Aide Of Anti-Gun, Leftist Congressman Receives Ticket For Bringing Firearm Into Courthouse

Democratic Aide Brings Gun Into Courthouse, Receives Ticket – Daily Caller

An aide to Michigan Democratic Rep. John Conyers got off with a warning after illegally bringing a gun into a public building.

.

Security officers at a federal building in downtown Detroit found a gun in the purse of Betty Petrenz, Conyers’ office manager. Bringing weapons into government buildings is strictly forbidden, but Petrenz received no sentence or formal punishment. Just a ticket, which will be stricken from her record if she demonstrates good behavior.

Conyers is a strong advocate of stronger gun control laws who has received an “F” grade from the National Rifle Association.

The lenient punishment is in stark contrast with the fates of three other people who broke the law, and were either fired, force to resign, or criminally charged, according to The Detroit Free Press.

Petrenz is fortunate that she isn’t a kindergartner on her way to school. Kids who were discovered carrying toy guns on buses have faced steep punishments, including expulsion.

“Children are literally suspended from school for bringing gun-shaped pop tarts to school, yet this Democratic clerk gets off scott-free,” said a post at the conservative site Rare.

Chewing a pop tart into the shape of a gun earned eight-year-old Joshua Welch a suspension.

A North Carolina high school student and Eagle Scout was arrested and suspended after accidentally parking on campus with a gun in his car. And wearing a t-shirt with a National Rifle Association logo was enough to get Jared Marcum, a West Virginian eighth-grader, suspended and arrested.

Conyers’ staffer is not alone among anti-gun political figures who have gotten in trouble for bringing weapons into ostensibly gun-free zones. Last year, Illinois state Sen. Donne Trotter was charged with a felony when he tried to bring a loaded handgun onto a flight from Chicago’s O’Hare airport to Washington, DC. Trotter’s case was reduced to a misdemeanor reckless conduct charge, to which he pleaded guilty in April and was sentenced to a year of court supervision. His state senate job was unaffected by the incident.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Arrogant illegal immigrant contracts Offendeditis when called illegal

Jose Antonio Vargas is here ILLEGALLY, yet he thinks he has the right to bark at an American who says that he is here ILLEGALLY? It is one thing to cross our border ILLEGALLY, but quite another to lecture us on your feelings when someone calls you out!

Jose Antonio Vargas, an illegal immigrant and former reporter, scolded a congressional panel on Wednesday, saying that he should not be called illegal, and saying it is an insult to his family who brought him here.

“When you inaccurately call me illegal, you not only dehumanize me, you’re offending them,” he said. “No human being is illegal.”

Oh my dear Lord, he is offended! Oh the humanity! His overly sensitive ego has been bruise, how brutal that must be for this whiny little man. Sounds as if someone has that old Liberal Entitlement Syndrome!

Mr. Vargas testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee alongside Chris Crane — a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent and president of the ICE agents’ union — who is unable to arrest him under the administration’s new non-deportation policies.

Mr. Vargas, who “came out” as an illegal immigrant several years ago, delivered an emotional plea for the country to legalize him.

“What do you want to do with us?” he asked the committee.

Last week, a top House Democrat also warned colleagues against using the term “illegal immigrants.”

“Our citizens are not — the people in this country are not illegal. They are are out of status. They are new Americans that are immigrants,” Rep. John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat, told colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee.

Rep. Conyers (Delusional) made an interesting slip up there, calling illegals “citizens” before catching himself and calling them out of status. WTF does “out of status” mean exactly? Then Conyers called the “new Americans” when he really meant “future Democratic voters”. Mr. Vargas is to big a fool to grasp that Democrats see him and other illegals as nothing but a voting block. Another minority they can use, exploit then forget about. The only place Democrats want you Mr. Vargas, is on the Liberal Plantation! Go get fitted for your ideological chains there!

 

Leftist Ignoramus Speaks Spanish At ‘English-Only’ Hearing

Conyers Speaks Spanish At ‘English-Only’ Hearing (Video) – TPM

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) delivered his opening statement in Spanish at a hearing on Thursday about an English-only bill proposed by House Republicans.

Republicans at the panel said Conyers’ speech actually supported their point.


……………….Click on the image above to watch the video.

“I would ask the gentleman in the interest of fairness here… would you repeat that in Yiddish and Vietnamese and French, please,” Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) said after Conyers’ speech. “Nothing would make the point better than if we conducted all of our debates in different languages and I suppose that makes the case for this bill better than anything else.”

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) also said Conyer’s Spanish speech showed the needs for his bill.

“I was gonna start out with a Tower of Babel discussion, but I think I’ll pass on that. Mr. Conyers has perhaps made my point for me,” King said.

Late update: Jordan Fabian of Univision has a helpful translation of part of Conyer’s remarks:

Today, immigrants from Asia or Latin America are the targets of demonization and discrimination. One day, our nation will again look back on this period with shame and regret.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Video-Rep Louie Gohmert rips Janet Napolitano

Napolitano is dumber than a tree stump what a disgrace. She is the head of DHS? I would not trust her to order a hamburger without adult supervision. Why not answer the question? She is dodging, and everyone knows it, including Rep John Conyers, he is the one that you hear calling for “regular order” in an effort to bail Secretary “DUH” out.

A Reasonable Profits Board?

Uh-Uh! A Democratic sponsored bill would set up a board to regulate oil profits. Of course this same board would soon move to other “evil” profits, and then, well about those personal profits…….

It might sound like something you would read about in Atlas Shrugged–the Anti-Dog eat Dog Bill or the Equalization of Opportunity Bill–but sadly this idea of creating a “Reasonable Profits Board” to gain greater control on oil industry profits is being introduced by six Democrats in the House. In case you were wondering, the six Democrats are; Dennis Kucinich, John Conyers Jr., Bob Filner, Marcia Fudge, Jim Langevin, and Lynn Woolsey.  The bill would create this board which would be charged with implementing a “windfall profit” tax on the oil companies, up to 100%, after they reach what this unelected board (the three members would be chosen by the president) decided was a reasonable profit. However the bill doesn’t define what a reasonable profit is, that would be left up to the three member panel. And the money will then be spread around by the government and used to invest in alternative energy.

Oh Boy! Is this the ultimate Leftist wet dream or what? The Hill has some more specifics

The Gas Price Spike Act, H.R. 3784, would apply a windfall tax on the sale of oil and gas that ranges from 50 percent to 100 percent on all surplus earnings exceeding “a reasonable profit.” It would set up a Reasonable Profits Board made up of three presidential nominees that will serve three-year terms. Unlike other bills setting up advisory boards, the Reasonable Profits Board would not be made up of any nominees from Congress.

The bill would also seem to exclude industry representatives from the board, as it says members “shall have no financial interests in any of the businesses for which reasonable profits are determined by the Board.”According to the bill, a windfall tax of 50 percent would be applied when the sale of oil or gas leads to a profit of between 100 percent and 102 percent of a reasonable profit. The windfall tax would jump to 75 percent when the profit is between 102 and 105 percent of a reasonable profit, and above that, the windfall tax would be 100 percent. The bill also specifies that the oil-and-gas companies, as the seller, would have to pay this tax.

Folks, these people are Marxists, there is no other word that suits their intentions and schemes. They are the worst type of snake oil salesmen .Like I said at the start, they will eventually love to bring this to you, and your paycheck! Or perhaps your property? I mean, they would, I am sure, find it perfectly reasonable to dictate how much land, or how many homes, cars, etc you own.

Another skeleton falls from Newt’s closet…………

So, that leaves what? 850 or so? Seriously, this guy has more baggage than adverbs, and THAT is a lot! The Lonely Conservative dishes on the latest

But this tidbit from Newt Gingrich’s past is another concern for GOP primary voters.

The legislation, the Global Warming Prevention Act of 1989 (H.R. 1078) had 144 co-sponsors, the majority of which were liberal Democrats such as Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), then-Rep. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). There were only 25 Republican co-sponsors, which included Rep. Gingrich.

The legislation, which never made it out of committee and was never voted on by House members, set a national goal of reducing carbon dioxide levels by at least 20 percent by the year 2000 “through a mix of federal and state energy policies,” as well as “the establishment of an International Global Agreement on the Atmosphere by 1992.”

In addition, the legislation’s summary includes the sectionTitle XI: World Population Growth.” That section states: “World Population Growth — Declares it is the policy of the United States that family planning services should be made available to all persons requesting them. Authorizes appropriations for FY 1991 through 1995 for international population and family planning assistance. Prohibits the use of such funds for: (1) involuntary sterilization or abortion; or (2) the coercion of any person to accept family planning services.

“Requests the President to initiate an international conference on population, and to seek an international agreement on population growth. Establishes a National Commission on Population, Environment, and Natural Resources to prepare reports and convene conferences. Terminates such Commission three years after the enactment of this Act.

To be perfectly fair, let us peek at the defense Team Gingrich is offering up

In an e-mail statement to CNSNews.com, Gingrich’s deputy press secretary, Michelle Selesky, said the former Speaker opposes an international agreement on population growth because “this would be a dangerous violation of sovereignty, and Speaker Gingrich would steadfastly oppose any international efforts to dictate or control population growth in sovereign states.”

Furthermore, “Newt supported a very limited aspect of the 1989 bill that promoted hydrogen energy research,” said Selesky. “This is consistent with his long support of aggressively developing American sources of energy, including American oil, natural gas, coal, and alternatives.”

He supported only a small part? Then why the Hell be a co-sponsor? If most of the bill went against Newt’s ideology, then he should not have had any part in it.Now, I realize no candidate is perfect, that is the way it goes. But these “imperfections” in Newt, and yes you too Mitt are starting to add up here. And yes, I know that my preferred candidate, Perry, is not perfect either. But most of his detractors will point out style point issues they have with him. Me? I can deal with the piss poor Gardasil executive order Perry issued, and the in-state tuition issue as well. On principles, Perry is really solid. I used to think Newt was too, but these skeletons keep popping up, and it reminds me that Newt is not the best option for the Republicans.

Your Marxist Moron of the Day is……….

John Conyers, who, apparently, has not the slightest notion what the word liberty means. Via Weasel Zippers

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday that the individual insurance mandate in the Democrats’ health care law has nothing to do with individual liberty.

“[W]e have been hearing that this is all about individual liberty, the right to be let alone. But is it really?” Conyers asked in his opening statement.

“While we can debate whether Congress has the power to impose this requirement – something I believe we clearly do – we should not scare Americans into believing that how we resolve that question says anything about their individual liberty.”

Link

This buffoon has no idea what liberty, or America’s founding principles are about, none at all. I can not think of a more deserving winner of our Marxist Moron Award! I can also see no earthly reason this clown ought to be serving in the United States Congress either! What is wrong with America? One thing is people like Conyers being in positions of power!

Obama vs the anti-war Left

It is on now!

President Barack Obama plans to request new funding from Congress for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he risks a backlash from antiwar lawmakers.

Mr. Obama is expected to seek congressional approval of $75.5 billion for the wars, perhaps as soon as Thursday. The issue is already raising tensions on Capitol Hill, especially among liberals who are sympathetic to the president’s broader agenda but voice concerns about his timeline for withdrawal of troops from Iraq and his plans to beef up forces in Afghanistan.

“I can’t imagine any way I’d vote for it,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a California Democrat and leader in the 77-member congressional Progressive Caucus. It would be her first major break with this White House.

Ms. Woolsey fears the president’s plan for Iraq would leave behind a big occupation force. She is also concerned about the planned escalation in Afghanistan. “I don’t think we should be going there,” she said.

Similar sentiments echo across the House. Rep. Jim McGovern (D., Mass.) said he fears Afghanistan could become a quagmire. “I just have this sinking feeling that we’re getting deeper and deeper into a war that has no end,” he said.

Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.) dismissed Mr. Obama’s plans as “embarrassingly naive,” and suggested that the president is being led astray by those around him. “He’s the smartest man in American politics today,” Rep. Conyers said. “But he occasionally gets bad advice and makes mistakes. This is one of those instances.”