Dem Representative Moves to Block Obama’s Congressional Pay Increase

Comments Off on Dem Representative Moves to Block Obama’s Congressional Pay Increase

A Democratic member of Congress is moving to block President Barack Obama’s congressional pay increase. The move, led by John Barrow of Georgia, is to prevent the pay increase that Obama issued through an executive order from going into effect.

“At a time when American families face real hardship, it would be irresponsible to allow Congressional pay to increase,” says Barrow in a statement. “Too many families face uncertainty in the New Year for Congress to get a bonus. Folks expect us to be looking out for them, not ourselves, and we should be working to lower taxes, cut spending, and get our nation’s debt under control. Congress should get to work, and I urge the House leadership to do anything and everything possible to stop this pay increase for Members of Congress right away.”

Barrow’s office explains: “The Executive Order called for a pay increase for Members of Congress and other elected officials of 0.5 percent after March 27, 2013. During tonight’s votes, Congressman Barrow will urge his colleagues to sign his letter to House Leadership urging them to bring legislation to the floor to block the pay increase.”

 

Here’s the letter Barrow is circulating to send to House leadership:

Dear Speaker Boehner, Leader Cantor, Leader Pelosi, Whip Hoyer,

We oppose the pay increase for Members of Congress granted by Executive Order on December 27, 2012. The Executive Order would raise our salaries by $900 per year, beginning March 27, 2013.

We believe that it is inappropriate for Members of Congress to receive a pay increase of any size while American families and taxpayers continue to face tough economic times.

We urge you to bring legislation to the floor to stop this pay adjustment as soon as possible.

Weekly Standard

Advertisements

Diane Feinstein Gun ban in 1995 – She wanted to Ban all guns, Force turn in

Comments Off on Diane Feinstein Gun ban in 1995 – She wanted to Ban all guns, Force turn in

Folks, here they come, to heck with the 2nd amendment, it’s in the way as far as they are concerned…

Despite what Feinstein claims, the Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice brief done in 1999, midway through the period of the original assault weapons ban found, “The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.” In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control studied multiple gun control laws including the AWB and found, “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.” Likewise, a National Research Council panel in 2004 performed a critical review on firearms, and noted that the ban “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence”.

The reason the AWB had little, if any effect on gun violence was revealed in a 2004 National Institute of Justice report which found that rifles were rarely used in gun crimes. This finding is verified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports database which shows that of the 8,583 murders committed using firearms in 2011; only 323 were committed using rifles of any kind, including the small fraction referred to as “assault weapons”. To put this into context, the same 2011 data show that over twice as many murders, 723 in all, were committed using bare hands and feet.

Feinstein tells us a gun ban is about saving the children and reducing crime, but her comments on 60 Minutes in 1995 reveal her true plan is to disarm the American people.

On Thursday, Feinstein will introduced her dream bill to disarm the American people. The legislation is open-ended and includes provisions to re-register firearms and submit the fingerprints of law-abiding Americans as if they’re sex offenders.

Feinstein’s bill will also include a buy-back provision that will allow the government to confiscate all firearms. Both Feinstein and New York governor Andrew Cuomo have said that is their plan.

It is a gun confiscation bill.

Somebody should ask her what she’s proposing to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys. Including those coming in from across the border. This sceme is meant to disarm us law abiding citizen’s and will do nothing to address the problem

I have news for Ms. Feinstein ….a 51% vote in the Senate won’t ban the 2nd amendment……you MUST add an amendment to the Constitution and have 3/4 of the States to ratifiy that amendment.

Joe Biden shows the length Democrats will go to steal our guns. In 2008 during the election, he told voters Obama wouldn’t take his shotgun or his Beretta. The Beretta is a semi-automatic pistol. But in 1989, Biden introduced his own version of the assault weapons ban.

Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

Comments Off on Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

This is from the Opinion page of the New York Times of course, can you believe anyone could be so stupid and uninformed.

Article I, Section 7 states that all revenue bills shall originate in the House of Representatives but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on any other bills.

Revenue bills were only to originate in the House because members of the House of Representatives are the only federal officials elected directly by the people. Senators, up until the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913, were chosen by the state legislatures. And the president was chosen by the Electoral College. At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 it was felt that, in order for the new federal government to have sufficient legitimacy to gain popular support, it was imperative that at least part of the government would always have a popular mandate.

AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.

Consider, for example, the assertion by the Senate minority leader last week that the House could not take up a plan by Senate Democrats to extend tax cuts on households making $250,000 or less because the Constitution requires that revenue measures originate in the lower chamber. Why should anyone care? Why should a lame-duck House, 27 members of which were defeated for re-election, have a stranglehold on our economy? Why does a grotesquely malapportioned Senate get to decide the nation’s fate?

Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.

As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is. Imagine that after careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?

Constitutional disobedience may seem radical, but it is as old as the Republic. In fact, the Constitution itself was born of constitutional disobedience. When George Washington and the other framers went to Philadelphia in 1787, they were instructed to suggest amendments to the Articles of Confederation, which would have had to be ratified by the legislatures of all 13 states. Instead, in violation of their mandate, they abandoned the Articles, wrote a new Constitution and provided that it would take effect after ratification by only nine states, and by conventions in those states rather than the state legislatures.

No sooner was the Constitution in place than our leaders began ignoring it. John Adams supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, which violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. Thomas Jefferson thought every constitution should expire after a single generation. He believed the most consequential act of his presidency — the purchase of the Louisiana Territory — exceeded his constitutional powers.

Continue reading, if you can stomach it @ NYT

Peter Morici: Obama Has “Put A Pistol To The Head Of The Middle Class”

Comments Off on Peter Morici: Obama Has “Put A Pistol To The Head Of The Middle Class”

Leading Economist Peter Morici had this to say about Obama’s fiscal cliff negotiating tactics:

“The president by being so persistent that it’s my way or the highway, no spending cuts, taxes on folks over $250,000 or nothing, has basically put a pistol to the head of the middle class. It’s threatened them with financial extortion if he doesn’t get his way.”

 

Obama Going for the Guns

Comments Off on Obama Going for the Guns

Well I guess this will be our “Arab spring”, our civil unrest they’ve been preparing for…the American people are buying guns and ammo at record rates and he thinks they are going to turn them in? I don’t think so, we’re not stupid. Beside he can’t ban the 2nd amendment by Executive order, it doesn’t work that way. The Constitution MUST be amended and then ratified by 3/4 of the States to do away with the 2nd amendment. I’m telling you folks, the plan is for Obama to ban “semi autos”, then use the UN Small Arms Treaty to get the handguns. Both plans call for registration, which history has shown  is ALWAYS followed by confiscation. But in America confiscation would be sucide by whom ever tried it.

President Obama on Sunday said he would make gun control a priority in his new term, pledging to put his “full weight” behind passing new restrictions on firearms in 2013.

“I’m going to be putting forward a package and I’m going to be putting my full weight behind it,” Obama said in an interview aired on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I’m going to be making an argument to the American people about why this is important and why we have to do everything we can to make sure that something like what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary does not happen again.”

In the wake of the Dec. 14 mass shooting at a Newtown, Conn., school, the president has launched a White House task force led by Vice President Biden to present proposals in January to help stem gun violence. Obama has said that he would seek a broad approach to the problem addressing the role of violence in entertainment and measures to improve mental healthcare.

But he has also called on Congress to move quickly to reinstate the federal assault weapons ban and a ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines.

Obama on Sunday repeated those calls and said he would meet with lawmakers on both sides of the aisles to see action.

“I’ve been very clear that an assault-rifle ban, banning these high capacity clips, background checks, that there are a set of issues that I have historically supported and will continue to support,” the president said. (the ban in 1994 did not reduce crime, that is a fact)………

“I’d like to get it done in the first year.  I will put forward a very specific proposal based on the recommendations that Joe Biden’s task force is putting together as we speak. And so this is not something that I will be putting off.”

But the push for heightened gun control will likely face tough political opposition, with the nation’s largest gun lobby, the National Rifle Association (NRA), saying they will oppose any new restrictions.

The group earlier this month held a press conference calling for national program to place armed guards in the nation’s schools, a move they said would be more effective at preventing future tragedies like in Newtown.

Obama in the interview said that he hoped to involve all “stakeholders” in the national debate over gun violence, but he expressed unease with the NRA’s proposal.

“I am not going to prejudge the recommendations that are given to me.  I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools.  And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem,” he said.

Obama said that he expected even firearm owners to understand the need for new regulations in the wake of the Connecticut shooting spree that killed 20 young children.

“I think there are a vast majority of responsible gun owners out there who recognize that we can’t have a situation in which somebody with severe psychological problems is able to get the kind of high-capacity weapons that this individual in Newtown obtained and gun down our kids,” Obama said.

The Hill

Dick’s Sporting Goods Faces Customer Outrage Over Gun Ban

Comments Off on Dick’s Sporting Goods Faces Customer Outrage Over Gun Ban

Dick’s Sporting Goods Faces Customer Outrage Over Gun BanBy Todd Starnes

Dick’s Sporting Goods customers are threatening a class-action lawsuit after the company allegedly refused to fill gun orders made weeks before the school shooting in Newtown, Conn.

Dick’s announced just before Christmas that it was suspended sales of rifles out of respect for the victims of the school shooting. But some customers allege the company is also refusing to honor sales made the day after Thanksgiving.

And thousands have joined a Facebook page calling for a boycott of the company.

“What makes this situation even more frustrating is that I am a law enforcement officer and purchased this rifle specifically to use while on duty,” a gun owner told Military Times. “My agency allows us to carry rifles, but cannot afford to issue one to every member.”

“It’s unacceptable,” customer Troy Blackall told CBS 11 News in Dallas.

Blackall and his wife paid for two Troy Carbines – but they only got one. Instead, he said the company sent him a refund and a gift card.

“The gun prices have doubled and tripled in price now. So it’s not like we can get our money back and buy the guns someplace else.”

He said he would sign on to a class action lawsuit “in a heartbeat.”

Dick’s Sporting Goods did not return calls seeking comment.

Russell Kellner and his wife only received one of the three semi-automatic rifles they bought.

“It ain’t a good deal when you don’t get it,” he said. “So I’m not happy at all about it.”

Instead, the Kellners received a $100 gift card and a Christmas Eve letter from Dick’s — telling them the company would not be fulfilling any more orders.

Kellner told CBS 11 News Dick’s should not have changed their policy until after filling orders.

“Do what you said,” he told the television station. “Do what you advertised. Make good on it.”

Customers aren’t the only ones upset over Dick’s decision.

The founder of gun manufacturer Troy Defense put his outrage in writing — on the company’s Facebook page.

Stephen Troy said he was “deeply dismayed and shocked to hear” about Dick’s “anti-gun” decision. The company had invested millions of dollars to provide their rifles to Dicks’s under an exclusive contract.

“DSG did not contact or inform Troy of this decision prior to notifying the public,” he wrote. “Nor was Troy informed by DSG that cancellation letters were being sent to customers.”

The website Twitchy compiled a list of critics who posted their displeasure on Twitter — many calling for nationwide boycotts of the store.

Fox Radio News

Critics Slam Sen. Feinstein’s “Assault Weapons” Ban, Gun Registry

Comments Off on Critics Slam Sen. Feinstein’s “Assault Weapons” Ban, Gun Registry

I’m going to continue to pound this 2nd amendment debate.

Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California has stirred up a hornets’ nest with her latest proposal to ban so-called “assault weapons” and standard capacity magazines while creating a federal registry of gun owners, complete with pictures and fingerprints. Analystssay supporting the measure would be “political suicide” for Democrats, and some opponents of Sen. Feinstein’s most recent assault on the Second Amendment are evenasking the White House to put the far-left lawmaker on trial for treason. More than a few critics also suggested the move against gun rights could start another revolution or civil war.

Despite claims by the Obama administration and the establishment media, recent polls show that a majority of Americans oppose Feinstein’s scheme, not that opinion polls matter when discussing rights enshrined in the Constitution. Analysts also say the dangerous legislation is unlikely to pass — especially with GOP control of the House and even liberal so-called “RINO” Republicans in the Senate vowing to oppose the measure. The previous “assault weapons” ban, which expired in 2004, was also entirely ineffective, according to studies.

Instead of more gun control laws, pressure is mounting on legislators to repeal statutes purporting to create so-called “gun-free zones,” which experts say are a “magnet” for mass murderers who obviously do not obey laws anyway. The National Rifle Association (NRA), meanwhile, is pushing a controversial plan for federally funded armed guards at schools to help prevent future tragedies.

Sen. Feinstein’s proposed legislation, which she promised to introduce in 2013, would purport to ban the sale, manufacture, or importation of 120 types of guns — essentially semi-automatic firearms that some politicians and their allies in the establishment press have arbitrarily described as “assault weapons.” Included on the list are many of the most popular pistols, rifles, and shotguns owned by tens of millions of Americans. The bill would also seek to criminalize the possession of standard capacity magazines that accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The anti-gun extremists in Washington, D.C., critics say, are hoping to completely disarm America. “The bottom line: If we are foolish enough to embrace a ban on any weapon in the coming Congress then we are unwittingly embracing a ban on every weapon,” noted AWR Hawkins with the pro-Second Amendment group AmmoLand Shooting Sports, saying Feinstein’s plan was really a thinly veiled attempt to ban handguns as well. “The Democrats cannot be trusted with our freedoms, and they will politicize every tragedy to accomplish their ends.”

Another one of the most troubling aspects of the Feinstein scheme is a provision that would purport to mandate a federal database of gun owners, which, aside from being anti-constitutional, is also currently prohibited by statute. According to a summary of the legislation released by Sen. Feinstein, the bill would unconstitutionally seek to register weapons in a federal database that would include photographs and fingerprints of gun owners.

Also required to be able to keep one’s “grandfathered” weapons under the proposal would be local law enforcement verification placed in the federal registry, as mandated by the “National Firearms Act” (NFA) — essentially requiring a signature from a county sheriff or city police chief. One of the many problems already cited with the plan is that some anti-gun local law enforcement bosses could refuse to sign, as they already do oftentimes for machine guns, leaving gun owners with the option of either giving up their weapons, facing arrest, or hiding them.

Of course, the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to create a national registry of gun owners any more than it would permit a ban on semi-automatic rifles or pistols — in fact, the Second Amendment explicitly guarantees the God-given right to keep and bear arms, and the Supreme Court recently upheld that right. Aside from that, though, critics of the scheme have pointed to the historical record on gun registration: It is often simply a precursor to outright confiscation, as countless governments including the National Socialist (Nazi) regime of Adolf Hitler, numerous mass murdering communist dictatorships, and even modern-day Western countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia have proven.

Plus, critics of the proposal point to studies showing that the previous “assault-weapons” ban — in place from 1994 to 2004, but far less draconian than the current proposal — did virtually nothing to stop crime, murder, or mayhem, despite promises by its supporters. One 2004 study by the National Research Council cited in news reports, for example, found that the scheme “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence.”

Even the Justice Department explained that it had “no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury.” When the ban expired, anti-Second Amendment extremists claimed murder and mayhem would be sure to follow. Of course, that never happened, with murders nationwide actually dropping by almost four percentthe first decline since 1999 — the year after lawmakers refused to renew the ban.

There was at least one development, however, that was widely attributed to the last “assault weapons” ban: the overwhelming defeat of Democrats at the polls, likely costing the Democrat Party the control of Congress. Analysts, even those who support more infringements on gun rights, have said the current legislation would almost certainly amount to “political suicide” for Democrats, and especially for any RINOs who might be tempted to join in. Most Americans reject the ban, and gun owners tend to remember politicians who attack their rights.

“I think that is a phony piece of legislation and I do not believe it will pass for this reason: It’s all built on lies,” NRA chief Wayne LaPierre said recently about the controversial scheme, which his organization and its millions of members oppose. Other gun rights leaders such as Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, known as the fiercest and most uncompromising defender of the right to keep and bear arms, have been just as vocal, warning politicians that they will pay a major political price for seeking to assault the unalienable rights of Americans.

While political analysts say the prospects for passage at this point remain slim, gun rights activists have still been making their voices heard loud and clear across the Internet, posting comments all over the Web stating that they will not register or surrender their weapons regardless of any unconstitutional statutes purporting to require it. They are also calling their lawmakers, just in case. More alarming, perhaps, some commentators are openly speculating that further gun control efforts could be the spark that finally kicks off an armed rebellion in the United States.

“Feinstein’s bill is unprecedented in the history of this country, and requires widespread enforcement in every town and hamlet in order to be effective,” wrote Brandon Smith with the liberty-minded Alt-Market in a widely disseminated piece saying Feinstein’s bill would trigger the next American Revolution. “The way in which it is designed makes a violent response from the public inevitable.”

Like other analysts making a similar case, Smith looked at the numbers. “To put this bluntly, there are approximately 50 million gun owners (according to official estimates) (true estimates are more like 150+ million gun owners) in the United States.  If only 2% of those gun owners refuse to submit to the Feinstein Database, and the feds attempt confiscation, they will have a massive revolution on their hands,” he wrote. “Many Americans, including myself, will not be strolling into the local Fusion Center to register our weapons. Why? Because gun registration reeks of fascism!”

Despite the establishment media hysteria aimed at creating the perception of stronger support for more infringements on gun rights, polls also show the American public still overwhelmingly supports the right to keep and bear arms. Even in the face of non-stop “assault weapon” propaganda in the mainstream press, most Americans oppose the proposed ban, and 75 percent are against a handgun ban, according to a recent Gallup survey conducted after the Sandy Hook massacre.

As anti-gun rights lawmakers pursue unconstitutional legislative schemes, disgraced Attorney General Eric Holder suggested theObama administration may try to use non-existent “executive” powers to assault gun rights. Holder, whose Justice Department was infamously caught arming Mexican drug cartels in Fast and Furious while using the ensuing chaos to push gun control, famously proposed a taxpayer-funded campaign to “brainwash” Americans against guns.

While it seems unlikely at this point that Sen. Feinstein’s proposal will pass, the establishment has shown that it is fully behind the plan. Even if it does not get through this time, the anti-gun rights fanatics do not intend to give up anytime soon — though some analysts have already suggested that the gun control movement is “doomed.” If the proposal does somehow manage to get through Congress, however, that is when gun rights activists say the real problems will begin.

New American

Older Entries