Saturday, March 16, 2013

Virginia City,Nevada Rocky Mountain Oyster Fry and St.Patricks Day

<~Raw na uh no way Jose...not for me...
Ok so this is my 17th year...still can't take a bite of them lil suckers...must be a guy thingee...the gals seem to munch away

22nd Annual Rocky Mountain Oyster Fry returns to Virginia City!
& St. Patrick's Day Parade
Saturday, March 16, 2013 


Calling all cooks and culinary connoisseurs from across the land, the annual festival honoring the discriminate cuisine of daring palates returns to historic Virginia City, Nevada this Saint Patrick's Day.

It's a little known fact that Saint Patrick's Day is the greatest weekend of the year and Virginia City goes nuts! More than 3,000 people sack up in one of the greatest historical cities in the world! Each year more than 20 cooks compete in one of Northern Nevada's most popular tasting contests. I bet you think these cooks can’t make testicles savory. Well your wrong. You’re very, very wrong. Trust us, you can't stop at two.

It’s a new year, a revamped event, and we are going to blow this thing up. We’re talking a full-on Irish Testicle Festival with a Beer Garden, authentic live Irish music, individual and team ball-eating contests, the authentic can't-find-anywhere-else atmosphere, and one more thing... Have you seen the bars in Virginia City? Need we say more? It's time to gather the gang and make this the bar crawl town it deserves to be, starting with this event! A 2013 addition is the first annual Leprechaun Crawl. There's gold in them there hills! Well, actually it's silver, but who wants silver colored beer or whiskey? Just follow the rainbow to find your jackpot! 

Calling all cooks and culinary connoisseurs from across the land, the annual festival honoring the discriminate cuisine of daring palates returns to historic Virginia City, Nevada this Saint Patrick's Day.

It's a little known fact that Saint Patrick's Day is the greatest weekend of the year and Virginia City goes nuts! More than 3,000 people sack up in one of the greatest historical cities in the world! Each year more than 20 cooks compete in one of Northern Nevada's most popular tasting contests. I bet you think these cooks can’t make testicles savory. Well your wrong. You’re very, very wrong. Trust us, you can't stop at two.

lep_crawlsmall It’s a new year, a revamped event, and we are going to blow this thing up. We’re talking a full-on Irish Testicle Festival with a Beer Garden, authentic live Irish music, individual and team ball-eating contests, the authentic can't-find-anywhere-else atmosphere, and one more thing... Have you seen the bars in Virginia City? Need we say more? It's time to gather the gang and make this the bar crawl town it deserves to be, starting with this event! A 2013 addition is the first annual Leprechaun Crawl. There's gold in them there hills! Well, actually it's silver, but who wants silver colored beer or whiskey? Just follow the rainbow to find your jackpot! 

Virginia City's St. Patrick's Day Parade begins at Noon featuring Nevada State Preservation Officer, Ron James as Grand Marshall, the Minden Irish Dancers, our Giant Leprachaun's of Fresno and much more.  Parade participants line up at the Fourth Ward School at 11:00am.

Click here for your parade form:  HERE 

Richard Dawkins Says a ‘Fetus’ is Less Human than an Adult Pig


I love it when and atheist like Richard Dawkins becomes more consistent with his unbelieving worldview. They set a trap for themselves, as Proverbs 28:10 makes clear:
He who leads the upright astray in an evil way
Will himself fall into his own pit,
But the blameless will inherit good. 
Here’s what Richard Dawkins wrote in a Tweet:
“With respect to those meanings of ‘human’ that are relevant to the morality of abortion, any fetus is less human than an adult pig.”
I would go further by following through with the consistency of the atheistic worldview of Richard Dawkins by concluding that a “fetus,” an adult pig, and adult humans are morally inconsequential given atheistic assumptions.

There is no difference between a worm and a human because they’re made from the same stuff and there is nothing outside of their biological makeup that gives them ultimate meaning or ranks them according to moral superiority

How would a human argue with a Predator or an Alien in the long chain of evolutionary being? The Predator would hunt humans like we hunt wild pigs, deer, and squirrels, and the Aliens would use us as incubators for their young. Who’s to say that they would be morally wrong to do these things?
If one of these alien species came to earth and found Richard Dawkins pontificating on “sody pop … pigs and taters and one thing and another,”[1]  what rational and and moral defense would he use against their superior evolutionary eays? He wouldn’t have one.

In fact, they might quote back to him some of his own thoughts on the subject.
“How would you defend yourself from this often used quotation that we found among your primitive writings? Remember Mr. Dawkins, these are your words, and we are a part of the universe that evolved beyond you: ‘In the universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.’”
Our DNA neither knows nor cares about you. So Mr. Richard Dawkins, start dancing!

Senator Ted Cruz: Defund Obamacare or Shut Down Government

oped: Speaker John Boehner needs to get on board and do the peoples work...We the People want Obamacare repealed...shut it down John...or get the hell out of the way!
cruz obamacare

Senator Ted Cruz wants to defund ObamaCare or defund the goverment.
The House has already passed a continuing resolution that would avert a government shutdown that is set to take place on March 27th, the date that the Continuing Appropriations Resolution of 2013 expires.

Now, the CR is in the Senate where Senator Ted Cruz offered up an amendment that would remove any funding for the implementation of Obamacare.
Of course, since the Democrats are all good team players, and since they control the Senate, the amendment failed. But Senator Ted Cruz pointed out that if the Senate ends up making any changes to the continuing resolution, they’d have to send it back to the House, and when they do, the GOP should add an amendment like his that would defund Obamacare. That way, the President and the Democrat-controlled Senate are left with the option to either defund Obamacare or let the government shut down. Their choice.
Senator Cruz is playing the game, and he’s playing it well. But others aren’t being good team players. Boehner doesn’t want to defund Obamacare. He says he promises he’ll work on repealing it later, but not now:

 “We have voted many times over the last 2 years that we’ve been in the majority to defund Obamacare, to repeal Obamacare, and we will do so again here in the House in the coming months. Our goal here is to cut spending. It’s not to shut down the government. I believe that trying to put Obamacare on this vehicle risks shutting down the government. That’s not what our goal is. Our goal here is to reduce spending.”
 CNS News pointed out that the GOP has voted to defund/repeal Obamacare on 30 different occasions, but not on legislation that had to pass. In other words, they were no more than symbolic moves on the GOP’s part to make their constituents happy, knowing that their actions would have no real effects. But at least they could secure their re-elections and increase their popularity by telling their voters that they voted to repeal Obamacare.
But every time a piece of legislation has to pass in order to keep the government funded (like the CR), the GOP decides not to touch Obamacare.

