What’s interesting in the news today?
This morning we go fast and furious. We won’t be running guns, but we will talk about them. Since there’s so many, I’ll try to be brief. 🙂
First the expanded background checks. Seems mostly reasonable, but any attempts to limit rights make me nervous. I just don’t trust ’em to leave it at this. From TheHill
“The proposal would expand background checks to cover all sales at gun shows and over the Internet. Those background checks would have to be accompanied by records proving to law enforcement officials they took place.
It would exempt gun sales and transfers between friends and acquaintances without the help of an online intermediary.”
____________________________________________________
Meanwhile more than half of Colorado’s Sheriffs have signed on to a lawsuit against that state’s new gun grab laws. From FoxNews
“The Denver Post reports that 37 of the state’s 62 sheriffs will sue to overturn laws passed in March that set limits on ammunition magazines and expand background checks for firearms.
Weld County Sheriff John Cooke told the paper that the proposed lawsuit would argue the laws violate Second Amendment rights. He said the lawsuit would likely be filed within the next few weeks.”
____________________________________________________
Now on to the President’s idea of a budget. Or as I like to call it, DOA. From TheDailyMail
“Early analysis: Obama’s 2014 budget numbers are based on bad math, phantom revenues, imagined spending cuts and a middle-class tax hike”
“White House promises $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction, although similar previous claims have been debunked
New method of measuring cost-of-living increases will lower benefit payouts and push middle-class earners into higher tax brackets
Speaker Boehner’s spokesperson: ‘Any deficit reduction will come exclusively from tax hikes’
Administration’s formula depends on cost savings from Obamacare, which may be more costly to implement than previously thought”
____________________________________________________
ObamaCare savings? I think not. From Bloomberg
“The $1.3 trillion U.S. health-care system overhaul is getting more expensive and will initially accomplish less than intended.
Costs for a network of health-insurance exchanges, a core part of the Affordable Care Act, have swelled to $4.4 billion for fiscal 2012 and 2013, and will reach $5.7 billion in 2014, according to President Barack Obama’s budget sent to Congress today. Spending would be more than double the projections, even though less than half the 50 U.S. states are participating.”
So if all states participate, it’s even worse. Savings? Please. It’s working out just as we said it would. And just think, all this, with no benefits yet. Just imagine how far off they’ll be once they actually have to start paying out benefits.
____________________________________________________
Even some Dems are catching on to the fact that they created a monster. From TheWashingtonExaminer
“Decrying the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as way too complex, he warned the acting Medicare director that Obamacare is “so complicated and if it isn’t done right the first time, it will just simply get worse.”
“”I believe that the Affordable Care Act is probably the most complex piece of legislation ever passed by the United States Congress. Tax reform obviously has been huge too, but up to this point it is just beyond comprehension,” said Rockefeller.”
____________________________________________________
Looks like they’d like to use the same rush tactic on immigration that they used for ObamaCare. From TheWashingtonExaminer
“Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, faulted Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy, D-Vt., for limiting the committee review of the gang of eight’s immigration proposal to just one hearing, scheduled for next week.
“A single hearing scheduled so quickly to discuss legislative language that is not yet even available is completely inadequate for Senators or the American people to get answers to the many questions a bill of this magnitude will inevitably raise,” Lee said in a statement. “We could not possibly have a meaningful hearing with a substantive discussion of what will surely be over 1,000 pages of provisions we haven’t even yet seen.””
____________________________________________________
Just one more reason to dislike the IRS. From TheHill
“The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has claimed that agents do not need warrants to read people’s emails, text messages and other private electronic communications, according to internal agency documents.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which obtained the documents through a Freedom of Information Act request, released the information on Wednesday.”
____________________________________________________
And since we’re on the subject of unconstitutional power grabs and abuse of power, we’ll stay with it. From TheWashingtonExaminer
“A bill aimed at pressuring the Boy Scouts of America to lift its ban on gay members by making the organization ineligible for nonprofit tax breaks cleared its first vote on Wednesday in the California Legislature.”
“The Youth Equality Act, sponsored by Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Long Beach, would deny tax-exempt status to youth groups that discriminate on the basis of gender identity, race, sexual orientation, nationality, religion or religious affiliation.”
____________________________________________________
Another example? Really? I see a pattern here. From FoxNews
“The Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged Tuesday that it released personal information on potentially thousands of farmers and ranchers to environmental groups, following concerns from congressional Republicans and agriculture groups that the release could endanger their safety.
According to a document obtained by FoxNews.com, the EPA said “some of the personal information that could have been protected … was released.” Though the EPA has already sent out the documents, the agency now says it has since redacted sensitive details and asked the environmental groups to “return the information.””
Sure, after the horse has left the barn.
____________________________________________________
And to finish, some words from Clarence Thomas on the decline of black communities. From TheObserver-Reporter
“Thomas spoke to an appreciative audience at Duquesne Law School in Pittsburgh. The crowd of about 1,200 people responded with both applause and laughter as he discussed politics, the makeup of the Supreme Court, race, and his own struggles to find his path in life.”
“If I was going to have hard feelings, it’d be mostly on race issues,” Thomas said. “My heart is broken because I worked in the inner cities.”
He said he’s seen terrible decline in some black communities over the years and today “virtually every crime is drug related.” Many young people have no families and no education and numerous anti-poverty programs have failed to make a difference, he said.
“We should at least fess up and say something is wrong,” Thomas said.”
____________________________________________________
Wandering Views 
HRW mentioned yesterday evening that the religious right lost it’s marriage battle when no fault divorce passed. He may be right. No fault divorce is the cause of much evil in our culture. It was passed as a femminist measure. But it hurt women and their children most of all.
The surce of untold evil.
LikeLike
The only reason Obama sent a budget up was to give the talking heads something to talk about rather than Benghazi, fast and furious, or the economy.
LikeLike
No fault divorce laws were very harmful. Welfare laws that promoted illegitimacy were also harmful. The biggest problem is that the hearts of our people have turned away from God.
LikeLike
According to the Scriptures there are only two grounds for divorce. Unfaithfulness and if your spouse is an unbeliever and the unbeliever decides to divorce the believer. If the churches were practicing church discipline, divorce among believers would decrease.
LikeLike
Chas, I heard an interesting discussion about no-fault divorce in California on a Christian radio program several weeks ago. Apparently part of the impetus also was an ethical one, if you will — people were commonly leveling false and slanderous charges against their spouses in court documents in order to justify a divorce.
It was felt (by some) that this change in the civil law would remove those situations and make the process more straight-forward without the made-up and damaging drama. It wasn’t necessarily (for some) about making divorce “easier,” but about removing some of the things that had made the whole thing so messy and damaging.
Faulty thinking, I know. But interesting sometimes to go back and get inside the heads of people who really believed they were doing a good (and even moral) thing by making the change.
Of course, it all backfired horribly, leading to easier divorces — to the extent that marrying someone almost came with the idea of, Well, if it doesn’t work out we’ll just divorce.
LikeLike
Donna,
The road to Hell and all that. 😦
LikeLike
Yep.
LikeLike
The Senate Bill to restrict the purchase of firearms failed in a filibuster attempt. The measure goes to floor for a vote. 16 RINO’s joined with the communists to bring the measure to floor.
Our forefathers would be shooting by now.
:angry:
Time to lock and load.
LikeLike
No-fault divorce was promoted in all the standard magazines at the time. I remember being asked about it and saying everything I read seemed to say it was a good idea. I was too young and naïve to understand that all those magazines were from editors were people with the same worldview pushing the same ideas.
However, I had also sat in on a divorce proceedings from someone and happened to witness not only that mess, but another woman who was trying to divorce her husband. She had several children and the court refused the divorce simply on the grounds that the woman had no job or means of support and would be forced on to the welfare rolls. I understand that concern even today, at the same time, I know how hard it can be to live with some men who are abusive, but cunning enough to hide it. Proving something can be difficult. I was somewhat appalled at the time.
In hindsight, the no-fault divorce was very damaging as was a lot of what the feminists pushed. However, there was the abuse that also went on and was not spoken against by the churches. Men were not admonished as they well should have been. I personally know cases where abuse happened and women were told they must just learn to obey their husbands better.
Sin is such a destructive force. It is very much like the leprosy and mildew issues that the bible speaks of in the OT. The more we realize that, the more we will flee from it and to the Lord.
One sin leads to another to another to another and it hurts not one person, but man,. and many who are completely innocent. Thank God for the Lord Jesus Christ who alone defeated the devil and has given us the power to get free and eventually live in a place with no sin!
LikeLike
Joe,
I’m not bothered so much by what they are doing publicly. It’s the behind the scence stuff that I find most troubling. There have been news reports of police in NY taking guns from anyone who has had a mental health issue in the past. If you suffered depression and took medication at any time and have a gun permit, they are using that as an excuse to take your guns, regardless of whether you are currently taking meds or not.
More here.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/04/10/could-police-take-away-your-gun-because-of-the-medication-youre-taking-judge-napolitano-weighs-in/
“A lawyer in New York claims he is representing two people who’ve had their gun permits revoked because they had been prescribed anti-anxiety medication. Stuart Varney raised the issue with Judge Andrew Napolitano, saying it seems that there is a breach in confidentiality and privacy somewhere along the line.
Napolitano said New York state law requires health care professionals to go to the police if they are concerned about a medication that has been prescribed to a person they know has a firearm. He says that by complying with the law, health care professionals are in direct violation of federal privacy laws.
“The act of reporting violates rights that are protected under the U.S. Constitution and federal law,” he said. Napolitano says this can go on until someone who has their gun taken away challenges the state in court.”
The State police deny this is what they are doing, but it is happening. The feds are now trying to do the same.
Now medical records are supposed to be confidential, so how could this happen. Simple really, they take the back way in, like this.
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/highway-patrol-gave-feds-missouri-weapon-permits-data/article_266b644e-a235-11e2-a8e7-0019bb30f31a.html
“The Missouri State Highway Patrol has twice turned over the entire list of Missouri concealed weapon permit holders to federal authorities, most recently in January, Sen. Kurt Schaefer said Wednesday.”
“Under Missouri law, the names of concealed weapon permit holders are confidential. The only place in Missouri where the names of all concealed carry permit holders is stored is among driver license records. Permit holders have a special mark on their licenses indicating they have been granted the privilege of carrying a gun.
The list was given to the Social Security Administration Office of Inspector General, Schaefer said he was told.
“Apparently from what I understand, they wanted to match up anyone who had a mental diagnosis or disability with also having a concealed carry license,” Schaefer said. “What I am told is there is no written request for that information.”
LikeLike
The ones who are mentally ill are the Commies in charge of the Government AJ. I keep all my weapons locked and I do not have a CCW. I am always leery of anything the Government wants to do that infringes on my rights as a citizen.
Here is the Gun owner’s prayer:
Lord, make me fast and accurate let my aim be true and my hand faster than those who would seek to destroy me. Grant me victory over my foes, and those that wish to do harm to me and mine. Let NOT my last thought be, if I only had a gun, and lord if today is truly the day that you call me home, let me die in a pile of empty brass…
LikeLike
Police belong to the executive branch, not the legislative or judiciary, hence they should not decided whether laws are right or wrong but merely enforce it. I recognize that police often use personal discretion ie call parents instead of arresting youth, issue warnings instead of traffic tickets, but they overstep their bounds when they judge the constitutionality of laws. On issues of conscience — refusing to enforce “unjust” laws — we should make exemptions. But gun regulations are not issues of morality nor do they call for discretion. Enforce the law and allow the judiciary and legislature to do their job.
LikeLike
No-fault divorce lowered the sacred nature of marriage and thus made it more a matter of state policy than church. However, no-fault divorce laws were passed for good reason. Proving criminal wrongdoing or adultery often kept people especially women trapped in unhealthy and dangerous situations. Thus prior to condemning no fault people need to ask why its necessary.
Marriage has then become simply a matter of the state regulating a relationship in the same manner it regulates other partnerships — corporate, civil, non-profits, etc.
LikeLike
One more British columnists on why death is not a reason to keep your mouth shut.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/mark-steel-you-cant-just-shut-us-up-now-that-margaret-thatchers-dead-8568785.html
LikeLike
Once Mrs. Thatcher was out of office, Great Britain returned to its prior goal of becoming a colder version of Greece or Italy. Unfortunately for the leftists, it was too late to save the Soviet Union.
LikeLike