Current events, politics and life in general from the perspective of a conservative woman in New York
Looks like the first state in the list to be run by a Democrat would be #13, Colorado. The next one looks to be #26, New Hampshire. New York is #49, right above California and right below Illinois.
Citing “privacy” rights of dead terrorist Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the administration of Governor Deval Patrick is refusing to release records on what kind of government benefits the oldest brother was receiving.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, being that this is a state whose residents saw fit to repeatedly send Ted Kennedy and John Kerry to the Senate.
The Patrick administration clamped down the lid yesterday on Herald requests for details of Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s government benefits, citing the dead terror mastermind’s right to privacy.
Across the board, state agencies flatly refused to provide information about the taxpayer-funded lifestyle for the 26-year-old man and his brother and accused accomplice Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19.
On EBT card status or spending, state welfare spokesman Alec Loftus would only say Tamerlan Tsarnaev, his wife and 3-year-old daughter received benefits that ended in 2012. He declined further comment.
On unemployment compensation, labor department spokesman Kevin Franck refused to say whether Tamerlan Tsarnaev ever collected, saying it was “confidential and not a matter of public record.”
On Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s college aid, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth spokesman Robert Connolly said, “It is our position — and I believe the accepted position in higher education — that student records including academic records and financial records (including financial aid) cannot under federal law be released without a student’s consent.”
On cellphones, the Federal Communications Commission would not say whether either brother had a government-paid cellphone, also citing privacy laws.
On housing, Cambridge officials and the family’s landlord ducked questions on whether the brothers were ever on Section 8 assistance.
The Herald reported yesterday that Tamerlan Tsarnaev, his wife and 3-year-old daughter collected welfare until 2012 and that both Tamerlan and Dzhokhar received benefits through their parents “for a limited portion” of the time after they came to the U.S., which was around 2002.
However, the Department of Transitional Assistance wouldn’t release information about how long or how much they received.
{snip}
The administration was slammed by a Democratic congressman who insisted the public has a right to know how taxpayers were underwriting the accused jihadist Tsarnaevs.
“It’s certainly relevant information that should be made public,” U.S. Rep. Stephen F. Lynch told the Herald. “There’s a national security interest No. 1. Secondly, there’s also a public interest in finding out whether these individuals were able to exploit the system and get benefits they weren’t entitled to.”
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev lies hospitalized and facing capital charges that include using a weapon of mass destruction that killed three people and injured 260 near the Boston Marathon finish line.
Taxpayers — already on the hook for Tsarnaev’s court-appointed attorneys in the terror plot — continue to pay his mounting medical bills at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.
The public also paid for Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s attorney when the Russian national successfully fought criminal charges in 2009 that he battered a former girlfriend.
I especially liked these comments:
You can’t make this crap up… Not only does deval willfully welcome the illegal invasion of foreign nationals into this state, support them financially and put their rights ahead of their citizens, that he now believes that a dead terrorist should be afforded more rights and privacy than the citizens they tried to kill, and now it appears that his lemmings like you tb agree with him. So you apparently believe the rights of terrorists supersede the rights of their victim as well. . . . . . I bet a rape victim, having every single and trivial aspect of her life exposed and destroyed by some scumbag defense attorney would like to be afforded those same privileges…
{snip}
This is looking more and more like a massive cover to protect the Democratic party. This kid is in the hospital all drugged up on pain killers and barely able to speak. A judge mysteriously appears to read him his Miranda rights during FBI questioning to shut him up before the truth comes out. That doesn’t look good. Obama and Napolitano have failed in homeland security. She should resign immediately. Deval is protecting his reputation for his presidential aspirations in 2016. Very pathetic. Now the welfare benefits are the nail in the coffin and a slap in the face for the victims of April 15th and the hard working taxpayers of this state. These lowlifes lost their right to privacy the second the first bomb exploded. Revoke the citizenship of the younger brother. He obviously took the oath of citizenship under false pretenses. Open the welfare records!!! Let see how badly we are getting jipped. Also, we should have a recall election for governor. Deval is not looking out for our security and should be removed ASAP.
