Second Amendment: The Battle Rages On

It’s hard to believe that in 2013 there would still be an attack on Constitutional rights…but there is. The most recent(and surprisingly well sustained) is against our right to bear arms.

This past week President Obama re-upped his gun control push calling on Vice President Biden and NYC Mayor Bloomberg, who held press conferences, to push his initiative.

What’s more, on Wednesday, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper signed bills that require background checks for private and online gun sales and ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds(via Politico).

While some view this as “common sense” legislation there is no argument that can convince most Americans that infringement of any of their rights is common sense. With more and more restrictions on the Second Amendment, we are left wondering what rights we will be forced to give up next.

Senate Democrat Budget

On Saturday Senate Democrats approved their first budget in four years. But not without opposition. It passed Democratic approval with just a 50-49 vote showing a deep divide within the formerly solid Democrat ranks.

The main problem: failure to address the deficit problem. Just last week Obama went on the record saying, “My goal is not to chase a balanced budget just for the sake of balance.”

Apparently not all Democrats feel the same way. Many of the more moderate politicians on the left are beginning to see the importance of balancing the budget. Which could prove to be a major point of contention going into talks with House GOP.

As Senator Mark Begich (D.-AL) put it, “Passing this off to our children is not an option.”

And many other Democrats are starting to see that the ridiculous deficit and failure to balance the budget is not only failing to solve a current problem but also perpetuating a problem for future generations.

So, where does that leave us? Four *short* years later and a proposal that Senate Democrats can still barely agree on. Clearly, we’re not much further than where we started.

Obamacare Turns 3…!

At least that’s the excitement on the left. In spite of the fact that the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare has begun to wreak havoc on citizens from small business owners to private practice doctors and everyone inside, outside or in between; there are still many who are pleased with what they have been offered.

Of course, the biggest following of Obamacare is the hundreds of thousands of American women who may now receive free birth control. Women everywhere can rest assured that they do not have to be responsible for themselves because the government will take care of it.

I guess a loss of jobs, closing businesses and smaller paychecks are worth it after all.

Thanks Obama xoxoxo.

To Paris With Love

…$585,000 that is.

VP Biden is getting more than we bargained for. On a recent trip to Europe the Vice President is said to have accrued a $585,000 bill for a one night stay in Paris. Not to mention, another nearly $800,000 for additional trip related expenses for limousine service and a night in London.

According to Fox 2 News, rooms are rented out for staff, Secret Service, military and there are security expenses involved. While this is said to be standard operating costs, there is still a lot to be said for trips equaling millions of dollars on the taxpayer’s dime.

Yes, foreign relations are necessary and yes, the safety of the President, the VP and their teams is important but is there no way to trim these costs? With trips like these is it any wonder our country is in the position it is?

Cigarette Ban in NY

Quick folks, hide your Big Gulp…I mean cigarettes! With the overturn of the ban on drinks, Mayor Michael Bloomberg is back with a new ban to rile up NY residents. This time, it’s cigarettes.

Mayor Bloomberg has submitted a proposal to the NY city council to hide cigarettes from public view. He cites health concerns, particularly in underage smoking, as the primary reason for the ban.

Now, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, parents, in case you didn’t know(and the government believes you don’t) it’s your job to keep your kids from doing bad things. Not the government’s. There will always be arguments about children hiding cigarettes or drinking or drugs from their parents but if they can keep these things from ever attentive parents, rest assured, playing peek-a-boo with cigarettes in convenience stores isn’t going to keep them from smoking.

Biden: Giffords Mortally Wounded

If there was ever a #HeadDesk moment this would be it.

On Thursday during a gun control press conference Vice President Biden said, “Think about what happened out in — when Gabby Giffords, my good friend, was shot and mortally wounded.

Now, I’m not one to judge a poor use of vocabulary and/or grammar but it would seem that the man who is next in line as leader of the free world would know the difference between “mortally wounded” and, well, just wounded.

 This is the first weekly installment of TWOTL showcasing the attacks, laughs, and gaffes from the left. Proving why the smart money is on the conservative vote.

Follow me on Twitter @ReneeRankine

via Pennua.org

On Thursday, the House passed the GOP Budget Plan, authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis). It passed almost entirely down partisan lines with a 221-207 vote.

Ryan’s plan is geared toward balancing the budget within 10 years through a series of huge spending cuts equaling $4.6 trillion that primarily affect funding of social programs while keeping current Social Security benefits intact. The budget repeals Obamacare and proposes a Medicare overhaul that revisits the idea of a voucher-like program for seniors. A seemingly sound plan that leads us to economic freedom by 2023.

But will any of this really make a difference? The Democrat controlled Senate just began debating their first budget since the 2009 budget that ushered in Obamacare. A budget that is on the other end of the spectrum from the House and actually increases spending after the sequester. Their budget does not propose a balance until tentatively 2040.

With a Democratic-run Senate and President Obama in the White House, it begs the question: is the House passed budget a hopeless one? There has been an ongoing struggle between the two parties over the economy and the battle could come to a head due to the drastically different proposals and different ideas about what is important for economic growth. Obama claims, “My goal is not to chase a balanced budget just for the sake of balance.”

With such divisive plans, Obama will be looking to find a middle ground between the two proposals that could end up producing nearly $1 trillion in new taxes while saving social programs for the poor. While the idea may sound noble, it is simply another instance of working class Americans being punished for being contributing members of society, while those who are not are rewarded.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray(D-Wash.) says, “We need to tackle our deficit and debt fairly and responsibly.”

But fair to whom? Not to the citizens who are working harder for smaller paychecks due to increased taxation. Not to small business owners who have to cut costs somewhere due to Obamacare. And certainly not to our children who are suffering now but will suffer even more in the future due to the massive debt they are forced to repay.

We are increasingly becoming a nation dependent on our government for all of our relief—which only ends up applying more pressure. One that takes away the will to succeed and encourages accepting handouts. With that mentality, the House passed budget may not seem to be more than a pipe dream for many Americans. However, it is always in the roughest of times that Americans show of what we are truly made; which leaves hope that this proposal will be a first step in reaffirming American exceptionalism.

Follow Renee on Twitter @ReneeRankine.

King’s campaign was opposed to recent campaign finance reform measures that created Super PAC’s. Super PAC’s do not have to disclose their donors and can contribute unlimited amounts of money. However, they cannot give money directly to a candidate.

“Angus is opposed to the involvement of Super PACs in local elections because they have the capacity to wield unprecedented financial influence in campaigns while also shielding certain donor categories from disclosure,” said campaign policy analyst Eliza Bryant.

During the campaign, King attempted to get Republican candidate Charlie Summers and Democratic candidate Cynthia Dill to sign a pledge stating they wouldn’t take money from Super PAC’s.

“It’s kind of ironic that Angus King has run around the state of Maine descrying outside money and how bad it is, yet he’s down in Michael Bloomberg’s living room two days ago raising a half a million dollars,” said Summers during the campaign.

However, Super PAC’s are prohibited from donating directly to political candidates. They can only donate to campaign committees, which are not allowed to coordinate with a candidate’s campaign. Therefore, King has no control over what money Super PAC’s spend advertising for his campaign.

According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings, Super PAC Citizens Elect spent over a million dollars ($1,234,520) on television advertising, polling and media consulting for Angus King. It spent an additional $193,000 on advertising against Charlie Summers. By contrast, the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, the leading Super PAC contributor supporting Summers, spent only $117,000.

“The majority of the outside money in this election has been spent in attack ads against Angus King. In total, outside influences have spent over $3 million on these ads, comprising 75% of the money that has been spent on ads in this race,” said Bryant.

In total, about $3 million was spent by Super PAC’s on ads against King. About $1.7 million was spent by Super PAC’s on ads against Summers. Of the $6.4 million spent on the race, only about 46% of the money spent by Super PAC’s was used for negative ads against King.

h/t Todd Akin

**WARNING** – This is “forcibly” infectious

___

CT Senate candidate Linda McMahon (R)

.

The Connecticut Senate Primary was held on Tuesday, August 14th.  In the Republican race, Linda McMahon overcame her primary challenger Chris Shays.

In a very big way.

As of the last update (which you can view here), 98.3% of the precincts were reporting results, and the numbers show McMahon pummeling Shays with 72.7% of the votes.

Mrs. McMahon will face Democratic primary winner, Rep. Chris Murphy, in the November general election.

The video speaks for itself!

WASHINGTON, June 22, 2012  – The U.S. Senate held an up-or-down vote Wednesday on Sen. James Inhofe’s (R-Okla.) resolution (S.J. Res. 37) to overturn the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) onerous Utility MACT rule. The resolution was defeated by a vote of 53 to 46. The pending new EPA rule will be the most expensive power plant regulation in American history and is directed at plants that use coal—America’s most abundant and affordable energy source—to generate electricity. Surprisingly several senators from states that generate significant electricity from coal voted against the regulation, ensuring higher electricity rates for their constituents.

Senators voting against the Inhofe resolution and in support of the EPA rule included Sens. Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Sherrod Brown of Ohio, both from states that generate more than 80 percent of their electricity from coal; Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, which gets nearly half of its electricity from coal; Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana, which generates 63 percent of its electricity with coal; and Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, which uses coal to generate nearly 60 percent of its electricity. All voted against the resolution and in support of an EPA rule that will increase electricity rates across the country.

Sen. Jim Inhofe said in a statement after the Senate rejected his attempt to send EPA’s rule back to the drawing boards, “Our fight is not over: we will continue to do everything possible to expose what the Obama-EPA’s damaging regulatory regime will do to destroy jobs and weaken our economy, and work every day in our efforts to stop President Obama’s war on oil, gas and coal.”

Recent independent studies show EPA’s new rules will force power plants to close across the country, cause electricity prices to spike by an average of 12 percent nationwide, and cost the economy well over a million jobs.

The White House has ordered the halting of the deportation of 800,000 illegal aliens, many of whom will be given work permits. In effect this will allow them to stay in America permanently, since two-year work permits can be renewed indefinitely. This is an unconstitutional bequeathing of backdoor amnesty to hundreds of thousands or more. In the end, the number of work permits granted in this illegal bypass of Congress will likely be much higher.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said: “Our nation’s immigration laws must be enforced in a firm and sensible manner. But they are not designed to be blindly enforced without consideration given to the individual circumstances of each case. Nor are they designed to remove productive young people to countries where they may not have lived or even speak the language. Discretion, which is used in so many other areas, is especially justified here”.

For the record Janet, evaluating the individual circumstances of each case is supposed to be done before immigrants are allowed to enter the country legally.

Never mind that for decades America’s immigration laws have not been enforced in anything remotely resembling a firm and sensible manner. Millions upon millions of illegal aliens have been pouring across America’s borders for so long that individual States have been compelled to adopt State laws in efforts to stem the swollen tide.

Forget that a massive, systemic failure by the federal government to enforce immigration laws is the reason these illegal aliens are in America.

Discretion is in no way justified here.

A conscious decision has been made to ignore Article One, Section One of the United States Constitution, which clearly states: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

This is a coldly calculated, clear-minded choice made by a failed Chief Executive to circumvent the Constitution he swore to uphold.

This is a choice made for purely political reasons. Every choice made by this ‘has never stopped campaigning full time candidate’ is made for purely political reasons. It is quite simply politically unacceptable to his re-election ambitions for him to be facing harsh criticism over failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform in his first year in office; but one of his many failed campaign promises.

Put it out of your head how promises to be the most open and transparent administration in American history mysteriously disappeared when the government’s seizure of America’s healthcare system occurred behind closed doors. Immoral, unethical wheeling and dealing were required in order to secure passage of a hugely unpopular piece of legislation. One that could very well be overturned by the United States Supreme Court for being unconstitutional.

This conscious choice to violate his oath of office and to openly, obviously and willfully circumvent the United States Constitution for personal political gain is particularly inexcusable for a self proclaimed “Constitutional Law Professor”. Once again, it’s entirely indicative that Emperor obama is simply not suited for America’s division of power, checks and balances political system at all, much less the Oval Office.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/emperor-obama-rules-by-decree-on-immigration/

In a 99-0 vote the liberal Senate voted down a budget proposal based on the President’s own plan. Without being able to raise a single vote for his own budget from his own party, serious questions are being raised about Obama’s ability to broker an agreement on the budget. The President’s inability to end an almost sure showdown over a debt-limit increase this year could bring the economy to a screeching halt.

The House-passed GOP plan received much more positive support from the Senate, but failed to garner enough votes to be brought to the floor for debate. Paul Ryan’s plan went down largely on a party-line vote 58-41 with 5 Republicans voting against it. Scott Brown (Mass), Olympia Snowe (Maine), Susan Collins (Maine), Dean Heller (Nevada) and Rand Paul (Kentucky).

Of the five plans, Sen. Rand Paul’s was the toughest on spending. The plan called for the elimination of the Departments of Commerce, Education, Housing and Urban Development and Energy. Paul’s plan received 16 votes – the least of the proposals put up for a vote.

All of the Republican plans focused on differing degrees of spending cuts much to the dismay of Senate Democrats:

“We will not allow the debt and deficit to be reduced on the backs of the middle class and most vulnerable Americans without calling on the wealthiest to contribute. That is not fair, it’s not what the American people want, and it’s simply not going to happen.” – Sen. Patty Murray, (D – Wash)

The Democrats have re-asserted their position that it is unnecessary to create and pass a budget this year because of the spending limits agreed to last year. Republicans have been quick to point out that the spending limits do not fulfill the legal obligation to produce a budget each and every year – an obligation the Harry Reid led Senate has failed to make for three consecutive years.

The NDAA allows for the unlawful, indefinite detention of American citizens, and has been mostly ignored by the media and politicians.  Only two Presidential candidates oppose this unconstitutional bill: Ron Paul & Buddy Roemer.

Looking at the image to the right,coming from Google Trends, the top column is the frequency a topic is searched, and the bottom column is the frequency the topic is discussed in the news.

Monday night, we implore you to Google search every thing you possibly can about NDAA, and then post it and share it to your Facebook & Twitter accounts with the hashtag #NDAA - or, if possible, write out “National Defense Authorization Act” completely.

Search YouTube (owned by Google), where you can find videos by Jon Stewart and many, many others who have voiced their opposition towards the bill.  Post and share these videos repeatedly on Twitter, Facebook, and other social media sites.  The American People succeeded in killing SOPA (Is ACTA Worse?), now let’s kill the #NDAA.

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.” ~Samuel Adams~

—

Congress doesn’t have a sugar intake problem, it has an insider trading problem.

With this issue recently brought to light, FoxNews reports:

Insider trading laws apply to all Americans, but CBS’ “60 Minutes” in November said members of Congress get a pass, citing investment transactions by party leaders and a committee chairman in businesses about to be affected by pending legislation.

The broadcast report raised questions about trades of House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio; the husband of Democratic leader and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California; and Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

All three denied using any insider information to make stock trades, but the broadcast set off a flurry of efforts in Washington to deal with the public perception.

Due to the revelations from the “60 Minutes” story, the Senate will take up legislation that will prevent Congress members from using information that is “nonpublic” for their personal gain.  As expected, the bill has your typical Congressional Acronym to identify its purpose:  The STOCK Act, standing for Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge.

A procedural vote is scheduled for today that would allow this bill, which is endorsed by the President, to see a floor vote later in the week.

—