Fox6:

IRBIL, Iraq — At least half a million people caught in the crossfire inside the Iraqi city of Mosul now have no access to running water, the United Nations told CNN on Wednesday.

One of three major water pipelines was struck as Iraqi troops fought back ISIS militants in parts of eastern Mosul.

The damaged conduit remains inside the group’s territory, making it inaccessible for repairs, according to a UNICEF statement released Wednesday.

An Iraqi-led offensive began in October to liberate Mosul after more than two years under ISIS control. Mosul is the terror group’s last major power base in Iraq.

Officials and witnesses admit a pipeline break has occurred but said ISIS’ more sinister agenda has escalated the problem. The group has intentionally cut off water supplies to neighborhoods near the front line, according to Zuhair Hazem al-Jabouri, a Mosul City Council official responsible for supervising the city’s water and energy services.

“They (ISIS) cut the electricity to the water stations that feed several neighborhoods where Iraqi troops are advancing,” Jabouri said. “They are depriving people of drinking water in eastern Mosul. They want to force people to retreat with them in order to use them as human shields.”

Water has been used as a weapon of war in Syria by both the Syrian forces and ISIS, so they are well practiced at this sort of thing, as were the insurgents during OIF who routinely cut power to residents of entire cities.

The Romans controlled the water supply as a weapon of war two millennia ago, so this isn’t anything new.  The point is that in any scenario such as war, TEOTWAWKI, or even pseudo-dystopia in America, be aware of your needs and prepare ahead of time.  Do you have access to potable water?  If not, do you have access to water along with the necessary filtration and treatment systems?

News10:

AMARILLO, TX (KFDA) – Owning a handgun in Texas may soon become more affordable.

Currently, the application fee for a standard condition handgun license is $140 and renewing it cost $70; however, under the new legislation these fees would be eliminated.

People would still need to go through a background check and training before becoming fully certified.

“SB 16 [proposed bill] will make lawful carry more affordable for law abiding citizens across the state,” Lt. Governor Dan Patrick said. “No Texan should be deprived of their right to self protection because of onerous licensing fees imposed by the state.”

Ayvrie Dixon, owner of Dixon Firearms Training, was skeptical about whether or not the bill will pass.

While this makes the process more affordable, the state loses a consistent source of revenue.

Uh huh.  And thus we’re to the crux of the matter, aren’t we, just like when this came up in Oklahoma.

… opponents said it would have serious financial consequences for the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, which administers firearms licenses issued under the Oklahoma Self Defense Act.

A fiscal analysis performed for the House indicates the measure would reduce OSBI’s revenue by at least $6 million and would lead to the loss of jobs and reduced operating expenses at the agency.

The reduction in revenue would be because firearms owners would no longer seek concealed carry licenses – which cost $100 for initial 5-year license and $200 for 10 years – if they could carry a gun openly without a license. There are now more than 238,300 Oklahomans with active licenses to carry handguns, according to state figures.

That’s seldom brought up in this context, yes?  But it’s the major issue associated with Jim Crow laws such as this one.  The State behemoth would have to become leaner, and no monster wants to go on a diet.

Military.com:

Mattis, now a distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution in California, has questioned whether women are suited for what he called the “intimate killing” of close combat, and whether male commanders would balk at sending women into such situations.

Mattis also said he was concerned about “Eros” in the trenches when young men and women live in close quarters in the “atavistic” atmosphere of combat. “I don’t care if you go anywhere in history where you would find that this has worked,” he said of putting “healthy young men and women together and we expect them to act like little saints.”

In periodic speeches to the Marines’ Memorial Club in San Francisco, Mattis said that the U.S. military is a “national treasure,” and it is inevitable that women would want to serve in every MOS.

“The problem is that in the atavistic primate world” of close-quarters combat, “the idea of putting women in there is not setting them up for success,” Mattis said. He stressed that he was not talking about whether women could perform the required amounts of pushups, pullups and other physical requirements — “that’s not the point.”

Commanders must consider “what makes us most combat effective when you jump into that room and you’re doing what we call intimate killing,” he said. “It would only be someone who never crossed the line of departure into close encounters fighting that would ever even promote such an idea” as putting women into close combat.

If nominated, Mattis would almost certainly be challenged on women in combat in confirmation hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee, which has six women on the panel.

One of them is Sen. Joni Ernst, an Iowa Republican who retired as a lieutenant colonel after 23 years in the Army Reserves and Iowa National Guard. Ernst, who served a deployment in Operation Iraqi Freedom and is the first female veteran in the Senate, has applauded the opportunity for women who meet the standards to serve in the combat arms.

Joni Ernst isn’t qualified to shine shoes for Mattis.  And Ernst never engaged in combat, so I don’t give a shit what she has to say about anything on this issue.

But there are progressives in the GOP just like the Democratic party.  Women, if I have any reading this column – and I hope I do have female readers for all of my columns – always remember this.  Never forget.  Progressives want to see women perish in combat and have a deleterious effect on combat effectiveness of the unit because of physical differences between men and women.  They want to see you die, and they want more men to die because of you.

Progressives don’t care about the military, and they don’t care about women either.  But everyone already knows that.

Remember I just recently said this?

… in the case of Indiana, we’ll have to fight (in many cases) the police, and in other cases progressive clerics.

On queue, a blue costumed special person weighs in.

“I believe people have the right to carry a gun, but the basic licensing requirement helps ensure that the people allowed to carry are the ones who are carrying,” Fort Wayne Police Chief Steve Reed said. “I think there would be even more guns in the wrong hands without it.”

Because LEOs are just like you and me, only better.

So if he believes in a right to carry a gun, but believes that he gets the right to override that right, then it isn’t really a right like he claims, and he was lying all along.

The chief gives you no means to contact him via writing to tell him what you think.  You recall what I said about men who don’t give contact information, right?

David Codrea:

OXFAM? They’re the international citizen disarmament zealots who are conjoined with IANSA to stump for a global gun grab. If they get what they want, they won’t “respectfully request.” And it will be mandatory.

What’s David talking about?  Check here to find out.  Their full statement is as follows.

The debate in the U.S. over gun safety and gun rights is as complex as it is divisive. As a former army officer, a father and business leader, I’ve heard the arguments from all sides. And, as CEO of a 163-year-old company whose products and presence rest at the intersection of culture and community in more than 110 countries around the world, I feel a tremendous responsibility to share our position on the issue, now, at a time when clarity is paramount.

Providing a safe environment to work and shop is a top priority for us at Levi Strauss & Co. That imperative is quickly challenged, however, when a weapon is carried into one of our stores. Recently, we had an incident in one of our stores where a gun inadvertently went off, injuring the customer who was carrying it.

So, while we understand the heartfelt and strongly-held opinions on both sides of the gun debate, it is with the safety and security of our employees and customers in mind that we respectfully ask people not to bring firearms into our stores, offices or facilities, even in states where it’s permitted by law. Of course, authorized members of law enforcement are an exception.

With stores in Paris, Nice and Orlando, and the company’s European headquarters in Brussels, I’ve thought more about safety in the past year than in the previous three decades of my career because of how ‘close to home’ so many incidents with guns have come to impacting people working for this company.

We operate in hundreds of stores across every state in the U.S., and laws are different in each one. We know that the presence of firearms in our stores creates an unsettling environment for many of our employees and customers. We also know that trying to enforce a ban could potentially undermine the purpose of the ban itself: safety. With that in mind we’ve made this decision as a business – a request not a mandate – and we sincerely hope responsible gun owners will respect our position.

It boils down to this: you shouldn’t have to be concerned about your safety while shopping for clothes or trying on a pair of jeans. Simply put, firearms don’t belong in either of those settings. In the end, I believe we have an obligation to our employees and customers to ensure a safe environment and keeping firearms out of our stores and offices will get us one step closer to achieving that reality.

Sincerely,

Chip Bergh

You know he’s lying because he wasn’t careful to craft what he said to hide his lie.  He focused on “safety,” but then excepted law enforcement.  If you except law enforcement then you acquiesce to the notion that someone needs to be armed for self defense, namely LEOs.  He could just as easily prohibit LEOs from carrying on the premises, but doesn’t.

He knows that LEOs commit gross negligence with firearms all the time, so the issue isn’t really about safety.  It’s about making a political statement and ensuring a monopoly of force on the part of the state.  Here’s a quick note to Chip.  You lost the election, and nothing is more popular in America than guns.  Levi’s jeans is certainly no competition for the firearms industry.  And if I was on the BoD for Levi Strauss, I’d make sure you groveled in front of cameras to get loyal customers back.  And then I’d fire you.  Because you suck.