krome2ez

Original video in this thread was removed. Here's another one that works. :)/>

Watch what happens when Guns are banned in Australia I hope things for you folk the in the US dont end up like they are here....but seeing what 0bama is pushing for, it does not look good.... Read more:

Bet you tried. :lol:/>

Fools on the Hill Sunday, January 6, 2013 Read more: http://patriotupdate.com/cartoons/fools-on-the-hill/#ixzz2HHxIClB9

Apparently, this has been going on for some time. Each time failing to pass. Let's hope his track record stays the same. Thanks for the post Jonjon. The bill is a reintroduction of H.J. Res. 17, which Serrano introduced in Congress in January 2011. It was referred to the House judiciary committee, but did not make it to a floor vote. Repealing the 22nd Amendment has been a longtime goal of Serrano’s, regardless of the sitting president’s political party. Serrano proposed similar resolutions in 1997 and 1999, during Bill Clinton’s administration, and in 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007, during George W. Bush’s administration. He proposed the repeal again in 2009 after Obama took office. None of his proposals has ever made it to a floor vote. Democratic Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer also repeatedly proposed repealing the 22nd Amendment during both the Clinton and Bush administrations. Current Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell sponsored a bill to repeal the amendment in 1995. The 22nd Amendment was passed by Congress in 1947 and ratified by 41 states by 1951. The last president before Roosevelt to prepare for a campaign for a third term was Woodrow Wilson, who pulled out of the 1920 nominating race to avoid deadlocking the Democratic convention in San Francisco. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/06/new-york-congressman-introduces-bill-to-abolish-presidential-term-limits/#ixzz2HEZUpq5W

Maggie you are not worthy of my time, sorry. I do not lie. You act as though I produced the product brought over. I did not know that the ad was a fraud. It was on a site that I trusted. They, as well as I were duped. I have well over 2000 posts. I believe my track record is far better than yours, as to telling the truth. If I see something that is interesting, informative, provocative, relevant, or funny, I will share it here with my DV family. Thank you to all that enjoy my posts and for your support.

Here's an update: US ‘Unconstitutional Laws Aren’t Laws’: Marine Who Penned Blistering Letter to Sen. Feinstein Over Gun Control Speaks Out Posted on January 5, 2013 at 2:47pm by Madeleine Morgenstern Madeleine Morgenstern CNN Cpl. Joshua Boston, the U.S. Marine whose scathing open letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) over proposed new gun control legislation went viral, again vowed not to abide by any new law requiring him to register his firearms. “Whatever happens happens. I have a right granted to me by the Second Amendment in our bill of rights and it says ‘shall not be infringed,’” Boston said Saturday on CNN. “Unconstitutional laws aren’t laws.” Boston’s letter, titled “No ma’am,” was first posted on CNN’s iReport on Dec. 27 and quickly made the rounds on social media. “I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America,” the eight-year Marine Corps veteran wrote. Boston said he wrote it after seeing all of the “misinformation” and “fear-mongering” coming out of the gun control discussion in the wake of last month’s mass elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn. He said that with many gun control laws on the books already, new legislation will do nothing to deter criminals. “There’s over 2,000 gun laws as it is and the fact of the matter is predators are amongst us and we have to recognize that fact. We don’t live in a utopia. Our citizens have to be armed to protect themselves from these mad men,” Boston said. “People will choose whether or not to carry if they want to. I’ve made that choice as have hundreds of thousands of other Americans should we unfortunately ever find ourselves in a situation to protect others in our lives we will.” Feinstein’s office said in a statement she “respects Cpl. Boston’s service.” “She has heard from thousands of people — including many gun owners — who support her plan to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of assault weapons and large capacity magazines, strips and drums that hold more than 10 rounds,” the statement said. “As Senator Feinstein has said, the legislation will be carefully focused to protect the rights of existing gun owners by exempting hundreds of weapons used for hunting and sporting purposes.” Watch below, via Mediaite: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAYi1XaNPg0 http://www.theblaze.com/stories/unconstitutional-laws-arent-laws-marine-who-penned-blistering-letter-to-sen-feinstein-over-gun-control-speaks-out/

It may work for repeat offenders, but doubtful. This only tells the monitor of the GPS signal where the perpetrator is, and does not warn any potential victim of their presence. Thus only making it easier to arrest the perp, after the fact. And it would have zero effect with first time offenders, or those who have never been arrested. The best defense is a strong offense. Be prepared.

