Your Marxist Moron of the Day-Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop

It should be noted that Fulop is a member of Nanny Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, so this story I found at Bearing arms is no surprise

Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop is putting the lives of his officers at risk by telling manufacturers they must comply with authoritarian “social responsibility questions” to bid on city firearms and ammunition contracts.

New Jersey’s second-largest city is adopting a novel approach to gun control by requiring weapons-makers bidding on municipal contracts to answer questions about their positions on gun safety issues.

Jersey City, a city of 250,000 across the Hudson River from Manhattan, is believed to be the first U.S. municipality to incorporate social responsibility questions into public contract bids. Mayor Steven Fulop says he wants municipalities to use their purchasing power to influence America’s gun-safety conversation.

The bid specification going out Wednesday — for roughly $200,000 worth of guns and $150,000 in ammunition — includes six questions measuring vendors’ gun safety record. One asks whether the manufacturer would commit to preventing its weapons from appearing in violent video games. Another asks what the company does to combat illegal gun trafficking.

“I think we can reshape the dialogue based on how we award contracts,” Fulop told The Associated Press. “We can’t do it ourselves. The hope is that will be replicated in other urban areas, and that we can get them to lead where Washington couldn’t.”

Here are the “socially responsible questions” from Fulop, a member of Michael Bloomberg’s citizen control group, “Mayors Against Illegal Guns.”

- What do you do to combat illegal gun trafficking and illegal gun crime?
- Do you manufacturer and sell assault weapons for civilian use?
- Do you agree not to sell certain models of firearms for civilian use?
- Are you requiring your dealers to conduct background checks?
- Do you fund research related to gun violence and smart gun technology?
- Will you commit to prohibiting your brand name from being used in violent video games?

Social Responsibility huh? That is what these questions are supposed to be about? Let us look at these questions

What do you do to combat illegal gun trafficking and illegal gun crime?

Illegal gun crime? As opposed to what, legal gun crimes? What an inane question. 

Do you manufacturer and sell assault weapons for civilian use?

Assault weapons? What exactly are those? What clueless Statists like Fulop call assault weapons are really just rifles, so this is a meaningless question. Many gun makers do make weapons for the military, but those are not sold to civilians, and Fulop should know that.

Do you agree not to sell certain models of firearms for civilian use?

Read my statement above.

Are you requiring your dealers to conduct background checks?

Actually federal law requires background checks, it is not anything gun makers have a say in. I have bought two guns this year, both times I had to pass a background check.

As Bob Owens points out, what gun maker is going to even bother selling to Jersey City as long as this buffoon is mayor?

It would be market suicide for FNH USA, Glock, Heckler & Koch, Ruger ,Sig Sauer, Smith & Wesson, or any other manufacturer to pander to Fulop’s citizen control questionnaire to sell a few hundred guns. Does any manufacturer want to take that sort of risk in a day and age where Second Amendment supporters are networked via the Internet, and in a much less forgiving mood?

Exactly!

 

Is our Lord and Master Obama going to delay mandate?

Looks like it, and for up to six whole weeks comrades! How generous of Dear Leader

The health care law requires most people to have health insurance by Jan. 1, 2014 or face a penalty, but the Administration may postpone when those penalties will go into effect. The law allows for “short coverage gaps” of up to three months before imposing the penalty, which is $95 or 1% of an individual’s income (whichever is greater) next year. Under the current rules, someone would have to be covered by March 31, an official with the Department of Health and Human Services confirmed, which is the final day that people will be able to purchase health insurance on the public exchanges, or marketplaces, created by the ACA.

But the Administration is currently working to revise its policy to ensure that people who wait till the last day in March to sign up will not face a penalty, the HHS official clarified. That means that people may go uninsured till April or May without paying a fine, as it takes up to two weeks to process health insurance applications, and new health policies take effect on the first day of each month. A last-minute March 31 application, for example, might be processed by mid-April for coverage starting May 1.

As the law stands now, in order to be covered by March 31, people would actually need to have insurance by March 1. And since it takes up to two weeks to process insurance applications, consumers would have to apply by Feb. 15, the Associated Press reported recently. (People must apply by Dec. 15 if they want coverage starting Jan. 1.)

Make no mistake, Team Obama is hell-bent on implementing this bit of Marxism, and it really does not matter when they start fining you, that is punishing you for NOT buying a product you do not want. After all, this was never about helping the uninsured GET coverage, or about helping those with pre-existing conditions. It has always been about control

 

SHOCKER! Associated Press Lies Its Collective Head Off About Debt Limit

AP Lies Its Collective Head Off About Debt Limit – Sweetness & Light

.

From a shameless Associated Press:

Q&A: What Happens If US Breaks Borrowing Limit?

By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER | October 13, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) – Negotiations in Congress to raise the nation’s borrowing limit are up against a deadline of Thursday. If the limit isn’t raised by then, the government will no longer have authority to borrow to pay its bills.

BS. The government will still be obligated pay its bills. It will just be prohibited from borrowing any more money.

So what happens if Thursday comes and goes and the limit isn’t raised? The scary thing is, no one really knows. Going past the deadline would be unprecedented.

This is another blatant lie. This would not be unprecedented. The country has ‘defaulted’ numerous times and the world did not come to an end. (See below.)

The possible consequences are complex. But none are good. The gravest threat is that the government would soon fail to make interest payments on its debt. Any missed payment would trigger a default.

More BS. The President is required by law to pay the interest on the debt, which should be easy to do, since the Treasury will still take in ten times the amount owed on the debt every month.

Financial markets would sink. Social Security checks would be delayed.

Another lie. Social Security is the only other obligation besides the interest on the debt that the President is required by law to pay.

Eventually, the economy would almost surely slip into another financial crisis and recession…

Yet another lie, since the US has defaulted four to six times before without any financial crises or recessions.

From the very same Associated Press:

US never defaulted on its debt? Not so fast

Oct 14, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) – You hear the same proud claim every time Washington wrestles with the debt limit: The United States has never defaulted. But the record’s not that clean. America has stiffed creditors on at least two occasions.

Once, the young nation had a dramatic excuse: The Treasury was empty, the White House and Capitol were charred ruins, even the troops fighting the War of 1812 weren’t getting paid.

A second time, in 1979, was a back-office glitch that ended up costing taxpayers billions of dollars. The Treasury Department blamed it on a crush of paperwork partly caused by lawmakers who – this will sound familiar – bickered too long before raising the nation’s debt limit.

These lapses, little noted outside financial circles in their day, are nearly forgotten now…

They were certainly forgotten by the AP, who were probably only shamed into this article by others having noted their previous mendacity on the subject. Or maybe they decided they had better stop scare-mongering over a possible default, since it’s now the Democrats who are trying force one.

But, as usual, the AP still didn’t even tell the whole story.

From the New York Times:

The U.S. Has Defaulted Before

By CATHERINE RAMPELL | October 4, 2013

As Carmen Reinhart documented in her impressive chartbook of the last several hundred years of international financial crises, the United States has actually defaulted on its debt obligations before.

The first time was in 1790, the only episode Professor Reinhart unearthed in which the United States defaulted on its external debt obligations. It also defaulted on its domestic debt obligations then, too.

Then in 1933, in the midst of the Great Depression, the United States had another domestic debt default related to the repayment of gold-based obligations…

And as John Chamberlain pointed out over at the Mises Institute back in July 2011, the US also defaulted during the Continental Currency crisis in the Greenbacks crisis in 1862, as well as during the Liberty Bonds crisis in 1934.

So it can be argued that there were defaults in 1790, 1812, 1862, 1933, 1934, 1979. And none of them caused the kind of apocalypse that the news media have been scaring us about.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Associated Press Calls Out Obama Regime For Acting Like Fascists

Wow, The Associated Press Opens Up A Can: Calls Out The Obama Administration For Acting Like Fascists – Doug Ross Journal

It’s not often I quote bits of an AP article without highlighting the fabrications, omissions and spin, but in this case, I’ll make an exception:

REPORT: OBAMA BRINGS CHILLING EFFECT ON JOURNALISM

The U.S. government’s aggressive prosecution of leaks and efforts to control information are having a chilling effect on journalists and government whistle-blowers, according to a report released Thursday on U.S. press freedoms under the Obama administration.

.

The Committee to Protect Journalists conducted its first examination of U.S. press freedoms amid the Obama administration’s unprecedented number of prosecutions of government sources and seizures of journalists’ records. Usually the group focuses on advocating for press freedoms abroad. [Ed: Banana Republic, anyone?]

Leonard Downie Jr., a former executive editor of The Washington Post, wrote the 30-page analysis entitled “The Obama Administration and the Press” … Downie interviewed numerous reporters and editors, including a top editor at The Associated Press, following revelations this year that the government secretly seized records for telephone lines and switchboards used by more than 100 AP journalists. Downie also interviewed journalists whose sources have been prosecuted on felony charges…

…To bypass journalists, the White House developed its own network of websites, social media and <even created an online newscast to dispense favorable information and images…

…Kathleen Carroll, AP's executive editor, said the report highlights the growing threats to independent journalism in a country that has upheld press freedom as a measure of democratic society for two centuries.

It would appear even the AP has had enough of this administration’s behavior, which resembles something in which a tinpot dictator would engage.

I commend Brett Zongker, Julie Pace, and the entire AP for their work.

And, guys, it’s more than past time this administration’s unprecedented series of scandals are revealed to America’s pajama people, who are sleepwalking through the destruction of this country.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

What is wrong with America? Leftists like Senator Feinstein UPDATED suspect did not have an AR-15

As i documented recently, she hates the First Amendment and wants the government to decide who is a “journalist”, and her hatred for the Second Amendment is just as strong

California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein is renewing her call for new gun-control laws because of Monday’s deadly Navy Yard shooting.

“When will enough be enough?” Feinstein said in a statement Monday evening.

“Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country,” she said. “We must do more to stop this endless loss of life.”

Lets see here. Again, Feinstein the Statist wants to politicize tragic deaths and trample the right of self-defense. Why not look at HOW the shooter at the Naval Yards had security clearance? He had an arrest record after all, and a troubled past.

Aaron Alexis, the Navy vet suspected in the killing of 12 people at Washington’s Navy Yard, had a troubled past that included two previous arrests involving shootings and a “history of misconduct” in the Navy.

Alexis, who friends described as a convert to Buddhism, was arrested in Fort Worth in 2010 after firing a gun into his neighbor’s apartment, leaving her “terrified,” according to a police report.

In addition, he was arrested in 2004 in Seattle for shooting out the tires of a construction worker’s car in an incident he later described as “an anger-fueled blackout.”

So where is Feinstein’s call for better vetting of who is given access to military bases? What of the “multiple weapons” We know he got one of them from a security guard he killed

Two federal officials told the Associated Press that Alexis had an AR-15 assault rifle, a shotgun and a handgun that he took from a police officer at the scene. The two officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss a pending investigation.

Apparently video shows him entering with ONLY a shotgun, so it would seem he got the “AR-15 after he shot the guard as well

Another interesting detail from NBC Washington, which is sadly relevant to the new national conversation on guns we’ll soon be having at the Democrats’ and the media’s urging:

Video also shows the gunman entered with a shotgun, News4′s Jackie Bensen reported. He shot the security guard and continued through the building, but according to what witnesses are telling investigators, by the time the shootings ended, the gunman was seen with a semiautomatic 9 mm pistol and an AR-15 assault rifle.

Authorities are investigating whether the gunman took the security guard’s service weapon – likely a 9 mm pistol – and hid in wait for the first responding D.C. police officers, who would be specially armed with AR-15s, then opened fire and shot one of the D.C. police officers in the legs. It’s unclear if the other officers assisting the wounded officer also were able to retrieve his AR-15.

Details could change, but no matter what the facts are vultures like Feinstein do not care about anything but exploiting this tragedy. They want us disarmed, and they are certainly not above lying.

UPDATE! FBI confirms no AR-15 used in Naval Yard shooting. Via Hot Air

The FBI confirms that the AR-15 was not used in the massacre

FBI Washington field office just confirmed gunman was NOT armed with AR15. Spokesperson says 1 shotgun and 2 pistols recovered

Weapons the shooter seemingly took from guards AT the scene of the shootings. I wonder if David Frum, or Piers Morgan, or Feinstein can tell us what law would have stopped this attack? Maybe if they started focusing LESS on banning guns, and more on real solutions, oh wait, who am I kidding here, that simply is not going to happen. More at Hot Air

Usually after a horrendous shooting, the conventional wisdom on what’s “really” to blame has congealed 24 hours later. Not this time. Alexis didn’t use an “assault weapon,” as you already know if you read Ed’s post. He used a shotgun, the weapon of choice of the vice president of the United States. He was, apparently, seriously mentally ill — paranoia, sleep disorder, hearing voices — but had been treated since at least last monthand hadn’t (yet?) had his Navy security clearance revoked on grounds of mental unfitness. Time magazine published a mini-bombshell last night about a Pentagon IG report that accused the Navy Yard of cutting corners on screening contractors who might pose a security risk (52 convicted felons received routine access), but as far as I know Alexis has never been convicted of a felony. On the contrary, his boss told Reuters that Alexis passed a background check in July after the firm re-hired him and that he had a “secret clearance” and a common access card for the Navy Yard. Presumably that explains how he got into the otherwise highly secure Naval Sea Systems Command building, which houses lots of classified information. Simply put, he had a right to be there.

If only the tragedy pimps were honest brokers who wanted to find out what happened BEFORE screaming for more gun laws they might actually do some good.

 

 

 

Jihadist Swine AKA Ft. Hood shooter found guilty on all counts

Via Gateway Pundit. I have just one question. Can we put  a bullet in this bastards head now?

AP reports: Army Maj. Nidal Hasan was convicted Friday in the 2009 shooting rampage at Fort Hood, a shocking assault against American troops at home by one of their own who said he opened fire on fellow soldiers to protect Muslim insurgents abroad.

The Army psychiatrist acknowledged carrying out the attack in a crowded waiting room where unarmed troops were making final preparations to deploy to Afghanistan and Iraq. Thirteen people were killed and more than 30 wounded.

Because Hasan never denied his actions, the court-martial was always less about a conviction than it was about ensuring he received the death penalty. From the beginning of the case, the federal government has sought to execute Hasan, believing that any sentence short of a lethal injection would deprive the military and the families of the dead of the justice they have sought for nearly four years.

A jury of 13 high-ranking military officers reached a unanimous guilty verdict in about seven hours. In the next phase of the trial, they must all agree to give Hasan the death penalty before he can be sent to the military’s death row, which has just five other prisoners. If they do not agree, the 42-year-old could spend the rest of his life in prison.

Four years? It took four years to convict this vile, despicable coward?

 

The Left continues to bastardize the meaning of rights

Rights, as defined by our Founders came from our Creator, or were natural rights, that is rights that are inherent to us all. Those rights included the right to property, freedom of speech, association, the freedom to practice your own religion, or to practice no religion at all, and the right to keep and bear arms among others. You might have noted that among the rights I listed, a right to not be offended was not present. Nor was a right to force a business to sell a product to you. The Left, it seems, is intent on creating such God-given rights. Such rights cannot exist in a nation that honors liberty. A “right” not to have your feelings hurt infringes upon the right of everyone else to freely express their opinions. Likewise any effort to create a “right” that forces a business to sell or provide a service to anyone would naturally place an undue burden upon that business owner.

Take a case from Colorado described in The Blaze

Should bakers and other vendors be allowed to refuse service to gays and lesbians, specifically when it comes to marital ceremonies? “No,” argues one gay couple who have filed a discrimination complaint against a Colorado baker who refused to provide them with a wedding cake.

Masterpiece Cakeshop, owned by Jack Phillips and based near Denver, Colorado, is at the center of the dispute after David Mullins and Charlie Craig attempted to order the baked good from the business last summer.

Phillips, declining to provide service after learning of the couple’s sexuality, cited his Christian beliefs. But Mullins and Craig aren’t accepting Biblical arguments as a viable basis for the refusal.

“We were all very upset, but I was angry and I felt dehumanized and mortified,” Mullins said in an interview with the Associated Press.

What was then posted by the couple on Facebook, as Gawker notes, spread like wildfire and is now making national headlines. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is also involved, having found two other couples were Phillips declined to make cakes for in the past as well. The legal group is not researching next steps in the contentious case.

Last week, the Colorado Attorney General’s office also filed a formal complaint. If the baker loses and continues to refuse service to gays and lesbians, he could be fined $500 per instance — and given up to a year in jail, his attorney claims. Phillips will stand in front of the state’s Civil Rights Commission in September.

As a person who has worked in the restaurant business for over 20 years, I am well aware that every restaurant reserves a right to refuse service to anyone. Over the years I have refused service to a small number of people who were too drunk, or disturbing other patrons. That is, and should be the right of every business owner. I have never refused anyone because of their sexuality, nor would I, frankly. And, if I ran a bakery, or a catering business, or a restaurant that hosted wedding receptions, I would not hesitate to do business with a Lesbian or Gay couple. And, to be honest, I think this bakery owner is being a bit hateful, but, that is his right.

I cannot grasp why a Gay couple would want to do business with that bakery. My attitude would be  to say “screw you, I will get a cake somewhere else”. I also do not understand where these two men get the notion that it is OK to force something upon the bakery owner. But, somewhere along the way, this Gay couple have convinced themselves that they have a right not to have their feelings hurt. They, feel they were discriminated against, and that sucks, but guess what, people on both sides of the business costumer relationship discriminate every day. That is just reality. Using the force of courts or government to force businesses to serve costumers they do not wish to serve is something we ought not to encourage. Call me crazy, but I prefer liberty.