Back to Top

Category Archives: Incompetent Journalists

LIBTARD Austin slap Perry video of Rosemary Lehmberg

SO a LIBTARD and a LIBTARD Austin grand jury acting out in true public corruption slap Perry with an indictment. 

[su_youtube url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7y7oJ266qI” autoplay=”yes”]

Texas – Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been indicted for abuse of power after carrying out a threat to veto funding for state public corruption prosecutors.

The Republican governor is accused of abusing his official powers by publicly promising to veto $7.5 million for the state public integrity unit at the Travis County District Attorney’s office. He was indicted by an Austin grand jury Friday.

Perry said he’d veto the funding if the district attorney, Rosemary Lehmberg, didn’t resign. Lehmberg had recently been convicted of drunken driving. The state’s Public Integrity Unit operates out of her office.

When Lehmberg refused, Perry carried out his veto, drawing an ethics complaint.

 

 

Dead Baby #JokesAtWendyDavisTexas

BrYxxzvCQAIPmz3Dead Baby Jokes Over heard at the #TeamWendy party for @WendyDavisTexas

wendy_davis_killthatbaby

  1. What is funnier than a dead baby?
    A dead baby in a clown costume.
  2. What is the difference between a baby and a onion?
    No one cries when you chop up the baby.
  3. What is the difference between a dead baby and a water melon?
    One’s fun to hit with a sledge hammer, the other one’s a water melon.
  4. What is the difference between a baby and a dart-board?
    Dart-boards don’t bleed.
  5. What is the difference between a baby and a mars bar?
    About 500 calories.
    download (1)
  6. Why did the family take the dead baby along on the cookout?
    So they could light it and toast their marshmallows.
  7. Why was the dead baby kept in the kitchen drawer?
    The family used it to crack nuts.
  8. Why do people keep dead babies in the rec. room?
    They cut off one leg and use it as a ping pong paddle.
  9. Why do you put babies into blenders feet first?
    So you can see the expression on their faces.
  10. Why do they boil water when a baby is being born?
    So that if its born dead they can make soup.
  11. Why did the baby cross the road?
    It was stapled to the chicken.
  12. How many babies does it take to make a bottle of baby oil?
    It depends on how hard you squeeze them.
  13. How many babies fit in a blender?
    Depends on how powerful the blender is.
  14. How do you know when a baby is dead?
    It doesn’t cry if you nail its feet to the ceilingimages (1)
  15. How do you find the live baby in a pile of dead ones?
    Jab ’em all with a pitchfork.
  16. How do you save a drowning baby?
    Harpoon it.
  17. How do you turn a baby into a dog?
    Pour gas over it and light a match. Woof.
  18. How do you turn a baby into a cat?
    Freeze it solid, then run it through a bandsaw. Meeow.
  19. How do you get 100 babies into a bucket?
    With a blender.
    How do you get them out again?
    With Doritos.
  20. How do you make a dead baby float?
    Take your foot off its head.
    or:
    A glass of soda water and 2 scoops of baby.
  21. What do you call two abortions in a bucket?
    Blood brothers.
  22. What is red and is creeping up your leg?
    An abortion with homesickness.
  23. What is a foot long and can make a woman scream?
    Stillbirth.
  24. What is a foot long, blue, and makes women scream in the morning?
    Crib death.Wendy_Davis_Shoes-240x361
  25. What do you call a dead baby pinned to your wall?
    Art.
  26. What is red, bubbly, and scratches at the window before exploding?
    A baby in a microwave.
  27. What is blue and yellow and sits at the bottom of the pool?
    Baby with slashed floaties.
  28. What is red and yellow and floats at the top of the pool?
    Floaties with a slashed baby.
  29. What is red and hangs around trees?
    A baby hit by a snow blower.
  30. What is green and hangs around trees?
    Same baby 3 weeks later.
  31. What is pink and red and silver and crawls into walls?
    A baby with forks in its eyes.
  32. What is pink and goes black with a “hiss.”?
    A baby thrown into a furnace.
  33. What is brown and gurgles?
    A baby in a casserole.
  34. What is purple, covered in pus, and squeals?
    A peeled baby in a bag of salt.
  35. What is black and goes up and down?
    A baby in a toaster.
  36. What is red and hangs out of the back of a train?
    A miscarriage.
  37. What is red and goes round and round?
    A baby in a garbage disposal.
  38. What is red and swings back and forth?
    A baby on a meat hook.
  39. What is red, screams, and goes around in circles?
    A baby nailed to the floor.
  40. What is red and sits in the corner?
    A baby with razor blades.
  41. What is blue and sits in the corner?
    A baby in a baggie.
  42. What is black and sits in a corner?
    A baby with it’s finger in a power socket.
  43. What is green and sits in the corner?
    Same baby two weeks later.
  44. What is black and charred?
    A baby chewing on an extension cord.
  45. What is black and white, runs around the room, and smokes?
    A baby with his hair on fire.liberalism
  46. What is blue and flies around the room at high speeds?
    A baby with a punctured lung.
  47. What is cold, blue and doesn’t move?
    A baby in your freezer.
  48. What is pink, flies and squeals?
    A baby fired from a catapult.
    What do you call the baby when it lands?
    Free pizza.
  49. What is red and has more brains than the baby you just shot?
    The wall behind it.
  50. What is white and glows pink?
    A dead baby with an electrode up its ass.
  51. What is more fun than nailing a baby to a wall?
    Ripping it off again.
  52. What is more fun than throwing a baby off the cliff?
    Catching it with a pitchfork.
  53. What is more fun than swinging babies around on a clothesline?
    Stopping them with a shovel.
  54. What is more fun than shoveling dead babies off your porch?
    Doing it with a snow blower.
  55. What sits in the kitchen and keeps getting smaller and smaller?
    A baby combing it’s hair with a potato peeler.
  56. What bounces up and down at 100mph?
    A baby tied to the back of a truck.
  57. What goes plop, plop, fizz, fizz?
    Twins in an acid bath.
  58. What is red and pink and can’t turn round in a corridor?
    A baby with a javelin through its throat.
  59. What is little and can’t fit through a door?
    A baby with a spear in its head.
  60. What is the definition of fun?
    Playing fetch with a pitbull and a baby.
  61. What has 4 legs and one arm?
    A doberman on a children’s playground.
  62. What has 10 arms and blood all over it?
    A pitbull in front of a pile of dead babies.
  63. What is red and pink and hanging out of your dog’s mouth?
    Your baby’s leg.
  64. What present do you get for a dead baby?
    A dead puppy.
  65. What is grosser than ten dead babies nailed to a tree?
    One dead baby nailed to ten trees.
  66. What is worse than a dead baby in a trash can?
    100 dead babies in a trash can.
    What is worse than that?
    There’s a live one at the bottom.
    What is worse than that?
    It eats its way out.
    What is worse than that?
    It comes back for seconds.
  67. Know what’s gross?
    Running over a baby with a truck.
    Know whats worse?
    Skidding on it.
    Worse than that?
    Peeling it off the tires.
  68. What is the worst part about killing a baby?
    Getting blood on your clown suit.obama-baby-killer

euthanasia for children motivated by compassion and protection WTF LIBS

Coming to an Obamacare program near you. Should children have the right to ask for their own deaths?  This is what the Liberals have been up to while you weren’t looking. I seam to recall that Hitler started out like this “kill the infirm” for “compassion” to “Kill the Jews” for the “country”. From the Unborn to the Born from the Infirm to Me and You the Liberal Nazis will KILL anyone that is an inconvenience to them.

site_baby

reet-TheObamaPlan8 

 

 

 

 

 

Associated Press,

In Belgium, where euthanasia is now legal for people over the age of 18, the government is considering extending it to children — something that no other country has done. The same bill would offer the right to die to adults with early dementia.

