Obama Wouldn’t Support Tougher Prosecution for School Shooters

Check this out from the Daily Caller.

In 1999, State Senator Barack Obama voted “present” on a bill that would require adult prosecution for discharging a gun in or near a school.

That legislation came as a response to the tragic Columbine High School shooting that year.

SB 759 provided that anyone 15 years of age or older charged with aggravated battery with a weapon in school or within 1,000 feet of a school would be charged as an adult.

It passed the Illinois State Senate in a 52-1 vote, with 5 members voting present — including Obama.

America Speaks For Itself

When the National Rifle Association suggested putting armed security in every school across America, elites in the mainstream media mercilessly criticized Wayne LaPierre — calling him everything from "laughable" and "tone deaf" to "whacked," "evil" and "out of step with America." Unfortunately for them, despite the best propaganda efforts of our media, America disagrees. 

Most citizens support armed security in schools — and the NRA, as evidenced by its 250,000 new members over the past month. The media will continue speaking for the elites, but American's MUST speak for themselves and not let the emotions of the moment allow this Government to infringe on our rights, and make us less safe.  As they point out, the elites can afford their own security, we need to be able to protect ourselves.

New NRA Ad Plays on Obama's Class Warfare

A new NRA ad playing on Obama and the left's class warfare.  I love it when they use their methods against them. 

These are same people who backed Bill Clinton’s COPS program, which subsidized armed guards in schools, castigate the NRA for proposing armed guards in schools.

Learn from Australia's Mistake: Armed Robbery up 69% After Gun Control

Before making the same mistake they made in Australia, watch this video.  We have to think logically, and not emotionally as hard as that may be in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre.  

Since they confiscated and banned guns in Australia:

Armed robbery up 69%

Assault with guns up 28%

Gun Murders up 19%

Home Invasions up 21%

Criminals have been emboldened now that citizens have been denied the right to protect themselves.  Don’t think this cannot happen in America if we don’t wake up now!

Senator Obama vs President Obama on Debt Ceiling

Senator Obama vs President Obama on Debt Ceiling

President Barack Obama January 14, 2013 said he would be willing to take over authority for raising the U.S. borrowing limit if Congress does not want to increase the debt ceiling.  "This is about paying your bills," he said. "We've got to stop lurching from crisis to crisis to crisis."

But back when he was a Senator, and when our debt was just a fraction of what it currently is, Obama said:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

When CBS News White House correspondent Major Garrett asked Obama about this “new adamant desire on your part not to negotiate when that seems to conflict with the entire history in the modern era of American presidents in the debt ceiling and your own history on the debt ceiling”; not surprisingly, President Obama did not answer Garrett's question.

Protecting the Children?

Listening to Mark Levin the other day got me thinking.  Liberals are always looking for ways to protect our children.  Their newest scheme will be unveiled this week with a big government solution to shootings such as the tragic Newtown shooting.  What does this mean?  Hide the children! 

They protected the children before; in 1972 the EPA banned the pesticide known as DDT based on a book written in 1962 by American biologist Rachel Carson called Silent Spring.  The publication of Silent Spring was one of the signature events in the birth of the environmental movement.   In Silent Spring Carson used manipulated data and wildly exaggerated claims (the same tactics currently being used to promote their big Government solutions to Global Warming today) leading to a push for a worldwide ban on DDT even though DDT is the most effective weapon against malarial mosquitoes to this day.  In Silent Spring Carson suggested among other things that cancer in children increased as a percentage of childhood deaths as a result of DDT.  She predicted a cancer epidemic that could hit "practically 100 percent" of the human population.   The hysteria she created eventually led to the DDT ban.  Forty years later, the ban has helped kill millions of people, mostly children.   

What Carson failed to mention was the reason cancer deaths increased as a percentage of childhood deaths was because other causes of death decreased for children.  What neither she, nor anyone else ever did was link any human deaths to DDT.  The Environmental Protection Agency held extensive hearings after the uproar produced by the book and the hearings concluded DDT should not be banned. 

A few months after the hearings ended, EPA administrator William Ruckleshaus over-ruled his own agency and banned DDT anyway, in what he later admitted was a “political” decision.  Ruckleshaus disregarded nine thousand pages of testimony when he imposed the DDT ban. Then as now with Global Warming, the science was settled in their minds, despite any evidence to the contrary.  Banning DDT has since resulted in millions of deaths but that didn’t matter; they were going to protect the children.

Next, the liberals were going to save the environment and decrease our dependence on Middle Eastern oil in the wake of the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo.  To accomplish this, the United States enacted the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards in 1975 to improve the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks.  Of course, as fuel efficiency increased we drove more, and imported more from Middle Eastern Countries than ever before, just the opposite of their stated intent.    In order for the Auto industry to improve mileage to meet the standards, vehicles were made lighter and more fragile which in turn caused about 2,000 deaths per year, including many children.

Another example, the biofuel obsession took resources from growing food crops, resulting in higher food prices and starving people, including many children.   

  

They are currently protecting the children in every new big government program they enact.  They create unnecessary and redundant programs, refusing to ever cut back on any expenses.  Any proposal for the slightest decrease in the rate of growth in these programs is considered a draconian cut that will hurt women and children most.  Never do they evaluate the effectiveness of these programs, it is the intent of the programs that counts, regardless of if the program is accomplishing anything.  As Ronald Reagan said "A government bureau is the closest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth." 

The reckless spending over the past decade has resulted in the devaluing of our currency, and indebting our children so deeply that they will be enslaved in that debt for generations.   

As Senator Obama said back in 2006 before he became the king of reckless spending:  "Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren."

For the good of our children, our government must STOP PROTECTING THE CHILDREN!

Judge Jeanine Pirro: 'How DARE YOU?!' to The Journal News

Watch this, the editor of the Journal News, and the newspaper offices have armed guards protecting them, but they felt it necessary to “out” legal gun owners who have met all the requirements necessary to own the weapon.   

Judge Jeanine Pirro blasts them, and shows their hypocrisy.  She says among other things:  

Why connect law abiding citizens who have gone through rigorous background checks, finger printed, investigated, and received judicial approval to exercise their second amendment right to the mentally unstable man “who massacred innocent babies”.  He didn’t have a pistol permit and didn’t go through a rigorous background check to get one.  He took someone else's gun!

Obama Voted Against Allowing Citizens to Protect Themselves with a Gun During Home Invasion

The White House is set to propose new gun legislation next week to capitalize on the emotion caused by the horrific Sandy Hook massacre.  With that in mind, let’s look back to 2004 when Barack Obama was an Illinois State Senator to find out if we will likely see bipartisan legislation next week.   

Back then, a Chicago man shot an intruder to his home to protect himself and his home.  He was later fined $750 for violating the handgun ban. Most thought this was wrong and the government overwhelmingly and with bipartisan support passed legislation creating an exception to the handgun ban in order to defend one’s home. 

Regrettably, State Senator Obama was not part of the overwhelming bipartisan support for this bill that would allow people to protect their home from an intruder.  So in that light, what do you think the new gun control proposals coming from the White House next week will be like?