elective.”
General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, publicly excoriated LTC Dooley and characterized his course on Islamic Radicalism as “offensive to Muslims”, and “against our values.” General Dempsey’s evaluation of LTC Dooley was in stark contrast to the glowing reports from those who witnessed LTC Dooley’s abilities as an instructor first hand, namely, his students and superiors at NDU. Clearly, the inaccurate prejudicial narrative that was permitted to persist against LTC Dooley clashes with the positive narrative, voiced again and again, by the students who were actually in Dooley’s classroom and by his immediate superiors at NDU who witnessed his teaching methods.
In light of LTC Dooley’s public ridicule by General Dempsey, his termination as an instructor and his career-ending Officer Evaluation Report (OER), other NDU faculty members have voiced their own concerns about academic freedom at NDU.
NDU policy defines academic freedom as the “freedom to pursue and express ideas, opinions, and issues germane to the University’s stated mission, free of limitations, restraints, or coercion by the University or external environment. Academic freedom is the hallmark of an academic institution.”
ANN ARBOR, MI — The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, today announced that it filed a formal complaint with the President of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (Commission) challenging the accreditation of the National Defense University (NDU). The Commission, which accredited NDU as a degree granting university, responded that it has begun a “preliminary review” of TMLC’s complaint.
TMLC’s complaint provides overwhelming evidence that several NDU and Department of Defense (DoD) policies relating to academic freedom were violated when Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Matthew Dooley was removed from his teaching post as a result of demands by Muslim organizations that all training materials offensive to Islam bepurged and instructors using the materials disciplined.
TMLC also asked the Commission to conduct its own confidential on-site interviews of NDU faculty members to determine the extent to which academic freedom has been diminished and what measures should be taken to insure the future integrity of NDU as a university.
LTC Dooley was an instructor at the NDU, and one of the faculty members assigned to run the elective course entitled, Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism. Click here to read TMLC’s 7-page complaint.
Richard Thompson, TMLC President and Chief Counsel, observed: “The actions taken against LTC Dooley are astonishing. NDU’s own policies recognize that academic freedom is essential to the integrity of the university classroom setting as well as U.S. national interests. In fact, the Department of Defense had specifically directed the National Defense University to establish a climate of academic freedom within the university, with the directed purpose to foster lively, classroom debate in the examination of national security issues. Contrary to these established policies, NDU and DoD have subsequently gone on to violate their own rules in handling this incident concerning the Islamic Radicalism elective.”
General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, publicly excoriated LTC Dooley and characterized his course on Islamic Radicalism as “offensive to Muslims”, and “against our values.” General Dempsey’s evaluation of LTC Dooley was in stark contrast to the glowing reports from those who witnessed LTC Dooley’s abilities as an instructor first hand, namely, his students and superiors at NDU. Clearly, the inaccurate prejudicial narrative that was permitted to persist against LTC Dooley clashes with the positive narrative, voiced again and again, by the students who were actually in Dooley’s classroom and by his immediate superiors at NDU who witnessed his teaching methods.
In light of LTC Dooley’s public ridicule by General Dempsey, his termination as an instructor and his career-ending Officer Evaluation Report (OER), other NDU faculty members have voiced their own concerns about academic freedom at NDU.
NDU policy defines academic freedom as the “freedom to pursue and express ideas, opinions, and issues germane to the University’s stated mission, free of limitations, restraints, or coercion by the University or external environment. Academic freedom is the hallmark of an academic institution.”
Friday, February 8, 2013
Cop Killer's Manifesto
As people across the U.S. especially in Southern California watch Law Enforcement conduct the largest manhunt in California history for Cop Killer and ex-Cop Chris Dorner, this article by John Nolte was posted on Breitbart.com titled "Suspected Mass-Murderer's Manifesto Endorses Hillary, Obama, Gun Control, Elite Media". This is an eye opener and mouth dropper.
And just like all the other active shooters in murderous events across the country, this guy Dorner is a liberal! Here is Mr Nolte's clear and concise article on the liberal bent portion of this ass hole. Dorner's words are in Italics:
While we pray for those murdered and everyone who might be in danger, we cannot forget that the media and its allies in the Democratic Party have set a standard when it comes to reporting on the possible political motives of mass murderers. Though they generally make things up to turn the death of innocents into a talking point against the Right, it is still the left who set this precedent. And what do you know, Chris Dorner, the former police officer suspected of being behind the murder rampage presently unfolding in Los Angeles, has apparently left behind a manifesto addressed to America that the media are already selectively reporting on to leave out the more inconvenient portions. You see, there is no political upside for the media to reveal the politics of this suspected madman.
What is being reported as Mr. Dorner's manifesto not only endorses Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 and vigorously defends Barack Obama and the Democrats' current gun control push; he also savages the NRA's Wayne LaPierre while expressing all kinds of love for some of the biggest stars in the left-wing media -- by name.
No Tea Partier is this suspected mass murderer, who just might be politically motivated:
"Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, Pat Harvey, Brian Williams, Soledad Obrien, Wolf Blitzer, Meredith Viera, Tavis Smiley, and Anderson Cooper, keep up the great work and follow Cronkite's lead. I hold many of you in the same regard as Tom Brokaw and the late Peter Jennings. … Willie Geist, you're a talented and charismatic journalist."
Mr. Dorner also seems to have a soft spot for those the media tells us are "safe" Republicans to like, such as George H. W. Bush and Chris Christie, "the only person I would like to see in the White House in 2016 other than Hillary."
When it comes to defending Obama, Dorner sounds like he's been watching an awful lot of NBC News:
"You disrespect the office of the POTUS/Presidency and Commander in Chief. You call him Kenyan, mongroid, halfrican, muslim, and FBHO when in essence you are to address him as simply, President. The same as you did to President George W. Bush and all those in the highest ranking position of our land before him. Just as I always have. You question his birth certificate, his educational and professional accomplishments, and his judeo-christian beliefs. You make disparaging remarks about his dead parents."
Mr. Dorner's gun control views make it sound as though much of his thinking has been affected by CNN. In a paragraph that mentions Sandy Hook, Dorner writes:
"If you had a well regulated AWB, this would not happen. The time is now to reinstitute a ban that will save lives. Why does any sportsman need a 30 round magazine for hunting? Why does anyone need a suppressor? Why does anyone need a AR15 rifle? This is the same small arms weapons system utilized in eradicating Al Qaeda, Taliban, and every enemy combatant since the Vietnam war. Don't give me that crap that its not a select fire or full auto rifle like the DoD uses. That's bullshit because troops who carry the M-4/M-16 weapon system for combat ops outside the wire rarely utilize the select fire function when in contact with enemy combatants."
Those sound just like Piers Morgan's talking points, no? Well, surprise-surprise, Dornan agrees 100% with Morgan on gun control, though he does worry that Morgan is hurting the cause:
"Mr. Morgan, the problem that many American gun owners have with you and your continuous discussion of gun control is that you are not an American citizen and have an accent that is distinct and clarifies that you are a foreigner. I want you to know that I agree with you 100% on enacting stricter firearm laws[.]"
The manifesto is thousands of word long and mentions dozens of people and topics. But politically, the manifesto is pretty clear.
Which is why the media will downplay it with the same amount of energy they put into amplifying their lies.
And just like all the other active shooters in murderous events across the country, this guy Dorner is a liberal! Here is Mr Nolte's clear and concise article on the liberal bent portion of this ass hole. Dorner's words are in Italics:
While we pray for those murdered and everyone who might be in danger, we cannot forget that the media and its allies in the Democratic Party have set a standard when it comes to reporting on the possible political motives of mass murderers. Though they generally make things up to turn the death of innocents into a talking point against the Right, it is still the left who set this precedent. And what do you know, Chris Dorner, the former police officer suspected of being behind the murder rampage presently unfolding in Los Angeles, has apparently left behind a manifesto addressed to America that the media are already selectively reporting on to leave out the more inconvenient portions. You see, there is no political upside for the media to reveal the politics of this suspected madman.
What is being reported as Mr. Dorner's manifesto not only endorses Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 and vigorously defends Barack Obama and the Democrats' current gun control push; he also savages the NRA's Wayne LaPierre while expressing all kinds of love for some of the biggest stars in the left-wing media -- by name.
No Tea Partier is this suspected mass murderer, who just might be politically motivated:
"Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, Pat Harvey, Brian Williams, Soledad Obrien, Wolf Blitzer, Meredith Viera, Tavis Smiley, and Anderson Cooper, keep up the great work and follow Cronkite's lead. I hold many of you in the same regard as Tom Brokaw and the late Peter Jennings. … Willie Geist, you're a talented and charismatic journalist."
Mr. Dorner also seems to have a soft spot for those the media tells us are "safe" Republicans to like, such as George H. W. Bush and Chris Christie, "the only person I would like to see in the White House in 2016 other than Hillary."
When it comes to defending Obama, Dorner sounds like he's been watching an awful lot of NBC News:
"You disrespect the office of the POTUS/Presidency and Commander in Chief. You call him Kenyan, mongroid, halfrican, muslim, and FBHO when in essence you are to address him as simply, President. The same as you did to President George W. Bush and all those in the highest ranking position of our land before him. Just as I always have. You question his birth certificate, his educational and professional accomplishments, and his judeo-christian beliefs. You make disparaging remarks about his dead parents."
Mr. Dorner's gun control views make it sound as though much of his thinking has been affected by CNN. In a paragraph that mentions Sandy Hook, Dorner writes:
"If you had a well regulated AWB, this would not happen. The time is now to reinstitute a ban that will save lives. Why does any sportsman need a 30 round magazine for hunting? Why does anyone need a suppressor? Why does anyone need a AR15 rifle? This is the same small arms weapons system utilized in eradicating Al Qaeda, Taliban, and every enemy combatant since the Vietnam war. Don't give me that crap that its not a select fire or full auto rifle like the DoD uses. That's bullshit because troops who carry the M-4/M-16 weapon system for combat ops outside the wire rarely utilize the select fire function when in contact with enemy combatants."
Those sound just like Piers Morgan's talking points, no? Well, surprise-surprise, Dornan agrees 100% with Morgan on gun control, though he does worry that Morgan is hurting the cause:
"Mr. Morgan, the problem that many American gun owners have with you and your continuous discussion of gun control is that you are not an American citizen and have an accent that is distinct and clarifies that you are a foreigner. I want you to know that I agree with you 100% on enacting stricter firearm laws[.]"
The manifesto is thousands of word long and mentions dozens of people and topics. But politically, the manifesto is pretty clear.
Which is why the media will downplay it with the same amount of energy they put into amplifying their lies.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
The Height of Hypocrisy - Targeting Americans
I wonder why Hillary Clinton gets to skate on her outburst about it "mattering how the deaths of Americans in Benghazi occured." As far as I'm concerned Hillary resigned in disgrace over her failures, which are many.
I wonder why it is okay for Obama to order the assassination or "kinetic targeting" of US citizens but to use inhanced interrogation (water boarding) under controlled, medically supervised conditions is unacceptable. The big danger here in targeting Americans without due process,...without a jury trial of your peers.. If the Government can order a murder overseas why can't they do it inside the U.S.?
Nobody can deny that if George Bush was killing US Citizens with an armed drone then he would have been run out of Washington by all the screaming liberals....how telling it is when it is Obama putting out the hit list and you hear nothing but crickets.
