We are at war with Islamic extremists, and Obama cannot even bring himself to use terrorist and Islam in the same sentence. Nevertheless, ISIS and other Islamic groups have called for the the destruction of Israel, American and the West unless they convert to Islam. Obama has been absolutely miserly in providing resources to destroy this enemy of America, and insistent that bombing runs drop warning leaflets on ISIS targets before unleashing actual bombs sufficient to turn the tide.
He was wrong, and ISIS is actually gaining strength, or at least was until Russia entered the fray. With the risk so great, and the American people so insistent that this is the number one issue he must address, Obama instead has decided that he will invite tens of thousands of Muslims to come live in the United States, even though the immigration department has clearly indicated that they cannot properly vet the huge number of migrants to ensure they are not agents of ISIS. It is incomprehensible unless you decide that his true goal is the destruction of America.
And now Obama has indicated that gun control is much more important than keeping Americans safe from terrorism. He has shown that by the resources he is willing to dedicate to gun control in comparison to the bigger issue of terrorism.
President Obama plans to build a new gun control force of 430 agents, more than eight times the size of the team of commandos he is sending to the Middle East to hunt down and destroy ISIS terrorists.
According to a White House fact sheet, the president plans to deploy 200 more Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,Firearms and Explosives agents “to help enforce our gun laws.”
He also plans to add at least 230 new FBI agents to pour over the backgrounds of gun buyers. Said the White House: “The FBI will hire more than 230 additional examiners and other staff to help process these background checks.”
In Iraq, by comparison, the White House is moving to install an estimated 50-200 special operations forces to take down ISIS.
An Associated Press report said the commandos would number around 50, with the rest in supporting roles.
This is wrong on so many levels it is hard to comprehend. Even liberal media outlets have indicated that the proposals made by Obama yesterday would have done little or nothing to quell the gun violence that has been committed in the last several years. The proposals are simply an attack on the ability of law-abiding citizens to purchase a gun and defend themselves without undue intrusion from the government.
The proposals also raise serious issues of government ability to come into an individuals home without a warrant or other protections afforded by the Constitution. The biggest question of all is why Obama is so determined to go against the will of the people and to violate so many laws in order to force his will. And that gets back to priorities.
Given that the new executive order will anger much of the nation, will violate so many laws, and will do nothing to take guns out of the hands of criminals or quell violence, why is gun prohibition or confiscation so high on Obama’s priority list? That is the larger question regarding this lawless and imperial president, and the possible answers so dark and dispiriting.
(NaturalNews) Through the power of unconstitutional executive orders, Obama has just granted doctors the power to place you on the FBI's "no buy" list for firearms merely for having the opinion that you're "mentally ill."
Yep, there's no scientific test, no hard evidence and no chance to defend yourself... doctors can now simply DECIDE that you're mentally ill and have all your guns taken away.
This power, remember, is being given to a class of corrupt professionals who are almost universally on the take from Big Pharma, receiving routine bribes and drug peddling influence that encourages them to drug everybody with psychiatric drugs that drive people insane.
Even worse, many doctors already believe that anyone who owns a gun is insane to begin with, and there's the catch-22: If you want to own a gun, you must be insane and therefore should be denied the right to own a gun.
All this comes down to just one more good reason who fewer and fewer people are now visiting mainstream (conventional) doctors. They're now SNITCHES for the feds!
Barack Obama today gave a speech where he said that the First Amendment is your right but you don't have a right to scream fire in a crowded room just like the 2nd amendment it's your right but we need to make rules about your rights.
He also made reference to a man in China with a knife who attacked bunch of school children during the time of Sandy Hook attack by the way.
