the latest


8.28.2014 4:00 AM

C2 Daily Grind


Posted by JCM | Permalink | comments (42)





Posted by Kosh'sShadow | Permalink | comments (69)




8.27.2014 4:00 AM

C2 Daily Grind


Posted by JCM | Permalink | comments (123)




8.26.2014 9:00 PM

The Official C2 Late Night Chill Thread

H/T Pi Guy


Posted by Kosh'sShadow | Permalink | comments (58)




8.26.2014 4:00 AM

C2 Daily Grind


Posted by JCM | Permalink | comments (248)




8.25.2014 9:00 PM

The Official C2 Late Night Chill Thread



Posted by Kosh'sShadow | Permalink | comments (89)




8.25.2014 4:00 AM

C2 Monday Morning News


Posted by JCM | Permalink | comments (173)





Posted by Kosh'sShadow | Permalink | comments (78)




8.24.2014 4:00 AM

C2 Above the Fold


In Washington, Second Thoughts on Arming Police

WASHINGTON — Jolted by images of protesters clashing with heavily armed police officers in Missouri, President Obama has ordered a comprehensive review of the government’s decade-old strategy of outfitting local police departments with military-grade body armor, mine-resistant trucks, silencers and automatic rifles, senior officials say.

The White House-led review will consider whether the government should continue providing such equipment and, if so, whether local authorities have sufficient training to use it appropriately, said senior administration and law enforcement officials. The government will also consider whether it is keeping a close enough watch on equipment inventories, and how the weapons and other gear are used.

America got a glimpse of that gear over the past two weeks in Ferguson, Mo., as police officers in full body armor rode military-style vehicles, firing tear gas and pointing assault rifles at protesters. Like departments nationwide, the police in the St. Louis area have been outfitted by federal grants and military surplus.

“The whole country and every representative and senator have seen the visuals, and at some level, it made all of us uncomfortable,” said Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee who will lead a hearing in September into police use of military-style equipment. “It’s a moment where we can take a timeout and look at these policies.”


There is a need for well armed SWAT teams, and equipment to deal with riots. Not every local agency needs the equipment or training.

It should be based on the real need, and occurance of incidents. Most areas a regional, local multi-agency SWAT will do, as well as riot control options.

The real concern to me is the militarization of a multitude of Federal Agencies with heavily armed and militarized SWAT.

There is no reason for Dept. of Ed, Dept of Ag, or EPA to have a SWAT team, or even armed agents.

There are legitimate armed Federal agencies. If another agency needs an armed response they should work with local or the legitmate armed Federal Agency.

The weaponized bureaucracy brings us too close to the meaning of the standing army our Founders and Framers feared.

Administrative Amnesty: Unjust, Costly, and an Incentive for More Illegal Immigration

Abstract Leaders in Congress have called for greater enforcement of U.S. immigration law, while President Barack Obama continues to call for legalization of millions of illegal immigrants. Deportations, particularly interior enforcement, have decreased dramatically under President Obama, who has made clear his support for granting legal status to those who are in the country unlawfully. Recent press reports indicate that the President is inclined to issue a memo like the Department of Homeland Security’s June 15, 2012, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) memo for a large subset of the illegal immigrant population, perhaps up to 5 million. That would be a mistake for three primary reasons: It is unjust, it is costly, and it will not work to stop illegal immigration. President Barack Obama is considering using prosecutorial discretion to effectively legalize millions of illegal immigrants. Doing so would be unjust and costly and would encourage more illegal immigration.[1] Congress should discourage the Administration from considering this divisive and unproductive step, which would only make it more difficult to implement suitable, feasible, and just immigration reforms and more robust and effective border security.

White House issues new fix for contraceptive coverage

The Obama administration has issued a new set of rules to provide contraceptive access to women whose employers object to their insurance plans covering birth control, which is required under the Affordable Care Act.

The new policies are intended to fill gaps left by two Supreme Court moves: The landmark Hobby Lobby decision saying contraceptive coverage violated the religious liberty of a for-profit corporation, and a preliminary order in Wheaton College v. Burwell. With today’s regulations, employees of for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby will be able to access an “accommodation” where the insurer directly provides the cost-free coverage with no financial involvement by the employer. That accommodation was originally limited to religiously-affiliated nonprofits like Little Sisters of the Poor; houses of worship are fully exempt.

For nonprofits like Wheaton College that object to even that accommodation – which involves them signing a form to their insurer – the Obama administration has created a new accommodation to the accommodation. (Yes, it gets complicated.)

“The rules, which are in response to recent court decisions, balance our commitment to helping ensure women have continued access to coverage for preventive services important to their health, with the Administration’s goal of respecting religious beliefs,” Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell said.

For the non-profits that object to the form – arguing that signing it triggers the very birth control coverage they oppose – the new rule allows those employers to write to HHS directly, instead of filling out the form. The Supreme Court first suggested the letter-writing option, and so far the litigants have accepted it. But there was some dispute among legal scholars before about whether the letter would result in actual coverage for the women who worked at those companies. The new rule clarifies that it does.

Kevin McCarthy, the House of Representatives majority leader, on California and the nation



Posted by Kosh'sShadow | Permalink | comments (51)




First Previous Next Last