All of the above are examples of the Hypocritical Liberals in power and the mainstream media which supports them openly,...not even trying to hide it. It is pathetic and will be the probable downfall of this Nation, unless the overwhelming national debt kills this country first.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Some States are Stealing from the Dead
Think you don’t have to worry about estate taxes because of the new generous federal estate tax law? Not so, for families in 21 states and the District of Columbia where separate state levies are still a big concern. “For the vast majority of people who are wealthy, the fear factor of the federal estate tax is gone, but many still need to focus on state estate and inheritance taxes,” says Martin Shenkman, an estate lawyer in Paramus,
What makes this extra tricky is that state estate and inheritance taxes have been in constant flux over the last decade. And it’s not just the list of states that has been changing, but in some states, the level at which the tax kicks in has been changing (both up and down). So it’s important to stay on top of this to avoid a surprise tax bill.
Thanks to the fiscal cliff tax deal (the American Taxpayer Relief Act), the federal estate tax exemption of a generous $5 million per person, indexed for inflation, is now permanent. So for 2013, up to $5.25 million of an individual’s estate will be exempt from federal estate tax, with a 40% tax rate applied to any excess over the exemption amount.
By contrast, states with estate taxes typically exempt $1 million or less per estate from their tax and impose a top rate of 16%. New York, for example, sets its exemption at $1 million. So the estate of a person dying in New York with $5.25 million would owe no federal tax, but would owe New York $420,800, calculates Donald Hamburg, an estate lawyer with Golenbock Eisenman in New York City.
Six states levy only an inheritance tax, with the rate depending on the relationship of the heir to the deceased and the taxes kicking in, in some cases, on the first dollar of bequest. Two states, Maryland and New Jersey, impose both. Maryland, for example, imposes an estate tax of up to 16% above a $1 million exemption, and a 10% inheritance tax on every dollar left to a niece, nephew, friend or partner, but no inheritance tax on money left to children, grandchildren, parents or siblings. (Any estate tax owed is reduced by the inheritance tax paid.) As in the federal system, bequests to a spouse are tax-free.
Lately, the trend is towards eliminating state estate taxes, or at least lessening the tax bite by increasing the amount exempt from the tax. Ohio no longer has an estate tax, effective Jan. 1, 2013 (Republican Gov. John Kasich signed the repeal law in 2011). Delaware falls off the list effective July 1, 2013 when its current temporary estate tax expires. Indiana’s inheritance tax is repealed effective Jan. 1, 2022 (Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels signed the repeal law last year).
Meanwhile in Indiana the amount that is exempt from the state inheritance tax is going up each year, from $1.25 million this year, to $2 million in 2014 and $5 million in 2015. Other states are upping their exemption amounts this year too. Maine’s exemption doubles to $2 million this year (as part of Republican Gov. Paul LePage’s budget). Rhode Island’s exemption goes up to $910,725 this year, up from $859,350 in 2 012 as it’s indexed for inflation.
Connecticut is the only state going in the other direction recently. In 2011, Connecticut lowered the amount it exempts from its tax from $3.5 million to $2 million per estate, retroactive to Jan. 1, 2011. And Illinois is the most recent state to implement an estate tax—it resurrected an estate tax in 2011 with a $2 million exemption—now $4 million as of Jan. 1, 2013.
The next state to watch out for is North Carolina. Newly elected Rep. Governor Pat McCrory made abolishing the state estate tax one of his campaign promises: “North Carolina is now the only state in the Southeast with the death tax. This tax unfairly punishes those who would inherit their loved one’s possessions or business, forcing some families to sell off a small business or family farm just to pay the tax. As governor, [I] will fight to eliminate the death tax for North Carolinians.”
Could more states add stand-alone estate taxes? A technical provision of the federal estate tax law includes a deduction for state tax paid—instead of the pre-2001 state death tax credit, which allowed states to share in the estate tax revenue the feds collected. For states that were hoping for a return to that revenue sharing, it’s possible that they will consider adding stand-alone taxes, according to James Walschlager, a research analyst at tax publisher CCH, a Wolters Kluwer business.
In the meantime, go to the hyper linked article if you want to check out the interactive map showing state estate and inheritance taxes for 2013. Hover over each state to see the dollar amount exempt from taxes and the top rate.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Delaware County Sheriffs Lose Power
Delaware leads nationwide move to strip county sheriffs of power. This headline is very troubling as it alludes to a national, liberal movement to strip County Sheriffs of their law enforcement powers when County Sheriffs are elected by the people - as opposed to the appointed positions of municipal Police Chiefs. Thanks to Fellowship of Minds blog in bringing this to light.
To be sure there are many elected Sheriffs who are mostly politicians rather than law enforcement professionals, but look at Congress........Are our legislators anymore qualified to be our representatives? Some of this continuing assault on the Constitution and over 235 years of American tradition is due to the fact that Republicans win an overwhelming amount of counties in national elections so anything the Democrats can do to minimize the power of the County and the State helps their cause of a one party, socialist nation. Remember all those car dealers who lost their dealerships during Obama's Auto Industry bailout? Those were from conservative counties.
“If the sheriffs lose their arrest ability then Delaware will be a de facto police state.” -Delaware Sussex County Sheriff Jeff Christopher.
Ever wary of tyranny, America’s Founding Fathers took pains to design a political system with many mechanisms to check and balance government power. Those mechanisms include:
~ Dividing government into three co-equal branches (separation of powers);
~ A Constitution that specifies the People as the source of government power, as well as defines and delimits that power;
~ Amendments to the Constitution spelling out the People’s rights and liberties (Bill of Rights) — rights that are by birth (natural rights), instead of conferred by man;
~ Federalism: dividing, decentralizing, and diffusing government power among central (national government in Washington, D.C.) and regional units (the state governments).
The county sheriff plays an important role in American federalism.
According to Wikipedia, the U.S. sheriff is a county official and is typically the top law enforcement officer of a county. Historically, the sheriff was also commander of the militia in that county. Distinctive to law enforcement in the United States, sheriffs are usually elected. Of the 50 U.S. states, 48 have sheriffs. The two that do not are Alaska (which has no counties), and Connecticut (which has no county governments and has state marshals instead of sheriffs).