He continued the Chinese man started cutting them, in order to kill them, however most of them lived and it was because he didn't have access to high-powered firearms . Yes he's talking about Communist China yes Obama referenced Communist China when talking about his executive over-reach order on gun control. He then reference George Bush and said that George Bush try to do the same thing, he also said John McCain agree 100% with what he's doing. He then reference Ronald Reagan and said, "Ronald Reagan said if extensive background checks would work then he would do it." Well that's absolutely wrong Reagan believed it wouldn't work so he didn't do it Barack Obama then went on to blame Republicans voting against him and said even the nra supported him at one time he also says that 90% of Americans supporting 90% of gun owners supporting 90% of Democrats support this and on and on and on the rhetoric never ended. Gabby Giffords was also in the front row he pointed to a reference her in a situation said that a friend of Ed was killed buy a gun Gabby Giffords was shot and lived God bless Giffords.
- Doctors can report some mentally ill
patients to FBI under new gun control rule
- Obama's Gun-Control Plan Includes Gun-Ban For Some Social Security Beneficiaries. the ban would cover those who are unable to manage their own affairs for a multitude of reasons–from “subnormal intelligence or mental illness” to “incompetency,” an unspecified “condition,” or “disease.”
1. Keep guns out of the wrong hands through background checks.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is making clear that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks.
ATF is finalizing a rule to require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust, corporation, or other legal entity.
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch has sent a letter to States highlighting the importance of receiving complete criminal history.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is overhauling the background check system to make it more effective and efficient. The envisioned improvements include processing background checks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and improving notification of local authorities when certain prohibited persons unlawfully attempt to buy a gun. The FBI will hire more than 230 additional examiners and other staff to help process these background checks.
2. Make our communities safer from gun violence.
The Attorney General convened a call with U.S. Attorneys around the country to direct federal prosecutors to continue to focus on smart and effective enforcement of our gun laws.
The President’s FY2017 budget will include funding for 200 new ATF agents and investigators to help enforce our gun laws.
ATF has established an Internet Investigation Center to track illegal online firearms trafficking and is dedicating $4 million and additional personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network.
ATF is finalizing a rule to ensure that dealers who ship firearms notify law enforcement if their guns are lost or stolen in transit.
The Attorney General issued a memo encouraging every U.S. Attorney’s Office to renew domestic violence outreach efforts.
3. Increase mental health treatment and reporting to the background check system.
The Administration is proposing a new $500 million investment to increase access to mental health care.
The Social Security Administration has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to include information in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm for mental health reasons.
The Department of Health and Human Services is finalizing a rule to remove unnecessary legal barriers preventing States from reporting relevant information about people prohibited from possessing a gun for specific mental health reasons.
4. Shape the future of gun safety technology.
The President has directed the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology.
The President has also directed the departments to review the availability of smart gun technology on a regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety.
Congress should support the President’s request for resources for 200 new ATF agents and investigators to help enforce our gun laws, as well as a new $500 million investment to address mental health issues.
Because we all must do our part to keep our communities safe, the Administration is also calling on States and local governments to do all they can to keep guns out of the wrong hands and reduce gun violence. It is also calling on private-sector leaders to follow the lead of other businesses that have taken voluntary steps to make it harder for dangerous individuals to get their hands on a gun. In the coming weeks, the Administration will engage with manufacturers, retailers, and other private-sector leaders to explore what more they can do.
New Actions by the Federal Government
Keeping Guns Out of the Wrong Hands Through Background Checks
The most important thing we can do to prevent gun violence is to make sure those who would commit violent acts cannot get a firearm in the first place. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which was created by Congress to prevent guns from being sold to prohibited individuals, is a critical tool in achieving that goal. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the background check system has prevented more than 2 million guns from getting into the wrong hands. We know that making the system more efficient, and ensuring that it has all appropriate records about prohibited purchasers, will help enhance public safety. Today, the Administration is announcing the following executive actions to ensure that all gun dealers are licensed and run background checks, and to strengthen the background check system itself:
Clarify that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks. Background checks have been shown to keep guns out of the wrong hands, but too many gun sales—particularly online and at gun shows—occur without basic background checks. Today, the Administration took action to ensure that anyone who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms is licensed and conducts background checks on their customers. Consistent with court rulings on this issue, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has clarified the following principles:A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are conducted. For example, a person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms even if the person only conducts firearm transactions at gun shows or through the Internet. Those engaged in the business of dealing in firearms who utilize the Internet or other technologies must obtain a license, just as a dealer whose business is run out of a traditional brick-and-mortar store.Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is “engaged in the business.” For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present.There are criminal penalties for failing to comply with these requirements. A person who willfully engages in the business of dealing in firearms without the required license is subject to criminal prosecution and can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to $250,000. Dealers are also subject to penalties for failing to conduct background checks before completing a sale.Require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust or corporation. The National Firearms Act imposes restrictions on sales of some of the most dangerous weapons, such as machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. But because of outdated regulations, individuals have been able to avoid the background check requirement by applying to acquire these firearms and other items through trusts, corporations, and other legal entities. In fact, the number of these applications has increased significantly over the years—from fewer than 900 applications in the year 2000 to more than 90,000 applications in 2014. ATF is finalizing a rule that makes clear that people will no longer be able to avoid background checks by buying NFA guns and other items through a trust or corporation.Ensure States are providing records to the background check system, and work cooperatively with jurisdictions to improve reporting. Congress has prohibited specific categories of people from buying guns—from convicted felons to users of illegal drugs to individuals convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. In the wake of the shootings at Virginia Tech in 2007, Congress also created incentives for States to make as many relevant records as possible accessible to NICS. Over the past three years, States have increased the number of records they make accessible by nearly 70 percent. To further encourage this reporting, the Attorney General has written a letter to States highlighting the importance of receiving complete criminal history records and criminal dispositions, information on persons disqualified for mental health reasons, and qualifying crimes of domestic violence. The Administration will begin a new dialogue with States to ensure the background check system is as robust as possible, which is a public safety imperative.Make the background check system more efficient and effective. In 2015, NICS receiv
For breaking details you can always tune into iHeartRadio.SmythRadio.com you can also listen live on Sunday nights at 5 p.m. eastern time on SmythRadio.com and feel free to call in on the call in line at 877 49 Smyth
Marine's scathing
letter to U.S. senator over her proposed ban on assault weapons goes
viral
By
Daily Mail Reporter PUBLISHED:
18:51 EST, 3 January 2013
| UPDATED:
13:37 EST, 4 January 2013
A scathing letter written by a Marine veteran blasting a proposed ban on assault weapons has gone viral online. Cpl. Joshua Boston wrote the letter to U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, who proposed the bill banning certain firearms and requiring gun owners to register their weapons. 'I
am a Marine Corps veteran of eight 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,' he writes in the letter. '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.'
Anger: U.S. Marine Corporal Joshua Boston's
letter to Senator Diane Feinstein telling her that he will not comply
with her proposed legislation to ban assault weapons has gone viral
Boston
was first deployed to Afghanistan from 2004 to 2005 and spent a total
of eight years oversees serving as a Marine. He admits he owns guns - 'a
hobby if you will', he writes on one blog. In his letter, which has been shared across social media sites since it was posted on CNN iReport, he argues the bill would lead to the government confiscating weapons - a move he deems a threat.
'I own the guns I own
because I acknowledge mankind's shortcomings instead of pretending like
they don't exist,' he told CNN. 'There are evil men in this world and
there just may be a time when I need to do the unthinkable to protect me
or my family.' In the letter, he tells Feinstein: 'You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain.'
In the letter, he tells Feinstein, (D-CA) (pictured) 'You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain'
'I
will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the
media and your misinformation campaign against the American public,' he
writes, adding, 'We, the people, deserve better than you.' The
letter was posted on CNN iReport on December 27 and has since been
shared extensively on social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. On
Twitter, a user named Mid Stutsman provided a link to the letter and
wrote, 'Go Joshua Boston...Semper Fi! U.S. Marine’s Scathing Response to
Sen. Feinstein’s Gun Control Proposal.' Twitter
user @LaTicaChica added: 'Doesn't get any better that that! Big fist
pump, three cheers, etc. for Joshua Boston's verbal smack down with the
TRUTH!' Feinstein's bill names 120 specific
firearms she seeks the country to ban, import and manufacture, as well
as other semiautomiatic rifle, handguns and shotguns that have more
military characteristics.
Defiant: Boston (left) served in Afghanistan from 2004 until 2005 and in 2011, and says he owns guns, right
Love: He has called guns his 'hobby' and said he may one day need them to protect his family
At work: Boston (left) talks to an Afghani man during a patrol in Sistani, Helmand Province in 2011
It also bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices accepting more than 10 rounds.
Yet it seeks protection for
legitimate hunters and gun owners by allowing more than 900 weapons used
for sport and those that are antique and manually operated. Cpl.
Boston's reference to Feinstein carrying a weapon may be a reference to
her desire to outlaw handgun ownership while admitting she carries one
herself, for protection. This
latest debate over gun ownership was sparked by the December 14
massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, where
six staff and 20 children were shot dead.
Wading in: CNN host Piers Morgan outraged thousands of Americans for his tough stance on gun control
CNN host Piers Morgan has taken
one of the toughest stances on gun control, even calling one pro-gun
campaigner an 'unbelievably stupid man' after he said more guns would
cut crime. His comments
have led to more than 100,000 people signing a petition to get the
British host deported from the United States, claiming he has undermined
the 'rights of Americans'. More
than 30,000 people die from gun injuries each year, according to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Gun injuries account for
nearly 1 in 5 injury deaths in the U.S.
'YOU MA'AM HAVE OVERSTEPPED A LINE': JOSHUA BOSTON'S LETTER
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.
The New York Times: There have been times when the CNN host Piers Morgan didn’t
seem to like America very much — and American audiences have been more
than willing to return the favor. Three years aftertaking over for
Larry King, Mr. Morgan has seen the ratings for “Piers Morgan Live” hit
some new lows, drawing a fraction of viewers compared with competitors
at Fox News and MSNBC.
It’s
been an unhappy collision between a British television personality who
refuses to assimilate — the only football he cares about is round and
his lectures on guns were rife with contempt — and a CNN audience that
is intrinsically provincial. After all, the people who tune into a cable
news network are, by their nature, deeply interested in America.
CNN’s president, Jeffrey Zucker,
has other problems, but none bigger than Mr. Morgan and his plum 9 p.m.
time slot. Mr. Morgan said last week that he and Mr. Zucker had been
talking about the show’s failure to connect and had decided to pull the
plug, probably in March.
Crossing
an ocean for a replacement for Larry King, who had ratings problems of
his own near the end, was probably not a great idea to begin with. For a
cable news station like CNN, major stories are like oxygen. When
something important or scary happens in America, many of us have an
immediate reflex to turn on CNN. When I find Mr. Morgan telling me what
it all means, I have a similar reflex to dismiss what he is saying. It
is difficult for him to speak credibly on significant American events
because, after all, he just got here.
I
received a return call from Mr. Morgan and was prepared for an endless
argument over my assumptions. Not so. His show, he conceded, was not
performing as he had hoped and was nearing its end.
“It’s
been a painful period and lately we have taken a bath in the ratings,”
he said, adding that although there had been times when the show
connected in terms of audience, slow news days were problematic.
“Look,
I am a British guy debating American cultural issues, including guns,
which has been very polarizing, and there is no doubt that there are
many in the audience who are tired of me banging on about it,” he said.
“That’s run its course and Jeff and I have been talking for some time
about different ways of using me.”
Mr.
Morgan said that his show, along with much of the rest of CNN, had been
imprisoned by the news cycle and that he was interested in doing fewer
appearances to greater effect — big, major interviews that would be
events in themselves. Although a change has long been rumored, it was
the first time that both he, and the CNN executives I talked to,
acknowledged that his nightly show was on the way out. Plans for a
replacement at the 9 o’clock hour are still underway, but Mr. Morgan and
the network are in talks about him remaining at CNN in a different
role.
Mr.
Zucker, the former chief of NBC, inherited Mr. Morgan from Jonathan
Klein, his predecessor, but it is now his problem to fix. In the year he
has been there, CNN has introduced promising shows around the edges and
will be unveiling documentaries along the lines of the very successful
“Blackfish” to run on Thursday in the 10 p.m. hour.
But
the chronic troubles of prime-time remain. Sometime before the network
“upfront” events in April, when advertisers buy commercial time for the
fall season, Mr. Zucker needs to signal how he will fix CNN’s prime-time
problem, and that begins with Mr. Morgan, whose contract ends in
September.
Mr.
Morgan has some significant skills that do translate across platforms
and cultures. While working as a newspaper editor and television
personality in Britain, he was involved in a number of controversies,
but he developed a reputation as a talented, probing interviewer. In his
current role, he has shown an ability not only to book big guests —
former President Bill Clinton, Warren Buffett, the real Wolf of Wall
Street among them — but also to dig in once they are on set.
“I
think I can credibly do news and the ratings reflect that, but it is
not really the show that I set out to do,” he told me. “There are all
kinds of people who can do news here. I’d like to do work — interviews
with big celebrities and powerful people — that is better suited to what
I do well and fit with what Jeff is trying to do with the network.”
Old
hands in the television news business suggest that there are two things
a presenter cannot have: an accent or a beard. Mr. Morgan is clean
shaven and handsome enough, but there are tells in his speech — the way
he says the president’s name for one thing (Ob-AA-ma) — that suggest
that he is not from around here.
There are other tells as well. On Friday morning, criticizing the decision to dismiss a cricket player, he tweeted,
“I’m sure @StuartBroad8 is right and KP’s sacking will ‘improve
performance’ of the England team. Look forward to seeing this at T20
WC.” Mr. Morgan might want to lay off the steady cricket references if
he is worried about his credibility with American audiences. (His
endless trolling of his critics on Twitter did not exactly help,
either.)
People
might point to Simon Cowell as a man with an accent and a penchant for
slashing discourse that Americans loved, but Mr. Cowell is dealing with
less-than-spontaneous musical performances, not signal events in the
American news narrative. There was, of course, the counterexample of David Frost,
who did important work in news, but Mr. Frost did popular special
reports and was not a chronic presence in American living rooms.
Mr.
Morgan, who was chosen in spite of that fact that he had never done a
live show, had the misfortune of sliding into the loafers of Mr. King,
who, for all his limitations, was a decent and reliable stand-in for the
average Joe.
In
a sense, Mr. Morgan is a prisoner of two islands: Britain and
Manhattan. While I may share his feelings about the need for additional
strictures on guns, having grown up in the Midwest, I know that many
people come by their guns honestly and hold onto them dearly for sincere
reasons.
Mr.
Morgan’s approach to gun regulation was more akin to King George III,
peering down his nose at the unruly colonies and wondering how to bring
the savages to heel. He might have wanted to recall that part of the
reason the right to bear arms is codified in the Constitution is that
Britain was trying to disarm the citizenry at the time.
He regrets none of it, but clearly understands his scolding of “stupid” opponents of gun laws was not everyone’s cup of tea.
“I’m
in danger of being the guy down at the end of the bar who is always
going on about the same thing,” he said. He added that he was sure there
were plenty of people in the heartland angry “about this British guy
telling them how to lead their lives and what they should do with their
guns.”
In
the current media age, no one is expected to be a eunuch, without
values or beliefs, but Mr. Morgan’s lecturing on the evils of guns have
clanked hard against the CNN brand, which, for good or ill, is built on
the middle way.
We
don’t look for moral leadership from CNN, or from a British host on a
rampage. Guns, along with many other great and horrible things, are knit
into the fabric of this country. There are folkways peculiar to America
that Mr. Morgan is just learning, including the fact that if you want
to stick out, you first have to work on fitting in.
Obama says, Citizens and Comrades, "Hand Over Your Guns." VIDEO
Sick BiasObama
goes to Mexico and thanks them for their illegal votes then blames
American guns for the killings in Mexico. WTF ?? Dude weren't you
responsible for Fast and Furious ? LIKE if you know more than an
American president.
Wednesday, January 06, 2016
