This and That...

[Ross]

'People Have a Right to Certain Weapons...':
School Workbook Rewrites 2nd Amendment

by
Fox News InsiderFox News Insider
//  Mar 25 2014 // 7:40am

A workbook given to Illinois middle schoolers redefines the Second Amendment. The workbook entry was pointed out by the father of a seventh-grader in Springfield, and posted to a Facebook page named Illinois Gun Owners Rights.

"This amendment states that people have the right to certain weapons, providing that they register them and they have not been in prison. The founding fathers included this amendment to prevent the United States from acting like the British who had tried to take weapons away from the colonists," the workbook stated.

The school's superintendent, Bob Hill, defended the wording, arguing that it reflects the reality of the Second Amendment "in the context of 2014." Nevertheless, parents were outraged at the school's decision, with the teacher and the head of the history department agreeing with them that the lesson should be changed.

Judge Andrew Napolitano gave us his take on Fox and Friends this morning, explaining that the Supreme Court has upheld in separate cases that the "right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental liberty [that] comes from our humanity." He pointed out that the Constitution prevents the government from interfering with that fundamental right.

Napolitano added that Illinois is the worst state in the nation for someone who wants to own a gun.

"Illinois has worn away at the right to keep and bear arms more than any other state in the union and the statistics show it. What's the worst city in the country for murders? Chicago. What's the second worst? District of Columbia. Where is it most difficult to keep and bear arms? Chicago and the District of Columbia. This [superintendent] is making it worse by giving students in the suburbs around Chicago an inaccurate understanding of their rights," he said.

(There is a Fox video located on the web site.)

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/03/25/people-have-right-certain-weapons-illinois-school-workbook-rewrites-2nd-amendment

[Ross]

Oh Yeah!

[Ross]

I think he means take cuts so Obama and his family can keep taking and frequent multi-million dollar vacations and provide money for other countries. Why are some enlisted servicemen's family's forced to survive on food stamps?

Generals Say Troops Understand
Need for Pay Cuts

Mar 26, 2014 | by Bryant Jordan

Senior Pentagon officials told Congress on Tuesday that troops are willing to sacrifice portions of their pay and benefits if it means keeping and improving the training and equipment needed to do their jobs.

Vice Adm. William F. Moran, chief of naval personnel and deputy chief of naval operations, told lawmakers that sailors he has met with over the past six months have spoken more about "the quality of the service" they're able to do than anything other topic.

The view was shared by other officials, including Sheryl E. Murray, assistant deputy commandant for manpower and reserve affairs for the Marine Corps.

"I would emphasize our Marines do enjoy a good quality of life. Our Marines love being in the Marine Corps family," she said. "Most of all, they want the right equipment. ... They want to be trained, and they want to be ready. That is the overriding desire."





Personnel officials from the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and the Department of Defense met with the House Armed Services' Military Personnel subcommittee to talk about cuts to pay and benefits the Pentagon is proposing for its upcoming budget.

These include a smaller pay raise -- 1 percent raise, an average 5 percent reduction in housing allowances, and higher health care fees for some retirees.

The proposed budget for next year is $496 billion, reflecting a savings of $176 billion, according to the Pentagon, because of the personnel cuts.

Military leaders say personnel costs make up about a third of their budgets and remain the fasting growing portion. Unless the trend is slowed and reversed, manning costs will eventually make it impossible to meet other funding needs, the military brass has said.

"That's why we are asking for a 1 percent [troop pay increase] instead of a 2 or higher percentage, so we can slow that growth of a military member's pay and also be able to bolster their readiness and bolster the modernization," Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Jessica Wright said.

"The quality of life is good, but the quality of service, we believe, for our military members is lower, and so we would like to balance that," she said.

Army Deputy Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Howard Bromberg said quality of life is important, but added "we can't afford to lower the training standards in defense of something else."

However, the personnel officials who offered testimony before the subcommittee could offer only personal anecdotes to back up their belief that troops would welcome pay and benefit cuts. No survey results were offered. Leaders also said it could not wait for the results of a commission due to issue its report on military pay and benefits next year.

Testimony from the military brass took some lawmakers by surprise after troop advocacy groups have rejected the cuts to pay and benefits proposed in the upcoming budget.

Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nev., reminded the Pentagon officials that the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission is expected to turn in its review and recommendation a year from now. He cautioned that they are asking to make significant changes in these areas without the benefit of the commission's findings.

"What happens when they come back in 2015 with a whole host of recommendations?" Heck asked.

Pentagon officials said the military can't wait a year for the commission's report followed by another year before any recommendations could be adopted.

"We've got to make a near-term savings in the next couple of years. Otherwise, we're going to dig ourselves into a hole and just not going to be able to get out of it," Bromberg said.

Veterans' organizations, which often speak for the services' rank and file, have opposed many of the proposed cuts.

The veterans groups, including the Association of the U.S. Navy and The American Legion, back a 1.8 percent raise that is tied to the formula worked out by the Employment Cost Index of the Labor Department.

"You want an adequate standard of living" for service members, American Legion National Commander Dan Dellinger said Tuesday night. "That's important for them and their families."

Dellinger said service members know the fiscal picture is tight. Army exercises have been scaled back. In the Navy, some ships have stayed at home instead of cruising.

"They've taken those concessions," he said. "I hate to say it, but the government shouldn't try to balance the budget on the backs of service members. If they took away the entire DoD budget, it still wouldn't balance the budget."

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/03/26/generals-say-troops-understand-need-for-pay-cuts.html?ESRC=eb.nl

Under the remarks of this article is:

Of course the troops will understand. It is not like congress will cut the 3 trillion dollars per year in corporate entitlements. Or make the uber rich actually pay up.

And

The brass today will say ANYTHING to save their political careers. If there ever was a Pentagon FULL OF YES-MEN it is today's Pentagon. These have no guts, no cojones are all wussies. I have ZERO RESPECT for these bozos. The Administration's attitude is "cut and gut the military and Social Security but NOT WELFARE!!!"

And

Bill Would Give Feds a 3.3 Percent Pay Raise in 2015...Federal employees would receive a 3.3 percent pay raise in 2015 under a House bill unveiled by two Virginia Democrats.
The legislation, introduced by Reps. Gerry Connolly and Jim Moran, would apply the increase to both General Schedule employees and wage-grade workers.

And

Having been in the Military why is a General speaking for the Enlisted which makes up the majority. Since to be promoted to the Generals ranks it has to be approved by Congress and the President it becomes a political maneuver. They are not going to promote based on skill, intelligence, leadership but on politics. What we called "YES men". Why isn't the General fighting for fair pay and Benfits. A Military member has no equivalent civilian job. Let the troops talk for themselves and not let politians do the talking.

And

Troops understand the need for pay cuts? What they understand is they're getting screwed again and can't do a thing about it. Our country is going to have to re-institute the draft, because very few young folks in their right mind are going to volunteer to serve.

[Ross]

[Ross]

[Ross]

Sheriffs Urge Non-Compliance For unConstitutional Gun Laws

March 24, 2014 by Personal Liberty News Desk 

This article, written by Bruce Parker, appeared on Watchdog.org on March 24.

The head of a nationwide sheriffs coalition is calling on Vermont's law enforcement officers to defy  three controversial gun control measures passed by Burlington voters three weeks ago.

"Sheriffs have a constitutional duty to refuse to comply with such ordinances," said Richard Mack, president of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. "We're seeing sheriffs in New York oppose the Safe Act and Governor Cuomo. If we have sheriffs in New York doing this, how much more should we have sheriffs doing it in Vermont?"

On March 4, Burlington voters joined a push by elected officials throughout northeastern States to enact stiffer gun control measures. By a 2-to-1 margin, they banned the carry of firearms in bars and restaurants, authorized police to confiscate guns during domestic disputes and required gun owners to keep firearms locked up at home.

"It's astonishing that people are so cavalier about violating the Second Amendment," Mack said. "Burlington City Council sounds like they are just following the trend to do things that are entirely unconstitutional and go around sheriffs, and go around the laws, or subvert the laws, or disobey the laws."

The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, which touts sheriffs as the highest law enforcement officials charged with defending the rights of citizens in states, claims that 17 police associations and nearly 500 sheriffs nationwide have pledged to defy unConstitutional gun control measures.

The thought that Vermont's top law officers might publicly oppose gun restrictions isn't a novel idea. Sheriffs in Colorado are refusing to enforce that state's new background checks and ban on high-capacity magazines. In Connecticut, tens of thousands of residents are refusing to comply with a new State law that requires registration of guns and high-capacity magazines. In Saratoga Springs, N.Y., citizens publicly protested the state's new SAFE Act last week by burning a thousand gun registration forms.

In Vermont, hundreds – some blazoned in orange hunting attire and hoisting the Gadsden Flag – rallied at the state Capitol to urge the Legislature to uphold Vermont's strong 2nd Amendment gun laws, among the most robust in the Nation.

When asked if Vermonters might follow the citizens of neighboring States and refuse to comply with gun control ordinances, Bill Moore, a policy analyst at the Vermont Traditions Coalition, predicted that noncompliance would be "highly likely and widespread."

A standoff between Burlington and Vermont gun owners may be a ways off, however. According to Moore, Burlington's ordinances are largely symbolic because they violate Vermont's "Sportsmen's Bill of Rights," a State law that prohibits municipalities from enacting their own gun laws.

"These ordinances, as the anti-gunners will admit, are intentionally and specifically meant to challenge the Gun Owners' Bill of Rights and Vermont's current constitutional protections," Moore told Watchdog.

According to Moore, the Burlington City Council advanced the measures to create an opportunity for the Legislature to revise Vermont's strong Second Amendment protections — an outcome that he said is "not highly likely."

Burlington councilman Paul Decelles, one of the few officials to vote against the proposed changes to the city charter, echoed that sentiment.

"I think every single one of the councilors recognized that this is never going to pass the state test, but they pushed this along to have a broader discussion at the State level. I don't think any one of them thinks this is actually going to be upheld," Decelles told Watchdog.

The mayor of Burlington may disagree. Before the March 4 vote, Mayor Miro Weinberger issued a statement on the mayor's office website saying he supported "charter changes focused on protecting Burlington children, domestic violence victims, and law enforcement officers."

Weinberger has been an outspoken member of Michael Bloomberg's national coalition of pro-gun-control mayors, which advocates for local gun control in the name of safety, but whose members have fled recently due to revelations the organization wants nationwide gun confiscation.

Mack said the mayor's gun control advocacy contradicts both the U.S. Constitution and recent case law.

"Another thing the mayor of Burlington needs to ask himself is, do the Supreme Court decisions of Heller and McDonald mean anything at all, that people have the right to keep and bear arms? Does the Second Amendment mean anything, or are you allowed to act as if it doesn't exist just because you don't agree with the law?"

Despite opponents' views the ordinances are illegal, it remains unclear what would happen if Burlington's measures gain traction at the Legislature.

"I know our chief of police very well, and I know many cops in Burlington, and they would never walk into somebody's house and demand to see guns," Decelles said. "They would never do these things. They are more concerned about real crime."

http://personalliberty.com/2014/03/24/sheriffs-urge-non-compliance-for-unconstitutional-gun-laws/

[Ross]

What is worse?
A) Obamacare
B) Common Core
C) Gun Control
D) Red Light Cameras
E) TSA
F) NSA
G) Indefinite Detention
H) All Of The Above
I) Something else?

[Ross]

What a DORK !

Kim's trim: NKorean Male Students
Required to Have Leader's Haircut

Wednesday, 26 Mar 2014 12:32 PM

By Joe Battaglia

A new state-sanctioned guideline will require every male university student in North Korea to have the same haircut as their leader, Kim Jong Un.

According to media reports, the new hairstyle decree went into effect two weeks ago. Known as the "Dear Leader," the style features a tightly shaved undercut with floppy curtains of locks at the top.

State-approved hairstyles have been the norm in North Korea for some time. Until this latest mandate, North Koreans had a list of 28 approved hairstyles  to choose from — 10 for men and 18 for women. Kim Jong Un's style was not among them.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Kim-Jong-Un-haircut-North-Korea/2014/03/26/id/561865/?ns_mail_uid=7144240&ns_mail_job=1561835_03262014&promo_code=16EDE-1

[Ross]

[Ross]