Obama Has Harsh Words For Iran Deal Critics And Many Americans May Take Offence [Video]

dAugust 6, 2015

By Lorra B.

President Obama boldly informs Israeli Leaders and Republicans serving in Congress that rejecting the Iranian nuclear deal will surly lead to war.

This statement may have been his most forceful ‘pitch’ yet to gain public support and portrayed the political deal as “the strongest non-proliferation agreement ever negotiated,” according to Tribune News Service.

Obama went on to say that if Congress votes this down next month “they will not only pave Iran’s way to a bomb, they will accelerate” Iran’s capability to do so more efficiently.

Pulling no punches, Obama tries to discredit his opponents stating, “Between now and the congressional vote in September, you are going to hear a lot of arguments against this deal backed by tens of millions of dollars of advertising. If the arguments sound familiar, they should. Many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran deal,” and would weaken not only international harmony but the United States credibility as well.

He continually stated that the ones opposing the Iran deal are the ones responsible for Americans being sent to war in 2003 with Iraq and listening to them would only lead the U.S. down that same path.

The Iran deal would put boundaries on Iran’s nuclear capabilities over the next 10 years and in “exchange for easing of energy and trade sanctions and release of more than $50 billion in Iranian funds frozen in overseas accounts,” reports, Stars and Stripes.

Will Obama’s speech thwart efforts by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and House foreign affairs committee Mitch McConnell from voting on a resolution of disapproval, intended to keep Obama from implementing the Iran deal? As of Tuesday, they both have vowed to vote no on the deal.

Almost unanimously, Republicans are against the Iran deal leaving Obama to rely mainly of Democrats for the votes needed to pass the bill. Democrats, however, have been guarded when speaking publicly on whether they will back Obama.

“Obama has aggressively courted Democrats in recent weeks, hosting the entire House Democratic caucus at the White House last week and dispatching secretary of state John Kerry, energy secretary Ernest Moniz, and treasury secretary Jack Lew to provide numerous briefings—both closed and public—on Capital Hill,” reports The Guardian.

Behind the resistance to the Iran deal are ‘exaggerated threat,’ according to Obama. “Those who say we can walk away from this deal and maintain sections are selling a fantasy. Walk away from this agreement and you will get a better deal: for Iran.”

Using his tongue like a whip, Obama went on stating that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was dead wrong in his resistance to the Iran deal charging that Iranians would be benefited more should the deal fail.

Obama’s sharp-tongued speech may not only injure his rapport with American Jewish groups but with many American people in general.

Perhaps Cory Fritz, press secretary to House Speaker John Boehner, reveals what most American’s are truly thinking as he stated, “As Congress and the American people review this deal, President Obama’s rhetoric is raising far more questions than answers.”

Listen to the full speech from Obama:

By Lorra B.

Here Are 8 Good Reasons We Should Abolish The IRS

(Screenshot Credit, Rare)

(Screenshot Credit, Rare)

April 7, 2015

Rare: by Merrill Matthews

Internal Revenue Service Commissioner John Koskinen recently told The Hill that Congress can’t abolish the IRS.

But looking at the long list of IRS abuses, something needs to be done. Consider some of the revelations that have emerged just over the past few years.

Many IRS employees haven’t paid their taxes.

Even as the IRS demands you pay your taxes, the Washington Post reported a year ago:

The [Inspector General] report said more than 1,100 employees who failed to pay their taxes received discretionary awards of more than $1 million in cash bonuses and more than 10,000 hours in extra paid vacation.

At least five employees received performance awards after being disciplined for intentionally under-reporting their tax liabilities for multiples years, paying taxes late and under-reporting income.

So IRS employees can cheat on their taxes and be financially rewarded for it. What rank hypocrisy! Question: If I fail to pay my taxes will the IRS give me a bonus—or jail time?

They wasted money making Star Trek videos.

Remember when we found out two years ago that IRS employees had spent at least $60,000 making Star Trek and Gilligan’s Island “training videos”?

Those videos hinted at the problem of the agency’s willingness to have a good time on the taxpayers’ dime. Another IG report found, “In all, the agency spent nearly $50 million on employee conferences from 2010 through 2012.”

They’re stealing from taxpayers.

At least the misspending mentioned above was lawful, if inappropriate. But the New York Post’s headline regarding a 2013 IG report said it all: “IRS employees used company credit cards to buy close to $500,000 in wine, internet porn, diet pills and more.”

To be sure, the IG found the vast majority of credit card uses were appropriate. But many weren’t. And I’ll bet none of them were severely reprimanded.

They rehire questionable employees.

But at least if these problematic IRS employees leave, or get fired, they’re gone for good, right? Um…from Forbes:

The Inspector General identified hundreds of rehires despite prior substantiated conduct or performance issues. Some were serious. They ranged from unpaid taxes, unauthorized access to taxpayer information, leave abuse, falsification of official forms, unacceptable performance, misuse of IRS property, and off-duty misconduct.

Agents often abuse the public.

Congress passed legislation in 1998 that prohibited IRS supervisors from using quotas such as property seizures as a way of evaluating agent performance. So how’s that working out?

But the TIGTA [Inspector General] report said some IRS supervisors still use such records when evaluating their workers, while others have used the amount of money or property seizures their employees collected as an alternative means of establishing quotas.

They’re unionized liberals.

NewsMax points out that 96 percent of IRS employees’ PAC contributions go to Democrats:

TEPAC [Treasury Dept. union’s PAC, which includes IRS], which receives voluntary contributions from IRS employees who are represented by the National Treasury Employees Union, gave a total of $583,912 to federal candidates, only 4 percent of which went to Republicans, according to a syndicated column written by Jeff Bergner, a former federal official.

And they are doing union work on the taxpayers’ dollar.

The NewsMax article continues:

Meanwhile, there are 200 union representatives employed by the IRS who are paid salaries by the taxpayer, not through union dues. Some earn in excess of $100,000 per year to exclusively focus on union work, according to Bergner.

In total, the cost to taxpayers for IRS union work in 2013 was $23.5 million, and added up to 573,319 man hours.

So they use your tax dollars to pay themselves to work to elect Democrats who will give them more of your tax dollars.

Some employees target conservatives.

So maybe it’s clearer now why partisans like former IRS manager Lois Lerner harassed, slow-walked, and ignored conservative-leaning organizations’ tax-exempt applications. Oh, and the Justice Department just announced it won’t be prosecuting her.

The IRS has some 87,000 employees, and many if not most are dedicated civil servants who do their best to serve the public. While none of these eight transgressions—though there are many more—individually would be enough to scrap the IRS, it’s clear the agency is beset with problems that won’t be solved quickly or easily—especially by smirking, condescending, and dishonest commissioners, and we’ve see a bunch of that lately.

So even if the government needs some agency to handle the task of collecting taxes, it doesn’t have to be the current IRS. It’s time to wipe the slate clean and start over with a new, much smaller agency with limited duties and an equally limited budget.

In other words, Congress should take Koskinen up on his challenge and abolish the IRS.

More at Rare

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.

TERRIFYING Statement Obama Made About His Agenda Means Trouble For U.S.

dMarch 23, 2015

Mad World News:

In a recent interview, Barack Obama made several concerning statements about his agenda that let us know exactly where he stands in relation to the views of the American people, and they likely mean trouble for the country.

While Obama has consistently governed out of line with American values, undermining the Constitution at nearly every pass, now he’s going to push his limits as president as far as he can for the remainder of his term to continue his massive expansion of government, according to TheBlaze. During an interview with the Huffington Post, a liberal media outlet that’s considered “friendly” grounds for Democrats, he said that even in the face of Republican opposition, he’ll advance his agenda “by hook or by crook,” which means we’re in for a rough ride.

“Where [elected Republicans in Congress] are not willing to work with us, we will do it administratively or we will convene the private sector,” he said during the softball interview.

“By hook or by crook,” Obama added. “We’re going to make sure that when I leave this office, that the country is more prosperous, more people have opportunity, kids have a better education, we’re more competitive, climate change is being taken more seriously than it was, and we are actually trying to do something about it.”

As we’re all aware, Obama’s agenda is nothing more than a massive expansion of government into the lives of the people, despite the fact we don’t want it. In fact, democracy seems to be nothing more than a speedbump in the road for the advancement of his progresso-socialist agenda. In November we delivered a powerful message to him and the rest of his party by giving conservatives sweeping victories across Congress, yet he seems to have dug his heels in deeper and refuses to budge on any of his so-called “signature issues.”

Unfortunately, Obama’s stubbornness has been met with little resistance from the GOP, who has done next to nothing to stop his power grabs in the health, energy, and education sectors. They’ve also done little to stop Obama’s executive amnesty and barely made a peep when he had his FCC take over the Internet, but none of this should surprise anybody.

The GOP seems to be split down the middle with half of them wanting the small government we once had, which stays out of our private affairs and allows us to live as the free people our founders intended, while the other half is made up of the establishment, who holds the passwords to the GOP bank accounts and seemingly has the same big government goals as the progressive left, but uses social issues to reel in support.

As the Daily Caller perfectly explained:

“…the GOP leadership, plus a large chunk of legislators, most lobbyists and campaign donors, are reluctant to rally voters against Obama’s big-government agenda. Instead, they prefer to make deals that provide short-term economic benefits to business groups and to wealthy donors.”

With all of this in mind, it’s unlikely we’ll be able to look to the GOP to stop Obama’s ever-expanding power grabs from the private sector, since many of them appear to support government meddling in private affairs. After all, it’s far more profitable to pander to mega-corporations and lobbyists than it is to give the taxpayers what we want – small government and a return to our constitutional principles.

Hold onto your seats, folks, it looks like it’s going to be a long two years until we get the next president in office. Although, I will give Obama credit for one thing – he finally told the truth for once.

More at Mad World News

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.

Congress Is Downsizing The IRS, So It Must Downsize The Tax Code

(Screenshot Credit, Rare)

(Screenshot Credit, Rare)

March 19, 2015

Merill Matthews , Rare Contributor

Remember when IRS commissioners, both former and current, smirked when House Republicans tried to get to the bottom of Lois Lerner’s efforts to harass conservative groups applying for nonprofit status? Here’s a little free advice for them: Don’t deceive and diss the people who decide your budget.

Internal Revenue Service Commissioner John Koskinen complained to Congress Wednesday that cuts to the IRS budget explain the agency’s poor customer service. The Washington Times reports the comish said that just 43 percent of taxpayer phone calls are being answered.

So how does he explain the previous 150 years of bad IRS customer service?

Koskinen said he’s had to cut 3,000 positions, leaving him with only … wait for it … 87,000 employees.

Oh, and he says Congress hasn’t provided him with any funding to implement his Obamacare duties—thank you, Republicans—and so he has had to yank at least $100 million from user-fee funding so the IRS can slap penalties on Americans who can’t afford to buy Obama’s overly expensive health insurance, or who just decide they won’t be cowed into obeying the government mandate to have coverage.

And yet Koskinen has the nerve to tell Politico the IRS will go forward with its efforts to harass nonprofit “social welfare” organizations—known as 501(c)(4) organizations—engaged in education and raising political awareness. The only concession he now makes is that the IRS will be “fair” about that harassment instead of almost exclusively targeting conservative groups. “If it’s going to be a fair system, it needs to apply across the board,” Koskinen told Politico.

But if he puts political partisans like Lois Lerner in charge, yet again, it won’t be fair.

Republican downsizing of the IRS budget is the right thing to do, but Koskinen has a point about the public’s need for guidance. However, that need is a result of the ridiculously complicated U.S. tax code.

Koskinen wants more money so he can hire more people to answer taxpayers’ questions. The better solution is to radically simplify the tax code so taxpayers have fewer questions. Reduce the number of tax brackets to two or three, dramatically lower the rates and eliminate most if not all tax deductions and credits. Ronald Reagan did it, and he had bipartisan support.

Koskinen also says that without more IRS employees more taxpayers will cheat on their taxes, costing the government money. But a simplified, streamlined income tax would make it harder to cheat and easier to catch those who do—requiring fewer IRS employees.

Both parties recognize the need for fundamental tax reform. President Obama wants to reform the tax code so he can take more money; Republicans want to simplify the system because that spurs economic growth.

