House bill would require gun owners to have liability insurance

Leave a comment

This is from The Hill.

 Rep. Carolyn Maloney’s comparing auto owner’s needing to have auto insurance to gun owners having insurance is invalid.

As driving an automobile is a privilege and not a right.

Firearms ownership is a right set down by The Second Amendment.

So this proposed law will be a violation of The Second Amendment.            


House Democrat Rep. Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.) has introduced a bill that would require gun owners to carry liability insurance.

The Firearm Risk Protection Act, unveiled Friday, would require gun buyers to have liability insurance coverage before being allowed to purchase a weapon, and would impose a fine of $10,000 if an owner is found not to have it. Service members and law enforcement officers, however, would be exempt from the requirement.

“We require insurance to own a car, but no such requirement exists for guns,” Maloney said in a statement. “The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade, but gun fatalities continue to rise.”

Maloney said auto insurance carriers incentivize drivers to take precautions to reduce accidents, but no such incentives exist for firearm owners.

“An insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior and help save lives,” she said. “Adequate liability coverage would also ensure that the victims of gun violence are fairly compensated when crimes or accidents occur.”

This is the second time Maloney, who is one of the biggest gun control advocates in Congress, has introduced the legislation. A few weeks ago she reintroduced legislation that would require sellers to obtain a background check for all guns sold at gun shows.

The Gun Show Loophole Closing Act, long championed by former Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), would subject anyone selling or transferring a gun to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and require that transfers be reported to the attorney general.



Leave a comment

Originally posted on Burst Updates:

View original

You Better Listen to What Marco Rubio Is Saying About the Assault on Christianity


This is from Rush Limbaugh.com.

While the left is attacking Christianity, they will not be able to destroy Christianity.

Matthew 16:18King James Version (KJV)

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


RUSH: This is the Christian Broadcasting Network, CBN, chief political correspondent David Brody interviewing Marco Rubio late yesterday.  Question:  “Does your deep faith drive public policy decisions on social issues like traditional marriage.”

RUBIO:  We are at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech, because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage you are labeled a homophobe and a hater.  So what’s the next step after that?  After they’re done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech and that’s a real and present danger.

RUSH:  Do you think Rubio’s got a point there?  You better. I tell you, you better not sweep this away, folks. You better not think this is a little bit over the top.  He is right on the money.  In fact, I would even go further.  I think mainstream Christianity is the target and has been for I can’t tell you how long.  Before I was born.  Christianity has been the biggest enemy of the American left — well, any left.  Organized religion in general, but Christianity is the number one enemy of these people.

You notice they’ve made friends with militant Islam.  The left will not stand for any criticism of militant Islam, right?  You start drawing cartoons of the prophet, they’re the first to jump on your case, right?  Democrats and the left, they are out condemning any criticism of Islam.  They’ve sidled up.  Why?  Well, Islam has an enemy.  In their mind, their enemy’s Christianity.  So there’s a commonality there.  And I don’t care — folks, maybe this is another one of those things you’re just not supposed to say, but I’m sorry, it’s undeniable.

Okay.  Okay.  Tell me I’m wrong when I say that the left has formed an accord with Islam, tell me I’m wrong.  Militant Islam says you can’t draw pictures of the prophet.  The Democrat Party:  You can’t draw pictures of prophet, you can’t criticize Islam.  And they go out of their way not to.  We can’t call ’em terrorists.  You know the drill.  Christianity, it’s open season.  You can say anything, you can do anything, you can mock anything.  And Christians are just supposed to take it, and the reason we’re supposed to take it is ’cause we’re the majority.  The majority has to understand minorities feel offended, always hit on and ripped apart, so forth. You just gotta take it, part of being the majority.

And that is a relevant fact.  I mean, majorities are hated by the people in the minority.  The problem for us is that the minorities that we’re talking about here, most of them are really tiny, and yet they’re winning.  They’re bullying their way around, it’s incredible.  And Marco Rubio here is right on the money.  Look at Ireland and gay marriage.  What was the final vote there?  Was it 60%?  (interruption)  Over 60% approving.

Now, I have to tell you something.  As best I’ve been able to ascertain, Ireland just didn’t do this on its own.  There was a lot of American money moving the issue. There were a lot of American activists over there pushing the issue.  Nevertheless, they won, they made it happen.  And the pope, I don’t think — somebody correct me if I’m wrong — I don’t think the pope said anything about it.

Let me tell you where is next, then.  Italy is going to be next, by design and on purpose.  Gay marriage forces will target Italy, and by targeting Italy, they will target Rome.  And they’ll also go to Milan; fashion central is already the way paved there.  Maybe a little bit Florence.  Might even mess with Venice, but certainly Rome and the Vatican.  Marco Rubio: Christianity facing a real and present danger in the US due to a growing acceptance for gay marriage.

It’s not just gay marriage by the way.  It goes back to this Gallup poll celebrating the fall of morality, celebrating the fall of conventional morality.  It’s not just gay marriage.  It’s all kinds of things that constitute the fall of age-old morality, which the left has targeted as long as I’ve been around.  So Rubio said, “We’re at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater.”

You will support it.  And not only will you support it, you will embrace it and you will love it.  It’s their own version of Sharia, if you want to know what Sharia is like.  Just like with Obamacare.  You will participate in Obamacare, and you will like it, and you will promote it, and you will not criticize it.  You will support gay marriage.  You will promote it.  You will love it, and you will accept it.  Anything less and you will be attacked.

Rubio said the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech.  And that’s a real and present danger.  Now, he said earlier this year also in an interview with the Christian Broadcast Network that it’s ridiculous and absurd to believe that there’s a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.  “Fifty-eight percent of Americans support same-sex marriage, according to a Quinnipiac University poll earlier this year.  Fifty-nine percent of Republicans are opposed to it.”  Companion story — (interruption) what is this?  Oh, the pope did weigh in.  Oh, I’m sorry, it’s not the pope.  Well, okay, the pope hasn’t weighed in.

I said something earlier today — I got a note from somebody about this, about the next target area for the militant gay marriage crowd being Italy.  And pope’s gonna have to speak up.  And I stuttered and I stumbled, I thought, “Do I really want to tell ’em what I really think?”  Don’t be surprised if this pope eventually comes out and supports it as part of the global warming agenda.  It’s a different pope here.  He surprises you issue to issue.

Anyway, from the UK Guardian, the headline:  “Vatican Says Ireland Gay Marriage Vote is ‘Defeat for Humanity’ — Vatican diplomat seen as second only to the pope insists Saturday’s referendum result shows ‘the church must strengthen its commitment to evangelisation.’ A senior Vatican official has attacked the legalisation of gay marriage in Ireland. The referendum that overwhelmingly backed marriage equality last weekend was a ‘defeat for humanity,’ he claimed.”

This marriage equality, what is wrong with that?  Do you people on the left really think that whatever number of thousands of years ago some rich, fat, white guy sat around and defined marriage specifically to exclude homosexuals just because he hated ’em and wanted to discriminate against them?  And there has been thus, ever since, a quest for marriage inequality?  Is that what you really think?  Marriage equality?  Marriage has a definition, or it did.  Words mean things.  Marriage is a union of a man and a woman, pure and simple.  That’s what it is.

Now, if you’re gonna allow people of the same sex to get married, you’d better come up with a different term because that’s not what marriage is if words means things.  And words do mean things.  And if you’re gonna change the definition of marriage, then you better be open-minded and permit any change under the umbrella to happen.  If marriage is no longer the marriage of a man and a woman, the union of a man and a woman, then what is it?  “Well, Mr. Limbaugh, marriage is now a union of a man or a woman, or it can be a union of a woman and a woman or a union of a man and a man.”  Oh, okay.

How about this?  How about marriage can be the union of two men and one woman.

“Well, no.”

Well, why not?  You’ve blown the definition up already.  Why can’t it be whatever anybody wants to do, as long as they love somebody.  Words mean things.  Institutions are institutions for a reason.  They’re not designed by a bunch of people who hope to discriminate against people.  The roots of marriage are rooted in decency and goodness and love and child rearing and all of these things that are supposedly to aid society in remaining cohesive and to propagate the race for a whole host of reasons that are important, including bloodlines and everything else.

But once you blow that up, it isn’t marriage.  Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.  Look it up anywhere.  And this whole notion of marriage equality, as though the designers of marriage did so purposely to discriminate?  There wasn’t any discrimination involved here. There wasn’t any hate. It wasn’t as though people devised an institution that specifically and for that reason denied access by others.  It’s not what the purpose of it was.

You know, you people on the left, not everything that happens has had you in the crosshairs.  Frankly, you haven’t been on that many people’s minds through the years.  We haven’t created all these traditions and institutions to exclude you.  It’s always been for other reasons that are far loftier.  They come along and claim that it’s a discriminatory institution rooted in hatred and bigotry and inequality and so forth.

And that’s how you get the young people to support it.  I mean, young people of course embrace the notion of equality and fairness and sameness, and if you go tell these people that just don’t have enough years lived in order to have sufficient experience, if you go portray marriage as something that discriminates, well, they don’t want to be a part of anything that discriminates, ’cause that’s not fair, that’s not nice, and that’s how they’ve done it.

But in the process they’ve blown up the definition of the word, and now it can mean anything anybody wants it to mean if they’re willing to make a cause out of it.  And it’s beginning to happen, predictably so.  I haven’t seen any official — maybe it’s happened and I just missed it — but has there been an official redefinition of the term that now specifies that marriage is either the union of a man and a woman or the union of a man and a man or the union of a woman and a woman?  Has that been codified somewhere?

No, what’s happened is, marriage is not just a union of a man and a woman, and the reason it isn’t is because it’s unfair and it’s discriminatory and it’s unequal.  And all of that is irrelevant to marriage and why it exists and how it came to be and what its purpose is.  But you wouldn’t know that if you’re a young Millennial and you’ve grown up surrounded by never ending assaults on how that’s unfair and that’s discriminatory and that’s inequality and you join the quest to make everything the same, everybody the same, everything equal, and, you know, bye-bye individuality and everything that comes with it.

So, anyway, the Vatican says Ireland gay marriage vote defeat for humanity, but the pope didn’t say it.  It was the biggest diplomat, Vatican diplomat, senior Vatican official.  Cardinal Pietro Parolin: “I was deeply saddened by the result. The church must take account of this reality, but in the sense that it must strengthen its commitment to evangelisation. I think that you cannot just talk of a defeat for Christian principles, but of a defeat for humanity.”

And up next, after the break, leftists push Italy to follow Ireland on same-sex marriage.  And it’s a direct assault on the Catholic Church, mark my words.  It’s next.


RUSH: Here is the Oxford, the old Oxford English Dictionary, I should say new definition of marriage.  Listen to this.  (laughing) This is pathetic.  Classic, but pathetic.  Definition of marriage in the New Oxford English Dictionary.  Quote, “The condition of being a husband or wife.”  Marriage is now a condition. It’s a disease. It’s an assignment.  It’s “the condition of being husband or wife.  The relation between persons married to each other.  Matrimony.  The term is now sometime used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.”

That’s what counts.  That’s the money quote in this stupid definition.  “The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.”  I wonder if you go back and get a dictionary ten years ago, you look at the definition of marriage, I wonder what you’d find, and it wouldn’t have any of this gibberish in it.  “The condition of being a husband or wife.  The relation between persons married to each other.”  That’s what marriage is, the relation between people married to each other?  I didn’t think you could put the word in the definition.

We’re trying to define marriage, so how do you define marriage by using the word “married”?  That doesn’t help anybody to understand it.  And then matrimony.  Matrimony is another acceptable definition of marriage.  That would not help the people in Rio Linda to know what it is.  Nope.  You have to get down to, “The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.”  How is that even marriage?  Long-term relationships between persons of the same sex?  Why can’t you just take the old definition of marriage that used to be what it was, defining a relationship, matrimony, a man and a woman and just say it’s a same thing for two men or two women?  Why obfuscate, why all this dancing around here?

8 REASONS: Why Our Military Deserves an Apology from Obama

Leave a comment

This is from Clash Daily.

Not only does Obama need to not only apologize to the military, but,he needs to resign as President.

Sadly, neither one will happen. 

Since taking office in 2008, it has been painfully obvious when President Obama is passionate about something, and when he’s not. On Obamacare, his executive order on immigration, and even the “racial tensions” between communities and police, there’s little question where Obama stands, and to what degree he’s willing to fight for them.

But when it comes to foreign policy, domestic security, and the fight against radical islamic terrorists (a term he refuses to use), Obama struggles in awkward discomfort.

This discomfort, in his role as Commander-in-Chief has affectively damaged America’s standing in the world, and compromised the mission and security of our military.

As President, Barack Obama:

  1. Went on a world tour “apologizing” for America
  2. Downplayed the roll of ISIS, calling them a “jayvee team”
  3. Offered no plan seeking justice for the beheading of Americans at the hands of ISIS
  4. Allowed Janet Napolitano and the Dept of Homeland Security to label returning military personnel as potential “domestic threats”
  5. Remained silent as we sought answers on the slaughter at Benghazi
  6. Allowed his press secretary Josh Earnest to label the fall of Ramadi a “setback” after more than 70 American service members died there liberating the city in 2006
  7. Told a group of graduating U.S. Coast Guardsmen that climate change, not radical islamists, was the greatest threat they’ll face
  8. Noted this Memorial Day as especially meaningful because it’s the first since “our war in Afghanistan came to an end”.

It’s because of this growing list that my heart goes out to anyone currently serving, or who has served in the military under President Obama. Whether they realize it or not, they’ve been short-changed.

Anyone willing to defend the freedom of strangers, knowing that they may lose their lives in the process, deserves better than that. At the very least, they deserve someone capable of upholding and executing the most basic responsibilities of a Commander-in-Chief: keep morale high, and lead.

Our military deserves a President who doesn’t apologize for American exceptionalism, but sings its praises wherever he goes. A President unafraid to lead the fight against evil, rather than turn the other way and allow it to fester into something we can’t control. And, they deserve a President who exudes esprit de corps, radiates patriotism, and is a living, breathing representation of everything that makes America the greatest country in the world.

Mr. President, you’ve let a lot of people down, none more so than our brave men and women in uniform. At the very least, you owe us an explanation, and each of them an apology.


Obama Warns About Global Warming-Induced Extreme Weather; No Major Hurricane in Almost a Decade

Leave a comment

This is from The Last Resistance. 

The Obama bull shit just keeps piling up about globull warming.

There a has not been any globull warming in Indiana the last two winters.

This is another one of those things that baffles scientists. They all know that burning fossil fuels causes global warming, and that global warming causes more extreme and frequent weather patterns. But in the same way we’ve experienced an inexplicable pause in global warming despite record carbon emissions, we’ve also witnessed a pause in major hurricanes. So much so that this pause is called a “hurricane drought.” It leaves scientists baffled, perhaps because their premises and presuppositions are wrong. But they would never consider that as a possibility. They start with their conclusion and then work their way backwards to find a possible explanation for their predetermined conclusion. The Daily Caller reported:

It’s been nearly a decade since a major hurricane has made landfall in the U.S., but that hasn’t stopped President Barack Obama from claiming that more global warming-induced “extreme weather” will pummel Americans every year.

Obama is set to tour the National Hurricane Center Thursday where he is expected to mention that man-made global warming will increase the risks of major hurricanes hitting the U.S. and costing causing billions of dollars in damages. Obama has frequently claimed that hurricanes and other weather events will get more severe as humans emit more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

But the facts aren’t on the president’s side when it comes to hurricanes. NHC experts will likely report to Obama Thursday they expect a relatively weak hurricane season this year, possibly continuing the U.S. “hurricane drought” even longer.

It’s been 3,503 days since a Category 3 or greater hurricane has made landfall in the U.S., according to storm data. The last major hurricane to make landfall in the U.S. was in 2005 when Hurricane Wilma hit Florida. Experts have dubbed this nine-year and seven-month period as a “hurricane drought.”

The lack of major hurricanes hitting the U.S. in the last decade has baffled scientists, and some have attributed the hurricane “drought” to dumb luck. A recent study by NASA found that the U.S. has just been lucky this past decade when it comes to major hurricanes.

“When we looked qualitatively at the nine-year drought, they aren’t inactive seasons,” lead author Timothy Hall with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies said in a statement. “I don’t believe there is a major regime shift that’s protecting the U.S.”

So far, the consensus among scientists is that global warming will cause fewer hurricanes, some of which will be made more intense as humans increase carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. But even that’s been elusive so far as major storms seem to be bypassing the U.S.

It doesn’t matter what ends up happening with the weather patterns; it’ll be portrayed as negative and caused by GOP-induced global warming. Even if there’s a slowdown in extreme weather, they’ll find a way to make it sound like that’s actually a bad thing, and it’s all because of fossil fuel consumption.
Read more at http://lastresistance.com/11896/obama-warns-about-global-warming-induced-extreme-weather-no-major-hurricane-in-almost-a-decade/#HdyPMfjXPKIxfMyt.99

YES: Gun-Control Propaganda Fails, Texas Legislators Approve Licensed Open Carry Bill

Leave a comment

Originally posted on pundit from another planet:


Next Stept: Governor Abbott’s Desk

AUSTIN – Open carry in Texas is just a signature away from becoming law, as the House and Senate voted in rapid succession on Friday to send the contentious bill to Gov. Greg Abbott.

The measure – backed by Republicans and a few House Democrats – would allow licensed Texans to openly carry handguns in belt or shoulder holsters. And Abbott, a Republican, has said he will sign open carry into law.

View original 70 more words

10 fascinating birthday facts about President John F. Kennedy

Leave a comment

This is from the National Constitution Center.

When the author mentioned Joe Kennedy Sr they forgot some facts about him.

Joe was a rum runner during prohibition, a Wall Street inside trader, and a Nazi sympathizer.

Those Nazi sympathies got him recalled from his position as Ambassador To The Court Of St. James.

John was having an affair with a Nazi sympathizer that got him shipped to the Pacific.

If you want to present facts you need to include the good, the bad and the ugly.

On the occasion of President John F. Kennedy’s birthday, here’s a look at one of the most documented figures of the 20th century.

John-F-KennedyJohn Fitzgerald Kennedy was born in Brookline, Massachusetts, on May 29, 1917, and died while in office on November 22, 1963. He spent a good portion of his life as a public figure, from one of the wealthiest, most well-connected families in New England. After his tragic death, most of his life has been written about in great detail.

From among the wealth of knowledge about President Kennedy, here are 10 interesting facts about the 35th president.

1. His family was very, very rich.

President Kennedy was the richest president ever, based on the estimated value of his family’s fortune. In fact, his part of that fortune may have been worth $1 billion at the time of Kennedy’s death. His father, Joseph Kennedy, was involved heavily in Wall Street and other investment opportunities.

2. His father was near a terror attack just after JFK was born.

Joseph Kennedy escaped the infamous 1920 Wall Street bombing. An unknown group of anarchists planted a bomb in a wagon full of lead weights on the street. The explosion killed 38 bystanders on Wall Street. The elder Kennedy was thrown to the ground by the blast, but was unharmed.

3. He grew up partly in the Bronx.

The stereotype of Kennedy is that he was a born-and-bred Bostonian. In reality, Kennedy spent the first 10 years of his life in Brookline, in suburban Boston, until his family moved to the Bronx. The future president spent his middle-school years in the Bronx area until his family sent him to private school in Connecticut.

4. President Kennedy played the role of movie producer.

Warren Beatty almost played Kennedy in the movie PT-109, which was based on the sinking of Kennedy’s boat in the Solomon Islands. President Kennedy wanted Cliff Robertson to play a young Lieutenant Kennedy in the war movie, but the first lady wanted Beatty. The president’s choice wound up appearing in the 1963 movie, which also features a lot of familiar faces who wound up on baby boomer TV shows. Kennedy also helped pick the movie’s director.

5. He was the only president to win a Purple Heart.

Kennedy was awarded the Purple Heart for his service in the Pacific during World War II. Two recent presidential candidates, John Kerry and John McCain, were Purple Heart recipients.

6. Kennedy wasn’t the youngest president ever.

That title goes to Theodore Roosevelt, who was a little more than nine months younger than Kennedy, at the age of 42 years, 10 months, when he succeeded William McKinley as president in 1901. However, Kennedy was the youngest person elected president, at the age of 43 years, seven months, when he became president in 1961. Bill Clinton was the third youngest president, as 46 years of age.

7. Kennedy was an experienced politician at a young age.

In 1946, Kennedy ran for the House of Representatives at the age of 29 and won. His older brother had been expected to be the family’s political standard bearer, but he was killed in action during World War II. Kennedy was elected three times to the House and two times to the U.S. Senate before becoming president, and he had more national political experience than our two most recent presidents. Health problems did keep Kennedy from attending Congress for some periods.

8. Kennedy’s popular vote win over Richard Nixon was very, very narrow.

Kennedy defeated Nixon in the 1960 election when votes were counted in the Electoral College, by a margin of 303 to 219. But in the popular vote, Kennedy won by 112,000 votes out of 68 million cast. Also, arguments persist to this day about vote-counting in two states: Illinois and Texas. If Nixon had won those two states, he would have defeated Kennedy by two votes in the Electoral College.

 9. JFK recorded conversations in the White House.

Actually, Kennedy wasn’t the first president to record private conversations in the White House (that was President Franklin D. Roosevelt). One theory for the Kennedy taping system was that the president had already written two books and wanted the tapes for when he wrote his memoirs after leaving office. Many of the tapes have been declassified over the past decades.

10. Kennedy almost died twice before he became president.

Not including his run-in with a Japanese ship on the PT-109, Kennedy long suffered with health problems. Today, those health issues are well-documented, and two incidents resulted in a priest giving Kennedy last rites in a hospital. In 1948, when Kennedy was in Great Britain, his health looked dire after he was diagnosed with Addison’s disease, according to author Robert Dallek. And in 1954, Kennedy nearly died from an infection after back surgery.

Older Entries


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 772 other followers

%d bloggers like this: