New Reality Series Sends Hollywood Stars Into Space

Posted by Brian

What an opportunity! No, not for the Hollywood stars. When are we going to get another opportunity to kick a trainwreck like Lindsay Lohan off of the planet?  Better yet, we could finally rid the magazine racks of the entire Kardashian clan for a month or two. That alone would be worth the cost of the mission.
The possibilities for candidates are nearly endless in the H'wood cesspool.  Michael Moore. Sean Penn. Janeane Garofalo. Any chance that they can make it a one-way trip? Now that would be "Must-See TV".

Sony Pictures TV Sets Space Travel Series As Space Heats Up As Reality Frontier
By NELLIE ANDREEVA | Wednesday September 25, 2013 @ 7:06am PDT

Sony Pictures Television will introduce a new reality series format at MIPCOM — Milky Way Mission — which will send celebrities into space.
Read More at Deadline Hollywood
Enhanced by Zemanta


You're My Bestest Friends EVER! Guy comes home to find entire house plumbed with beer [VIDEO]

Posted by Brian
Alcoholic's Dream Home

Guy finds his house plumbed with beer - full length version

Enhanced by Zemanta

VINDICATED!! Appeals Court Overturns and Acquits Tom DeLay's Bogus Conviction

Posted by Brian

Texas court overturns Tom DeLay's money laundering conviction

By PAUL J. WEBER Associated Press
Published: 19 September 2013 10:11 AM
Updated: 19 September 2013 01:08 PM

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A Texas appeals court tossed the criminal conviction of former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on Thursday, saying there was insufficient evidence for a jury in 2010 to have found him guilty of illegally funneling money to Republican candidates.

DeLay was found guilty of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering for helping illegally funnel corporate money to Texas candidates in 2002. He was sentenced to three years in prison, but his sentence was on hold while his case made its way through the appellate process.

The Texas 3rd Court of Appeals said the evidence was “legally insufficient,” and in a 2-1 ruling decided to “reverse the judgments of the trial court and render judgments of acquittal.”
Read more at Dallas News

Related Stories:  Jan 2011: Tom Delay Conviction - Virtually No Credibility

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Does It Say? Duke Professor Breaks Down ObamaCare Into Language Anyone Can Understand

Posted by Brian
John David Louis, a Professor of Classics at Duke University, and a fine example of a citizen journalist, took a look at the "Affordable Care Act" and published his analysis on his site Classical Ideals in 2009, in language and terms that everyone can understand.
More prescient than he even knew.

The Health Care Bill: What HR 3200, ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” Says
John David Lewis
August 6, 2009

What does the bill, HR 3200, short-titled ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” actually say about major health care issues? I here pose a few questions in no particular order, citing relevant passages and offering a brief evaluation after each set of passages.

This bill is 1017 pages long. It is knee-deep in legalese and references to other federal regulations and laws. I have only touched pieces of the bill here. For instance, I have not considered the establishment of (1) “Health Choices Commissioner” (Section 141); (2) a “Health Insurance Exchange,” (Section 201), basically a government run insurance scheme to coordinate all insurance activity; (3) a Public Health Insurance Option (Section 221); and similar provisions.

Although I am an associate professor in the Philosophy, Politics and Economics program at Duke University, this document is neither an academic nor a professional analysis. This is the evaluation of someone who is neither a physician nor a legal professional. I asked some simple questions about the bill, considered them in context with the overall structure, definitions, and procedures in the bill, and quoted only the immediate passages involved. I am citizen, concerned about this bill’s effects on my freedom as an American. I would rather have used my time in other ways—but this is too important to ignore.

We may answer one question up front: How will the government will pay for all this? Higher taxes, more borrowing, printing money, cutting payments, or rationing services—there are no other options.  We will all pay for this, enrolled in the government “option” or not.

(All bold type within the text of the bill is added for emphasis.)


This is what the bill says, pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS:

 ‘(ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN READMISSIONS.—For purposes of clause (i), with respect to a hospital, excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.

and, under “Definitions”:

‘‘(A) APPLICABLE CONDITION.—The term ‘applicable condition’ means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the Secretary . . .


‘‘(E) READMISSION.—The term ‘readmission’ means, in the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time period specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.


‘‘(6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of— . . .
‘‘(C) the measures of readmissions . . .

1.       This section amends the Social Security Act
2.      The government has the power to determine what constitutes an “applicable [medical] condition.”
3.      The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.
4.      This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted.
5.      This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.
6.      There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.
7.      The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.


What the bill says, pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE:

 ‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . .”


1.      This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.
2.      Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.
3.      The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.


Here is what the bill says, pages 26-30, SEC. 122, ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED:

 (a) IN GENERAL.—In this division, the term ‘‘essential benefits package’’ means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 124 to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security . . .

(b) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED.—The items and services described in this subsection are the following:
(1) Hospitalization.
(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services . . .
 (3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.
 (4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician’s or a health professional’s delivery of care . . .
(5) Prescription drugs.
(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.
(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.
(8) Preventive services . . .
(9) Maternity care.
(10) Well baby and well child care . . .


(A) IN GENERAL.—The cost-sharing under the essential benefits package shall be designed to provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 70 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package described in subparagraph (B).


1.      The bill defines “acceptable coverage” and leaves no room for choice in this regard.
2.      By setting a minimum 70%  actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal.


Here is what it requires, for businesses with payrolls greater than $400,000 per year. (The bill uses “contribution” to refer to mandatory payments to the government plan.)  Pages 149-150, SEC. 313, EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE

(a) IN GENERAL.—A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of  the average wages paid by the employer during the period of enrollment (determined by taking into account all employees of the employer and in such manner as the Commissioner provides, including rules providing for the appropriate aggregation of related employers). Any such contribution—

(1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Commissioner for deposit into the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, and
(2) shall not be applied against the premium of the employee under the Exchange-participating health benefits plan in which the employee is enrolled.

(The bill then includes a sliding scale of payments for business with less than $400,000 in annual payroll.)

The Bill also reserves, for the government, the power to determine an acceptable benefits plan: page 24, SEC. 115. ENSURING ADEQUACY OF PROVIDER NETWORKS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified health benefits plan that uses a provider network for items and services shall meet such standards respecting provider networks as the Commissioner may establish to assure the adequacy of such networks in ensuring enrollee access to such items and services and transparency in the cost-sharing differentials between in-network coverage and out-of-network coverage.


1.      The bill does not prohibit a person from buying private insurance.
2.      Small businesses—with say 8-10 employees—will either have to provide insurance to federal standards, or pay an 8% payroll tax. Business costs for health care are higher than this, especially considering administrative costs. Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government “option.”
3.      The pressure for business owners to terminate the private plans will be enormous.
4.      With employers ending plans, millions of Americans will lose their private coverage, and fewer companies will offer it.
5.      The Commissioner (meaning, always, the bureaucrats) will determine whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable.
6.      With private insurance starved, many people enrolled in the government “option” will have no place else to go.


Here is what the bill says, pages 197-198, SEC. 441. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS

‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to—
‘‘(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,
‘‘(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and
‘‘(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.


1.      This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code.
2.      Tax surcharges  are levied on those with the highest incomes.
3.      The plan manipulates the tax code to redistribute their wealth.
4.      Successful business owners will bear the highest cost of this plan.


What it says, page 124, Sec. 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority to correct for payments that are excessive or deficient, taking into account the provisions of section 221(a) and the amounts paid for similar health care providers and services under other Exchange-participating health benefits plans.

(e) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as affecting the authority of the Secretary to establish payment rates, including payments to provide for the more efficient delivery of services, such as the initiatives provided for under section 224.


The government’s authority to set payments is basically unlimited.
The official will decide what constitutes “excessive,” “deficient,” and “efficient” payments and services.



 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, upon written request from the Health Choices Commissioner or the head of a State-based health insurance exchange approved for operation under section 208 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, shall disclose to officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, return information of any taxpayer whose income is relevant in determining any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Such return information shall be limited to—
‘‘(i) taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer,
‘‘(ii) the filing status of such taxpayer,
‘‘(iii) the modified adjusted gross income of such taxpayer (as defined in section 59B(e)(5)),
‘‘(iv) the number of dependents of the taxpayer,
‘‘(v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof), and
‘‘(vi) the taxable year with respect to which the preceding information relates or, if applicable, the fact that such information is not available.


(3) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.—The employer provides the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this section.


1.      This section amends the Internal Revenue Code
2.      The bill opens up income tax return information to federal officials.
3.      Any stated “limits” to such information are circumvented by item (v), which allows federal officials to decide what information is needed.
4.      Employers are required to report whatever information the government says it needs to enforce the plan.



(3) AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT OF MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS INTO MEDICAID.—The Commissioner shall provide for a process under which an individual who is described in section 202(d)(3) and has not elected to enroll in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is automatically enrolled under Medicaid.

And, page 145, section 312:

(4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES.—The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).


1.       Do nothing and you are in.
2.      Employers are responsible for automatically enrolling people who still work.


What it says, page 124, Section 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:

(f) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review of a payment rate or methodology established under this section or under section 224.


‘‘(C) LIMITATION ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, 1878, or otherwise, respecting—
‘‘(i) the identification of a county or other area under subparagraph (A); or
‘‘(ii) the assignment of a postal ZIP Code to a county or other area under subparagraph (B).


1.      Sec. 1123 amends the Social Security Act, to allow the Secretary to identify areas of the country that underutilize the government’s plan “based on per capita spending.”
2.      Parts of the plan are set above the review of the courts.

Enhanced by Zemanta

School Suspends Teen After He Tries To Do The Right (and Honest) Thing

More and more, I am starting to really believe that our public school officials are retarded.  Oh! I'm sorry, is that politically incorrect? Tough.  There are millions of us out here getting pretty damn tired of pussy-footing around the edges of issues.  Lets start calling a spade a spade. The pendulum has swung way too far to the other side.
We hear far too often of children getting suspended for completely innocuous behavior.  Some might even say that it is "kids" behavior.  Pointing a finger and saying "bang" gets you suspended.  A kid bringing a plastic 1" toy GI Joe "gun" to school is suspended. Another chews a graham cracker into an "L" shape, and some teacher freaks out saying that he "created a gun" and is suspended.
School administrators and teachers, in their supposed efforts to make school a "safe place both physically and emotionally", implement these "zero tolerance" policies, and leave no room for common sense.  Based on what I have observed with some of these educators at my children's schools, maybe that is also in short supply.  I know it is in the English departments, which seem to be the intellectual ghettos of the public school system.  Maybe it's these teachers who make up the pool from which administrators are chosen. But I digress.
With schools having become the left's favorite petri dish for social experimentation, it is a wonder that thing aren't even worse.  The mixed moral messages which the educational system send our youth. They preach no bullying while denigrating those who have political or religious views which differ from their own. We have to save the owls/seals/polar bears/whales/planet and every other living thing is a responsibility of the entire "global community", yet the killing of babies through abortion is called a private matter and a simple medical procedure to remove unwanted cells, as if the baby is a cancer.  As our own President stated, we don't want to "punish" our kids with the "burden" of the bad choices they've made. It's amazing that any of our kids come out the other end of it with any morality left intact at all.
There are some good , and even great teachers and Principles out there.  But there are far too many who are nothing more that little unthinking automatons who follow the party line, while others are leftist ideologues pushing their own agenda. Both are equally dangerous, and the reason why we see stories like this one, where this young man who has more integrity and backbone than the Principle has ever had, or ever will, gets punished for doing the right thing when literally no one was looking.

Posted by Brian
Enhanced by Zemanta

Mark Levin Bitch Slaps GOP Pseudo-Conservatives Over ObamaCare

Posted by Brian

Mark Levin delivered a fantastic monologue coming out of the gate today on Obamacare and the fact that Republicans have finally been forced by the American people to try and defund it.

Full Story at The Right Scoop
Enhanced by Zemanta


Father of Navy Yard Marine: "They Had Weapons...But Didn't Have Ammunition"

Posted by Brian

Dan Joseph of Media Research Center TV (MRCTV), doing "man on the street" interviews, came across a gentleman who said his son is a Marine, and who was present at the Washington DC Navy yard on Monday.

Joseph, posing the question, "If you could put in, or take out, one thing in the Constitution, or do one of each, what would it be? How would you change it"  I don't think that the answer was what Dan Joseph expected, as the gentleman first spoke of everyone being "concerned with guns these days", and then told of his son being a Marine who is stationed at the Washington Navy Yard (:24s mark of video), the sight of Monday's shootings.  He then added that the Marines stationed there in the barracks were informed of the shootings early on, when only three had been shot, and that they had weapons, but had no immediate access to ammunition, and thus unable to take action.

It makes no damn sense to have these men and women, trained in firearms and the use of deadly force, hamstrung by a 1993 law which forbids military personnel to carry weapons on military installations, which are the ultimate "Gun Free Zones". 

Perhaps it is time to revisit this law and allowed trained and certified members of the military to carry personal firearms on station. On Monday this law cost 12 innocent people their lives.

Enhanced by Zemanta


ObamaCare: Who Do You Have Sex With, How Many, And Are You Gay, Straight or Bi-Sexual

Posted by Brian

Nancy Pelosi:  Lying Then and still Lying Now.
It just keeps getting worse!

Remember when Nancy Pelosi stammered out those famously insulting and condescending words: "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it"?  Well, we're finding out, and the more that's revealed, the worse it gets.

Everything that Obama and the Democrats advertised ObamaCare to be has turned out to be a lie.  Lower cost, keeping your doctor, more options - all lies.  Even those who passed this monstrosity know it is a complete train wreck , and yet they continue to barrel down the tracks headlong toward the cliff.  Congress has already passed 14 laws that change and rescind portions of the law, and Obama has signed 5 Executive Orders to delay it's implementation.

This is a pig that needs to be Defunded . The question is whether the GOP has the cajones to make the case to the American people and then to actually do it.

Obamacare Will Question Your Sex Life

‘Are you sexually active? If so, with one partner, multiple partners or same-sex partners?”

Be ready to answer those questions and more the next time you go to the doctor, whether it’s the dermatologist or the cardiologist and no matter if the questions are unrelated to why you’re seeking medical help. And you can thank the Obama health law.

“This is nasty business,” says New York cardiologist Dr. Adam Budzikowski. He called the sex questions “insensitive, stupid and very intrusive.” He couldn’t think of an occasion when a cardiologist would need such information — but he knows he’ll be pushed to ask for it.
Read More at The NY Post
Enhanced by Zemanta

Media Reporting for Naval Base Shooting Gets A Failing Grade

Posted by Brian

For those of you who watched the wall-to-wall coverage of yesterday's shooting at the Washington, D.C. Naval Shipyard:  Never mind!  Data dump everything you learned from the news yesterday.

In their haste to be the first, news reporters and networks put out a slew of inaccuracies. As a person who has gone to school to be an instructor, one of the first things they teach you, is about a thing called the "Law of Primacy". What the "Law" tells us is that people will remember the first thing that they are taught.  Therefore, it is imperative that the initial information you disseminate to your audience is correct, because that is the information that they are going to remember.  Even if you go back and correct it, the brain will default to the initial info that it learned. That journalists don't know this, or were never taught this, I find difficult to believe. With that in mind, it should be absolutely embarrassing to these people and organizations that this seems to happen during every major crisis, or event.
Q. What's wrong with this picture? A. EVERYTHING! The entire front page is based on a false premise.
An AR-15 rifle was not used by the shooter, and he never had one.

I think a lot of this is because U.S. news services have become both agenda-driven and ratings-driven, and when an incident breaks that fits both agendas simultaneously, just stand back and watch the freak show of pundits and talking heads vying for the award of "most outrageous comment".  If they happen to destroy a persons life or reputation with premature conjecture, so be it.  It's all about the story.

The sheer amount of misinformation put out yesterday in a short span of time is staggering.  Apparently, fact-checking and multiple sources are now arcane journalistic practices best left to the old fossils who are ready to collect their gold watch and pension.   Lost arts, indeed.

Some of the "breaking" news surrounding the shootings:

  • There were up to three gunmen.  False.  There was only one.
  • CNN and ABC both identified the wrong man as the gunman, and had to walk back their initial reports.  Now before you defend the networks with "there was a lot happening very quickly", remember this:  They're making an accusation against an individual of committing a truly evil act. Not something you really want to get wrong!  Richard Jewell never regained his reputation after being falsely identified, tried, and convicted by the media as the "Olympic bomber". Even though Eric Rudolph was later charged, captured, and convicted, the character assassination of Jewell was so intense that instead of being known as the hero who discovered the bomb, cleared the area and prevented unimaginable death and mayhem, he has forever been labeled as an oddball, a wannabe cop who lived with his mother, and the first suspect of the Olympic Park bombing.
  • The gunman used an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. Once again - FALSE!  The FBI reported that the gunman used a shotgun, and that there was no indication that the gunman ever had an AR-15. However, the reporting of an AR-15 did have the desired effect on the anti-gun crowd. Piers Morgan (of course) jumped on this "news" as did Senator Dianne Feinstein and others, calling for more gun control.  Morgan dedicated a segment in which the facts and data once again had no effect.  No matter.  Piers was in his element, orgasmic in his ignorance.

  • The media reported that 13 were killed in the rampage, insinuating that there were thirteen victims.  But the thirteenth person was the killer himself.  This does not minimize the tragedy.  Twelve families have been torn apart by this sick SOB. So, why would the media make it appear that there were 13 "victims".  Maybe it's because it makes for a nice, tidy tie-in to the Fort Hood shootings in which Nidal Hasan killed 13 soldiers.  Or, maybe not. We don't know. As far as I'm concerned, there are twelve victims.  The killer got what he deserved and is not a victim in my mind.
Is it any wonder that Americans are so skeptical of the news they get from the mainstream media, and a comedy show (the Daily Show)  is considered a major "news source" for the under-25 age group?

Enhanced by Zemanta

ZoNation, Colion Noir Expose Sarah Silverman & Hollywood's Condescension and Racism Toward Black Americans

Posted by Brian

Conservative blacks are not taking the racist condescension and hypocrisy of the Hollywood and political left lying down anymore.  Colion Noir, Alfonzo Rachel, Kevin Jackson and others are throwing the left's bullcrap right back at them.

It is with this in mind that Alfonzo Rachel and friends, and Colion Noir completely destroy Sarah Silverman's video of a "Black NRA", pointing out not only its overtly racist point of view, but also the ignorance of the useful idiots she features in it. They also point out how Silverman and others in Hollywood hide behind their "art" or "comedy" to brush aside the racist bile they spew.  This is the same Sarah Silverman who says she was "hurt" by some of the jokes about her age at a recent roast of actor James Franco.  Can you say, "hypocrite"?

Both videos brilliantly highlight how Sarah Silverman uses every racial stereotype of blacks to make them fit her false narrative, as well as the condescension and utter contempt that she and those on the left must have toward blacks just to be able to reach their conclusion about blacks (or any other racial or gender-based group they supposedly "care" about).

What I love about both of these videos is that these men speak to ALL Americans in shining the light of truth on these rats and cockroaches who help foster and then perpetuate the racial/gender/religious/income divisions among Americans.

Well worth the 7 minutes to watch both of these videos.

Enhanced by Zemanta


Texas: You Have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms If You Are In A State Militia

Posted by Brian

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Sep. 16, 2013 3:24pm Jason Howerton

Controversy is brewing around a school district in Denton, Texas, that is said to be using a United States history book that seems to summarize the Second Amendment inaccurately. However, the Denton Independent School District maintains it only uses the book as “supplemental” material and is “disseminating the correct information on the Second Amendment” from other texts.

But there are several other schools that appear to be using the book, too.

“The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia,” the definition in the book, “United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination,” which acts as a study guide for the Advanced Placement U.S. history test, reads.
Continue Reading at The Blaze
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sen. FrankenFeinstein Already Calling For New Gun Control Laws Only Hours After DC Shooting

Posted by Brian

Three days ago, Dianne Feinstein wanted to be the arbiter on who she feels is and isn't a reporter, and thus protected by the first amendment.  A month ago, she defended NSA spying on American citizens. Now, the reptilian Feinstein again crawls out from under her rock, wanting to limit 2nd Amendment rights for ordinary Americans.  Is there anything in the Bill of Rights that she does support for average Americans?

Molon Labe Senator! Molon Labe!

Feinstein calls for new gun control laws again after Navy Yard shooting

6:19 PM 09/16/2013
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.”  
Read More at The Daily Caller
Enhanced by Zemanta