Republicans are on the right path. Tax reform and simplification needs to be one of their top priorities. In the meantime, they should continue cutting the IRS budget until it hits … well, zero may not be realistic, but it would be a nice goal.
Read more Rare

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.

Watch: Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense officials get a Constitution class from Rand Paul!


March 19, 2015

crew-2231Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper and Patriot.

I must confess to being one of those who have basically written Senator Rand Paul and his father Congressman Ron Paul off as being libertarian kooks.


Rand Paul makes all the sense in the world.  We can’t continue to have open-ended wars all over the map without the checks and balances of a president coming to congress for authorization.

Our current one, the alleged “Constitutional Law Professor,” might consider reading the Constitution or at least the parts of it he as let stand thus far.

During a Wednesday Senate hearing Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) schooled Secretary of State John Kerry and other top administration officials on how Constitutional separation of government power is supposed to work in the United States.

The Kentucky lawmaker’s remarks were likely prompted by Kerry’s earlier criticism of the 47 senators who signed an open letter warning Iranian leaders that any plan worked out with the administration would have to pass congressional muster.

“To write to the leaders in the middle of a negotiation… to write them and suggest that they’re going to give a constitutional lesson, which by the way was absolutely incorrect, is quite stunning,” Kerry had said. “This letter ignores more than two centuries of precedent in the conduct of American foreign policy.”

Paul wasn’t impressed and took a few minutes during a conversation on Obama’s latest request to use military force against the Islamic State to explain to Kerry why the administration is wrong.

Quoting John Madison, Paul reminded Kerry that the Constitution vested war powers in the legislature because the “executive branch is most prone to war.” He also noted that the Constitution was designed, in part, to pit the ambitions of the three branches of government against one another.

“I’m not particularly happy with being lectured to by the administration about the Constitution,” Paul said. “This is an administration who I believe has trampled the Constitution at many turns.”

“This is an administration that seeks to legislate when it is not in their purview, whether it be immigration, whether it be health care, or whether it not be a war that’s been going on for eight months without congressional authorization,” he continued.

Paul said that his reason for signing the letter to Iran was to send a message to the White House.

“The message was to President Obama, that we want you to obey the law, we want you to understand the separation of powers,” Paul said.

“I signed it to an administration that doesn’t listen, to an administration that at every turn tries to go around Congress, because you think you can’t get your way,” he added. “The president says, ‘oh, the Congress won’t do what I want, so I’ve got a pen and I’ve got my phone and I’m going to do what I want.’ The letter was to you.”

Moving on to the issue of authorizing military force against ISIS, Paul lamented that the administration’s current request is too broad.

More at We The People

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.

Capitol Hill Buzz: Who Has Time To Read These Bills We Pass?

(Screenshot Credit, Rare)

(Screenshot Credit, Rare)

March 14, 2015

Associated Press: H/T Rare:

WASHINGTON — Congress can get so busy that senators and their staffs don’t always have time to scrutinize bills they pass and letters they sign — or so it seemed this week, anyway.

Two episodes left Democrats blushing, some Republicans muttering under their breath, and taxpayers perhaps wondering what those well-educated people do on Capitol Hill.

First, Republicans ridiculed Democrats for claiming they somehow missed a key provision in a bill filed two months ago. The bill, unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, would combat human sex trafficking.

Democrats suddenly blocked it this week because it would bar the use of fines, paid by convicted traffickers, to pay for abortions in most cases.

Congress has attached similar language to spending bills for years. But Senate Democrats say this provision goes further, and they didn’t realize it was in the trafficking bill.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said some think it got there by “sleight of hand.” He blamed Republicans for not flagging it.

“Democratic senators who had been working in good faith on this critical legislation for years assumed that their Republican partners were being forthright when they provided a list of changes” that didn’t include the abortion language, Reid said. “Republicans are now saying that trusting them was a mistake.”

Republicans could hardly suppress their laughter.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said it was astonishing to see Democrats balk at a provision “they claim somehow they missed, after it being in there for two months.”

Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas suggested Democrats knew about the abortion language long ago, but decided only this week to oppose it.

To buy the Democrats’ argument, Cornyn said, “you’d have to suppose that all of the professional staff for all the Senate Judiciary Committee didn’t read the bill” and “didn’t advise their senators” of its contents.

“I don’t believe that Senate Democrats didn’t read the legislation,” Cornyn said. The abortion provision, he said, “was as plain as the nose on your face.”

Democrats preferred to change the subject Thursday. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota discussed the trafficking bill with reporters, but when asked if she knew about the abortion language, she said, “I’ve got to get going.”

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said top Democratic staffers read the bill, but the abortion language was “obscure,” and “we missed it.”

“I asked my staff, the ones I was about to fire, and they said, ‘No, it didn’t say that explicitly,’” Durbin said.

While Republicans snickered at the Democrats’ trafficking jam, Democrats howled at the 47 GOP senators who warned Iran’s leaders in a letter that any nuclear agreement made with President Barack Obama might be short-lived.

Editorial writers, think tanks and some conservative pundits have denounced the letter, calling it a dangerous undermining of any president’s ability to set foreign policy.

Prominent GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona initially laughed off the criticism, calling it “a tempest in a teapot.” But he and others were more somber Thursday, suggesting they may have acted a tad hastily.

McCain, the party’s 2008 presidential nominee, said many of the 47 senators signed the letter in a hurried gathering this month, as a major snowstorm approached Washington.

“They were in a hurry to get out,” McCain told reporters. But Obama “said that he would veto any legislation that went through Congress that required ratification, and that’s what triggered the letter, and I totally agree with it,” he said.

Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who faces re-election next year, said Friday: “If there was any regret, tactically, it probably would have been better just to have it be an open letter addressed to no one.”

Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas defended the letter, but said he also might do things a little differently if given the chance.

“It could have been addressed to other folks and gotten the message out,” Roberts said. “But I think the message is more important than who we send it to.”

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky introduced a bill to allow more time to scrutinize amendments and bills. “It is imperative we pay close attention to the legislation we pass,” he said.

Now that’s a goal the 114th Congress can aspire to.


Associated Press writers Alan Fram, Erica Werner and Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.

Copyright The Associated Press

Disclaimer: Not written by Lorra B.

THANK YOU SPEAKER BOEHNER AND THE REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS. Daily News Briefing: Congratulations, taxpayers. You’re about to give $1.7 Billion to illegal immigrants!


March 7, 2015

tomfernandez28’s Blog: By 

– President Obama’s November amnesty will give $1.7 billion in taxpayers’ cash to illegal immigrants, according to a congressional study.

  • The news emerged two days after top Republican leaders overcame GOP opposition to a 2015 budget bill that allows Obama to fund his unpopular amnesty for roughly 5 million illegals.
  • “The program could cost taxpayers $1.7 billion over 10 years, almost all of it in the first five years,” according to a report by the McClatchy Washington Bureau. The rebates are allowed by the IRS’ interpretation of existing laws governing the Earned Income Tax Credit program, which was designed to subsidize low-wage employment in the United States.
  • Meanwhile, on Tuesday, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officials revealed that the agency processed nearly seven million immigration-related applications in just one year alone (fiscal year 2014).
  • Because the agency does not have the resources to conduct in-person interviews with every applicant, officials noted that applicants for President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood (DACA) program did not have to go through face-to-face interviews before being granted temporary amnesty.
  • Potential applicants for President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty program for the illegal immigrant parents of U.S. citizens will also not be given in-person interviews if the federal government is allowed to proceed with its implementation after the court case against it is resolved.

More at tomfernandez28’s Blog:

Disclosure: This was not written by Lorra B.


(Screenshot Credit, Tomfernandez28's Blog)

(Screenshot Credit, Tomfernandez28’s Blog)

March 7, 2015

By Dan Lamothe / Washington Post

H/T tomfernandez28’s Blog

Capt. Mathew L. Golsteyn is congratulated by fellow soldiers after receiving the Silver Star for heroism in Afghanistan on Jan. 4, 2011. (The Fayetteville Observer/James Robinson)

By Dan Lamothe / Washington Post

The secretary of the Army is defending his decision to strip awards for heroism from a former Green Beret officer, saying the soldier demonstrated a “lack of honorable conduct” after he earned the medals.

Maj. Mathew L. Golsteyn received the Silver Star in 2011 for valor in Afghanistan on Feb. 20, 2010, and was later approved for an upgrade to the even more prestigious Distinguished Service Cross. That award is considered second only to the Medal of Honor in recognizing heroism in combat.

Golsteyn was later investigated for an undisclosed violation of the military’s rules of engagement in combat — a violation related to the killing of a known enemy bombmaker, according to officials familiar with the case. The investigation closed in 2014 without Golsteyn’s being charged with a crime, but Army Secretary John M. McHugh made the rare decision to strip him of both awards anyway.

The move has been scrutinized by the media and criticized by Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R-Calif.), a Marine veteran who has advocated on Golsteyn’s behalf. But McHugh stood by his decision in a new letter to Hunter, saying that the senior officer who initially approved Golsteyn’s Silver Star, Gen. David M. Rodriguez, agreed with his decision.

“Every step in the process of investigating Major Golsteyn’s actions, and reviewing and subsequently revoking his valor awards has been thorough, objective and justified,” McHugh wrote in the Feb. 26 letter, obtained by The Washington Post. “The Army’s investigation demonstrated that Major Golsteyn’s service during or at the time of the distinguished act, achievement or meritorious service was not honorable, which led to the revocation of the Distinguished Service Cross.”

So, this hero is being stripped of his awards for killing an ENEMY BOMB MAKER? By killing this scumbag he saved countless lives! This is completely insane!

more at tomfernandez28’s Blog

Disclaimer: This was not written by Lorra B.

If Obama Can’t Get the Guns, He Is Focused On Banning Ammunition For Them


March 6, 2015

By Lorra B.

If President Obama can’t get the guns then he is focused on banning the ammunition for them, at least the popular ammunition used in the AR-15 and other popular rifles.

This latest ban attempt by Obama, “with or without Congress,” has conservative groups who represent gun owners, and Congress, up in arms claiming that this “ploy is a backdoor attempt to do what the administration has failed to do through legislation—ban the AR-15,” according to WND.

Apparently, Obama wants no vote by Congress and he will disregard the will of the people. It will be, should Obama get his way, through executive action that the manufacturing and importation of this ammunition will be outlawed.

As this conflict grows more intense in Congress, on both sides of the battle, a lawsuit is being threatened by the Second Amendment Foundation. The letter sent by the SAF to the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) Director, B. Todd Jones, cautioned that legal action will be taken if there are any changes in the law concerning this ammunition which is used in America’s most well-liked and used sporting rifle.

“This proposal is just an attempt to limit firearms rights because the president’s other such attempts have been blocked through constitutional checks and balances on his power…Should the BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) lawlessly proceed on this path,” cautions Miko Tempski of the SAF, “SAF intends to call on those checks and balances to stop the administrations executive overreach again.”

To further illustrate there is no need for this type of ammunition ban, top police representatives stated on Tuesday that there is no history of shootings against officers by criminals where AR-15 rifles were used. This in itself should counter any argument the Obama administration has in banning the 5.56 M855 ‘lightgreen tip,’ though the battle continues.

“Any ammunition is of concern to police in the wrong hands, but this specific round has historically not posed a law enforcement problem,” stated James Pasco. Pasco is the executive director of the Washington office of the Fraternal Order of Police, which is the world’s largest police organization with over 325,000 associates.

Pasco went on to say that this round of ammo “is not typically used against law enforcement,” but that he is “not finding fault” with it being classified as ‘armor piercing’ or in banning it. He did, however, state that, “While this round will penetrate soft body armor, it has not historically posed a threat to law enforcement.”

The reasons for advising the ban, then, have no merit though White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, insists that because the ammo can pierce armor it is enough reason. “We are looking at additional ways to protect our brave men and women in law enforcement and believe that this process is valuable for that reason alone.”

I would argue that most citizens had no idea of this ammo’s capabilities until it was brought to their attention and an issue made by raising fear in citizens.

This fear raising may backfire as the Obama administration’s efforts to ban the ammunition are being challenged as “55 percent of all House members have signed a letter challenging BATFE‘s proposal,” according to Washington Examiner.

“Led by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte and the National Rifle Association, 235 members have signed the letter. The signatures came in at a record pace…just three business days.”

The Obama administration’s attempt at banning guns is no secret but this back-door attempt to ban ammunition, therefore limiting the popularity of the AR-15, not only has the Second Amendment community up in arms, it seemingly has Capital Hill all fired up as well.

By Lorra B.


Netanyahu blasts Iran in address to Congress

(Screenshot Credit, Rare)

(Screenshot Credit, Rare)

March 3, 2015

Associated Press: Rare:

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a speech that stirred political controversy in two countries, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Congress on Tuesday that negotiations underway between Iran and the United States would “all but guarantee” that Tehran gets nuclear weapons to the detriment of the entire world.

“And lots of them,” he added in an appearance before a packed House chamber that drew loud applause from Republicans and a more restrained reaction from Democrats.

“Iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted,” no matter what it says about permitting verification of the terms of any accord designed to prevent it from getting such weapons, he said. “The greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons.”

Netanyahu spoke in English shortly after Secretary of State John Kerry met for more than two hours in Switzerland with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in hopes of completing an international framework agreement later this month to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

The Israeli leader’s appeal also came two weeks before tight elections in which he is seeking a new term — and after the invitation to address Congress extended by House Speaker John Boehner, a Republican, triggered a political furor in the United States. More than four dozen House and Senate Democrats said in advance they would not attend the event, a highly unusual move given historically close ties between the two allies.

Many of Netanyahu’s comments were greeted by loud applause from U.S. lawmakers, but not everyone was persuaded by his rhetoric.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California conspicuously refrained from applauding on several occasions. And when the Israeli leader called for holding out for a better deal with Iran, she held her hands wide and shook her head in disagreement.

The White House expressed its displeasure with Netanyahu’s appearance by word and deed, dispatching Vice President Joe Biden on an overseas trip that meant he did not fill his customary seat behind the House rostrum during the speech. Nor did the Israeli leader meet at the White House with Obama on his trip to the United States.

The prime minister was greeted with a roaring welcome as he walked down the same center aisle of the House chamber that presidents tread before their annual State of the Union speeches.

He also sought to smooth over any political unpleasantness, thanking Obama lavishly for the help he has given Israel since he became president. In a grace note, he took a moment to mention Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who is back at work after suffering an eye injury in an accident at home.

At the same time, Netanyahu was unrelenting in his condemnation of the negotiations the administration is conducting with Tehran.

He said that with the concessions the United States was prepared to make Iran would not only gain nuclear weapons, but also eventually would become free of international economic sanctions. As a result, he said, it would be emboldened to finance even more terrorism around the Middle East and the world.

The result for Iran, he said, would be “aggression abroad and prosperity at home.”

Instead, he said that if Iran wants to be “treated like a normal country, it ought to behave like a normal country.”

“We’ve been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well this is a bad deal, a very bad deal,” he said.

He said the deal being discussed offered two major concessions to Iran. One would leave intact the country’s vast nuclear infrastructure, and the other would lift restrictions on that program in about a decade, the “blink of an eye in the life of a nation,” he said.

He also said that the world needs to insist that no restrictions are lifted on Iran’s nuclear program until the country stops aggressive actions against its neighbors in the Mideast, stops supporting terrorism around the world and stops threatening to annihilate Israel.

Netanyahu singled out Holocaust Survivor Elie Wiesel, a world-renowned author.

“I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned,” he said in a reference to the Nazis, who killed 6 million Jews.

A few moments later, he added, applause swelling, “The days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies are over.”

“Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand,” he vowed, although he quickly added that it does not, and “American stands with Israel.”

The Obama administration has complained that congressional Republicans injected destructive partisanship into the U.S.-Israel alliance by inviting Netanyahu to speak. But the White House played down the controversy in the hours before the address.

Senior adviser Valerie Jarrett called it “a bit of a distraction” but told MSNBC the dispute wouldn’t undermine Obama’s commitment to Israel.

“We share a common goal of ensuring that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons,” Jarrett said, and disagree with Netanyahu only over “the tactics of how to get there.”

The U.S. and Iranian sides met for two hours on Tuesday morning in the Swiss resort of Montreux, according to U.S. officials.

“We’re working away, productively,” Kerry told reporters.

Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Read more at Rare: