The White House is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions. A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks
The people who love draconian laws banning guns ought to live in the wrong part of town, or work the night shift at a store near a freeway, or have an order of protection against someone, or live alone and look at the wrong person or wear the wrong clothes. They won´t, but they will use this to put all those people in jeopardy. Pick a side, but do it honestly. Giving your freedom to liars who truly think they are far better than you, is not only crazy and sad, it is a fundamental betrayal of what America tries to be and what millions of Americans fought and died for.
So, what they mean, for the responsible gun owner it will be tougher to get their legal 2nd amendment gun. So how are these new rules going to prevent illegal gun violence? In the end they´ll just cause the government to grow, create unneeded government jobs and add a cost to the growing debt. I wonder if these so-called leaders will ever just enforce the current laws, hold criminals to the highest standard and stop trying to score a victory out of a tragedy
Another brilliant move by the Won who loves to play a devisive political game - a great way to rally the socialist base, get donations, take people´s minds off of higher taxes and high unemploynebt . . . but will sweeping gun restrictions sell in the general population and the Congress?
I find these proposals very reasonable and absolutely necessary. In Texas there are no restrictions on buying guns and they enjoy very high incidences of homocides committed with guns. I am a conservative. Citizens need guns and have a right to them. I want the people who obtained them to be without a history of dangerous mental illnes and non violent in their past behavior. All these proposed measures could be applied and it would yet allow for a teacher or school martial to carry a gun inorder to protect the children. Nowadays there needs to be "air marshalls" in every public venue. Someone who is incognito but well armed to protect the public. In gun free zones the law needs to permit authorized people to have guns. Therefore, that one proposal I do not agree with.
So, what about the HIPA rules? I thought our health info was top secret. And, besides, there are a lot of undiagnosed whackos out there. While I agree mentally ill folks shouldn´t have guns, this isn´t practical on any level. Translation--libs will keep their guns and the rest of you can shove off, right, Barry?
I beseech you to do the following immediately. Repeal the 21st Amendment because "intoxicating liquors" kills more Americans by drunk drivers and kidney failures and is the leading product for more medical costs than any other product sold in the United States.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Grant Hodges, 1/6/2013 12:06:46 AM (No. 9100997)
In the 70´s the Democrats opened the doors of the sanitariums and now those people live on the streets and are the "homeless" (Bush´s fault). I am sure crazy people will run down to Walmart and get checked out before they get their gun.....
Politicians hate guns for one reason, and you know what it is....
Maybe they should start with the South side of Chicago where obama organized the community. Did I mention that part of the city is the murder capital of the US? (s/o) Look at the murder and crime statistics of jurisdictions ruled by dims.
Hollywood supports gun control and says movies don´t contribute to violence. Horse Crap. I just saw Django and Follywood overwhelmed the audience with gunfire, dynamite, horse whips, blood, guts, exploding bodies, and more.
Way to go Follywood. Get those guns. You lying hypocrites.
These proposals are from the same government which brought us Operation Fast and Furious. Ask Brian Terry´s family, as well as those of several hundred dead Mexicans, how well that gun control program worked.
I totally disagree with “In Texas there are no restrictions on buying guns and they enjoy very high incidences of homocides committed with guns”.
Jeez. I don’t know where to begin. First of all, Texas has the same restrictions as VT/NH/ME that rank among the lowest violent crime rates in the nation.
As a minimum, Texas follows the same guidelines/restrictions that every other state follows per federal law which requires an FBI criminal background and court order check.
BTW: There are 14 states that have a higher violent crime rate than Texas and many of them actually do have restrictive gun ownership laws like NY/IL/MA and DC.
It’s all a matter of demographics. Look at the people in your state that commit the violent crimes and you will know why the violent crimes are being committed. They are the same type of people who commit 85% of all violent crime in this country.
Most gun crimes are committed by people who by law aren’t allowed to poses a firearm and almost all crimes in this country are committed by repeat offenders.
The FBI estimates there are over 200 million firearms in possession of over 100 million owners and 99.999999 percent of them have never been used to commit a crime.
Personal possession of firearms in the UK is extremely restricted but violent crime there is now higher than in the US because people there do not have the capability to defend themselves from Dirt Bags!
Look at the demographics of Dallas/Houston/Los Angeles/Denver/Chicago/St Louise/Buffalo/Philadelphia/NYC/Boston/Miami/New Orleans because that is where the problem is. It’s not the availability of guns. It’s the availability of Dirt Bags and Freakoids!
Obama’s goal is to register all firearms in this country so he can restrict the type and number you own down to zero.
The second amendment was included because the founders knew that the people needed to be armed thus so that if the federal government grew to be tyrannical, the people would be able to fight back and overthrow it.
That the so-called "progressives" want to strip the people of the right to bear arms is indicative of their desire to institute tyranny. It´s obvious and all-over their policies and actions. They flat-out hate the constitution; the greatest government ever designed when it comes to individual freedom and liberty. What horrible people. They gain most of their political force from people who know almost nothing about history and policy. And with the progressives having a strong grip on the government monopoly on education, they keep the young folk in the dark and ignorant.
Right on #17 - the battle of Thermopylae, so to speak, is now upon us! I cannot let my God-given (or natural, if you will) rights be trampled by men who would deprive me of them just to suit their own ends. Come and take them!
Isn´t it ironic that gang thugs never seem to have a problem getting a gun? Does Holder in his zeal for affirmative action have a secret gun running program going on with them? After all, they´re all disadvantaged and not getting their fair share.
No 21 is exactly right. The goal is to get to the point where Obama, or some successor, can by executive order revoke all gun licenses, require the owner to surrender his guns, and assess a large penalty against him if he fails to do so. The fine will be large enough to bankrupt anyone who resists. This is the strategy they are attempting to use against Hobby Lobby by levying a million dollar per day fine.
All the reasonable arguments they are using are just pouring honey on the bear trap.
I agree with #6. The current laws don´t work as well as they should. I like that the White House is talking to various groups to get their suggestions. None of these suggestions is cast in stone that it will become part of the plan.
They should be getting suggestions from the NRA as well. However, LaPierre himself took that option off the table. When someone takes a hard line and refuses to offer any ideas...then they don´t get an invitation to the bargaining table. And the fact is that LaPierre didn´t offer a single idea as to how to make it more difficult for mentally unbalanced people such as Lanza to get hold of weapons.
When are people going to get over the idea that Washington politicians have our best interests at heart? Any initiative they take up that refers to ´control´ or ´reform´ is designed to remove more of our freedoms. Yet people continue to refer to this as ´reasonable´ and ´well meaning´. A lot of people are very easy to manipulate. Suckers.
#22 you are so right. That is why my purchases now are face to face with no registration. When I pass on I plan to leave thousands of rounds to my grand children along with heavy duty military type guns, especially the Springfield M1A. I also like the M&M Ak 47 out of Colorado. And the Armalite A10 .308. At age 12 I am going to have my grand children professionally trained with a fire arm instructor. Sooner or later bad days are coming. I want to leave an American legacy to my grand children and great grand children. My hunting guns will not fire thousands of rounds, but the above mentioned will. There are guns for hunting and guns for fighting. As in Viet Nam, I am locked and loaded.
Dude, the only way to "make it more difficult for mentally unbalanced people such as Lanza to get a hold of weapons" (are all those people doing the drive-by shootings in large cities imbalanced?) is to make it harder (impossible) for EVERYONE to get a hold of weapons, or better, ammo. Didn´t you learn in school that group punishment works? /s
I used to have quite a few guns but a couple of them were stolen and then there was that one that I loaned to my brother-in-law and he traded it to someone for a bottle of whiskey and the one that fell overboard and the one............
There are a couple of posters here who should take Dr Sowell´s advice to heart: ´´If you don´t want to have a gun in your home or in your school, that´s your choice. (But)Is it worth a human life to be a politically correct moral exhibitionist?´´ BTW, moveon.org. is a gun free (as in free fire) zone.
What ails this country cannot be fixed by gun control. The violence we see is a result of the culture. A culture that has been drenched in violence at every level but with no moral authority to put it into perspective. Gun violence is glorified by the entertainment industry. Violent killing is a money maker that has driven Hollywood to produce ever more horrific violence and now they want to promote gun control? The industry´s lifeblood is moral depravity in every form. I would suggest they take a long hard look at their motives for producing this trash and the part it plays in the breakdown of society.
Making it harder for a mentally unstable person to get hold of a gun isn´t liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat. If you are a law-abiding citizen without close family members or close friends with serious mental illness...fantastic! But...what are you willing to see happen so that it is more difficult than it is today for a mentally unstable person to get hold of guns? In my state, such a person, or his family, can´t even voluntarily put such a person on a ´do not sell´ list! (The person knows that he has occasional psychotic breaks during which he tends to think about getting a gun and doing something violent. He would like to be on the list so that someone wouldn´t sell him a gun in such a situation.) Now, how can a change to permit voluntary additions to a list affect your rights to your guns? This isn´t a black-or-white issue; there are areas where those who back full gun rights can step back and say, "Okay, I could live with that change."
The family I speak of are Republicans, including the person with mental illness. No interest in moveon, thank you. Mental illness is not a respecter of political parties.
Actually, I´d be glad to register all my guns...if they also registered and published the names and addresses of everyone who voted for Obama. That way, it´s a win-win. They will know where to come get my guns, and I will know where to dispose of my ammunition inventory. See, reasonable compromise can work.
Number 38... actually, homicide is down in the US since the 80s. This is exactly what this administration, media, and all the rest of the commies want is for everyone to panic that gun violence is out of control and something HAS to be done. That way, they can come in and save us, don´t you see. They are coming for full gun registration, no doubt. Elections have consequences.
Number 6 and 30, of course the current laws aren´t working. That is what criminals do, they don´t obey the law. Last I heard, MURDER is still illegal in the US.
Many times it is the intention that is more important than the act. That is the trouble with #6s arguments. Registration is DESIGNED to create a list and isolate those who exercise their Second Amendment Rights. This is a camel´s nose that will then be used to tighten the noose in many ways - as evidence in case you are in a lawsuit, higher insurance rates, even higher rate of tax auditing. And finally systematic confiscation by Executive Order. We have been here before.
Poster still isn´t getting it. We do not ever ever ever want some incompetent in the government deciding on our mental fitness for any reason. There is so much evil that could be done under the guise of ´deciding mental fitness´. Stinky the gunrunner got a lot of people killed with his illegal plan. Why don´t we start with him if you want control?
Can´t this gov´t do two things at once - figure out who gave the "stand down" order for Libya (that´s a pretty simple one, we´re just not privy to the info) and discuss how to keep guns from people who shouldn´t own them. From what I heard about Newtown, gun control worked. The kid tried to buy a gun and was turned down. Hollywood is hypocritical - it´s shown that when people see violence (tv, movies etc), they become more violent. This again is a side show.
The tyrant administration was going to make this gun grab whether Newtown had happened or not, the timing was just very convenient. Obama is deathly afraid that his reign will be challenged by the citizens when the more distasteful changes he has in mind are pushed into law.
Actions like gun control are only attempted by people who are too inept to do anything useful. We do know better than they how America should live and we will not comply with this blatant abuse of the Constitution.
I´ve said it before and I´ll say it again - if our elected officials do not believe in gun ownership and do not see our need to own guns for our own personal security, then they themselves must also acknowledge the lack of need for security and be required to perform their duties as elected officials and be seen in public, with no security details protecting them. Afterall, what are they worried about?
We may one day soon experience the feeling William B. Travis had that cold February Morning in the Alamo Court Yard. His letter of defiance to Santa Anna was and is what makes us all AMERICANS. I for one chose to stand with the 186. How about you?
The insanity and group think in the Country is overwhelming....Damn difficult, no make that impossible, to reason with morons who don´t have the capability of understanding logic, dealing with facts or utilize critical thinking. OVERWHELMING...Here is a link to an article from Daniel Greenfield, Sultan Knish, that defines demographics in a whole new context.....
The gun-control solution to fix the problem should be to disarm every LP in the country, including the two trolls on this thread. This ´debate´ isn´t about ´safety´ - the socialists constantly bleated that back in the 60s and 70s and 80s when they rammed through their incremental unconstitutional laws. Only the truly, deeply, ignorant think it´s about safety this time around. Reality check - Lott and others published peer reviewed studies during and after the crazy gun-control talk of the last century - guess what? MORE guns, less crime! If the trolls and communists were truly concerned about safety they´d be pushing to eliminate their 20k+ asinine gun owner harassment laws already on the books and recognize the 2nd amendment. So it isn´t about safety, it´s about disarming the American population so socialism has an easy time taking over. If they seriously wanted to know what was right, there´s tons of fairly current research available to the public. You waste your time and breath arguing with socialists - they want their way, one way or the other.
The gun taker talkers will do just that--talk, talk, talk... And then it will go away--they get paid too well to upset the many people who will take that well paid job away from them. End of story. May God Bless Americans and their right to protect themselves.
At Sandy Hook, one of the children murdered was Emile Parker, age 6.
So, why are there photographs of Emile Parker being hugged by Obama?
Photoshop is a marvelous tool, but seriously ...
Any of you who think the evil that is Washington DC is incapable of such planned horror as "sacrificing" children to drive the voters emotionally need to remember Waco and that Koresh could have been taken at any time away from the property yet the forces arrayed by Washington DC chose to burn children to death in a holocaust.
Please wrap your mind around that.
... and Washington murdering Vicky Weaver while holding her son in her arms.
... the Clinton death list
...in the last century over 250 million men women and children murdered by their own governments ...
A wag once said that the Feds´ war on the Mafia was because the Government didn´t like the competition. The current wars on private enterprise, the "filthy rich" making $250k per year, and lawful gun owners provide further proof of the point.
Hmm...a USA where the citizens will be deprived of guns, but where local and federal enforcement officers will have assault and automatic weapons to use against civilians. And the local police´s carrying out of Federal policies will determine whether they get Federal monies or not.
What possible use would knowing where every gun is and who owns it? I wonder, duh. Not that it would prevent any crimes or anything, but who cares. Also, I predict that the mere desire to own a gun is evidence of mental instability, therefore request denied.
Tired of magical thinking solutions that amount only to the penalization/hobbling of hundreds of millions of law abiding gun owning Americans to soothe the consciences of fool progressives (and even some people on this board) that think that if we just make the guns go away, read people´s minds, and predict the future via Obama´s mystical powers, we will all be safe and sound.
Get real and grow up!! The only thing that could have saved those people in Connecticut, Colorado, and elsewhere would have been a good guy with gun killing the bad guy with a gun. Until you come to this fact based realization, you are playing with illogical, magical, feelings based arguments and I don´t have time for you.
0bama targets law abiding American taxpayers and the merit of the Constitution & Bill of Rights at every opportunity. That is his established political policy pattern. Yet he was apparently re-elected to continue his same old ignoring of the Constitution, The Bill of Rights and of his oath of office. Who knows what he will dream up next, ...or is it already scripted in leftist hollyweird?
Why go after responsible gun owners with new laws. Let´s face it, that is all they are really doing because they certainly aren´t enforcing the existing laws and they certainly aren´t keeping criminals off the streets as witnessed by the recent murders of firemen by a convicted murderer (oh snap, that´s right, he used a hammer...), and responsible gun owners are the only ones that actually follow laws. The Obamboozler is going after law abiding citizens because it is the path of least resistance. Law abiding people generally don´t fight back, so it´s just easier than going after the real criminals and potential criminals and placing the blame where it truly belongs. Just pass another law and hey, my job´s done, and if it furthers my agenda so much the better. It´s just like screaming “racism” at the drop of a pin. Even though there is no racism, reading “racism” into every obscure statement or word seems to work. So it´s a win-win for the Obamboozler who can use this to establish control over those “bitter hicks that cling to their guns and religion” while looking great to the dumbed-down Kool-Aid drinkers by couching it in something that sounds Politically Correct. And so he will continue to poke at the soft underbelly of law-abiding people because it´s just easier...for now.
This old saying can be applied by a little word substitution.´Your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins.´ Could be restated as ´My right to live by the clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment does not need to be determined by any body of government or of individuals.´ My gun is to protect what is mine, meaning my family and me. My property is mine to protect if need be, and I am an old lady, not a crazed hobbiest or nutcase out to enjoy loud noises and any kind of blood. I have the right to protect my home, and a county or city sheriff will agree that I can do what I must. And I shall. Joe Biden and crew are probably all armed and much more dangerous than I.
Dangerous mentally ill people are the problem and that´s where the government should be directing its efforts. Everyone agrees that the dangerous mentally ill should not be able to purchase or possess firearms. There should be a narrow exception to the medical privacy laws so that medical records can be checked during background inquiries done on prospective firearms purchasers in relation to help identify people who are known dangerous mentally ill people.
Also the ATF Form 4473 that all gun buyers have to fill out could be restructured to require that all new gun buyers list three personal references who could be contacted, remember in each of the recent mass shootings just about all acquaintances of the perpetrators had knowledge that the perpetrator had serious mental problems but never told anyone because they were not asked.
While those initiatives might stop some dangerous mentally ill people from purchasing firearms, it certainly would not stop the the straw purchasers, and would not stop the dangerous mentally ill from stealing firearms from people who have a perfect right to possess firearms.
Obviously no gun control law is going to stop determined criminals.
It is rumored that the feral gov.not House can and perhaps will deep six the revenoors (ATF) if the curtseying queen bath house queen Ø´blo the blamer tries to confiscate all guns with a marxist edict.
My questions is why can they not shut off the obscene splurging sasquatch and it´s mate spend on royalty style personal extravagances?
Personally I would prefer that we deport it to wherever it was manufactured and send sasquatch along with it´s groupies.
They will NOT take my guns. They were all destroyed by that big hurricane..yeah, that´s the ticket.
Seriously, the dems and the libs provided a much more dangerous activity by blocking any and all attempts at voter identification, voter roll verification and other such ilk. They naturally let the ACLU do the heavy lifting for them.
They killed America with voter fraud. The death of America as we knew it will lead to purges, sanctioned murders etc.
What Obama and the liberal Democrats are really going for is the US small arms and related industries that are conservative Republican constituency groups.
Chances are the liberal Democrats will try to over reach on this issue, just as they did in the past, and just as they did before, will probably end up experiencing severe repercussions in the 2014 election.
I believe the 1986 FOPA forbids the government from registering, or using Form 4473 in any electronic database. Of course, seeing as they stomp on every other rule in golf shoes, I´d expect them to do just this...
All the argument about "protecting people from guns" aside, truthfully THAT is the farthest thing from gun grabbers mind. They want to disarm us to make us easier to "manage" and control.
BUT to the mental health hand wringers on this forum... WHO gets to determine what is "dangerously mentally ill?" Obama? A band of doctors with an agenda? You? How can you guarantee sane law abiding people will not be re-categorized as "dangerously mentally ill" and completely disenfranchised from their constitutional rights simply because they don´t live the life you think is sane and safe? You can´t, so stop trying to do this touchy feely driven, magical thinking nonsense. That is the slipperiest of all slopes and you are willing to dive down it head first.
I will not hand over my right to protect myself and those I love to you or anyone who feels morally superior/politically correct enough to adjudicate my fitness as a human specimen without my consent nor my input.
Every law made in Washington can and will be abused by the right people at their right time. Less freedom is simply not the answer... more freedom is.
If there wasn´t such an idiot in the WH and Washington politicians and other public servants did their jobs competently, citizens wouldn´t be feeling the need to acquire firearms to protect their families and property. They are doing the responsible thing. They must also believe that there is some threat emanating from Washington, D.C. and big government.
House and Senate negotiators were putting the finishing touches Sunday on what would be the first successful budget accord since 2011, when the battle over a soaring national debt first paralyzed Washington. The deal expected to be sealed this week on Capitol Hill would not significantly reduce the debt, now $17.3 trillion and rising. It would not close corporate tax loopholes or reform expensive health-care and retirement programs. It would not even fully replace sharp spending cuts known as the sequester, the negotiators’ primary target. After more than two years of constant crisis, the emerging agreement amounts to little more
The sequester, no matter how imperfect a policy, is arguably the only victory for fiscal conservatives in a very long time. Their victory is also president Obama’s biggest defeat (outside of the self-inflicted disastrous Obamacare rollout). It is also another opportunity to remind the American people that the alarmist predictions that we were all subjected to about the devastating impact sequestration would have on our economy didn’t materialize. Yet, in a new move, Republicans are once again considering caving to Democrats and getting rid of the spending cuts. This morning’s Wall Street Journal has the following. Still, officials close to
President Obama’s repeated use of presidential powers is causing a tough problem — his own supporters now expect him to use it to achieve everything they want. From immigration to the minimum wage, congressional Democrats and liberal activists this week urged Mr. Obama to declare an end run around Capitol Hill, assert executive authority and make as much progress as he can on the expansive agenda he laid out for his second term. A day after Mr. Obama denounced income inequality, progressive lawmakers said he should take the lead by issuing an executive order requiring all federal contractors to pay
Three crises, one president, many bewildered friends. The first crisis, barely noticed here, is Ukraine’s sudden turn away from Europe and back to the Russian embrace. After years of negotiations for a major trading agreement with the European Union, Ukraine succumbed to characteristically blunt and brutal economic threats from Russia and abruptly walked away. Ukraine is instead considering joining the Moscow-centered Customs Union with Russia’s fellow dictatorships Belarus and Kazakhstan. This is no trivial matter. Ukraine is not just the largest European country, it’s the linchpin for Vladimir Putin’s dream of a renewed imperial Russia, hegemonic in its neighborhood and
Entering his sophomore year at Occidental College, Barack Obama sought a political movement to match his personal awakening, which he signaled to friends and family at the time by reclaiming his African first name. Barry became Barack that year. He had read Du Bois, Fanon, Malcolm X — an array of authors writing about the black struggle for liberation in his country and in others shaking off the legacy of colonial rule around the world. That is where he looked for — and found — a figure and a cause to channel his rising political enthusiasm: Nelson Mandela, then imprisoned
I´m generally for more disclosure in campaign finance, but the best argument against requiring full disclosure by groups engaged in political speech is that politicians sometimes retaliate against their critics. Sen. Elizabeth Warren inadvertently made that very argument this week. As told by Ben White at Politico, a group called "Third Way" criticized Warren. Warren apparently suspected that Third Way´s criticism of her was funded by banks. So she wrote a letter to bank CEOs demanding they disclose which political groups they´re funding. Warren sits on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. She´s basically telling the entities
A stunning new study unveiled on Fox News´ Hannity finds that President Barack Obama’s White House calendar records just one face-to-face meeting between Obama and his Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in the more than three-and-a-half years leading up to the disastrous Obamacare launch. The startling statistic comes from a new Government Accountability Institute (GAI) analysis of Obama’s own official White House calendar, as well as the Politico presidential calendar, and raises new questions about Obama’s executive leadership and management throughout the implementation of his singular legislative achievement. More alarming still, the president’s schedule lists 277 private
The question all week long was this: Who are you going to believe, an illegal alien or the president of the United States of America? Obviously, if it’s a president who once went by an alias, Barry Soetoro, you go with Uncle Omar, 100 percent, no questions asked. And so it was that the White House finally admitted to another, uh, misstatement — despite previous denials, Barack/Barry did sleep on his beloved Uncle Omar’s couch in Cambridge when he first moved here to attend Harvard Law School (speaking of which, we’re still waiting to see the president’s grades and his LSAT scores). But the
More young men in California rise in pitch at the end of their sentences when talking, new research shows. This process is known as "uptalk" or "valleygirl speak" and has in the past been associated with young females, typically from California or Australia.But now a team says that this way of speaking is becoming more frequent among men.The findings were presented at the Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America in California. "We found use of uptalk in all of our speakers, despite their diverse backgrounds in socioeconomic status, ethnicity, bilingualism and gender," said Amanda Ritchart, a linguist at the University of
How do you get your arms around the catastrophe known as Obamacare? Is it even possible? At this point, I’m not sure it is. The list of individual disasters which threaten to ruin one-sixth of the U.S. economy and what has been, up until now, the best healthcare system in the world is exhaustive, and exhausting. The examples I will identify here barely scratch the surface. First but by no means foremost, we have the supposedly new and improved HealthCare.gov. Except it’s not, even the visible part. Stories still abound of people still failing to get in or to get through the enrollment
DAVID CORN: I saw a president who remains frustrated with the political-media culture that he has to work within, and that he´s looking to rally people, students here, and supporters, and people within the media. CHRIS MATTHEWS: But David Corn, you skeptic. He came to us today. He came amongst us. CORN: He´s trying to rally people behind this vision that he´s been promoting for a couple years. FINEMAN: By the way, he did it the end here, today, Chris, not by defending specifics, but by explaining why he´s in the game to begin with. And I don´t know about you, he´s
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has announced a new five-year strategic plan to improve safety for elderly drivers and passengers. Although they are statistically among the safest on the road, the number of older drivers is increasing dramatically — and with it, that group´s numbers of injuries and deaths. Since 2003, the population of older adults, defined as age 65 and older, has increased by 20% and the number of licensed older drivers increased by 21% to 35 million in 2012, according to NHTSA. Last year, NHTSA reported that 5,560 people older than 65 died and 214,000 were injured
The most curious thing of all about the November jobs report released on Friday was the huge drop in the unemployment rate — and the fact that the Labor Department chose not to disclose that the data going into that figure are under investigation for falsification. On Nov. 19, I broke the news in my column that the Census Bureau, which collects data that goes into the jobless rate on behalf of Labor, had caught one of its enumerators fabricating interviews in 2010. The culprit said back then (and to me during an interview) that he was told to do so by
7. On the U.S. war with Iraq: “If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don’t care for human beings.” Via cbsnews.com 6. On Israel: “Israel should withdraw from all the areas which it won from the Arabs in 1967, and in particular Israel should withdraw completely from the Golan Heights, from south Lebanon and from the West Bank.” Via jweekly.com 5. On the U.S. war with Iraq: “All that (Mr. Bush) wants is Iraqi oil.” Via cbsnews.com 4. Mandela on Castro and the Cuban revolution: “From its earliest days, the Cuban Revolution has also been a