Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Congressman Ciro Rodriguez Needs To Go
Maybe it's just me but I think that any Congressman who starts yelling at constituents who call him out on his lies needs to be tossed out of office. Ciro Rodriguez is one of those Democrat Congressmen that needs to be given his walking papers. At a town hall meeting in his home district Democrat Congressman Rodriguez lost control, while being video taped, and became verbally aggressive toward a woman (off camera) that called him out on his party-line lies by using the correct information from the Congressional Budget Office. I find it interesting that Congressmen that decide to bully the public never do it to people like me, they do it to young students like Congressman Bob Etheridge of North Carolina did or to a woman correcting the liar that's supposed to represent her. See the video at Happily American: Congressman Ciro Rodriguez Needs To Go
Monday, June 14, 2010
Congressman Bob Etheridge Assaults Student on Washington Sidewalk
Do you know why Democrats in the media and government like to spread malicious lies about conservatives being intolerant and violent when they gather at Tea Party meetings or anywhere else? It's because they believe everyone shares their point of view and their willingness to shout down and even physically attack anyone they deem a political or ideological opponent. That's certainly the case with Congressman Bob Etheridge the Democrat representative from North Carolina's second district as seen in this video.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
October chill sets record, may last all week -- chicagotribune.com
Record cold expected all week in Chicago and other places. Yet some persist in fear mongering about man-made global warming in order to raise your taxes and take more control of your life. It's been getting cooler worldwide since 1998. Call your Senator and Congressmen to vote against Cap & Trade!
October chill sets record, may last all week -- chicagotribune.com
Posted using ShareThis
October chill sets record, may last all week -- chicagotribune.com
Posted using ShareThis
Saturday, October 3, 2009
16 Signs That You Live In A Tyranny
We live in interesting times with a President and Congress who seem to be ignoring the Constitution and the will of the people. Check out this list and see how many things you recognize.
16 Signs That You Live In A Tyranny
Posted using ShareThis
16 Signs That You Live In A Tyranny
Posted using ShareThis
Monday, September 14, 2009
Scrapping The Public Plan Is The Easiest Way To Get A Public Plan
I keep hearing that members of the U.S. Congress and various "experts" are saying that the "public plan" may be scrapped in order to get HR 3200 or other health care bill passed. This kind of talk is a smoke screen covering a deeper three-step plan designed to get the public to clamor FOR a public plan. The plan has only three steps and goes something like this....
First Step, Democrat members of the House of Representatives take the public plan out of HR 3200 even though most other provisions of the bill remain intact. Removal of the public plan helps bring opponents on board, and gives ammo to RINO's like Senator Olympia Snow to bring her weak-kneed associates on board in the Senate. The bill becomes "bipartisan" and passes without the public plan.
Second Step, as the law gets signed by a triumphant and gloating President Obama, it goes into effect and requires (as it does now):
a. Everyone not currently covered must buy health insurance from private insurance companies rather than face stiff tax penalties.
b. All of the health insurance plans people have to buy must be an "approved plan" which must cover everything and everyone the government says they must cover with limits set artificially high. This has the effect of making insurance premiums rise and become more unaffordable, resulting in citizens who then seek relief from their representatives.
Third Step, the President and members of the Congress publicly state that "as expected, without the public plan health care costs have spiraled out of control" and that in order to fix the problem they must create "an affordable public plan". Then "poof!" the public plan appears just in time for the 2012 election season.
First Step, Democrat members of the House of Representatives take the public plan out of HR 3200 even though most other provisions of the bill remain intact. Removal of the public plan helps bring opponents on board, and gives ammo to RINO's like Senator Olympia Snow to bring her weak-kneed associates on board in the Senate. The bill becomes "bipartisan" and passes without the public plan.
Second Step, as the law gets signed by a triumphant and gloating President Obama, it goes into effect and requires (as it does now):
a. Everyone not currently covered must buy health insurance from private insurance companies rather than face stiff tax penalties.
b. All of the health insurance plans people have to buy must be an "approved plan" which must cover everything and everyone the government says they must cover with limits set artificially high. This has the effect of making insurance premiums rise and become more unaffordable, resulting in citizens who then seek relief from their representatives.
Third Step, the President and members of the Congress publicly state that "as expected, without the public plan health care costs have spiraled out of control" and that in order to fix the problem they must create "an affordable public plan". Then "poof!" the public plan appears just in time for the 2012 election season.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Marine Corps Veteran Puts Congressman Brian Baird In His Place
People are speaking out against the health care reform plan being crammed down our collective throats by a President and Congress who care only about power. August 22nd a U.S. Marine Corps Veteran named David Hedrick spoke out at a town hall meeting with Congressman Brian Baird (D-WA). As Hedrick points out, it's not up to Congress to "allow" us to choose our health care plan. The video below shows you what happened. Way to go Marine!!!
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Why Lie About The UnInsured?
Among the reasons given for "Health Care Reform" in the United States is the number of uninsured. You've probably heard the claims. President Obama says there are 47 Million Americans who are uninsured. Sometimes the claim is that 47 Million Americans don't have access to health care. I've even been told that about 50 million people can't afford health insurance. None of those claims are true but they appear to be based on U.S. Census information from 2007 and are cited by those who want to increase government control over our lives and limit our health care choices. They are telling you lies to control your life more completely.
What did the Census say? Well, in the report "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007" we find out that:
A person was considered uninsured if "they were not covered by any type of health insurance at any time in that year." Huh? At any time? So, if someone leaves a job where they were covered by health insurance...doesn't bother to pay the COBRA payment...loses their coverage...then gets new coverage at their new job when it kicks in 90 days later...they're still counted as uninsured? Really?
About 15% of the U.S. population was uninsured (see above) and that number has been relatively stable for at least 20 years. That also means that 85%, a very clear majority, are covered.
Instead of 47 Million, the report actually says it's just under 46 Million uninsured. So, already a lie. Does that make a difference? I think it does, but before you write to me about job losses and the effect on coverage...don't. There are no reliable statistics newer than the 2007 report so I'm gonna go with that for now. The President and Congress are telling you lies.
Roughly 10 Million of the uninsured are illegal aliens or other non-citizens...so, when President Obama says there are 47 Million Americans who are uninsured HE IS TELLING YOU A LIE. By the way, I'm not saying we should deny care to people just because they are here illegally but I don't think we should turn health care upside down based on LIES or for the benefit of non-citizens. I also don't think the American Taxpayer should be left paying the bill. Therefore, I've proposed a solution for handling health care for illegal aliens.
About 25% of the uninsured or just over 12 Million of the uninsured are currently eligible for Medicaid or S-CHIP but have not enrolled. Depending on State eligibility requirements regarding income and other factors, the number eligible but unenrolled may be as high 20 Million. Why are they unenrolled? It doesn't matter why since they will be automatically enrolled if they go to a hospital for care. Saying we need to allow government to take over our health care because these people can't afford or can't access care is just a LIE. It's there for the taking right now without any new legislation.
The remaining 16-24 Million or so? Well, some are definitely not able to afford coverage and are not currently eligible for existing programs. However, there are at least a few million who can afford coverage but choose not to have it. For example, the Census data shows there are 9.1 Million uninsured people in households making $75,000 or more.
In order to gain the support of the people, the President and Congress...not to mention their willing accomplices in the press, have intentionally lied to make you believe the problem is much larger than it really is and that the ONLY solution is more government. If the President and Congress have to lie about the uninsured what else are they fudging? How can they be trusted to handle our health care? How can they be trusted to spend TRILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS? Fight back, call your representatives. Send them letters. TELL THEM TO STOP TELLING YOU LIES.
What did the Census say? Well, in the report "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007" we find out that:
A person was considered uninsured if "they were not covered by any type of health insurance at any time in that year." Huh? At any time? So, if someone leaves a job where they were covered by health insurance...doesn't bother to pay the COBRA payment...loses their coverage...then gets new coverage at their new job when it kicks in 90 days later...they're still counted as uninsured? Really?
About 15% of the U.S. population was uninsured (see above) and that number has been relatively stable for at least 20 years. That also means that 85%, a very clear majority, are covered.
Instead of 47 Million, the report actually says it's just under 46 Million uninsured. So, already a lie. Does that make a difference? I think it does, but before you write to me about job losses and the effect on coverage...don't. There are no reliable statistics newer than the 2007 report so I'm gonna go with that for now. The President and Congress are telling you lies.
Roughly 10 Million of the uninsured are illegal aliens or other non-citizens...so, when President Obama says there are 47 Million Americans who are uninsured HE IS TELLING YOU A LIE. By the way, I'm not saying we should deny care to people just because they are here illegally but I don't think we should turn health care upside down based on LIES or for the benefit of non-citizens. I also don't think the American Taxpayer should be left paying the bill. Therefore, I've proposed a solution for handling health care for illegal aliens.
About 25% of the uninsured or just over 12 Million of the uninsured are currently eligible for Medicaid or S-CHIP but have not enrolled. Depending on State eligibility requirements regarding income and other factors, the number eligible but unenrolled may be as high 20 Million. Why are they unenrolled? It doesn't matter why since they will be automatically enrolled if they go to a hospital for care. Saying we need to allow government to take over our health care because these people can't afford or can't access care is just a LIE. It's there for the taking right now without any new legislation.
The remaining 16-24 Million or so? Well, some are definitely not able to afford coverage and are not currently eligible for existing programs. However, there are at least a few million who can afford coverage but choose not to have it. For example, the Census data shows there are 9.1 Million uninsured people in households making $75,000 or more.
In order to gain the support of the people, the President and Congress...not to mention their willing accomplices in the press, have intentionally lied to make you believe the problem is much larger than it really is and that the ONLY solution is more government. If the President and Congress have to lie about the uninsured what else are they fudging? How can they be trusted to handle our health care? How can they be trusted to spend TRILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS? Fight back, call your representatives. Send them letters. TELL THEM TO STOP TELLING YOU LIES.
Monday, August 3, 2009
How We Can Save Billions On Health Care
The health care debate in the United States continues to spur people to action to prevent the President and the Congress from making a huge mistake and end up destroying the best health care in the world. However, the President, Democrats in Congress and even the media say that those of us against the various health care reform bills don't offer an alternative to anything they're trying to do. Well, I have a recommendation that could save the United States billions of dollars in health care spending without denying care, rationing care, or significantly raising taxpayer exposure.
My recommendation, mine since I haven't seen it anywhere else, is to save billions of dollars spent on the health care of illegal aliens. Ok, that's not the whole idea so before you start calling me a racist or murderer or something along those lines just wait a second....wait. I'm not saying we deny care to injured or ill people because they're here illegally. The American people are far to humane and charitable to deny needed care and I'm ok with that. But, I do believe that people and institutions should be paid for the care they provide and I don't think the American taxpayers should be the ones on the hook for the paying for the care of illegals. Here's the rest of my recommendation: Send the health care bill to the illegal alien's country of origin.
I know, I know...you think I'm crazy...nuts! Ok, maybe I am but is the idea so bad? I think it's pretty good but I know you think there are a number of problems with the idea. I've anticipated that. The two biggest problems include:
1. Illegal aliens believe they'll be deported if they tell hospital personnel where they're from; and,
2. Why would the country of origin pay?
The first is quite simple. Just make it known that you cannot be deported just for providing information to health care personnel about your immigration status and country of origin. As soon as the illegals see that their friends aren't being sent home by providing information to the hospitals they'll get the idea. Could they lie? Maybe, but to what end?
The second problem, payment by the country of origin, is a little more difficult but could be managed. The countries would pay because they would lose more if they didn't. What I mean is...if they don't pay the bill we could cut off all foreign aid and all Western Union transfers, and seize all their assets in this country until the bill is paid. So, do they lose a few billion in health care payments for THEIR CITIZENS or do they lose many billions in aid? A few billion for health care for THEIR CITIZENS or do they lose many billions in Western Union transfers? For example, Mexico alone receives around $46 billion a year from its citizens living here illegally. Would they really jeopardize that?
I'm still against the health care reform bills that are in Congress. I think their only purpose is a power-grab and that the quality and availability of health care in this country would suffer...but, I'm not just against the bills without offering any alternate option.
My recommendation, mine since I haven't seen it anywhere else, is to save billions of dollars spent on the health care of illegal aliens. Ok, that's not the whole idea so before you start calling me a racist or murderer or something along those lines just wait a second....wait. I'm not saying we deny care to injured or ill people because they're here illegally. The American people are far to humane and charitable to deny needed care and I'm ok with that. But, I do believe that people and institutions should be paid for the care they provide and I don't think the American taxpayers should be the ones on the hook for the paying for the care of illegals. Here's the rest of my recommendation: Send the health care bill to the illegal alien's country of origin.
I know, I know...you think I'm crazy...nuts! Ok, maybe I am but is the idea so bad? I think it's pretty good but I know you think there are a number of problems with the idea. I've anticipated that. The two biggest problems include:
1. Illegal aliens believe they'll be deported if they tell hospital personnel where they're from; and,
2. Why would the country of origin pay?
The first is quite simple. Just make it known that you cannot be deported just for providing information to health care personnel about your immigration status and country of origin. As soon as the illegals see that their friends aren't being sent home by providing information to the hospitals they'll get the idea. Could they lie? Maybe, but to what end?
The second problem, payment by the country of origin, is a little more difficult but could be managed. The countries would pay because they would lose more if they didn't. What I mean is...if they don't pay the bill we could cut off all foreign aid and all Western Union transfers, and seize all their assets in this country until the bill is paid. So, do they lose a few billion in health care payments for THEIR CITIZENS or do they lose many billions in aid? A few billion for health care for THEIR CITIZENS or do they lose many billions in Western Union transfers? For example, Mexico alone receives around $46 billion a year from its citizens living here illegally. Would they really jeopardize that?
I'm still against the health care reform bills that are in Congress. I think their only purpose is a power-grab and that the quality and availability of health care in this country would suffer...but, I'm not just against the bills without offering any alternate option.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
The Really Sad Story Of Jane Doe Who Couldn't Afford Health Insurance
This is the really sad story of Jane Doe who couldn't afford health insurance. Right now Jane is sitting in a doctor's office waiting to be seen for a painful feeling in her belly. She's afraid that the feeling is something serious and she's afraid that it will be a financial disaster because she doesn't have health insurance - she can't afford it.
Jane started getting occasional uncomfortable feelings in her abdomen a few months ago right after the presidential inauguration and the beginning of the 111th Congress...around the time she found out there was a health care crisis in the United States. It hit her like a ton of bricks that she didn't have health insurance coverage and the uncomfortable feelings became more frequent.
Jane knew she should have tried to get health insurance coverage but she couldn't afford it. She regretted that she had turned down the plan at work but felt she had to because even though the company paid the lion's share of the premiums it would still have cost her $250 per month. She just couldn't afford it even though she made decent money and didn't spend frivolously. As she kept hearing about the health care crisis she began to think about her lack of coverage more and more.
Although Jane was 39 (again) and healthy she was consumed by the idea of getting sick and losing everything. A day didn't go by that she didn't think about her lack of insurance. It made her feel ill. She thought about it every morning on the way to work while she was getting her Venti double shot mocha latte at Starbucks ($5 each work day). She thought about it more during lunch at the pasta place across from the office where she loved the Chicken Carbonara even though it wasn't on the $5 daily special ($8.50 each work day). Jane noticed she even thought about her lack of insurance while getting her hair done. It was a treat for her to get her roots done, a trim, and some highlights once a month ($50 per month). She even caught herself mentioning her plight to the nail tech while getting her nails filled ($15 twice a month).
Even at home in her comfortable apartment she would flip though the digital cable channels or surf the internet using her cable modem ($150 per month) to find out more about what Congress was doing to help people like her on her 50 inch LCD TV. She was glad to have some wine ($20 per week) to calm her while watching news that just got her more worried. Sometimes she got worried enough to go for a walk to calm her down. She should probably go to the gym instead since she was paying for it ($45 per month) but it was too much of a hassle to drive over there. She never used the gym. Oh well, the walk made her feel better and it was probably good for her health.
Jane was especially aware of her predicament when her office co-worker, a mean ol' conservative, continually took pleasure in pointing out that she could afford the company health insurance plan if she made some changes. He actually told her in front of the whole office that by eliminating her Starbucks habit and her cable tv/modem she would save enough to be able to afford health insurance. What a jerk! She couldn't believe he wanted her to live like like that. Where did he get off?!? It was all so stressful.
And that's the really sad story of Jane Doe who couldn't afford health insurance. How did you think it was going to end? Ok, ok. She had an ulcer. The doctor told her to reduce stress, maybe quit worrying so much and stop watching the news. He also said she should lay off the caffeine and wine, increase her water intake, and take the anti-biotic, antacid, and a drug to repair the ulcer he was prescribing. She paid for the office visit on her credit card and scheduled a follow up for six weeks. Then Jane went to Wal-Mart to fill her prescriptions for $10 each. She hardly even thought about the fact she had received appropriate health care without insurance. How sad.
Jane started getting occasional uncomfortable feelings in her abdomen a few months ago right after the presidential inauguration and the beginning of the 111th Congress...around the time she found out there was a health care crisis in the United States. It hit her like a ton of bricks that she didn't have health insurance coverage and the uncomfortable feelings became more frequent.
Jane knew she should have tried to get health insurance coverage but she couldn't afford it. She regretted that she had turned down the plan at work but felt she had to because even though the company paid the lion's share of the premiums it would still have cost her $250 per month. She just couldn't afford it even though she made decent money and didn't spend frivolously. As she kept hearing about the health care crisis she began to think about her lack of coverage more and more.
Although Jane was 39 (again) and healthy she was consumed by the idea of getting sick and losing everything. A day didn't go by that she didn't think about her lack of insurance. It made her feel ill. She thought about it every morning on the way to work while she was getting her Venti double shot mocha latte at Starbucks ($5 each work day). She thought about it more during lunch at the pasta place across from the office where she loved the Chicken Carbonara even though it wasn't on the $5 daily special ($8.50 each work day). Jane noticed she even thought about her lack of insurance while getting her hair done. It was a treat for her to get her roots done, a trim, and some highlights once a month ($50 per month). She even caught herself mentioning her plight to the nail tech while getting her nails filled ($15 twice a month).
Even at home in her comfortable apartment she would flip though the digital cable channels or surf the internet using her cable modem ($150 per month) to find out more about what Congress was doing to help people like her on her 50 inch LCD TV. She was glad to have some wine ($20 per week) to calm her while watching news that just got her more worried. Sometimes she got worried enough to go for a walk to calm her down. She should probably go to the gym instead since she was paying for it ($45 per month) but it was too much of a hassle to drive over there. She never used the gym. Oh well, the walk made her feel better and it was probably good for her health.
Jane was especially aware of her predicament when her office co-worker, a mean ol' conservative, continually took pleasure in pointing out that she could afford the company health insurance plan if she made some changes. He actually told her in front of the whole office that by eliminating her Starbucks habit and her cable tv/modem she would save enough to be able to afford health insurance. What a jerk! She couldn't believe he wanted her to live like like that. Where did he get off?!? It was all so stressful.
And that's the really sad story of Jane Doe who couldn't afford health insurance. How did you think it was going to end? Ok, ok. She had an ulcer. The doctor told her to reduce stress, maybe quit worrying so much and stop watching the news. He also said she should lay off the caffeine and wine, increase her water intake, and take the anti-biotic, antacid, and a drug to repair the ulcer he was prescribing. She paid for the office visit on her credit card and scheduled a follow up for six weeks. Then Jane went to Wal-Mart to fill her prescriptions for $10 each. She hardly even thought about the fact she had received appropriate health care without insurance. How sad.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Don't Cry Wolf
There's an email going around. I received the email from a trusted source that failed to check sources and verify content. This particular email is about a Senate Bill (SB-2099) that would require, according to the email, that everyone place the number of guns they have on their 2009 tax return, get fingerprinted, and pay a $50 tax per gun. The email even contains a link to a website with the bill's text. Then the email asks that you contact your elected officials to tell them to vote against it. That would be crying wolf.
Pay attention. There is no such bill currently being considered by the U.S. Senate. Do not call them about "SB-2099". There was a bill a few years ago that was numbered S. 2099 that is the bill the emailer is referring to, but it never made it through the Senate during the session it was introduced...so it died. It has not been reintroduced.
If you want to know what's going on regarding anti-gun bills in the U.S. Congress you can check with the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action. They do keep track of all State and Federal legislative actions impacting gun owners and you can subscribe to emails from the ILA. Don't cry wolf.
Pay attention. There is no such bill currently being considered by the U.S. Senate. Do not call them about "SB-2099". There was a bill a few years ago that was numbered S. 2099 that is the bill the emailer is referring to, but it never made it through the Senate during the session it was introduced...so it died. It has not been reintroduced.
If you want to know what's going on regarding anti-gun bills in the U.S. Congress you can check with the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action. They do keep track of all State and Federal legislative actions impacting gun owners and you can subscribe to emails from the ILA. Don't cry wolf.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
President Obama To Name Supporter's Daughter To FCC
What can I say? This is purely a payback move by the President who said his administration would be the most ethical and open administration in history. Apparently this week nepotism is ethical and is being done somewhat openly. President Obama announced that Mignon Clyburn would be nominated to a seat at the Federal Communications Commission. Mignon Clyburn is the daughter of Democrat Congressman (and majority whip) Jim Clyburn of South Carolina.
As I said, this is just a payback move. Congressman Clyburn, the highest ranking African-American in Congress, was key to passing the massive $787 billion "economic-stimulus" plan quickly through the House in February. He also played a part in securing Obama's nomination during the Democrat Presidential Primaries by swaying other "super delagates" toward Obama. Since then, Clyburn and Obama have become somewhat close.
Now, for you liberals out there screaming at your computer screen right now, I know other Presidents have done this kind of thing. But, how many of those Presidents made their whole campaign about "Change" from the way things were done before? No, not promising change because they all do that....how many made it their whole campaign like Obama? How many promised the "most transparent" administration in history? Just Obama. The most ethical? You might see my point. This nomination is not ethical, it's not change, and it's barely transparent.
As I said, this is just a payback move. Congressman Clyburn, the highest ranking African-American in Congress, was key to passing the massive $787 billion "economic-stimulus" plan quickly through the House in February. He also played a part in securing Obama's nomination during the Democrat Presidential Primaries by swaying other "super delagates" toward Obama. Since then, Clyburn and Obama have become somewhat close.
Now, for you liberals out there screaming at your computer screen right now, I know other Presidents have done this kind of thing. But, how many of those Presidents made their whole campaign about "Change" from the way things were done before? No, not promising change because they all do that....how many made it their whole campaign like Obama? How many promised the "most transparent" administration in history? Just Obama. The most ethical? You might see my point. This nomination is not ethical, it's not change, and it's barely transparent.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Senators Want To Tell Your Kids What To Eat At School
It never ends when you start taking "federal" money. Never mind that there's no such thing as "government money" or "federal money", it's really just your money sent to Washington, D.C., bundled up, and sent back to you with strings attached. If you are stupid enough to accept it then you have to live with ever increasing government intrusion forever and ever. Now, because $11 billion of taxpayer money is spent on school food programs, Senator Tom Harkin (Dem-Iowa) and Senator Lisa Murkowski (RINO-Alaska) have submitted legislation to allow the U.S. Department of Agriculture to establish "common-sense nutrition standards" for food, beverages, and snacks sold in vending machines, school stores, or other outlets. That's politician speak for getting rid of junk food.
Yeah, nobody wants kids to eat more junk food but who in hell do they think they are? I don't know about schools in your area but I can't find a single school in San Antonio (other than on military bases) built on federal land. I can't find one school designed or built by the federal government. Never saw a school bond issue by the federal government...they've all been local. The teachers, administrators, secretaries, and janitors are not federal government employees. The students are not subjects of an almighty federal king. So, where do they get off telling local school districts what they can and can't do, and telling you what will and will not be available at your kid's school? It's the money you send them that they send back to you that lets them in.
In the U.S. Constitution the federal government is not given any authority over education. Check it out if you think I'm wrong, but you'll find I'm right. The senators proposing this legislation know they have no constitutional authority but they still want to ram this down everyone's throats. Why? Because it increases their power by expanding government. How do they get away with it? We let them. I propose we don't let them anymore. Schools are local not federal. Call Senator Harkin and Senator Murkowski to tell them to keep their noses out of your local business.
Yeah, nobody wants kids to eat more junk food but who in hell do they think they are? I don't know about schools in your area but I can't find a single school in San Antonio (other than on military bases) built on federal land. I can't find one school designed or built by the federal government. Never saw a school bond issue by the federal government...they've all been local. The teachers, administrators, secretaries, and janitors are not federal government employees. The students are not subjects of an almighty federal king. So, where do they get off telling local school districts what they can and can't do, and telling you what will and will not be available at your kid's school? It's the money you send them that they send back to you that lets them in.
In the U.S. Constitution the federal government is not given any authority over education. Check it out if you think I'm wrong, but you'll find I'm right. The senators proposing this legislation know they have no constitutional authority but they still want to ram this down everyone's throats. Why? Because it increases their power by expanding government. How do they get away with it? We let them. I propose we don't let them anymore. Schools are local not federal. Call Senator Harkin and Senator Murkowski to tell them to keep their noses out of your local business.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Someone In Congress Is Realistic
Want to see something interesting? The following is taken from Section 2 of HR 17 which is known as the Citizens’ Self-Defense Act of 2009:
The Congress finds the following:
Isn't that interesting? If you read the whole bill you'll see it's pretty much like the "Castle Doctrine" we have here in Texas. Let your Members of Congress know you want this to pass.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:
- (A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: ‘[C]ourts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.’.
(B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.
(C) The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.(2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by the following:
(A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals--or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
(B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.
(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker.Isn't that interesting? If you read the whole bill you'll see it's pretty much like the "Castle Doctrine" we have here in Texas. Let your Members of Congress know you want this to pass.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Antarctic Sea Ice Has Expanded
An April 18th article in The Australian newspaper says, "A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded."
What? How can that be? According to Al Gore all the Arctic and Antarctic ice is melting due to man-made global warming and will soon swamp a coastline near you. However, someone with better scientific credentials than Gore, a government major in college, has actually studied the Antarctic ice and found more than before. According to the article "Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head (Dr.) Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica." Yes, you read it right. Ice increases in one sector of East Antarctica are more than the decreases in West Antarctica....so we have MORE ICE in Antarctica NOT LESS. Tell me again how that means the climate is warming.
More Antarctic ice hints at cooling instead of warming. Man-made global warming is a hoax and it's an expensive one. European countries are already collecting taxes related to gases supposedly related to global warming including bovine flatulence and BBQ's on the weekend. Tell your government representatives that you are against taxes to defeat global warming. Do it now because the U.S. Congress is set to pass legislation to "combat climate change" and that's going to mean you pay more for everything for no good reason.
What? How can that be? According to Al Gore all the Arctic and Antarctic ice is melting due to man-made global warming and will soon swamp a coastline near you. However, someone with better scientific credentials than Gore, a government major in college, has actually studied the Antarctic ice and found more than before. According to the article "Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head (Dr.) Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica." Yes, you read it right. Ice increases in one sector of East Antarctica are more than the decreases in West Antarctica....so we have MORE ICE in Antarctica NOT LESS. Tell me again how that means the climate is warming.
More Antarctic ice hints at cooling instead of warming. Man-made global warming is a hoax and it's an expensive one. European countries are already collecting taxes related to gases supposedly related to global warming including bovine flatulence and BBQ's on the weekend. Tell your government representatives that you are against taxes to defeat global warming. Do it now because the U.S. Congress is set to pass legislation to "combat climate change" and that's going to mean you pay more for everything for no good reason.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Will Democrat Gun Banners Be As Stupid As Canada's?
Just when you think gun control gets to its most ridiculous you hear something new and more ridiculous...Canada is now asking gun owners about their love life when renewing gun permits. Yes, you read that right. George Jonas reports on Canada's nationalpost.com that "Before renewing his gun permit in 2007, the authorities decided to inquire into (Pierre) Lemieux’s bedroom history. Did he divorce anyone in the last two years? Did he break up with a girlfriend? If yes, use a separate sheet to explain." Explain? What does that have to do with a gun permit?
Now, you might think "oh, it's just Canada" but you have to remember that President Obama and the Democrat Congress have more in common with the Socialists in Canada than with right-thinking, logical, gun-owning, freedom-loving Americans. He has previously supported a rights rationing bill in Illinois that would limit law abiding citizens from buying more than one gun a month. Obama and Democrats like Nancy Pelosi support local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities despite evidence violent crime increased after bans went into effect. Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition creating an economic barrier to a citizen's self-defense. Obama and the Democrat Congress want to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban. And, the President and Democrat Congress support gun owner licensing and gun registration. So, how far down the road are questions about your love life and erectile dysfunction here in the U.S. under Obama's administration? How stupid will it get?
Make sure you act now to preserve your rights. Join the NRA and make sure you contact your representatives...and if your representatives don't support your rights - make sure they become unemployed. Stop stupidity now.
Now, you might think "oh, it's just Canada" but you have to remember that President Obama and the Democrat Congress have more in common with the Socialists in Canada than with right-thinking, logical, gun-owning, freedom-loving Americans. He has previously supported a rights rationing bill in Illinois that would limit law abiding citizens from buying more than one gun a month. Obama and Democrats like Nancy Pelosi support local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities despite evidence violent crime increased after bans went into effect. Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition creating an economic barrier to a citizen's self-defense. Obama and the Democrat Congress want to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban. And, the President and Democrat Congress support gun owner licensing and gun registration. So, how far down the road are questions about your love life and erectile dysfunction here in the U.S. under Obama's administration? How stupid will it get?
Make sure you act now to preserve your rights. Join the NRA and make sure you contact your representatives...and if your representatives don't support your rights - make sure they become unemployed. Stop stupidity now.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
The San Antonio Tea Party
Today is April 15th, Tax Day, and also the day people around the country take part in "Tea Parties". What is a Tea Party? Well, it's a gathering of like-minded people from all walks of life and various political backgrounds...Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents were in attendance and involved in the San Antonio Tea Party. What could bring all of those people together? What brought them together is a certain knowledge that the U.S. Government is far too large and unwisely spends far too much of the taxpayers money.
And, before you allow yourself to be convinced otherwise let me tell you something...I was there...the Tea Party was non-violent. It was non-partisan. It was not "right wing" (like CNN said), nor was it "left wing". It was not started by Fox News or any talk show host - it's a true grassroots effort. It wasn't a protest against President Obama nor any one person in particular. It was a declaration that this is still our country and we are unhappy with how the over sized, overbearing government is over spending OUR MONEY. It's recognition that the U.S. Government is addicted to deficit spending and growing a debt so large it will take generations to pay.
Generally, the sentiments of people attending the San Antonio Tea Party lead me to believe that all in attendance would agree with a couple of my favorite quotes from Thomas Jefferson, "My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." and "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Maybe you agree?
The Tea Party was a great start on the path to correcting the problems in our increasingly UnConstituitonal government. The Tea Party is a statement by the people that government is responsible to us, not the other way around.
For more information about the San Antonio Tea Party Click Here
And, before you allow yourself to be convinced otherwise let me tell you something...I was there...the Tea Party was non-violent. It was non-partisan. It was not "right wing" (like CNN said), nor was it "left wing". It was not started by Fox News or any talk show host - it's a true grassroots effort. It wasn't a protest against President Obama nor any one person in particular. It was a declaration that this is still our country and we are unhappy with how the over sized, overbearing government is over spending OUR MONEY. It's recognition that the U.S. Government is addicted to deficit spending and growing a debt so large it will take generations to pay.
Generally, the sentiments of people attending the San Antonio Tea Party lead me to believe that all in attendance would agree with a couple of my favorite quotes from Thomas Jefferson, "My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." and "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Maybe you agree?
The Tea Party was a great start on the path to correcting the problems in our increasingly UnConstituitonal government. The Tea Party is a statement by the people that government is responsible to us, not the other way around.
For more information about the San Antonio Tea Party Click Here
Thursday, March 26, 2009
More Evidence We Are On Bizarro World (Htrae)
If you've ever read a lot of comic books like I have, you're probably aware of a supposedly fictional planet called Bizarro World. I say supposedly because the way things are going here in the U.S. I'm wondering if we haven't all been transported to Bizarro World where things are pretty much opposite the way they are on Earth.
The latest evidence of our collective move to Bizarro World is a letter sent to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on March 17th by 65 Congressional Democrats against reinstating the assault weapons ban! Yeah, I said Democrats sent the letter. In the letter the 65 Donkey Party Members of Congress opposed the assault weapons ban by stating, "We believe that this ban was ineffective during the 10 years it was law, and would oppose its reenactment."
In an astonishing break from their anti-gun supporters they also said, "The gun control community has intentionally misled many Americans into believing that these weapons are fully automatic machine guns. They are not. These firearms fire one shot for every trigger pull. Some of the guns that would be banned under proposed bills have been around for more than 70 years, and are often passed down from generation to generation." Wow, isn't Bizarro World strange?
Of course it's more likely that the career polititians who signed the letter are just engaging in some CYA maneuvers. We'll probably never know.
In case you're wondering if your Congressman signed, here are the names (only 2 from CA):
1. Mike Ross (D-AR) 2. Tim Holden (D-PA) 3. Jerry Costello (D-IL) 4. Jim Matheson (D-UT) 5. Sanford Bishop (D-GA) 6. John Dingell (D-MI) 7. Marion Berry (D-AR) 8. Nick Rahall (D-WV) 9. Gene Green (D-TX) 10. Chet Edwards (D-TX) 11. Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX) 12. Gene Taylor (D-MS) 13. Bart Stupak (D-MI) 14. Collin Peterson (D-MN) 15. Harry Teague (D-NM) 16. John Tanner (D-TN) 17. Allen Boyd (D-FL) 18. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) 19. Eric Massa (D-NY) 20. Steve Kagen, M.D. (D-WI) 21. Betsy Markey (D-CO) 22. Paul Hodes (D-NH) 23. Ron Kind (D-WI) 24. Peter Welch (D-VT) 25. Leonard Boswell (D-IA) 26. Tim Ryan (D-OH) 27. Walt Minnick (D-ID) 28. John Boccieri (D-OH) 29. Joe Donnelly (D-IN) 30. Tom Perriello (D-VA) 31. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) 32. Ben Chandler (D-KY) 33. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) 34. Debbie Halvorson (D-IL) 35. Travis Childers (D-MS) 36. Tim Walz (D-MN) 37. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) 38. Solomon Ortiz (D-TX) 39. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) 40. Rick Boucher (D-VA) 41. Mike McIntyre (D-NC) 42. John Murtha (D-PA) 43. Bart Gordon (D-TN) 44. Zach Space (D-OH)
45. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) 46. Lincoln Davis (D-TN) 47. Artur Davis (D-AL) 48. Charlie Melancon (D-LA) 49. John Barrow (D-GA) 50. Christopher Carney (D-PA) 51. Dan Boren (D-OK) 52. Parker Griffith (D-AL) 53. Charlie Wilson (D-OH) 54. Heath Shuler (D-NC) 55. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD) 56. Jim Marshall (D-GA) 57. Jason Altmire (D-PA) 58. Larry Kissell (D-NC) 59. John Salazar (D-CO) 60. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) 61. Frank Kratovil (D-MD) 62. Glenn Nye (D-VA) 63. Bobby Bright (D-AL) 64. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ) 65. Joe Baca (D-CA)
You should also note that 65 Democrats isn't a majority of the Democrats serving in the House of Representatives.
The latest evidence of our collective move to Bizarro World is a letter sent to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on March 17th by 65 Congressional Democrats against reinstating the assault weapons ban! Yeah, I said Democrats sent the letter. In the letter the 65 Donkey Party Members of Congress opposed the assault weapons ban by stating, "We believe that this ban was ineffective during the 10 years it was law, and would oppose its reenactment."
In an astonishing break from their anti-gun supporters they also said, "The gun control community has intentionally misled many Americans into believing that these weapons are fully automatic machine guns. They are not. These firearms fire one shot for every trigger pull. Some of the guns that would be banned under proposed bills have been around for more than 70 years, and are often passed down from generation to generation." Wow, isn't Bizarro World strange?
Of course it's more likely that the career polititians who signed the letter are just engaging in some CYA maneuvers. We'll probably never know.
In case you're wondering if your Congressman signed, here are the names (only 2 from CA):
1. Mike Ross (D-AR) 2. Tim Holden (D-PA) 3. Jerry Costello (D-IL) 4. Jim Matheson (D-UT) 5. Sanford Bishop (D-GA) 6. John Dingell (D-MI) 7. Marion Berry (D-AR) 8. Nick Rahall (D-WV) 9. Gene Green (D-TX) 10. Chet Edwards (D-TX) 11. Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX) 12. Gene Taylor (D-MS) 13. Bart Stupak (D-MI) 14. Collin Peterson (D-MN) 15. Harry Teague (D-NM) 16. John Tanner (D-TN) 17. Allen Boyd (D-FL) 18. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) 19. Eric Massa (D-NY) 20. Steve Kagen, M.D. (D-WI) 21. Betsy Markey (D-CO) 22. Paul Hodes (D-NH) 23. Ron Kind (D-WI) 24. Peter Welch (D-VT) 25. Leonard Boswell (D-IA) 26. Tim Ryan (D-OH) 27. Walt Minnick (D-ID) 28. John Boccieri (D-OH) 29. Joe Donnelly (D-IN) 30. Tom Perriello (D-VA) 31. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) 32. Ben Chandler (D-KY) 33. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) 34. Debbie Halvorson (D-IL) 35. Travis Childers (D-MS) 36. Tim Walz (D-MN) 37. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) 38. Solomon Ortiz (D-TX) 39. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) 40. Rick Boucher (D-VA) 41. Mike McIntyre (D-NC) 42. John Murtha (D-PA) 43. Bart Gordon (D-TN) 44. Zach Space (D-OH)
45. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) 46. Lincoln Davis (D-TN) 47. Artur Davis (D-AL) 48. Charlie Melancon (D-LA) 49. John Barrow (D-GA) 50. Christopher Carney (D-PA) 51. Dan Boren (D-OK) 52. Parker Griffith (D-AL) 53. Charlie Wilson (D-OH) 54. Heath Shuler (D-NC) 55. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD) 56. Jim Marshall (D-GA) 57. Jason Altmire (D-PA) 58. Larry Kissell (D-NC) 59. John Salazar (D-CO) 60. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) 61. Frank Kratovil (D-MD) 62. Glenn Nye (D-VA) 63. Bobby Bright (D-AL) 64. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ) 65. Joe Baca (D-CA)
You should also note that 65 Democrats isn't a majority of the Democrats serving in the House of Representatives.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Your Right To Self Defense Under Attack By Democrats
I believe people have the God given right to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property. It's not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution but I believe it's a right anyway. Your 21 year old daughter attending college out of state has the right to defend herself too. However, if Democrats have their way your 5'1" 95 pound daddy's girl is going to need more kickboxing classes to fend off the five 6'4" 250 pound members of a gang who want to rape her, kill her, and stuff her in a dumpster. That's because Democrats are once again attempting to nullify the Second Amendment and make gun ownership illegal...just as I knew they would.
With a majority in Congress and a newly elected Democrat (socialist) President, Democrats in Congress and Legislatures around the country are proposing anti-gun legislation that diminishes a law-abiding citizen's ability to defend themselves.
For example...
Attorney General Eric Holder announced that President Obama's Administration will seek to reinstate the expired federal "assault weapons" ban and impose additional restrictions. Holder said,"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to re-institute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,". It's interesting to note that Holder did not offer any evidence that the assault weapons ban did anything other than limit the rights of law abiding Americans. Holder's testimony during his confirmation hearings before the Democrat controlled U.S. Senate, indicated those other "changes" presumably include prohibiting private transfers of firearms and banning most center-fire rifle ammunition as "armor-piercing." Holder said that new gun control laws are needed because in Mexico, a country with a history of corruption and disregard for individual rights (and strict gun control), there's a shooting war going on between drug gangs and government troops, and some of the gangsters' guns have been illegally purchased in the United States. Apparently AG Holder thinks that criminals and gangsters will obey the new laws even though they don't obey the old ones. He must also think that Mexican outlaws care what our laws are.
In Michigan Senate Bill 268, introduced by State Senator Martha Scott (Dem-2), would undermine a citizen's right to self-defense by imposing ridiculous storage requirements on Michigan gun owners, rendering their guns useless in self-defense situations. SB 268 requires households with children to store their guns in locked boxes with trigger locks installed. So, if passed Michigan gun owners would have to hope that criminals breaking in to their homes are willing to wait while the guns are retrieved and unlocked. Will your daughter be able to get to her gun in time? Will you?
In Illinois State Representative Kenneth Dunkin (Dem-5) introduced House Bill 687, to amend Illinois' Firearm Owners Identification Act to require that anyone who owns a firearm in the state carry a minimum of $1,000,000 in liability insurance to cover any potential damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the firearm's use. This bill would make owning a gun in Illinois nearly impossible as it would put firearms ownership out of reach for many law-abiding Illinoisans, which, of course, is the point of Rep. Dunkin's bill. Simply stated this would create an economic barrier to self defense. Is your daughter going to school in Illinois? Can she afford the insurance?
In New York Assembly Bill 5884, sponsored by State Assemblyman Adriano Espaillat (Dem-72), makes firearms manufacturers liable to the state if their guns cause injury or death to a state employee acting within the course of his or her official duties. The bill would make exceptions for manufacturers who sign a so-called "code of conduct." Among the many components of the "Code of Conduct" is a provision under which manufacturers must agree not to sell more than one gun per month to any individual. Maybe next week Assemblyman Espaillat will submit a bill making pencil manufacturers liable to the state for all spelling errors made by state employees. This is just economic terrorism directed at producers of a legal product. As for the "one gun per month" provision...it's rationing of Constitutional Rights!
There's even more Democrat anti-gun legislation out there and there's a couple of common themes. First, they're attempting to make it extremely difficult or impossible to exercise our Second Amendment rights and our right to defend ourselves. And Second, the registration and tracking of law abiding American citizens who happen to own guns...registration historically has had some really bad outcomes.
Around two million times each year Americans defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property with guns they have the right to own - often without firing a shot. If you don't own a gun you should still support gun ownership and the Second Amendment because you indirectly benefit from it...criminals aren't sure if it's you or your neighbor who's armed.
Support the NRA!
With a majority in Congress and a newly elected Democrat (socialist) President, Democrats in Congress and Legislatures around the country are proposing anti-gun legislation that diminishes a law-abiding citizen's ability to defend themselves.
For example...
Attorney General Eric Holder announced that President Obama's Administration will seek to reinstate the expired federal "assault weapons" ban and impose additional restrictions. Holder said,"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to re-institute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,". It's interesting to note that Holder did not offer any evidence that the assault weapons ban did anything other than limit the rights of law abiding Americans. Holder's testimony during his confirmation hearings before the Democrat controlled U.S. Senate, indicated those other "changes" presumably include prohibiting private transfers of firearms and banning most center-fire rifle ammunition as "armor-piercing." Holder said that new gun control laws are needed because in Mexico, a country with a history of corruption and disregard for individual rights (and strict gun control), there's a shooting war going on between drug gangs and government troops, and some of the gangsters' guns have been illegally purchased in the United States. Apparently AG Holder thinks that criminals and gangsters will obey the new laws even though they don't obey the old ones. He must also think that Mexican outlaws care what our laws are.
In Michigan Senate Bill 268, introduced by State Senator Martha Scott (Dem-2), would undermine a citizen's right to self-defense by imposing ridiculous storage requirements on Michigan gun owners, rendering their guns useless in self-defense situations. SB 268 requires households with children to store their guns in locked boxes with trigger locks installed. So, if passed Michigan gun owners would have to hope that criminals breaking in to their homes are willing to wait while the guns are retrieved and unlocked. Will your daughter be able to get to her gun in time? Will you?
In Illinois State Representative Kenneth Dunkin (Dem-5) introduced House Bill 687, to amend Illinois' Firearm Owners Identification Act to require that anyone who owns a firearm in the state carry a minimum of $1,000,000 in liability insurance to cover any potential damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the firearm's use. This bill would make owning a gun in Illinois nearly impossible as it would put firearms ownership out of reach for many law-abiding Illinoisans, which, of course, is the point of Rep. Dunkin's bill. Simply stated this would create an economic barrier to self defense. Is your daughter going to school in Illinois? Can she afford the insurance?
In New York Assembly Bill 5884, sponsored by State Assemblyman Adriano Espaillat (Dem-72), makes firearms manufacturers liable to the state if their guns cause injury or death to a state employee acting within the course of his or her official duties. The bill would make exceptions for manufacturers who sign a so-called "code of conduct." Among the many components of the "Code of Conduct" is a provision under which manufacturers must agree not to sell more than one gun per month to any individual. Maybe next week Assemblyman Espaillat will submit a bill making pencil manufacturers liable to the state for all spelling errors made by state employees. This is just economic terrorism directed at producers of a legal product. As for the "one gun per month" provision...it's rationing of Constitutional Rights!
There's even more Democrat anti-gun legislation out there and there's a couple of common themes. First, they're attempting to make it extremely difficult or impossible to exercise our Second Amendment rights and our right to defend ourselves. And Second, the registration and tracking of law abiding American citizens who happen to own guns...registration historically has had some really bad outcomes.
Around two million times each year Americans defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property with guns they have the right to own - often without firing a shot. If you don't own a gun you should still support gun ownership and the Second Amendment because you indirectly benefit from it...criminals aren't sure if it's you or your neighbor who's armed.
Support the NRA!
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.
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
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.
HE INHERITED THIS RECESSION FROM THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY IN CONGRESS!
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Filtered Comment [show]
Findings are totally superfluous. Who gives a crap about all this? I know it's a practical argument, but any firearms regulation is immoral and unconstitutional.
Filtered Comment [show]
I agree with you, but...
Having worked in a legislature before, it is almost imperative that you convince your fellow legislators to vote for something. Often times you must make practical arguments as well as principled ones. This is also because in a bill (as opposed to the other method of passing a law, a Joint Resolution) has no preamble laying out the purpose of the bill.
Add A Comment