Good dog! Pooch alerts parents to abusive babysitter

Dogs really ARE man’s best friend

A woman who was abusing a baby has been arrested thanks to the family dog, who gave away his distrust of her when she came to the house.

Benjamin and Hope Jordan were horrified to learn that the woman they trusted to care for their son for five months had been abusing him when she thought no one was watching. But someone was – the dog.

The dog, whose name has not been given, served as baby Finn’s protector when his parents were away. The Jordans, who had recently moved to Charleston, South Carolina, hired 22-year-old Alexis Khan after she came up clean on a background check.

“We felt like Alexis was a good fit at the time,” said Benjamin Jordan.

But before long, they began to see some peculiar behavior from their dog.

“About five months into her being our baby sitter, we started to notice that our dog was very defensive of our son when she would come in the door,” Jordan said. “He was very aggressive towards her and a few times we actually had to physically restrain our dog from going towards her.”

The parents were suspicious, but had nothing substantial to go on. Hope suggested they keep tabs on Khan by putting an iPhone under the couch to record what happened while they were at work.

“It started with cussing,” Jordan said. “Then you hear slap noises and his crying changes from a distress cry to a pain cry. I just wanted to reach through the audio tape, go back in time and just grab him up.

“To know that five months I had handed my child to a monster, not knowing what was going on in my house for that day…”

A few weeks later, Charleston City Police took Khan into custody. She pleaded guilty to assault and battery. She will serve one to three years in prison, and placed on a child abuse registry, preventing her from ever working with children. She will be eligible for parole after completing one year of her sentence.

My only question is how did the parents stop themselves from beating the woman to a pulp? I do not know if I would have that self-control if anyone ever hurt my niece.

 

Oh Goody, Bloomberg’s Douchebags to launch bus tour

How many gun grabbing Leftist douchebags can fit on one bus? 

Via Politico:

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun violence group is launching a cross-country bus tour this month as the next step in its push for stricter gun control measures.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ bus tour will start June 14 to mark the six-month anniversary of the Newtown, Conn. massacre, taking gun violence survivors, their families and friends and law enforcement officials to 25 states in 100 days, according to a job posting by the group.

The Bloomberg-funded group has purchased airtime to hammer lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who voted against legislation to expand background checks. A $400,000 ad buy this week pummeled Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) for her vote against the gun control bill that died in the Senate, quoting a police chief who said she was “making us less safe.”

I wonder if they will make it to Dallas? Maybe I can give them a piece of my mind

 

Another Liberal Lie exposed!

During the recent quest for more gun control the left has repeatedly say they want background checks for firearm purchases. That line of talking points, of course, makes it sound to the uninformed that there are currently no background checks for people buying handguns. Well, that is untrue, earlier this year I purchased a new gun, and yes, I underwent a background check, I also underwent background checks when buying handguns in 1998, 1999, and in 1991 back in Florida. In fact, there have been under Obama, millions of background checks for gun purchases 73,442,399 to be exact, and that is just in the last five years

There have been 73,441,399 background checks for gun purchases since President Obama took office, according to data released by the FBI.

In 2009, the FBI conducted 14,033,824 background checks.  If we subtract the month of January (Obama did not assume office until the end of the month) we get 12,819,939.

The FBI conducted 14,409,616 background checks in 2010, 16,454,951 in 2011, and 19,592,303 in 2012.

Add to that the first five months of 2013 (2,495,440, 2,309,393, 2,209,407, 1,714,433 and 1,435,917 respectively) and the total number of background checks under President Obama comes to 73,441,399.

Remember that number the next time some Leftist tells you there are no background checks. Then confront them. Ask them why they have to lie.

 

55 out of 62 Colorado sheriffs can’t be wrong

Especially when they are standing up for the most basic human right, self-defense

In the wake of the tragedy in Aurora, Colorado passed some of the strictest gun control measures in the country.

But in recent months, an overwhelming 55 of the state’s 62 county sheriffs have joined a lawsuit aiming to block the measures.

“These bills do absolutely nothing to make Colorado a safer place to live, to work, to play or to raise a family,” Weld County Sheriff John Cooke explained at a recent press conference. “Instead these misguided, unconstitutional bills will have the opposite effect because they greatly restrict the right of decent, law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, their families and their homes.”

Sheriff Terry Maketa of El Paso County is one of the opposing sheriffs, and he explained on TheBlaze TV Wednesday how the public was “duped” into supporting overly vague legislation banning high-capacity magazines and requiring background checks.

Maketa says they believe the laws are unenforceable, but also violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

After explaining the tactics used to pass the bills that essentially “eliminated all public input,” Maketa reiterated that it’s clearly an “overreaching step” for politicians to claim law enforcement supports stricter gun control.

In short what the weasels Neo-Marxists in the Colorado legislature did amounts to tyranny

 

54 Colorado sheriffs sue to overturn new Colorado gun control laws

Good for them!

A consortium of plaintiffs led by 54 of Colorado’s 62 elected county sheriffs filed a lawsuit in federal court against the state Friday in an effort to overturn two new gun control bills that are set to go into effect on July 1.

The plaintiffs have in their sights one law that effectively bans all firearm magazines, and one that requires a background check for every gun transfer when the gun will be in the possession of someone other than the owner for more than 72 hours.

El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa said the laws are not only unconstitutional, but also confusing and unenforceable.

For example, the ban on magazines was discussed by its Democratic sponsors as applying only to those that hold more than 15 rounds, in response to mass-shooting incidents in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn.

But the law also outlaws any magazine that can be easily converted to hold more than 15 rounds, which applies to practically all magazines with a removable base plate that can be replaced with an after-market extender.

After July 1, the owners of such magazines cannot sell them, loan them or give them away. In effect, it means that even if they give their weapon to someone else for safekeeping — or, in the case of one wheelchair-bound plaintiff who spoke Friday, to hold momentarily as he gets in and out of his chair — they will be breaking the law.

This is a major issue with so many pieces of legislation, the devil of details are in the fine print, or in the poorly written wording. What a bill says it does, and what it can be twisted to do are entirely different.

 

My first thought when someone mentions Joe Scarborough is………..

… Joe Scarborough, you mean Mika’s Bitch boy?

“Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough says the senators who voted against expanded background checks for gun buyers on Wednesday are providing “the opportunity for terrorists, for gang members, for criminals, for violent rapists” to purchase firearms. 

“I got to say just really quickly, I know we got to go to break, but Mark Halperin, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, voting against background checks for terrorists, voting against background checks for violent rapists, voting against background checks for gang members — I don’t know that she really helped her cause in New Hampshire for re-election, did she?”

The former Florida congressman then declared the Republican Party is “moving toward extinction.”

So, is Scarborough actually saying that terrorists, rapists, and gang members do not have to go through background checks now? Of course not Joe, and this bill would not have forced them to go through background checks either. I will say this slowly Joe. Terrorists, gang members and violent felons do not obey laws. they get guns ILLEGALLY now, and no new law will suddenly force these evil beasts to transform into law-abiding citizens. 

 

Did gun rights “snooker” Democrats?

Via Weasel Zippers

Via Washington Times:

A prominent gun-rights advocate claims his group’s staff was in the room during the drafting of the recently unveiled proposal to expand gun-purchase background checks and said that “we snookered the other side — they haven’t figured it out yet.”

Alan Gottlieb, executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, made the remarks at a speech in Portland, Ore., on Friday, according to video captured by the group Daylight Disinfectant.

Mr. Gottlieb said that despite claims to the contrary, the amendment that would expand checks to sales online and at gun shows is “not registration” and went on to list a host of gun-rights protections in the measure, such as allowing interstate handgun sales for dealers and protections for veterans, for example.

“It’s a Christmas tree,” Mr. Gottlieb said. “We just hung a million ornaments on it.”

“We’re taking the background check and making it a pro-gun bill,” he added. “Unfortunately, some of my colleagues haven’t quite figured it out yet because they weren’t sitting in the room writing it,” he continued. “My staff was. I’ll be perfectly candid about it. This will probably break on Monday in the Wall Street Journal.”

Well, we shall see. Maybe the GOP has finally outwitted the Democrats, for once. But, why announce it? why start crowing about is already?