Quote for the Day

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." -- Thomas Jefferson

Government Overseen Preventive Gunownership?

By now nearly everyone has heard of the plan to have all physicians, hospitals, clinics, etc... place all of their patients medical files into a central database so they can be "easily accessed by other providers". If we lived in a perfect world there would be no problem with this, it would allow quick access between doctors to a persons medical records, which could streamline a lot of processes. The main critics of this plan point out that the government itself would be the entity that would provide the "central hub" for all computerized medical records, thus allowing the government access to your own private medical records.

Now we have this coming up, "An influential government-appointed medical panel is urging doctors to routinely screen all American teens for depression -- a bold step that acknowledges that nearly 2 million teens are affected by this debilitating condition." [link]

What some of you may be aware of and some of you may not be aware of is the NICS Improvement Act of 2007 more commonly known as the Veterans Disarmament Act. What it does is allows for the barring of firearms ownership to anyone who is "adjudicated as a mental defective."... by a government psychologist or psychiatrist in the VA, Medicare, or the IDEA program. However, that would all change with the Veterans Disarmament Act, as it will CODIFY regulations that BATFE has issued." [link]

In other words the Law muddies the language quite a bit and leaves a lot to be interpreted. So it could be possible that all of these teenagers that may be screened for depression (a mental disorder), could later in life be barred from owning a firearm.

I know all of this is pure conjecture at this point, but would anything surprise you with the United States Government at this point. Look at all of the things that are going on and the liberties being taken from us now that our parents or grandparents would have laughed at 50 years ago. They would have said there is no way that will happen in America.

Quote for the Day

"Nowadays, for the sake of the advantage which is to be gained from the public revenues and from office, men want to be always in office." -- Aristotle

Cowering in Fear = Safe to Some

"A six-hour lockdown prompted by a fatal shooting near a Virginia campus was lifted as police continued a search for the gunman.

In a series of phone calls, e-mails and text messages, students were being warned that the university was on lockdown.

Police searched buildings on the sprawling campus of 7,500 students for the gunman, but at 3 a.m. students received a message stating the lockdown had been lifted and the campus was safe." [link]

Well as safe as you can be I guess if you are not allowed to arm yourself for your own personal defense. But this is what these people want. They do not like personal liberties, personal responsibility, and an ability to fend for oneself. They prefer to have all the power over each and everyone of us. They don't care if that gets innocents killed, because they can always then blame someone or something else and "make things better".

Canada Looks at Ending Gun Control

"The federal government introduced a bill in the Senate on Wednesday to abolish the long-gun registry.

"It's totally inefficient and ineffective against crime," Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan, told reporters on Parliament Hill." [link]

"For years now researchers at places like the American CDC, for instance, have found absolutely no evidence to suggest that gun control is at all tied to reductions in crime rates. Gun control isn’t about safety or crime. It’s about, well, control." [link]

Well it seems that our northern neighbors (at least a few of them) are starting to get it. Wonder how long it will take for the rest of America to understand as well.

Technorati Tags: Firearms, Freedom, 2nd Amendment, RKBA, Gun Control, Liberty, News

Powered by ScribeFire.

Taxes: Because the Government Needs Money, and Can't Let You Become Wealthy

"President Obama's budget keeps the estate tax at its 2009 level, which means the government gets 45 percent of a dead person's estate valued over $3.5 million dollars or $7 million for a couple..."People who aren't wealthy, who may have built up value in land over generations and many family farms find themselves in situations where they've got to sell the farm in order the pay the taxes," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio..."The total repeal would have a substantial additional impact on revenues," said Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C. "And this is also a time when we need to -- we simply can't be profligate about tax cuts. And we think we struck a good balance." Yet Obama's own top economic advisor, Larry Summers, took an interesting position on the passage of wealth from one generation to the next. "The evidence presented indicates that intergenerational transfers account for the vast majority of aggregate U.S. capital formation," he wrote in a study that he co-authored in 1980." [link]

Well, there we have it, the two quotes in bold that gets it out in the open. One representative of the United States government has admitted clearly that taxes are to keep the government afloat and not for the good of the people, and another one says that taxes death taxes are a means to spread the wealth. Let that sink in for a bit, then go read the Declaration of Independence and see how our founding fathers thought about oppressive taxes, and what they did to handle the situation.

Quote for the Day

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. -- James Madison The Federalist Papers, No.45

Gun Free Zones (Not Applicable to Criminals)

If Gun Free Zones are supposedly so "safe" how can you explain how these things happened within 1000 yards of a campus, or a so called "Gun Free Zone"?

"On 3/16/09 at about 12:00 AM, an armed robbery occurred on Third Street near Spring Street....On 03/16/2009 at approximately 12:30 AM, a Georgia Tech student was robbed at gunpoint on...On 03/14/2009 at 4:30 AM, a Georgia Tech student was robbed at gunpoint...On 03/16/2009 at 11:50 PM, a Georgia Tech student and his wife were robbed at gunpoint...

Experience demonstrates that the law does not deter criminals from using firearms. The only known result of the "school safety zone" law is to make it known to predators in Atlanta that there are "easy pickings" in and around college campuses, since students, faculty, and law-abiding visitors scrupulously obey the "school safety zone" law and disarm." [link]

You would think by now everyone would begin to understand criminals don't care about what the law says. All you do is force a law abiding person to either give up their right to defend themselves, or force them to break the law by deciding it is in their best interest to be armed regardless of the law for their own protection.

More About Democrats and Their Fear of Guns

"ORANGE PARK – Got Guns?

That’s what a Clay County Republican Party flier promoting a "2nd Amendment Day" in April asks all who pick it up.

County GOP Chairman Leslie Dougher says the party is reacting to growing concerns among its members that President Barack Obama may try to limit gun ownership, particularly handguns.

Not everyone thinks the idea of increasing gun ownership is a good idea. Any effort to put more guns on the street is wrong headed, says the head of the Clay County Democratic Party.

"There are too many guns," said Thomas Nazworth, Democratic Party chairman. "You’ve already got every right to defend yourself in your home. What is this going to be the wild, wild west where everybody has got sidearms? That is not answer." [link]

Haven't they tried the "wild west" argument in the past? Didn't really pan out for them though did it, considering there is usually a drop in violent crime in states that pass concealed carry laws. I do agree that is not a good idea to put "more guns on the street", they may get run over, you could mar the finish, scratch the wood, put them in contact with corrosive road flotsam and jetsam, etc...

Also, isn't it funny that a lot of gun owners are labeled as "bitter clingers". Yet Democrats have been "bitterly clinging" to this "wild west" argument for years.

Free Healthcare Anyone?

"In the past six years, eight people from Austin and one from Luling racked up 2,678 emergency room visits in Central Texas, costing hospitals, taxpayers and others $3 million, according to a report from a nonprofit made up of hospitals and other providers that care for the uninsured and low-income Central Texans. One of the nine spent more than a third of last year in the ER: 145 days. That same patient totaled 554 ER visits from 2003 through 2008." [link]

Yet you here calls for universal healthcare. Heads up, we have universal health care. We really do need reform in healthcare, but not the type the politicians want us to have. We need a way to keep those that abuse the system from having their bills payed by hardworking Americans that don't spend 145 days in the ER.

Quote for the Day

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Wonderful Piece of History About to Take Place

My salute to the Oath Keepers and the wonderful opportunity that will be afforded to all true patriots to take part in a momentous event. You can read all about it here.

That's One Small Step for Obama, One Giant Leap for Socialism

TREASURY TO STRIP CERBERUS OF STAKE IN CHRYSLER

"Cerberus Capital Management is expected to be an early casualty of the Treasury's rescue of the hobbled automaker, as the buyout firm will lose its 80 percent equity stake in Chrysler, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing people familiar with the matter.

According to the article, which cites an unnamed Obama administration official, Cerberus' equity stake in Chrysler is now worthless, effectively ending its ownership of the car company." [link]

Just as easy as that, the Obama administration takes away ownership of a private firm and is now the controlling interest of a private sector company. That is socialism folks, when the government runs everything. The means of production is centrally (governmental) controlled. What or who is next?

This From a "Constitutional Lawyer"?

"His [Obama's] announcement Monday of a new position on bailing out Detroit went beyond a desire to be sure tax dollars were not wasted in bailing out struggling companies. It put the Obama administration squarely in the position of adopting a so-called industrial policy, in which government officials, not business executives or the free market, decided what kinds of products a company would make and how it would chart its future." [link]

I am pretty sure there is nothing in the Constitution that grants this type of power to the president. Industry is not and should not be the business of government. The business of government is very strictly laid out in the U.S. Constitution. However it is rarely if ever adhered to except when the government can use it for its purposes.

Quote for the Day

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits. ... and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." --St. George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court 1803

More News on the State Sovereignty Fight

"There's an old joke in South Carolina: Confederate President Jefferson Davis may have surrendered at the Burt-Stark mansion in Abbeville, S.C., in 1865, but the people of state Rep. Michael Pitts's district never did. With revolutionary die-hards behind him, Mr. Pitts has fired a warning shot across the bow of the Washington establishment. As the writer of one of 28 state "sovereignty bills" – one even calls for outright dissolution of the Union if Washington doesn't rein itself in – Pitts is at the forefront of a states' rights revival, reasserting their say on everything from stem cell research to the Second Amendment." [link]

Gotta keep up the push for the federal government to start respecting what powers were granted it by the people. Anything else is a power grab that is unconstitutional and illegal.

On a side note, Kentucky "legislatures" allowed the bill to languish in committee and did not allow it to see the floor for a vote. Their session is over for this year, so you might as well say it failed via "procedure".

More Keyboard and Monitor Ruiners

For some reason these always make me laugh. Even though they should in reality be making me cry and storm about in a rage. But oh well, some humor is definitely needed at times.

"Geithner: Government is the Answer to Solve Financial Crisis" [link] Yeah, yeah, we know. The government is the answer to all of life's ills.

"Obama to Dole More Government Aid to GM, Chrysler" [link] Is it me, or haven't we done this already?

"Obama to Sign Lands Bill Before 5 Days of Comment" [link] Surprise, surprise another lie. And an absolutely hilarious quote from the same story: "In most cases, we have posted legislation with five days' notice."

"Al Gore Leaves The Light On For Ya (Gore Residence Lit Up For "Earth Hour")" [link]

"U.N. 'Climate Change' Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions to Form New World Economy" [link]

Well, that's about all the laughs I can handle for a little bit. I hope all of you enjoy these headlines and the links to the stories. And remember, this is actual news not parody.

Guns Safer Than Skiing or Riding a Bike if My Faulty Math Were Correct

Okay, I admit it, I made a horrible mistake. However I will leave it intact for the world to see. Unlike some people, I will accept full responsibility for my honest mistake and not try and shift the blame elsewhere. The correct math would be 142 firearms death per million. So skiing and riding a bike are still safer so to speak. Anyone know of a study that takes into account firearm deaths without the criminal element added. Because we all know a criminal by definition will not follow the laws anyway. If anyone would still like a stat that is in line with firearms how about, from 1990-2004 vehicle fatalities never fell below 145 per million! So guns are still safer than cars. [link] **Also, my sincerest apologies to Mr. Codrea for having him link to an erroneous post. I hope he will accept my sincerest apologies.**

From time to time you hear things so many times that it becomes ingrained. Regardless of whether or not there is any truth to it at all. This is always a favorite tactic employed by politicians. Reach enough people with the same message long enough and they will start to believe it. But even more sinister than getting people to believe something is when facts are employed but twisted within their framework so as to still remain true, but look completely different.

Where am I going with this? Bear with me just a moment longer and let me show some statistics of injuries and deaths in some common recreational activities:

"...skiing had a death rate of 2.1 fatalities per million participants, compared to swimming with 26 per million, bicycling with 12 per million and soccer with 6 fatalities per million." [link]

Now let's look at these numbers:

"...according to a study published April 17, 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the International Journal of Epidemiology. The U.S. was first at 14.24 gun deaths per 100,000 people. Two other countries in the Americas came next. Brazil was second with 12.95, followed by Mexico with 12.69." [link]

Now, did anyone else catch that. The first example used deaths per million, but when we start talking about "evil" guns we change to deaths per 100K. Why would that be? Maybe because if we looked at deaths per million with guns the U.S. would only be 1.42 deaths per million! Which would make firearms, even in the hands of criminals much safer than skiing, cycling, swimming, and commercial aviation! Where is the outrage to start banning these deadly sports?

It should also be noted that the CDC study included all gun deaths whether accidental, negligent, or criminal activity. Wonder what the numbers would be on gun deaths if the criminal aspect was removed. How much safer would shooting be than some of these other "safer" sports?

Quote for the Day

"Rightful Liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the law" because the law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -- Thomas Jefferson

Take a Look Around You

Recently there has been quite a bit of talk about how Obama is pushing the country toward socialism via several different routes. You have the nationalization plans, "social reforms", taxing the productive, etc... All things that make for a socialized nation. There is only one problem with all of this. We are already a socialist nation. Obama is merely putting the icing on the cake.

Don't believe me? The banks have already been nationalized. That happened back in 1913 under Woodrow Wilson. Refer to my Quote for the Day to see what he eventually thought of that. Nationalized health care? Already got it. Maybe not in the terms of European nationalized medicine, but we are not far off. Look at all the hoops doctors here have to jump through to get anything done already. Hospitals have to render services to anyone who comes through their doors regardless of their ability to pay. Who do you think picks up the tab on this? Ever wonder why your health insurance premiums continue to go up yet you hardly ever use your insurance other than routine doctor office visits and prescription drugs?

American taxpayers, depending on your sources, have to work the first 3-5 months of the year to pay their taxes. In other words roughly 3-5 months worth of pay goes straight to the government. After that, you may "keep" the rest.

Make no doubt about it, America is already well on its way to being anything but the nation the founding fathers envisioned.

Do a brief exercise with me for a minute. Imagine that Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Franklin, etc... were around today, that things are exactly as they are now and these men had the same lofty ideals they did 230+ years ago. What would they do? What would they be saying? How long before they re-declared independence?

Quote for the Day

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence

Quote for the Day

How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words! --Samuel Adams

Connecticut School Bans Physical Contact

A Connecticut middle school principal has laid down the law: You put your hands on someone -- anyone -- in any way, you're going to pay...Students and parents are outraged. They said the new policy means no high-fives and hugs, as well as horseplay of any kind. The consequences could be dire, Williams warned in the letter...

Now it's almost as if it's a sanitized school. Where you have to keep your distance from everybody? And that's not what school is about," one father said. [link]

Although I would have to agree that this policy takes things way too far. I can't say that I actually agree with the last question by a concerned father. In a way he is correct, but there is something else that needs to be looked at. He is correct in asserting that keeping your distance is not what school is all about, however that is what public education is all about.

Our current public educational system as it is now is not about education, but about indoctrination, group think, collectivism, and getting children used to "following the rules". This was the entire reason behind the Prussian system which our current system is not just based on, but copied exactly from the Prussian system.

Its sole purpose is to try and get everyone to view things the same, those that don't are labeled (such as learning disability, behavior disability, and others) usually to the detriment of their education. Individualism and individual learning are discouraged. Just because someone may take a little more time to learn to read does not necessarily mean they are learning disabled. And what happens if one child exhibits unusual talents above their "grade level"? They are usually asked to help the other children in the class and not given an opportunity to see how much they can improve their talents.

Public education is not broken, and does not more money put into it. It works just as it was designed to work. If people want to see better results they need to look at the system as a whole and not just at parts of it. For an excellent article that captures the abuses of the modern system much better than I do, go here.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Government Takeover of Private Businesses

In testimony before the House Financial Services committee that just adjourned, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner just had to defend his institutional takeover plan against charges of radicalism.

"Do you realize how radical your proposal is?" Rep. Donald Manzullo (R-Ill.) asked.

"It's not radical. . ." Geither began, before Manzullo interrupted him.

"You're talking about seizing private businesses and you don't consider that radical?" Manzullo replied, his voice rising.

Manzullo is trying to get Geithner to give details of the plan -- that's where Geithner got stung before -- but Geithner doesn't have them yet.

If the plan were not radical, Manzullo said to Geithner, "you would have answers to some of my questions, such as, what size business would be subject to this?" [link]

What an interesting conversation that was. Geithner has no answer for a representative that asked him about the administrations plan to seize private business if they see fit. At least some people are starting to get outraged finally. The government is going too far and they need to be sent a swift message.

Quote for the Day

“It is interesting to hear certain kinds of people insist that the citizen cannot fight the government. This would have been news to the men of Lexington and Concord, as well as the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. The citizen most certainly can fight the government, and usually wins when he tries. Organized national armies are useful primarily for fighting against other organized national armies. When they try to fight against the people, they find themselves at a very serious disadvantage. If you will just look around at the state of the world today, you will see that the guerillero has the upper hand. Irregulars usually defeat regulars, providing they have the will. Such fighting is horrible to contemplate, but will continue to dominate brute strength.” --Col. Jeff Cooper