February 26th, 2015
Get ready folks, we've lost autonomy on our banks, finances, health insurance, internet, and many other necessities to numerous to count, now they're going after our guns, once again.....and just when a flood of radicalized Muslim refugees and a criminal element of illegal aliens are dancing over our borders...
The Washington Examiner
By Paul Bedard
As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives this month revealed that it is proposing to put the ban on 5.56 mm ammo on a fast track, immediately driving up the price of the bullets and prompting retailers, including the huge outdoors company Cabela’s, to urge sportsmen to urge Congress to stop the president.
RELATED: NRA steps up push for Sunday hunting
Wednesday night, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, stepped in with a critical letter to the bureau demanding it explain the surprise and abrupt bullet ban. The letter is shown below.
The National Rifle Association, which is working with Goodlatte to gather co-signers, told Secrets that 30 House members have already co-signed the letter and Goodlatte and the NRA are hoping to get a total of 100 fast.
"The Obama administration was unable to ban America's most popular sporting rifle through the legislative process, so now it's trying to ban commonly owned and used ammunition through regulation," said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA, the group's policy and lobby shop. "The NRA and our tens of millions of supporters across the country will fight to stop President Obama's latest attack on our Second Amendment freedoms."
At issue is so-called “armor-piercing” ammunition, an exemption for those bullets mostly used for sport by AR-15 owners, and the recent popularity of pistol-style ARs that use the ammo.
The inexpensive 5.56 M885 ammo, commonly called green tips, have been exempt for years, as have higher-caliber ammunition that also easily pierces the type of soft armor worn by police, because it’s mostly used by target shooters, not criminals. The agency proposes to reclassify it as armor-piercing and not exempt.
But now BATFE says that since the bullets can be used in semi-automatic handguns they pose a threat to police and must be banned from production, sale and use. But, as Goodlatte noted, the agency offered no proof. Federal agencies will still be allowed to buy the ammo.
“This round is amongst the most commonly used in the most popular rifle design in America, the AR-15. Millions upon millions of M855 rounds have been sold and used in the U.S., yet ATF has not even alleged — much less offered evidence — that even one such round has ever been fired from a handgun at a police officer,” said Goodlatte’s letter.
Even some police don’t buy the administration’s claim. “Criminals aren't going to go out and buy a $1,000 AR pistol,” Brent Ball, owner of 417 Guns in Springfield, Mo., and a 17-year veteran police officer told the Springfield News-Leader. “As a police officer I'm not worried about AR pistols because you can see them. It's the small gun in a guy's hand you can't see that kills you.”
February 26th, 2015
"Ajit Pai, one of two Republican Commissioners on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), inferred in a tweet that President Barack Obama’s secret, 332-page “Net Neutrality” document is a scheme for federal micro-managing of the Internet to extract billions in new taxes from consumers and again enforce progressives’ idea of honest, equitable, and balanced content fairness," ~ BREITBART
By Barry Secrest
Once again and as with Obamacare, we will apparently have to pass the regulations in order to know what's in them, which is simply not acceptable.
As with Obama's executive order granting unlawful amnesty to illegal aliens, so it is with the net neutrality regulations being cooked up by the FCC, on behalf of Obama. The main difference, in this case, is the fact that the auspices for Obamacare were based upon high health insurance rates and the uninsured.
An easy target to be sure.
The end result of Obamacare was mass confusion, and rates spiraling upwards even further in many cases but with junk-insurance style deductibles. Not to mention vast interruptions that remain ongoing with regard to network access and care, and that's before employer-based insurance is even affected.
Let's not even talk about failing hospital, clinics, and tertiary providers which are even now going broke, as a result of these changes.
The mere fact that a constantly prevaricating President is telling us that we need these new net neutrality rules, and fast, should give us more than enough pause, based on the imperical evidence of the past seven years, alone.
The young hipsters, including even many conservative padawans, have already been sucked into thinking that these net rules will grant all users the same speeds enjoyed by corporate giants. What they don't understand is the fact that the government is not concerned with your browsing speed, but rather, it's your browsing content, that they wish to modify.
So, why screw around with something that works extraordinarily well?
It's Obamacare for the Web: FCC Hides Unlawful 332-Pages in Regulations for 'Net Neutrality' Control
February 25th, 2015
"Between 2010 and 2013, the Obama administration imported almost 300,000 new immigrants from Muslim nations — more immigrants than the U.S. let in from Central America and Mexico combined over that period.
This is a sea change in immigration flows, and it threatens national security."
BY PAUL SPERRY
France, Belgium and now even liberal Denmark regret letting in so many immigrants from Muslim countries. Their swelling Islamic communities have become breeding grounds for terrorists.
So why is the U.S. opening the floodgates to foreign Muslims?
The threat Muslim immigrants pose to homeland security was not addressed during the White House's three-day summit on terrorism.
Instead, Vice President Joe Biden assured Muslim groups gathered during one session that the "wave" of Muslim immigration is "not going to stop."
Wave? More like a tsunami.
Between 2010 and 2013, the Obama administration imported almost 300,000 new immigrants from Muslim nations — more immigrants than the U.S. let in from Central America and Mexico combined over that period.
This is a sea change in immigration flows, and it threatens national security.
Many of the recent Muslim immigrants are from terrorist hot spots like Iraq, where the Islamic State operates. From 2010-2013, Obama ushered in 41,094 Iraqi nationals from there.
Now the State Department says it will quadruple the number of refugees brought here from Syria, where IS is headquartered.
The U.S. will admit as many as 2,000 Syrian nationals by the end of fiscal year 2015, up from 525 since fiscal 2011.
Yes, the number of displaced people inside war-torn Syria and Iraq, an estimated 3 million refugees, rivals the most in Mideast history. But rolling out the welcome mat for them in the middle of a mushrooming war on Muslim terrorism is dangerously shortsighted.
Top U.S. counterterror officials say terrorists could easily slip into the country from Iraq and Syria, in spite of promised screening procedures for such refugees.
"It's clearly a population of concern," National Counterterrorism Center Director Nicholas Rasmussen testified this week.
House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mike McCaul called the new policy "a federally sanctioned welcome party to potential terrorists."
That's no stretch. If just a fraction of the 300,000 new Muslim immigrants already here follow in the footsteps of the Franco-Algerian brothers who recently terrorized Paris, we could be facing chronic terror in our cities.
The main homeland threat from groups like IS comes through our immigration system. If they also use our loose policies as a vehicle for jihad and Islamization, we will face the same crisis as Eurabia.
The British press is reporting that IS has threatened to release a huge wave of migrants from Libya across the Mediterranean disguised as refugees to cause chaos in Europe.
Who's to say they aren't setting a similar immigration bomb for America?
Authorities can't even get a handle on homegrown IS jihadists who are already in America. Why would we risk adding so many potential jihadists from abroad to the already overloaded terrorist threat matrix?
The FBI director says he's got open cases against IS suspects in every state but Alaska. More than 100 American Muslims have hooked up with the vicious terror group in Syria or Iraq, and at least a dozen fighters already have returned to America and may be forming sleeper cells to attack the homeland.
These suspects are hard for agents, who already are overstretched, to monitor. They've discarded their Islamic beards and garb and have blended into society. Analysts suspect some may have even infiltrated the military and government.
While America ushers in Islamic immigrants, Europe is pulling up the welcome mat. In recent months, both France and Britain have proposed imposing curbs on immigration out of fear of importing more terrorists. The bills will likely pass in the wake of the Paris massacre.
Thanks to mass immigration from North Africa, France's Muslim population has swelled to 6.5 million, or 10% of its population. More than 1,000 French Muslims have joined IS. A recent poll found that 27% of French Muslims ages 18-24 support the Islamic State.
Growing pockets of radicalism are spreading in towns throughout France. There are "no-go" zones for non-Muslims and even local authorities, not just in Paris but all over the country.
Authorities say that they've lost control of the situation. Muslim attacks on police and synagogues are now regular events.
Similar problems are cropping up in Germany. After an influx of Syrian and other Muslim immigrants, a recent poll found that 40% of Germans say they don't feel at home in their own country thanks to "Islamization."
America will no doubt suffer the same nightmares if its Muslim population is allowed to reach a critical mass.
At current immigration rates, and barring a much-needed moratorium, our Muslim population will more than double over the next 15 years, hitting about 6.2 million in 2030, according to a recent Pew Research Center study — "in large part because of immigration and higher-than-average fertility among Muslims."
Fifteen years from now, Pew found, America will "have a larger number of Muslims than any European country" except for France and Russia.
If you think this huge influx of foreign Muslims will assimilate and adopt Western values, you haven't been to Alexandria, Va., or Dearborn, Mich., or Minneapolis recently.
They resemble little Cairos, with their Arabic store signage, halal butchers, hookah bars and even blaring calls to prayer from mosque minarets. Such cultural diversity might be quaint if not for the fact these heavily Muslim immigrant enclaves are also breeding grounds for terrorism. More people from Dearborn are on the federal terrorist watch list than from any other American city except New York.
Recent terrorist attacks in Paris, Brussels and Copenhagen by Muslims operating with support from those cities' swelling Muslim immigrant communities are an ugly reminder that Muslim immigration doesn't bring the kind of diversity once cherished in the West. It leads to violence and Islamization.
All this raises serious national security concerns. But the White House is too busy defending Islam and portraying the Muslim community as victims of "discrimination" to consider them.
More from Paul Sperry at IBD
Perspective: No, Obama, Piety, Not Poverty, Drives Islamic Terrorists
• Sperry, formerly IBD Washington bureau chief, is author of "Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington."
February 25th, 2015
By JOE KOVACS
In what some are calling a “sickening” display of anti-Semitism, the student government at UCLA interrogated a young student about the fact she is Jewish, and nearly scrapped her acceptance to its group because of her religious heritage.
Student Rachel Beyda this month applied to be a member of the UCLA Judicial Board, and while members initially agreed she was qualified to hold a position, the meeting devolved into discussion of a potential “conflict of interest.”
The four students who opposed Beyda’s candidacy were Fabienne Roth, Manjot Singh, Negeen Sadeghi-Movahed and Sofia Moreno Haq.
Roth started the inquisition by asking whether Beyda could hold an “unbiased” view.
“Given that you are a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community,” Roth asked Beyda, “How do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?”
Beyda was asked to leave the room, and as she paced outside the door, a long, heated discussion took place.
“What followed was a disgusting 40 minutes of what can only be described as unequivocal anti-Semitism during which some of our council members resorted to some of the oldest accusations against Jews, including divided loyalties and dishonesty,” said Beyda’s roommate, Rachel Frenklak, who published an op-ed in the campus newspaper, the Daily Bruin.
“All council members swiftly agreed Rachel was amply qualified for the position, but half of the council had strong reservations stemming from Rachel’s Jewish identity.”
UCLA students interrogated Rachel Beyda for being Jewish.
During the discussion, Roth claimed: “My issue is, I’m going to be upfront about it, I think she’s pretty great. She’s smart, she like knows her stuff, she’s like probably going to be a really great lawyer. But I’m like not going to pretend this isn’t about conflict of interest. … It’s not her fault … but she’s part of a community that’s very invested in USAC (Undergraduate Students Association Council). … Even if she’s the right person for the job.”
Sadeghi-Movahed added, “I’m not 100 percent comfortable. I don’t know why. I’ll go through her application again. I’ve been going through it constantly, but I definitely can see that she’s qualified for sure.”
Frenklak explained, “The initial telling vote of 4-4-1 was dismissed when Cultural Affairs Commissioner Irmary Garcia said she was ‘not ready’ for the vote. A faculty member in attendance eventually stepped in to point out the problems with the council’s reasons for denying Rachel the position. And in the end, the council unanimously approved her appointment. However, Rachel’s justified appointment to the Judicial Board is not enough to right the wrongs.”
February 25th, 2015
photo from Coco Rodriguez
A pink cloud appeared in the night and early morning sky in parts of Arizona and as far as New Mexico had locals worried.
Photos were uploaded of the cloud on Twitter, but as it has been reported, people shouldn’t be afraid. According to ABC-15 in Phoenix, the cloud was likely caused by a nearby NASA rocket launch.
The rocket launch entailed sending a NASA instrument into space right outside the Earth’s atmosphere. NASA said the launch released a small amount of vapor about 100 miles above the surface of the Earth, ABC reported.
KGUN-9 reported that the rocket launch was carried out in New Mexico–not in Arizona. Cammy Montoya, the PIO for White Sands Missile Range, said that at 5:30 a.m., a Terrier Black Brant research rocket launch was carried out
“We were anticipating it,” Montoya told the broadcaster. “The research rocket when it’s launched releases a small quantity of vapor and when the sun starts to come up it reflects on crystallization in vapor reflects that colorful cloud. We don’t really have a name for it.”
TucsonNewsNow has more:
This may be considered a ‘noctilucent’ cloud. Although this one would be classified as artificial because it was created by a rocket launch, these types of clouds also appear in nature, often times closer to the poles. The clouds appear in the sky when ice crystals about 50 miles or higher in the atmosphere reflect the rays of the sun while the sun is still below the horizon for the location from which the cloud is seen.
NASA has, in the past, created artificial noctilucent clouds from a rocket launch to study how they form and move through the highest layers of Earth’s atmosphere. In this case, the creation of the possible noctilucent cloud was simply a by-product of the launch. Vapor from the rocket launch turned into ice crystals high in the atmosphere. Those ice crystals then reflected sunlight to create that bright pink color.
Here’s a NASA explanation as to how the cloud may have been made:
More from Epoch Times By Jack Phillips