Archive for the ‘Government’ Category

Obama can’t find arugula:

“As long as you can go in some neighborhoods and it is easier for you to buy a firearm than it is for you to buy a book, there are neighborhoods where it is easier for you to buy a handgun and clips than it is for you to buy a fresh vegetable, as long as that’s the case, we’re going to continue to see unnecessary violence.”

Clips.  Heh.

You can buy books all over the place.  You can also buy books online and read them with your Obamaphone.  This isn’t a question of literary accessability, this is a question of people’s choices.  Choices that are “nudged” a certain way by certain politicians.  If those “some neighborhoods” that Obama won’t describe any further started picking up “Capitalism and Freedom” or “Economics In One Lesson” or “The Vision of the Anointed“, he wouldn’t be president.

Also, you can’t buy a gun easier in neighborhoods like that.  It’s much easier to buy a gun at Cabela’s in Sidney, Nebraska than it is to buy from a fence in Detroit, Michigan.  But the neighborhood where it’s truly easier to buy isn’t someplace with rampant violence, because the character of the neighborhood is significantly different.  One is influenced by independent American traditions, the other has been tragically corrupted by leftist socialist dependence and corroded the culture into a self-pitying self-destroying quagmire of misery.

NRO asks “Where have all the air marshals gone?“:

The Transportation Security Administration is experiencing a mass exodus of Federal Air Marshals so severe that it may soon render the marshal service an “agency-in-name-only,” according to current and former marshals.

Agents across the country are looking for any excuse to exit the marshal service, repelled by the agency’s pattern of mistreating and endangering its employees, and its own concerted efforts to thin ranks through a hiring freeze and the closing of field offices. Richard Vasquez, a former marshal who resigned in January 2015, says his Washington, D.C., field office alone lost up to ten marshals per month in the year preceding his departure.

“The numbers are dwindling; now they’re not telling the public this, but that’s the fact,” Vasquez says. “The only people who aren’t trying to leave are people who are past that age-37 range and are meaning to retire.”

No one wants to work for the TSA.  Is anyone really surprised?

Travel every day, never spend time at home, get bureaucratic social justice BS from DC that tells you who you’re supposed to look for and who you’re not?  Not really a surprise that good people leave an agency that’s supposed to be good due to leadership.

Meanwhile, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ranks 313 of 314, Customs and Border Protection 293 of 314.  It’s almost like there are winners and losers in this administration.

A CEO who isn’t lost (yet) talks about lost jobs:

Clifton stated the following on CNBC:

“I think that the number that comes out of BLS [Bureau of Labor Statistics] and the Department of Labor is very, very accurate. I need to make that very, very clear so that I don’t suddenly disappear. I need to make it home tonight.”

After getting that out of the way, Clifton went on to eviscerate the legitimacy of the cheerful spin given to the unemployment data, telling CNBC viewers that the percent of full time jobs in this country as a percent of the adult population “is the worst it’s been in 30 years.”

He’s right, too.

Charts 5 and 6:

2015 bol employment rate Presentation-Employment-Population-Ratio-425x282

2015 bol labor force participation rate Presentation-Labor-Force-Participation-Rate-425x282

The “employment rate” goes up by percentage because the actual number counted as potentially working goes down.

Shaneen Allen, for those who missed her story last year, is a single mom from Pennsylvania who’d been robbed twice and went out to get a concealed carry permit, then made the mistake of going to New Jersey.  She made the further mistake of being pulled over and volunteering that she had her carry pistol with her (which in about 30 other states would’ve been met with a shrug) and thus was arrested and charged with having a gun and ammunition, because the 2nd Amendment is null and void in New Jersey.

shaneen allen pa nj

Now, 8 months later, Chris Christie has given her a pardon.

During that 8 months, she spent 40 days in jail unable to make bail, had to ask for all kinds of help with her kids, lost her job, and was facing felony charges not just for having a gun but for each round of ammunition.  It took 8 months of nationwide support to get a woman who’s practically the poster girl for concealed carry “free”… and meanwhile she had 8 months of her life lost and destroyed due to New Jersey’s tyrannical rule.

There is no right to keep and bear arms in New Jersey.

Chris Christie waited 8 months until her case could be used as a way to skewer him nationally if he decided to make a presidential run.  He has no concern for a good citizen who’s exercising their Constitutional rights, jumping through hoops to do so, and doing so in order to protect self and family, and nor do many of the people of his state.

Just for a reminder on where Chris Christie stands on guns… remember he campaigned on taking away citizens’ rights.

ChrisChristieOnGuns

Just think of 8 months of waiting to see if you’ll go to prison as a felon for something that’s legal a few miles away, and legal across almost all of the US.

This was a political pardon.  Good for her that Christie decided to run for president.  Bad for us that he’s deciding to run.  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed… doesn’t exactly jive with “you will go to prison in NJ for a felony first your gun that’s legal in your state and then for additional felonies for every round of ammunition and yet another felony because bearing arms is wholly illegal in NJ”.

Christie may be useful when he’s facing off against public sector unions, but that’s sort of like saying Stalin was useful when he fought against instead of with the Axis powers for a couple years.

Especially illegal immigration.

Basically Drudge’s big stories of the day, but today the FCC chair refused to testify before congress about net neutrality, The Hill looks at the new arbitrary ability for the FCC to impose internet regulations and asks if it’s outright lawless, and the lefty “Electronic Frontier Foundation” suddenly realizes that big government might not be the best thing to have on an internet that’s supposed to be free.

There are several problems with this approach.  First, it suggests that the FCC believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices—hardly the narrow, light-touch approach we need to protect the open Internet. Second, we worry that this rule will be extremely expensive in practice, because anyone wanting to bring a complaint will be hard-pressed to predict whether they will succeed. For example, how will the Commission determine “industry best standards and practices”? As a practical matter, it is likely that only companies that can afford years of litigation to answer these questions will be able to rely on the rule at all. Third, a multi-factor test gives the FCC an awful lot of discretion, potentially giving an unfair advantage to parties with insider influence.

A leftist push for more control really might mean cronyism for their politically aligned friends?  Naw… you don’t say.

The internet will grind to stagnating European halt.

In a joint column, Federal Communications Commission member Ajit Pai and Federal Election Commission member Lee Goodman, leveled the boom on the Obama-favored regulations, essentially charging that it will muck up the freedom the nation has come to expect from the Internet. …

“These Internet regulations will deter broadband deployment, depress network investment and slow broadband speeds. How do we know? Compare Europe, which has long had utility-style regulations, with the United States, which has embraced a light-touch regulatory model. Broadband speeds in the United States, both wired and wireless, are significantly faster than those in Europe. Broadband investment in the United States is several multiples that of Europe. And broadband’s reach is much wider in the United States, despite its much lower population density,” the two wrote. …

“Internet freedom works. It is difficult to imagine where we would be today had the government micromanaged the Internet for the past two decades as it does Amtrak and the U.S. Postal Service. Neither of us wants to find out where the Internet will be two decades from now if the federal government tightens its regulatory grip. We don’t need to shift control of the Internet to bureaucracies in Washington. Let’s leave the power where it belongs — with the American people. When it comes to Americans’ ability to access online content or offer political speech online, there isn’t anything broken for the government to “fix.” To paraphrase President Ronald Reagan, Internet regulation isn’t the solution to a problem. Internet regulation is the problem.”

I’d file this entirely under the part of the cycle of the anointed being wrong where Thomas Sowell says “the critics’ concerns are dismissed”… which comes right before the “solution” is implemented and causes the exact problems the critics fortold.

There is always the inexorable push by leftists for more controlIt’s what they do.  It’s all they do.

This is a long march for them, and they will always be working to take your rights away.  That’s their focus, their reason, their essence, and their firm belief.  Any means necessary, any backdoor way, any subtle move, any overt move.

More Jersey Injustice

Posted: February 17, 2015 by ShortTimer in Government, Guns, Second Amendment, Tyranny
Tags:

Among other places, via HotAir, from NRA News:

Shades of Shaneen Allen’s tribulations in Jersey.

This kind of thing is just a reminder that Chris Christie is not a viable candidate for anything outside of New Jersey.

We’ve heard about the UN Arms Trade Treaty for months (if not years) by now, and it’s almost a given that it will never be ratified by the US Senate, because it includes plenty of rules that are anathema to the Second Amendment.  But it was passed through the UN and enacts at Christmas:

The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is set to take effect on Christmas Eve. Though the United States delegation to the U.N. has supported the treaty, it has very little chance of being ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. But there is still reason for concern, said Catherine Mortensen, spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association.

“We are worried about an end-run around Congress,”  Mortensen told TheBlaze. “Barack Obama or a future anti-gun president could use ATT and international norms compliance to rationalize enacting gun control policies through executive actions, especially in the import and export realms.”

“Even now, with an existing appropriations rider prohibiting action to implement the treaty unless it is approved by Congress, administration officials are publicly professing support for international efforts to bring the treaty into effect. That’s outrageous,” she added.

The U.N. General Assembly adopted the treaty in April 2013 with a vote of 154 to 3. The State Department points out that only Iran, Syria and North Korea opposed it.

That thing about Iran, Syria, and North Korea opposing it is used by the current administration to portray those who object to it as extreme.  Except there are plenty of nations who are “for” it who later didn’t sign it, didn’t ratify it, or will ignore it just like other treaties.

The better news on the treaty is more recent, via CNS News:

(CNSNews.com) – As United Nations officials welcome the Christmas Eve entry into force of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), its progress in the U.S. remains hampered by significant Senate opposition and funding prohibitions included in appropriations legislation.

Most recently, the omnibus government funding bill passed by the Congress earlier this month contained new prohibitions on the administration using any funds to implement the conventional arms treaty. Under U.N. procedures the U.S. would be liable for 22 percent of the budget for the ATT secretariat, the body that will oversee its implementation.

It’s nice to know we’re at least not paying for it.

It’s especially nice since the UN’s attempts at gun control usually end up murdering lots of people.

And like was suspected about those who opposed the treaty – the question is who else didn’t sign or didn’t care – note the story says “among the non-signatories”, not “this is a comprehensive list of all the non-signatories”.

When the U.N. General Assembly adopted the ATT in April 2013 only three member-states voted against it: Iran, Syria and North Korea.

But the list of nations that have not signed the treaty is far longer, and includes some of the world’s more controversial regimes. Among the non-signatories are Russia (the world’s second biggest arms exporter, after the U.S.), China (the fifth biggest), Cuba, Ecuador, India, Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua, North Korea, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Venezuela and Vietnam.

The effect of active and powerful restriction on small arms trade could mean major problems for recreational shooters in any free state as imported ammunition tends to be cheaper than domestic.  Banning importation of cheap foreign ammunition through auspices of the ATT would be a way to impose a financial burden and barrier to entry into recreational shooting, and thus to harm gun culture.  For those who believe in citizen disarmament, it’s a feature.

Meanwhile, the EPA found itself blocked from banning lead ammunition.  Again, lead ammo is cheaper, and with regards to hunting ammunition, it performs very well and replacement ammunition is often very expensive.

A federal appeals court denied a lawsuit Tuesday by environmental groups that the EPA must use the Toxic Substances Control Act regulate lead used in shells and cartridges.

“We agree with EPA that it lacks statutory authority to regulate the type of spent bullets and shot identified in the environmental groups’ petition,” Judge David Tatel wrote for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Note who’s suing and how.  Environmental groups are suing the EPA to act (often environmental groups getting money from the EPA or other part of govt).  This is something the environmental movement has done for quite a while, and often hand-in-hand with the EPA.  They sue the EPA for the new rule they want, the EPA settles with the group, or gets a judge to rule in favor of the new regulation, and the EPA can just go out and make it happen.

And finally, the Obama amnesty was ruled an overreach by a federal judge in PA.  I’ve been writing about how Obama will push for amnesty for illegal aliens for a long time, and since he just up and did it with his “executive actions”, that’s about when I stopped posting so much.  Doesn’t feel critical to write about this stuff when it’s all over the news everywhere.  If you’ve been reading here, or you’re remotely paying attention, you’ve seen it, heard it, and you’re mad about it.  I yelled “fire!” for a long time, and now there’s a massive conflagration.

>Lame Duck "Immigration Reform" - Amnesty

There’s only so many times I could post that pic from The People’s Cube.  And then he just did it.

Except that judge in Western Pennsylvania has said that he can’t do it:

A federal judge Tuesday ruled parts of President Obama’s deportation amnesty to be unconstitutional, with a scathing memo dismantling the White House’s legal reasoning and arguing that Mr. Obama tried to steal Congress’ lawmaking powers.

The ruling doesn’t invalidate the policy immediately because it was part of a case over a single illegal immigrant’s deportation, but it could serve as a road map for other federal judges who are considering direct challenges to the president’s policy.

Judge Arthur J. Schwab, sitting in the Western District of Pennsylvania, said Mr. Obama has some discretion in how to enforce laws, but by setting out a comprehensive system to grant tentative legal status to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants, the president has strayed into trying to write the laws, which is a power reserved for Congress.

Part of the issue was also that the method by which Obama did it was through “prosecutorial discretion”.  That’s supposed to mean that an individual prosecutor can look at an individual case and choose whether or not to go forward with charges.  It does not mean that 5-10 million crimes can simply be ignored and that an entire statute can be mandated to be ignored by the executive branch.

“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore is unconstitutional,” Judge Schwab wrote.

Immigrant rights advocates said the ruling was a shocking overstep of the court’s authority. Indeed, the Obama administration has argued in federal court in Washington that judges have no power to review the president’s decision-making.

Illegal alien supporters, not “immigrant rights advocates”.  Every legal immigrant who sees 5-10 million people cutting in line is apoplectic over this.

The White House defends the policy as a reasonable use of Mr. Obama’s powers to set priorities for enforcing laws, and to stop the breakup of families because of deportation.

Meanwhile, there are millions of US citizens in prisons and jails for various reasons whose families are broken up.  There are millions of families broken up by government policies that favor broken homes as well.  No tears are shed for them, no hearts bleed for them.

Joyce R. Branda, the acting assistant attorney general who is leading the case, argued that Congress has provided too little money and the administration can deport fewer than 400,000 immigrants a year out of the total population of more than 11 million.

Ms. Branda said given that, it makes sense for Mr. Obama to set priorities, including proactively telling millions of illegal immigrants that they are in no danger of being kicked out. That policy allows immigration agents to focus on the other illegal immigrants whom the president deems serious cases, or on those crossing the border this year and beyond.

When Obama’s DACA amnesty crap started, there were rallies of illegal aliens in major cities.  Immigration officials could drive there with buses and start loading them up.

When the surge of illegal alien minors happened over this last year – because of Obama’s pro-illegal alien policies – immigration officials were driving buses into major cities and dropping off illegals downtown.  Those same illegals could’ve been handed back to the nation that facilitated their passage, but they weren’t.  They were dropped off with “walking papers” for court dates they would never attend, and told they wouldn’t be deported because “families”.

Branda is a lying shill.  In the years of the Obama administration, we’ve seen ICE agents called terrorists by the president, and ICE agents sue to be able to do their jobs because they’re told to break the law.

Obama’s banking on the idea that no one will ever do away with his illegal dictatorial unilateral executive amnesty.  The idea is that it would be politically horrible to “tear apart immigrant families”… which is sort of like waking up to find a family of criminals tearing open your Christmas presents and then them screaming how horrible it would be if you took your children’s presents that the illegals stole out of their children’s hands, and if you kicked them out of your house since it’s cold outside, or had them all arrested for breaking and entering.

To the mush-brained, it makes you seem heartless, but they’re just criminal invaders, thieves and criminal squatters in your house.

And the worst part is that all they would’ve had to do was ask if they wanted to come in.  America is not uninviting.

So anyway, Merry Christmas.  Despite all the lumps of coal we’ve gotten this year (including a crapton of new regulations for the new year we don’t know about), at least there are a few positives.