If the Senate does indeed make any changes to the CR, and it goes back to the House, the GOP needs to take Senator Cruz’s lead. This is a perfect opportunity to get rid of Obamacare. And we shouldn’t replace it with anything.
The Obama administration is perfectly willing to let thousands of criminal illegal aliens go and shut down the White House tours in order to play their little political games to get what they want. If they really want to keep Obamacare, they should be willing to let everything else shut down too. Or, if they really don’t want that, they should pass the CR with Cruz’s amendment and give up Obamacare. Boehner just needs to get out of the way.

Friday, March 15, 2013

Sen Ted Cruz...God bless bloggers. Great to join #BlogBash

Sen. Ted Cruz tells bloggers that they scare the hell out of Washington. He's right.


Interesting Comments from the Gay community...and some food for thought
Photo: You think Rev. MLK Jr would have been for same sex marriage?
He thought homosexuality was a problem that needed to be solved.
Photo: Demeaning real struggles for Civil Rights in the name of selfishness and lust is wrong.
Enough said eh'....!

The FB police have crossed the line this time

By: Diane Sori 
Oh woe is me as I'm in a FB timeout again for something I did NOT do...had NO part in...and NO knowledge of. FB thy name is 'selective enforcement.'

Selective enforcement...the ability that executors of the law (in this case the FB police) have to arbitrarily select choice individuals as being outside of the my case Facebook's Community Standards. The only problem here is I violated NOTHING as first, I was NOT online when the post in question was put up, and second, when the post was making the rounds I was NOT only NOT online I was 50+ miles away from my computer sitting in a dentist's chair (ugh). 

 This Feature is Temporarily Blocked...
You recently posted something that violates Facebook policies, so you're temporarily blocked from using this feature.  Learn More.

To keep from getting blocked again, please make sure you've read and understand Facebook's Community Standards.

This block will be active for 30 days.

This Feature is Temporarily I hate those words but that was the message I received from FB as soon as I logged on later in the day along with what the post was that I 'supposedly' put up.  What's amazing was how I could post when my carrier (Comcast) was down for the entire previous evening, including at the time I was supposed to have posted the oh so terrible post...which by the way was a post showing muslim brutality against Christians. 

But the point is I did NOT post fact the person who did (a fellow adman on a site I administer on) admitted to posting it and made NO apologies for it...nor should he have had to because muslim brutality against Christians is a daily occurrence in the cesspool that is the Middle East and North Africa.  You'd think FB would then lift my blocking and the others they blocked after the person who posted it came clean but here's where it gets interesting...they released the admitted poster and everyone else they blocked except for yours truly and one other adman.

Why NOT also release us from this unjust blocking...the only thing I can come up with is that it has to be because both this other person and I are vocal critics of the corrupt Obama administration, and of Obama's sanctioned islamization of our government and our beloved country.

And when you've been blocked guess what...there's NO way to actually reach FB and talk to a human one on one to appeal your blocking.  Sure FB has a Help Center but it's basically just for overcoming posting problems, friends problems, and downloading pics and such to appeal a blocking is NOWHERE to be found. 

 So what is one to call a FB number that you're given by a previous FB time-outer and give that a try but guess what...yes you do get connected to FB but, and here's the kicker...a recorded message comes on that says FB does NOT take personal calls or personal issues at this time.  So NO way to appeal a blocking online or by phone.

Grrrrrrrrrrr...puts it mildly.

That left contacting FB via e-mail on a link that a friend gave me...but I can only send off a few lines as the space allotted is small beyond belief. Anyway, this is what I finally sent them after they did NOT answer my X-number of e-mails as they promised they would...after all, they really do NOT want to be contacted as they think of themselves as untouchable.

“l have NOT yet received a response to the message I sent you about my being blocked for 30 days for something I did NOT do. This is the link to explain it all and it has gone viral over the internet."

"Being that I had NOTHING...I REPEAT NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTIONABLE POST...I DEMAND in the strongest terms possible that you remove my blocking NOW as I will continue to pursue this until you respond. Your actions (falsely punishing me for something I did NOT do) are hurting my reputation and could be actionable in court.”

And so I wait to get out of the infamous FB jail (27 more days to go) relying on friends to post for help me get the truth out about the lies told by this president along with my conservative message.  But one good thing is that when something like this happens you do find out who your true friends are...those that help you out when asked...and those phony friends who hang onto you just for the ride or for the notoriety.

So the unfairness by FB continues along with their double standards, censorship against conservative bloggers and posters, love fest with Obama and anything leftist, and now add selective enforcement into the mix...and selective enforcement crosses legal boundaries as their selective blocking of me for something I did NOT do has harmed my reputation by saying I am a FB 'lawbreaker' when I am NOTHING of the sort. 

I'm in this battle for as long as it takes as FB will NOT take me down for I did NOT do what I was accused of, and I do truly believe that in the end the truth will prevail and I will be set free from the infamous FB jail...which by the way no file will help me get out of...must keep a sense of humor about all this you know.  

Assault Weapons Ban Heading for Defeat in Senate

On a party line vote of 10-8, the Democratic-led panel approved a bill to renew a ban similar to one that expired in 2004. The measure would also limit high-capacity ammunition clips to 10 bullets.
Military-style assault weapons have been the weapon of choice in a number of recent US mass shootings, including one at a elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, that killed 20 children and six adults on Dec. 14.
Most Senate Republicans and a number of Democrats from rural states oppose it, arguing it would violate the constitutional right to bear arms. Many fear that backing the legislation could cost them re-election.
Continue Reading :

Jodi Arias Theme song...!

This girl is either out right crazy or which case 'Fallen' would apply...cue the song:
'Time is on my Side'

Mark Kelly’s ‘AR-15 Stunt’ Provokes Giffords Photo Leak

oped: Have we the people had enough of the far left Progressive Hypocrisy? I for one say hell ya!

Multiple law enforcement sources in Arizona told Breitbart News that Mark Kelly’s campaign against “assault weapons” has generated resentment within the law enforcement community–and a desire that the photograph be made public.

Dianne Feinstein: Assault Weapons Like Child Pornography

feinstein gun

The Senate Judiciary Committee passed Feinstein’s gun-grabbing bill that bans over 150 different types of guns, but it didn’t pass without a fight from Republicans. Ted Cruz grilled Feinstein on the Constitutionality of her gun ban, reminding her that the same “right of the people” applies equally to the 2nd Amendment as it does to the 1st and 4th Amendments.
He asked her if she thought it within the purview of the federal government to ban certain books because it didn’t like them (in violation of the 1st) or claim that certain citizens are not protected against unlawful searches and seizures (in violation of the 4th). After all, he contended, this is what she and her Democrat team are doing with the 2nd Amendment and semi-automatic weapons. They’ve simply deemed those firearms “assault” weapons and have arbitrarily decided that they are scarier than other guns for the time being, and because of that, they can be legally banned.

But she didn’t want a lecture on the Constitution:
 ”I’m not a sixth grader. Senator, I’ve been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I’ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I’ve seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered. Look, there are other weapons. I’ve been up — I’m not a lawyer, but after 20 years I’ve been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. This doesn’t mean that weapons of war — and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here. And so I — you know, it’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I’ve been here for a long time. I’ve passed on a number of bills. I’ve studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated, and I thank you for the lecture.” 

She strongly objected to Senator Cruz’s use of the term “prohibited.” She said that nothing’s being prohibited, because there are 2,271 exemptions. She said: 

“Isn’t that enough for the people in the United States? Do they need a bazooka? Do they need other high-powered weapons that military people use to kill in close combat? I don’t think so.”
After she didn’t answer Cruz’s question, he asked it again, to which Feinstein reluctantly responded, “No.” The government does not have the authority to ban certain books, because that would be a violation of the 1st Amendment.

But then she backpedaled when other Democratic members of the committee chimed in and reminded her of child pornography. She then changed her answer and said that child porn books can be legally banned because they are not protected under the 1st Amendment. So, banning weapons (with “exceptions”) is OK, because they’re not protected under the 2nd Amendment, just like child porn. Therefore, it’s not a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
When are they going to say that with regard to handguns and shotguns and knives? Who decides which weapons are not protected by the Bill of Rights? Apparently Dianne Feinstein. And we should trust her to make these arbitrary decisions because she’s “not a sixth grader.” She’s a “reasonably well-educated” person. And yet she still doesn’t get it that banning semi-automatic guns won’t do anything to curb violent crime, but will most likely increase it.

Islamic regime to 'honor' Michelle Obama

by Reza Kahlili 

Iran will give First Lady Michelle Obama a special award for allegedly exposing a direct link between Hollywood and the White House, the commander of Iran’s Basij paramilitary forces announced Wednesday.
According to MehrNews, an official media outlet of the Islamic regime, Brig. Gen Mohammad Reza Naghdi cited Michelle Obama’s announcement of the “anti-Iran” movie “Argo” Oscar for Best Picture in a live feed from the White House Feb. 24.
The movie chronicles the Iranian takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 in which six American embassy workers fled to the protection of Canadian embassy staff and their eventual rescue.
“Mrs. Obama’s action was awesome,” Naghdi said with what what the report described as irony, “and if we had spent billions of dollars, we could not show a link and allegiance between Hollywood and the U.S. government and the White House, especially since they have always denied the allegations.”
Regime media, in another attack on Hollywood, blasted away at the book “A Time to Betray” by Reza Kahlili, which will be made into a TV miniseries about Kahlili’s spying for the CIA in Iran.

MehrNews reported that at the end of a conference held for Basij youth, it was decided to cite Obama for what Naghdi called “her unwanted role in exposing Hollywood and the Oscar Academy’s allegiance to the U.S. administration.”
Naghdi was born in Iraq and moved to Iran after the Iranian Revolution, joining the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. He later joined the Quds Forces, which is involved in international terrorism.

In October 2009, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, appointed Naghdi to command the Basij paramilitary forces. Naghdi has been sanctioned by the U.S. as a violator of human rights for having participated in the suppression of the Iranian people.
Naghdi previously had threatened to kill American generals in response to the assassination of Iran’s nuclear scientists.
He said at the time, “We will mark the hanging sites of the American and Zionist generals and we will identify which hanging was in retaliation for the blood of our great martyr.”
Since the release of “Argo,” several Iranian officials have criticized the movie. Regime media reported this week that Iran has hired a French lawyer, Isabelle Coutant-Peyre, to sue the movie’s producers in international court, although the media did not say on what basis.

The regime’s media, since the production of “Argo,” have attacked Hollywood for what they call the production of “anti-Iran” movies. Citing “unrealistic portrayal” of the Iranian people, they attacked actor George Clooney as one of the two writers of “Argo” and for his producing the “anti-Islam” movie “Syriana.” They also cite the “Zionist company” Warner Brothers for filming “Argo” and the “anti-Iran” movie “300.”
Regime media also point to the upcoming production of a miniseries based on “A Time to Betray” by Kahlili, who in his youth traveled to America to continue his education. Upon his return after the 1979 revolution, he lost hope in the direction of the country, returned to America, hooked up with the CIA and became a spy in the Revolutionary Guards.
This “anti-Iran” miniseries, the regime media said, is to be produced by actor William Baldwin and Warren Kohler.

The regime media published an image of Kahlili alongside former CIA director James Woolsey that mistakenly referred to Woolsey as Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., the former candidate for the Republican Party presidential nomination.

Gerdab.Ir, a Revolutionary Guards media outlet, attacked Kahlili for his call for support of the Iranian people to bring about regime change in Iran.
Recently the Islamic regime, furious over exclusive reports by WND on the Fordow nuclear site explosions, through its official news agency IRNA, assailed WND as a media outlet “under the direct control of the CIA.” IRNA called WND’s Kahlili a tool of the CIA to expand propaganda against the regime in the face of its nuclear progress.

See Cruz lecture Feinstein on Constitution

via:WND Radio
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a ban on the sale and manufacture of more than 150 types of semi-automatic weapons with military-style features Thursday.
The vote comes after the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced bills earlier in the week to enact near-universal background checks and combat gun trafficking.

The bill was approved by the committee on a party-line, 10-8 vote, which came after a heated exchange between Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.
Feinstein became furious at one point with Cruz for “lecturing” her on the Second Amendment and the use of certain language in the Constitution.
“I’m not a sixth-grader,” she told the freshman tea-party favorite. “I’m not a lawyer, but after 20 years, I’ve been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. It’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I’ve been here for a long time. I’ve passed on a number of bills. I’ve studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well-educated, and I thank you for the lecture.”
The measure approved Thursday is the most controversial drafted since the deadly school shooting in Newtown, Conn.
The legislation is vulnerable in the full Senate, where Democrats are expected to need 60 votes for passage through the 100-member chamber.

Sen Diane (sixth-grader) Feinstein

First Nancy Pelosi whining about losing her big ol' Gavel...then Barbara Boxer having a hissy fit over a General calling her Ma'am and now Diane Feinstein whining about being schooled on the US constitution.
Kawlifornians'  do yourself a favor vote these three 'has been' Hippy/Yuppies out of office they are a embarrassment to your state!

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Video: Obama’s “Civilian National Security Force” By Executive Order

On July 2nd, 2008, Obama delivered a speech in Boulder, Colorado in which he promised the creation and establishment of a “Civilian National Security Force.” He further promised it would be “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as the US Military.”

Video: Fmr. Obama Supporter: Something Sinister About Him

A black caller into Rush Limbaugh’s radio show confesses he was a “diehard Democrat” who converted to conservatism by the “Limbaugh theorem.”

Is Obama Getting Ready To Seize Power?

Pick your choice...both bad!

This is a theory that I have put together to make the case for Obama seizing power. First, lets look at the facts.
Obama has issued many executive orders pertaining to peacetime Martial Law, he has control of drone strikes against American citizens on US soil, and he signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law. Reasons for his actions: unknown.

The Department of Homeland Security has recently purchased millions of rounds of ammunition and 7,000 assault rifles. Reasons for these actions: unknown.
Obama recently had top-secret construction done on the White House (and, using Sequestration for an excuse, has stopped all White House tours, even though Donald Trump has agreed to pay for them for the rest of this fiscal year.) Reasons for these actions: unknown.
When Obama and Congressional Democrats discussed Amnesty for illegal aliens, an idea for a possible path for citizenship was for illegals to serve in either the US military, Peace Corps, or Americorp for a period of two years; and then citizenship would be granted. Homeland Security, using Sequestration for an excuse, has started to release illegal alien CRIMINALS without deporting them. The reason for this action: unknown.
Do you have the picture yet? My theory is that Obama is building his civilian army against Americans using illegal aliens, supplied with arms from DHS, with a promise of full citizenship in the NEW USA. After his opposition is either eliminated or imprisoned, of course. The White House will become the new Presidential Palace. This is the only plausible reason for these actions that I can come up with. I sincerely hope that I am wrong. As always, stay safe and be aware of your surroundings.
Photo credit: Dave Merrick

Is The Democrat Tower Of Babble Crumbling In California?


California Is the Democrat tower of Babble crumbling in California?
How was it possible that Scott Walker was able to beat back so many challenges and build his reputation as a “union killer” in a state like Wisconsin, yet Mitt Romney still lost there, even with a popular Paul Ryan as his running mate?   It happened because while the Democrats in Wisconsin and other states are turning on each other, they will stop fighting long enough to re-elect Democrat Barack Obama. This political reality has developed because the rank and file Democrats, who are being forced to work harder to fund the pensions of their “union brothers and sisters” have said “Enough!” They don’t care about Democrat union members now that THEY have learned THEY are funding the pay and benefits packages they THOUGHT were paid for with money picked off a tree (some Democrats are THAT dumb).
This phenomenon is now taking shape in California. The current epicenter of the showdown between the makers and the takers is in San Diego, where voters last year supported reforms (read: reductions) of civil servants’ pension benefits. This, of course, has angered union members.

The cost of paying for the cushy retirements of these people has quintupled over the last dozen years; and at long last, the suckers don’t want to fund them anymore.
Naturally, the unions are fighting back. They’re claiming a lack of “go faith” on the part of the suckers in San Diego.  The union thugs actually believe THEY have the power of “yes or no” in this matter. Why shouldn’t they feel this way? After all, the unions own California, and the suckers work FOR them.
The San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, who can count voters, has come out fighting on this issue saying “We’re not gonna back down one iota, I can tell you that; Because the people do have a right under direct democracy to bypass the city council, to bypass the state legislature, to bypass the labor unions, and to bypass PERB. This is a constitutional right, no different than the first amendment.” Based on what has happened around the state when other suckers have revolted, Goldsmith looks to be on the winning side. Other local governments are fighting their unions and winning. Surprisingly, even Governor Jerry Brown has joined the fight against the unions in spite of his having been a prime mover in creating this pension mess when he was governor the first time between 1975 and 1983.
What will come of this? Who knows? But any trouble in our enemy’s tent is a good thing.
Photo credit: photologue_np (Creative Commons)

Video: U.S. Government Preparing For Collapse?

The Economy isn’t going to recover. The government knows this and is getting ready, but in ways that are very disturbing.One of the massive purchase orders for hollow points and buckshot:

Unfunded liabilities

Leaked Document: Government setting up military detention centers for Activists:

The document itself:

Why a dollar and Euro Collapse is Guaranteed:

Video: 4 Dem Officials Plead Guilty To Election Fraud

And these guys thought they would get away with what they did!! Four Democratic Officials Plead Guilty To Election Fraud: Court Ordered DNA Samples From Dem Officials - 3/13/2013 -

Expert: Obamacare set to 'implode'

by: WND Radio

The House Republican budget plan assumes the repeal of Obamacare, and while the political votes may be hard to find, a leading health-care expert told WND the flaws of the system will likely lead to its implosion in the near term.
Grace-Marie Turner is president of the Galen Institute and one of the leading policy-based critics of Obamacare.
She said House Republicans are right to keep pushing for the repeal of Obamacare because of the myriad ways it afflicts the nation’s fiscal health.
“When you look at the overall impact of this law on the economy, we know that it’s hugely important in depressing job creation,” she said. “It’s forcing companies to put people on part-time when they need full-time workers. The incredible number of new taxes, a trillion dollars in new taxes in this law just in its own right. It is one of the major factors that is depressing economic growth. When you have economic growth depressed, you don’t have the tax revenue that you need.”
Turner applauded House Republicans for pushing the case for repeal and Senate Republicans for trying to defund Obamacare in the upcoming continuing resolution, even though the effort fell short. Any repeal effort that survived Congress would face a sure veto from President Obama, but Turner said the American people are determined to defeat Obamacare, including a decent percentage of voters who backed Obama for other reasons.

“Somehow or another this is going to shake out,” she said. “All of the predictable routes to getting rid of Obamacare seem to have been closed, except the American people don’t like this law. Some of them hate it. They’re going to figure out a way to not lose our freedom, to have it not ruin our economy.”
Turner is still optimistic that state rejection of Obamacare will help bring about its demise. She noted that only 17 states have agreed to the exchanges, and some state legislatures may overrule their own governors on expansion of Medicaid. Turner also noted that even liberal states like California and Connecticut are pleading with the federal government to stop the stream of new regulations that may well prevent exchanges from opening on time in those states.
The bureaucracy is not only impacting state governments, but individuals as well. Americans used to a couple of pages worth of paperwork to enroll in a health plan are now forced to fill out dozens of pages to comply with the government requirements to join the exchanges. Turner said the amount of federal prying could turn off many people from the program.
“The law is very specific about what information the government has to have to find out whether or not you’re eligible for the subsidies in these exchanges,” she explained. “They have to know your income, your family size, where you work, the tax identification number of your employer, the technical name of the plan that your employer offers that would qualify as a qualifying Obamacare health plan. People need help with this. California alone believes it needs 20,000 people just to help people fill out the form. The one I’ve seen is 21 pages. It looks like a tax form.”

“I think that’s one of the reasons that people say, ‘I’m not doing this. They have to sell me insurance if I get sick at the same price as if I’d been having health insurance all along. I’m just going to pay the fine too.’ We’re seeing employers saying, ‘We’re going to pay the fine, not comply.’
“I think the next wave is individuals doing the same thing, both because they see the high cost of the coverage in these exchanges, which is going to be much more expensive than the coverage that they’ve had. Young people are going to be hit the hardest because they’re forced to pay more so that older people can pay less. They’re not going to comply with all this paperwork. They’re just going to walk, and that means that these exchanges are just not going to work.”

Obama 'declares war' on U.S. military

by Chelsea Schilling 

America’s men and women in uniform – many of whom have risked their lives in service to their country – are now being stripped of once-guaranteed college benefits as the Obama administration seeks to ensure citizens feel the pain of its loss in the sequester battle.
It’s just the latest move in a series of Obama administration actions that have chipped away at the U.S. military’s size, strength and benefits structure – and drastically changed the face of the most powerful fighting force in the world.
The U.S. Army, Air Force and Marine Corps have now halted their tuition assistance programs after across-the-board federal spending cuts went into effect March 1. The suspension applies to all components, including Reserve and National Guard personnel on active-duty orders. The U.S. Navy is also expected to deliver a similar announcement soon. The cuts do not affect G.I. Bill benefits.

According to new reports, any new applications for tuition assistance will be rejected by the Air Force. The branch’s application site states, “Air Force Military Tuition Assistance Currently not Available.”
The Air Force is also limiting its career training at its Non-Commissioned Officer Academy and Squadron Officer School – which means commanders will be forced to limit the number of airmen attending the training.
The program pays up to $4,500 per fiscal year for service members seeking a high-school diploma, certificate or college degree.
“This week, DOD’s comptroller issued guidance indicating that the services should consider significant reductions in funding new tuition assistance applicants, effective immediately and for the duration of the current fiscal situation,” Pentagon spokesman Nathan Christensen told the Marine Corps Times just days ago.
A petition posted on the White House website is urging Obama to restore the tuition assistance program through an executive order. At the time of this report, that petition has garnered more than 90,000 signatures.
As WND reported just days ago, the Obama administration has directed federal agencies to make sequestration cuts as devastating as the administration warned they would be.

The Washington Times obtained a March 5 email sent by Charles Brown, an official with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service office in Raleigh, N.C. The email asked “if there was any latitude” in spreading the sequester cuts across the region and lessening the impacts on fish inspections.
Officials in Washington replied that whatever he does, he needs to make sure he doesn’t lessen the pain America will feel from sequestration.
The reply explained: “We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that ‘APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs.’ So it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”
Before sequestration went into effect, the administration predicted it would be a catastrophe. As WND reported, the public was warned the $85 billion in spending cuts would include the loss of police officers, firefighters, teachers, soldiers, air control towers and shipyards.
Once it became clear the administration would not get the tax increases it demanded and sequestration would go into effect, Obama began downplaying the effects of the automatic spending cuts, even calling the idea of sequestration just “dumb.” Now, it appears the administration wants to make sure its previous threats are realized.

The tuition assistance freeze comes just a year after the Obama administration began pushing  for U.S. service members – and especially military retirees – to pay as much as 30 percent more for their health care.

Is Obama declaring war on U.S. military?
Obama has made no secret of his plans for deep military cuts that would downsize the Pentagon. In 2010, he cut $487 billion from the defense budget. In 2011, he signed into law a budget process intended to cut an additional $492 billion over 10 years.
The New York Times recently reported:
“On the list are not only base closings but also an additional reduction in deployed nuclear weapons and stockpiles and a restructuring of the military medical insurance program that costs more than America spends on all of its diplomacy and foreign aid around the world. Also being considered is yet another scaling back in next-generation warplanes, starting with the F-35, the most expensive weapons program in United States history.”
According to the report, some senior Pentagon officials have argued that massive cuts could leave room to increase funding for “building drones, developing offensive and defensive cyberweapons and focusing on Special Operations forces.”
But retired Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, a national security and foreign affairs analyst, warned, “These cuts leave America with a military inventory of ancient and broken equipment.  Our tanker aircraft are on average 47 years old and our strategic bombers 34 years old, and besides, their numbers are totally insufficient for America’s global missions.  For example, our air force shrank from 82 fighter squadrons at the end of the Cold War to 39 today and our Navy is in worse shape.  We have a naval fleet of 284 ships and shrinking even though naval planners indicate we need at least 328 ships.”
In 2012, Obama declared that the “tide of war is receding” and called for shrinking the U.S. Army and Marines. The Los Angeles Times reported that Obama vowed to “ensure our security with smaller conventional ground forces,” adding that the armed forces “will be leaner” but “agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats.”

During the presidential campaign, former GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney accused Obama of “cutting the capacity of America to defend itself.”
Obama’s also announced his plan to carry out a new round of nuclear-warhead cuts. The strategy is expected to leave the U.S. with only about 1,000 warheads, a level that experts say would weaken strategic nuclear deterrence capability.
Meanwhile, Obama has expanded the U.S. military role in Latin America and deployed U.S. Special Operations forces to at least 75 countries.
He deployed troops to the West African country of Niger to set up drone bases and approved $50 million to assist France in Mali.
Obama also reportedly agreed to substantially increase America’s military presence in the Philippines.
In his 2013 Inaugural speech, Obama called for the U.S. to maintain a global military presence.
As commander in chief, Obama leads a military of about 1.5 million active duty troops, according to the U.S. Department of Defense. That’s less than half the 3.6 million troops during the Korean War.
As Face the Facts, a nonpartisan think-tank, explains, “This smaller force has been stretched thin by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Troops faced longer deployments and multiple tours of duty to compensate for fewer personnel.”

According to Defense News, “Obama is sticking by plans to shrink the Army to 490,000 active-duty troops and the Marine Corps to 186,000 … over the next five years.”
During his time in office, Obama has also forced at least four generals to resign from their command.
The Obama administration plans to leave 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after NATO combat operations end in late 2014. More than 2,000 American soldiers have died since the Afghanistan war began on Oct. 7, 2001. A full 72 percent of those casualties happened during Obama’s first term.

Obama fundamentally changes America’s military
WND reported in August 2012 when former military and CIA officers blasted Obama for leaking national intelligence secrets for political gain – and jeopardizing the U.S. mission.
A 22-minute video, titled “Dishonorable Disclosures,” was released by Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund, an independent watchdog organization designed to stop U.S. leaders from politically capitalizing on national security secrets and to educate the public on the importance of operational security.
The group accused Obama of nearly a dozen breaches of national security, beginning with foolishly announcing the death of Osama bin Laden “to prop up his presidency politically,” rather than keeping a silent cover in order to use the information obtained in the bin Laden raid.
“In a few brief moments of selfish grandstanding and political opportunism,” OPSEC asserted, “our commander in chief lost the single opportunity to exploit intelligence that, had secrecy been preserved, might well have crushed al-Qaida once and for all.”
Also, under Obama administration guidance, the military adopted the president’s goal of homosexuality in the ranks through the 2011 repeal of its long-standing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy implemented by President Bill Clinton. In February 2013, Obama also issued a directive requiring the military to treat cohabitating homosexuals as married couples, including extending federal benefits to same-sex domestic partners.
Since the policy change, chaplains’ organizations have told WND there is bigotry against those who follow a traditional biblical and military perspective that does not promote homosexuality. In September 2012, officials with the Chaplain Alliance said among the situations that have developed:

  • Senior military officials have allowed personnel in favor of repeal to speak to media while those who have concerns have been ordered to be silent.
  • Service members engaged in homosexual behavior protested a service school’s open doors policy for all students that prohibited the closing of room doors for sexual purposes. The protesters were upset because they claimed that they had a right to participate in sexual behavior with their same-sex roommates.
  • A senior chaplain was stripped of his authority over the chapel under his charge because, in accordance with federal law, he proclaimed the chapel as a “sacred space” where marriage or marriage-like ceremonies would only be between one man and one woman.
  • Same-sex ceremonies have been performed at military chapels, including one at Fort Polk, La., a state that constitutionally defines marriage as one man and one woman.
  • The Navy has allowed sailors who have openly engaged in homosexual behavior to choose their bunk mates.
More recently, the Obama administration lifted the ban on women serving in direct combat positions, the infantry and special operations, despite concerns from high-profile veterans and leaders that doing so would create a less capable fighting force and open the door for women to be drafted into military service.

Do America’s warriors’ votes even count?
Perhaps most alarmingly, despite their personal sacrifice to protect Americans’ freedoms, the nation’s men and women in uniform are often deprived of the chance to cast a ballot for their own commander in chief.
WND reported in August 2012 when the Obama re-election campaign sued Ohio state officials in an attempt to suppress, in that pivotal swing state, the votes of America’s military men and women – who traditionally lean conservative and vote Republican. (CNN exit polling data from 2008 showed voters favored Republican John McCain over Obama by a 10-point margin, 54 to 44 percent.)
WND also reported in October 2012, during one of the most hotly contested elections in recent U.S. history, the number of military absentee ballot requests was strangely down by staggering numbers compared to the 2008 election. That news came just as a Military Times survey of military forces showed Romney with a 26-percent lead over Obama. The Times survey followed an earlier Rasmussen poll that showed a 59 to 35 percent lead for Romney among military service voters.
The low number of military requests perplexed Republican lawmakers, who in 2009 pushed and passed the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act, which was supposed to make it easier for overseas military personnel to vote. The law required a voter assistance office at every military installation. It also automatically provided military voters with an opportunity to update their voter information during the check-in process at their duty stations.

However, the Defense Department’s Inspector General reported that the Pentagon was not complying with the 2009 law, citing information that only about half of overseas locations had functioning voter assistance offices.
“Tens of thousands of service members’ votes not counted” was the headline of a June 27, 2012, McClatchy newspaper article detailing just how seriously flawed the current system has been for enabling the millions of men and woman in the U.S. military to vote.
The story included the following statistics:
In 2010, of the approximately 2 million military and overseas voters accounted for in data reported by the states to the Election Assistance Commission, only 4.6 percent of those voters were able to cast an absentee ballot that counted, according to the Military Voter Protection Project’s analysis of that data from the federal Election Assistance Commission, which tracks participation in voting. That compared with 5.5 percent in 2006, which was also a midterm election, the organization concluded.
In his Washington Times column, American Majority Action CEO Ned Ryan placed the blame squarely on the president for the “abysmal” military absentee voting in the last two elections:
“So, why aren’t soldiers voting? In many cases they simply can’t, and they have their commander in chief, President Obama, to blame,” Ryan argued. “Hundreds of thousands of our uniformed personnel have been shut out of the process, and we can thank the Obama administration and even the Obama campaign for this tragedy. …

“The explanation? The Obama administration by way of the Pentagon blamed a lack of funds for their failure to comply with the law. That’s right, the same administration that has spent more money in less time than any other in American history is pleading poverty when it comes to ensuring that our military can vote …”
Ryan blasted the Obama administration for sending $2 billion to the Egyptian government and funding Solyndra, Obamacare, “Cash for Clunkers” and other massive federal programs while refusing to “spare change to help ensure that our nation’s heroes can exercise the right to vote.”
“It’s a national disgrace. Worse, the facts make us wonder if it is intentional. After all, members of the military vote overwhelmingly Republican.”

Haven't we had enough bad legislation passed in the name of "bipartisanship" or "compromise?"
ALERT: Two House members commit to block government-growing legislation through voting down the rules. Fax Congress!

Conservative American,

Haven't we had enough bad legislation passed in the name of "bipartisanship" or "compromise?"

Just last week we saw the House GOP (establishment) leadership shoot down the conservative members' amendment that would've completely defunded Obamacare. Speaker John Boehner blocked the conservatives' effort entirely, preventing it from taking a single vote!

As the amendment would've likely passed, it is clear that House leadership is afraid of Obama and would rather give-in than put up a fight for the conservative principles they are supposed to be upholding.

The good news is: apart from establishment powers, there is a very large faction of the GOP that is not interested in growing government, shrinking liberty, or bowing down to Barack Obama.

Two Arizona House members right now are urging their colleagues to stop Big Government legislation through resurrecting the "Hastert Rule" to block bad bills by blocking their rules.

We must support their efforts by telling all GOP House members to join them

Take Action and DEMAND House Republicans to PLEDGE to VOTE DOWN THE RULES on all GOVERNMENT-GROWING Legislation! The GOP must PREVENT every big-spending bill from receiving a vote!

Reps. Matt Salmon and David Schweikert of Arizona are leading the charge to limit government in the legislature - even against their party leadership.

Salmon this week outlined his pledge to prevent the growth of the federal government in his Washington Times op-ed, and Schweikert committed to do the same in his dear colleague letter.

The Arizona Reps. are calling their colleagues to do more than just vote against bad, government-growing bills - they want to prevent the bills from coming to a vote in the first place!

Salmon, who had formerly served in the House from 1995 to 2001, said that it used to be the norm for the Republican Majority to defend fiscal conservatism by preventing all bad legislation from taking a vote by voting down the rules.

He writes:

"During my previous tenure in Congress, House Republicans passed several pieces of meaningful legislation. We enacted welfare reform, pro-growth tax cuts, and achieved the holiest of grails - a balanced budget. In fact, by the time I left Congress in 2001 to honor my term-limits pledge, we had a budget surplus of more than $240 billion.

These successes were not easy to achieve. They came about because House conservatives were willing to confront GOP leadership when they occasionally got off-track rather than standing firm on the principles of economic freedom.

One tactic we used was to vote against House rules on specific bills that did not uphold conservative principles."

Conservative Republicans must join Rep. Salmon and commit to voting down the rules on all bills that would increase government spending!

Take Action and DEMAND House Republicans to PLEDGE to VOTE DOWN THE RULES on all GOVERNMENT-GROWING Legislation! The GOP must PREVENT every big-spending bill from receiving a vote!

House rules, in short, are determined by the majority party and decide what bills are voted on, how much time is allotted to deliberate them, and how to go about the amendment process.

Once the rules are determined, they are voted on - it is usual that the minority party votes against the rules the majority party sets, and vice versa, which lends these votes to be divided on party lines.

Salmon notes that the major problem here is that fiscal conservatives too often vote in favor of the rules for bills they would otherwise never vote in favor of, which actually aids the bills in the long-run by placing them up for a vote.

This is why Rep. Salmon explicitly pledged the following:

"From this point forward, I will vote against the rule for bills that increase spending without offsetting spending cuts and encourage my other conservative colleagues to do the same. Similarly, if House leadership brings any more bills to the floor without first securing the support from the majority of the GOP conference, I will take the same action. If enough of my conservative colleagues in the House join me, we can unilaterally put an end to the growth of government that is moving us closer to Greece-like fiscal calamities."

The Arizona Rep. adds that he is willing to challenge GOP leadership over spending issues because his "allegiance will always be to the Constitution and the American people first and foremost, not to [his] political party."

As we noted above, Rep. David Schweikert has joined Salmon in his efforts to limit government, stop spending, and defend fiscal conservatism by voting down the rules.

It's time for all conservative members to make this pledge - we must demand them to do it! If they don't, we know that they are no better than Big Government Democrats in rubber-stamping excess spending!

Take Action and DEMAND House Republicans to PLEDGE to VOTE DOWN THE RULES on all GOVERNMENT-GROWING Legislation! The GOP must PREVENT every big-spending bill from receiving a vote!

House conservatives need our support.

We already saw that Rep. Schweikert - along with Reps. Amash, Heulskamp, and Jones - was removed from his committee late last year by GOP leadership for his commitment to limiting Washington's spending.

In other words, top conservatives were punished for being ... conservative.

It's time for Reps. to stick to principles despite leadership's big-spending and big-compromising ways.

