It's a shakedown!

Democrat big-city mayors are using taxpayer money as a weapon against guns. As they gathered in Washington, DC, for the Presidential inaugural, those mayors agreed to work toward a new goal: They want their police departments to buy guns and ammunition only from companies that will endorse Pres. Obama's gun control agenda.
It's the same bullying tactic used against Chick-fil-A, Wal-Mart, Whole Foods and others, except this time liberals want to do it with public money.
Purchasing laws typically require buying from a responsible vendor that offers the best quality and best price. Demanding that a company adopt a certain political position is wrong and quite possibly illegal as well.
More details are here.
The mayors' effort brings to mind a deal that Smith & Wesson made with the Clinton Administration in the year 2000 to change their products and marketing as and impose restrictions on those who sold their firearms. A boycott by gun owners resulted in a 40% drop in Smith & Wesson sales.
Only after the company was sold to a buyer who renounced the agreement did Smith & Wesson sales rebound.
Here is one history of that boycott.

The money saved by not building the Death Star is every bit as genuine as the paltry $2.5 trillion Obama already claims to have cut from federal spending. So shouldn't he take credit for it?

Tell the press that you've saved us $850 quadrillion, Mr. President. They'll believe you and eagerly pass the word.

Imagine how much more savings you can claim by NOT building other things! Then use that money to pay for stuff you DO build!

Get a glimpse at how Washington plays games to make you think they've saved money when the have not.

Read the entire article that Ernest wrote for Breitbart News, including how the media will celebrate the savings, like Rachel Maddow wearing Princess Leia hair, or Ed Schultz playing the role of Jabba the Hutt.

The President of the National Rifle Association says the hundreds of death threats he's received reflect the tactics of President Obama and other liberals.

A video game even shows NRA officials in the crosshairs of sniper rifles.

So why do most media ignore these threats?

Breitbart News features Ernest's account of his important interview with David Keene, which you can read.

Former Mint Director Defends Issuance of $1-Trillion Coin, But Admits It Was Never the Intent of the Law

In conjunction with his first broadcast interview on this topic—on “Istook Live!”--this emailed statement was provided to Ernest Istook by Phil Diehl of Texas, former Director of the U.S. Mint from 1994 to 2000 (revising what he had earlier written).

 “I’m the former Mint director and Treasury chief of staff who, with Rep. Mike Castle, wrote the platinum coin law (Sec. 5112 of title 31, United States Code) and oversaw minting of the original coin authorized by the law, so I’m in a unique position to address some confusion I’ve seen in the media about the platinum coin proposal.

“* In minting a $1 trillion platinum coin, the Treasury Secretary would be exercising authority that Congress has granted routinely for more than 220 years. The Secretary’s authority is derived from an Act of Congress (in fact, a GOP Congress) under power expressly granted to Congress in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8). What is unusual about the law is that it gives the Secretary discretion regarding all specifications of the coin, including denominations.

“* The accounting treatment of the platinum coin is identical to the treatment of all other coins. The Mint strikes the coin, ships it to the Fed, books $1 trillion, and transfers $1 trillion to the treasury’s general fund where it is available to finance government operations just like proceeds of bond sales. However, since no bonds are needed to back the coin, the $1 trillion now in the general fund does not push the debt over the statutory limit. This accounting treatment is the same as for a quarter dollar.

“* Once the debt limit is raised, the Fed ships the coin back to the Mint where the accounting treatment is reversed and the coin melted. The coin would never be “issued” or circulated and bonds would not be needed to back the coin.

“* This does not enable the President to spend money beyond what Congress has already authorized or mandated, so it does not represent a circumvention of Congress' "power of the purse". Rather, it simply allows the government to pay the bills for what Congress has already appropriated.

“* There are no negative macroeconomic effects. This works just like additional tax revenue or borrowing under a higher debt limit. In fact, when the debt limit is raised, Treasury would sell more bonds, the trillion dollars would be taken off the books, and the coin would be melted.

“* Concerns that the coin will spark inflation are misplaced. This is not like the Fed flooding the market with one trillion dollar bills. The trillion dollar coin would stay in the Fed vaults until the debt limit is raised and then melted.

“* Temporarily addressing the debt limit in this way will stabilize world financial markets by reinforcing confidence that, despite Congress's inability to raise the debt limit, the US will not default on its obligations.

“* This does not raise the debt limit, so it cannot be characterized as circumventing congressional authority over the debt limit. Rather, it delays when the debt limit is reached.

“* This preserves congressional authority over the debt limit in a way that reliance on the 14th Amendment would not. It also avoids the protracted court battles the 14th Amendment option would entail and avoids another confrontation with the Roberts Court.

“* Any court challenge is likely to be quickly dismissed since (1) authority to mint the coin is firmly rooted in law that itself is grounded in the expressed constitutional powers of Congress, (2) Treasury has routinely exercised this authority since the birth of the republic, and (3) the accounting treatment of the coin is entirely routine.

“* Once the debt limit crisis has passed and all parties understand that the platinum coin option can be used in any future debt limit standoff, an agreement is likely to be struck (eventually) in which the platinum coin law is revised in exchange to a reform of the congressional debt limit process.

“* Yes, this is an unanticipated consequence of the platinum coin law, but how many other laws have had unanticipated consequences? Countless. The fact that this use of the authority granted by Congress is unintended has no bearing on its legality or constitutionality. What matters is that it conforms with the strict letter of the law.”