Most sheriff’s offices have a law enforcement role, and their basic function dates back to the origins of the title in feudal England. Although the authority of the sheriff varies from state to state, a sheriff or his deputies (in all states except Delaware, where the sheriff’s defined role is going through arbitration) has the power to make arrests within his or her own jurisdiction. Many sheriff’s offices also perform other functions such as traffic control and enforcement, accident investigations, and maintenance and transportation of prisoners.
In fact, the office of sheriff is older than the United States, predating the official founding of the U.S.A. by more than a century. As an example, Delaware’s first sheriff took office in 1669 — 107 years before the Declaration of Independence!
In their role as their counties’ chief law enforcement officer, sheriffs answer only to the U. S. Constitution, not to Washington, D.C. That is why liberty-loving Americans, fearful of the growing power of the federal government, look to the sheriffs as a check. Indeed, on the matter of the Obama regime’s gun control and gun ban, more and more county sheriffs are saying “no.”
It should come as no surprise then that the forces of tyranny mean to curtail the powers of the county sheriff, if not abolish the institution altogether. In that nefarious effort, the State of Delaware is leading the way.
In April 2012, Pat Shannan of American Free Press first alerted us to the machinations of Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, son of VPOS Joe Biden.
Well, the rotten apple doesn't fall far from the tree, now does it?"
Although Delaware’s State Constitution stipulates that the office of the sheriff is a constitutionally created position and sheriffs “shall be conservators of the peace within the counties . . . in which they reside,” Biden sent out mandates to commissioners informing them that their sheriffs no longer have arrest powers. In an opinion released February 24, 2012, State Solicitor L.W. Lewis said that neither the state nor the common law grants arrest powers to the county sheriffs.
The move to neuter Delaware’s county sheriffs actually began earlier, before Beau Biden became the state’s attorney general. Sussex County Sheriff Jeff Christopher told American Free Press that as far back as 2000, he had noticed a reduction in funding and the chipping away of powers of the office of sheriff. Now, “my deputies and I have been relieved of all arrest powers and can’t even make a traffic stop. Delaware has only three counties. . . The other two sheriffs . . . will not stand up with me”.
As reported by Jack Minor for WND, Democrats in Delaware’s state legislature then sought to legalize Biden’s move with HB 290, a bill to redefine the role of sheriffs: “‘Police officer’ as used in this code shall not include sheriffs and sheriff deputies,” and it “is the intent of the General Assembly to specifically state the sheriffs and their deputies do not have any arrest authority.”
HB 290 redefined the role of sheriffs to where they can serve papers and process administrative work but have no hand in actual law enforcement. Supporters of the legislation said law enforcement authority belongs in the hands of the state police and city police who, unlike the sheriff, are not elected.
Although HB 290 died a quick death when Rep. Danny Short, a Republican who had sponsored the bill, tabled the bill after he realized its true purpose, Democrats introduced a replacement bill.
On May 3, 2012, House Majority Leader Pete Schwartzkopf, a Democrat, introduced HB 325, which is virtually identical to HB 290, in an apparent attempt to get around Short’s tabling of his bill. As described on the State of Delaware’s website:
“This bill makes the Delaware law clear that the county sheriffs and their deputies do not have arrest authority. Historically the sheriffs and deputies have not exercised arrest authority and the Attorney General’s office has given an opinion that the sheriff’s “power to arrest is no greater than that shared by any citizen.”
Sheriff Christopher said he suspects that Schwartzkopf has been one of the key figures behind the entire legislative process to strip the sheriff’s office of their constitutional power: “He wants to abolish the office of sheriff in Delaware. While he issued a statement saying he isn’t interested in getting rid of the sheriff the truth is he wants to neuter us so the office is under his authority rather than the people who elected us.”
Christopher said if the sheriffs lose their arrest ability then Delaware will be a de facto police state.
On May 10, 2012, Delaware’s House of Representatives passed HB 325 by an overwhelming 36-2 majority. On June 14, 2012, the state Senate passed HB 325 by a 12-3 majority.
On June 19, 2012, Governor Jack A Markell, a Democrat, signed HB 325 into law.
To be sure there are many elected Sheriffs who are mostly politicians rather than law enforcement professionals, but look at Congress........Are our legislators anymore qualified to be our representatives? Some of this continuing assault on the Constitution and over 235 years of American tradition is due to the fact that Republicans win an overwhelming amount of counties in national elections so anything the Democrats can do to minimize the power of the County and the State helps their cause of a one party, socialist nation. Remember all those car dealers who lost their dealerships during Obama's Auto Industry bailout? Those were from conservative counties.
“If the sheriffs lose their arrest ability then Delaware will be a de facto police state.” -Delaware Sussex County Sheriff Jeff Christopher.
Ever wary of tyranny, America’s Founding Fathers took pains to design a political system with many mechanisms to check and balance government power. Those mechanisms include:
~ Dividing government into three co-equal branches (separation of powers);
~ A Constitution that specifies the People as the source of government power, as well as defines and delimits that power;
~ Amendments to the Constitution spelling out the People’s rights and liberties (Bill of Rights) — rights that are by birth (natural rights), instead of conferred by man;
~ Federalism: dividing, decentralizing, and diffusing government power among central (national government in Washington, D.C.) and regional units (the state governments).
The county sheriff plays an important role in American federalism.
According to Wikipedia, the U.S. sheriff is a county official and is typically the top law enforcement officer of a county. Historically, the sheriff was also commander of the militia in that county. Distinctive to law enforcement in the United States, sheriffs are usually elected. Of the 50 U.S. states, 48 have sheriffs. The two that do not are Alaska (which has no counties), and Connecticut (which has no county governments and has state marshals instead of sheriffs).
Most sheriff’s offices have a law enforcement role, and their basic function dates back to the origins of the title in feudal England. Although the authority of the sheriff varies from state to state, a sheriff or his deputies (in all states except Delaware, where the sheriff’s defined role is going through arbitration) has the power to make arrests within his or her own jurisdiction. Many sheriff’s offices also perform other functions such as traffic control and enforcement, accident investigations, and maintenance and transportation of prisoners.
In fact, the office of sheriff is older than the United States, predating the official founding of the U.S.A. by more than a century. As an example, Delaware’s first sheriff took office in 1669 — 107 years before the Declaration of Independence!
In their role as their counties’ chief law enforcement officer, sheriffs answer only to the U. S. Constitution, not to Washington, D.C. That is why liberty-loving Americans, fearful of the growing power of the federal government, look to the sheriffs as a check. Indeed, on the matter of the Obama regime’s gun control and gun ban, more and more county sheriffs are saying “no.”
It should come as no surprise then that the forces of tyranny mean to curtail the powers of the county sheriff, if not abolish the institution altogether. In that nefarious effort, the State of Delaware is leading the way.
In April 2012, Pat Shannan of American Free Press first alerted us to the machinations of Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, son of VPOS Joe Biden.
Well, the rotten apple doesn't fall far from the tree, now does it?"
Although Delaware’s State Constitution stipulates that the office of the sheriff is a constitutionally created position and sheriffs “shall be conservators of the peace within the counties . . . in which they reside,” Biden sent out mandates to commissioners informing them that their sheriffs no longer have arrest powers. In an opinion released February 24, 2012, State Solicitor L.W. Lewis said that neither the state nor the common law grants arrest powers to the county sheriffs.
The move to neuter Delaware’s county sheriffs actually began earlier, before Beau Biden became the state’s attorney general. Sussex County Sheriff Jeff Christopher told American Free Press that as far back as 2000, he had noticed a reduction in funding and the chipping away of powers of the office of sheriff. Now, “my deputies and I have been relieved of all arrest powers and can’t even make a traffic stop. Delaware has only three counties. . . The other two sheriffs . . . will not stand up with me”.
As reported by Jack Minor for WND, Democrats in Delaware’s state legislature then sought to legalize Biden’s move with HB 290, a bill to redefine the role of sheriffs: “‘Police officer’ as used in this code shall not include sheriffs and sheriff deputies,” and it “is the intent of the General Assembly to specifically state the sheriffs and their deputies do not have any arrest authority.”
HB 290 redefined the role of sheriffs to where they can serve papers and process administrative work but have no hand in actual law enforcement. Supporters of the legislation said law enforcement authority belongs in the hands of the state police and city police who, unlike the sheriff, are not elected.
Although HB 290 died a quick death when Rep. Danny Short, a Republican who had sponsored the bill, tabled the bill after he realized its true purpose, Democrats introduced a replacement bill.
On May 3, 2012, House Majority Leader Pete Schwartzkopf, a Democrat, introduced HB 325, which is virtually identical to HB 290, in an apparent attempt to get around Short’s tabling of his bill. As described on the State of Delaware’s website:
“This bill makes the Delaware law clear that the county sheriffs and their deputies do not have arrest authority. Historically the sheriffs and deputies have not exercised arrest authority and the Attorney General’s office has given an opinion that the sheriff’s “power to arrest is no greater than that shared by any citizen.”
Sheriff Christopher said he suspects that Schwartzkopf has been one of the key figures behind the entire legislative process to strip the sheriff’s office of their constitutional power: “He wants to abolish the office of sheriff in Delaware. While he issued a statement saying he isn’t interested in getting rid of the sheriff the truth is he wants to neuter us so the office is under his authority rather than the people who elected us.”
Christopher said if the sheriffs lose their arrest ability then Delaware will be a de facto police state.
On May 10, 2012, Delaware’s House of Representatives passed HB 325 by an overwhelming 36-2 majority. On June 14, 2012, the state Senate passed HB 325 by a 12-3 majority.
On June 19, 2012, Governor Jack A Markell, a Democrat, signed HB 325 into law.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp: The Defiant Democrat
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., defied the odds in November when she won the closest senate race in the country, and now that she's arrived in Washington, she's defiant as ever. But now, instead of defying the pollsters, she's defying the Democratic caucus by taking divergent opinions on issues central to the President Obama's second term agenda, ranging from gun control to the environment.
Heitkamp, who says growing the economy is her top priority, is concerned that the president is changing his focus to issues like climate change and gun control.
"I think, you know the one thing that has gotten lost by everyone is one of the best ways that we can perform here is by getting people back to work, making sure that this economic recovery, slow as it is, gets amped up and moves forward," Heitkamp tells Politics Confidential. "It's one of the reasons why I've been such a big proponent of the Keystone Pipeline. There's a shovel ready, private sector jobs program, good paying jobs."
On the topic of gun control, Heitkamp does not hesitate when asked if she'll support an assault weapons ban; her answer is a definitive no.
"There's literally hundreds of thousands of guns already out there," says Heitkamp. "This isn't a solution to the problem, that's my first thing. And I think if you read the case, the Second Amendment case, you got some serious Second Amendment challenges in all of this, and my personal perspective is that you are ignoring what could actually work to prevent this from happening because you are following an agenda that you already had before this ever happened, instead of taking a look at this circumstance, these situations and how do we prevent this violence."
Heitkamp says mental health needs to be part of the conversation in finding solutions to gun violence.
“It's good early prevention, it's good early detection of people who could possibly be doing these things, and then getting intervention,” says Heitkamp. “Take a look at what happened in Aurora, Colorado, when they called the mother, what did the mother say? ‘Oh my son could never do this’, no she said ‘You have the right person, I'm sorry'. Now there's a message.”
Heitkamp, who has already faced criticism from environmental groups, may also soon be targeted by an outside group built from the remains of the president's campaign and led by the president's 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina. The new group plans to put pressure on Republicans and Democrats who don't go along with the president's agenda.
"I would tell you as you talk about Jim Messina, the president lost North Dakota by almost 22 percentage points and I was still elected the United States senator and I was elected because I promised people I was going to be their voice not the voice for a political party, not the voice for a president who happens to be in the same political party that I am but I am the voice for the people of North Dakota," Heitkamp says. "I'll make my decisions based on what I believe is in the best interest of the people of North Dakota, the people of this country. And if in six years people don't agree that I made the right choices, I'll find something else to do."
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Decorated Army Veteran Arrested in NY For Possession of 30 Round AR Magazines
Decorated Army Veteran Arrested in NY For Possession of 30 Round AR Magazines. According to wwnytv.com, on January 7th, and published by GunsSaveLives.net, 32 year old Nathan Haddad was arrested when police discovered five 30 round (standard capacity) AR-15 magazines in his car during a vehicle check.
Haddad was charged with five counts of third degree criminal possession of a weapon and arraigned in Watertown town court.
Looks like any other crime report under New York’s draconian gun laws.
However, here is where things get interesting. According to Haddad’s brother, Michael Haddad, Nathan though the magazines were “pre-ban” which would have made them legal in New York. Currently, in New York, you can possess magazines over 10 rounds if they were made before the state’s first Assault Weapons Ban (however, 2 weeks ago New York passed another law completely banning these magazines, but that law is not in effect yet).
Also to add to the plot, Nathan Haddad is a decorated army veteran, serving 12 years in the Army, multiple deployments to Afghanistan, and numerous honors. Nathan was discharged for medical reasons after being injured during special forces training in South Korea.
Remember how David Gregory illegally possessed an AR-15 magazine in Washington DC, during a broadcast? Gregory was never charged, never made to sit in the back of a police car, never finger printed, has no arrest record, and prosecution was certainly never on the table. This is a perfect example of gun laws only applying to normal citizens and not the rich or famous.
Now Nathan’s brother is asking for help to raise funds for his brother’s defense. Over $8,000 has been raised in the 23 days since Nathan’s arrest. If you’d like to check out the donation page, here is the link (note, we are not associated with the donation process, it is managed by Michael Haddad): http://www.gofundme.com/1tkukc
Likewise, Cowboys and Tea Parties has no connection to, nor has validated the above donation site.
Haddad was charged with five counts of third degree criminal possession of a weapon and arraigned in Watertown town court.
Looks like any other crime report under New York’s draconian gun laws.
However, here is where things get interesting. According to Haddad’s brother, Michael Haddad, Nathan though the magazines were “pre-ban” which would have made them legal in New York. Currently, in New York, you can possess magazines over 10 rounds if they were made before the state’s first Assault Weapons Ban (however, 2 weeks ago New York passed another law completely banning these magazines, but that law is not in effect yet).
Also to add to the plot, Nathan Haddad is a decorated army veteran, serving 12 years in the Army, multiple deployments to Afghanistan, and numerous honors. Nathan was discharged for medical reasons after being injured during special forces training in South Korea.
Remember how David Gregory illegally possessed an AR-15 magazine in Washington DC, during a broadcast? Gregory was never charged, never made to sit in the back of a police car, never finger printed, has no arrest record, and prosecution was certainly never on the table. This is a perfect example of gun laws only applying to normal citizens and not the rich or famous.
Now Nathan’s brother is asking for help to raise funds for his brother’s defense. Over $8,000 has been raised in the 23 days since Nathan’s arrest. If you’d like to check out the donation page, here is the link (note, we are not associated with the donation process, it is managed by Michael Haddad): http://www.gofundme.com/1tkukc
Likewise, Cowboys and Tea Parties has no connection to, nor has validated the above donation site.
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Ethical Lapses are Epidemic in Military Leadership
I think most of us did notice an upsurge in military leaders being in trouble for travel funds fraud, sexual harassment, having affairs, etc. What I did not know is just how wide spread it is. This article by the Associated Press brings this issue at seemingly epidemic proportions into context.
Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair, fired from his command in Afghanistan last May and now facing a court-martial on charges of sodomy, adultery and pornography and more, is just one in a long line of commanders whose careers were ended because of possible sexual misconduct.
Sex has proved to be the downfall of presidents, members of Congress and other notables. It's also among the chief reasons that senior military officers are fired.
At least 30 percent of military commanders fired over the past eight years lost their jobs because of sexually related offenses, including harassment, adultery, and improper relationships, according to statistics compiled by The Associated Press.
The figures bear out growing concerns by Defense Department and military leaders over declining ethical values among U.S. forces, and they highlight the pervasiveness of a problem that came into sharp relief because of the resignation of one of the Army's most esteemed generals, David Petraeus, and the investigation of a second general, John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan.
The statistics from all four military services show that adulterous affairs are more than a four-star foible. From sexual assault and harassment to pornography, drugs and drinking, ethical lapses are an escalating problem for the military's leaders.
With all those offenses taken together, more than 4 in every 10 commanders at the rank of lieutenant colonel or above who were fired fell as a result of behavioral stumbles since 2005.
The recent series of highly publicized cases led to a review of ethics training across the military. It also prompted Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to conclude that while training is adequate, it may need to start earlier in service members' careers and be reinforced more frequently.
Still, officials struggle to explain why the problem has grown and they acknowledge that solving it is difficult and will take time.
"I think we're on the path. I think the last two defense secretaries have made this a very high priority and have very much held people accountable. But we've got a ways to go," said Michele Flournoy, a former undersecretary of defense under President Barack Obama.
She said the military must enforce a "zero tolerance" policy and work to change the culture so service members are held accountable and made to understand that their careers will be over if they commit or tolerate such offenses.
"The policy is in place," she said. "I don't know that it's as evenly and fully enforced as intended."
For top officers, the numbers are startling.
Eighteen generals and admirals, from one star to four stars, were fired in recent years, and 10 of them lost their jobs because of sex-related offenses; two others were done in by alcohol-related problems.
The figures show that 255 commanders were fired since 2005, and that 78 of them were felled by sex-related offenses. A breakdown: 32 in the Army, 25 in the Navy, 11 in the Marine Corps and 10 in the Air Force.
Alcohol and drug-related problems cost the jobs of 27 commanders — 11 in the Navy, eight in the Army, five in the Marine Corp(s and three in the Air Force.
"It's troublesome," said Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Navy's top spokesman. "Navy leadership is taking a look at why personal conduct seems to be a growing reason for why commanding officers are losing their commands. We're trying to get to the root causes. We don't really fully understand it."
He and other military leaders agree that poor leadership, bad judgment, and ethical lapses, rather than operational failures, are growing factors in the firings. But Kirby said it's not clear whether that has anything to do with the strains of the past 10 years at war or simply reflects deteriorating morals among the general population.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta ordered the ethics review in November. He said that "when lapses occur, they have the potential to erode public confidence in our leadership and in our system for the enforcement of our high ethical standards. Worse, they can be detrimental to the execution of our mission to defend the American people."
Anu Bhagwati, executive director of the Service Women's Action Network, said there is more focus on this issue now than ever in the past, but that there really is no sufficient deterrent in place. She said a major problem is that military commanders are responsible for deciding what cases should move forward.
She said military lawyers, who are trained and have a greater appearance of impartiality, should make such an important legal decision.
The statistics gathered and analyzed by the AP represent a very conservative estimate of the problem. While the Army, Navy and Marine Corps provided details for all military commanders who were lieutenant colonels or commanders and above for 2005 until now, Air Force officials said they could only provide data for colonels and above from 2008 until today.
Also, the figures reflect only officers who were in command positions. The numbers don't include what could be hundreds of officers fired from other jobs, such as administrative or other military posts. Military officials said they only collect data on officers in command who are fired.
The reasons for the firings are also murky. In some cases, no reason was listed; in other cases, it was vague — such as "ethics" or "leadership" or for fostering a bad command climate.
There also are varying degrees of publicity when such action is taken.
In Sinclair's case, the charges and impending court martial have received extensive coverage. The five pages of allegations, which involve his conduct with five women who were not his wife, include one count of forcible sodomy, two counts of wrongful sexual conduct, six counts of inappropriate sexual relationships, and eight counts of violating regulations. He could receive life in prison if convicted.
But in many other cases, particularly of those below the rank of general, there is little public notice if the senior officer is in the Army or Air Force. The Navy, however, issues a public statement every time a commander is removed from a job.
The figures also highlight the Navy's reputation for being quick to justice. Although it is the second smallest of the four military services, the Navy has relieved the most commanders, 99, over the past eight years. By comparison, it was 83 for the Army, 41 for the Marines and 32 for the Air Force.
Dismissing a commander from a job does not mean that officer is forced out of the military. In some of the more serious cases, officers may be discharged or forced to resign. But in many other cases, service members may go on to another job for some time.
Still, a dismissal often signals the end of an officer's career, and with no chance for promotion, officers will often retire or leave the service.
The Army is the largest of the military services, reaching a peak of about 570,000 active duty soldiers at the height of the Iraq war. It is supposed to cut 80,000 troops by 2017. The Marine Corps is the smallest service, with about 202,000 at its peak during the wars and is set to slim down to about 182,000. The Navy has about 322,000 active duty forces and the Air Force has about 328,000.
The other reasons for dismissals by the services cover a broad range of offenses, from assault and drug and alcohol use to being a poor or abusive leader. There are also instances of fraud as well as a few cases where Navy officers commanding a ship have hit something, such as a buoy or another ship.
Four generals have lost their jobs in recent years as a result of public scandals. All were dismissed while Robert Gates was defense secretary:
—Gen. Michael Moseley, the Air Force Chief of Staff, was dismissed in 2008 for failing to address several nuclear-related mishaps by the service.
— Army Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley and Army Maj. Gen. George Weightman were dismissed because of the poor outpatient treatment of wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in 2007.
—Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal resigned after members of his staff made disparaging remarks about Obama's national security team, including Vice President Joe Biden. A Pentagon investigation later cleared him of wrongdoing.
Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair, fired from his command in Afghanistan last May and now facing a court-martial on charges of sodomy, adultery and pornography and more, is just one in a long line of commanders whose careers were ended because of possible sexual misconduct.
Sex has proved to be the downfall of presidents, members of Congress and other notables. It's also among the chief reasons that senior military officers are fired.
At least 30 percent of military commanders fired over the past eight years lost their jobs because of sexually related offenses, including harassment, adultery, and improper relationships, according to statistics compiled by The Associated Press.
The figures bear out growing concerns by Defense Department and military leaders over declining ethical values among U.S. forces, and they highlight the pervasiveness of a problem that came into sharp relief because of the resignation of one of the Army's most esteemed generals, David Petraeus, and the investigation of a second general, John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan.
The statistics from all four military services show that adulterous affairs are more than a four-star foible. From sexual assault and harassment to pornography, drugs and drinking, ethical lapses are an escalating problem for the military's leaders.
With all those offenses taken together, more than 4 in every 10 commanders at the rank of lieutenant colonel or above who were fired fell as a result of behavioral stumbles since 2005.
The recent series of highly publicized cases led to a review of ethics training across the military. It also prompted Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to conclude that while training is adequate, it may need to start earlier in service members' careers and be reinforced more frequently.
Still, officials struggle to explain why the problem has grown and they acknowledge that solving it is difficult and will take time.
"I think we're on the path. I think the last two defense secretaries have made this a very high priority and have very much held people accountable. But we've got a ways to go," said Michele Flournoy, a former undersecretary of defense under President Barack Obama.
She said the military must enforce a "zero tolerance" policy and work to change the culture so service members are held accountable and made to understand that their careers will be over if they commit or tolerate such offenses.
"The policy is in place," she said. "I don't know that it's as evenly and fully enforced as intended."
For top officers, the numbers are startling.
Eighteen generals and admirals, from one star to four stars, were fired in recent years, and 10 of them lost their jobs because of sex-related offenses; two others were done in by alcohol-related problems.
The figures show that 255 commanders were fired since 2005, and that 78 of them were felled by sex-related offenses. A breakdown: 32 in the Army, 25 in the Navy, 11 in the Marine Corps and 10 in the Air Force.
Alcohol and drug-related problems cost the jobs of 27 commanders — 11 in the Navy, eight in the Army, five in the Marine Corp(s and three in the Air Force.
"It's troublesome," said Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Navy's top spokesman. "Navy leadership is taking a look at why personal conduct seems to be a growing reason for why commanding officers are losing their commands. We're trying to get to the root causes. We don't really fully understand it."
He and other military leaders agree that poor leadership, bad judgment, and ethical lapses, rather than operational failures, are growing factors in the firings. But Kirby said it's not clear whether that has anything to do with the strains of the past 10 years at war or simply reflects deteriorating morals among the general population.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta ordered the ethics review in November. He said that "when lapses occur, they have the potential to erode public confidence in our leadership and in our system for the enforcement of our high ethical standards. Worse, they can be detrimental to the execution of our mission to defend the American people."
Anu Bhagwati, executive director of the Service Women's Action Network, said there is more focus on this issue now than ever in the past, but that there really is no sufficient deterrent in place. She said a major problem is that military commanders are responsible for deciding what cases should move forward.
She said military lawyers, who are trained and have a greater appearance of impartiality, should make such an important legal decision.
The statistics gathered and analyzed by the AP represent a very conservative estimate of the problem. While the Army, Navy and Marine Corps provided details for all military commanders who were lieutenant colonels or commanders and above for 2005 until now, Air Force officials said they could only provide data for colonels and above from 2008 until today.
Also, the figures reflect only officers who were in command positions. The numbers don't include what could be hundreds of officers fired from other jobs, such as administrative or other military posts. Military officials said they only collect data on officers in command who are fired.
The reasons for the firings are also murky. In some cases, no reason was listed; in other cases, it was vague — such as "ethics" or "leadership" or for fostering a bad command climate.
There also are varying degrees of publicity when such action is taken.
In Sinclair's case, the charges and impending court martial have received extensive coverage. The five pages of allegations, which involve his conduct with five women who were not his wife, include one count of forcible sodomy, two counts of wrongful sexual conduct, six counts of inappropriate sexual relationships, and eight counts of violating regulations. He could receive life in prison if convicted.
But in many other cases, particularly of those below the rank of general, there is little public notice if the senior officer is in the Army or Air Force. The Navy, however, issues a public statement every time a commander is removed from a job.
The figures also highlight the Navy's reputation for being quick to justice. Although it is the second smallest of the four military services, the Navy has relieved the most commanders, 99, over the past eight years. By comparison, it was 83 for the Army, 41 for the Marines and 32 for the Air Force.
Dismissing a commander from a job does not mean that officer is forced out of the military. In some of the more serious cases, officers may be discharged or forced to resign. But in many other cases, service members may go on to another job for some time.
Still, a dismissal often signals the end of an officer's career, and with no chance for promotion, officers will often retire or leave the service.
The Army is the largest of the military services, reaching a peak of about 570,000 active duty soldiers at the height of the Iraq war. It is supposed to cut 80,000 troops by 2017. The Marine Corps is the smallest service, with about 202,000 at its peak during the wars and is set to slim down to about 182,000. The Navy has about 322,000 active duty forces and the Air Force has about 328,000.
The other reasons for dismissals by the services cover a broad range of offenses, from assault and drug and alcohol use to being a poor or abusive leader. There are also instances of fraud as well as a few cases where Navy officers commanding a ship have hit something, such as a buoy or another ship.
Four generals have lost their jobs in recent years as a result of public scandals. All were dismissed while Robert Gates was defense secretary:
—Gen. Michael Moseley, the Air Force Chief of Staff, was dismissed in 2008 for failing to address several nuclear-related mishaps by the service.
— Army Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley and Army Maj. Gen. George Weightman were dismissed because of the poor outpatient treatment of wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in 2007.
—Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal resigned after members of his staff made disparaging remarks about Obama's national security team, including Vice President Joe Biden. A Pentagon investigation later cleared him of wrongdoing.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Liberal Mistruths, Lies and Ignorance About Guns
The anti-gun, left-wing liberal idiots (there I go being redundant again) are certainly well known for thier lies and sometimes astounding ignorance about guns,....from Senator Diane Frankenstien Fiendstien's comment about assault rifles only being used to fire from the hip and spray bullets, to the lies about the murderer at Sandy Hook using an Assault rifle when he used two handguns.
One of the stupidest lies is about the bayonet lug on AR series rifles being actually a grenade launcher! Even if this was true, explosive and destructive devices like grenades, are highly controlled so where would the average person get them?
This was sent to me by a friend:
I just wanted to take the opportunity to share this with you. I am extremely excited to learn I have a mount for a grenade launcher on my AR 15. Information published by the ill informed Chicago Tribune. I am going straight home and attach my grenade launcher tonight…..lol. I cannot make this crap up,.... morons from Chicago.
One of the stupidest lies is about the bayonet lug on AR series rifles being actually a grenade launcher! Even if this was true, explosive and destructive devices like grenades, are highly controlled so where would the average person get them?
This was sent to me by a friend:
I just wanted to take the opportunity to share this with you. I am extremely excited to learn I have a mount for a grenade launcher on my AR 15. Information published by the ill informed Chicago Tribune. I am going straight home and attach my grenade launcher tonight…..lol. I cannot make this crap up,.... morons from Chicago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)