The despicable behavior of liberals is so clear when it comes to gun control; do as I say, not as I do. Mark Kelly, former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords’ husband, testified at the Colorado state capitol in support of more gun control legislation on March 4. Just one day later, Mr. Kelly purchased a 1911-stylke semi-automatic [...]Continue reading →
Archive for Hypocrisy
Just last week, Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu argued during a Capitol Hill hearing that the government needs more tax revenue.
But in a twist of hypocrisy, the Louisiana senator and her husband appear to have not yet paid $1,206.95 in tax penalties to the District of Columbia government on their Capitol Hill home, The Daily Caller has learned.
According to public records available online in the District of Columbia’s “Real Property Assessment Database,” the D.C. government has penalized Landrieu $1,003.33, plus $202.62 in interest, for 2012 taxes on her mansion on East Capitol Street. It is unclear what the penalty is for.
The online records indicate that the penalty was still outstanding as of Feb. 2. A spokeswoman for Landrieu did not immediately respond to an email from TheDC on Sunday asking for more information.
The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” (PDW) — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. The solicitation, originally posted on June 7, 2012, comes to light as the Obama administration is calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.
Citing a General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP), Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com reports that DHS is asking for the 7,000 “select-fire” firearms because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” The term select-fire means the weapon can be both semi-automatic and automatic. Civilians are prohibited from obtaining these kinds of weapons.
Not everyone will have to abide by Senator Dianne Feinstein’s gun control bill. If the proposed legislation becomes law, government officials and others will be exempt.
“Mrs. Feinstein’s measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles; guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel,” the Washington Times reports.
The Huffington Post confirms these exemptions, and adds that guns owned prior to the legislation becoming law will be permissible, too. “[T]he bill includes a number of exemptions: It exempts more than 2,200 hunting and sporting weapons; any gun manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action; any weapons used by government officials and law enforcement; and any weapons legally owned as of the date of the bill’s enactment.”
The bill’s measures include stopping “the sale, manufacture and importation of 158 specifically named military-style firearms and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. It would also ban an additional group of assault weapons that accept detachable ammunition magazines and have at least one military characteristic,” according to the Huffington Post.
The left-leaning website adds: “Other new provisions include requiring background checks on all future transfers of assault weapons covered under the bill and eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original ban to expire.”
President Touts Need to Keep Children Safe During Gun Violence Speech, Despite the Fact That Many Have Been Killed During Drone Strikes
In his remarks Wednesday on gun violence in America, President Obama was joined on stage by four children who had written him letters urging tougher gun control requirements. He stressed that our “first task as a society” is to keep “our children safe.”
But does the president’s drone campaign go against this message? Judge Napolitano argues that it does. According to numbers reported by Stanford Law School and New York University Law School, from June 2004 to September 2012, drones killed from 2500 and 3300 people in Pakistan alone, 176 of whom were children. The judge pointed out that two of these children were Americans. He also pointed out that these statistics span both President Obama and President Bush’s times in office.
“We have a president who has not hesitated to kill foreign innocent children or American innocent children when they are in a foreign country. He loses credibility when he stands with innocent American children and says ‘I’m going to keep you safe,’” Napolitano said. More with video: http://goo.gl/o0wUv
On Friday the Democratic leadership of the Senate — Majority Leader Harry Reid, Assistant Majority Leader Richard Durbin, Conference Chair Charles Schumer, and Conference Secretary Patty Murray — wrote to President Obama urging him to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling in the event that Republicans either block such an increase or attempt to pass one “as part of unbalanced or unreasonable legislation.”
“We believe that you must make clear that you will never allow our nation’s economy and reputation to be held hostage,” the Democrats wrote. “We believe you must be willing to take any lawful steps to ensure that America does not break its promises and trigger a global economic crisis — without congressional approval, if necessary.”
Put aside the picture of leading lawmakers, usually so jealous of their constitutional prerogatives, asking the president to ignore Congress. What is striking about the letter is that every one of its signers — Reid, Durbin, Schumer, and Murray — voted against raising the nation’s debt ceiling just seven years ago.
Well, dear reader, can you spell hypocrisy? This story showed up around lunchtime on Saturday in The Washington Examiner…and it’s a story I borrowed from yesterday’s edition of the King Report. The link is here.
Hypocritical moment number 794: Obama 08 says Bush spends too little time on intelligence reports and too much time on public opinion
As a candidate for President in 2008, candidate Barack Obama harshly condemned politicians in Washington for being too concerned with politics and not concerned enough with intelligence. Obama chastised the Washington establishment in a highly touted speech on the Iraq war:
“…[T]here were too many politicians in Washington who spent too little time reading the intelligence reports, and too much time reading public opinion. The lesson of Iraq is that when we are making decisions about matters as grave as war, we need a policy rooted in reason and facts, not ideology and politics.”
Fayetteville, North Carolina
March 19th, 2008
However, the Government Accountability Institute recently examined President Obama’s schedule to see how often he attended his Presidential Daily Intelligence Briefing (PDBs). During his first two and a half years in office, Obama attended the briefing just 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012 his attendance fell to just over 38 percent. And others have suggested in the week before the deadly embassy attacks Obama was absent from such meetings. By contrast, Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting according to former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen.
To be fair, the White House claims the president reads his daily briefings everyday if he does not attend the meetings personally. But the irony remains that while candidate Obama campaigned on putting intelligence at the forefront of his administration, President Obama, even if he is reading, is not attending and engaging.
Should Romney be able to have a “Whites for Romney” group since Obama has a “African Americans for Obama” group?
“Mitt Romney hasn’t revealed all of his fall campaign strategy yet, but what if he launched a “White Americans for Romney” movement in an effort to get out the white vote? If the Romney campaign did that, there’d be a media-led outcry across the land, with charges ranging from racial insensitivity to outright racism. When President Barack Obama announced his 2012 launch of “African Americans for Obama“, the silence was deafening. Should the same standards be applied to Obama as would be applied to Romney? The answer turns out to be no, because Obama is not held to the same standards as Romney.”