Figured this was coming. I wonder how the media will spin this action so that the sheep will not revolt as well.

Here is some of the misinformation that they spout. For those of you that don't know, you can not buy any gun from the internet or from a dealer at a gun show with out a background check. Period. Purchases over the internet MUST be delivered to a licensed FFL dealer, who must do the proper paperwork which includes a background check.

Are you frigg'n kidding me? I was floored when I seen this atrocity.

January 4, 2013 by Tim Brown Ten New Gun Bills Introduced On First Day Of Congress On the first day of the 113th Congress, ten new bills were introduced with an emphasis on guns. The majority of these, eight, were introduced by Democrats. The two that were introduced by freshmen Republican Congressmen are designed to eliminate schools as “gun free zones.” Four of the bills came from Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), who has been active for some time in trying to push more gun control legislation because of the fact that her husband was shot to death in 1993. McCarthy introduced HR 137, 138, 141, and 142. HR 137 and HR138 would require people who are prohibited from purchasing a firearm to be cataloged in a national database and would also prevent transfers of high-capacity ammunition magazines. Her HR 141 bill would require criminal background checks at all gun shows, while her HR 142 bill would require face-to-face purchases of ammunition, the licensing of dealers, and the reporting of bulk ammunition purchases. Can you imagine what this will do to internet business regarding ammunition? That’s right, it will kill it. Representatives Bobby Rush (D-IL) and Rush Hold (D-NJ) each put forth their bills, HR 34 and HR 117, which would tighten firearms licensing requirements. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) proposed HR 65 which would raise the eligibility age of a person to carry a handgun from 18 to 21. Clearly she, along with others, have no concept of what “shall not be infringed” means. Representative Jim Moran (D-VA) re-introduced his HR 21 bill, which would require background checks for all gun sales. It would also require gun owners to report when their guns have been stolen. While he claims that polls regarding the National Rifle Association’s membership support his bill, he doesn’t provide any sources for his claims. In addition, Republican congressmen Steve Stockman (R-TX) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) put forth HR 35 and HR 133 which would end the federal law requires areas around schools to be designated as “gun free zones.” Their bills are based in reality with data that demonstrates that violence both in and around schools increased when the federal law took effect in 1990. “By disarming qualified citizens and officials in schools we have created a dangerous situation for our children,” Stockman said. “In the 22 years before enactment of ‘gun free school zones’ there were two mass school shootings. “In the 22 years since enactment of ‘gun free schools’ there have been 10 mass school shootings,” he continued. “Not only has the bill utterly failed to protect our children it appears to have placed them in danger.” So what of Feinstein’s legislation? According to Senate leaders, they have set aside January 22 as the first day that the Senate will allow new legislation to be proposed. We’ll keep you informed. Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/ten-new-gun-bills-introduced-on-first-day-of-congress/#ixzz2H3lwXQWe

New Hampshire Legislator: We Need to 'Restrict Freedoms' of Conservatives by Warner Todd Huston 3 Jan 2013 416post a comment A New Hampshire legislator wants her constituents to know that she feels conservatives are the "single biggest threat" her state faces today, and she wants to use her powers to legislate to "pass measures that will restrict" the freedoms of Granite State conservatives. In a blog post made last month on the left-wing site Blue Hampshire, 3rd District State Representative Democrat Cynthia Chase advised her fellow legislators to use their positions to make New Hampshire less welcoming to any conservative or libertarian planning on moving to her state—not to mention those already in residence. For those unaware, a conservative project of sorts has been underway in New Hampshire since 2001. The idea is that Americans of conservative ideals are to move to New Hampshire, gather in communities, run for office, and work to drive the state toward libertarianism and conservatism. It is called the "Free State Project" and adherents are called "Free Staters." These Free Staters figure that the state’s motto, “Live Free or Die,” should really mean something and it is these citizens whose freedoms legislator Chase wants to oppress. In her December 21 post, Chase wrote that, "Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today." "In the opinion of this Democrat, Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today. There is, legally, nothing we can do to prevent them from moving here to take over the state, which is their openly stated goal. In this country you can move anywhere you choose and they have that same right. What we can do is to make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave. One way is to pass measures that will restrict the 'freedoms' that they think they will find here. Another is to shine the bright light of publicity on who they are and why they are coming." Of course, it is one thing to be a proponent of laws that might have the unintended consequences of restricting others' freedoms. If one truly believes in such policies, well, they may be disastrously wrong, but at least they'd be honestly wrong. A fine point, to be sure. But here we have a legislator that doesn't just want to pass laws that are tangentially restrictive. She wants to purposefully use her powers to write laws to target individuals with whom she disagrees, take away their freedoms and liberties, and all in the hopes that the citizens she is oppressing might move away from her state. As New Hampshirite Steve MacDonald notes, "this sounds like tyranny." Imagine if a legislator had written a blog post targeting the freedoms of gays, or women, or some other minority? One would think that the media would go wild with such a story. But here we have an elected official suggesting that government be used in the United States of America to eliminate freedoms for certain citizens in order to gain political control and the media is silent. Sounds like tyranny, indeed. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/02/New-Hampshire-Legislator-We-Need-to-Restrict-Freedoms-of-Conservatives

I have no idea as to how legitimate this source it. But I have no doubt that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the WH. Glenn Beck had a video that I had posted a short while back that really went in depth on this. The problem though is that the video has been removed from youtube.

Egyptian Magazine: Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrates Obama Administration by John Rossomando • Jan 3, 2013 at 1:10 pm An Egyptian magazine claims that six American Islamist activists who work with the Obama administration are Muslim Brotherhood operatives who enjoy strong influence over U.S. policy. The Dec. 22 story published in Egypt's Rose El-Youssef magazine (read an IPT translation here) suggests the six turned the White House "from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood." The story is largely unsourced, but its publication is considered significant in raising the issue to Egyptian readers. The six named people include: Arif Alikhan, assistant secretary of Homeland Security for policy development; Mohammed Elibiary, a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council; Rashad Hussain, the U.S. special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference; Salam al-Marayati, co-founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC); Imam Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA); and Eboo Patel, a member of President Obama's Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships. Alikhan is a founder of the World Islamic Organization, which the magazine identifies as a Brotherhood "subsidiary." It suggests that Alikhan was responsible for the "file of Islamic states" in the White House and that he provides the direct link between the Obama administration and the Arab Spring revolutions of 2011. Elibiary, who has endorsed the ideas of radical Muslim Brotherhood luminary Sayyid Qutb, may have leaked secret materials contained in Department of Homeland Security databases, according to the magazine. He, however, denies having any connection with the Brotherhood. Elibiary also played a role in defining the Obama administration's counterterrorism strategy, and the magazine asserts that Elibiary wrote the speech Obama gave when he told former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to leave power but offers no source or evidence for the claim. According to Rose El-Youssef, Rashad Hussain maintained close ties with people and groups that it says comprise the Muslim Brotherhood network in America. This includes his participation in the June 2002 annual conference of the American Muslim Council, formerly headed by convicted terrorist financier Abdurahman Alamoudi. He also participated in the organizing committee of the Critical Islamic Reflection along with important figures of the American Muslim Brotherhood such as Jamal Barzinji, Hisham al-Talib and Yaqub Mirza. Regarding al-Marayati, who has been among the most influential Muslim American leaders in recent years, the magazine draws connections between MPAC in the international Muslim Brotherhood infrastructure. Magid heads ISNA, which was founded by Brotherhood members, was appointed by Obama in 2011 as an adviser to the Department of Homeland Security. The magazine says that has also given speeches and conferences on American Middle East policy at the State Department and offered advice to the FBI. Rose El-Youssef says Patel maintains a close relationship with Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna, and is a member of the Muslim Students Association, which it identifies as "a large Brotherhood organization." http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates

David Gregory walks free while Iraq vet was jailed Posted on: January 2nd, 2013 It’s been more than a week since police in Washington, D.C., opened an investigation into NBC’s David Gregory’s possession of a “high-capacity magazine” that’s prohibited in the District on on national TV. Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier’s spokesman refused Monday to respond to whether Mr. Gregory had even been interviewed yet. This is a rather curious departure for a city that has been ruthless in enforcing this particular firearms statute against law-abiding citizens who made an honest mistake. In July, The Washington Times highlighted the plight of former Army Spc. Adam Meckler, who was arrested and jailed for having a few long-forgotten rounds of ordinary ammunition — but no gun — in his backpack in Washington. Mr. Meckler, a veteran of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, says he had no idea it was illegal to possess unregistered ammunition in the city. He violated the same section of D.C. law as Mr. Gregory allegedly did, and both offenses carry the same maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine and a year in jail. Mr. Meckler was charged with the crime and was forced to accept a plea deal to avoid the cost and time of a protracted legal fight. The indefensible nature of Mr. Meckler’s case led directly to a new law passed by the D.C. Council in December that allows prosecutors to file civil instead of criminal charges, but only if the accused was unaware of the city’s laws. Continue reading at www.washingtontimes.com Read more: http://patriotoutdoornews.com/4862/david-gregory-walks-free-while-iraq-vet-was-jailed#ixzz2Gy53B2qn

Media Al Gore’s Current TV Rebuffs Advances by TheBlaze, Agrees to Sell Channel to Al Jazeera Posted on January 2, 2013 at 5:39pm by Madeleine Morgenstern Print »Email » Comments (226)TheBlaze’s Jason Howerton and Billy Hallowell contributed to this report. AP Seeking to expand its presence in American television, al-Jazeera, the Qatar-owned news network, has agreed to buy Al Gore’s low-rated Current TV, the Wall Street Journal reports. Financial terms of the deal weren’t disclosed, but a person familiar with the matter said al-Jazeera paid a few hundred million dollars for Current TV. The network, which was co-founded by Mr. Gore and entrepreneur Joel Hyatt in 2005, has recently been struggling with low ratings. The multimillion dollar deal came after Current rebuffed TheBlaze when it approached the network about buying the channel last year. According to a source close to the negotiations, officials at TheBlaze were told that “the legacy of who the network goes to is important to us and we are sensitive to networks not aligned with our point of view.” An executive for TheBlaze confirmed these details on Thursday, noting that the decision not to sell to Beck’s network came only hours after executives reached out to a Current representative to discuss the matter. As reported by the Wall Street Journal, Hyatt said that the decision to go with the Middle Easter outlet came, in part, because, “al-Jazeera was founded with the same goals we had for Current.” This admission on the part of Current clearly shows that the network aligns itself with al-Jazeera — at least when it comes to goals and aspirations — something critics will likely question. As the AP noted, Dave Marash, a former “Nightline” reporter who worked for the network for a time, left in 2008 after sensing an anti-American bias. . A source close to negotiations also told The New York Times that the deal was probably worth around $500 million, meaning a $100 million pay-day for Gore, who was reportedly eager to complete the deal by Dec. 31 in order to avoid higher tax rates that took effect on Jan. 1. Unfortunately for Gore, the deal wasn’t signed until Wednesday, however. WSJ has more details: Al-Jazeera, which is owned by the government of Qatar, became famous in the U.S. about a decade ago when its Arabic-language outlet aired videos of Osama bin Laden in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. Since then the English-language version of the channel, which is available online in the U.S. and on TV in a few cities, has gained plaudits for its international coverage. The purchase of Current TV could give al-Jazeera national cable distribution in the U.S., something it has been seeking for years. But al-Jazeera doesn’t plan to replace Current TV with its English-language channel. Instead it will create a new channel, al-Jazeera America, and will “invest significantly” in new programming, Mr. Hyatt wrote in a note to Current TV staff announcing the deal. The channel will be based in New York and expand al-Jazeera’s U.S. staff to more than 300, the company said in an announcement. Not all cable operators are on board with the change. Time Warner Cable Inc., the second-largest cable operator, said late Wednesday it was dropping Current TV. The network’s owners acknowledged the deal was the reason. News of the pending deal was first reported by The New York Times. Executives from al-Jazeera and Current did not immediately comment to the New York Times. Current CEO Joel Hyatt confirmed in October that they were considering selling the 7-year-old network, which has long suffered from poor viewership. Current’s programming line-up includes Eliot Spitzer, Jennifer Granholm and Joy Behar. Former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann was fired from the channel in March after less than a year. This story has been updated. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-al-jazeera-set-to-take-over-al-gores-current-tv/

Have You Seen the ‘Guns Are Welcome’ Sign That’s Burning up the Internet? Posted on January 3, 2013 at 9:51am by Liz Klimas You might have seen signs at certain establishments letting customers know they welcome things like pets or strollers. But there’s a new sort of welcome sign that has begun to go viral on the Internet recently: a welcome sign for guns. Guns welcome sign. (Image: TwitPic/@tinastullracing) The sign says “Guns Are Welcome.” But there are stipulations to that statement. Although allowed on the premise of whatever establishment this sign precedes, it goes on to ask that the weapons remain holstered “unless the need arises.” Even in the case of a need, the sign reads “judicious marksmanship appreciated.” This is a video showing the sign and even has the maker giving more information about it: So far, the picture of the sign posted by Tina Stull (@tinastullracing) 29 days ago on TwitPic and picked up by Twitchy Thursday has been viewed more than 6,000 times. This is Tina Stull’s original tweet with the picture, which she issued Jan. 2. (Image: Twitter) At the time of this posting, it as been retweeted more than 570 times. Here’s a glimpse at a few of those supportive tweets: Stull, who has posted other pro-gun ownership phrases and pictures, is professionally a National Hot Rod Association Super Comp Dragster driver. According to her website, this is something she took up after being diagnosed with terminal cancer and given only three years to live. This was in 2002 and clearly she has beaten the odds. Stull is also active on Twitter posting her support for the military and their families, as she is involved in military-focused ministries. “I really appreciate the Soldiers who serve, because the job they do allows me to do what I do,” she said on her website. “My getting to drive race cars is entertainment. People in the military are changing history. It’s important that when they go out to do their job, they know they are fully supported here at home.“ As for the signs, they are actually available for purchase (as noted by the maker in the video above) at Northeastern Safety Supply. Check them out here. This story has also been updated to reflect that although the Twitter picture references Texas, the maker of the sign is based in Roanoke Rapids, N.C. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/have-you-seen-the-texas-guns-are-welcome-sign-thats-burning-up-the-internet/

Fiscal Cliff Deficit Posted on January 3, 2013 by Conservative Byte Read more: http://conservativebyte.com/2013/01/fiscal-cliff-deficit/#ixzz2GvqzbKIB

The Pork Filled and Expensive Non-Relief Sandy Relief Bill Katie Pavlich News Editor, Townhall Jan 02, 2013 03:00 PM EST It's been 66 days since Hurricane Sandy slammed into the East Coast, causing major damage in New York and New Jersey. The storm was so powerful, it is in the running to become the most expensive storm for taxpayers on record. Historically, Congress has passed hurricane relief bills in the immediate aftermath of storm damage, but Sandy is a different story. Why? Congress wrote up Hurricane Sandy Relief legislation and then Harry Reid's Senate loaded it with pork. What's in it? Many things that hardly count as relief for victims. The pork-barrel feast includes more than $8 million to buy cars and equipment for the Homeland Security and Justice departments. It also includes a whopping $150 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to dole out to fisheries in Alaska and $2 million for the Smithsonian Institution to repair museum roofs in DC. An eye-popping $13 billion would go to “mitigation” projects to prepare for future storms. Other big-ticket items in the bill include $207 million for the VA Manhattan Medical Center; $41 million to fix up eight military bases along the storm’s path, including Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; $4 million for repairs at Kennedy Space Center in Florida; $3.3 million for the Plum Island Animal Disease Center and $1.1 million to repair national cemeteries. Budget watchdogs have dubbed the 94-page emergency-spending bill “Sandy Scam.” More: $58.8 million for forest restoration on private land. $197 million “to… protect coastal ecosystems and habitat impacted by Hurricane Sandy.” $10.78 billion for public transportation, most of which is allocated to future construction and improvements, not disaster relief. $17 billion for wasteful Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), a program that has become notorious for its use as a backdoor earmark program. Not surprisingly, the media is jumping all over Speaker Boehner's pulling of the non-relief relief bill as "leaving Sandy victims out in the cold" while failing to lay any of the blame on Reid's Senate for not sending the House a clean bill. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie did the same today during a press conference about the relief package. Christie called the failure of Boehner to bring the bill to the floor for a vote a result of "toxic politics," berated the House Majority for the delay and said the legislation wasn't full of pork. Christie called on Congress to "do their job," while failing to acknowledge part of the job is preventing misuse of taxpayer funds for pet projects not related to legislation at hand. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/01/02/the-pork-filled-and-expensive-nonrelief-sandy-relief-bill-n1477710 Christie should shut his pie-hole till he finds out why the aid was delayed. If he would stop sucking up to Obama, he may start acting like the Republican he claims to be. Christie skewers Boehner, House GOP on Sandy aid Posted on January 3, 2013 by Cowboy Byte New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie ® unloaded on House Republicans and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) Wednesday for their “disgusting” decision to delay a vote on Hurricane Sandy relief. Speaking at a press conference in Trenton, N.J., Christie said that he had been assured by House GOP leaders up until late Tuesday night that a relief package was headed to the floor — only to see it pulled from consideration just before midnight. “Last night, politics was placed before our oath to serve our citizens,” Christie said. “For me, it was disappointing and disgusting to watch.” “Shame on Congress,” he said. The governor said GOP leaders had promised him repeatedly that Sandy aid would be addressed after passage of a “fiscal cliff” bill. “We were given assurances by everyone … that this was going to be done,” he said. He ripped lawmakers for showing “callous indifference” to Sandy victims, saying they have waited far longer than other victims of recent natural disasters for aid. Sandy hit the East Coast in late October. Read more: http://cowboybyte.com/17011/christie-skewers-boehner-house-gop-on-sandy-aid/#ixzz2GvloTPdg

US Kansas gov’t tries to make sperm donor pay child support 10:59 PM 01/02/2013 TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — A Kansas man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple after answering an online ad is fighting the state’s efforts to suddenly force him to pay child support for the now 3-year-old girl, arguing that he and the women signed an agreement waiving all of his parental rights. The case hinges on the fact that no doctors were used for the artificial insemination. The state argues that because William Marotta didn’t work through a clinic or doctor, as required by state law, he can be held responsible for about $6,000 that the child’s biological mother received through public assistance — as well as future child support. At least 10 other states have similar requirements in their laws, including California, Illinois and Missouri, the Kansas Department of Children and Families argued in a prepared court documents it gave to The Associated Press late Wednesday. Department spokeswoman Angela de Rocha said that when a single mother seeks benefits for a child, it’s routine for the department to try to determine the child’s paternity and require the father to make support payments to lessen the potential cost to taxpayers. Marotta, a 46-year-old Topeka resident, answered an ad on Craigslist in 2009 from a local couple, Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner, who said they were seeking a sperm donor. After exchanging emails and meeting, the three signed an agreement relieving Marotta of any financial or paternal responsibility. But the Kansas Department for Children and Families argues the agreement isn’t valid, because instead of working with a doctor, Marotta agreed to drop off containers with his sperm at the couple’s home, according to documents faxed to the Shawnee County District Court late Wednesday and provided to the AP. The women handled the artificial insemination themselves using a syringe, and Schreiner eventually became pregnant, according to the documents. Late last year, after she and Bauer broke up, Schreiner received public assistance from the state to help care for the girl. My ex-partner and I wanted to have a baby,” Schreiner said in a written statement to the department in January 2012, also included in the department’s latest filing. “We were a *** couple so we had a sperm donor.” In October, the department filed a court petition against Marotta, asking that he be required to reimburse the state for the benefits and make future child support payments. Marotta is asking that the case be dismissed, arguing that he’s not legally the child’s father, only a sperm donor. A hearing is set for Tuesday. Marotta told The Topeka-Capital Journal that he is “a little scared about where this is going to go, primarily for financial reasons.” His attorney didn’t immediately return a phone message Wednesday from The Associated Press, and there was no listing for his home phone number in Topeka. Listings for Schreiner and Bauer were either incorrect or out of service, and Schreiner did not respond to a message sent by Facebook. The agreement signed by Marotta, Schreiner and Bauer in March 2009, said the women “hold him harmless” financially. The agreement also said the child’s birth certificate would not list a father. Under a 1994 Kansas law, a sperm donor isn’t considered the father only when a donor provides sperm to a licensed physician for artificial insemination of a woman who isn’t the donor’s wife. The result is an incentive for donors and prospective mothers to work with a doctor, de Rocha said. “I believe that is the intent of the law, so that we don’t end up with these ambiguous situations,” she told the AP. Also, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled in October 2007 that a sperm donor who works through a licensed physician can’t legally be considered a child’s father — and doesn’t have the right to visit the child or have a role in its upbringing — absent a formal, written agreement. But the case involved a sperm donor who was seeking access to a child but had only an informal, unwritten agreement with the child’s mother. Linda Elrod, a law professor and director of Washburn University’s Children and Family Law program, said the law seems clear: Sperm donors who don’t want to be held liable for child support need to work with a doctor. “Other than that, the general rule is strict liability for sperm,” said Elrod, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Supreme Court case. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/02/kansas-govt-tries-to-make-sperm-donor-pay-child-support/#ixzz2GvSPx5Tk

With that train of thought, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't cost the tax payers at all then, huh?

'Turn 'Em All In': Feinstein Said She Wanted All Guns Banned by Warner Todd Huston 1 Jan 2013 One of the lines that many progressives and TV talking heads are reiterating is that no one really wants to take away Americans' guns. Senator Dianne Feinstein apparently missed that directive. She admitted as far back as 1995 that she does, indeed, wish to take everyone's guns away from them. In a 1995 broadcast of CBS' 60 Minutes, Feinstein admitted she would love to have instituted an "outright ban" on all guns. Feinstein was the driving force to the failed (and now lapsed) 1994 “assault weapons” ban, and it was upon her success at getting the law passed that she made her admission. If I could've gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in -- I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here. This is not the way many lefties are trying to sell their latest attempts at violating the 2nd Amendment, of course. Led by President Obama, the latest tactic is to claim that no one really wants to take away guns and that any claim to the opposite is just "fearmongering." In 2008, President Obama went out of his way to tell the nation that he "believes" in the Second Amendment. I, I, just want to be absolutely clear, all right? So I don’t want any misunderstanding, when, when y’all go home and you’re talkin’ to your buddies, and they say, "Aww, he wants to take my gun away." You’ve heard it here; I’m on television, so everybody knows it. I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in peoples’ lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away… But I am not going to take your guns away. So if you want to find an excuse not to vote for me, don’t use that one because it just ain’t true. It ain’t true. U.S. Congressman Raul Grijalva (D, Ariz.) mirrored this tactic: "I think the majority of the American people want us to have a rational discussion that protects their fundamental rights and the Second Amendment, but also protects the public safety. I don't that's a contradiction," Grijalva said in July. This talking point is echoed by many in the media. During his "townhall" event on CNN a few weeks ago, Piers Morgan made the claim that he believes in the U.S. Constitution and doesn't support taking all guns from every American, despite his constant refrain that guns need to be banned. U.S. News writer Susan Milligan agreed, saying in November that there is "no evidence" that any one wants to take away American's firearms. The sentiment is also deployed by small, local papers, like that of the Albany Herald, who's Carlton Fletcher scoffed at the notion that anyone wants to take away guns. "Despite what the latest ultra-right-wing posts assure you is happening even now as you're reading this, President Obama and the United Nations are not putting the finishing touches on their nefarious plot to 'take away our guns,'" Fletcher wrote in September. Vice Magazine also recently engaged in this subterfuge. "Basically no one wants to take anyone’s gun away, at least not in America," wrote Associate Editor Harry Cheadle in June. Even the extremist, left-wing media-watching group, Media Matters, proclaimed any thought that progressives want to take guns away is nothing but "fearmongering." Senator Feinstein, though, is far more direct. This attempt to hide the left's true motives is not a tactic that she bothers with. Feinstein is quite open: Her goal, like that of the rest of the left in America, is to undermine the Second Amendment and take away all Americans' right to own firearms of any kind. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/01/Reminder-Sen-Feinstein-Said-She-Wants-All-Guns-Banned

‘No ma’am’: Letter from U.S. Marine to Dianne Feinstein goes viral By Clash Daily / 2 January 2013 / 26 Comments Michelle Kirk- The following open letter, written by U.S. Marine Joshua Boston and headlined “No ma’am.,” was posted in the CNN iReport on Dec. 27 with the included note from the producer and photo. It has struck a nerve with many and is being circulated around social media venues like Twitter and Facebook. CNN PRODUCER NOTE: joshdb50 was a Marine and was deployed to Afghanistan between the years of 2004 through 2005. Although he is no longer in the military he acknowledges that he owns gun. He says he does not believe the government needs to know what guns he owns because he believes registration would lead to confiscation. He says the laws that are in place for gun control are plenty, and adding more laws will remove a means of defense for people. ‘I own the guns I own because I acknowledge mankind’s shortcomings instead of pretending like they don’t exist. There are evil men in this world and there just may be a time when I need to do the unthinkable to protect me or my family,’ he said. - Jareen, CNN iReport producer Senator Dianne Feinstein, I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one. I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America. I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man. I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public. We, the people, deserve better than you. Respectfully Submitted, Joshua Boston Cpl, United States Marine Corps 2004-2012 Read more: http://clashdaily.com/2013/01/no-maam-letter-from-u-s-marine-to-dianne-feinstein-goes-viral/#ixzz2GuzNNXcR Get more Clash on ClashDaily.com, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

January 2, 2013 7:01 PM "Fiscal cliff" bill had some hidden pork By Wyatt Andrews . (CBS News) The "fiscal cliff" law passed so quickly, many in Congress never realized it was full of special interest tax breaks, one of which allows auto racetrack owners to speed up their tax deductions. Another tax write off goes to Hollywood -- a $20 million break anytime a TV show or movie is shot in an economically depressed area of the United States. There's a subsidy for rum made in Puerto Rico, a tax break if you train a mine rescue worker, and a tax credit for every kilowatt of electricity produced by wind. All told, the fiscal cliff law designed to reduce the deficit, added $74 billion in spending through changes in the tax law. 4 surprise tax perks in the "fiscal cliff" deal GOP Rep: "We got whooped" on "fiscal cliff" Full coverage of the "fiscal cliff" deal Republican Congressman Darrell Issa, who voted "no" on the bill, says many House members felt blindsided by tax breaks that were never publicly debated. "Absolutely it is filled with pork," Issa said. "And it is pork particularly because they couldn't get these through any other way except by throwing them into a bill like this." Supporters of the tax provisions say they will create jobs. Dan Houser of the International Speedway Corporation, the owner of NASCAR, says faster tax write-offs lead to more investment in tracks and stadiums. "It's not a tax break. What it is doing is creating shovel-ready capital investment in communities that desperately need jobs," Houser said. The issue with these middle-of-the-night tax breaks is that for many in Congress who had sworn off pork barrel spending, these represent a new level of pork. Earmarks used to come from an individual member of congress, but tax code changes are more likely to come from lobbyists. Tax reform over the long-term was supposed to be part of the "fiscal cliff" negotiations, but this bill complicates that. The idea behind the reform was that you lower rates for everyone but you pay for that by closing loopholes. Last night, Congress just added $70 billion worth of new loopholes. Play CBS News Video at link provided: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57561726/fiscal-cliff-bill-had-some-hidden-pork/