Is Iowa Lawmaker Kent Sorenson Too Pro-Gun for NRA?
News by Mark Berman Opposing Views
(22 Hours Ago) in Society / Guns
The NRA is reportedly threatening to campaign against a pro-gun Iowa legislator because he is pushing a bill that is too pro-gun.
Rep. Kent Sorenson is an outspoken gun advocate and one of the leading voices for 2nd Amendment rights in the Iowa legislature. He introduced and pushed for a right-to-carry bill that would have given people the right to carry a gun, concealed or otherwise, without having to obtain a permit. The bill did not pass because of a tie vote. Other compromise bills have also been introduced. Sorenson is against these "watered down" bills, saying they don't provide true gun rights.
The NRA is involved in crafting one of these compromise bills that was introduced last week by two traditionally anti-gun politicians. The bill was written in such a way that moderates could support it, giving it a better chance of passing.
Sorenson came out against the NRA bill. So according to a report on Ammoland.com, a lobbyist working for the NRA went to Sorenson and told him if he didn't support the bill, the NRA would work to get his opponent elected in an upcoming election -- an anti-gun candidate at that.
The NRA has not commented on the accusation.
Over the weekend the Iowa Senate approved a bill that overhauls the system for issuing permits to carry concealed weapons. It requires that sheriffs give a reason if they deny a permit and make such decisions based on consistent state guidelines.
===========================
GR4U - This kind of help. we don't need!
Here's a great article that I previously linked to which explains all that's wrong with the NRA. I thought this would be a good post to re-visit it.
Friday
Wednesday
Old Jarhead paints a frightening picture of America's future
Robert A. Hall (aka) Old Jarhead, has written an essay entitled The Coming Collapse of the American Republic. It is lengthy, but I urge you to read it, as well as the links he provides to support his points. Then share it with someone you care about, but who doesn't "get it". This excellent piece, thoughtfully written, comprehensively supported with facts, and nearly devoid of rant and rhetoric, may be just what you need to open some eyes.
Here's just a teaser to whet the appetite:
Here's just a teaser to whet the appetite:
Each of several challenges facing us is both complex and over-whelming, and we no longer seem to have “the right stuff” to deal with any of them. While we might successfully, though not painlessly, face down each of them individually, their convergence makes the Republic’s survival highly problematic. Americans want the benefits of the good life, but far too many want someone else to pay the costs and make the sacrifices for them to have it. Few are willing to sacrifice their comfort, their cash or their standard of living—never mind their lives—to protect the Republic and the system of political and economic freedom that created the material wealth that is the envy of the planet, far beyond what our grandfathers could have dreamed.
Tuesday
Ann Coulter's one page healthcare plan
March 17, 2010
Liberals keep complaining that Republicans don't have a plan for reforming health care in America. I have a plan!
It's a one-page bill creating a free market in health insurance. Let's all pause here for a moment so liberals can Google the term "free market."
Nearly every problem with health care in this country -- apart from trial lawyers and out-of-date magazines in doctors' waiting rooms -- would be solved by my plan.
In the first sentence, Congress will amend the McCarran-Ferguson Act to allow interstate competition in health insurance.
We can't have a free market in health insurance until Congress eliminates the antitrust exemption protecting health insurance companies from competition. If Democrats really wanted to punish insurance companies, which they manifestly do not, they'd make insurers compete.
The very next sentence of my bill provides that the exclusive regulator of insurance companies will be the state where the company's home office is. Every insurance company in the country would incorporate in the state with the fewest government mandates, just as most corporations are based in Delaware today.
That's the only way to bypass idiotic state mandates, requiring all insurance plans offered in the state to cover, for example, the Zone Diet, sex-change operations, and whatever it is that poor Heidi Montag has done to herself this week.
President Obama says we need national health care because Natoma Canfield of Ohio had to drop her insurance when she couldn't afford the $6,700 premiums, and now she's got cancer.
Much as I admire Obama's use of terminally ill human beings as political props, let me point out here that perhaps Natoma could have afforded insurance had she not been required by Ohio's state insurance mandates to purchase a plan that covers infertility treatments and unlimited ob/gyn visits, among other things.
It sounds like Natoma could have used a plan that covered only the basics -- you know, things like cancer.
The third sentence of my bill would prohibit the federal government from regulating insurance companies, except for normal laws and regulations that apply to all companies.
Freed from onerous state and federal mandates turning insurance companies into public utilities, insurers would be allowed to offer a whole smorgasbord of insurance plans, finally giving consumers a choice.
Instead of Harry Reid deciding whether your insurance plan covers Viagra, this decision would be made by you, the consumer. (I apologize for using the terms "Harry Reid" and "Viagra" in the same sentence. I promise that won't happen again.)
Instead of insurance companies jumping to the tune of politicians bought by health-care lobbyists, they would jump to the tune of hundreds of millions of Americans buying health insurance on the free market.
Hypochondriac liberals could still buy the aromatherapy plan and normal people would be able to buy plans that only cover things like major illness, accidents and disease. (Again -- things like Natoma Canfield's cancer.)
This would, in effect, transform medical insurance into ... a form of insurance!
My bill will solve nearly every problem allegedly addressed by ObamaCare -- and mine entails zero cost to the taxpayer. Indeed, a free market in health insurance would produce major tax savings as layers of government bureaucrats, unnecessary to medical service in America, get fired.
For example, in a free market, the government wouldn't need to prohibit insurance companies from excluding "pre-existing conditions."
Of course, an insurance company has to be able to refuse new customers with "pre-existing conditions." Otherwise, everyone would just wait to get sick to buy insurance. It's the same reason you can't buy fire insurance on a house that's already on fire.
That isn't an "insurance company"; it's what's known as a "Christian charity."
What Democrats are insinuating when they denounce exclusions of "pre-existing conditions" is an insurance company using the "pre-existing condition" ruse to deny coverage to a current policy holder -- someone who's been paying into the plan, year after year.
Any insurance company operating in the free market that pulled that trick wouldn't stay in business long.
If hotels were as heavily regulated as health insurance is, right now I'd be explaining to you why the government doesn't need to mandate that hotels offer rooms with beds. If they didn't, they'd go out of business.
I'm sure people who lived in the old Soviet Union thought it was crazy to leave groceries to the free market. ("But what if they don't stock the food we want?")
The market is a more powerful enforcement mechanism than indolent government bureaucrats. If you don't believe me, ask Toyota about six months from now.
Right now, insurance companies are protected by government regulations from having to honor their contracts. Violating contracts isn't so easy when competitors are lurking, ready to steal your customers.
In addition to saving taxpayer money and providing better health insurance, my plan also saves trees by being 2,199 pages shorter than the Democrats' plan.
Feel free to steal it, Republicans!
Liberals keep complaining that Republicans don't have a plan for reforming health care in America. I have a plan!
It's a one-page bill creating a free market in health insurance. Let's all pause here for a moment so liberals can Google the term "free market."
Nearly every problem with health care in this country -- apart from trial lawyers and out-of-date magazines in doctors' waiting rooms -- would be solved by my plan.
In the first sentence, Congress will amend the McCarran-Ferguson Act to allow interstate competition in health insurance.
We can't have a free market in health insurance until Congress eliminates the antitrust exemption protecting health insurance companies from competition. If Democrats really wanted to punish insurance companies, which they manifestly do not, they'd make insurers compete.
The very next sentence of my bill provides that the exclusive regulator of insurance companies will be the state where the company's home office is. Every insurance company in the country would incorporate in the state with the fewest government mandates, just as most corporations are based in Delaware today.
That's the only way to bypass idiotic state mandates, requiring all insurance plans offered in the state to cover, for example, the Zone Diet, sex-change operations, and whatever it is that poor Heidi Montag has done to herself this week.
President Obama says we need national health care because Natoma Canfield of Ohio had to drop her insurance when she couldn't afford the $6,700 premiums, and now she's got cancer.
Much as I admire Obama's use of terminally ill human beings as political props, let me point out here that perhaps Natoma could have afforded insurance had she not been required by Ohio's state insurance mandates to purchase a plan that covers infertility treatments and unlimited ob/gyn visits, among other things.
It sounds like Natoma could have used a plan that covered only the basics -- you know, things like cancer.
The third sentence of my bill would prohibit the federal government from regulating insurance companies, except for normal laws and regulations that apply to all companies.
Freed from onerous state and federal mandates turning insurance companies into public utilities, insurers would be allowed to offer a whole smorgasbord of insurance plans, finally giving consumers a choice.
Instead of Harry Reid deciding whether your insurance plan covers Viagra, this decision would be made by you, the consumer. (I apologize for using the terms "Harry Reid" and "Viagra" in the same sentence. I promise that won't happen again.)
Instead of insurance companies jumping to the tune of politicians bought by health-care lobbyists, they would jump to the tune of hundreds of millions of Americans buying health insurance on the free market.
Hypochondriac liberals could still buy the aromatherapy plan and normal people would be able to buy plans that only cover things like major illness, accidents and disease. (Again -- things like Natoma Canfield's cancer.)
This would, in effect, transform medical insurance into ... a form of insurance!
My bill will solve nearly every problem allegedly addressed by ObamaCare -- and mine entails zero cost to the taxpayer. Indeed, a free market in health insurance would produce major tax savings as layers of government bureaucrats, unnecessary to medical service in America, get fired.
For example, in a free market, the government wouldn't need to prohibit insurance companies from excluding "pre-existing conditions."
Of course, an insurance company has to be able to refuse new customers with "pre-existing conditions." Otherwise, everyone would just wait to get sick to buy insurance. It's the same reason you can't buy fire insurance on a house that's already on fire.
That isn't an "insurance company"; it's what's known as a "Christian charity."
What Democrats are insinuating when they denounce exclusions of "pre-existing conditions" is an insurance company using the "pre-existing condition" ruse to deny coverage to a current policy holder -- someone who's been paying into the plan, year after year.
Any insurance company operating in the free market that pulled that trick wouldn't stay in business long.
If hotels were as heavily regulated as health insurance is, right now I'd be explaining to you why the government doesn't need to mandate that hotels offer rooms with beds. If they didn't, they'd go out of business.
I'm sure people who lived in the old Soviet Union thought it was crazy to leave groceries to the free market. ("But what if they don't stock the food we want?")
The market is a more powerful enforcement mechanism than indolent government bureaucrats. If you don't believe me, ask Toyota about six months from now.
Right now, insurance companies are protected by government regulations from having to honor their contracts. Violating contracts isn't so easy when competitors are lurking, ready to steal your customers.
In addition to saving taxpayer money and providing better health insurance, my plan also saves trees by being 2,199 pages shorter than the Democrats' plan.
Feel free to steal it, Republicans!
Inside the Pelosi Sausage Factory
Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak sold his anti-abortion soul for a toothless executive order
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Last week Republican Rep. Mike Pence posted on his Facebook site that famous Schoolhouse Rock video titled "How a Bill Becomes a Law." It's clearly time for a remake.
Never before has the average American been treated to such a live-action view of the sordid politics necessary to push a deeply flawed bill to completion. It was dirty deals, open threats, broken promises and disregard for democracy that pulled ObamaCare to this point, and yesterday the same machinations pushed it across the finish line.
You could see it all coming a week ago, when New York Rep. Louise Slaughter let leak a breathtaking strategy whereby the House would not actually vote on the unpopular Senate bill. The House would instead vote on a "reconciliation" fix to that bill, and in the process "deem" the underlying legislation—with its Cornhusker kickbacks and Louisiana purchases—passed.
The Slaughter Solution was both blunt admission and warning. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not have 216 votes to pass the Senate bill, there never was going to be majority "support" for it, but they'd pass it anyway. The final days were a simple death watch, to see how the votes would be bought, bribed or bullied, and how many congressional rules gamed, to get the win.
President Obama flew to Pennsylvania (home to five wavering House Democrats), Missouri (three wavering), Ohio (eight), and Virginia (four) to hold rallies with small, supportive crowds. In four days, Mr. Obama held 64 meetings or calls with congressmen. The goal was to let undecideds know that the president had them in his crosshairs, that he still had pull with the base, and he'd use it against them. By Saturday the tactic had yielded yes votes from at least half the previously undecided members of those states.
As for those who needed more persuasion: California Rep. Jim Costa bragged publicly that during his meeting in the Oval Office, he'd demanded the administration increase water to his Central Valley district. On Tuesday, Interior pushed up its announcement, giving the Central Valley farmers 25% of water supplies, rather than the expected 5% allocation. Mr. Costa, who denies there was a quid pro quo, on Saturday said he'd flip to a yes.
Florida Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (whose district is home to the Kennedy Space Center) admitted that in her own Thursday meeting with the president, she'd brought up the need for more NASA funding. On Friday she flipped to a yes. So watch the NASA budget.
Democrats inserted a new provision providing $100 million in extra Medicaid money for Tennessee. Retiring Tennessee Rep. Bart Gordon flipped to a yes vote on Thursday.
Outside heavies were enlisted to warn potential no votes that unions and other Democrats would run them out of Congress. Al Lawson, a Tallahassee liberal challenging Blue Dog Florida Rep. Allen Boyd in a primary, made Mr. Boyd's previous no vote the centerpiece of his criticism. The SEIU threatened to yank financial support for New York's Michael McMahon. The liberal Working Families Party said it would deny him a ballot line. Obama deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand vowed to challenge South Dakota Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin if she voted no. New York's Scott Murphy was targeted as a part of a $1.3 million union-financed ad campaign to pressure him to flip. Moveon.Org spent another $36,000 on ads in his district and promised a primary. Messrs. Boyd and Murphy caved on Friday.
All the while Mrs. Pelosi was desperately working to provide cover with a Congressional Budget Office score that would claim the bill "saved" money. To do it, Democrats threw in a further $66 billion in Medicare cuts and another $50 billion in taxes. Huzzah! In the day following the CBO score, about a half-dozen Democrats who had spent the past months complaining the bill already had too many taxes and Medicare cuts now said they were voting to reduce the deficit.
Even with all this, by Friday Mrs. Pelosi was dealing with a new problem: The rule changes and deals winning her votes were losing her votes, too. The public backlash against "deem and pass" gave several wary Democrats—such as Massachusetts's Stephen Lynch and California's Dennis Cardoza—a new excuse to vote no.
Mrs. Pelosi jettisoned deem and pass. Once-solid Democrat yes votes wanted their own concessions. Oregon's Pete DeFazio threatened to lead a revolt unless changes were made to Medicare payments to benefit his state. On Saturday Mrs. Pelosi cut a deal to give 17 states additional Medicare money.
By the weekend, all the pressure and threats and bribes had left the speaker three to five votes short. Her remaining roadblock was those pro-life members who'd boxed themselves in on abortion, saying they would vote against the Senate bill unless it barred public funding of abortion. Mrs. Pelosi's first instinct was to go around this bloc, getting the votes elsewhere. She couldn't.
Into Saturday night, Michigan's Bart Stupak and Mrs. Pelosi wrangled over options. The stalemate? Any change that gave Mr. Stupak what he wanted in law would lose votes from pro-choice members. The solution? Remove it from Congress altogether, having the president instead sign a meaningless executive order affirming that no public money should go to pay for abortions.
The order won't change the Senate legal language—as pro-choice Democrats publicly crowed within minutes of the Stupak deal. Executive orders can be changed or eliminated on a whim. Pro-life groups condemned the order as the vote-getting ruse it was. Nevertheless, Mr. Stupak and several of his colleagues voted yes, paving the way to Mrs. Pelosi's final vote tally of 219.
Even in these waning minutes, Senate Democrats were playing their own games. Republicans announced they had found language in the House reconciliation bill that could doom this entire "fix" in the Senate. Since many House Democrats only agreed to vote for the Senate bill on promises that the sidecar reconciliation would pass, this was potentially a last-minute killer.
Senate Democrats handled it by deliberately refusing to meet with Republicans and the Senate parliamentarian to get a ruling, lest it be unfavorable and lose House votes. The dodge was a clear dereliction of duty, but Democrats figure the Senate parliamentarian won't dare derail this process after ObamaCare passes. They are probably right.
So there you have it, folks: "How a Bill Becomes a Law," at least in Obama-Pelosi land. Perhaps the most remarkable Democratic accomplishment this week was to make the process of passing ObamaCare as politically toxic as the bill itself.
President Obama was elected by millions of Americans attracted to his promise to change Washington politics. These were voters furious with earmarks, insider deals and a lack of transparency. They were the many Americans who, even before this week, held Congress in historic low esteem. They'll remember this spectacle come November.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Last week Republican Rep. Mike Pence posted on his Facebook site that famous Schoolhouse Rock video titled "How a Bill Becomes a Law." It's clearly time for a remake.
Never before has the average American been treated to such a live-action view of the sordid politics necessary to push a deeply flawed bill to completion. It was dirty deals, open threats, broken promises and disregard for democracy that pulled ObamaCare to this point, and yesterday the same machinations pushed it across the finish line.
You could see it all coming a week ago, when New York Rep. Louise Slaughter let leak a breathtaking strategy whereby the House would not actually vote on the unpopular Senate bill. The House would instead vote on a "reconciliation" fix to that bill, and in the process "deem" the underlying legislation—with its Cornhusker kickbacks and Louisiana purchases—passed.
The Slaughter Solution was both blunt admission and warning. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not have 216 votes to pass the Senate bill, there never was going to be majority "support" for it, but they'd pass it anyway. The final days were a simple death watch, to see how the votes would be bought, bribed or bullied, and how many congressional rules gamed, to get the win.
President Obama flew to Pennsylvania (home to five wavering House Democrats), Missouri (three wavering), Ohio (eight), and Virginia (four) to hold rallies with small, supportive crowds. In four days, Mr. Obama held 64 meetings or calls with congressmen. The goal was to let undecideds know that the president had them in his crosshairs, that he still had pull with the base, and he'd use it against them. By Saturday the tactic had yielded yes votes from at least half the previously undecided members of those states.
As for those who needed more persuasion: California Rep. Jim Costa bragged publicly that during his meeting in the Oval Office, he'd demanded the administration increase water to his Central Valley district. On Tuesday, Interior pushed up its announcement, giving the Central Valley farmers 25% of water supplies, rather than the expected 5% allocation. Mr. Costa, who denies there was a quid pro quo, on Saturday said he'd flip to a yes.
Florida Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (whose district is home to the Kennedy Space Center) admitted that in her own Thursday meeting with the president, she'd brought up the need for more NASA funding. On Friday she flipped to a yes. So watch the NASA budget.
Democrats inserted a new provision providing $100 million in extra Medicaid money for Tennessee. Retiring Tennessee Rep. Bart Gordon flipped to a yes vote on Thursday.
Outside heavies were enlisted to warn potential no votes that unions and other Democrats would run them out of Congress. Al Lawson, a Tallahassee liberal challenging Blue Dog Florida Rep. Allen Boyd in a primary, made Mr. Boyd's previous no vote the centerpiece of his criticism. The SEIU threatened to yank financial support for New York's Michael McMahon. The liberal Working Families Party said it would deny him a ballot line. Obama deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand vowed to challenge South Dakota Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin if she voted no. New York's Scott Murphy was targeted as a part of a $1.3 million union-financed ad campaign to pressure him to flip. Moveon.Org spent another $36,000 on ads in his district and promised a primary. Messrs. Boyd and Murphy caved on Friday.
All the while Mrs. Pelosi was desperately working to provide cover with a Congressional Budget Office score that would claim the bill "saved" money. To do it, Democrats threw in a further $66 billion in Medicare cuts and another $50 billion in taxes. Huzzah! In the day following the CBO score, about a half-dozen Democrats who had spent the past months complaining the bill already had too many taxes and Medicare cuts now said they were voting to reduce the deficit.
Even with all this, by Friday Mrs. Pelosi was dealing with a new problem: The rule changes and deals winning her votes were losing her votes, too. The public backlash against "deem and pass" gave several wary Democrats—such as Massachusetts's Stephen Lynch and California's Dennis Cardoza—a new excuse to vote no.
Mrs. Pelosi jettisoned deem and pass. Once-solid Democrat yes votes wanted their own concessions. Oregon's Pete DeFazio threatened to lead a revolt unless changes were made to Medicare payments to benefit his state. On Saturday Mrs. Pelosi cut a deal to give 17 states additional Medicare money.
By the weekend, all the pressure and threats and bribes had left the speaker three to five votes short. Her remaining roadblock was those pro-life members who'd boxed themselves in on abortion, saying they would vote against the Senate bill unless it barred public funding of abortion. Mrs. Pelosi's first instinct was to go around this bloc, getting the votes elsewhere. She couldn't.
Into Saturday night, Michigan's Bart Stupak and Mrs. Pelosi wrangled over options. The stalemate? Any change that gave Mr. Stupak what he wanted in law would lose votes from pro-choice members. The solution? Remove it from Congress altogether, having the president instead sign a meaningless executive order affirming that no public money should go to pay for abortions.
The order won't change the Senate legal language—as pro-choice Democrats publicly crowed within minutes of the Stupak deal. Executive orders can be changed or eliminated on a whim. Pro-life groups condemned the order as the vote-getting ruse it was. Nevertheless, Mr. Stupak and several of his colleagues voted yes, paving the way to Mrs. Pelosi's final vote tally of 219.
Even in these waning minutes, Senate Democrats were playing their own games. Republicans announced they had found language in the House reconciliation bill that could doom this entire "fix" in the Senate. Since many House Democrats only agreed to vote for the Senate bill on promises that the sidecar reconciliation would pass, this was potentially a last-minute killer.
Senate Democrats handled it by deliberately refusing to meet with Republicans and the Senate parliamentarian to get a ruling, lest it be unfavorable and lose House votes. The dodge was a clear dereliction of duty, but Democrats figure the Senate parliamentarian won't dare derail this process after ObamaCare passes. They are probably right.
So there you have it, folks: "How a Bill Becomes a Law," at least in Obama-Pelosi land. Perhaps the most remarkable Democratic accomplishment this week was to make the process of passing ObamaCare as politically toxic as the bill itself.
President Obama was elected by millions of Americans attracted to his promise to change Washington politics. These were voters furious with earmarks, insider deals and a lack of transparency. They were the many Americans who, even before this week, held Congress in historic low esteem. They'll remember this spectacle come November.
Monday
Some cool billboards starting to appear
But it's going to take more than billboards to get THIS government's attention!
Sunday
Was there ever any doubt?
Ladies and gentlemen... the DIS honorable Alcee Hastings D-Fla
And for anyone who claims this was simply taken out of context, go here and see all of Hasting's remarks - starting at 4:44.
Quote of the day
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."
Cicero - 55 BC
Cicero - 55 BC
Friday
A call to action!
This is it.
Will we stand up? Or cower in fear and accept our fate?
Mike says it so much better than I do. Go... read... and do likewise.
Will we stand up? Or cower in fear and accept our fate?
Mike says it so much better than I do. Go... read... and do likewise.
While we are distracted with healthcare ...
They've restored funding for ACORN!
Read about it at BigGovernment.com
I never imagined in my wildest dreams that America would fall into tyranny. Clearly the Constitution has utterly failed since it should be obvious to anyone that it provides NO RESTRAINT whatsoever on the politicians that are fleecing the American people. Virtually every single one of them on Capitol Hill have dishonored their oath and should treated as TRAITORS!
They are systematically destroying the Republic! Can anyone deny this?
Read about it at BigGovernment.com
I never imagined in my wildest dreams that America would fall into tyranny. Clearly the Constitution has utterly failed since it should be obvious to anyone that it provides NO RESTRAINT whatsoever on the politicians that are fleecing the American people. Virtually every single one of them on Capitol Hill have dishonored their oath and should treated as TRAITORS!
They are systematically destroying the Republic! Can anyone deny this?
Thursday
Some excellent points on the coming chaos
Over at Sipsey St, Mike makes the following observation:
They know damn well what the polls say - long before WE do. They have folks who do NOTHING else but watch such things.
They know damn well how angry we are.
They know they're going to suffer an electoral bloodbath in '10 and '12 - if not a literal one before.
They.
Do.
Not.
CARE.
In fact, I believe they're *HOPING* for all of the above.
They're hoping for a revolt - because it will give them excuse to implement martial law and do whatever they please - as in "The Day the Dollar Died".
Failing that, they're hoping for a currency or other collapse - for the exact same reason.
Failing both - by some miracle - they hope to lose enough seats in '10 to give the Stupid-party 50-50 "ownership" of the inevitable economic HELL that's coming. If it turns around before '12 they'll claim credit, if not they'll blame the Retardlicans.
Either way, they'll have jammed through their socialist agenda which will never be repealed, and they'll build on it when the pendulum swings again.
Either way, they'll have paid off their Union Masters, and stalled the total collapse of Medicare/SS just long enough for the Retardlicans to take the blame.
It's actually brilliant in a sick, sad way.
Though it pains me to say it, I've come to HOPE for a real, bloody revolution - it's the only way we'll ever get to RESTORATION.
As to failing "to think our way around the media blackout" -- I don't believe it matters. I live in a very rural area - among a lot of folk who "don't see no use for that there internet stuff" - and just today I heard some older men say "I ain't too old to tote my rifle one more time..."
Many, many, MANY people don't need to read Sipsey Street to see what time it is.
When the time comes, we'll have the usual ~20% of the population behind us, and ~45% arrayed AGAINST us. Thankfully the latter doesn't own firearms because they're askeered of 'em.
Even WITHOUT the Marxists currently in power, we're approaching 1/2 of the people in our nation who look forward to living on the .gov's teat - even if it's the HIND one it beats having to hunt and gather. Further, they all know we're a threat to their "free" rice-bowl - especially the majority of whom agree 110% with their Marxist/socialist ideals.
This to me is the reason civil war is inevitable: roughly 1/2 the population is reasonably conservative, the other 1/2 is well left of center, and we've FINALLY realized that being "nice" and "civil" only means forfeiting ground again and again and again - thus slowing but never stopping the incremental march to a fully socialist state.
Every single "compromise" moves us further away from where WE want to be - and we're finally done giving in.
OTOH, the Commu-sociacrats are even LESS willing to budge, and have finally stopped even PRETENDING.
Two UTTERLY opposite world-views held by nearly equal numbers, and both sides unwilling to budge. Does it happen NOW (in this Administration) or do we wait and let THEM start it after the next Retardlican majority?
As with any painful, bloody procedure, it's only going to be worse the longer we wait - plus it gives The Enemy longer to get a clue and start in with the weapons and ammo buying and training.
It'll never get any easier.
You know what's funny? Funny as in weird not funny, hah ha.And then an anonymous commenter replies:
Here we are on the verge of a civil war and because the news media does not even recognize the validity of our grievances,and certainly never reports them, nobody thinks it is coming except the people preparing for it.
They know damn well what the polls say - long before WE do. They have folks who do NOTHING else but watch such things.
They know damn well how angry we are.
They know they're going to suffer an electoral bloodbath in '10 and '12 - if not a literal one before.
They.
Do.
Not.
CARE.
In fact, I believe they're *HOPING* for all of the above.
They're hoping for a revolt - because it will give them excuse to implement martial law and do whatever they please - as in "The Day the Dollar Died".
Failing that, they're hoping for a currency or other collapse - for the exact same reason.
Failing both - by some miracle - they hope to lose enough seats in '10 to give the Stupid-party 50-50 "ownership" of the inevitable economic HELL that's coming. If it turns around before '12 they'll claim credit, if not they'll blame the Retardlicans.
Either way, they'll have jammed through their socialist agenda which will never be repealed, and they'll build on it when the pendulum swings again.
Either way, they'll have paid off their Union Masters, and stalled the total collapse of Medicare/SS just long enough for the Retardlicans to take the blame.
It's actually brilliant in a sick, sad way.
Though it pains me to say it, I've come to HOPE for a real, bloody revolution - it's the only way we'll ever get to RESTORATION.
As to failing "to think our way around the media blackout" -- I don't believe it matters. I live in a very rural area - among a lot of folk who "don't see no use for that there internet stuff" - and just today I heard some older men say "I ain't too old to tote my rifle one more time..."
Many, many, MANY people don't need to read Sipsey Street to see what time it is.
When the time comes, we'll have the usual ~20% of the population behind us, and ~45% arrayed AGAINST us. Thankfully the latter doesn't own firearms because they're askeered of 'em.
Even WITHOUT the Marxists currently in power, we're approaching 1/2 of the people in our nation who look forward to living on the .gov's teat - even if it's the HIND one it beats having to hunt and gather. Further, they all know we're a threat to their "free" rice-bowl - especially the majority of whom agree 110% with their Marxist/socialist ideals.
This to me is the reason civil war is inevitable: roughly 1/2 the population is reasonably conservative, the other 1/2 is well left of center, and we've FINALLY realized that being "nice" and "civil" only means forfeiting ground again and again and again - thus slowing but never stopping the incremental march to a fully socialist state.
Every single "compromise" moves us further away from where WE want to be - and we're finally done giving in.
OTOH, the Commu-sociacrats are even LESS willing to budge, and have finally stopped even PRETENDING.
Two UTTERLY opposite world-views held by nearly equal numbers, and both sides unwilling to budge. Does it happen NOW (in this Administration) or do we wait and let THEM start it after the next Retardlican majority?
As with any painful, bloody procedure, it's only going to be worse the longer we wait - plus it gives The Enemy longer to get a clue and start in with the weapons and ammo buying and training.
It'll never get any easier.
Tuesday
No US flag will be displayed by Americans in Haiti
Per the orders of that jackass in the WhiteHouse!
Flap flies in Haiti over U.S. flag absence
By Alan Gomez and Oren Dorell - USA TodayPosted : Monday Mar 15, 2010 9:22:17 EDT
The many nations helping Haiti recover from the devastating earthquake that struck there have set up their own military compounds and fly their flags at the entrances.
France's tricolor, Britain's Union Jack and even Croatia's coat of arms flap in the breeze.
But the country whose contributions dwarf the rest of the world's — the United States — has no flag at its main installation near the Port-au-Prince airport.
The lack of the Stars and Stripes does not sit well with some veterans and servicemembers who say the U.S. government should be proud to fly the flag in Haiti, given the amount of money and manpower the U.S. is donating to help the country recover from the Jan. 12 quake.
The Obama administration says flying the flag could give Haiti the wrong idea.
"We are not here as an occupation force, but as an international partner committed to supporting the government of Haiti on the road to recovery," the U.S. government's Haiti Joint Information Center said in response to a query about the flag.
Flap flies in Haiti over U.S. flag absence
By Alan Gomez and Oren Dorell - USA TodayPosted : Monday Mar 15, 2010 9:22:17 EDT
The many nations helping Haiti recover from the devastating earthquake that struck there have set up their own military compounds and fly their flags at the entrances.
France's tricolor, Britain's Union Jack and even Croatia's coat of arms flap in the breeze.
But the country whose contributions dwarf the rest of the world's — the United States — has no flag at its main installation near the Port-au-Prince airport.
The lack of the Stars and Stripes does not sit well with some veterans and servicemembers who say the U.S. government should be proud to fly the flag in Haiti, given the amount of money and manpower the U.S. is donating to help the country recover from the Jan. 12 quake.
The Obama administration says flying the flag could give Haiti the wrong idea.
"We are not here as an occupation force, but as an international partner committed to supporting the government of Haiti on the road to recovery," the U.S. government's Haiti Joint Information Center said in response to a query about the flag.
Another gem from the inimitable Olek Volk
If you are not familiar with the 2A photography of Oleg Volk, you're missing a real treat!
As someone who carries in the workplace EVERY DAY, this particular picture really resonated with me.
As someone who carries in the workplace EVERY DAY, this particular picture really resonated with me.
Monday
Time to just laugh at things I guess...
From someone somewhere on the internet...
As a bagpiper, I play many gigs.. Recently I was asked by a funeral director to play at a grave side service for a homeless man. He had no family or friends, so the service was to be at a pauper's cemetery in the Kentucky back-country.
As I was not familiar with the backwoods, I got lost; and being a typical man I didn't stop for directions. I finally arrived an hour late and saw the funeral guy had evidently gone and the hearse was nowhere in sight.
There were only the diggers and crew left and they were eating lunch. I felt badly and apologized to the men for being late. I went to the side of the grave and looked down and the vault lid was already in place. I didn't know what else to do, so I started to play. The workers put down their lunches and began to gather around. I played out my heart and soul for this man with no family and friends. I played like I've never played before for this homeless man. And as I played 'Amazing Grace,' the workers began to weep.They wept, I wept, we all wept together. When I finished I packed up my bagpipes and started for my car. Though my head hung low my heart was full.
As I was opened the door to my car, I heard one of the workers say, "I never seen nothin' like that before and I've been putting in septic tanks for twenty years.
As a bagpiper, I play many gigs.. Recently I was asked by a funeral director to play at a grave side service for a homeless man. He had no family or friends, so the service was to be at a pauper's cemetery in the Kentucky back-country.
As I was not familiar with the backwoods, I got lost; and being a typical man I didn't stop for directions. I finally arrived an hour late and saw the funeral guy had evidently gone and the hearse was nowhere in sight.
There were only the diggers and crew left and they were eating lunch. I felt badly and apologized to the men for being late. I went to the side of the grave and looked down and the vault lid was already in place. I didn't know what else to do, so I started to play. The workers put down their lunches and began to gather around. I played out my heart and soul for this man with no family and friends. I played like I've never played before for this homeless man. And as I played 'Amazing Grace,' the workers began to weep.They wept, I wept, we all wept together. When I finished I packed up my bagpipes and started for my car. Though my head hung low my heart was full.
As I was opened the door to my car, I heard one of the workers say, "I never seen nothin' like that before and I've been putting in septic tanks for twenty years.
Saturday
Thursday
The Center Mass Myth - Jim Higgenbotham
A lenghty, but very illuminating column. Here's an excerpt:
Now read the whole thing here.
1. Don’t go to the range without a covering garment – unless of course you always carry your gun exposed (no comment).
2. Don’t practice drawing your gun fast – ever! – while standing still.
Part of the Dynamic Response is to step off the line of attack (or on rare occasions that are dependent on circumstances backwards or forwards) and present the weapon with as much alacrity as you can muster and engage the target with overwhelming and accurate fire! By the way, never assume a fight is completely over just because you canceled one threat. Don’t practice “standing down” too quickly.
“anyone worth shooting once is worth shooting a whole lot!”
Now read the whole thing here.
Wednesday
Why is the department of education buying shotguns?
What in the hell does the Dept of Education need with 12 guage shotguns? Well... they put out an invitation to vendors for 27 of them!
The U.S. Department of Education (ED) intends to purchase twenty-seven (27) REMINGTON BRAND MODEL 870 POLICE 12/14P MOD GRWC XS4 KXCS SF. RAMAC #24587 GAUGE: 12 BARREL: 14" - PARKERIZED CHOKE: MODIFIED SIGHTS: GHOST RING REAR WILSON COMBAT; FRONT - XS CONTOUR BEAD SIGHT STOCK: KNOXX REDUCE RECOIL ADJUSTABLE STOCK FORE-END: SPEEDFEED SPORT-SOLID - 14"
By the way... YOU can't own a shotgun with a barrel shorter than 18 inches according to the National Firearms Act of 1934! So what are they doing buying "sawed off" shotguns!!!
The U.S. Department of Education (ED) intends to purchase twenty-seven (27) REMINGTON BRAND MODEL 870 POLICE 12/14P MOD GRWC XS4 KXCS SF. RAMAC #24587 GAUGE: 12 BARREL: 14" - PARKERIZED CHOKE: MODIFIED SIGHTS: GHOST RING REAR WILSON COMBAT; FRONT - XS CONTOUR BEAD SIGHT STOCK: KNOXX REDUCE RECOIL ADJUSTABLE STOCK FORE-END: SPEEDFEED SPORT-SOLID - 14"
By the way... YOU can't own a shotgun with a barrel shorter than 18 inches according to the National Firearms Act of 1934! So what are they doing buying "sawed off" shotguns!!!
The demonization of making a PROFIT
Part of the scheme to manipulate the masses is to paint insurance companies as evil for making a profit. The hope of the political class is to get enough people on board the hate-insurance-companies bus and thus lend their support to government run healthcare. Relating to "profits" (a dirty word to the socialists of the world) here are some statistics I found over at Neal Boortz's site:
According to the most recent Fortune 500 rankings, health insurers are not even among the top-30 United States industries in profit-margin. Health insurers rank 35th, with a profit-margin of just 2.2 percent -- less than one-fifth the profit-margin of railroads. None of the ten largest American health insurers made profits of more than 4.5 percent, and two of them lost money. Health insurers' collective profit-margin is less than one-eighth that of drug companies and less than one-seventh that of companies that sell medical products or equipment. It's also less than that of medical facilities. Yet when was the last time you heard President Obama rail against greedy hospitals?
The combined profits of America's ten largest health insurers are $8.3 billion. That's less than two-thirds of the profits of Wal-Mart alone, less than half of the profits of General Electric alone, and less than one-seventh of what Medicare loses each year to fraud. Health insurers collectively have one-eighth the profit-margin of McDonald's or Coke, one-ninth that of eBay, and one-fifteenth that of Merck.
In all, the combined profits of the 14 largest American health insurers (the ones who crack the Fortune 1000) are $8.7 billion. That's less than 0.4 percent, or 1/250th, of overall U.S. health-care costs, which are $2.5 trillion.
Tuesday
Remember when making fun of Bush was the rule of the day?
Not that I'm a Bush fan by any stretch of the imagination. My point is that what's good for the goose should be good for the gander.
But when someone sent a picture of a monkey and Michelle Obama, all hell breaks loose!
But this stuff was Old Hat when the Bushster was in office!
But when someone sent a picture of a monkey and Michelle Obama, all hell breaks loose!
But this stuff was Old Hat when the Bushster was in office!
Monday
Quote of the day
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The public can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
Unknown
Saturday
A most excellent primer on the forms of government
This is such a good explanation of the forms of human government, that it would benefit us all if every American were to see it. Please pass this along to everyone you know who is confused about the difference between democracy and republicanism.
Friday
The unavoidable progression of events
First, there was Liberty.
And then, for the next few generations of Americans, there was the experience of human progress and prosperity the likes of which the world had never seen - and likely will never see again.
Then there were the depredations, visited by a government on its people. Careful at first to maintain the facade - the illusion - of representative government, now increasingly and arrogantly flaunting it's power and utter disdain for the rule of law.
Then came the anger, the righteous anger, of a people betrayed by their own leaders. Revocation of consent to govern, by the governed, is a course of action best saved for when all else fails. But sometimes, it is forced upon the people as the ONLY course.
Then comes resistance. Increasingly stiff resistance.
Pray for the Republic - such of it that remains.
And then, for the next few generations of Americans, there was the experience of human progress and prosperity the likes of which the world had never seen - and likely will never see again.
Then there were the depredations, visited by a government on its people. Careful at first to maintain the facade - the illusion - of representative government, now increasingly and arrogantly flaunting it's power and utter disdain for the rule of law.
Then came the anger, the righteous anger, of a people betrayed by their own leaders. Revocation of consent to govern, by the governed, is a course of action best saved for when all else fails. But sometimes, it is forced upon the people as the ONLY course.
Then comes resistance. Increasingly stiff resistance.
Pray for the Republic - such of it that remains.
Thursday
Utah strikes back at Federal intrusion
In Utah, a move to seize federal land
The state House passes a bill allowing the use of eminent domain to take protected land from the federal government. Utah wants to develop a stretch outside Arches National Park and other areas.
Reporting from Salt Lake City — Long frustrated by Washington's control over much of their state, Utah legislators are proposing a novel way to deal with federal land -- seize it and develop it.
The Utah House of Representatives last week passed a bill allowing the state to use eminent domain to take land the federal government owns and has long protected from development.
The state wants to develop three hotly contested areas -- national forest land in the Wasatch Mountains north of Salt Lake City, land in a proposed wilderness area in the red rock southwestern corner of the state, and a stretch of desert outside of Arches National Park that the Obama administration has declared off-limits to oil and gas development.
Supporters argue that provisions in the legislation that granted Utah statehood allow it to make such a land grab. (How the hell can a state be guilty of a "land grab" if they're trying to take it BACK from the Feds?) They also hope to spark a showdown in the Supreme Court that would rearrange the balance of power between states and the federal government. (And if our Constitution really is the supreme law of the land, then Utah would beat the crap out of the Feds with the 10th amendment club - and that would be the end of the controversy)
Some legal experts say the effort is unlikely to succeed, but Republican state Rep. Chris Herrod, one of the authors of the bill, said the state had little choice.
"I love America, and I'm a peaceful guy," Herrod said, "but the only real option we have is rebellion, which I don't believe in, and the courts."
The eminent domain proposal is among the most audacious yet in a state accustomed to heated battles over the two-thirds of its land owned by the federal government.
This is the state, after all, where local officials bulldozed their own roads through Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, tore down signs barring off-roading in Canyonlands National Park and, with funding from the statehouse, spent years unsuccessfully defending those actions in federal court.
The eminent domain proposal quickly drew scorn from environmental groups. (Of course it did!)
"This is an ideological fantasy," said Scott Groene, executive director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance in Moab. "Everybody knows this isn't going to happen. The federal public lands are the thing that makes the American West so great." (Typical government-worshipper rhetoric)
The proposal is one of a host in statehouses nationwide that show a deep discontent with federal authority. Eight legislatures have passed resolutions asserting, to various degrees, the sovereignty of their states.
The state House passes a bill allowing the use of eminent domain to take protected land from the federal government. Utah wants to develop a stretch outside Arches National Park and other areas.
Reporting from Salt Lake City — Long frustrated by Washington's control over much of their state, Utah legislators are proposing a novel way to deal with federal land -- seize it and develop it.
The Utah House of Representatives last week passed a bill allowing the state to use eminent domain to take land the federal government owns and has long protected from development.
The state wants to develop three hotly contested areas -- national forest land in the Wasatch Mountains north of Salt Lake City, land in a proposed wilderness area in the red rock southwestern corner of the state, and a stretch of desert outside of Arches National Park that the Obama administration has declared off-limits to oil and gas development.
Supporters argue that provisions in the legislation that granted Utah statehood allow it to make such a land grab. (How the hell can a state be guilty of a "land grab" if they're trying to take it BACK from the Feds?) They also hope to spark a showdown in the Supreme Court that would rearrange the balance of power between states and the federal government. (And if our Constitution really is the supreme law of the land, then Utah would beat the crap out of the Feds with the 10th amendment club - and that would be the end of the controversy)
Some legal experts say the effort is unlikely to succeed, but Republican state Rep. Chris Herrod, one of the authors of the bill, said the state had little choice.
"I love America, and I'm a peaceful guy," Herrod said, "but the only real option we have is rebellion, which I don't believe in, and the courts."
The eminent domain proposal is among the most audacious yet in a state accustomed to heated battles over the two-thirds of its land owned by the federal government.
This is the state, after all, where local officials bulldozed their own roads through Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, tore down signs barring off-roading in Canyonlands National Park and, with funding from the statehouse, spent years unsuccessfully defending those actions in federal court.
The eminent domain proposal quickly drew scorn from environmental groups. (Of course it did!)
"This is an ideological fantasy," said Scott Groene, executive director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance in Moab. "Everybody knows this isn't going to happen. The federal public lands are the thing that makes the American West so great." (Typical government-worshipper rhetoric)
The proposal is one of a host in statehouses nationwide that show a deep discontent with federal authority. Eight legislatures have passed resolutions asserting, to various degrees, the sovereignty of their states.
Wednesday
Where America is heading if we don't change paths
20 Signs That The U.K. Has Become The Most Oppressive Big Brother Society On Earth
When George Orwell wrote 1984, he probably never imagined that society would actually become that oppressive. Yet in some nations of the world it has. In fact, in nations such as the U.K., "Big Brother" controls have now been implemented that are so bizarre that Orwell could not have possibly envisioned them during the time in which he lived. The truth is that the U.K. has become a society run by elitist control freaks. The most intimate and personal details of the lives of millions of people in the U.K. are tightly monitored and controlled by a ruthless technocracy that would have been unimaginable just a few decades ago. The following are 20 signs that the U.K. has now become the most oppressive Big Brother society on earth.....
#1) The U.K. has more surveillance cameras per citizen than anywhere else in the world. In fact, according to one estimate, there are 4.8 million video cameras constantly watching every move citizens make.
#2) Government education inspectors in the U.K. have announced that the 40,000 parents who homeschool their own children must undergo criminal records checks.
#3) U.K. authorities are now admitting that every phone call, text message, email and website visit made by private citizens will be stored for one year and will be available for monitoring by government agencies.
#4) Officials in the U.K. have spent two years and massive amounts of money on a study they claim proves that 10-pin bowling is a health and safety hazard and should be banned.
#5) Parents at one school in the U.K. are being forced to undergo background checks to prove that they are not pedophiles before they are allowed to accompany their children to school Christmas carol events.
#6) A U.K. Parliamentary briefing note published in November 2009 maintains that the U.K. government has the power to impose nationwide mandatory swine flu vaccinations under the Civil Contingencies Act of 2004.
#7) Thousands of "dysfunctional" families in the U.K. are being subjected to intensive 24-hour surveillance to make sure that their children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals. About 2,000 families have already gone through these "Family Intervention Projects", and the U.K. government plans to increase the scope of this program to 20,000 more families over the next two years.
#8 ) A controversial new proposal in the U.K. would force political parties to make Parliament less white, male, middle-class and heterosexual.
#9) The U.K.'s new Internet law includes a "three strikes" rule that allows your entire family to be cut off from the Internet if anyone who lives in your house is accused of copyright infringement - without proof or evidence or trial.
#10) The U.K. government's obsession with collecting personal data has now extended to 5 year olds, as local Community Health Services are preparing to get parents to reveal the most intimate details of their child’s personal, behavioral and eating habits.
#11) The U.K. government is going to make sure that their citizens are "environmentally friendly" whether they like it or not. Under a new government plan, energy experts in the U.K. are going to visit every home in the country in order to "help them go green". As part of "The Great British Refurb", teams of "energy advisers" will go "house by house, street by street" to tell people what they must do in order to become eco-friendly.
#12) The U.K. has become absolutely obsessed with garbage, with huge fines imposed on those who do not dispose of their trash in the prescribed manner.
#13) The head of the Environment Agency in the U.K. believes that implementing individual carbon allowances for each citizen will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
#14) In an almost inconceivable move, personal checks are to be abolished under controversial plans being drawn up by U.K. bankers.
#15) It is now illegal to photograph the police in the U.K.
#16) In the U.K., the study of evolution is to become a compulsory subject in all state primary schools.
#17) The U.K. government is being forced by the European Commission to eliminate exemptions that allow churches to refuse to employ homosexual staff.
#18 ) Parents in the U.K. are about to lose the right to withdraw their child from sex education classes when the child reaches 15 years of age.
#19) One mother in the U.K. was trailed by a policeman and formally warned by a local council for telling off her son at a checkout counter.
#20) The U.K. is in the process of implementing a "National Identity Card" which will be able to hold fifty different categories of information on each U.K. citizen, including digital facial scans, digital iris scans and up to 10 fingerprints.
When George Orwell wrote 1984, he probably never imagined that society would actually become that oppressive. Yet in some nations of the world it has. In fact, in nations such as the U.K., "Big Brother" controls have now been implemented that are so bizarre that Orwell could not have possibly envisioned them during the time in which he lived. The truth is that the U.K. has become a society run by elitist control freaks. The most intimate and personal details of the lives of millions of people in the U.K. are tightly monitored and controlled by a ruthless technocracy that would have been unimaginable just a few decades ago. The following are 20 signs that the U.K. has now become the most oppressive Big Brother society on earth.....
#1) The U.K. has more surveillance cameras per citizen than anywhere else in the world. In fact, according to one estimate, there are 4.8 million video cameras constantly watching every move citizens make.
#2) Government education inspectors in the U.K. have announced that the 40,000 parents who homeschool their own children must undergo criminal records checks.
#3) U.K. authorities are now admitting that every phone call, text message, email and website visit made by private citizens will be stored for one year and will be available for monitoring by government agencies.
#4) Officials in the U.K. have spent two years and massive amounts of money on a study they claim proves that 10-pin bowling is a health and safety hazard and should be banned.
#5) Parents at one school in the U.K. are being forced to undergo background checks to prove that they are not pedophiles before they are allowed to accompany their children to school Christmas carol events.
#6) A U.K. Parliamentary briefing note published in November 2009 maintains that the U.K. government has the power to impose nationwide mandatory swine flu vaccinations under the Civil Contingencies Act of 2004.
#7) Thousands of "dysfunctional" families in the U.K. are being subjected to intensive 24-hour surveillance to make sure that their children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals. About 2,000 families have already gone through these "Family Intervention Projects", and the U.K. government plans to increase the scope of this program to 20,000 more families over the next two years.
#8 ) A controversial new proposal in the U.K. would force political parties to make Parliament less white, male, middle-class and heterosexual.
#9) The U.K.'s new Internet law includes a "three strikes" rule that allows your entire family to be cut off from the Internet if anyone who lives in your house is accused of copyright infringement - without proof or evidence or trial.
#10) The U.K. government's obsession with collecting personal data has now extended to 5 year olds, as local Community Health Services are preparing to get parents to reveal the most intimate details of their child’s personal, behavioral and eating habits.
#11) The U.K. government is going to make sure that their citizens are "environmentally friendly" whether they like it or not. Under a new government plan, energy experts in the U.K. are going to visit every home in the country in order to "help them go green". As part of "The Great British Refurb", teams of "energy advisers" will go "house by house, street by street" to tell people what they must do in order to become eco-friendly.
#12) The U.K. has become absolutely obsessed with garbage, with huge fines imposed on those who do not dispose of their trash in the prescribed manner.
#13) The head of the Environment Agency in the U.K. believes that implementing individual carbon allowances for each citizen will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
#14) In an almost inconceivable move, personal checks are to be abolished under controversial plans being drawn up by U.K. bankers.
#15) It is now illegal to photograph the police in the U.K.
#16) In the U.K., the study of evolution is to become a compulsory subject in all state primary schools.
#17) The U.K. government is being forced by the European Commission to eliminate exemptions that allow churches to refuse to employ homosexual staff.
#18 ) Parents in the U.K. are about to lose the right to withdraw their child from sex education classes when the child reaches 15 years of age.
#19) One mother in the U.K. was trailed by a policeman and formally warned by a local council for telling off her son at a checkout counter.
#20) The U.K. is in the process of implementing a "National Identity Card" which will be able to hold fifty different categories of information on each U.K. citizen, including digital facial scans, digital iris scans and up to 10 fingerprints.
Tuesday
Personal ruminations on SCOTUS and the 2A
Well I guess the black-robed wizards of the Supreme Court are considering a second amendment issue today. In light of the Heller vs. DC ruling (that gun rights are vested in the individual rather than the militia) lots of new legal challenges have sprung up around the country. Today’s case is whether the 2A applies to states and municipalities.
How silly.
Either I have the right to keep and bear arms… or I don’t.
The plainly written and clear meanings found in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have been steadily subverted over the years by lawyers and judges that tell us that UP means DOWN and RIGHT means WRONG. The most glaring example I can think of is the right to privacy that the in-Justices found years ago when they ruled on Roe vs. Wade. The word “privacy” doesn’t even appear in either of these documents, but the Wizards of Law tell us they’re there nonetheless.
Yet we have crystal clear verbiage from the Founders that culminates with the phrase “shall not be infringed”, and I still see infringement on my 2A rights everywhere I look!
It doesn’t say infringements are okay if “within reason”. But there are thousands and thousands of gun laws in every direction covering what kind of gun you can own, who can possess guns, where you can carry guns (or can’t), who can buy guns, how many you can buy in a given period, etc. And usually the anti-gun camp claims to only want “reasonable” restrictions.
I also hear a lot from both the Pro and Anti side of the debate about “sporting purpose”. Who dreamed that up? What the hell is “sporting purpose” and tell me how it’s relevant or where it appears in the 2A?
There’re a lot of things in this world I don’t know. But there are a few things I DO know and no amount of propaganda or coercion will EVER sway my opinion on the following truths:
1. The Second Amendment was written to make it clear that government power has its boundaries, and the citizenry would forever have the means to enforce those boundaries if government should forget them.
2. The right to defend myself and my family (and not just in my home) is what the Founders called an unalienable right. That is to say it is a Natural Right that supersedes all Human authority.
3. Many people cry and wring their hands over what effect some piece of gun regulation is going to have over their lives. That includes many so-called “gun people”, because they know that whatever laws come down the pipe, they’re going to obey them.
4. My line in the sand is citizen disarmament. And it’s not drawn in sand, it’s drawn in stone. The rotten, corrupt scumbags that pretend to be our masters can write whatsoever laws they like. But when it comes to legislating my right to keep and bear arms, they are on IGNORE mode where I am concerned.
My final word on the topic is simply this: No one needs to fear me if they have no plans to hurt me or my family, or they have no intentions to rob me of God-given liberties like the right to keep and bear arms. But putting my rights, my person, or my family in peril will draw a most vigorous response from me. Of that I can guarantee!
How silly.
Either I have the right to keep and bear arms… or I don’t.
The plainly written and clear meanings found in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have been steadily subverted over the years by lawyers and judges that tell us that UP means DOWN and RIGHT means WRONG. The most glaring example I can think of is the right to privacy that the in-Justices found years ago when they ruled on Roe vs. Wade. The word “privacy” doesn’t even appear in either of these documents, but the Wizards of Law tell us they’re there nonetheless.
Yet we have crystal clear verbiage from the Founders that culminates with the phrase “shall not be infringed”, and I still see infringement on my 2A rights everywhere I look!
It doesn’t say infringements are okay if “within reason”. But there are thousands and thousands of gun laws in every direction covering what kind of gun you can own, who can possess guns, where you can carry guns (or can’t), who can buy guns, how many you can buy in a given period, etc. And usually the anti-gun camp claims to only want “reasonable” restrictions.
I also hear a lot from both the Pro and Anti side of the debate about “sporting purpose”. Who dreamed that up? What the hell is “sporting purpose” and tell me how it’s relevant or where it appears in the 2A?
There’re a lot of things in this world I don’t know. But there are a few things I DO know and no amount of propaganda or coercion will EVER sway my opinion on the following truths:
1. The Second Amendment was written to make it clear that government power has its boundaries, and the citizenry would forever have the means to enforce those boundaries if government should forget them.
2. The right to defend myself and my family (and not just in my home) is what the Founders called an unalienable right. That is to say it is a Natural Right that supersedes all Human authority.
3. Many people cry and wring their hands over what effect some piece of gun regulation is going to have over their lives. That includes many so-called “gun people”, because they know that whatever laws come down the pipe, they’re going to obey them.
4. My line in the sand is citizen disarmament. And it’s not drawn in sand, it’s drawn in stone. The rotten, corrupt scumbags that pretend to be our masters can write whatsoever laws they like. But when it comes to legislating my right to keep and bear arms, they are on IGNORE mode where I am concerned.
My final word on the topic is simply this: No one needs to fear me if they have no plans to hurt me or my family, or they have no intentions to rob me of God-given liberties like the right to keep and bear arms. But putting my rights, my person, or my family in peril will draw a most vigorous response from me. Of that I can guarantee!
Monday
Obama extends Patriot Act
Obama Signs One-Year Extension of Patriot Act – on a Saturday Night Of Course
By Anthony Kang
Created 02/27/2010 - 23:52
With virtually zero debate - or media attention - President Barack Obama has signed a one-year extension for what many considered the most crucial and controversial aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act. The provisions, set to expire Sunday without the signature of Obama, include extensions to allow:
-1) "roving" wiretaps, permitting surveillance on multiple phones and e-mail addresses.
-2) court-approved seizures of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.
-3) surveillance on "lone-wolf" foreign nationals, who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.
Originally set to expire in December, a two-month extension was passed by Congress late last year.
For many on the left, the Patriot Act is the defining pillar and symbol of the previous administration, emblematic of a totalitarian police state they allegedly suffered under George W. Bush. And what does not come as a surprise is the fact Obama's signature comes on a Saturday night - when all the world is surely clamoring for the latest political news.
Expect a buzzsaw of media scrutiny from the champions of the so-called candidate of "change" in mainstream media the next several news-cycles?
Me neither.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vmecBD5vbiYR4k5FYh__MqQ0mahURHzriBEbvFHTL_Wv1476I0TCarlS8RXWfNjPi_lSsJxQyMCfwklhP8jojtAb5ttzlZRLINks1LvX8z0y9WUDl0ZtSreDAOoasvBqXBjA=s0-d)