Advocates argue that euthanasia for children, with the consent of their parents, is necessary to give families an option in a desperately painful situation. But opponents have questioned whether children can reasonably decide to end their own lives.
Belgium is already a euthanasia pioneer; it legalized the practice for adults in 2002. In the last decade, the number of reported cases per year has risen from 235 deaths in 2003 to 1,432 in 2012, the last year for which statistics are available. Doctors typically give patients a powerful sedative before injecting another drug to stop their heart.

Only a few countries have legalized euthanasia or anything approaching it. In the Netherlands, euthanasia is legal under specific circumstances and for children over the age of 12 with parental consent (there is an understanding that infants, too, can be euthanized, and that doctors will not be prosecuted if they act appropriately). Elsewhere in Europe, euthanasia is only legal in Luxembourg. Assisted suicide, where doctors help a patient to die but do not actively kill them, is allowed in Switzerland.

In the U.S., the state of Oregon also grants assisted suicide requests for residents aged 18 or over with a terminal illness.

In Belgium, the ruling Socialist party has proposed the bill expanding the right of euthanasia. The Christian Democratic Flemish party vowed to oppose the legislation and to challenge it in the European Court of Human Rights if it passes. A final decision must be approved by Parliament and could take months.

In the meantime, the Senate has heard testimony on both sides of the issue.

“It is strange that minors are considered legally incompetent in key areas, such as getting married, but might (be able) to decide to die,” Catholic Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard testified.

Leonard said alternatives like palliative sedation make euthanasia unnecessary — and relieves doctors of the burden of having to kill patients. In palliative sedation, patients are sedated and life-sustaining support is withdrawn so they starve to death; the process can take days.

But the debate has extended to medical ethicists and professionals far from Belgium. Charles Foster, who teaches medical law and ethics at Oxford University, believes children couldn’t possibly have the capacity to make an informed decision about euthanasia since even adults struggle with the concept.

“It often happens that when people get into the circumstances they had so feared earlier, they manage to cling on all the more,” he said. “Children, like everyone else, may not be able to anticipate how much they will value their lives if they were not killed.”

There are others, though, who argue that because Belgium has already approved euthanasia for adults, it is unjust to deny it to children.

 

“The principle of euthanasia for children sounds shocking at first, but it’s motivated by compassion and protection,” said John Harris, a professor of bioethics at the University of Manchester. “It’s unfair to provide euthanasia differentially to some citizens and not to others (children) if the need is equal.”

And Dr. Gerlant van Berlaer, a pediatric oncologist at the Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussels hospital, says the changes would legalize what is already happening informally. He said cases of euthanasia in children are rare and estimates about 10 to 100 cases in Belgium every year might qualify.

“Children have different ways of asking for things but they face the same questions as adults when they’re terminally sick,” van Berlaer said. “Sometimes it’s a sister who tells us her brother doesn’t want to go back to the hospital and is asking for a solution,” he said. “Today if these families find themselves (in that situation), we’re not able to help them, except in dark and questionable ways.”

The change in the law regarding people with dementia is also controversial.

People now can make a written declaration they wish to be euthanized if their health deteriorates, but the request is only valid for five years and they must be in an irreversible coma. The new proposal would abolish the time limit and the requirement the patient be in a coma, making it possible for someone who is diagnosed with Alzheimer’s to be put to death years later in the future.

In the Netherlands, guidelines allow doctors to euthanize dementia patients on this basis if they believe the person is experiencing “unbearable suffering,” but few are done in practice.

Dr. Patrick Cras, a neurologist at the University of Antwerp, said people with dementia often change their minds about wanting to die.

“They may turn into different people and may not have the same feelings about wanting to die as when they were fully competent,” he said. “I don’t see myself killing another person if he or she isn’t really aware of exactly what’s happening simply on the basis of a previous written request (to have euthanasia). I haven’t fully made up my mind but I think this is going too far.”

Penney Lewis, a professor and medical law expert at King’s College London, agreed that carrying out euthanasia requests on people with dementia once they start to worsen could be legally questionable.

“But if you don’t let people make decisions that will be respected in the future, including euthanasia, what you do is encourage people to take their own life while they have the capacity or to seek euthanasia much earlier,” she said.

In the past year, several cases of Belgians who weren’t terminally ill but were euthanized — including a pair of 43-year-old deaf twins who were going blind and a patient in a botched sex change operation — have raised concerns the country is becoming too willing to euthanize its citizens. The newest proposals have raised eyebrows even further.

“People elsewhere in Europe are focused on assisted dying for the terminally ill and they are running away from what’s happening in Belgium,” Lewis said. “If the Belgian statutes go ahead, this will be a key boundary that is crossed.”

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

FCC to police media, BLOGGERS THAT’S YOU

this new step will eventually give the FCC the power to take out websites like TheBonfireMedia, TheBlaze and many others. Your VOICE must be stopped because it’s harming Obama and the Big Govt. Libs.

The Federal Communications Commission is planning a broad probe of political speech across media platforms, an unprecedented move that raises serious First Amendment concerns.

The FCC’s proposed “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” which is set to begin a field test in a single market with an eye toward a comprehensive study in 2014, would collect a remarkably wide range of information on demographics, point of view, news topic selection, management style and other factors in news organizations both in and out of the FCC’s traditional purview.

The airwaves regulator would also subject news producers in all media to invasive questioning about their work and content.

A methodology worked up by Silver Spring, Maryland-based Social Solutions International (SSI) says that in addition to its general evaluation of news content, the survey will include a “qualitative component” featuring interrogations of news organization owners, management and employees.

Among the questions federal contractors will be asking of private media companies:

For media owners:

“What is the news philosophy of the station?”

For editors, producers and managers:

“Do you have any reporters or editors assigned to topic ‘beats’? If so how many and what are the beats?”

“Who decides which stories are covered?”

For reporters:

“Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers (viewers, listeners, readers) that was rejected by management?” (Followup questions ask the reporter to speculate on why a particular story was spiked.)

According to a May article in Communications Daily, Social Solutions International will be paid $917,823 for the study, which also questions news consumers about their habits and numerically codes news content according to how well, in the FCC’s view, it meets the “critical information needs” (CIN) of particular “communities.”

“The FCC has a duty to make sure that the industries it regulates serve the needs of the American public no matter where they live or what financial resources they have,” acting FCC chairwoman Mignon Clyburn said in a May announcement of the survey. “The research design we announce today is an important next step in understanding what those needs are, how Americans obtain the information critical to their daily lives in a dynamic technological environment, and what barriers exist in our media ecologies to providing and accessing this information.”

Other observers take a less sanguine view of the proposal.

“In this study, the FCC will delve into the editorial discretion of newspapers, web sites and radio and TV stations,” Hudson Institute Fellow Robert McDowell, who served as an FCC commissioner from 2009 to 2013, told The Daily Caller. “This starts sticking the government’s nose into what has traditionally been privileged and protected ground. Regardless of one’s political stripes, one should be concerned.”

via FCC to police media, question reporters in content survey | The Daily Caller.

The D.C. Gun Raid You Won’t Believe with an Ending You Might Not Be Able to Stomach | TheBlaze.com

THE D.C. GUN RAID YOU WON’T BELIEVE WITH AN ENDING YOU MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO STOMACH

Oct. 24, 2013 9:26am Dave Urbanski

 

When more than 30 police officers in full tactical gear descended upon the house of a successful Washington, D.C., businessman with no criminal record last summer, they were looking for “firearms and ammunition … gun cleaning equipment, holsters, bullet holders and ammunition receipts,” The Washington Times reported.

Mark Witaschek. (Image source: The Washington Times)

But what did police find after they shut down the streets for blocks around Mark Witaschek’s Georgetown home, broke down a bathroom door with a battering ram and pulled his 16-year-old son out of the shower naked, pointed guns at the heads of Witaschek and his girlfriend, handcuffed them and then “tossed the place” for two hours?

Very little, according to the Times’ Emily Miller:

“One live round of 12-gauge shotgun ammunition” — actually an inoperable shell that misfired during a hunt years earlier that Witaschek kept as a souvenir.

“One handgun holster” — perfectly legal.

“One expended round of .270 caliber ammunition” — a spent brass casing.

“One box of Knight bullets for reloading,” according to police notation on the warrant. Except, Miller reveals, they aren’t for reloading — they’re for antique-replica, single-shot, muzzle-loading rifles.

And after all that, in the wake of a raid which Witaschek estimates resulted in $10,000 damage to his house, he faces two years in prison for possession of unregistered ammunition, the Times reported.

D.C. law requires residents to register every firearm with police, and only registered gun owners can possess ammunition, which includes spent shells and casings. The maximum penalty for violating these laws is a $1,000 fine and a year in jail, the Times noted.

While Witaschek has never had a firearm in Washington, D.C., Miller wrote that he’s being “prosecuted to the full extent of the law.” The trial starts Nov. 4.

More from the Times:

This was the second police search of his home. Exactly one month earlier, Witaschek allowed members of the “Gun Recovery Unit” access to search without a warrant because he thought he had nothing to hide.

After about an hour and a half, the police found one box of Winchester .40 caliber ammunition, one gun-cleaning kit (fully legal) and a Civil War-era Colt antique revolver that Witaschek kept on his office desk. The police seized the Colt even though antique firearms are legal and do not have to be registered.

Witaschek is a gun owner and an avid hunter. However, he stores his firearms at the home of his sister, Sylvia Witaschek, in suburban Arlington, Va.

Two weeks after the June raid, D.C. police investigators went to his sister’s house — unaccompanied by Virginia police and without a warrant — and asked to “view” the firearms, according to a police report. She refused. The next day, the D.C. police returned to her house with the Arlington County police and served her with a criminal subpoena.

The Office of Attorney General of the District of Columbia Irvin Nathan signed an affidavit on Aug. 21, 2012, in support of a warrant to arrest Witaschek. A spokesman for Nathan would not comment on a pending case. […]

In September 2012, the attorney general offered Witaschek a deal to plead guilty to one charge of unlawful possession of ammunition with a penalty of a year of probation, a $500 fine and a contribution to a victims’ fund.

Witaschek turned down the offer. “It’s the principle,” he told me.

via The D.C. Gun Raid You Won’t Believe with an Ending You Might Not Be Able to Stomach | TheBlaze.com.

“President Obama’s people can be quite nasty;TheBlaze.com

Liberal TV host Bob Beckel on Wednesday claimed he was “bludgeoned” by a White House official over the phone after he criticized the Obamacare rollout and suggested the law’s implementation should be delayed for 6 months to a year.

“I said, ‘look, you can’t do this thing — yes it’s true, [Obamacare is] not a website, but it’s a portal to get through to get insurance,’” Beckel said.

Beckel’s claim line up with other media personalities that have made the same type of allegations against the Obama administration.

CNN’s Carol Costello on Wednesday morning said “President Obama’s people can be quite nasty.”

“They don’t like you to say anything bad about their boss, and they’re not afraid to use whatever means they have at hand to stop you from doing that, including threatening your job,” she added.

(H/T: National Review)

via Liberal TV Host Says White House Called and ‘Bludgeoned’ Him After He Criticized Obamacare | Video | TheBlaze.com.

Abortion Practitioners Played Catch With Bodies of Babies Killed in Abortion | LifeNews.com

More fun for #teamwendy “games of toss with aborted babies”

Abortion providers see the bodies of aborted babies daily. They deal with the grief and heartache of seeing women through what is almost always a difficult and painful experience. Sometimes the stress of what they are doing comes out in disturbing ways. According to Father Frank Pavone from Priests for Life:

Former workers in the abortion industry have told us stories about playing games of toss with aborted babies in the hallway. Your mind has to invert what is going on: to make it a game, a joke, something positive. It’s the only way to keep from going crazy — and some of them do.

When I read this, it reminded me of another quote I ran across in a book by Rachel MacNair, who was known for working with Feminists for Life. MacNair’s book, Perpetration-Induced Traumatic Stress: The Psychological Consequences of Killing, discusses the emotional problems that plague those who kill. It discusses the pressures faced by soldiers in wartime as well as those affecting abortion clinic workers who kill babies on a regular basis. She cites studies that show that alcoholism, suicidal depression, and other emotional problems plague clinic workers and doctors who perform abortions.

One reaction is to act out. A clinic worker told MacNair:

The one thing that sticks out in my mind the most, that really upset me the most, was that he [the abortionist] had done an abortion, he had a fetus wrapped inside of a blue paper. He stuck it inside of a surgical glove and put another glove over it. He was standing in the hall, speaking with myself and two of his assistants. He was tossing the fetus up in the air and catching it. Like it was a rubber ball. I just looked at him and it’s like doctor, please. And he laughed. He says, “Nobody knows what this is.” (1)

Abby Johnson described how clinic workers called the freezer that held the bodies of aborted children “the nursery.” She talks about how clinic workers joked about giving baby-shaped cookies with blood-red icing to the protesters outside. What happens to the soul of a person who becomes this hardened? It is a truly twisted perspective.

1. Rachel M. Macnair, Perpetration-Induced Traumatic Stress: The Psychological Consequences of Killing. (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002)

LifeNews.com Note: Sarah Terzo is a pro-life liberal who runs ClinicQuotes.com, a web site devoted to exposing the abortion industry. She is a member of the pro-life groups PLAGAL and Secular Pro-Life. This originally appeared at Live Action News.

via Abortion Practitioners Played Catch With Bodies of Babies Killed in Abortion | LifeNews.com.

Thank You Wendy you gave YOUR child the chance at life

OOPS ONE GOT AWAY, don’t worry #TeamWendy will get them next time.

729_SG_Wendy-20130503204659230653-620x349

 

Before she donned her hot pink sneakers and became a voice for abortion supporters across the nation, Wendy Davis was a single mother at age 19.

Being a single mother raised by a single mother, the odds were stacked against her.

However, she worked hard to provide for her child, attended college and eventually graduated from Harvard Law School.

Today Wendy is a proven, successful lawmaker in the Texas State Senate.

Wendy’s life serves as an example to women across the country facing an unplanned pregnancy and the possibility of single motherhood. Through her story we are reminded that, even in times of uncertainty and challenge, women can raise children and be wonderful examples of success.

Join thousands of prolife Americans in thanking Wendy Davis for not only choosing life for her child, but for overcoming difficult challenges to be a successful woman and mother.

This letter of support will be made available to Senator Davis for her consideration and encouragement.

Please add your name!

Dear Senator Davis,

As an American who believes that all life is valuable and should be protected, I thank you for having the courage to bear and raise your own child when social pressure and personal circumstances were against you.

Your actions thirty years ago remind us that courage, hard work, and grace can overcome challenges, for both mother and child.

Today, I commit myself to helping the thousands of women across this nation who face unplanned pregnancies. Through the work of life-affirming pregnancy centers, community organizations and local churches, I will support these women in their time of need.

I will encourage women in crisis pregnancies to follow the example you set when you gave your child the chance at life.

Thank you, Senator, for demonstrating true courage and strength.

Sincerely,

via Thank Wendy Davis | Thank You Wendy.

Guide to the Nov. 5 TX Constitutional Amendments Election

Why was this so hard to find?

FREE: A Voter’s Guide to the Nov. 5 TX Constitutional Amendments Election

Published October 21, 2013 7:50am by Sentinel Staff

 

 

 

The following Voters Guide, which presents the nine proposed Texas Constitutional Amendments on the Nov. 5, ballot, is funded and published by the League of Women Voters of Texas Education Fund.

 

For more than 90 years, helping voters cast an informed vote when they go to the polls has been the primary goal of the League of Women Voters.

 

As an organization that encourages informed and active participation in government, the League believes that all of us are stakeholders in Making Democracy Work. Neither the League nor the Education Fund supports or opposes any political party or candidate.

 

This guide states the official ballot language for each proposed constitutional amendment, followed by an explanation of the amendment, the arguments for and the arguments against.

 

The propositions were researched by trustees of the League of Women Voters of Texas Education Fund, who reviewed the legislative history and contacted persons and organizations who have supported and opposed the proposed amendments. See the Constitutional Amendments page at www.lwvtexas.org for links to the legislative history and the list of witnesses for and against each of the proposed amendments.

 

Check the League’s website for other helpful information about elections, voting and issues: www.lwvtexas.org.

 

Proposition 1

Official Ballot Language: The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a member of the armed services of the United States who is killed in action.

Explanation

The proposed amendment would allow the surviving spouse of a member of the U.S. armed services who was killed in action to be exempt from paying local property taxes based on all or part of the total appraised value of the homestead. This proposed amendment follows prior amendments that have passed, granting property tax exemptions to veterans who are 100% disabled and their surviving spouses.

Under Proposition 1 and its enabling bill SB 163, a surviving spouse is eligible if he or she has not remarried since the death of the spouse who served in the armed forces and if the qualifying homestead was the residence of the spouse at the time of death. Upon remarriage, the surviving spouse would lose the property tax exemption. The surviving spouse would be able to transfer the exemption to a new homestead, but it would be limited to the dollar amount of the prior homestead exemption.

Arguments For

• The proposed amendment would allow local governments in Texas to assist surviving spouses of U.S. armed services members who have been killed in action by providing valuable relief during such a difficult time. Surviving spouses who qualify would be able to save money on property taxes and could use this money elsewhere.

• Surviving spouses would be able to transfer the exemption to a new residence if the surviving spouse chose to move within the state.

Arguments Against

• School districts would receive less revenue from property taxes so the state would have to cover the reduction by pulling from state general revenue, creating a cost to the state.

• Local governments would lose revenue, especially in cities and towns where military families largely populate the area. This would result in a projected yearly loss of up to $84,000 from counties, $93,000 from cities, and $45,000 from school districts by 2018 (SB 163 Fiscal Note). An increase in the number of people who receive property tax exemptions might require local governments to increase taxes for other taxpayers.

 

—–

Proposition 2

Official Ballot Language: The constitutional amendment eliminating an obsolete requirement for a State Medical Education Board and a State Medical Education Fund, neither of which is operational.

Explanation

In 1952, voters amended the constitution to direct the Texas Legislature to create the State Medical Education Board (SMEB) and a scholarship fund to issue loans to medical students who agreed to practice in rural areas of Texas. In 1973, the Legislature created the SMEB. In 1987, the Legislative Budget Board reported that only 11 percent of loan recipients since 1973 were practicing in rural Texas counties, and only 14 percent of those were in medically underserved areas. No new loans have been issued since January 1988.

In 1989, after a recommendation by the Sunset Advisory Commission, the Legislature attached the SMEB to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB). All existing loans have been serviced or turned over to the attorney general for default collection. Loan repayment programs are now used instead of direct loans to medical students to attract physicians to practice in rural Texas.

The proposed constitutional amendment, and its enabling bill HB 1061, would remove references to these defunct entities in the constitution and state law.

Arguments For

• Since the SMEB and its education fund are no longer operational, references to them should be removed from the state’s unwieldy constitution.

Arguments Against

• The SMEB and its education fund are obsolete and no loans have been issued since 1988, so a constitutional amendment to remove references to them is unnecessary.

 

—–

Proposition 3

Official Ballot Language: The constitutional amendment to authorize a political subdivision of this state to extend the number of days that aircraft parts that are exempt from ad valorem taxation due to their location in this state for a temporary period may be located in this state for purposes of qualifying for the tax exemption.

Explanation

Currently, in order to promote economic development in the state, the Texas Constitution allows local taxing authorities to exempt from ad valorem taxation property that is in Texas temporarily. This tax exemption is commonly referred to as a “freeport exemption.” Eligible property includes goods, wares, merchandise, other tangible property, and ores, other than oil, natural gas, and other petroleum products. To be eligible for the exemption, the property must be acquired in or imported into Texas for export; detained for assembly, storage, manufacturing, processing, or fabrication; and shipped out of Texas no later than 175 days after acquisition or importation.

Eligible property currently includes aircraft and aircraft parts used for maintenance or repairs by certified air carriers. The proposed amendment and its enabling bill HB 3121 authorize the governing body of a political subdivision that already grants a freeport exemption to extend, up to 730 days (two years) after acquisition or importation, the date when aircraft parts with an exemption have to be transported outside of the state. The extension would apply only to the political subdivision that grants it.

If passed, the amendment would take effect January 1, 2014, and apply only to a tax year that begins on or after that date.

Arguments For

• The proposed extension of the freeport exemption would provide an economic development tool designed to make Texas competitive in the aerospace industry that contributes billions to the state’s economy. Texas is one of only a few states with a tax on inventory. Since aerospace suppliers often require inventory to be onsite for much longer than 175 days, at least one aerospace company has moved its storage or operations to another state because of the inventory tax.

• Granting an extension would be totally at the option of each local government already granting an exemption.

• Loss of tax revenue to a school district that grants a freeport exemption may be offset by additional state aid, since the amount of the exemption is subtracted from the market value of inventory or property to determine the taxable value for the taxing authority. Any extra cost to the state could be offset by additional revenues from increased economic development and jobs.

Arguments Against

• Singling out one group for special tax exemption status raises issues of uniformity in taxation. If the extension is authorized for aircraft parts, similar industries that make specialized parts and have a high portion of idle inventory may seek similar extensions.

• Granting an extension reduces tax revenues for local governments.

• An increase in exemptions by school districts could result in higher costs to the state.

 

—–

Proposition 4

Official Ballot Language: The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of part of the market value of the residence homestead of a partially disabled veteran or the surviving spouse of a partially disabled veteran if the residence homestead was donated to the disabled veteran by a charitable organization.

Explanation

Currently, the Texas Constitution provides that a 100 percent or totally disabled veteran, or the veteran’s surviving spouse, is entitled to an exemption from ad valorem taxation of the market value of the disabled veteran’s resident homestead, subject to certain restrictions.

This proposed amendment, and its enabling legislation HB 97, would provide a similar exemption to a partially disabled veteran or surviving spouse, if the homestead has been donated by a charitable organization at no cost to the veteran. The amount of the exemption would be a percentage of the market value of the residence homestead that is equal to the percentage of disability of the veteran. Proposition 4 would allow the legislature to provide additional eligibility requirements for the exemption, and would not affect whether a qualified disabled veteran was entitled to another exemption for veterans for which he or she may qualify. It also allows partially disabled veterans to be added to the list of individuals authorized to pay property taxes in installments as provided by current law.

Arguments For

• Texas charitable organizations have given homes to disabled veterans, but in some cases the veteran is unable to pay the property taxes, resulting in an unintended consequence of foreclosure. These veterans have sacrificed for our country and are deserving of help. The cost of the exemption is small because only a dozen or so homes per year are donated cost-free to disabled veterans.

• Partially disabled veterans who receive these homes are not likely to return to full employment and need help with their taxes.

Arguments Against

• Singling out one group for special tax exemption status, even though deserving, raises issues of uniformity in taxation and could open the door to continued erosion of the tax base.

• If the purpose of the bill is to help partially disabled veterans keep their homes while they are unable to pay property taxes, the exemption should not be permanent. It should expire when the veteran can afford to pay property taxes.

 

—–

Proposition 5

Official Ballot Language: The constitutional amendment to authorize the making of a reverse mortgage loan for the purchase of homestead property and to amend lender disclosures and other requirements in connection with a reverse mortgage loan.

Explanation

A “reverse mortgage for purchase” allows a senior aged 62 or older to purchase a new principal residence and obtain a reverse mortgage within a single transaction. Texas is the second largest market in the country for reverse mortgages, but the only state that does not offer the “reverse mortgage for purchase” because it is not authorized in the state constitution.

