Thursday, January 31, 2013
The States and Sheriffs as Bastions against Lawless Obama!
scottfactor.com ^ | 01/31/2013 | Gina Miller
On Tuesday evening, Dr. Laurie Roth invited me to be a guest on her nationally syndicated radio program, The Roth Show. In the hour I was on with her, we discussed, among other things, my column from Tuesday, “Can They Be Stopped?” My conclusion in the piece was that it will be nearly impossible to stop this lawless president and his criminal administration, since Congress and the courts are either fellow-traveling commies or scared, shrinking violets.
My thinking in the column was The People versus the diabolical Barack Obama (or whatever his name is) and his communist cohorts in the administration, which I saw as a bleak, Masada-type struggle (except without the mass suicide). But, Laurie pointed out that we still have thirty states under Republican governorships and hundreds of sheriffs across the nation who are pledging to resist the outlaw in the White House and his unconstitutional dictates.
That is an aspect of our critical situation that I did not address in my column, and it’s an important one. There is still a level of defense between The People and the federal government: the State legislatures and the sheriffs, who are the supreme lawmen in their jurisdictions.
Of course, we know that not all so-called Republicans are conservatives, since leftists have been invading and subverting the Republican Party for many years. My Editor at American Clarion, Bob Ellis, has worked long and hard in exposing the liberal policies and voting records of the Republican-controlled state government in South Dakota. Even here in Mississippi, which also has a Republican majority in Jackson, the insurance commissioner, Mike Chaney, who is a “Republican,” is actively going against Governor Phil Bryant’s strong opposition to setting up a state health insurance exchange, as the evil “Obamacare” legislation mandates. Needless to say, Chaney is very unpopular with conservatives in this state.
So, even though the United States has sixty percent Republican governorships, it does not mean that all the Republican governors (and state houses) will resist the exploding federal tyranny. That also leaves the conservative patriots in the Democrat- (and “Independent”) governed states with no state-level opposition to the criminal administration in Washington. What’s left? The military? We have seen numerous reports that Obama is firing military leaders left and right, which would mean that he is replacing them with his own men.
We could only hope for an American patriot military coup against this treasonous administration, but I’m not holding my breath. The anti-American Obama is intentionally destroying our military with insane leftist policies like forcing the military to bow to the global warming hoax, shoving open homosexuality onto our troops, and now stupidly allowing women in combat. This is in addition to the debilitating “sequestration” defense budget cuts and troop reductions which, if not stopped, will only make us that much more vulnerable to our enemies inside and outside of the United States.
That leaves state legislatures and state-level law enforcement to stand between the American people and the tyranny of the Obama administration. It’s good to see that close to thirty states are resisting implementation of the state health insurance exchanges dictated by “Obamacare,” and several states are already stepping up to outlaw within their states Obama’s illegal executive order attacks on the Second Amendment.
The sheriffs across the nation are also one of our last lines of defense against federal tyranny, and it’s encouraging to see that many sheriffs are also vowing to oppose any federal attempts at gun control. This is good news, because our sheriffs do not answer to the feds. From the Constitutional Law Enforcement Association blog site is an essay titled, “The County Sheriff: The Ultimate Check & Balance.” In part, it reads:
So, what happens when government does not obey its own constitution? What punishment is meted out to politicians who vote for and pass unconstitutional laws? What happens if they appoint unlawful bureaucracies or allow their agents to violate the rights of the American citizen? The answer to these questions is both astounding and lamentable; NOTHING!
Now the question becomes even greater; who will stop criminal and out-of-control government from killing, abusing, violating, robbing, and destroying its own people? Yes, believe it or not, there is an answer to this one. The duty to stop such criminality lies with the county sheriff. The question needs to be posed to each and every sheriff of these United States; will you stand against tyranny?
… Yes, it is regrettable that a sheriff would be put in this position. The governor and the state legislature should be preventing federal invasions into the states and counties way before the sheriff, but if it comes to the sheriff, then he must take a firm stand. James Madison also said, "We can safely rely on the disposition of state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority." So when the state legislatures go along to get along and are bought off by political cronyism or the disbursement of federal funds, then the sheriff becomes the ultimate check and balance.
It is time for the sworn protectors of liberty, the sheriffs of these United States of America, to walk tall and defend us from all enemies; foreign and domestic. When sheriffs are put in the quandary of choosing between enforcing statutes from vapid politicians or keeping their oaths of office, the path and choice is clear, "I solemnly swear or affirm, that I will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
We still have some hope for resistance from our state governments that are blessed with conservative leadership, and beyond that, we have the sheriffs—at least those who will honor their oaths and will stand against the evil tyranny of the communists invaders of our presidency and federal government.
On Tuesday evening, Dr. Laurie Roth invited me to be a guest on her nationally syndicated radio program, The Roth Show. In the hour I was on with her, we discussed, among other things, my column from Tuesday, “Can They Be Stopped?” My conclusion in the piece was that it will be nearly impossible to stop this lawless president and his criminal administration, since Congress and the courts are either fellow-traveling commies or scared, shrinking violets.
My thinking in the column was The People versus the diabolical Barack Obama (or whatever his name is) and his communist cohorts in the administration, which I saw as a bleak, Masada-type struggle (except without the mass suicide). But, Laurie pointed out that we still have thirty states under Republican governorships and hundreds of sheriffs across the nation who are pledging to resist the outlaw in the White House and his unconstitutional dictates.
That is an aspect of our critical situation that I did not address in my column, and it’s an important one. There is still a level of defense between The People and the federal government: the State legislatures and the sheriffs, who are the supreme lawmen in their jurisdictions.
Of course, we know that not all so-called Republicans are conservatives, since leftists have been invading and subverting the Republican Party for many years. My Editor at American Clarion, Bob Ellis, has worked long and hard in exposing the liberal policies and voting records of the Republican-controlled state government in South Dakota. Even here in Mississippi, which also has a Republican majority in Jackson, the insurance commissioner, Mike Chaney, who is a “Republican,” is actively going against Governor Phil Bryant’s strong opposition to setting up a state health insurance exchange, as the evil “Obamacare” legislation mandates. Needless to say, Chaney is very unpopular with conservatives in this state.
So, even though the United States has sixty percent Republican governorships, it does not mean that all the Republican governors (and state houses) will resist the exploding federal tyranny. That also leaves the conservative patriots in the Democrat- (and “Independent”) governed states with no state-level opposition to the criminal administration in Washington. What’s left? The military? We have seen numerous reports that Obama is firing military leaders left and right, which would mean that he is replacing them with his own men.
We could only hope for an American patriot military coup against this treasonous administration, but I’m not holding my breath. The anti-American Obama is intentionally destroying our military with insane leftist policies like forcing the military to bow to the global warming hoax, shoving open homosexuality onto our troops, and now stupidly allowing women in combat. This is in addition to the debilitating “sequestration” defense budget cuts and troop reductions which, if not stopped, will only make us that much more vulnerable to our enemies inside and outside of the United States.
That leaves state legislatures and state-level law enforcement to stand between the American people and the tyranny of the Obama administration. It’s good to see that close to thirty states are resisting implementation of the state health insurance exchanges dictated by “Obamacare,” and several states are already stepping up to outlaw within their states Obama’s illegal executive order attacks on the Second Amendment.
The sheriffs across the nation are also one of our last lines of defense against federal tyranny, and it’s encouraging to see that many sheriffs are also vowing to oppose any federal attempts at gun control. This is good news, because our sheriffs do not answer to the feds. From the Constitutional Law Enforcement Association blog site is an essay titled, “The County Sheriff: The Ultimate Check & Balance.” In part, it reads:
So, what happens when government does not obey its own constitution? What punishment is meted out to politicians who vote for and pass unconstitutional laws? What happens if they appoint unlawful bureaucracies or allow their agents to violate the rights of the American citizen? The answer to these questions is both astounding and lamentable; NOTHING!
Now the question becomes even greater; who will stop criminal and out-of-control government from killing, abusing, violating, robbing, and destroying its own people? Yes, believe it or not, there is an answer to this one. The duty to stop such criminality lies with the county sheriff. The question needs to be posed to each and every sheriff of these United States; will you stand against tyranny?
… Yes, it is regrettable that a sheriff would be put in this position. The governor and the state legislature should be preventing federal invasions into the states and counties way before the sheriff, but if it comes to the sheriff, then he must take a firm stand. James Madison also said, "We can safely rely on the disposition of state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority." So when the state legislatures go along to get along and are bought off by political cronyism or the disbursement of federal funds, then the sheriff becomes the ultimate check and balance.
It is time for the sworn protectors of liberty, the sheriffs of these United States of America, to walk tall and defend us from all enemies; foreign and domestic. When sheriffs are put in the quandary of choosing between enforcing statutes from vapid politicians or keeping their oaths of office, the path and choice is clear, "I solemnly swear or affirm, that I will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
We still have some hope for resistance from our state governments that are blessed with conservative leadership, and beyond that, we have the sheriffs—at least those who will honor their oaths and will stand against the evil tyranny of the communists invaders of our presidency and federal government.
Surge of black violence called 'urban terrorism'
WND ^ | January 30, 2013 | Colin Flaherty
'Large numbers of kids coming downtown … with guns'!
(Editor’s note: Colin Flaherty has done more reporting than any other journalist on what appears to be a nationwide trend of skyrocketing black-on-white crime, violence and abuse. WND features these reports to counterbalance the virtual blackout by the rest of the media due to their concerns that reporting such incidents would be inflammatory or even racist. WND considers it racist not to report racial abuse solely because of the skin color of the perpetrators or victims.)
The links in the following report may contain offensive language.
Indianapolis? A hot bed of black mob violence?
Really?
Yes, really: With dozens of episodes over the last five years, Indianapolis has to be near the top of any list of cities with sustained, violent, extensive and numerous cases of black mob violence.
This “crisis” of “urban terrorism,” as the new chief of police calls it, is now a regular feature of life in this Midwestern city once thought to be a haven from racial turmoil.
The latest examples are focused downtown at the Circle Centre Mall – a gleaming display of downtown redevelopment when it opened in 1996. This multi-story story retail center, connected by covered walkways to nine hotels and the convention center, was once anchored by Nordstrom.
It also features a complex of movie theaters currently playing Broken City and Django Unchained.
Today, Nordstrom is gone. As are many of the restaurants and shops. The rest of the mall and the surrounding area is increasingly hazardous – and empty – following a
'Large numbers of kids coming downtown … with guns'!
(Editor’s note: Colin Flaherty has done more reporting than any other journalist on what appears to be a nationwide trend of skyrocketing black-on-white crime, violence and abuse. WND features these reports to counterbalance the virtual blackout by the rest of the media due to their concerns that reporting such incidents would be inflammatory or even racist. WND considers it racist not to report racial abuse solely because of the skin color of the perpetrators or victims.)
The links in the following report may contain offensive language.
Indianapolis? A hot bed of black mob violence?
Really?
Yes, really: With dozens of episodes over the last five years, Indianapolis has to be near the top of any list of cities with sustained, violent, extensive and numerous cases of black mob violence.
This “crisis” of “urban terrorism,” as the new chief of police calls it, is now a regular feature of life in this Midwestern city once thought to be a haven from racial turmoil.
The latest examples are focused downtown at the Circle Centre Mall – a gleaming display of downtown redevelopment when it opened in 1996. This multi-story story retail center, connected by covered walkways to nine hotels and the convention center, was once anchored by Nordstrom.
It also features a complex of movie theaters currently playing Broken City and Django Unchained.
Today, Nordstrom is gone. As are many of the restaurants and shops. The rest of the mall and the surrounding area is increasingly hazardous – and empty – following a
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Running With Scissors
Townhall.com ^ | January 31, 2013 | Debra J. Saunders
If you thought Republican presidential hopefuls were insane to refuse to raise their hands during a 2011 primary debate when asked whether they'd support a deficit reduction deal with $10 in spending cuts to $1 in tax increases, look at Washington today. In August 2011, President Barack Obama signed a debt ceiling deal that promised more than $2 trillion in spending cuts over a decade and zero dollars in new revenue.
The package included $1.2 trillion in "sequestration" cuts -- $85 billion this year out of a $3.8 trillion federal budget -- which are supposed to begin March 1. This week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats told reporters they want to change the deal so that it also includes tax increases. Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray wants to change the deal to 50-50 between spending cuts and tax increases.
Does it matter that Washington just passed the fiscal cliff deal, which raised taxes by about $600 billion?
Of course not.
Washington these days has no problem with not getting a job done. The 2011 Budget Control Act's sequestration formula for cutting $1.2 trillion was an invitation to disaster. The idea was to propose cuts so painful that a 12-member supercommittee would have to work together to craft smarter cuts. But members couldn't agree on cuts; they could only agree to fail.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta correctly warned that the sequester formula cut too deeply into national security -- doubling defense cuts, to close to $1 trillion. Even as U.S. troops remained at war in Afghanistan and at risk across the globe, Panetta warned, the sequester cuts would "hollow out the force."
Still, the president and Senate Democrats have been saving their fire to push for more tax increases.
As Washington's most prominent budget hawk, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan pushed legislation to direct cuts elsewhere to spare defense, but the House cannot pass bills by itself.
"We think these sequesters will happen, because the Democrats have opposed our efforts to replace those cuts with others and they've offered no alternatives," Ryan told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday.
Now it turns out that gross domestic product shrank by 0.1 percent last quarter. White House spokesman Jay Carney acknowledged that the dip had something to do with the "uncertainty created by the prospect of sequester," especially in the defense sector.
This would be a good time to demand that Congress spare defense spending. Alison Acosta Fraser, director of economic policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation, believes that the president should push for entitlement reform to replace the sequester cuts.
Instead, Carney talked up the need to raise taxes on oil companies and "corporate jet owners."
Fraser believes that the Senate and Obama, with their "high-stakes brinksmanship, intentionally," are leading the country down the path of less economic prosperity, less opportunity for growth and less national security.
And: "When you have an administration whose own secretary says 'don't do this' but the president can't or won't lead on this, then we have a problem."
If you thought Republican presidential hopefuls were insane to refuse to raise their hands during a 2011 primary debate when asked whether they'd support a deficit reduction deal with $10 in spending cuts to $1 in tax increases, look at Washington today. In August 2011, President Barack Obama signed a debt ceiling deal that promised more than $2 trillion in spending cuts over a decade and zero dollars in new revenue.
The package included $1.2 trillion in "sequestration" cuts -- $85 billion this year out of a $3.8 trillion federal budget -- which are supposed to begin March 1. This week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats told reporters they want to change the deal so that it also includes tax increases. Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray wants to change the deal to 50-50 between spending cuts and tax increases.
Does it matter that Washington just passed the fiscal cliff deal, which raised taxes by about $600 billion?
Of course not.
Washington these days has no problem with not getting a job done. The 2011 Budget Control Act's sequestration formula for cutting $1.2 trillion was an invitation to disaster. The idea was to propose cuts so painful that a 12-member supercommittee would have to work together to craft smarter cuts. But members couldn't agree on cuts; they could only agree to fail.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta correctly warned that the sequester formula cut too deeply into national security -- doubling defense cuts, to close to $1 trillion. Even as U.S. troops remained at war in Afghanistan and at risk across the globe, Panetta warned, the sequester cuts would "hollow out the force."
Still, the president and Senate Democrats have been saving their fire to push for more tax increases.
As Washington's most prominent budget hawk, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan pushed legislation to direct cuts elsewhere to spare defense, but the House cannot pass bills by itself.
"We think these sequesters will happen, because the Democrats have opposed our efforts to replace those cuts with others and they've offered no alternatives," Ryan told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday.
Now it turns out that gross domestic product shrank by 0.1 percent last quarter. White House spokesman Jay Carney acknowledged that the dip had something to do with the "uncertainty created by the prospect of sequester," especially in the defense sector.
This would be a good time to demand that Congress spare defense spending. Alison Acosta Fraser, director of economic policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation, believes that the president should push for entitlement reform to replace the sequester cuts.
Instead, Carney talked up the need to raise taxes on oil companies and "corporate jet owners."
Fraser believes that the Senate and Obama, with their "high-stakes brinksmanship, intentionally," are leading the country down the path of less economic prosperity, less opportunity for growth and less national security.
And: "When you have an administration whose own secretary says 'don't do this' but the president can't or won't lead on this, then we have a problem."
The Spending Sequester Will Grow the Private Economy -- Don’t Back Off
Townhall.com ^ | January 31, 2013 | Larry Kudlow
Yesterday's report of a 0.1 percent GDP decline for the fourth quarter came as a surprise to most forecasters. But it actually masks considerable strength in the private economy. Namely, housing investment in the fourth quarter jumped 15.3 percent annually, business equipment and software spiked 12.4 percent, and real private final sales rose 2.6 percent. All in, the domestic private sector of the economy increased 3.4 percent annually -- a very respectable gain.
And here’s one for the record books: Working ahead of year-end tax hikes, individuals shifted so much money to the fourth quarter at the 35 percent top rate that personal income grew by 7.9 percent annually -- a huge number. And there’s more: In order to beat the taxman, dividend income rose 85.2 percent annually. You think tax incentives don’t matter? Guess again.
Now, all this private-sector strength occurred despite the fact that government spending -- namely military spending -- dropped 6.6 percent. Inventories also lost ground and the trade deficit widened.
But here’s a key point: Military spending has now fallen virtually to its lower sequester-spending-cut baseline. It did so in one quarter by about $40 billion. So the brunt of the impact over the coming years has already been felt. (Normally, as of recent years, military spending has been virtually flat.)
Which leads me to another key point: Even with the fourth-quarter contraction, the latest GDP report shows that falling government spending can coexist with rising private economic activity. This is an important point in terms of the upcoming spending sequester. Lower federal spending, limited government, and a smaller spending-to-GDP ratio will be good for growth. The military spending plunge will not likely be repeated. But by keeping resources in private hands, rather than transferring them to the inefficient government sector, the spending sequester is actually pro-growth.
Big-government Keynesians think big spending provides big growth. They are wrong. This has been a 2 percent recovery -- the worst in modern times -- dating back to 1947. So let’s try something different. Let’s shrink government. Let’s let the private sector breathe and generate entrepreneurship and risk-taking.
Spending is the true tax measure of the economy, according to Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, and others. Even a modest sequester spending cut of maybe $60 billion in 2013, and perhaps more than $1 trillion over ten years (most of which will come from a slower spending growth rate, not real reductions), will be the best thing to inspire business and market confidence as well as international credibility. And it maybe even shave a point or two off the spending share of GDP.
On March 1 the spending sequester is supposed to kick in by law. If Congress wants to help the U.S. economy, the best thing it can do right now is implement this sequester. Then it can round out an even larger growth package, including large- and small-business tax reform and adjustments to stop entitlements from going bankrupt.
Yesterday's report of a 0.1 percent GDP decline for the fourth quarter came as a surprise to most forecasters. But it actually masks considerable strength in the private economy. Namely, housing investment in the fourth quarter jumped 15.3 percent annually, business equipment and software spiked 12.4 percent, and real private final sales rose 2.6 percent. All in, the domestic private sector of the economy increased 3.4 percent annually -- a very respectable gain.
And here’s one for the record books: Working ahead of year-end tax hikes, individuals shifted so much money to the fourth quarter at the 35 percent top rate that personal income grew by 7.9 percent annually -- a huge number. And there’s more: In order to beat the taxman, dividend income rose 85.2 percent annually. You think tax incentives don’t matter? Guess again.
Now, all this private-sector strength occurred despite the fact that government spending -- namely military spending -- dropped 6.6 percent. Inventories also lost ground and the trade deficit widened.
But here’s a key point: Military spending has now fallen virtually to its lower sequester-spending-cut baseline. It did so in one quarter by about $40 billion. So the brunt of the impact over the coming years has already been felt. (Normally, as of recent years, military spending has been virtually flat.)
Which leads me to another key point: Even with the fourth-quarter contraction, the latest GDP report shows that falling government spending can coexist with rising private economic activity. This is an important point in terms of the upcoming spending sequester. Lower federal spending, limited government, and a smaller spending-to-GDP ratio will be good for growth. The military spending plunge will not likely be repeated. But by keeping resources in private hands, rather than transferring them to the inefficient government sector, the spending sequester is actually pro-growth.
Big-government Keynesians think big spending provides big growth. They are wrong. This has been a 2 percent recovery -- the worst in modern times -- dating back to 1947. So let’s try something different. Let’s shrink government. Let’s let the private sector breathe and generate entrepreneurship and risk-taking.
Spending is the true tax measure of the economy, according to Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, and others. Even a modest sequester spending cut of maybe $60 billion in 2013, and perhaps more than $1 trillion over ten years (most of which will come from a slower spending growth rate, not real reductions), will be the best thing to inspire business and market confidence as well as international credibility. And it maybe even shave a point or two off the spending share of GDP.
On March 1 the spending sequester is supposed to kick in by law. If Congress wants to help the U.S. economy, the best thing it can do right now is implement this sequester. Then it can round out an even larger growth package, including large- and small-business tax reform and adjustments to stop entitlements from going bankrupt.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
‘Carrying a Gun Saved My Life’
Pajamas Media ^ | 01/30/2013 | Paul Hsieh
On December 11, 2010, in Conyers, GA, 22-year-old Ryan Moore was at a friend’s house for an evening of leisure. He borrowed a friend’s car to drive to the nearby grocery store, where his handgun saved his life [1]. I interviewed Ryan Moore over e-mail about that evening.
Most of the time, the intended victim does not have to fire his weapon to deter the attackers. But in some cases, the good guy having a gun can mean the difference between his life or death. Fortunately, Georgia law allowed Ryan Moore to carry the gun that saved his life.
Shouldn’t all law-abiding Americans enjoy that same right?
What happened that night at the Ingles (grocery store) parking lot?Ryan killed the first attacker, 30-year old Yuhanna Williams. According to the Associated Press [2]:
I had parked near the front of the store. A man approached as I was about to get out, asking if I had some spare money he could use for gas. After replying I didn’t have any cash, he proceeded to walk away. As I was watching him leave, I then stepped out of the vehicle and was grabbed from behind by a man who put a knife to my neck. The first man then came back and demanded my keys and wallet.
How much time did you have to react?
It took a few seconds for me to realize what was happening. Once it dawned on me, I made the decision to fight back.
I grabbed the knife and pulled it away from my neck. After a brief struggle, I managed to push him away allowing me to create a few feet of distance, where I was able to draw my revolver from concealment and to fire in defense as he came back towards me with the knife.
What were you carrying, and how many rounds did you have to fire to stop the attacker?
I had a five shot Taurus 651 snub-nosed .357 magnum loaded with magnum defensive ammunition. After drawing, I fired three shots in about two seconds before the attacker with the knife turned and collapsed after taking a few steps. I then turned around expecting the second attacker to be there, only to see him fleeing the scene.
I knew I only had two rounds left and debated whether or not to reload, but since it seemed the threat was over I holstered the revolver and called 911, only to have the first officer show up for an unrelated security detail while on the phone with dispatchers.
The revolver was taken for evidence and I was briefly detained. Due to the adrenaline I didn’t notice the fact I was cut until I was sitting in the police car and noticed blood. I was then looked at by paramedics, and taken to the hospital where I had to get stitches in my neck.
Williams was still clutching the knife when they discovered his body, and Moore told them he was defending himself. Witnesses corroborated his story and authorities quickly found the killing to be justified.I asked Moore what he learned from a self-defense perspective, and what he thought of proposed bans on so-called “high capacity magazines” and “assault weapons.”
Williams had been jailed multiple times [3] over the past decade for charges including “disorderly conduct, simple battery, probation violation, public indecency, DUI, and possession of marijuana and possession with the intent to distribute at a school.
What do you carry now, and why?Gun-control advocates typically highlight the criminal misuses of firearms, while underplaying the many times firearms are used by law-abiding citizens in self-defense [4] — ranging from tens of thousands to two million times per year, depending on the source.
My current everyday carry gun is a Glock 21, a large framed Glock semiautomatic pistol chambered in .45 ACP with a standard capacity of 13+1 rounds. Fortunately it only took three shots from my revolver to stop the threat. However, the thought that I had only two remaining in the event the second attacker didn’t flee or had backup didn’t sit well with me, especially given the fairly common incidents of crime involving multiple assailants.
Most days I also carry a spare 13-round magazine and on occasion even still carry the revolver as a backup.
Could proposed restrictions on magazines greater than 10 rounds endanger ordinary people caught in situations like the one you faced?
There is definitely a risk involved with arbitrarily limiting normal citizens to ten rounds (or seven in the case of New York). Statistics generally indicate multiple shots being required to stop a single threat regardless of caliber, and there is almost always a degradation of accuracy in a high-stress situation.
If someone is unfortunate enough to be in a self-defense situation with three or four attackers, the difference between ten rounds and thirteen (or twenty) could mean the difference between life and death.
You have an AR-15-style sporting rifle. What do you use it for? How do you answer when anti-gun people say: “No one needs a rifle like that”?
I have an AR-15 that I primarily keep for home defense, but I have also used it hunting. For hunting these rifles have become extremely popular, especially in areas where wild hogs or coyotes are popular game and pose a risk to livestock and native species. Ammunition companies have started producing ammo specifically designed for hunting with these types of rifles, such as the fairly new Razorback XT from Winchester.
The main reason I have it is for home defense. It is among the best tools for the job of protecting my life and the lives of my loved ones. The AR-15 is lightweight, maneuverable, and offers effective stopping power while reducing risk of over penetration through common building materials with the proper ammunition.
It is easy to add lights and optical sights to the rifle, making it more likely you will identify what you are aiming at and thus avoid shooting someone by accident. The rifle has manageable recoil, allowing shooters of all physical condition to handle it effectively.
Like with pistols, one will never know how many rounds are needed. If one hears a loud crash in the middle of the night, one probably won’t have the time to grab spare magazines; so whatever ammunition is in the gun is all you have if you must traverse the house in your pajamas to secure a family member against an intruder.
Most of the time, the intended victim does not have to fire his weapon to deter the attackers. But in some cases, the good guy having a gun can mean the difference between his life or death. Fortunately, Georgia law allowed Ryan Moore to carry the gun that saved his life.
Shouldn’t all law-abiding Americans enjoy that same right?
More housework, less sex for married men!
Husbands who spend more time doing traditionally female chores -- such as cooking, cleaning, and shopping -- reported having less sex than those who do more masculine tasks, according to a study in the American Sociological Review.
AFP - The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say: the more housework married men do, the less sex they have, according to a new study published Wednesday.
Husbands who spend more time doing traditionally female chores -- such as cooking, cleaning, and shopping -- reported having less sex than those who do more masculine tasks, said the study in the American Sociological Review.
"Our findings suggest the importance of socialized gender roles for sexual frequency in heterosexual marriage," said lead author Sabino Kornrich, of the Center for Advanced Studies at the Juan March Institute in Madrid.
"Couples in which men participate more in housework typically done by women report having sex less frequently. Similarly, couples in which men participate more in traditionally masculine tasks -- such as yard work, paying bills, and auto maintenance -- report higher sexual frequency."
His study, "Egalitarianism, Housework, and Sexual Frequency in Marriage," looks at straight married couples in the United States, and was based on data from the National Survey of Families and Households.
The study was co-authored by University of Washington sociologist Julie Brines and doctoral candidate Katrina Leupp.
Men in the study reported having had sex an average of 5.2 times in the month prior to the survey, while women reported 5.6.
But both men and women in couples with more traditional household labor divisions said they had more sex.
"The results suggest the existence of a gendered set of sexual scripts, in which the traditional performance and display of gender is important for creation of sexual desire and performance of sexual activity," Kornrich said.
However, the study's authors stop short of arguing that house husbands should hang up their aprons.
"Men who refuse to help around the house could increase conflict in their marriage and lower their wives' marital satisfaction," Kornrich said.
"Earlier research has found that women's marital satisfaction is indeed linked to men's participation in overall household labor, which encompasses tasks traditionally done by both men and women."
Husbands who spend more time doing traditionally female chores -- such as cooking, cleaning, and shopping -- reported having less sex than those who do more masculine tasks, said the study in the American Sociological Review.
"Our findings suggest the importance of socialized gender roles for sexual frequency in heterosexual marriage," said lead author Sabino Kornrich, of the Center for Advanced Studies at the Juan March Institute in Madrid.
"Couples in which men participate more in housework typically done by women report having sex less frequently. Similarly, couples in which men participate more in traditionally masculine tasks -- such as yard work, paying bills, and auto maintenance -- report higher sexual frequency."
His study, "Egalitarianism, Housework, and Sexual Frequency in Marriage," looks at straight married couples in the United States, and was based on data from the National Survey of Families and Households.
The study was co-authored by University of Washington sociologist Julie Brines and doctoral candidate Katrina Leupp.
Men in the study reported having had sex an average of 5.2 times in the month prior to the survey, while women reported 5.6.
But both men and women in couples with more traditional household labor divisions said they had more sex.
"The results suggest the existence of a gendered set of sexual scripts, in which the traditional performance and display of gender is important for creation of sexual desire and performance of sexual activity," Kornrich said.
However, the study's authors stop short of arguing that house husbands should hang up their aprons.
"Men who refuse to help around the house could increase conflict in their marriage and lower their wives' marital satisfaction," Kornrich said.
"Earlier research has found that women's marital satisfaction is indeed linked to men's participation in overall household labor, which encompasses tasks traditionally done by both men and women."
Is Fox News Really That Different?
WND ^ | January 29, 2013 | Joseph Farah
For many Americans, Fox News is their “alternative” choice for news. They’ve made it the No. 1 cable news network, largely because they believe its “fair and balanced” promotional slogan?
Many even believe Fox leans to the right and provides news they can’t get anywhere else. But is Fox really different from the rest of the media? Or has it been successful merely at positioning itself as different?
Would it surprise you to know that individuals at News Corp., the parent company of Fox News, gave nearly six times as much money to Barack Obama than Mitt Romney in the 2011-2012 election cycle?
For many Americans, Fox News is their “alternative” choice for news. They’ve made it the No. 1 cable news network, largely because they believe its “fair and balanced” promotional slogan?
Many even believe Fox leans to the right and provides news they can’t get anywhere else. But is Fox really different from the rest of the media? Or has it been successful merely at positioning itself as different?
Would it surprise you to know that individuals at News Corp., the parent company of Fox News, gave nearly six times as much money to Barack Obama than Mitt Romney in the 2011-2012 election cycle?
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Obama Job Approval Rating Lower than Nixon´s!
Breitbart´s Big Government ^ | 1/29/13 | AWR Hawkins
According to Gallup, President Obama is tied with George W. Bush for most unpopular re-elected president since Gallup began measuring presidential job-approval in 1945. In fact, Gallup found that apart from Bush, "every president...has had a higher job-approval rating in the January following his reelection than Obama has." Obama´s approval rating is at 52. Think about it this way--following reelection, President Reagan´s approval numbers beat Obama´s by 11 points, President Eisenhower´s beat Obama´s by 21, and a much-derided Republican President named Richard Nixon
According to Gallup, President Obama is tied with George W. Bush for most unpopular re-elected president since Gallup began measuring presidential job-approval in 1945. In fact, Gallup found that apart from Bush, "every president...has had a higher job-approval rating in the January following his reelection than Obama has." Obama´s approval rating is at 52. Think about it this way--following reelection, President Reagan´s approval numbers beat Obama´s by 11 points, President Eisenhower´s beat Obama´s by 21, and a much-derided Republican President named Richard Nixon
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Watchdog says taxpayers may lose $27B in bailout
Associated Press ^ | Jan 30, 2013 12:03 AM EST | Marcy Gordon
A government watchdog says U.S. taxpayers stand to lose $27 billion from the 2008 financial bailout, up from an estimate of $22 billion made in the fall.
A report issued Wednesday by the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program says the estimate is higher because of increased losses for the Treasury Department on sales of shares in bailed-out companies.
Ally Financial, the former financial arm for General Motors, still owes $14.6 billion of the $17.2 billion in aid it received. The report says taxpayers can expect to lose $5.5 billion on that investment because of the company's losses on risky mortgages issued ahead of the financial crisis. The report also criticized the Treasury for lacking a plan to unwind its investment in Ally. Taxpayers own 74 percent of the company.
Ally and GM together owe more than half of the $67.3 billion still owed U.S. taxpayers by companies that were bailed out during the financial crisis, according to the quarterly report to Congress by Special Inspector General Christy Romero. …
A government watchdog says U.S. taxpayers stand to lose $27 billion from the 2008 financial bailout, up from an estimate of $22 billion made in the fall.
A report issued Wednesday by the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program says the estimate is higher because of increased losses for the Treasury Department on sales of shares in bailed-out companies.
Ally Financial, the former financial arm for General Motors, still owes $14.6 billion of the $17.2 billion in aid it received. The report says taxpayers can expect to lose $5.5 billion on that investment because of the company's losses on risky mortgages issued ahead of the financial crisis. The report also criticized the Treasury for lacking a plan to unwind its investment in Ally. Taxpayers own 74 percent of the company.
Ally and GM together owe more than half of the $67.3 billion still owed U.S. taxpayers by companies that were bailed out during the financial crisis, according to the quarterly report to Congress by Special Inspector General Christy Romero. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Obama Immigration Plan vs. 'Gang of Eight': How They Differ
Fox News Latino ^ | January 29, 2013
President Barack Obama laid out his plan for comprehensive immigration reform Tuesday that largely mirrored an immigration proposal unveiled by a bipartisan group of senators a day earlier – with some important differences.
Both plans agree on the same four core principles for comprehensive immigration reform: strengthening border security, create an employee verification system, a pathway to citizenship, and fixing the legal immigration system.
But here is how they differ:
Pathway to Citizenship The most striking difference between them is how to get an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants already in the United States on the pathway to citizenship.
The Senate plan, presented by eight U.S. Senators, known as the 'Gang of Eight,' creates a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already in the United States that would begin only after increased border security measures are increased. A commission of lawmakers and border-state community leaders would assess when security measures are completed.
Obama's plan stresses that the pathway to citizenship should begin as quickly as possible – and should not be contingent on the completion of more stringent border security measures.
U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a member of the ‘Gang of Eight,’ says he will not support Obama’s bill if the pathway to citizenship is not directly tied to better border security.
“If, in fact, this bill does not have real triggers in there, if there is not language in this bill that guarantees that nothing else will happen unless these enforcement mechanisms are in place, I won’t support it,” Rubio told conservative radio talk show host Rush Lambaugh on Tuesday.
Same Sex Couples
Another difference is over how to deal with same-sex couples.
President Barack Obama laid out his plan for comprehensive immigration reform Tuesday that largely mirrored an immigration proposal unveiled by a bipartisan group of senators a day earlier – with some important differences.
Both plans agree on the same four core principles for comprehensive immigration reform: strengthening border security, create an employee verification system, a pathway to citizenship, and fixing the legal immigration system.
But here is how they differ:
Pathway to Citizenship The most striking difference between them is how to get an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants already in the United States on the pathway to citizenship.
The Senate plan, presented by eight U.S. Senators, known as the 'Gang of Eight,' creates a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already in the United States that would begin only after increased border security measures are increased. A commission of lawmakers and border-state community leaders would assess when security measures are completed.
Obama's plan stresses that the pathway to citizenship should begin as quickly as possible – and should not be contingent on the completion of more stringent border security measures.
U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a member of the ‘Gang of Eight,’ says he will not support Obama’s bill if the pathway to citizenship is not directly tied to better border security.
“If, in fact, this bill does not have real triggers in there, if there is not language in this bill that guarantees that nothing else will happen unless these enforcement mechanisms are in place, I won’t support it,” Rubio told conservative radio talk show host Rush Lambaugh on Tuesday.
Same Sex Couples
Another difference is over how to deal with same-sex couples.
(Excerpt) Read more at latino.foxnews.com ...
Immigration and Extortion
National Review: The Corner ^ | January 28,2013 | Charles C. W. Cooke
If sovereignty is to mean anything, then a country is entitled to decide whom it wants to join its ranks and whom it wishes to exclude from them.
If, on balance, an exhaustive amnesty for those who have deliberately ignored the law is determined to be a fair prospect for America, then there is a case for doing it; if changing the law to allow certain people to become part of the American polity is regarded by Americans as being advantageous to them, then there is a case for doing it; if allowing nobody in or everybody in is good for America, then there is a case for doing it. A desire to win the political affections of a given ethnic group, on the other hand, is not grounds for such a move. We should stop talking as if it is. To change the immigration laws to please a small but influential portion of the population is to submit to extortion. America should not be deciding who it wants on the basis of crass electoral threats.
A popular conceit, issued as a grave and gleeful warning to a Republican party that is considered by swathes of the commentariat to be doomed by “demographics,” appears to be that “Hispanics will only vote for you if you pardon other Hispanics who have broken the law.” I don’t know if that’s true or not. But if it is, it’s utterly abhorrent. Rushing to pardon those who have violated the rule of law because if you don’t their friends won’t vote for you is inseparable from bribery. (I might as well offer my vote to any party who will release my family members from prison.) If it’s not true, the suggestion that it is is not only wildly offensive to Hispanics — who are always, grossly, treated as a single bloc — but should serve to cool passions and slow the rush to action too.
It is notable that the Republican party is not even pretending to have changed its mind on the immigration question. Instead, it is acknowledging that it lost the last election and it is buying into a particular theory as to why. Sure, politics has always born the hallmarks of prostitution and it would be negligent of any party wholly to ignore demographics. But could we at least be a little more subtle when calling the escort agency?
On his blog, Ezra Klein argues:
“Immigration reform,” meanwhile, has been melted down and recast into a synonym for “doing something about the illegal immigration problem.” There’s little discussion of the other vital components of our thoroughly broken immigration system — a system that allows 1 million people in per year on purpose. How much attention is there on the abominable visa lottery? Or on the fact that most immigrants come because they have family here and not because they are skilled or necessary or likely to succeed? Or on STEM? “Comprehensive,” it seems, has come to mean less a total overhaul of the existing system and more a “border enforcement + amnesty” deal. And discussion of whether it is a good idea (social security etc.) or a bad idea (widespread unemployment) for America to continue to import so many people is peripheral — rife among opinion journalists and economists, rare in the media at large. In my experience, Americans are both wildly welcoming of immigrants and spectacularly under-informed as to how their immigration system actually works. This is a problem going forward. Existing citizens must get to decide who joins them. The current debate is not helping them to do so in any “comprehensive” way at all. Hopefully that will change.
If sovereignty is to mean anything, then a country is entitled to decide whom it wants to join its ranks and whom it wishes to exclude from them.
If, on balance, an exhaustive amnesty for those who have deliberately ignored the law is determined to be a fair prospect for America, then there is a case for doing it; if changing the law to allow certain people to become part of the American polity is regarded by Americans as being advantageous to them, then there is a case for doing it; if allowing nobody in or everybody in is good for America, then there is a case for doing it. A desire to win the political affections of a given ethnic group, on the other hand, is not grounds for such a move. We should stop talking as if it is. To change the immigration laws to please a small but influential portion of the population is to submit to extortion. America should not be deciding who it wants on the basis of crass electoral threats.
A popular conceit, issued as a grave and gleeful warning to a Republican party that is considered by swathes of the commentariat to be doomed by “demographics,” appears to be that “Hispanics will only vote for you if you pardon other Hispanics who have broken the law.” I don’t know if that’s true or not. But if it is, it’s utterly abhorrent. Rushing to pardon those who have violated the rule of law because if you don’t their friends won’t vote for you is inseparable from bribery. (I might as well offer my vote to any party who will release my family members from prison.) If it’s not true, the suggestion that it is is not only wildly offensive to Hispanics — who are always, grossly, treated as a single bloc — but should serve to cool passions and slow the rush to action too.
It is notable that the Republican party is not even pretending to have changed its mind on the immigration question. Instead, it is acknowledging that it lost the last election and it is buying into a particular theory as to why. Sure, politics has always born the hallmarks of prostitution and it would be negligent of any party wholly to ignore demographics. But could we at least be a little more subtle when calling the escort agency?
On his blog, Ezra Klein argues:
Two numbers explain why a rational Republican Party needs to do something dramatic on immigration: 27 percent and 2 percent.
Twenty-seven percent is the percentage of the Latino vote Mitt Romney received in 2012, according to the Fox News exit poll. Two percent is the projected increase in the non-white electorate come 2016. So Republicans are losing badly among Hispanic voters and Hispanic voters are becoming an increasingly important part of the electorate.Klein is right to lead with this, and then to turn to a secondary discussion of Republicans who genuinely want to make changes to the system. Naturally, not everyone involved is acting in bad faith: Some Republicans do earnestly desire reform and likely see Democratic willingness as providing an opportunity to get something “bipartisan” done. Millions of Americans, too, seem to be in favor of doing something about immigration — if you believe certain polls, a majority is even in favor of amnesty. But you certainly wouldn’t glean this from the media coverage nor from the way in which Republicans and conservatives have tended to discuss the issue. The focus is squarely on the politics of this and politics of that, almost every story noting in its first paragraph the “increased importance of nonwhites” or some variant thereof. In our discourse, the notion that anybody wants to do anything on immigration simply in order to do something on immigration has taken a back seat to endless analysis of “the Hispanic vote” and of electoral politics, all underpinned by the frankly disrespectful presumption that “Hispanics” are predictable and uniform automatons who will openly their allegedly closed minds the moment an immigration bill passes Congress.
“Immigration reform,” meanwhile, has been melted down and recast into a synonym for “doing something about the illegal immigration problem.” There’s little discussion of the other vital components of our thoroughly broken immigration system — a system that allows 1 million people in per year on purpose. How much attention is there on the abominable visa lottery? Or on the fact that most immigrants come because they have family here and not because they are skilled or necessary or likely to succeed? Or on STEM? “Comprehensive,” it seems, has come to mean less a total overhaul of the existing system and more a “border enforcement + amnesty” deal. And discussion of whether it is a good idea (social security etc.) or a bad idea (widespread unemployment) for America to continue to import so many people is peripheral — rife among opinion journalists and economists, rare in the media at large. In my experience, Americans are both wildly welcoming of immigrants and spectacularly under-informed as to how their immigration system actually works. This is a problem going forward. Existing citizens must get to decide who joins them. The current debate is not helping them to do so in any “comprehensive” way at all. Hopefully that will change.
The ONLY Question About Immigration Reform That Matters...
Boston Herald ^ | January 30, 2013 | Michael Graham
There is one question, and only one question, that you should ask President Obama or U.S. Sen. John McCain about their amnesty — sorry, their “pathway to citizenship” — immigration reform proposals:
If every illegal immigrant were granted instant citizenship this Monday, what would happen to the illegal immigrant who slips across the border on Tuesday?
We all know the answer already: Nothing.
Everything you’re hearing in both Obama and Senate proposals about “heightened border security” and “unmanned drones” is three-card-Monte stuff. Obama, who helped kill an immigration reform deal in 2007 authored by U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy, isn’t interested in enforcing immigration laws equally and fairly. He’s interested in winning political support from Hispanic voters — or more importantly, driving a wedge between those voters and the GOP. That’s it.
Yes, Obama is right that we’re doing a better job than ever catching would-be illegal aliens at the border. That’s not where the action is, and he knows it.
As long as there are employers willing to hire illegal immigrants, the desperate and poor of other countries will make their way here — or in some tragic cases, die trying. The enforcement that works is workplace enforcement: deporting undocumented workers and punishing the businesses who hire them.
Not surprisingly, this is the enforcement that Obama and other liberals adamantly oppose. Worse, it’s the kind of enforcement that amnesty advocates label as “racist.”
Remember the 2007 raid on the New Bedford factory where hundreds of illegal immigrants worked, in flagrant violation of the law? When U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement finally acted, they were denounced by Gov. Deval Patrick and other advocates. Patrick called the enforcement — not the hundreds of Americans denied jobs, but the enforcement of the law — “a human tragedy.”
Is the belief that immigration enforcement...
There is one question, and only one question, that you should ask President Obama or U.S. Sen. John McCain about their amnesty — sorry, their “pathway to citizenship” — immigration reform proposals:
If every illegal immigrant were granted instant citizenship this Monday, what would happen to the illegal immigrant who slips across the border on Tuesday?
We all know the answer already: Nothing.
Everything you’re hearing in both Obama and Senate proposals about “heightened border security” and “unmanned drones” is three-card-Monte stuff. Obama, who helped kill an immigration reform deal in 2007 authored by U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy, isn’t interested in enforcing immigration laws equally and fairly. He’s interested in winning political support from Hispanic voters — or more importantly, driving a wedge between those voters and the GOP. That’s it.
Yes, Obama is right that we’re doing a better job than ever catching would-be illegal aliens at the border. That’s not where the action is, and he knows it.
As long as there are employers willing to hire illegal immigrants, the desperate and poor of other countries will make their way here — or in some tragic cases, die trying. The enforcement that works is workplace enforcement: deporting undocumented workers and punishing the businesses who hire them.
Not surprisingly, this is the enforcement that Obama and other liberals adamantly oppose. Worse, it’s the kind of enforcement that amnesty advocates label as “racist.”
Remember the 2007 raid on the New Bedford factory where hundreds of illegal immigrants worked, in flagrant violation of the law? When U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement finally acted, they were denounced by Gov. Deval Patrick and other advocates. Patrick called the enforcement — not the hundreds of Americans denied jobs, but the enforcement of the law — “a human tragedy.”
Is the belief that immigration enforcement...
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Army Times ^ | May 7, 2017 | Todd South After carrying the M16 or one of its cousins across the globe for more than half a century, sol...