Rep. Schweikert has it right; he says, "With President Obama's recent realization that he must reach out to the House Republican Conference, we need to stand firm on this principle. Our $16 trillion debt and a deficit that approaches a trillion dollars annually require Republicans in the House to use every tool at our disposal to push for fiscally responsible policies. The future of our country relies on."

Thomas Jefferson said,

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude... this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for [another ]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."

Will you fax Republican House Members and tell them to join the Arizona Representatives who are taking a stand under opposition? It is likely that many more will join them.

Take Action and DEMAND House Republicans to PLEDGE to VOTE DOWN THE RULES on all GOVERNMENT-GROWING Legislation! The GOP must PREVENT every big-spending bill from receiving a vote!

For America,
Conservative Action Alerts

P.S. Don't forget to send your free letters to your lawmakers here (you can also print it to share with others).

P.P.S Call Reps. Salmon and Schweikert and thank them for strongly defending conservative principles in the face of GOP leadership. Find their numbers here and here.                    

Conservative Action Alerts (CAA) is a media outlet protected by the first amendment; no financial contribution to support our efforts is tax-deductible. Diener Consultants, Inc., 10940 S Parker Rd Ste# 763, PARKER, CO 80864-7440

FBI’s New Pamphlets: You Might Be A Terrorist If…. !

oped: What can I say but Janet Napolitano is a incompetent Buffoon!

The FBI published 25 pamphlets and distributed them to people who work in the general public to give them information on how to spot a terrorist based on a number of “suspicious behavior” indicators. People at construction sites, electronic stores, beauty salons, airports and other places were advised on what kind of behavior is consistent with domestic terrorism. Here are some of their recommendations:
  • Beauty salons and drug stores are told to watch out for customers who don’t drive themselves but are dropped off and picked up by someone else. (If you’re elderly and need a ride, you might be a terrorist.)
  • Gas station attendants are told to look out for customers who put gas in gas cans. (If you run out of gas, you might be a terrorist.)
  • Construction sites are advised to consider glued locks as evidence of terrorism. (Definitely not a prank pulled by unruly teenagers.)
  • Dive boat shops are told to look out for customers who rent a boat for an “extended amount of time.” (If you have too much fun on your rented boat, you might be a terrorist.)
  • Electronics stores are advised to look out for those who purchase an assortment of electronic supplies. (If you frequent Radio Shack or Fry’s, you might be a terrorist.)
  • Banks should be on the lookout for customers who deposit multiple checks or money orders. (If you have more than one stream of income, you might be a terrorist.)
  • Hobby shops are told to keep an eye out for those who have an “unusual” interest in remote-controlled airplanes. (If you’re a hobbyist, you might be a terrorist.)
Read more:

Michelle’s Big B-Day Bash

This week the Obama administration announced that due to the awful, terrible, nasty, horrible sequestration, they would have to shut down the White House tours for the public. The same week, a White House source told the Daily Mail that Michelle Obama was planning a birthday blowout for her 50th. In attendance: Adele and Beyonce.
The White House did say that the Obamas would pay for the party. But that’s highly unlikely – it’s supposed to take place at the White House, which requires Secret Service protection, high-class dining, and all the fringe benefits.
The White House website currently carries a populist quote from Michelle Obama: “It’s the ‘People’s House.’ It’s a place that is steeped in history, but it’s also a place where everyone should feel welcome. And that’s why my husband and I have made it our mission to open up the house to as many people as we can.”
Unless those people don’t earn several million dollars per year for singing. Then they can stick it.
The media has largely ignored this rather obvious example of Obama hypocrisy. Why? Because to point out the fact that Barack and Michelle are elitists would undercut the leftist narrative that they represent the people, while the Republican Party represents the 1%. A cursory look at reality shows precisely the opposite: Washington, D.C. Democrats like Barack and Michelle prefer to hang with the jet set, introduce nominations at the Academy Awards, golf with Tiger, and shop in Europe – all while claiming to be the voices of the people. They tax everyday Americans in the name of fairness, then claim that they’re truly taxing the top earners.
Read More:

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Anti-Gun Appeals Court Nominee Defeated

Last week was a big one for gun rights.
First, Caitlin Halligan’s nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia was defeated by a Republican filibuster. Halligan was one of the most anti-gun judicial nominees in recent memory, according to Gun Owners of America. The cloture vote failed 51-41, with only Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska breaking ranks with the Republicans.
GOA saw some more good news in the Senate Judiciary Committee, even though it passed S. 54, the Veterans Gun Ban. The good news comes in the fact that Republicans seem united against the bill, which makes a filibuster defeat “very achievable.”
As GAO notes, Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) spoke for all gun owners when he vigorously opposed the bill in committee, explaining that: “This bill would make it a serious felony [up to 15 years in prison] for an American Legion employee to negligently transfer a raffled firearm to a veteran who unknown to the transferor suffers from PTSD.”
According to GOA:

Although this legislative pile of bunk is wrapped up in a pretty package labeled “gun trafficking” (which is already illegal), the bill would (at its core) send you to prison for 15 years if you:
- Negligently sold two or more guns;
- Negligently gave a gun as a gift;
- Negligently raffled a gun.
What do we mean by “negligence”?  Well, 150,000 law-abiding veterans are currently barred from owning firearms, without any due process of law.  And any person who smokes marijuana — including medical marijuana — is prohibited from owning a firearm under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3).
So, if you sell a gun to any of these people, without realizing that they are subject to a gun ban, you can go to prison for 15 years.
Anti-gun Chairman Patrick Leahy did everything he could to cut off debate on S. 54 — showing clear irritation at any senator who dared to raise questions with respect to its provisions.
That said, seven of the eight Republicans on the committee voted against S. 54, the Veterans Gun Ban — Senators Jeff Sessions (AL), Jeff Flake (AZ), Lindsey Graham (SC), John Cornyn (TX), Ted Cruz (TX), Orrin Hatch (UT) and Mike Lee (UT).  They all deserve your support and thanks.
And the eighth, Ranking Republican Chuck Grassley, left open the possibility that he would vote against it on the floor unless it was amended.
Both Grassley and Murkowski need to hear from their constituents.