House Democrats are set to introduce a bill which would crack down on online ammo purchases. Under this proposal a person could still buy ammunition online but before the ammunition is shipped to the purchaser that person would have to go to a gun shop and present a photo ID proving he or she is who they claim to be. Once this is done the ammunition will be shipped.
Here is more:
House Democrats are pushing legislation requiring face-to-face ammunition sales.
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.) has introduced the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2015. The bill unveiled Tuesday would require federally licensed ammunitions dealers to confirm the identity of individuals who arrange to purchase ammunition over the Internet by verifying a photo ID in-person.
“Far too many times, we have seen the shocking images of unspeakable gun violence that could have been prevented,” Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), one of the bill’s original cosponsors, said in a joint statement. “Our bill to limit the online sale of ammunition is a long-overdue common sense reform that I am hopeful will spark Congress to put aside party difference and come together to help prevent such senseless tragedies.”
The bill would stop short of imposing an outright ban on online ammunition sales, said Courtney Cochran, Watson Coleman’s communications director.Cochran said buyers would still be able to complete an Internet sale, but would need to present a photo I.D. in-person at an authorized dealer before the shipment can be made.
Last week we covered 11 stories, did you miss any of them? If so there is an easy way to make sure it does not happen again. I understand that all of you are busy and cannot always find the time to check the blog for updates so why not subscribe to America’s Watchtower and receive email updates whenever I write a new post? That is the easiest way to follow the blog to ensure you never miss another post.
In addition to subscribing you can also follow America’s Watchtower on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the links on the right. But you will get more than that for I often post links to articles I probably will not be writing about so it is a great way to keep up with what is happening.
The Twitter widget in the sidebar is fully interactive. This widget updates my tweets in real time and allows you to respond to or retweet my tweets right from the blog. It also allows you to tweet me right from America’s Watchtower. How cool is that! If you do not have a Twitter account what better reason do you need to sign up for one!
Well, I have gone back and forth over the last couple of days trying to determine which band was going to be number 5 on my countdown and which one would come in at number 4 but I have made my decision. Coming in at number 5 is Joy Division.
There is precious little live video of the band because their career was tragically cut short after only two albums with the suicide of lead singer Ian Curtis. (Tomorrow will actually be the 35th anniversary of his death.) The remaining members of the band eventually rose up and became New Order, a band which pioneered the electronic movement in the 1980’s.
Up first is “Digital” recorded live in January of 1980:
Next up is “She’s Lost Control:”
And here is my favorite Joy Division song–the haunting yet morbidly beautiful “The Eternal:”
As I wrote above, tomorrow will mark the 35th anniversary of the death of Ian Curtis so here is a video entitled The Tragedy of Ian Curtis which includes interviews with his bandmates. (There is some colorful language so be forewarned.)
George Stephanopoulos has rightfully come under fire recently for not disclosing $75,000 in donations to the Clinton Foundation over the years but it turns out, according to this story, that he is not alone when it comes to media donations to the Clinton Foundation and in fact he may be just a small player in this game.
Here is more:
NBC Universal, News Corporation, Turner Broadcasting and Thomson Reuters are among more than a dozen media organizations that have made charitable contributions to the Clinton Foundation in recent years, the foundation’s records show.
The donations, which range from the low-thousands to the millions, provide a picture of the media industry’s ties to the Clinton Foundation
The list also includes mass media groups like Comcast, Time Warner and Viacom, as well a few notable individuals, including Carlos Slim, the Mexican telecom magnate and largest shareholder of The New York Times Company, and James Murdoch, the chief operating officer of 21st Century Fox. Both Slim and Murdoch have given between $1 million to $5 million, respectively.
Here is a list, also taken from the article, which shows those entities and individuals in the media which have also donated at least $10,000 to the Clinton Foundation:
Back in October of last year America’s Watchtower reported on the story that the IRS was in the process of seizing the bank accounts of some small business owners even though they were never charged with committing any crime. The IRS began targeting small business owners who made multiple deposits of under $10,000 each and the agency justified it by using a law which prohibits “structured” deposits. This law was supposed to be used to thwart drug dealers and gun traffickers but these were legitimate businesses. A clear abuse of power in my opinion.
Here is one example:
For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away — until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her checking account, almost $33,000.
The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes — in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report.
And here is another:
George Stephanopoulos recuses himself from GOP debate after donating $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation
Roughly four years after the debate in which George Stephanopoulos ambushed Mitt Romney with a question on birth control thereby setting the so-called Republican war on women in motion (something many of us believe was a consorted effort between Mr. Stephanopoulos and the Democratic Party) he has been forced to recuse himself from a GOP primary debate next February after it was learned he donated $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
Here is more:
George Stephanopoulos says he should not have donated money to the Clinton Foundation and that he will not moderate the ABC News-sponsored Republican primary debate in February after failing to disclose those contributions.
In an interview with the On Media blog on Thursday, Stephanopoulos said that while he made the donations “for the best reasons,” he now realizes he should not have given.
“In retrospect, I probably shouldn’t have, even though I did it for the best reasons,” he said.
Stephanopoulos also said that he has given a total of $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation. That figure represents charitable contributions of $25,000 in 2012, 2013 and 2014, respectively. ABC News initially said that Stephanopoulos had given a total of $50,000 to the foundation.
That means the same year he blindsided Mitt Romney he also just happened to donate $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation, which confirms to me what many of us have all believed–he was a biased “reporter” with an obvious agenda and not the straight media reporter he is purported to be.
Not that this is news to many of us but at least now he can no longer hide in the shadows. His chickens might be coming home to roost…
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
I have written a little bit about the war of words between Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren over the TPP and the TPA the last several days but today there was an interesting little twist when Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown implied there might be a little sexism behind the President’s attack on the Massachusetts Senator.
Here is more:
Democratic senator Sherrod Brown is subtly accusing President Barack Obama of sexism in his attacks on Senator Elizabeth Warren, also a Democrat.
“I think the president was disrespectful to her by the way he did that…made this more personal,” Brown told reporters.
“I think referring to her as her first name, when he might not have done that for a male senator, perhaps–I’ve said enough.”
The implication is clear and I have to say I agree with her–this sure seems sexist to me, especially since we have learned that calling Hillary Clinton by her first name is sexist. The precedent was set: