Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Big Brother's New Target - Tracking Firearms

The following entry is a "reprint" of information provided by the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action (ILA). Just in case you mistakenly believed that Obama and his Democrats wouldn't go after our Second Amendment rights here's information on a bill submitted in Congress less than a month after President Obama was inaugurated.
Friday, January 23, 2009

U.S. Representative Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) recently sponsored H.R. 45, also known as "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act." The bill is, at its core and as its name implies, a licensing and registration scheme.

The measure calls for all handgun owners to submit to the federal government an application that shall include, among many other things: a photo; an address; a thumbprint; a completed, written firearm safety test; private mental health records; and a fee. And those are only some of the requirements to be licensed!

The bill would further require the attorney general to establish a database of every handgun sale, transfer, and owner's address in America. Moreover, the bill would make it illegal to own or possess a "qualifying firearm" -- defined as "any handgun; or any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device…" [emphasis added] without one of the proposed licenses.

Additionally, the bill would make it illegal to transfer ownership of a "qualifying firearm" to anyone who is not a licensed gun dealer or collector (with very few exceptions), and would require "qualifying firearm" owners to report all transfers to the attorney general's database. It would also be illegal for a licensed gun owner to fail to record a gun loss or theft within 72 hours, or fail to report a change of address within 60 days. Further, if a minor obtains a firearm and injures someone with it, the owner of the firearm may face a multiple-year jail sentence.
H.R. 45 is essentially a reintroduction of H.R. 2666, which Rush introduced in 2007. H.R. 2666 contained much of the same language as H.R. 45, and was co-sponsored by several well-known anti-gun legislators--including Barack Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. H.R. 45 currently has no co-sponsors.

Please keep two things in mind. First, Adolf Hitler was able to easily disarm German Jews and Political Opponents because Germany had extensive gun registration records. Second, only a tyrant fears an armed citizenry.

Call your Members of Congress and express your opposition to H.R. 45.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

President Obama Loves Canada...Maybe He'll Move

Well, on Friday President Obama increased his carbon footprint even more by making his first foreign Canada. Sure, it's pretty much a tradition for the first foreign trip to be to Canada. What's not all that traditional is for a U.S. President to gush "I Love This Country" when referring to the host country - Canada. Why love Canada? Maybe because of who he thanked next...the "Canadians who came over the border to campaign for me during the election." Another good reason to control the borders.

Now, if he'd just learn to really break from the anti-American rhetoric of his pastor and declare his love for this country. Wouldn't that be refreshing?

Friday, February 20, 2009

Government Money?

I'm so sick of hearing it. On the radio, even on Fox, they talk about companies like Chrysler and GM receiving billions of dollars of "Government Money". On TV they talk about the massive stimulus bill as billions of dollars in "Government Money". News Flash: There is no such thing as Government Money.

Once upon a time students in public schools used to learn about how the U.S. Government worked in classes called "Civics" or even "Government". Apparently I was among the last batch of students to attend one of those classes. So, for the benefit of current and future generations here's a very short civics lesson:

1. Government has no money of its own;
2. Government gets money from taxes paid by you and from borrowing;
3. It's only possible for government to borrow money because lenders know government will tax you in order to repay the loan;
4. Whether government taxes or borrows it's actually your money at stake;
5. The more money government gives to others the more you will eventually have to pay.

It's really that simple. Class dismissed.

Friday, February 13, 2009

OMG! I Agree With President Obama!

I know you can't believe it. I can barely believe it myself. I'm in complete agreement with President Obama for the first time and it scares me. What is it that we agree upon? Let's look back to Monday 2/9/9.

On Monday, President Obama held a prime time news conference. I don't hold that against him but in these "tough economic times" I would think that the networks would have benefited from some income from advertisers. Anyway, he's the President and like others before him he pre-empted one of my favorite shows. Ok, back to my agreement... During that press conference he stated that he had "inherited this recession". I agree. He did inherit this recession.

All during the presidential campaign we heard about the "Bush Economy" and how out of control government spending was hurting us. We also heard about problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Yeah, government spending and Fannie/Freddie are big issues in this recession. But, let's remember a few things here. First, the "Bush Economy" turned Obama into a millionaire, had growth nearly every year, and had extremely low unemployment. Second, no President of the United States can spend anything other than his own paycheck that isn't appropriated by CONGRESS...and since the mid-term elections of 2006 Congress had been controlled by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator Harry Reid and their merry band of Democrats. In other words, George Bush could spend only what Democrats approved. Third, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are overseen by Congressional committees run by...wait for it...Democrats.
Yes, I agree that President Obama inherited this recession, but he inherited it from his own family.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Nancy Pelosi Is Third In Line?

Some things in life and politics are just plain scary. One such example is the idea of the current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, being third in line to the presidency. Fortunately, it's just an idea and not necessarily cold, hard reality. I started thinking about this again because I was watching a re-run of "Hannity" on Sunday and heard something interesting from the "Great American Panel" segment.

Sean Hannity had been asking the panel questions about the so-called "Stimulus" bill and was making a point that maybe the government should tighten its belt. One example he gave was the enormous cost of an airplane dedicated for the use of Nancy Pelosi. Never before has the Speaker of the House had a dedicated aircraft. What do you think the token liberal on the panel said? He said that it was appropriate for her to have the aircraft because "she's third in line to the presidency."

Wow. That's seems wrong on so many levels. Yes, I know that theoretically she could be third. But is that a reason to spend several million dollars of taxpayer money each year on an aircraft, crew, maintenance, and fuel? Because she might be third? What about number four - President Pro Tempore of the Senate (Harry Reid)? Number five - Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton)? How about number six in line - Treasury Secretary (tax cheat Tim Geitner)? Where would it stop?

Besides, Nancy Pelosi can only be third in line if both the President and Vice-President die or become incapable of holding office at the same time! This is very clear in the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 3 USC 19. For instance, if the President were to die in office due to lung cancer from his continued smoking...the Vice-President becomes President automatically. Does that mean that Princess Nancy becomes Vice-President? No, it does not. The Constitution is clear that the new President may choose anyone who is constitutionally eligible to become Vice-President subject to majority vote approval by both houses of Congress. Do you think Joe Biden chooses Pelosi? Yeah, I'm laughing at that one too.

Ok, what if Vice-President Joe Biden died in a horrible Amtrak accident on his way home? Again, the 25th Amendment is clear that the President may choose anyone constitutionally eligible as his new Vice-President. Pelosi? Not a chance.

So, for Nancy Pelosi to become President of the U.S. and have the slimmest of justifications to keep wasting our money on a very expensive, wasteful, and polluting mode of transportation she'd pretty much have to personally stage a coup. Good luck with that Nancy, now ditch the plane.

Friday, February 6, 2009

Nancy Pelosi Says 500 Million Americans Will Lose Jobs Each Month

Yes, the Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives is using scare tactics to get you to support wasting nearly a Trillion Dollars of TAXPAYER MONEY. This time it's Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who says that 500 million Americans each month will lose their jobs if a "Stimulus" package isn't passed.

If she'd said it only once I might have believed she just slipped but it happened more than once this past week. For those of you that don't know it...the U.S. Census says there are only 305 million people in the U.S. and that's counting Men, Women, and Children. So...apparently some are going to lose their jobs more than once at the same time. Maybe Pelosi counts it twice in some cases like when the boss says someone is fired and that person says "you can't fire me, I quit" that could be two lost jobs. Maybe she thinks Canada and Mexico are states and they're losing every job there too.

Just in case you think she didn't say it or that she's been taken out of context you can check this video:

PETA Protestors In San Antonio - Stupidity On Parade

In their ongoing effort to turn the entire world into a bunch of vegetarians members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) demonstrated in front of the shrine of the Alamo on Wednesday. Once again they tried to convince people that the production of meat for food is destroying the planet by providing dubious statistics.

According to KSAT TV in San Antonio PETA claimed "The demonstration in front of the Alamo was an effort to encourage (sic) people from eating meat, and used a nearly-nude woman in a portable shower to explain how the water used to prepare one pound of meat is the equivalent to six months of showers."

Well, assuming the PETA folks actually shower and assuming that their statistics are even close to accurate...who cares? What's their point? That cattle drink water? That cattle are washed with water? Are they actually trying to say that once a cow takes a drink that the water somehow becomes undrinkable for humans and can't be used to water plants? Maybe they're saying that water used in meat production is lost in a series of black holes that exist only in meat packing plants?

All water consumed by animals is returned to the ecosystem through urine, water vapor released during respiration, etc. Not one drop of water leaves the planet because a my future steak has a drink. Further, the water contained in meat contributes to hydration of animals farther up the food chain - like me.