A reverse mortgage is a form of home equity loan that does not require a monthly payment. During the course of the loan, the debt increases with the addition of various costs such as interest, mortgage insurance premiums, and servicing fees, while the homeowner’s equity decreases. Repayment of the loan is deferred until the borrower dies, sells, or moves out of the residence. While reverse mortgages are a small market nationally, approximately 70,000 originated per year, it could grow dramatically in the decades ahead spurred by an aging baby boomer population.

Proposition 5 would enable Texas seniors to use “reverse mortgages for purchase” to acquire a new residence. It would also require reverse mortgage lenders to expand currently required counseling to borrowers to include disclosure of the specific behaviors that can lead to foreclosure on a property.

Arguments For

• This proposition saves costs for seniors by allowing a reverse mortgage loan to be set up as part of a purchase rather than after a purchase to eliminate duplicative processes.

• Using a “reverse mortgage for purchase,” the homeowner can occupy a new residence without making a single mortgage payment. This helps seniors relocate to other geographical areas or downsize to homes that better meet their needs.

• Reverse mortgage loans are typically easier to qualify for than traditional loans, which have income and credit score requirements to support the borrower’s ability to meet repayment commitments.

Arguments Against

• All reverse mortgages are complex financial products. Surveys have found that consumers struggle to understand and make good decisions even after required counseling.

• Homeowners can lose a lifetime of home equity as a result of fraud, scams, misleading advertising, aggressive sales tactics and discriminatory practices sometimes associated with reverse mortgages. This risk increases significantly when state regulation and enforcement are weak.

• As baby boomers consider the reverse mortgage market, their choices may put them at considerable risk at a time in their lives when making a financial recovery is unlikely.

 

—–

Proposition 6

Official Ballot Language: The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas and the State Water Implementation Revenue Fund for Texas to assist in the financing of priority projects in the state water plan to ensure the availability of adequate water resources.

Explanation

The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) develops a state water plan based on information from each of 16 regional water-planning groups. Existing state funding relies primarily on issuance of general obligation bonds, legislative appropriations, and federal grants that finance loans to local and regional water suppliers. In November 2011, voters approved a constitutional amendment that authorized the TWDB to issue additional general obligation bonds not to exceed $6 billion at any time.

Proposition 6 establishes two funds to finance water plan projects: the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas (SWIFT) and the State Water Implementation Revenue Fund for Texas (SWIRFT). The two funds would receive financial resources for water projects, including revenue authorized by the state legislature, investment earnings and interest, and proceeds from the sale of bonds. The two funds would be part of the state treasury but outside the general revenue fund, a constitutional requirement to give the legislature control over disbursements.

Under Proposition 6, TWDB would have the power to enter into bond enhancement agreements to make bonds more attractive to purchasers. If the legislature provides authorization and the Legislative Budget Board approves, TWDB would have the authority to issue bonds and related credit agreements and to make direct loans for water projects in the state water plan. Repayment of loans would provide a revolving cash flow for additional loans.

HB 1025 authorizes the transfer of $2 billion from the economic stabilization fund, commonly known as the Rainy Day Fund, if the amendment passes. Money in the fund would be available to provide support for low-interest loans, longer repayment terms for loans, incremental repurchase terms for projects in which the state owns an interest, and deferral of loan payments. The enabling legislation for the proposed amendment, HB 4, prescribes how the funds are to be invested and how they may be apportioned within the state water plan. At least 10 percent of funds would be applied to projects designed to serve rural areas and 20 percent for water conservation or reuse.

Arguments For

• Ensuring an adequate water supply is essential to the public and economic health of Texas. These two funds provide a sustainable mechanism for funding water development projects with an initial transfer of $2 billion from the Rainy Day Fund to seed a revolving cash flow for making loans for water projects.

• Responding to the current drought emergency is an appropriate use of the Rainy Day Fund and will provide a better return on investment than if the money were left in that fund.

• Without the necessary funding for priority projects in the state water plan, Texas stands to lose millions of jobs and suffer reduced economic activity and decreased tax revenues.

Arguments Against

• These two new funds are unnecessary as there is already available funding for water development projects administered by TWDB.

• While TWDB needs to proceed with priority projects, taking money from the Rainy Day Fund is inappropriate. Reducing the amount in this fund could reduce the state’s excellent credit rating and affect the state’s ability to respond to a natural disaster or other emergency situations. The legislature should make a separate appropriation from the general fund.

• The state should not take on the financing of water plan projects. Financing should be provided by those benefiting from the projects.

 

—–

Proposition 7

Official Ballot Language: The constitutional amendment authorizing a home-rule municipality to provide in its charter the procedure to fill a vacancy on its governing body for which the unexpired term is 12 months or less.

Explanation

Almost all Texas cities of more than 5,000 population have adopted a home rule or an independent city charter. A home rule city can pass any regulations or laws it deems necessary as long as they are consistent with the state constitution and statutes.

Section 11, Article XI of the Texas Constitution prohibits a city with terms of office between two and four years from filling vacancies by appointment. These cities must fill vacancies by majority vote during a special election held within 120 days after the start of the vacancy.

The proposed constitutional amendment and its enabling bill HB 1372 would authorize a home rule city to provide in its charter a procedure other than a special election to fill a vacancy in its governing body for which the unexpired term is 12 months or less.

Arguments For

• Proposition 7 would cut taxpayer costs. When an elected city official passes away or otherwise leaves office, the Constitution requires the city to hold a special election within 120 days even if only a few months remain in the term. Taxpayers pay thousands of dollars to hold special elections only a few months before a regular election.

• This proposition would provide parity in election regulations. Vacancies for elected city officials with terms of office of less than two years can be filled by appointment. This proposition would allow vacancies to be filled by the same process for all elected officials. It would preserve democratic accountability because cities would have to hold elections as usual after the expiration of an appointed official’s term.

Arguments Against

• Proposition 7 might increase the opportunity for corruption by allowing city officials to appoint one another.

• Voting and elections are the best way to ensure democratic accountability. The cost of special elections is a small price to pay to ensure accountability.

 

—–

Proposition 8

Official Ballot Language: The constitutional amendment repealing Section 7, Article IX, Texas Constitution, which relates to the creation of a hospital district in Hidalgo County.

Explanation

Proposition 8 would remove from the Texas Constitution a 1960 amendment that authorized the creation of a hospital district in Hidalgo County with a maximum tax rate of 10 cents per $100 valuation of taxable property. This limit is below all other counties in Texas, and no hospital district has been created in Hidalgo County. Repealing the 1960 amendment, which applies only to Hidalgo County, would allow it to come under Section 4 of the Texas Constitution which provides for hospital districts in all counties, with a maximum tax rate of 75 cents per $100 valuation of all taxable property.

If Proposition 8 is passed, the formation of a hospital district in Hidalgo County and the district’s tax rate would require approval from the county’s voters during an election.

o Arguments For

• Hidalgo is the only county in the state with a tax limitation of 10 cents per $100 property valuation. It is also the largest county without a hospital district. The existing limitation hinders its ability to create and operate a sustainable district. Passage of Proposition 8 would allow Hidalgo County the same taxing rate that other counties have.

• Hidalgo County has a high rate of uninsured residents, and this proposition could help the county establish a hospital district and obtain federal funds for much-needed emergency care for the poor.

o Arguments Against

• Passage of this proposition would likely increase the taxes for property owners in Hidalgo County, since a hospital district could be created with a tax rate as high as 75 cents per $100 valuation of all property.

• An increase in taxes could hurt the very people this proposition is hoping to serve: the poor.

 

—–

Proposition 9

Official Ballot Language: The constitutional amendment relating to expanding the types of sanctions that may be assessed against a judge or justice following a formal proceeding instituted by the State Commission on Judicial Contact.

Explanation

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC) was created in 1965, through a constitutional amendment, to investigate allegations of judicial misconduct or disability and to discipline judges. The SCJC is responsible for ensuring that Texas judges comply with standards of conduct established in the Texas Constitution and by the Texas Supreme Court. Currently, after a formal disciplinary proceeding, the SCJC may issue an order of public censure or recommend removal or retirement of the judge/justice.

During its review of the SCJC, the Sunset Advisory Commission recommended that the SCJC be authorized to use its full range of disciplinary actions following a formal proceeding. If this proposed amendment passes, the SCJC may at its discretion issue a private or public admonition, warning, reprimand, or requirement that the person obtain additional training or education, as well as the censure or formal recommendations of resignation or retirement.

Arguments For

• Proposition 9 would lead to greater public accountability for judges and justices; continue to promote public confidence in the integrity, independence, competence, and impartiality of the judiciary, and encourage judges to maintain high standards of conduct both on and off the bench.

Arguments Against

• Stronger measures than those provided by Proposition 9 are needed to reinforce the SCJC’s authority to discipline judges and hold them accountable for judicial misconduct.

Restrict our freedoms to “sooth” the phobia of a few?

The Texas Penal Code makes it illegal to display “a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.”

what the hell does that mean? alarm who? “people leaving the store “expressed concern,”” and ‘men had the rifles “on their laps and in hand.””

in their hand how? as they set it down by the table? there are tons of stories about LIB’S “alarmed” by the site of a gun that isn’t a “gun” a drawing a pic on a t shirt a hand gun that’s really a hand of a 6yo even a POP TART

why should we have laws that restrict our freedoms to “sooth” the phobia of a few?
Look Mr.,Miss. Lib in your average week you are next to , in proximity of 100’s of “arms” just like spiders, snakes, and other dangerous things that can wound or kill.

you are more likely to die in your bathroom than get shot especially by a Law Abiding Citizen. Make no mistake the law abiding is what we are talking about in every gun law debate. criminals by definition do not fallow LAWS.

MORE Liberal Death Culture: body of baby; bag of teen

WHY pay $200 for an abortion when you can just use a trash can??? Don’t be to hard on this teen in the very near future your kids or grand kids that survive the dumpster will have to make a choice to comply with the Liberal Death Culture laws like China’s One-Child Policy or not. OH whats that you SAY that won’t happen here… really? Kermit Gosnell was found guilty of murdering three babies born alive during failed abortions by “snipping” their spinal cords. His former employees alleged that “hundreds” of babies were killed in this way.

 

Today the body of a baby was discovered in the bag of a 17-year-old teen suspected of shoplifting at a Victoria’s Secret store in Manhatten. People are rightly shocked by this event.

However, what if I told you that this sort of thing is happening routinely, all across the country, as well as in other parts of the world? And that the only reason that it’s making national headlines this time is because the discovery of the baby’s body was at a Victoria Secret store, which gives the story that extra bizarre twist, with just a hint of weird sexuality, that will grab attention?

Take a look at the following list…which is far from complete. I’ve simply compiled some of the most shocking, and most recent incidents.

China’s “sewer baby” was flushed down a toilet, before becoming stuck in a sewage pipe. The baby was rescued by firefighters.

Here are the incidents in just the past eight months or so:

  • October 17 – A 17-year-old girl is stopped at a Victoria’s Secret store in Manhatten for suspected shoplifting, and admits that in her bag she has the body of a baby that she gave birth to the day previous.
  • October 11 – A newborn baby is found, bleeding but alive, with part of his umbilical cord still attached, abandoned on the concrete in the back yard of a house in Queen’s, New York. The baby survived.
  • September 19 – The body of a baby is found at a garbage dump in West Yorkshire, in the United Kingdom.
  • August 28 – A woman gives birth in a bar bathroom in Pennsylvania, stuffs the baby in the water tank of a toilet, and then returns to the bar to watch a fight on TV. The body was subsequently discovered by the bar owner.
  • August 7 – The body of a baby is discovered at hospital rest room in Texas.
  • July 9 – Police discover the body of a baby abandoned in a diaper box in the bushes at a public park in Roseville, California.
  • June 21 – The body of a small baby is found in a solid waste tank in a waste disposal plant just north of Montreal. Police say the baby was likely flushed down the toilet.
  • June 21  – The body of a newborn baby is discovered in a trash can in Oildale, California.
  • June 20 – An Iraqi-born UK woman is found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm after stuffing her baby in a garbage bag and throwing her down a 44 ft. garbage chute.
  • June 14 – A garbage truck driver in Thailand sees a small hand emerge from a garbage bag during a pickup. The baby had a balloon tied around her throat.
  • June 12 – Brittany Cole is arrested in Altheimer, Arkansas, after dumping her infant son in the trash can. She reportedly told police that she was tired of caring for the baby and could no longer do so.
  • June 5 – Twenty-seven-year-old Virginia resident Shavaughn Robinson is charged after allegedly giving birth in a toilet, then placing her daughter in a trash can, and then taking the garbage bag with the baby in it out of the can and tossing it in a dumpster.
  • June 4 – A dog discovers a living baby in Thailand that had been placed in a white plastic bag in a dump. The baby, which was premature, survived.
  • May 30 – Police announce that charges will not be filed against a Kansas teen who gave birth and dumped the body of her baby in a trash can. The teen claimed the baby was stillborn.
  • May 27 – Video footage of firefighters in Jinhua, China, rescuing a baby who had become stuck in a sewage pipe, rockets around the globe. The baby’s mother apparently gave birth on the toilet, and by her own account “accidentally” flushed the baby down the toilet. The mom reportedly hid the pregnancy because the baby was not considered legal under China’s brutal One-Child Policy.
  • May 2 – Cherlie Lafleur, 19, is arrested in Pennsylvania after allegedly attempting to flush her newborn baby down the toilet at her school. When that didn’t work, she reportedly deposited the body in the trash can.
  • Dec. 10, 2012 – The body of a newborn baby is discovered on the conveyor belt of a garbage sorting facility in La Puente, California.

Click “like” if you are PRO-LIFE

I’ve been working in the news business for nearly 10 years, and I can’t ever recall a similar string of incidents. Recently, to help keep all these disturbing stories organized on our website we even had to come up with a tag, the macabre, but sadly necessary “toilet births.”

So why is this happening all over the place? Good question.

Last month, a prominent Catholic deacon speculated that the rash of such incidents signals the return of the ancient pagan practice of “exposure,” in which parents would simply leave their unwanted newborn babies on a rock or in the wild to die.

“It was the Christians who saved [these babies] and transformed those cultures from cultures of death into cultures of life,” wrote Deacon Keith Fournier.

However, he said, the rise of the abortion culture seems to be bringing the custom back in an unofficial form, with numerous gruesome stories emerging in recent months of parents unceremoniously discarding their newborn children.

“These contemporary examples substitute a trash can or a dumpster for the rock,” Fournier wrote.

But, he said, this trend isn’t surprising, since “babies are treated as trash” in abortion clinics across the country.

It’s hard to argue with that logic. Take a look at these other recent incidents:

  • May 28, 2013 – Report surfaces from China about how Chinese officials forcibly aborted a mother who was 8-months pregnant, literally “yanking” her baby out of her, and then dumping it in the trash can.
  • May 14, 2013 – Three former workers at a Texas abortion clinic run by abortionist Douglas Karpen step forward alleging that babies are routinely murdered after being born alive during failed late-term abortions at Karpen’s clinic.  One of Karpen’s former assistants said the abortionist would even “twist” the babies heads off.
  • May 13 – Kermit Gosnell is found guilty of murdering three babies born alive during failed abortions by “snipping” their spinal cords. His former employees alleged that “hundreds” of babies were killed in this way. In some cases their dismembered feet were kept in jars, or their bodies stuffed into plastic containers and stored in the clinic freezer.
  • May 8, 2013 – Live Action release undercover footage of renowned late-term abortionist Leroy Carhart telling a woman seeking an abortion that after he kills the baby in her womb, it will soften up like “meat in a crock pot,” before the body of the baby is removed three days later.
  • April 29, 2013 – Live Action releases undercover footage of a worker at a late-term abortion facility telling a woman seeking an abortion to just “flush it” if the baby is accidentally born alive during the abortion. “If it comes out, then it comes out. Flush it…if anything, you know, put it in a bag or something or somewhere and bring it to us,” the counselor says.
  • April 19, 2013 – A former employee of late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell testfies in court how on one occasion a fully formed baby was born alive into a toilet. Kareema Cross said the baby was making “swimming motions” as if it was trying to get out. Another of Gosnell’s employees, Adrienne Moton, then took the baby out of the toilet, and slit its spinal cord.

And this only touches the surface of similarly macabre stories that have come out of the abortion industry. The Gosnell case alone provided hundreds of pages of nausea-inducing stories of living newborn babies crying, squirming and swimming before being brutally murdered and then dumped in the trash can, or ground up in the clinic’s garbage disposal.

While Gosnell was found guilty because he murdered the babies after they were born, it’s clear that his crimes stemmed directly from the abortionist’s mentality. In many cases if he had killed the babies minutes earlier, it would have been perfectly legal, or, at worst, a violation of the state’s 24-week cut off. To him there was little difference between killing them before or after birth. And is that really all that surprising?

Recently, former Seattle City Council member Judy Nicastro wrote an article in the New York Times touting her abortion of her son at 23 weeks, saying that she was “grateful” that the late-term abortion let her son die “in a warm and loving place.” In the article she describes, as if it were a beautifully emotional moment, how, “I felt my son’s budding life end as a doctor inserted a needle through my belly into his tiny heart.”

Pro-life activists tend to believe that if they convince someone that the unborn child is human and alive, then they will be against abortion. But Nicastro had no doubt that that what happend during her abortion was that the abortionist killed her living son. Not a fetus, but her son. And she is “grateful” for that, and thinks it was a beautiful thing, the right thing to do.

So why are there so many stories emerging of moms or others dumping their babies into toilets or trash cans? Could it possibly be the fact that our politicians, our doctors, and our laws, all agree that killing babies and treating them like trash is acceptable, and a critical part of a “free” society? And if so, should we really be surprised when people behave as if that’s actually true?

Come And Take It America | DontComply.com

Come And Take It America

We are proud to introduce the next big movement for all Americans that love our freedoms. This is for the people that have enjoyed the good life this country has offered and want a better life for our kids. We want to protect our freedoms by returning this land to a more constitutional version for gun laws. Because without your right to bear arms you cant defend any other rights.

Nationwide movement of armed marches are spreading. If you would like to host a local chapter in your own town please send us details.  These monthly walks through your downtown area with like minded people will continue to keep the right to bear arms fresh in the minds of police. It will show the public that we are law-abiding friendly citizens and are nothing to fear. Find a network of like minded people here.

The stated goals of Come And Take It America are to:

1) Educate Americans on their right to openly carry shotguns and rifles in a safe manner.

2) To condition Americans to feel safe around those of us that carry them.

3) Encourage our elected officials to pass less restrictive open carry legislation.

Alamo-flyer-2

via Come And Take It America | DontComply.com.

Booker Wins US Senate Election in NJ

Newark Mayor Cory Booker won a special election Wednesday to represent New Jersey in the Senate, giving the rising Democratic star a bigger political stage after a race against conservative Steve Lonegan, a former small-town mayor.

With three-quarters of precincts reporting, Booker had almost 56 percent of the vote to Lonegan’s 43 percent.

via Booker Wins US Senate Election in NJ.

Posted in AP, Government, crime| Tagged , |

Voting no 0 Democrats and 144 Republicans.

The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday night passed a bill to reopen the government and avoid a potential national default, bringing a certain end to the 16-day partial government shutdown.

ALABAMA

Democrats — Sewell, Y.

Republicans — Aderholt, N; Bachus, Y; Brooks, N; Roby, N; Rogers, N.

ALASKA

Republicans — Young, Y.

ARIZONA

Democrats — Barber, Y; Grijalva, Y; Kirkpatrick, Y; Pastor, Y; Sinema, Y.

Republicans — Franks, N; Gosar, N; Salmon, N; Schweikert, N.

ARKANSAS

Republicans — Cotton, Y; Crawford, Y; Griffin, Y; Womack, Y.

CALIFORNIA

Democrats — Bass, Y; Becerra, Y; Bera, Y; Brownley, Y; Capps, Y; Cardenas, Y; Chu, Y; Costa, Y; Davis, Y; Eshoo, Y; Farr, Y; Garamendi, Y; Hahn, Y; Honda, Y; Huffman, Y; Lee, Y; Lofgren, Y; Lowenthal, Y; Matsui, Y; McNerney, Y; Miller, George, Y; Napolitano, Y; Negrete McLeod, Y; Pelosi, Y; Peters, Y; Roybal-Allard, Y; Ruiz, Y; Sanchez, Linda T., Y; Sanchez, Loretta, Y; Schiff, Y; Sherman, Y; Speier, Y; Swalwell, Y; Takano, Y; Thompson, Y; Vargas, Y; Waters, Y; Waxman, Y.

Republicans — Calvert, Y; Campbell, N; Cook, Y; Denham, N; Hunter, N; Issa, Y; LaMalfa, N; McCarthy, Y; McClintock, N; McKeon, Y; Miller, Gary, Y; Nunes, Y; Rohrabacher, N; Royce, N; Valadao, Y.

COLORADO

Democrats — DeGette, Y; Perlmutter, Y; Polis, Y.

Republicans — Coffman, Y; Gardner, Y; Lamborn, N; Tipton, Y.

CONNECTICUT

Democrats — Courtney, Y; DeLauro, Y; Esty, Y; Himes, Y; Larson, Y.

DELAWARE

Democrats — Carney, Y.

FLORIDA

Democrats — Brown, Y; Castor, Y; Deutch, Y; Frankel, Y; Garcia, Y; Grayson, Y; Hastings, Y; Murphy, Y; Wasserman Schultz, Y; Wilson, Y.

Republicans — Bilirakis, Y; Buchanan, Y; Crenshaw, Y; DeSantis, N; Diaz-Balart, Y; Mica, N; Miller, N; Nugent, N; Posey, N; Radel, N; Rooney, N; Ros-Lehtinen, Y; Ross, N; Southerland, N; Webster, Y; Yoho, N; Young, X.

GEORGIA

Democrats — Barrow, Y; Bishop, Y; Johnson, Y; Lewis, Y; Scott, David, Y.

Republicans — Broun, N; Collins, N; Gingrey, N; Graves, N; Kingston, N; Price, N; Scott, Austin, N; Westmoreland, N; Woodall, N.

HAWAII

Democrats — Gabbard, Y; Hanabusa, Y.

IDAHO

Republicans — Labrador, N; Simpson, Y.

ILLINOIS

Democrats — Bustos, Y; Davis, Danny, Y; Duckworth, Y; Enyart, Y; Foster, Y; Gutierrez, Y; Kelly, Y; Lipinski, Y; Quigley, Y; Rush, X; Schakowsky, Y; Schneider, Y.

Republicans — Davis, Rodney, Y; Hultgren, N; Kinzinger, Y; Roskam, Y; Schock, Y; Shimkus, Y.

INDIANA

Democrats — Carson, Y; Visclosky, Y.

Republicans — Brooks, Y; Bucshon, N; Messer, N; Rokita, N; Stutzman, N; Walorski, N; Young, Y.

IOWA

Democrats — Braley, Y; Loebsack, Y.

Republicans — King, N; Latham, Y.

KANSAS

Republicans — Huelskamp, N; Jenkins, Y; Pompeo, N; Yoder, N.

KENTUCKY

Democrats — Yarmuth, Y.

Republicans — Barr, N; Guthrie, Y; Massie, N; Rogers, Y; Whitfield, Y.

LOUISIANA

Democrats — Richmond, Y.

Republicans — Boustany, Y; Cassidy, N; Fleming, N; Scalise, N.

MAINE

Democrats — Michaud, Y; Pingree, Y.

MARYLAND

Democrats — Cummings, Y; Delaney, Y; Edwards, Y; Hoyer, Y; Ruppersberger, Y; Sarbanes, Y; Van Hollen, Y.

Republicans — Harris, N.

MASSACHUSETTS

Democrats — Capuano, Y; Keating, Y; Kennedy, Y; Lynch, Y; McGovern, Y; Neal, Y; Tierney, Y; Tsongas, Y.

MICHIGAN

Democrats — Conyers, Y; Dingell, Y; Kildee, Y; Levin, Y; Peters, Y.

Republicans — Amash, N; Benishek, Y; Bentivolio, N; Camp, Y; Huizenga, N; Miller, N; Rogers, Y; Upton, Y; Walberg, N.

MINNESOTA

Democrats — Ellison, Y; McCollum, Y; Nolan, Y; Peterson, Y; Walz, Y.

Republicans — Bachmann, N; Kline, Y; Paulsen, Y.

MISSISSIPPI

Democrats — Thompson, Y.

Republicans — Harper, Y; Nunnelee, N; Palazzo, N.

MISSOURI

Democrats — Clay, Y; Cleaver, Y.

Republicans — Graves, N; Hartzler, N; Long, N; Luetkemeyer, N; Smith, N; Wagner, N.

MONTANA

Republicans — Daines, Y.

NEBRASKA

Republicans — Fortenberry, Y; Smith, Y; Terry, Y.

NEVADA

Democrats — Horsford, Y; Titus, Y.

Republicans — Amodei, N; Heck, Y.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Democrats — Kuster, Y; Shea-Porter, Y.

NEW JERSEY

Democrats — Andrews, Y; Holt, Y; Pallone, Y; Pascrell, Y; Payne, Y; Sires, Y.

Republicans — Frelinghuysen, Y; Garrett, N; Lance, Y; LoBiondo, Y; Runyan, Y; Smith, Y.

NEW MEXICO

Democrats — Lujan Grisham, Y; Lujan, Ben Ray, Y.

Republicans — Pearce, N.

NEW YORK

Democrats — Bishop, Y; Clarke, Y; Crowley, Y; Engel, Y; Higgins, Y; Israel, Y; Jeffries, Y; Lowey, Y; Maffei, Y; Maloney, Carolyn, Y; Maloney, Sean, Y; McCarthy, X; Meeks, Y; Meng, Y; Nadler, Y; Owens, Y; Rangel, Y; Serrano, Y; Slaughter, Y; Tonko, Y; Velazquez, Y.

Republicans — Collins, N; Gibson, Y; Grimm, Y; Hanna, Y; King, Y; Reed, N.

NORTH CAROLINA

Democrats — Butterfield, Y; McIntyre, Y; Price, Y; Watt, Y.

Republicans — Coble, Y; Ellmers, N; Foxx, N; Holding, N; Hudson, N; Jones, N; McHenry, Y; Meadows, N; Pittenger, Y.

NORTH DAKOTA

Republicans — Cramer, Y.

OHIO

Democrats — Beatty, Y; Fudge, Y; Kaptur, Y; Ryan, Y.

Republicans — Boehner, Y; Chabot, N; Gibbs, N; Johnson, N; Jordan, N; Joyce, Y; Latta, N; Renacci, N; Stivers, Y; Tiberi, Y; Turner, N; Wenstrup, N.

OKLAHOMA

Republicans — Bridenstine, N; Cole, Y; Lankford, N; Lucas, N; Mullin, N.

OREGON

Democrats — Blumenauer, Y; Bonamici, Y; DeFazio, Y; Schrader, Y.

Republicans — Walden, N.

PENNSYLVANIA

Democrats — Brady, Y; Cartwright, Y; Doyle, Y; Fattah, Y; Schwartz, Y.

Republicans — Barletta, Y; Dent, Y; Fitzpatrick, Y; Gerlach, Y; Kelly, Y; Marino, N; Meehan, Y; Murphy, Y; Perry, N; Pitts, N; Rothfus, N; Shuster, Y; Thompson, Y.

RHODE ISLAND

Democrats — Cicilline, Y; Langevin, Y.

SOUTH CAROLINA

Democrats — Clyburn, Y.

Republicans — Duncan, N; Gowdy, N; Mulvaney, N; Rice, N; Sanford, N; Wilson, N.

SOUTH DAKOTA

Republicans — Noem, N.

TENNESSEE

Democrats — Cohen, Y; Cooper, Y.

Republicans — Black, N; Blackburn, N; DesJarlais, N; Duncan, N; Fincher, N; Fleischmann, N; Roe, N.

TEXAS

Democrats — Castro, Y; Cuellar, Y; Doggett, Y; Gallego, Y; Green, Al, Y; Green, Gene, Y; Hinojosa, Y; Jackson Lee, Y; Johnson, E. B., Y; O’Rourke, Y; Veasey, Y; Vela, Y.

Republicans — Barton, N; Brady, N; Burgess, N; Carter, N; Conaway, N; Culberson, N; Farenthold, N; Flores, N; Gohmert, N; Granger, N; Hall, N; Hensarling, N; Johnson, Sam, N; Marchant, N; McCaul, N; Neugebauer, N; Olson, N; Poe, N; Sessions, N; Smith, N; Stockman, N; Thornberry, N; Weber, N; Williams, N.

UTAH

Democrats — Matheson, Y.

Republicans — Bishop, N; Chaffetz, N; Stewart, N.

VERMONT

Democrats — Welch, Y.

VIRGINIA

Democrats — Connolly, Y; Moran, Y; Scott, Y.

Republicans — Cantor, Y; Forbes, N; Goodlatte, N; Griffith, N; Hurt, N; Rigell, Y; Wittman, Y; Wolf, Y.

WASHINGTON

Democrats — DelBene, Y; Heck, Y; Kilmer, Y; Larsen, Y; McDermott, Y; Smith, Y.

Republicans — Hastings, Y; Herrera Beutler, Y; McMorris Rodgers, Y; Reichert, Y.

WEST VIRGINIA

Democrats — Rahall, Y.

Republicans — Capito, Y; McKinley, Y.

WISCONSIN

Democrats — Kind, Y; Moore, Y; Pocan, Y.

Republicans — Duffy, N; Petri, N; Ribble, Y; Ryan, N; Sensenbrenner, N.

WYOMING

Republicans — Lummis, N.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/16/u-s-house-passes-budget-debt-limit-deal-shutdown-is-officially-over/

Hilarious Yet Scathing Obamacare Ad From the Heritage Foundation | TheBlaze.com

 

‘MORE THAN A GLITCH’: WATCH THE NEW HILARIOUS YET SCATHING OBAMACARE AD FROM THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION

Oct. 9, 2013 5:20pm Jason Howerton/ The Blaze

 

With Obamacare’s seriously bumpy rollout, it was only a matter of time before the parody ads mocking President Barack Obama’s signature health care law started popping up. A new video put together by the Heritage Foundation puts a comedic spin on all the glitches, endless wait times and premium rate increases that are now associated with Obamacare.

The Heritage Foundation provided TheBlaze with the exclusive sneak peak at the new ad.

“If you’ve been waiting to be covered in mandates, regulations and new fees, the time is finally here — sort of,” the ad’s narrator says as the screen shows the common “the system is down” message at the healthcare.gov website. “You guys, stop showing that screen.”

The video goes on to rattle off a long list of warnings, similar to the kind of list you would hear during a commercial for a prescription drug.

“Obamacare may cause wait times, a decline in health care quality, money loss, political activism, anger, despair, hopelessness, frustration, European envy, dependence and nausea.”

“If you wish to opt out of Obamacare for any reason, please start a multimillion dollar business, join a union or run for Congress,” the video’s narrator concludes.

Sometimes you have to laugh so you won’t cry.

Watch the video via the Heritage Foundation:

 

via ‘More Than a Glitch’: Watch the New Hilarious Yet Scathing Obamacare Ad From the Heritage Foundation | TheBlaze.com.

%d bloggers like this: