Cookies

Notice: This website may or may not use or set cookies used by Google Ad-sense or other third party companies. If you do not wish to have cookies downloaded to your computer, please disable cookie use in your browser. Thank You.


.

Friday, March 8, 2013

Go Home and Retire John McCain


Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) held a filibuster in the Senate in order to get a statement from the Obama Adminstration that killing Americans on American soil was unconstitutional. Paul, a Tea Party favorite and Great American Patriot, conducted the filibuster to delay the Senate confirmation vote on nominated CIA Director Brennan.

Unbelievably, and so un-constitutional as to turn the Founders in their graves, Attorney General Eric "Fast and Furious" Holder sent a letter to Paul before the filibuster, saying that while the practice of killing U.S. citizens domestically would theoretically be legal, Obama would use that power only under "extraordinary circumstances" and that he “has no intention” to do so.

Pissed off because he was not in the limelight among other reasons, John McCain (R-AZ) opened his pie hole and actually said "If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what he’s talking about. I don’t think what happened yesterday was helpful to the American people."

Not to be outdone, the other usual ass clown rino, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) not only praised Obama for the drone program, but said, "To my party, I’m a bit disappointed that you no longer apparently think we’re at war. Not Senator Paul, he’s a man to himself. He has a view that I don’t think is a Republican view."

Rand Paul and the 13 other Republican Senators and even one Democrat who supported the filibuster not only upheld American (not rino republican) views on our consitutional rights but forced a statement from the Obama Administration that killing Americans on American soil was unconstitutional.

So who was successful? Well it certainly wasn't McCain nor Graham who are now on record as believing that being liked by Obama is more important than standing up for the U.S. Constitution.





Thursday, March 7, 2013

Maryland Senate Passes Governor O'Malley's Gun Control Bill

Maryland Senate Passes Governor O’Malley’s Gun Control Bill, by Bob Adelmann, New American, March 2, 2013

After 10 hours of intense debate, the Maryland Senate passed Governor Martin O’Malley’s gun control measure handily late Thursday afternoon, 28-19, with all 12 Republicans and a handful of Democrats voting against the bill. The measure will be debated in the House next week, with passage nearly certain. After O’Malley signs the bill into law it will make Maryland’s gun laws among the most restrictive in the nation, putting the lie to the state’s moniker, “The Free State.”

Maryland is also the nation’s wealthiest state, and its citizens currently have registered more than 1,200,000 of their firearms with the state under previous law. The new legislation will require gun owners, as well as new purchasers of firearms, to get fingerprinted, take eight hours of classroom study, and pay for a more extensive background check. In addition, no one will be able to buy a so-called “assault weapon” or purchase a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. The bill will also tighten up limits on gun ownership by residents committed against their will for mental health treatment.

When O’Malley announced his proposal in January, he said that the requirements in it were “common-sense gun safety measures … [that] will give us the tools to combat … violence” but would also protect Marylanders’ Second Amendment rights. They were also touted as somehow being able to rein in criminal ownership of guns and reducing the firepower of those remaining in the hands of the public. At O’Malley’s public announcement, Baltimore County Police Chief Jim Johnson, a member of Vice President Joe Biden’s “National Law Enforcement Partnership,” said that that group “has been calling for background checks for all firearms purchasers, as well as a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons and ammunition magazines in excess of ten rounds… We must do all we can to ensure that we keep guns out of the wrong hands and that we keep excessive firepower out of our communities.”

When the senate passed the bill, O’Malley declared: “It is a common-sense licensing requirement. If you have to get a license to drive a car in Maryland … you should have to be licensed in order to operate a firearm.”

Maryland senate’s President Pro Tem Nathaniel McFadden, a member of the state senate for nearly 20 years, was delighted with the bill’s passage:

Residents are sick and tired of this gun violence. No, this is not a perfect bill. Because you’re right — those criminals are not going to go and get fingerprinted. But somehow these guns find their way into our communities.… They come from somewhere, and you can get a gun quicker than you [can] get an apple or an orange in my community. It’s outrageous, and we have to start somewhere.

What’s really happening in Maryland has little to do with controlling crime but possibly everything to do with O’Malley. The Baltimore Sun exulted that the bill passed by the senate contained the licensing provision which is “the centerpiece” of the governor’s bill and the one they believe would be most effective in reducing gun violence. Instead, it looks as if passage will be most effective in promoting O’Malley’s run for the presidency in 2016.

The governor got involved in left-wing causes while still in college, working with Gary Hart’s presidential campaign for president in 1984. From there he worked as state field director of then-congresswoman Barbara Mikulski (now Maryland’s senior senator), and then took a position in her office as a “legislative fellow.” In 2004, O’Malley spoke at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in support of John Kerry’s campaign for president against President George W. Bush. In August 2005, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Business Week magazine touted O’Malley as one of the “new stars” in the Democrat Party galaxy, along with then-Senator Ken Salazar, then-Senator Barack Obama, and then-Representative Rahm Emanuel. The only one not eventually involved intimately in the Obama administration was Martin O’Malley.

O’Malley is term-limited in 2014, which gives him a full two years to explore a presidential run in 2016. Passage of this signature piece of legislation, supported by nothing more than rhetoric, will add to his perceived credibility among those on the Left. O’Malley has often referred to his success in reducing crime while he was mayor of Baltimore from 1999 to 2007, claiming that under his administration crime dropped by nearly 40 percent. The fact that he could never prove where that statistic came from, nor could anyone else, doesn’t matter.

Neither does it matter that limiting magazines to 10 rounds will hardly have an impact on reducing crime. Indiana sheriffs have completely debunked the idea that limiting magazines will give victims time to tackle a shooter and take him down by forcing the shooter to reload more often. According to their real-world test, “There is little to no difference in the time it takes to fire 30 rounds from 2 15-round magazines, 3 10-round magazines or 5 6-round magazines.”

Nor does it matter to O’Malley that passage of his bill will likely drive employers such as Beretta USA out of the state, taking with them some 300-400 jobs. As Jeffrey Reh, general counsel for Beretta who testified against O’Malley’s bill, put it: “Why expand in a place where people who built the gun [banned by the new law] couldn’t buy it?”

Why, indeed? O’Malley’s bill might just have more to do with O’Malley’s political future, and building creds with the Democratic Party insiders, than it has to do with trying to reduce crime in Maryland.

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Holder Says Obama could kill Americans on U.S. soil


Olivier Knox, a Yahoo! News White House Correspondent, posted this article on 5 March 2013 and it is UNBELIVIEABLE that Eric "I sell Guns to Mexican Cartels" Holder thinks the President can unilaterally order assassinations of Americans within the U.S. Well, it looks like the U.S. Government is branching out. First arming Mexican criminals so they can kill U.S. citizens,...now claiming the right to do it themselves.

President Barack Obama has the legal authority to unleash deadly force—such as drone strikes—against Americans on U.S. soil without first putting them on trial, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote in a letter released Tuesday.

But Holder, writing to Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, underlined that Obama “has no intention” of targeting his fellow citizens with unmanned aerial vehicles and would do so only if facing “an extraordinary circumstance.”

Paul had asked the Obama administration on Feb. 20 whether the president "has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and without trial." On Tuesday, he denounced Holder's response as “frightening” and “an affront to the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans.”

“The U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so,” Holder assured Paul in the March 4, 2013 letter. The attorney general also underlined that “we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat.”

Holder added: “The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront."

But "it is possible, I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States," Holder said. "For example, the President could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack” like Pearl Harbor or 9/11.

“Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of this authority,” said Holder.

Paul, whose office released the letter, denounced the attorney general’s comments.

"The U.S. Attorney General's refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening—it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans," the senator said in a statement.

The exchange came as the White House agreed to give Senate Intelligence Committee members access to all of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel opinions justifying Obama's expanded campaign of targeted assassination of suspected terrorists overseas, including American citizens. Some lawmakers had warned they would try to block top Obama counterterrorism adviser John Brennan's nomination to head the CIA unless they were able to see the memos.

A few hours after the White House agreed to share the information, the committee approved Brennan 12-3, setting the stage for a full Senate vote.

Obama's drone war—relatively popular at home, reviled across the Muslim world—has drawn fresh scrutiny ever since NBC News obtained and published a Justice Department memo that lays out the legal justification behind it. The White House has defended the policy as “necessary,” “ethical” and “wise.” But civil liberties champions have sharply criticized it.