Living off are tax money and yet he can afford to go to Russia for 6 months ? You bet they some splainin to do.The terrorist are literally mocking you to death Progressives.What a freakin travesty.From the white house to the Senate to beacon hill,nothing but lies and cover ups.
In America today, most law-abiding American citizens who happen to live in any Democrat controlled urban area of this country, are being denied their constitutional right to defend themselves with a gun. The people living in these areas, from all races and ethnic backgrounds, men and women, gay and straight, have been subjected to gun control restrictions passed by local Democratic “progressive” administrations over many years that are specifically designed to keep them under control on the new 21st century urban plantations, without the rights that citizens in other parts of the country currently enjoy.
We have only to look to Chicago, Illinois, a showplace of the 21st century Democrat-controlled plantation, to see the effects of the most restrictive gun control legislation in the country that has completely disarmed the law abiding citizens in that city. Mayor Ron Emanuel (D), a gun control activist, likes to compare his city to other so-called world class ‘Alpha cities.’ Well, let us see how Chicago does compare. Chicago has the highest murder rate of any Alpha City in the world, yes – in the world (19.4 per 100,000) — higher even than the Third World cities of Mexico City (8.0), Sao Paolo, Brazil (15.6) and Moscow (9.6). Apparently, strict gun control does not work in Chicago.
If Chicago isn’t proof enough that gun-control legislation does not work, maybe those pushing for stricter gun control laws can learn a little from history.
In 1929, the communist Soviet Union established gun control and from 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up under the leadership of Joseph Stalin and exterminated by their own government.
In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated by their own communist government, under Mao Tse-Tung.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, under the leadership of communist Pol Pot, one million ‘educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated by their own government.
In 1938, the National Socialist (Nazi) government of Germany under Adolph Hitler enacted the nationwide German Weapons Act that replaced the Law on Firearms and Ammunition of 1928. The Nazis had inherited “registration lists” of firearm owners and their firearms when they ‘lawfully’ took over in March 1933 and used these lists in 1938 to seize the privately held firearms from persons who were “not reliable” like the Jews and other enemies of the government.
Nazi’s are often portrayed by the left in America as being on the extreme right, when in fact, the real name of the Nazi Party was the National Socialist Party. They were the extreme liberal “Progressives” of their time in Germany. When they finally took power, they passed laws to eventually restrict gun ownership to Nazi party members and other “reliable” people. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 6 million Jews and 7 million other people, mostly Christians, who were unable to defend themselves because they had no guns, were rounded up and exterminated by the left-wing National Socialist government (Nazis).
Justifying the confiscation of firearms from the “unreliable people, Adolph Hitler, in his Edict (similar to an executive order of a U.S. President) of March 18, 1939, said:
“History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall.”
American citizens in 2013 who happen to disagree with the implementation of expanding socialist programs in the USA or who resist attacks of their Second Amendment Rights, whether they are members of the so-called tea party, OathKeepers, or just plain citizens, are often called “right-wing extremists,” “Nazi’s” or “Facist’s” when in fact the Nazis and Facists were socialists and on the far left of the political spectrum, not the right.
In Italy, when the Facist movement was founded in 1919, most of its leaders, like Mussolini, were Marxists and radical leftists who were followers of the revolutionary doctrines of a leftist revolutionary named George Sorel. The Facists called themselves ‘revolutionary nationalists’ and there was nothing conservative about them. After he took power, Mussolini also outlawed the possession of guns by the people and confiscated millions of weapons to insure that the people were powerless to resist his socialist government.
All in all, in the 20th century, a total of 56 million people were rounded up and exterminated by their communist-socialist governments because of gun control. Had they not been able to initially legally impose some strict gun-control on their people, these communist-socialist governments would not have been able to kill so many millions of their own people.
In 1968, the U.S. Congress passed the Gun Control Act of 1968 hat was later found to be based almost entirely, word for word, on the German Weapons Act of 1938. Apparently, then Senator Thomas J. Dodd (D-CT) had obtained a copy of the Nazi Weapons Law (in German) and had it translated into English by the Library of Congress in July of 1968, before submitting the bill in the Senate.When it came to disarming those “non-reliable people” (Jews and others) in Germany, the Nazis had proven their skills. If Senator Dodd was looking for a model for disarming those “non-reliable people” in America, he found the German Weapons Law of 1938 as a good blueprint. Gun control has always been about “people control.” It shouldn’t be surprising that a totalitarian regime like the National Socialist regime of Adolph Hitler’s Germany could offer plenty of great suggestions on the subject to their fellow Socialists in America.
Politicians of the left in America have been trying to take our guns away for over 100 years and nothing has changed as you can see from the following quotes from some of America’s socialists posing as Democrats:
“Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” Sarah Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc.[ Source: The National Educator, January 1994, Pg.3
“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans…” Bill Clinton, USA Today, 11 March 1993, pg. 2a
“Waiting periods are only a step. Gun Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.” Former Attorney General Janet Reno, 10 Dec 1993.
“What good does it do to ban just some guns. All guns should be banned.” Senator Howard Metzanbaum (D-OH)
Senator Dianne Feinstein: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them……., I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.” CBS-TV’s “60 Minutes”, February 5, 1995.
It’s easy to see that the modern progressive socialists in the United States are showing their true colors and they are now more aligned with ideals of the socialist dictators like Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot, than they are with the American people.
{snip}
Isn’t it ironic that all the socialists in the media, Hollywood and in various level of government who are calling for stricter gun laws all have either armed private security guards and services available to them, or have armed government agents and police protecting them. Our Mayors are protected by people with guns; our Governors are protected by people with guns; members of the House, Senate and the President, are protected by a lot of people with guns; our judges, courts and government buildings are protected by people with guns as are the corporate CEO’s and the Billionaire socialists.
It’s not that the American socialists want to ban all guns in America. No, they just want to ban those guns owned by those that Adolph Hitler called the “not reliable people.” That means the average Americans like you and I. The President, Senator Feinstein, Mayors Blumberg and Ron Emanuel, the Hollywood elite, corporate executives, and all high ranking government officials will still have their guns. Only the average American citizens will be disarmed and defenseless.
What do the socialists base their position on? Well, not the facts. That’s for sure.
In 2011, there were 14,748 murders in the United States. Rifles were used on only 352 of these murders. More people were murdered with knives, with blunt weapons like baseball bats and tire irons, or beaten to death with hands and feet, than were killed with rifles. Assault rifles are used so infrequently in homicides that many police departments almost never see them; in 2011, there were nine states that did not have a single murder committed with any rifle.
Continue reading the rest here.
See also “500 Murders In Chicago Show Bans Don’t Work”.
After the tragic Newtown shootings, and the emotional cries for more gun control, the gun grabbers invariably ask “Why does anyone need a 30-Round magazine?” Or “Why do ordinary citizens need AR-15′s/semi-automatics, etc.”
First off, Senator Dianne Feinstein came out with another ban of semi-automatic weapons.
Not to be outdone by Feinstein, Congresswoman Diana DeGette has also introduced a bill to ban large gun magazines.
Senator Dianne Feinstein’s latest divide-and-conquer attack on the Second Amendment has made even Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) a sucker for the argument that private citizens do not need high-capacity magazines. These include not only 30-round rifle magazines, but 17-round magazines for handguns like the Glock.
Why does anybody need a high capacity magazine? If Senator Manchin were to educate himself by, for example, attending Front Sight’s four-day defensive handgun class, he would learn the two primary answers:(1) Failure to stop the aggressor, and
(2) Multiple aggressorsFailure to Stop
The classic .38 caliber revolver, with a capacity of six rounds, was the standard sidearm of the United States Army during the Moro insurrection in the Philippines. The Army found at least one dead Army officer with an empty sidearm, and his head split open by a machete or similar weapon. They also found the soldier’s killer, who had finally bled to death. Six rounds of .38 were therefore not enough to convince even one determined attacker.
Police instructor Masaad Ayoob’s The Truth About Self Protection adds an incident in which a female police officer saw a crazed gunman murder a woman, who then shot her as well before she could do anything. “She lay helpless as she watched a neighbor empty a .22 rifle into the killer; the neighbor then had to club the madman down with the empty rifle, again and again, before he succumbed.”Ayoob does not report the size of the .22′s magazine, but the Moro insurrection exemplifies why even a 30-round rifle clip might not be enough to stop a crazed and determined attacker, such as one hopped up on a drug like PCP. “He had 32 Krag balls through him and was only stopped by the 33rd bullet — a Colt .45 slug through both ears.” The Krag-Jorgensen’s 30-caliber cartridge was far more powerful than the .22 in Ayoob’s example, but not sufficiently powerful to civilize this particular attacker even when fired in mass.
Colonel Jeff Cooper’s To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth adds the case of a man who was prosecuted for shooting his attacker eight times with a .380 automatic pistol. The prosecutor admitted that the dead man had been the aggressor, but argued that the shooter had taken the law into his own hands by continuing to shoot an adversary who had “obviously” been disabled. Cooper, whom the defense called as an expert witness, cited a suicide in which “the deceased shot himself amidships four times with a .380 Webley. Presumably the first three hits did not convince him.”{snip}
Gang Bangers and the Knockout Game
Front Sight’s 4-day defensive handgun class included scenarios with multiple aggressors, including four gang bangers on a street and five or more in a house (along with innocent bystanders). Front Sight’s standard doctrine is to fire a controlled pair into an aggressor’s thoracic cavity and, in the event of failure to stop, another into his cranio-ocular cavity to take out his central nervous system.
In the street gang situation, though, one shot is fired into each gang member due to the need to economize on both time and ammunition; only those that don’t go down (or flee) then get “seconds.” You might conceivably stop four gang members with seven or eight rounds of .45 ACP; that is what the cartridge was designed to do. A small man or woman who can handle only a 9 mm comfortably might not be able to end the incident even with 15 or 17 rounds, unless he or she can make the far more difficult head shots. It is particularly telling that most police officers carry either .45s or high-capacity 9 mm sidearms.
Then there is the knockout game, in which a street gang selects a victim at random, knocks him or her down, and then maybe beats him or her to a pulp. Here is an example that involved six individuals; only one struck a blow, but the others seemed to approve. Although the Web page and the book it promotes focuses on black racial violence, there is similar Caucasian-on-black crime, such as that perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan. In any event, if there are six (or more) bad guys, you are obviously going to need far more than six bullets. Note: Since Barack Obama took office, quite a few “urban youths” have been getting together in flash mobs to play this knockout game (and to seriously injure their defenseless victims. You can read all about it here, here, here, and here. And let’s not forget how the Korean shopkeepers bravely defended themselves in the L.A. Riots of 1992.
The anti-Second Amendment camp may argue that the teacher who was assaulted in this video would not have had time to defend himself with a firearm or anything else, because his attacker hit him by surprise. (While use of a firearm in response to a fist might normally be considered excessive force, multiple aggressors, even unarmed ones, create a disparity of force situation that might indeed justify a lethal response. The same applies if a single unarmed aggressor is much younger, bigger, and/or stronger than the victim, e.g. a teenage punk against a senior citizen or woman.) This is where the five conditions of mental awareness, as taught by Front Sight, come into play.
In response to Senator Dianne Feinstein’s proposed “assault weapons” legislation, one brave Marine wrote the following.
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
We, the people, deserve better than you.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston?Cpl,
United States Marine Corps
If the media had done its job properly four years ago, we wouldn’t have gotten stuck with this Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson clone.
Anyway, here’s a 2002 video of Barack Obama speaking at the University of Chicago where he derided non-violence as something only for rich people who “got what they want.”
Here’s another video from the same speech where he played the race card by bemoaning the “prison industrial complex.”
Being that Obama and his zombie supporters still believe that America’s poor economy is “all Bush’s fault” I thought I’d post what Herman Cain has to say.
For Democrats, it was a poorly regulated Wall Street and fat cat bankers run wild. This was the easiest narrative to sell in 2008, when the public was tired of the Bush administration and the media were only too happy to push the notion that Republicans had spent eight years letting free-market capitalism run wild at the expense of the little guy. So when Obama vowed to “crack down on Wall Street,” much of the public cheered him on.
Now that four years of Obama have not made things better, it only makes sense to ask: If his prescriptions did not solve the problem, did he correctly diagnose the problem in the first place? And the answer is no. He didn’t.
It’s also true, in fairness, that the government-caused-the-whole-thing explanation doesn’t wash, either. It took a lot of cooks to make this horrible broth. But people who say banks were over-leveraged because of lax federal regulation are wrong. Banks had too much riding on toxic assets that would never have existed in the first place if government were not pushing so hard to make homeowners out of people who should not have been.
Of course if a Republican was in power, CNN and all its liberal viewers would be ballistic. But since it’s their beloved Obama, it’s really no problem.
…But for the average American household, which has an income of over $62,000 a year, the increase in gas prices represents a relatively small portion of total spending.
For example, in 2008 gas prices were all over the news when they hit their all time high. But in 2010 when prices fell people barely mentioned them.
Yet spending on gas totaled only $12 more per week in 2008 than in 2010, according to numbers provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
That $12 per week is roughly the same amount that BLS figures show people spent on “pets, toys, hobbies and playground equipment.”
Coincidentally, I had the misfortune of cathcing CNN, (as my sister was watching it.) Fareed Zakaria was discussing gas prices in America, and how some Americans believe them to be “too high.” He then went on to pompously list the higher prices other unnamed countries pay per gallon for their oil. So after the commercial break, Zakaria triumphantly announced that Norway pays the most for its oil at almost $10 per gallon. (This article seems to explain why the price in Norway is so high. For those of you not wanting to click on the link, let’s just say there’s some *very* heavy taxation involved, which Mr. Zakaria conveniently omitted.)
Now in a related bit of news, a Washington Post poll shows that only 33% of Democrats believe that Obama has any control over oil prices, whereas in 2006, 73% of them believed the Bush Administration had that power.
Hypocrites!
Rather than doing the job they were elected to do, Indiana’s Democrats fled the state rather than voting. They know they don’t have enough votes to prevent Indiana from becoming a right to work state. So rather than voting according to their beliefs, they high tailed it out of the state like spoiled children.
A final vote on the measure, which would ban union contracts from requiring nonunion members to pay fees for representation, had been expected on Tuesday in the House, which Republicans dominate 60 to 40. But with scores of union members and supporters filling the Statehouse halls in Indianapolis in protest, most Democrats refused to turn up for floor sessions — not once but twice on Tuesday afternoon.
The absences, only the latest in a series of absences and fierce partisan debate over the issue during the state’s legislative session, meant Republicans did not have enough members on the floor to do business; 67 representatives are required.
{snip}
Republicans say the right to work legislation would allow workers who do not wish to support unions not to be forced to and would entice new businesses to move to Indiana, which would be the first state in more than a decade to approve such a provision. Democrats say the measure, more common in states outside the traditional Midwestern manufacturing belt, would weaken unions and lead to lower pay and benefits for workers.
Get ready for the union goons and the dirty smelly hippies to take over the Statehouse and leave a huge mess.
Here’s what Gore said in a recent appearance in New York:
“One of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principle ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women,” Gore said. “You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children have, the spacing of the children.
“You have to lift child survival rates so that parents feel comfortable having small families and most important — you have to educate girls and empower women,” he said. “And that’s the most powerful leveraging factor, and when that happens, then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin to make better choices and more balanced choices.”
No doubt this audience was mostly white liberals. Now I would love to see Gore go into a rough neighborhood in Detroit (which is probably most of that city) and tell an audience of welfare recipients and drug addicts the same thing. Or how about a meeting of the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund. Of course that would never happen in a million years, since we’re talking about Democrat voters with both examples. But still if any white politician were to tell these groups to have fewer children, all hell would break loose.
