Connecticut would become the first U.S. state to ban the sale of guns to people on government watch lists under an executive order that Governor Dannel Malloy, a Democrat, said on Thursday he will sign.
The measure, which Malloy said needs federal approval, would require state police to review whether a potential gun buyer was on the federal no-fly list or on a watchlist for people suspected of ties to terrorism.
See also: Gun rights groups plan fake mass shooting at major university
It would also revoke existing gun permits issued to people whose names were found on such a list.
The move follows a call by President Barack Obama for Congress to prohibit people on the no-fly list from purchasing firearms in the wake of the last week’s massacre in San Bernardino, California, of 14 people by a married couple inspired by Islamic State militants.
Source: Conn. to limit access to guns for people on watch lists: governor – AOL
Go back home and get in your rocking chair Harry Reid, you have no right to say you represent me and how I feel, nor any other true American!
CNSNews.com) – “Unless Republicans go along with Democrats, “the government shuts down at midnight this Friday,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said on Tuesday. “If we fail to meet that deadline, it will be another evidence of a Republican failure in leadership.”Reid said if Republican fail to pass an omnibus appropriations bill by midnight on Dec. 11 — a date they picked — it will be because they continue to attach their “ideological agenda” to the must-pass omnibus.
“No legislation will pass with these poison pill riders. We passed a bipartisan budget agreement, we did it through good-faith negotiations. It was meant to stop a government shutdown, and we need Republicans to work with us, to stop with their demands for provisions that won’t be signed into law.”
Source: Harry Reid: ‘We Need Republicans to Work With Us’ to Fund Democrat Priorities
None of the major shootings that have occurred in this country over the last few months or years that have outraged us, would gun laws have prevented them.”
— Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). interview on CBS’s “This Morning,” Dec. 4, 2015
A colleague pointed out this statement by Marco Rubio as a possible fact check, suggesting that it was almost certainly incorrect. It posed an interesting challenge, given the reams of data to examine.
The Fact Checker obviously takes no position on proposed gun-control laws. But given the attention of recent mass public shootings, is Rubio correct that none of the major shootings in recent years would have been prevented by new gun laws?
Rubio was not specific in his time frame — and a spokesman declined to elaborate — but for the purposes of this fact check we will go back as far as the Newtown shooting in 2012, which touched off the current gun debate.
First of all, we should note that there is an unbridgeable gap in opinion about efficacy of various gun proposals, particularly regarding assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
Source: Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws – The Washington Post
Vladimir Putin has praised the Russian cruise missiles fired against terrorists in Syria from the sea. He expressed hope that these weapons would not have to be armed with nuclear warheads.
Meeting in the Kremlin with Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu, who reported the latest results of the anti-Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) ops in Syria, the Russian president made a notable remark.
“We must analyze everything happening on the battlefield, how the weapons operate. The Kalibrs (sea based cruise missiles) and KH-101 (airborne cruise missile) have proved to be modern and highly effective, and now we know it for sure – precision weapons that can be equipped with both conventional and special warheads, which are nuclear,” Putin said.
“Naturally, this is not necessary when fighting terrorists and, I hope, will never be needed,” the president added.
Source: ‘Hopefully, no nukes will be needed’ against ISIS – Putin — RT News
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul unleashed on the White House Wednesday after press secretary Josh Earnest suggested Republican front-runner Donald Trump disqualified himself from the 2016 horse race for suggesting the U.S. should temporarily block Muslims from entry.
“What he said is disqualifying. And any Republican who’s too fearful of the Republican base to admit it has no business serving as president either,” Earnest told reporters during a press briefing Tuesday.
Paul, whose own amendment to halt visa issuance to individuals seeking to come to the U.S. from 32 Muslim-majority countries failed 10-89 to pass the Senate last Thursday, decided to respond to Earnest’s claim on Twitter with a tirade demonstrating why, he believes, President Obama is “unqualified” for the Oval Office.
Source: Rand Paul unleashes on the White House after it dubbed Trump ‘disqualified’ | Washington Examiner
A new Purple Strategies ‘Pulse Poll’ shows that almost two-thirds of likely Republican primary voters support Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump’s conditional call to ban Muslims from entering into America, and more than a third say his plan makes them more likely to vote for Trump.
The online survey, conducted for Bloomberg, found that 65 percent of likely GOP voters support Trump’s plan. When the poll participants were told both sides of the argument, support remained almost unchanged at 64 percent.
The poll also found that 37 percent likely 2016 voters said they’re more likely to vote for Trump because of his decision to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the country.
Doug Usher, who runs the group that conducted the poll concluded that the poll, “indicates that, despite some conventional wisdom expressed in the last 48 hours, this is unlikely to hurt Trump, at least in the primary campaign.”
Trump’s proposal comes in the aftermath of the Paris jihad attacks that left over 120 people dead and the San Bernardino, California jihad attack, which killed 14 Americans.
Source: Poll: 65 Percent Of GOP Likely Primary Voters Support Trump’s Plan To Block Islam
A hardened Al Qaeda fighter who served as Usama bin Laden’s jack-of-all-trades before spending a decade at Guantanamo Bay made a military prosecutor’s prophecy come true when he resurfaced on the field of battle in Yemen, where he is one of the terror group’s top leaders.
Ibrahim al-Qosi, a Sudanese native who once served as Usama bin Laden’s cook, chauffeur and bookkeeper, appears in the latest video released this week by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), some three years after he was released from the U.S. military facility. The 55-year-old Al-Qosi is one of the Al Qaeda chapter’s top men, according to the Foundation For Defense of Democracies’ Long War Journal blog.
“One of the main reasons the United States was willing to return him to Sudan was the U.S. confidence in the government of Sudan’s program and its confidence that Mr. al-Qosi would not represent any kind of threat to the United States,” his attorney, Paul Reichler, said in July, 2012, when Al-Qosi was freed. “If they had considered him a threat, they would not have released him.”
Source: Prophecy realized: Ex-Gitmo detainee, UBL aide resurfaces on battlefield in Yemen | Fox News
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A jury on Wednesday convicted a 20-year-old of beating two homeless Navajo men to death with cinder blocks and other objects as they slept, an attack that spurred officials in New Mexico’s largest city to establish a task force on Native American homelessness.
After a full day of deliberations, jurors found Alex Rios guilty of two counts of second-degree murder after hearing gruesome details about the attack on Allison Gorman, 44, and Kee Thompson, 46, in a vacant lot in Albuquerque in July 2014. Each count carries a potential 15-year sentence.
Rios and two teenagers were charged with using cinder blocks, a table leg and their fists and feet to kill the men. The slayings shocked the city and led to creation of the task force, but prosecutors did not say the victims were targeted because of their race.
Source: New Mexico man convicted of beating deaths of 2 homeless men – CBS News
While the Affordable Care Act has encouraged millions of Americans to sign up for health insurance, many have skipped out on enrolling. Next year, those people may get an unwelcome surprise.
The health law’s individual mandate includes a penalty for those who fail to sign up, and the average fine for remaining without coverage in 2016 will jump 47 percent to $969 per household, according to a new analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation. That marks a significant increase from 2014, or Obamacare’s first year, when individuals faced a penalty of just $95 per person, or 1 percent of their income, whichever was higher.
While the government hasn’t kept the penalties secret, many Americans may not fully grasp the escalating fines, given the law’s complexity. But plenty have already felt the penalty in its first year: 7.5 million taxpayers reported paying up in 2014 for lacking insurance, with an average fine of $200.
“Certainly, people should know about it. Whether they do know about it or not is another question,” said Larry Levitt, senior vice president for special initiatives at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “People have been confused about Obamacare from the start, not just the penalties but the help available to help pay their premiums.”
In 2016, the penalty will be either a flat dollar amount of $695 per adult as well as $347.50 per child, or 2.5 percent of family income, whichever is greater. The maximum flat-dollar amount will be $2,085 per family.
Source: No Obamacare? You may face a hefty fine – CBS News
As the Syrian endgame is approaching, it looks as if the US and its regional allies have launched a series of provocations in order to maintain control over the region, Tony Cartalucci notes.
Since 2011 Washington and its Middle Eastern allies have been clearly harboring a plan aimed at overthrowing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad seeking a Libya-style regime change in Damascus.
By 2011, however, certain preparations had been made, including transferring arms and terrorists from Benghazi and Eastern Europe to Turkey, where the would-be fighters were armed, trained and sent to commit “jihad” in Syria, Bangkok-based geopolitical analyst Tony Cartalucci narrates in his recent piece for New Eastern Outlook.
“When Russia entered the conflict, the calculus changed dramatically… Quickly the true source of ISIS’ [Daesh’s] fighting capacity — supply lines stretching out of NATO-member Turkey’s territory, long protected by NATO itself since the conflict began — came under threat. Russian warplanes are now flying sorties directly along the border, decimating ISIS-bound convoys long before delivering their supplies, weapons, and fresh fighters,” Cartalucci emphasizes.
The end is nigh and NATO countries are unwilling to ultimately lose initiative as well as their “assets” in Syria. Thus far, they have launched a series of provocations in order to disrupt the Russo-Syrian rapid advance, according to the geopolitical analyst.
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151208/1031432115/nato-members-rush-gain-ground-syria-provocation-washington.html#ixzz3tvInlVXm