IRS employees lying/misleading statements. Your tax $ at work.

FactCheck.org on IRS officials' veracity.  Getting paid for lying. Your tax $ at work.

Bloomberg and Obama risk Democratic Unity: Going after Dems who didn't vote for gun control.

NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg's obsession with gun control has moved him to
spend money to support defeat of Dem Senators who failed to support gun control.  Some fear this could threaten the Dem. majority in the Senate.  Obsessed people are always problemmatic; those who are billionaires are time bombs waiting to explode.
" . . . Obama’s own political organization, Organizing for Action (OFA), has promised to bring pressure on the four defecting Democratic senators—Pryor, Begich, North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp and Montana’s Max Baucus. Jon Carson, the head of OFA, has said his volunteers are less concerned about hurting the reelection chances of Democrats than getting a background check bill through Congress. In recent weeks, the group has held phone banks in Alaska, Arkansas and North Dakota to inform residents of their Democratic senators’ votes against more gun control. OFA volunteers have also protested outside Baucus’s office in Bozeman, even though Baucus has announced that he will not run for reelection after his term expires."




Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/28/bloombergs-gamble-risking-the-democratic-senate-majority-for-gun-control/#ixzz2UcRD5icd

Obama Admin. Power Grab?

CHILLING FOLLOW UP ON A PRIOR POST.  I guess Obama got scared by all the anti-gun control protests.
"[snip] ...The lines blurred even further Monday as a new dynamic was introduced to the militarization of domestic law enforcement. By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the [CFR] titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries. The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule: “Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.” … ( I notice an apparent anomaly in this excerpt: The United Sates Code [USC] is composed of statutes – enacted by Congress. Agency regulations are often part of the United States Code of Federal Regulations [CFR]. Then there are such compendia as Army Regulations, etc.). [snip]"

Thanks to Prof. Joseph Olson.

Obama Admin. attack on First Amendment rights on campus? (NEW LINK)

According to FIRE:
"In a shocking affront to the United States Constitution, the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education have joined together to order that virtually every college and university in the United States establish unconstitutional speech codes that violate the First Amendment and decades of legal precedent. In a letter yesterday, the government mandated a breathtakingly broad definition of sexual harassment that makes virtually every student in the United States a harasser, completely ignoring the First Amendment."

Appears to be another example of left-wing political correctness trumping the Bill of Rigths.  This may be a false alarm, (FIRE is usually reliable). However,  false alarms are better than no alarms when the Bill of Rights in involved.  Stay tuned.

TX House approves licensed concealed carry on state college campuses

The Texas House approved licensed concealed carry in state college campus buildings.The bill faces an uncertain future in the state Senate.  A similar bill last year seemd destined to pass until many University Presidents had a hissy fit. Stay tuned!
Note: under current law licensed concealed carriers can carry on campus grounds, but not in buildings.  This bill allows licensed concealed carriers to carry in buildings.
Opponents apparently believe that somehow, license concealed carriers will become homicidal maniacs once they enter a building.

Latest data on gun crime

The latest report from BJS re Firearms crime:


“Among the highlights of this report:

• Firearm-related homicides declined 39%, from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011.

• Nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69%, from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 victimizations in 2011.”

Both firearms related homicides and nonfatal firearms crimes declined in spite of the fact that lawful concealed carrying and the number of firearms in society increased markedly during that period. This is the kind of data that gun-controllers don’t talk about. Guns don’t cause crime and gun control will not bring down gun crime. It’s about time people realize that gun control is not really about crime control. It’s part of American’s culture wars and a symbolic crusade (a la Joseph Gusfield) to give a symbolic status victory to one part of American society. Politicians need to pretend that they have solutions to get re-elected. Unfortunately, gun control is a make-believe (let’s pretend) panacea that threatens an important provision in the Bill of Rights.

With regard to how criminals obtain firearms:

“In 2004 (the most recent year of data available), among state prison inmates who possessed a gun at the time of the offense, fewer than two percent bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show. About 10 percent of state prison inmates said they purchased it from a retail store or pawnshop, [Apparently they were legally eligible at the time of purchase] 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source.”

Does anyone really think that expanding background checks is going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? ?There are hundreds of millions of firearms in Ameircan society and the number is rapidly increasing.  The "genie" is already out of the bottle, and the "horse," fled the barn long before anyone even though of closing the barn door.   Expanding the checks will probably mean that criminals (or those with criminal intent) will bypass these outlets and move directly to friends or family.  Although the extent of the problem is unknown, criminals sometimes 'rent' guns from other criminals. 

IL Public Housing Residents get 2nd Amend Victory

One of the most disgraceful and discriminatory forms of gun control is that which attempts to keep firearms from the homes of  public housing residents. These types of laws are not new and many go back to the start of public housing projects.  Does any sane person really think gang members, drug dealers and other criminals who live in public housing are going to give up their weapons? The real victims here are law-abiding residents who live in a constant state of fear.  Of course, such legislation should provide insight into how leaders view law abiding public housing residents.  PH residents won their 2nd Amend. suit in IL, to be treated like everyone else when it comes to 2nd Amend rights.  This is an example of what happens when the rules are made by limousine liberals who reside safe neighborhoods and don't have to live in PH.

Texas Prosecutor to Face Criminal Charges Over Convicting an Innocent Man

Research suggests that misconduct by prosecutors is rampant, and conviction of innocent people is much too frequent. However,  little is ever done. this TX D.A. will  face criminal charges.  Let's hope this is the start of a trend.

O'Connor regrets Bush v. Gore decision

You rarely hear a retired S.Ct. Jusitce admit regret over a decision.  This regret is justified.  Although I "liked" the result in that it set up a  Bush win, I thought the Court was wrong to get involved and the majority opinion was a disaster.  (Another example, I liked the result in Griswold v. Connecticut--consitutional right to "privacy,"  But, the Court's opinion--"penumbras, mis-reading of prior cases, etc.--was a 'joke.") Perhaps unbelievably, the level of trust for the Court and Court's prestige recovered from Bush v. Gore.