What if it was Bush's drone policy?

After the hullabaloo over Abu Ghraib, they (MSM) would have nailed Bush to the cross yet looked the other way ( protecting their boy) when it came to  Benghazi. 

IMAGINE IF BUSH HAD A "KILL LIST"!!!

Liberal dogs like Kucinch wanted Bush impeached over waterboarding and the Patriot Act . They would have gone bonkers (supported by the press I might add) if W used drones to kill Americans. However, I would have supported him in this endeavor knowing any American who perpetrates crimes against the United States, in my mind, is no longer an American. Barry and I agree on nothing. But this case is the exception. If Barry has irrefutable, undeniable, information leading to a terrorist on foreign soil, particularly if that someone is an American, for they are the most vile and despicable of all, blow them to hell.

What I don't like... crying about Gitmo promising to close it down calling waterboarding torture (no one died and the reason he got Bin Laden) then to turn around and kill terrorist's with drones is nothing more then sanctimonious bullshit.

The leak of a document on the Obama administration's drone strike policy has some people in Washington playing the "what-if" game.

What if President George W. Bush's administration had written a such a document on the legality of drone attacks, even on U.S. citizens working with alleged terrorists overseas?

Former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer tweeted: "Good thing (Department of Justice) drone memo didn't come out in 2008. Candidate Obama would never have put up with stuff like that going on."

Joe Scarborough, the former Republican congressman who hosts MSNBC's Morning Joe, said that if this was the Bush administration, there would be "congressional hearings" and "articles of impeachment."

Candidate Obama and Democrats did indeed criticize Bush-era counter-terrorism policies, such as warrant-less wiretaps and enhanced interrogation techniques (water boarding).

Aides to President Obama said he is continuing the war on terrorism, authorized by Congress shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Obama "takes the absolute necessity to conduct our war against al Qaeda and its affiliates in a way that's consistent with the Constitution and our laws very seriously," said White House press secretary Jay Carney.

The spokesman added that "it is a matter of fact that al Qaeda is in a state of war against us and that senior leaders, operational leaders of al Qaeda are continually plotting to attack the United States, plotting to kill American citizens as they did most horrifically on September 11, 2001."

The debate over Obama's drone strike policy may not end soon, as noted by the Associated Press:

"Uncomfortable with the Obama administration's use of deadly drones, a growing number in Congress is looking to limit America's authority to kill suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens. The Democratic-led outcry was emboldened by the revelation in a newly surfaced Justice Department memo that shows drones can strike against a wider range of threats, with less evidence, than previously believed.

"The drone program, which has been used from Pakistan across the Middle East and into North Africa to find and kill an unknown number of suspected terrorists, is expected to be a top topic of debate when the Senate Intelligence Committee grills John Brennan, the White House's pick for CIA chief, at a hearing Thursday."

What if it was Bush's drone policy?

It’s Official: Feds Sue Famed Ratings Agency S&P

This is nothing more then payback over the S&P downgrade and a warning shot over the bow of Moody's or whomever else should get in Barry's way. It also serves as a distraction along the lines of gun control and immigration reform (aka amnesty) to divert attention away from the real issues of near 8% unemployment and over $16.5 trillion in debt.

25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis

(And from all places... Time Magazine)

WASHINGTON (TheBlaze/AP) — The U.S. government is accusing the debt rating agency Standard &aPoor's of fraud for giving high ratings to risky mortgage bonds that helped bring about the financial crisis.

The government filed a civil complaint late Monday against S&P, the first enforcement action the government has taken against a major rating agency related to the financial crisis.

S&P, a unit of New York-based McGraw-Hill Cos., has denied wrongdoing. It says the government also failed to predict the subprime mortgage crisis.

Indeed, you may recall that certain members of Congress repeatedly assured the American people that there was no "housing bubble":

Nevertheless, the government's lawsuit paints a picture of a company that misled investors knowingly, more concerned about making money than about accurate ratings. It says S&P delayed updating its ratings models, rushed through the ratings process and was fully aware that the subprime market was flailing even as it gave high marks to investments made of subprime mortgages.

The government's lawsuit says that "S&P's desire for increased revenue and market share … led S&P to downplay and disregard the true extent of the credit risks" posed by the investments it was rating.

For example, S&P typically charged $150,000 for rating a subprime mortgage-backed security, and $750,000 for certain types of other securities. If S&P lost the business – for example, if the firm that planned to sell the security decided it could get a better rating from Fitch or Moody's – then an S&P analyst would have to submit a "lost deal" memo explaining why he or she lost the business.

That created sloppy ratings, the government said.

"Most rating committees took less than 15 minutes to complete," the government said in its lawsuit, describing the process where an S&P analyst would present a rating for review. "Numerous rating committees were conducted simultaneously in the same conference room."

According to the lawsuit, S&P was constantly trying to keep the financial firms — its clients — happy.

Here's a point-by-point breakdown of the fed's arguments against S&P's business practices:

A 2007 PowerPoint presentation on its ratings model said that being "business friendly" was a central component, according to the government. 

In a 2004 document, executives said they would poll investors as part of the process for choosing a rating.

A 2004 memo said that "concerns with the objectivity, integrity, or validity" of ratings criteria should be communicated in person rather than through email. 

Also that year, an analyst complained that S&P had lost a deal because its criteria for a rating was stricter than Moody's. "We need to address this now in preparation for the future deals," the analyst wrote. 

By 2006, S&P was well aware that the subprime mortgage market was collapsing, the government said, even though S&P didn't issue a mass downgrade of subprime-backed securities until 2007. One document describing the performance of the subprime loans backing some investments "was so bad that analysts initially thought the data contained typographical errors," the government lawsuit said. 

Another analyst wrote in a 2007 email, referring to ratings for mortgage-backed investments: "The fact is, there was a lot of internal pressure in S&P to downgrade lots of deals earlier on before this thing started blowing up. But the leadership was concerned of pissing off too many clients and jumping the gun ahead of Fitch and Moody's." 

The government filed its lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. The government charged S&P under the The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, a law supposedly aimed at making sure banks invest safely, and said that S&P's alleged fraud made it possible to sell the investments to banks.

Wait, S&P is being charged under Dodd-Frank? As in former Congressman Barney "There is no housing bubble" Frank?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HhOh5lTahI

Eggs laid by Democrats didn't hatch until the Bush administration.

(If video wont load click post title)

Video 9

If S&P is eventually found to have committed civil violations, it could face fines and limits on how it does business. The government said in its filing that it's seeking financial penalties.

The action does not involve any criminal allegations. 

Final Thought: Oddly enough, absent from most reports on the feds suing S&P is any mention of the fact that of the top three major credit ratings agencies, S&P was the only one willing to downgrade the U.S.' credit rating.

Indeed, as noted yesterday by the Wall Street Journal, it is a little curious that the feds have brought charges against S&P and S&P only:

Many details of the looming enforcement action couldn't be immediately determined, such as why prosecutors are zeroing in on S&P rather than rivals Moody's Corp. and Fitch Ratings …

All three credit-rating firms have faced intense criticism from lawmakers for giving allegedly overly rosy ratings to thousands of subprime-mortgage bonds before the housing market collapsed.

And although we now have a clearer picture of the fed's case against S&P, it still doesn't explain why other ratings agencies — wh0 made similar deals — have been spared litigation. Do you suspect the firm's decision to downgrade the U.S.' "AAA" credit rating on August 5, 2011, played a role in the charges being brought against them?

It’s Official: Feds Sue Famed Ratings Agency S&P

Are ObamaLeaks an impeachable offense

Prelude to the story:

Personally, I think Axlerod is involved in this up to his eyeballs! This was just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to WH leaks. As much as I would love to see this occur (impeachment) the chances of this happening are slim and none. You could take the cast of Watergate move them to 2013, under a similar premise, swap out Nixon insert Obama and a resignation would have never taken place. Whomever controls the media controls the mind of America.

Remember when Feinstein feigned outrage and said, "I'm going to get to the bottom of this?" Well... to be fair she did hit a new low.

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/239783-feinstein-backtracks-on-statement-that-white-house-leaked-secrets

Thank God we had Holder investigate. 

Anyone ever hear what the results were?

Story by

Marc A. Thiessen

Imagine if The Post broke a story about the biggest scandal of the Obama-era — and Washington responded with a collective yawn? 

That's precisely what happened recently when The Post reported on its front page that senior Obama administration officials were being investigated by the FBI and Justice Department for the leak last summer that the president had personally ordered cyberattacks on the Iranian nuclear program using a computer virus developed with Israel called Stuxnet. 

The Post quotes a source who says that FBI agents and prosecutors are pursuing "everybody — at pretty high levels." The paper further reports that investigators "have conducted extensive analysis of the e-mail accounts and phone records of current and former government officials" and that some have been confronted "with evidence of contact with journalists."

This is big. And former senior government lawyers I spoke with recently explained why it could get a whole lot bigger:

The leaks clearly came from someone in the president's inner circle. As The Post explains, "Knowledge of the virus was likely to have been highly compartmentalized and limited to a small set of Americans and Israelis." Moreover, whoever leaked the information was present when the president discussed this covert action program in the Situation Room. There is a tiny universe of individuals who could have shared the details of President Obama's personal deliberations on the covert program with the press.

This means there are essentially two possibilities for how the information got out.

Possibility No. 1: A senior administration or White House official disclosed the information to the press without the president's personal approval.

That would be a potential crime and certainly a violation of the official's oath of office — and in the case of a White House official, a violation of their contractual commitment to the Executive Office of the President. As one former senior Justice Department official told me, "It would be grounds for firing and likely prosecution, and it would definitely call into question the competency and security of the president's supervision of his White House staff." 

Possibility No. 2: The president personally authorized a senior official to disclose classified and sensitive national security information regarding ongoing intelligence or counterterrorism operations. 

This is potentially an even bigger scandal. Since the president has ultimate declassification authority, this would mean no crime was likely committed. But it is hard to imagine a credible argument that such a disclosure was made to advance the national security interests of the United States. 

Quite the opposite, the Stuxnet leak was incredibly damaging. It exposed intelligence sources and methods, including the top secret codename for the program ("Olympic Games"). And it exposed the involvement of a U.S. ally, Israel. At one point in the New York Times story, a source says the Israelis were responsible for an error in the code who allowed it to replicate itself all around the world. The Times directly quotes one of the president's briefers telling him "We think there was a modification done by the Israelis," adding that "Mr. Obama, according to officials in the room, asked a series of questions, fearful that the code could do damage outside the plant. The answers came back in hedged terms. Mr. Biden fumed. 'It's got to be the Israelis,' he said. 'They went too far'" (emphasis added).

So a person who was "in the room" when the president and vice president were briefed publicly confirmed Israeli involvement in a covert action against Iran. The damage this did — both to the operation and the trust between our two countries — is incalculable. 

There are no credible national security grounds for such a disclosure. The only person whose interests could possibly be served by such a disclosure was Obama. The leak appeared six months before the president stood for reelection and was clearly intended to make Obama appear strong on foreign policy and counterterrorism. (One anonymous senior official is quoted by the Times as saying "From his first days in office, he was deep into every step in slowing the Iranian program — the diplomacy, the sanctions, every major decision.") 

If the president authorized the disclosure of national security secrets that exposed a covert action and undermined a U.S. ally in an effort to gain a political advantage in his reelection campaign, that would be a scandal of gigantic proportions. As one former top Justice Department official told me "if done for political gain, rather than for a bona fide purpose advancing the public interests of the United States, it could be grounds for impeachment." 

In other words, at best ObamaLeaks may be a crime; at worst, they could be an impeachable offense. So the question is: What are those senior Obama administration officials telling investigators when confronted "with evidence of contact with journalists"? Were the leaks unauthorized? Or are they defending their disclosures by invoking the President's personal authority to declassify national security information without formal process? 

If the former, then we could see senior Obama administration officials put on trial. If the latter, then it is the president who should be on trial — in the chamber of the United States Senate.

Are ObamaLeaks an impeachable offense

Updated Proverb

On a tip from my brother Gary.

Old Proverb: 

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime. 

2012 Updated Revision: 

Give a man a welfare check, a free cell phone with unlimited minutes, free internet, cash for clunkers, food stamps, section 8 housing, free contraceptives, Medicaid, ninety-nine weeks of unemployment, free medicine, and he will vote Democratic the rest of his life; even after he's dead. 

Threw this in for good measure. You won't here much about this from the MSM. Barry's latest push is Immigration Reform... a politically correct way of saying amnesty. He can't even reform his own family. 

Coincidence.

Barry's aunt living in the US illegally and on welfare and Section 8 was granted legal citizenship in 2010 after being denied asylum in 2004.

His uncle is also here living off the "fat of the land". Last time I heard about him he hit a cop car and was arrested for DWI.

They came here illegally, we pay them to do it, and soon they'll all be granted amnesty.

Is it any wonder why illegals come here!

Updated Proverb

Only a Democrat could have thought of this!

As if we are not taxed enough this liberal chowderhead in Minnesota is trying to impose a "snowbird tax" on its residents!  

 Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton (D)

(This should be taking place in short order) 

Then again Minnesota is the fine state that sent Stuart Smalley to the Senate.

The one tract mind definition:

 A focus on one issue or topic, to the exclusion of all else; an obsession with one thing.

As in increasing taxes. Cutting spending never enters their mind because increasing taxes is the only solution to any difficulty. What did you expect? Most states with a Democratic governor are in the red. This is the reason they are known as the tax and spend party.

A new low even for them.

☟

Florida Rep. Radel rips Minnesota governor's 'snowbird' tax plan, welcomes refugees

A Florida Republican congressman is welcoming to his home state Minnesota residents who migrate south to escape the Midwest's notoriously cold, harsh winters -- now that their governor is trying to impose a so-called "snowbird tax" on them.

"Dear Governor Mark Dayton," Rep. Trey Radel wrote Friday. "I'm writing today to thank you. As a Floridian, I am overjoyed to hear about your plan to raise taxes on Minnesotans, most especially the so-called 'snowbirds.' Your proposal gives us a chance to shine here in the Sunshine State."

Dayton, a Democrat, proposed the idea last week when announcing key parts of his proposed $37.9 billion budget. He made a similar proposal last year that was defeated by the then-Republican-controlled legislature.

The plan would purportedly raise no more than $30 million over two years from all Minnesota residents who live 60 days to just under six months in Minnesota by taxing their capital gains and dividends as well as income from stocks and bonds.

However, the prorated income tax would largely hit older residents and retirees, known as "snowbirds" because they leave northern states to establish residency in such warmer places as Arizona and Florida.

Dalton said it's unfair that somebody can live six months and a day outside of Minnesota and pay no state personal income taxes, then come back and take advantage of "all the state has to offer for five months and 29 days."

"There is a snowbird tax -- absolutely," he told reporters.

The purportedly first-of-its-kind tax would be difficult to enforce and is already facing opposing from state Republicans.

"I don't even think that's constitutional," Senate Minority Leader David Hann told the MinnPost.com. "I don't even know how you'd do that. (And) as far as I can see, there's not a lot of money attached to it."

Radel, argues in the letter, which appear written with pointed sarcasm to skewer higher taxes, that southwest Florida would welcome more entrepreneurs and philanthropists investing in the region. And he cited such incentives as no income taxes, investment incentives for big and small businesses and "great" public, charter and private schools.

"It's my sincere hope your plan has just driven many Minnesotans to become year-round residents of our great state," he wrote. "I thank you for your policy. It draws the contrast of what is happening not only in United States today, but the world."

Only a Democrat could have thought of this!

The problems bestowed upon us started the day Barry took office

I just watched this dork on FOX.

The new unemployment numbers just came out at 7.9% along with negative growth GDP this last quarter. Incredibly Barry's puppet wrote it off again using their go to line "The problems we inherited." Here we have a president entering his 5th year in office still blaming his predecessor! This same president promised unemployment would be at 5% by the end of his first term. The fact is it has virtually remained unchanged since the day he took office.

Remember this:

"If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition."

In this quote, from a February 2009 interview on NBC's "Today" show. Barry was referring to the pace of economic recovery. He spent $787 billion on the stimulus package but the words haunt him because they were a reminder of how profoundly he and his economic team botched the crisis. Christina Romer, then the West Wing's economist, forecast in January 2009 that the unemployment rate would be around 5.5 percent by the third quarter of 2012 if a large stimulus package passed. It did and nothing changed; we have been around 8% unemployment since he came to the throne.

The panel had a good laugh following his cavalier answer to the question after pissing away $787 billion of our money. 

(If video wont load click post title)

Video 6

Here's an example of why he seldom holds a press conference and perfers "softball shows" like The View.

(If video wont load click post title)

Video 7

The problems bestowed upon us started the day Barry took office

The Walls Are Starting To Crumble

Story by The Daily Caller

A check that Democratic New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez wrote to his longtime campaign donor Dr. Salomon Melgen on Jan. 4 to cover private jet travel to the Dominican Republic represented more than one-third of his cash-on-hand — and perhaps as much as 90 percent — according to an analysis of his most recent U.S. Senate financial disclosure report.

Dan O'Brien, Menendez's chief of staff, told WNBC-TV4 in New York on Tuesday that the senator reimbursed Melgen $58,500 for two trips they took together to the island nation in 2010.

(RELATED: Menendez admits frequent Dominican travel, reimburses FBI-raided donor)

Menendez signed a disclosure statement on May 9, 2012 indicating that he had between $66,003 and $165,000 in three different bank and credit union accounts. His only other asset is a rental property worth between $250,001 and $500,000.

Financial disclosure forms filed by members of the House and Senate typically describe asset values in ranges, not precise numbers.

Menendez earns a $174,000 annual salary as a U.S. senator. Factoring in federal and New Jersey state income taxes, plus Social Security and Medicare withholding, the $58,500 check represents more than 51 percent of his expected take-home pay of about $113,000 during 2013.

His sudden reimbursement of Melgen came more than two years after the travel in question, and barely two months after The Daily Caller first reported the allegations of two prostitutes who said they were paid to have sex with him in the Dominican Republic.

(RELATED VIDEO: Dominican women say Menendez paid them for sex)

Menendez has forcefully denied the prostitution-related allegations, which have expanded to include the accusation that he had sex with at least one underage girl at a sex party in one of Melgen's Dominican homes.

The senator's willingness to part with such a large amount of his personal funds also underscores the seriousness of charges he might otherwise have faced from the Senate Ethics committee.

Ethics rules require some combination of advance permission and after-the-fact reporting whenever senators accept significant job-related perks or gifts from friends, including free travel. But since Menendez elected to pay for the trips himself, he's not obligated to report the transactions officially, and any investigative trail into other similar trips will likely run cold.

Meanwhile, federal investigators raided Melgen's flagship eye clinic in south Florida Tuesday night in an operation that an FBI source told TheDC was related to Menendez in some way. (RELATED: Dominican prostitute wrote that Menendez "likes the youngest and newest girls")

Melgen also owes the federal government more than $11 million in back taxes, and the Miami Herald has reported that he may be under investigation for Medicare fraud.



If I remember rightly Charlie Rangel was also quite enthralled with the Dominican Republic.

I wonder what he was up to?

The Walls Are Starting To Crumble

Dog sentenced to death in Tennessee because he is 'gay'

Update:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2271192/Dog-sentenced-death-gay-saved-minute--new-owner-calls-Elton.html

This is a true story. 

I saw this same dog on MSNBC at the Chick-fil-a LGBT boycott.

A dog is set to be put to death in Tennessee today after his owner abandoned him because he thought he was gay. 

The pitbull-type hound is currently languishing in an overcrowded animal shelter in Jackson but is due to be put this afternoon down unless a new owner can be found at the last minute.

According to the owner of the shelter, the dog's master noticed him 'hunched over' another male dog, which led him to assume he was gay.

Rump-Rider today after contracting HIV.

Death row: The dog is pictured in his pen at an animal shelter where he will be put down unless a new owner comes forward.

The dog's fate has sparked appeal among animal lovers to find a new owner before it's too late. Frantic calls have been placed to Elton John, Barney Fwaank and Perez Hilton but so far have not been returned.

Dog sentenced to death in Tennessee because he is 'gay'

NRA vs. Giffords' husband at Senate gun control hearing - CBS News

Prelude to the story below. Particularly the section highlighted. 

Contrary to public perception the article below is a lie albeit no consolation to the victims families. The Newtown shooter never took the assault rifle from the back seat of the car. Yet the Gestapo (aka MSM) has ginned this up and has most Americans believing in this bullshit. They know they're not going to win support banning handguns but they need their pound of flesh so go after the assault rifle. The only thing being assaulted here is the Constitution. I can only marvel how liberals can express this much focus and tenacity on assault rifles but offer nothing when it comes to cutting spending and reducing the deficit.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-admits-no-assault-rifle-used-in-newtown-shooting/

There is a lot of BS on the internet. While it is true guns in general lead the category for murders please read the actual FBI crime statistics for yourself. You are 7  1/2 times more likely to be killed with a knife, a hammer, or someone's fists then a rifle. BTW...This is simple math. Man is resourceful. If you were able to ban all guns the other categories by which people are murdered will simply rise.  

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

☟

NRA vs. Giffords' husband at Senate gun control hearing

Today, the debate over gun control gets its first congressional hearing since President Obama proposed sweeping reforms to help tackle escalating gun violence in the United States. 

National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre and Mark Kelly, the husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who survived a shot to the head two years ago during an assassination attempt that left six people dead, are among those slated to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. One congressional source tells CBS News that Giffords herself is expected to attend the hearing; she is expected to accompany her husband but is not scheduled to testify.

Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., "wants to move legislation, and he wants to do it quickly," his spokeswoman Jessica Brady told CBSNews.com. Today's hearing will offer a platform for a "respectful and productive conversation" about "where there is potential for success in passing legislation this year."

Momentum for stricter gun laws has been building since a gunman last month used an AR-15 semi-automatic "assault" rifle and multiple high-ammunition caps to kill 20 children and six adults at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school. 

But in prepared testimony released Tuesday by the NRA, LaPierre made the case that efforts should be focused strengthening school security and mental health resources, and predicted Mr. Obama's proposals to introduce a universal background check and reinstate the assault weapons ban "will fail."

"Law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violent or deranged criminals, nor do we believe the government should dictate what we can lawfully own and use to protect our families," LaPierre will say. "We need to be honest about what works and what does not work. Proposals that would only serve to burden the law-abiding have failed in the past and will fail in the future."

The committee's top Republican, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, too, will be looking at what witnesses "say about other issues besides guns," his spokeswoman Beth Levine told CBSNews.com. "Mental health issues, video games, those types of things - what they have to say about how they fit into the equation."

Meantime, Brady, Leahy's spokeswoman, said Leahy is "looking forward" to seeing what LaPierre's testimony yields.

"We're talking about the person who is the head of the most powerful gun lobby," Brady said. "They're going to have something to say about it, and they wield a lot of influence, as people have pointed out. To have him come and see what he says - we think that's valuable."

The NRA sent an "urgent" email to its members Tuesday, calling on them to attend the hearing, the Los Angeles Times reports. "You can bet the anti-gunners will be trying to mobilize their supporters to pack the hearing room," the email read, "so we need to make sure the room is filled with supporters of the Second Amendment!" 

Kelly also sent an email Tuesday, to members of Americans for Responsible Solutions, the independent group he founded with Giffords to push for tighter gun laws. He said he will use his testimony today to advocate for universal background checks and a ban on high-capacity magazines, and asked supporters to sign an online petition urging Congress to take up the measures.

Other witnesses at the hearing will be James Johnson, chief of police for Baltimore County, Md., and chairman of the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence; Nicholas Johnson, a law professor at Fordham University School of Law, and Gayle Trotter, an attorney and senior fellow of the Independent Women's Forum.

Brady said Leahy "very much wanted to make sure we had a law enforcement representative on the panel," and pointed out that Johnson headed the partnership against gun violence even before Newtown. Levine said the GOP, meanwhile, "called constitutional scholars as their witnesses," and thus will approach revelations from the hearing "from a constitutional standpoint."

Worried that the witnesses "are skewed to the anti-gun, anti-assault weapons position," though, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a member of the committee who last week introduced the 2013 Assault Weapons Ban, told Politico on Tuesday she will be holding her own, separate hearing at a later date. She said Leahy "agreed that I would be able to do my own hearing on the assault weapons legislation, which I will proceed to do." 

Feinstein's bill, which contains much of the same language as Mr. Obama's proposals, faces long odds, particularly in the Republican-controlled House. But Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., in an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel published Tuesday, suggested at least some Republicans may be amenable to changes in the current gun laws. While remaining steadfastly opposed to an assault weapons ban, Ryan argued it would be "very reasonable" to address the loophole that allows people to buy weapons at gun shows without a background check.

NRA vs. Giffords' husband at Senate gun control hearing - CBS News

12 REASONS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT

1. I voted Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my German Shepherd. 

2. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the Government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't. 

3. I voted Democrat because I believe the Government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would. 

4. I voted Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

5. I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

6. I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in 10 years if I don't start driving a Chevy Volt. 

7. I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

8. I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education and Social Security benefits, and we should take away the Social Security from those who paid into it.

 9. I voted Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.

10. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal Judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

11. I voted Democrat because I think that it's better to pay billions for oil to people who hate us but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, lizard, gopher or fish.

12. I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my ass, it's unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.

12 REASONS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT