It seems like the liberals politicians will use any reason to turn the argument around towards an anti second amendment push. A rational person cannot think that more gun control laws will have anything to do with safety either from terrorists or criminals, as he only people obeying laws are NOT the terrorists or criminals. And don't forget, Mayor Bloomberg is the same elitest, socialist snob who thinks he knows better than anyone else.
The following is an Legislative Alert from the National Rifle Association.
According to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the recent terror bombings in Boston require a new interpretation of the Constitution to give the government greater power to protect
"The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry," Bloomberg said during a recent press conference. "But we live in a complex world where you're going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change."
According to a Breitbart.com article, the anti-gun Bloomberg claims that recent attacks on the Second Amendment have left him confident that such re-interpretation is possible.
"The Supreme Court has recognized that you have to have different interpretations of the Second Amendment and what it applies to and reasonable gun laws," Bloomberg said. He employs the tactic of incrementally "lowering the bar" by suggesting that Americans should be willing to give up a degree of freedom in exchange for a degree of security.
"It really says something bad about us that we have to do it. But our obligation first and foremost is to keep our kids safe in the schools; first and foremost, to keep you safe if you go to a sporting event; first and foremost is to keep you safe if you walk down the streets or go into our parks," he said. "We cannot let the terrorists put us in a situation where we can't do those things. And the ways to do that is to provide what we think is an appropriate level of protection."
Bloomberg would do well to remember what Benjamin Franklin had to say on the subject back in 1775: "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Cowboys and the Tea Party political movement have a lot on common. Both believe in individual responsibility; judging a man by his actions not words; and, both are disgusted with government intrusions into our lives and particularly our God given rights.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Monday, April 29, 2013
More On Welfare Than Employed!
.jpg)
The Death Spiral,.........We are Doomed. These 11 States now have more people on Welfare than they do Employed!
Last month, the Senate Budget Committee reported that in fiscal year 2012, between food stamps, housing support, child care, Medicaid and other benefits, the average U.S. household below the poverty line received $168 a day in government support.
What's the problem with that much support?
Well, the median household income in America is just over $50,000, which averages out to $137.13 a day. To put it another way, being on welfare now pays the equivalent of $30 an hour for a 40-hour week, while the average job pays $20 an hour.
And to cap it off, a reported 12 to 15 million Americans are eligible for welfare who are not yet on it, hence the Federal Government's efforts to enlist/enroll people on welfare,......"Free food, sign up here!" If, say 13 million more sign up that would bring the rolls to a full 60 million on welfare. Are you kidding me!!
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Democrats Politicians Want an Obamacare Exemption
This week there was a big story that the NRSC wanted to make sure nobody missed, since the mainstream meida is not reporting on it. When the NRSC saw it, they did a doubletake. According to Politico, Harry Reid and the Democrats in Congress are seeking to exempt themselves from Obamacare.
That's right.
Those responsible for forcing Obamacare on all of us - against our will - are trying to give themselves (and their staff in Washington, D.C.) a way out. Democrats in Congress responsible for Obamacare should be subject to the same high costs, government mandates, red tape, and limited choices that they brought onto everyone else.
We believe that all Americans should be exempt from Obamacare, which is why we need a conservative Senate. If you agree that Democrats in Congress should play by the same rules they forced on all of us then please take a moment to sign our petition.
We've had enough of Harry Reid. Enough of Chuck Schumer. Enough of Al Franken. We need to hold these liberal Democrats accountable, and we need your help. If we have to live with the consequences of Obamacare, they should too.
Please sign the petition to tell Democrats that they should repeal Obamacare for everyone, not just themselves.
Thank you,
Brad Dayspring
Communications Director, NRSC
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Three Terms for Obama?
President Obama Would Get 3 Terms Under Pending House Resolution, an article by Angel Clark on Joe Miller's site.
Americans around the nation were shocked Friday as they heard about H.J.Res. 15. H.J.Res 15 proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment. This would remove the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President. Rep. José Serrano (D- NY15) introduced the controversial joint resolution on the second day of the 2013 legislative session. This has had no reporting by the mainstream,...err, excuse me,....lamestream media.
The last President to serve more than two terms was Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt served three full terms as President and was elected to a fourth term. Roosevelt died 83 days into his fourth term in office. Congress passed the Twenty-second Amendment on March 21, 1947. The required number of states ratified it in 1951.
Read more about this jackassery here:
Joe Miller was the 2010 Republican nominee for the US Senate from Alaska. He is a West Point graduate and decorated combat veteran from the first Gulf War. A former judge, Joe graduated from Yale Law School and was later awarded an advanced economics degree from the University of Alaska. He is presently chairman of Restoring Liberty Action Committee.
Americans around the nation were shocked Friday as they heard about H.J.Res. 15. H.J.Res 15 proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment. This would remove the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President. Rep. José Serrano (D- NY15) introduced the controversial joint resolution on the second day of the 2013 legislative session. This has had no reporting by the mainstream,...err, excuse me,....lamestream media.
The last President to serve more than two terms was Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt served three full terms as President and was elected to a fourth term. Roosevelt died 83 days into his fourth term in office. Congress passed the Twenty-second Amendment on March 21, 1947. The required number of states ratified it in 1951.
Read more about this jackassery here:
Joe Miller was the 2010 Republican nominee for the US Senate from Alaska. He is a West Point graduate and decorated combat veteran from the first Gulf War. A former judge, Joe graduated from Yale Law School and was later awarded an advanced economics degree from the University of Alaska. He is presently chairman of Restoring Liberty Action Committee.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
If Babies Had Guns
Texas Congressman’s New Bumper Sticker Is Going to Infuriate the Left. Representative Steve Stockman (R-Texas) may be new to Congress, but he’s making a splash with a new bumper sticker sure to get the left all riled up. And just in time too as news reports squeaking coming out of Philadelphia concerning a liberal Doctor conducting abortions where some of the babies were born live then had their spine's "snipped".......where is the Liberal, anti-freedom, mainstream media on this coverage?
Stockman, refers to himself as the “most conservative member of Congress,”......I'm not going to disagree. Congressman Stockman recently invited all gun owners and manufacturers who feel “persecuted in their states to move to Texas where gun rights and freedom are respected.
Obviously, Stockman isn’t afraid to wear his conservative ideals on his sleeve — or his bumper.
You Go Steve!
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Obama Making Trading Easier for US Politicians
Obama Quietly Passed a Law Making Insider Trading Easier for US Politicians, From www.activistpost.com by way The Daily Sheeple. Nothing really new to the people here. But still surprised at the brazen contempt for ethical standards. It make it seem like this Country is doomed. Here is the article:
The whole concept of avoiding ‘conflicts of interest’ is a virtue now consigned to history in the United States.
Remember the good old days, when the good men and women of America got into politics to help serve their country, and not for the money?
Imagine if you were able to pass a law that would regulate your own behavior and ultimately define the consequences of that behavior. That’s what all politicians in Washington DC do on a regular basis.
When it comes to regulating their investments whilst in office, they are able to pass laws that allow them to use special foreknowledge (that only lawmakers and government regulators have) for personal gain.
It’s all about finding that golden loophole. Once upon a time it was called “insider trading” … hardly a crime on Wall Street anymore (props to Goldman Sachs), and neither in Washington DC, or so it seems, according to the President and his legislative branch.
Now we know how hard it is to be a politician these days. Many of you genuinely feel that there should be some additional value-added perks to your job as a public servant. After all, our elected officials deserve some extra compensation for shunning the public sector and offering their incredible talents for the public good, right?
While tragic events in Boston are dominating the national media this week, US President Barack Obama quietly signed a bill, and one which passed rather swiftly through Congress we might add … it’s a bill that prevents key financial disclosure forms filed by senior governmental employees from being posted online. In a rare display of cross-party cooperation, both sides of the aisle seemed happy to approve (surprise, surprise) by unanimous consent.
This latest bill specifically alters the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or “STOCK Act”, which, when it was originally drafted was intended to be a law designed to combat insider trading on Capitol Hill – until our elected officials got their teeth into it that is.
This is how the criminals usually work – quietly and in secret: the bill passed both House and Senate chambers on a voice vote (where lawmakers’ names are not recorded). Both chambers cleared the legislation in near record time by Washington DC standards – taking only ten seconds in the Senate and 14 seconds in the House to pass.
According to the report below, “The bill represents a major blow to government transparency”. It certainly does and then some, but more than anything it just makes it a lot easier to get richer from a career in politics.
This is really the sort of law you would expect to be passed in a corrupt banana republic, with a fascist dictator presiding over a government full of self-interested industrialists. So is this the new America?
Obama signing a bill like this with the hyper-sonic, complete backing of both chambers of government spells out everything that is wrong with American government today and why so few people trust anyone who calls themselves a politician or government staffer. It’s also a prime example as to why so many Americans have all but given up on the political process, almost forced to submit to its systemic corruption.
This is one of the ways in which our long-serving Congressmen/women, Senators, esteemed residents and staff in the White House are able the amass such huge fortunes during their glorious political careers- by simply gaming the system.
One set of rules for the people, and another set of rules for our “leaders”.
It does not appear that they can actually be trusted to make decisions that govern political life.
Keeping tabs of financial conflicts of interest on Capitol Hill just got more difficult. On Tuesday, President Obama signed a bill passed by Congress that would prevent financial disclosure forms filed by senior governmental employees from being posted online.
Washington DC politicians can breathe easier now that Obama has better enabled insider trading for them.
The bill passed both the House of Representative and the Senate on a voice vote. In a voice vote, now members of Congress’s votes are not recorded. The Senate and House both cleared the legislation by unanimous consent, taking only ten seconds in the Senate and 14 seconds in the House of consideration to pass. The bill represents a major blow to government transparency, according to government watchdog groups.
The bill modifies the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, a law passed to combat insider trading. The bill effectively repeals a provision that requires financial disclosure forms to posted online into a searchable database in order to be easily assessed. Proponents of repealing the measure argued that it would increase the risk of identify theft and other crimes against disclosures as well as security concerns for the government.
But such disclosure forms are technically already available to the public. Without the provision, the forms must be requested individually from government agencies. The Center for Responsive Politics and the Sunlight Foundation, two pro-government transparency organizations harshly criticized the bill. Lisa Rosenberg of the Sunlight Foundation said of the move, “The result: More corruption and less trust in government.”
Dan Auble of the Center for Responsive Politics said of the bill, "Without the provisions, the STOCK act is made toothless. Insider trading by members of Congress and federal employees is still prohibited, but the ability of watchdog groups to verify that Congress is following its own rules is severely limited because these records could still be filed on paper — an unacceptably outdated practice that limits the public’s access. This is not true disclosure."
The bill does not completely gut the STOCK Act. Federal workers would still be required to report securities trades over a $1,000 threshold within 45 days and make them available to the public. The president, vice president, members of Congress, candidates for Congress, Cabinet members, and deputy secretaries are still required to post financial transactions online. However the searchable database was killed along with the requirements that federal employees post transactions.
However the searchable database was considered by some to be the most effective part of the act. Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility Ethics in Washington said that, “by getting rid of the online disclosure they get rid of the only effective part. It’s almost a useless act.”
Rather than reforming the act to address privacy concerns, Congress just decided to get rid of those requirements entirely. The approach is known as “security through obscurity,“ the idea being that by making the system difficult, people who want to engage in malicious acts will be discouraged from accessing the information. The drawbacks of such a system are immediately obvious, as a criminal simply needs to be dedicated enough to go through the system in order to gain the information they desire.
The STOCK Act has already been criticized for being incomplete. In 2012, a loophole in the STOCK Act was discovered that could have allowed family members of lawmakers to still profit from inside information, which was promptly corrected. No word if they will fix other efforts at weakening the act soon.
The whole concept of avoiding ‘conflicts of interest’ is a virtue now consigned to history in the United States.
Remember the good old days, when the good men and women of America got into politics to help serve their country, and not for the money?
Imagine if you were able to pass a law that would regulate your own behavior and ultimately define the consequences of that behavior. That’s what all politicians in Washington DC do on a regular basis.
When it comes to regulating their investments whilst in office, they are able to pass laws that allow them to use special foreknowledge (that only lawmakers and government regulators have) for personal gain.
It’s all about finding that golden loophole. Once upon a time it was called “insider trading” … hardly a crime on Wall Street anymore (props to Goldman Sachs), and neither in Washington DC, or so it seems, according to the President and his legislative branch.
Now we know how hard it is to be a politician these days. Many of you genuinely feel that there should be some additional value-added perks to your job as a public servant. After all, our elected officials deserve some extra compensation for shunning the public sector and offering their incredible talents for the public good, right?
While tragic events in Boston are dominating the national media this week, US President Barack Obama quietly signed a bill, and one which passed rather swiftly through Congress we might add … it’s a bill that prevents key financial disclosure forms filed by senior governmental employees from being posted online. In a rare display of cross-party cooperation, both sides of the aisle seemed happy to approve (surprise, surprise) by unanimous consent.
This latest bill specifically alters the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or “STOCK Act”, which, when it was originally drafted was intended to be a law designed to combat insider trading on Capitol Hill – until our elected officials got their teeth into it that is.
This is how the criminals usually work – quietly and in secret: the bill passed both House and Senate chambers on a voice vote (where lawmakers’ names are not recorded). Both chambers cleared the legislation in near record time by Washington DC standards – taking only ten seconds in the Senate and 14 seconds in the House to pass.
According to the report below, “The bill represents a major blow to government transparency”. It certainly does and then some, but more than anything it just makes it a lot easier to get richer from a career in politics.
This is really the sort of law you would expect to be passed in a corrupt banana republic, with a fascist dictator presiding over a government full of self-interested industrialists. So is this the new America?
Obama signing a bill like this with the hyper-sonic, complete backing of both chambers of government spells out everything that is wrong with American government today and why so few people trust anyone who calls themselves a politician or government staffer. It’s also a prime example as to why so many Americans have all but given up on the political process, almost forced to submit to its systemic corruption.
This is one of the ways in which our long-serving Congressmen/women, Senators, esteemed residents and staff in the White House are able the amass such huge fortunes during their glorious political careers- by simply gaming the system.
One set of rules for the people, and another set of rules for our “leaders”.
It does not appear that they can actually be trusted to make decisions that govern political life.
Keeping tabs of financial conflicts of interest on Capitol Hill just got more difficult. On Tuesday, President Obama signed a bill passed by Congress that would prevent financial disclosure forms filed by senior governmental employees from being posted online.
Washington DC politicians can breathe easier now that Obama has better enabled insider trading for them.
The bill passed both the House of Representative and the Senate on a voice vote. In a voice vote, now members of Congress’s votes are not recorded. The Senate and House both cleared the legislation by unanimous consent, taking only ten seconds in the Senate and 14 seconds in the House of consideration to pass. The bill represents a major blow to government transparency, according to government watchdog groups.
The bill modifies the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, a law passed to combat insider trading. The bill effectively repeals a provision that requires financial disclosure forms to posted online into a searchable database in order to be easily assessed. Proponents of repealing the measure argued that it would increase the risk of identify theft and other crimes against disclosures as well as security concerns for the government.
But such disclosure forms are technically already available to the public. Without the provision, the forms must be requested individually from government agencies. The Center for Responsive Politics and the Sunlight Foundation, two pro-government transparency organizations harshly criticized the bill. Lisa Rosenberg of the Sunlight Foundation said of the move, “The result: More corruption and less trust in government.”
Dan Auble of the Center for Responsive Politics said of the bill, "Without the provisions, the STOCK act is made toothless. Insider trading by members of Congress and federal employees is still prohibited, but the ability of watchdog groups to verify that Congress is following its own rules is severely limited because these records could still be filed on paper — an unacceptably outdated practice that limits the public’s access. This is not true disclosure."
The bill does not completely gut the STOCK Act. Federal workers would still be required to report securities trades over a $1,000 threshold within 45 days and make them available to the public. The president, vice president, members of Congress, candidates for Congress, Cabinet members, and deputy secretaries are still required to post financial transactions online. However the searchable database was killed along with the requirements that federal employees post transactions.
However the searchable database was considered by some to be the most effective part of the act. Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility Ethics in Washington said that, “by getting rid of the online disclosure they get rid of the only effective part. It’s almost a useless act.”
Rather than reforming the act to address privacy concerns, Congress just decided to get rid of those requirements entirely. The approach is known as “security through obscurity,“ the idea being that by making the system difficult, people who want to engage in malicious acts will be discouraged from accessing the information. The drawbacks of such a system are immediately obvious, as a criminal simply needs to be dedicated enough to go through the system in order to gain the information they desire.
The STOCK Act has already been criticized for being incomplete. In 2012, a loophole in the STOCK Act was discovered that could have allowed family members of lawmakers to still profit from inside information, which was promptly corrected. No word if they will fix other efforts at weakening the act soon.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Campaign Against Christians
Mychal Massie makes a good point, albeit facetiously about which religious group is conducting all the terrorist acts, and which reglious groups are being persecuted. However his best point is that if the U.S. Government wil not support 1st Amendment rights for Christian soldiers or citizens, then perhaps the Government should not not use Christians to fight their wars nor accept taxes from Christians. From Mychal Massie
According to Investors Business Daily, a spokesman for ISAF Joint Command said: "We can confirm that those items were removed from the chapel. These items were removed out of respect for the beliefs of other faiths." (Army Removes Crosses and Steeple From A Chapel In Afghanistan; 4/8/13)
What things was the spokesman referring to? The things removed from the chapel by the Army were Crucifixes and a steeple because they are religious symbols that offend Muslims. The interesting thing is that the action was prompted because of a complaint filed by an atheist military person which led to a formal letter of complaint being written to the Pentagon by an atheist organization. My point being, based on the course of complaint one could argue that Muslims are atheists, in addition to being terrorists.
Adding insult to injury, an Army training instructor lists Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism as examples of religious extremism.
I was prepared to be offended by the children of Erebus who have claimed such stupidity. But then I remembered that it is Evangelical Christians and Catholics who are responsible for thousands of violent acts of terrorism around the world. I forgot that it is Christians and Catholics who are responsible for vaginal mutilation of their wives and daughters. I forgot that it is Christians and Catholics who are responsible for stoning and caning women for such extreme acts of insubordination as learning to read. I forgot that it is Christians and Catholics who are responsible for beheadings, bombings, and practically every act of terrorism directed at military installations and bases located in the United States. I forgot that it is atheists and Muslims who are responsible for raising tens of millions of private dollars to send overseas to help those suffering. I forgot that it is Christians and Catholics who are responsible for raping and murdering women and children in some of the poorest regions around the world.
How silly of me not to remember that Christians and Catholics worship and follow after Jesus Christ the Risen Savior and Lord while Muslims follow after a faux prophet who was a murderer, a pedophile, a rapist, and is rumored to have engaged in homosexual acts.
Yes, sir, I was just about to lose my cool until I realized that it is an atheist and one of the most ritualistic cults under the sun that have teamed up in an attempt to outlaw the religious ornamentation Christians and Catholics in a worship chapel. Then I came up with a solution to the whole thing.
If they don't want Christians and Catholics worshipping there that's fine -- send home all of the Christians and Catholics. Do not send another Christian or Catholic ever again into a battle zone or area of conflict. Let the atheists and their Muslim brothers handle such things.
And I would also add that the federal government not receive another nickel of tax revenue from Christians or Catholics. If they want to deny us the right to worship let them deny themselves our service and tax dollars.
The bottom line is that Muslims and atheists contribute nothing but hatred. But, be of good cheer. Because the day is coming, and may well be very near, when they will reside in a place separate from us. We will reside for eternity in a place of untold beauty and wonder; they will reside in a place populated by those, like themselves, unable to even drink the moisture from their sweat to satisfy their thirst.
I believe this is where we say "The fool has said there is no God."
According to Investors Business Daily, a spokesman for ISAF Joint Command said: "We can confirm that those items were removed from the chapel. These items were removed out of respect for the beliefs of other faiths." (Army Removes Crosses and Steeple From A Chapel In Afghanistan; 4/8/13)
What things was the spokesman referring to? The things removed from the chapel by the Army were Crucifixes and a steeple because they are religious symbols that offend Muslims. The interesting thing is that the action was prompted because of a complaint filed by an atheist military person which led to a formal letter of complaint being written to the Pentagon by an atheist organization. My point being, based on the course of complaint one could argue that Muslims are atheists, in addition to being terrorists.
Adding insult to injury, an Army training instructor lists Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism as examples of religious extremism.
I was prepared to be offended by the children of Erebus who have claimed such stupidity. But then I remembered that it is Evangelical Christians and Catholics who are responsible for thousands of violent acts of terrorism around the world. I forgot that it is Christians and Catholics who are responsible for vaginal mutilation of their wives and daughters. I forgot that it is Christians and Catholics who are responsible for stoning and caning women for such extreme acts of insubordination as learning to read. I forgot that it is Christians and Catholics who are responsible for beheadings, bombings, and practically every act of terrorism directed at military installations and bases located in the United States. I forgot that it is atheists and Muslims who are responsible for raising tens of millions of private dollars to send overseas to help those suffering. I forgot that it is Christians and Catholics who are responsible for raping and murdering women and children in some of the poorest regions around the world.
How silly of me not to remember that Christians and Catholics worship and follow after Jesus Christ the Risen Savior and Lord while Muslims follow after a faux prophet who was a murderer, a pedophile, a rapist, and is rumored to have engaged in homosexual acts.
Yes, sir, I was just about to lose my cool until I realized that it is an atheist and one of the most ritualistic cults under the sun that have teamed up in an attempt to outlaw the religious ornamentation Christians and Catholics in a worship chapel. Then I came up with a solution to the whole thing.
If they don't want Christians and Catholics worshipping there that's fine -- send home all of the Christians and Catholics. Do not send another Christian or Catholic ever again into a battle zone or area of conflict. Let the atheists and their Muslim brothers handle such things.
And I would also add that the federal government not receive another nickel of tax revenue from Christians or Catholics. If they want to deny us the right to worship let them deny themselves our service and tax dollars.
The bottom line is that Muslims and atheists contribute nothing but hatred. But, be of good cheer. Because the day is coming, and may well be very near, when they will reside in a place separate from us. We will reside for eternity in a place of untold beauty and wonder; they will reside in a place populated by those, like themselves, unable to even drink the moisture from their sweat to satisfy their thirst.
I believe this is where we say "The fool has said there is no God."
Monday, April 22, 2013
Self Defense - What Part of Self Don't You Understand?
Apparently I wasn't the only one thinking this as Boston was locked down during the manhunt for the second terrorist bomber suspect. Liberals will certainly take offense to Arkansas Representative Nate Bell for his comments, but it remains a fact the protection of yourself and family is at first an individual responsibility.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
California Welfare - Good for Vacations
Americans For Prosperity - California, is serving as a watchdog for big government fraud, waste and abuse of tax payers money. They bring the following case to the light of day- not that the California government will do anything about it, becasue they need to attract and nuture Democrat voters.
Does this suprise anyone that California has such waste and abuse? To be sure, there is waste and abuse in any program, but one of the factors driving the California abuse is the sheer extent of their welfare program.
Does this suprise anyone that California has such waste and abuse? To be sure, there is waste and abuse in any program, but one of the factors driving the California abuse is the sheer extent of their welfare program.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Colorado - the New Police State
An article called "Bye, Bye Sheriffs: Colorado Redefines the Police State", by Elizabeth Hermesch on PoliticChicks, the Voice of the Conservative Woman, warns us of a new police state in Colorado.
According to the book They Fired the First Shot, “Sheriffs across our nation are standing up against tyranny and are winning their battles without violence, without protests, without lawsuits. How? Because constitutional power is clear as to who holds the final authority in local areas. Not the President of the United States, not Congress, not the Supreme Court, but the local Sheriff holds the authority and he is fast becoming the hero of the people.”
The states and the feds are almost powerless against the Constitutional sheriff…and they know it. That’s why they are now on the attack.
A new bill coming from Colorado, SB 13-013, passed on a nearly-party-line vote in the Democrat-controlled House and was signed into law recently by Governor John Hickenlooper. The bill’s long title is “CONCERNING PEACE OFFICER AUTHORITY FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE.” The official summary reads, “The bill gives a special agent, uniform division officer, physical security technician, physical security specialist, or special officer of the United States secret service limited peace officer authority while working in Colorado.”
I readily confess that I am becoming increasingly paranoid of all realms of our government, but this is hardly a far-out conspiracy theory. Without a doubt, this law essentially gives police powers and arrest authority to the executive branch of federal government (Secret Service) within the State. In other words, it is shoving out the elected peace officers (the local sheriffs) who answer to the people and the Constitution and is replacing them with unelected Secret Service members who answer only to the federal government.
As if there was any doubt, the text of the bill reinforces it: The secret service agent acts in accordance with the rules and regulations of his or her employing agency. A secret service agent is a person who is employed by the united states government, assigned to the united states secret service, empowered to effect an arrest with or without a warrant for violations of the united states code, and authorized to carry a firearm and use deadly force in the performance of his or her duties as a federal law enforcement officer.
Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, said, “Often in laws like this they will give broad authority in one section, then later in another section they will have wording which appears to restrict the authority,” he explained. “Unlike the state’s law enforcement, the Secret Service would not have any jurisdictional concerns. Under this bill they can go anywhere in the state of Colorado regardless of jurisdiction.”
“This is absolutely insane,” Rep. Lori Saine, R-Dacono, said. “In theory if a Secret Service agent is in a county where the sheriff has refused to enforce some of the recent unenforceable gun laws, the agent could arrest an individual if he believes the law has been broken.”
It is obvious that SB 13-013 was introduced in direct response to the hundreds of county sheriffs, including many in Colorado, who have justly stood up to the Washington bureaucrats and said they cannot enforce federal restrictions that would violate the Second Amendment.
But it gets worse.
Rep. Saine says she believes the bill is intended to be used as a foundation for later legislation that will surrender still greater control to federal officials. “There’ve been so many explanations for the reasons they really need this bill passed. So what is it really?” “I believe it is intended to be used for setting up a framework so that at some other time they could expand it to possibly include being able to arrest a sheriff who is refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws. They would justify it by saying that since we’ve already given the Secret Service this ability, why not give them just one more?”
This has already happened…and is happening increasingly.
In the Texas state legislature, Dallas Democratic Representative Yvonne Davis introduced a measure similar to the Colorado law that would fire any law enforcement officer who disobeys state or federal orders. The bill even calls for the removal of any law enforcement officer who just promises — either on paper or just verbally — not to enforce any federal gun control mandates that the federal government passes.
In Delaware, a bill was recently revived that attempts to replace elected sheriffs with federal-government-appointed police chiefs.
Coincidentally (or not so coincidentally), Connecticut, the state where the infamous Newtown school shooting occurred, voted in 2000 to eliminate county sheriffs as constitutional officers. Among the provisions eliminated were the requirements to hold an election of sheriffs in each county every four years for four-year terms and the requirement that sheriffs submit a bond to the treasurer to ensure the faithful discharge of their duties. Voters in Connecticut opted instead for a system of federal marshals who don’t bother to take an oath to uphold the Constitution; the marshals’ only loyalty is to those in upper echelons of power who appoint them, not the lowly “we the people” they are supposed to serve.
When you realize the power a local elected sheriff has, you quickly realize why there is a concerted effort to take away the position and change it into some kind of a yes-man governmental appointed fluff job. After all, as Thomas Jefferson said, “Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” The local sheriff’s job is to ensure the existence of that tempestuous sea of liberty, so, of course, liberals are doing everything to take that power away and instead ensure the calm of despotism.
Even as far back as the 1970s, when the threat to eliminate the sheriff was openly before California supervisors, Supervisor William Johnson of El Dorado County persuaded two California State representatives to join him in getting an initiative qualified for the California ballot which stated in print in the state’s Constitution that the sheriff must be an elective office. The proposition on the ballot passed easily and it was entered into California’s constitution. At that time Supervisor Johnson declared that it “was an attempt to put a road block in the way” of the ‘change agents’. It gave the people more time to find ways to protect themselves against the ‘change agents’ who were trying to eliminate the Constitutional sheriff.
Many states, including Montana, Ohio, Kentucky, Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, Michigan, Utah, and New Mexico, are trying to protect the power of their sheriffs in much the same way, with many gun rights bills gaining momentum. Will other states answer the bell and protect their sheriffs from the despotic, power-hungry agents who want to put them out of business? It is essential that they do because what is so eerie about the Colorado bill is that the state is willingly transferring enormous power to the federal government. Is this the new normal?
Welcome to the new police state, America.
According to the book They Fired the First Shot, “Sheriffs across our nation are standing up against tyranny and are winning their battles without violence, without protests, without lawsuits. How? Because constitutional power is clear as to who holds the final authority in local areas. Not the President of the United States, not Congress, not the Supreme Court, but the local Sheriff holds the authority and he is fast becoming the hero of the people.”
The states and the feds are almost powerless against the Constitutional sheriff…and they know it. That’s why they are now on the attack.
A new bill coming from Colorado, SB 13-013, passed on a nearly-party-line vote in the Democrat-controlled House and was signed into law recently by Governor John Hickenlooper. The bill’s long title is “CONCERNING PEACE OFFICER AUTHORITY FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE.” The official summary reads, “The bill gives a special agent, uniform division officer, physical security technician, physical security specialist, or special officer of the United States secret service limited peace officer authority while working in Colorado.”
I readily confess that I am becoming increasingly paranoid of all realms of our government, but this is hardly a far-out conspiracy theory. Without a doubt, this law essentially gives police powers and arrest authority to the executive branch of federal government (Secret Service) within the State. In other words, it is shoving out the elected peace officers (the local sheriffs) who answer to the people and the Constitution and is replacing them with unelected Secret Service members who answer only to the federal government.
As if there was any doubt, the text of the bill reinforces it: The secret service agent acts in accordance with the rules and regulations of his or her employing agency. A secret service agent is a person who is employed by the united states government, assigned to the united states secret service, empowered to effect an arrest with or without a warrant for violations of the united states code, and authorized to carry a firearm and use deadly force in the performance of his or her duties as a federal law enforcement officer.
Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, said, “Often in laws like this they will give broad authority in one section, then later in another section they will have wording which appears to restrict the authority,” he explained. “Unlike the state’s law enforcement, the Secret Service would not have any jurisdictional concerns. Under this bill they can go anywhere in the state of Colorado regardless of jurisdiction.”
“This is absolutely insane,” Rep. Lori Saine, R-Dacono, said. “In theory if a Secret Service agent is in a county where the sheriff has refused to enforce some of the recent unenforceable gun laws, the agent could arrest an individual if he believes the law has been broken.”
It is obvious that SB 13-013 was introduced in direct response to the hundreds of county sheriffs, including many in Colorado, who have justly stood up to the Washington bureaucrats and said they cannot enforce federal restrictions that would violate the Second Amendment.
But it gets worse.
Rep. Saine says she believes the bill is intended to be used as a foundation for later legislation that will surrender still greater control to federal officials. “There’ve been so many explanations for the reasons they really need this bill passed. So what is it really?” “I believe it is intended to be used for setting up a framework so that at some other time they could expand it to possibly include being able to arrest a sheriff who is refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws. They would justify it by saying that since we’ve already given the Secret Service this ability, why not give them just one more?”
This has already happened…and is happening increasingly.
In the Texas state legislature, Dallas Democratic Representative Yvonne Davis introduced a measure similar to the Colorado law that would fire any law enforcement officer who disobeys state or federal orders. The bill even calls for the removal of any law enforcement officer who just promises — either on paper or just verbally — not to enforce any federal gun control mandates that the federal government passes.
In Delaware, a bill was recently revived that attempts to replace elected sheriffs with federal-government-appointed police chiefs.
Coincidentally (or not so coincidentally), Connecticut, the state where the infamous Newtown school shooting occurred, voted in 2000 to eliminate county sheriffs as constitutional officers. Among the provisions eliminated were the requirements to hold an election of sheriffs in each county every four years for four-year terms and the requirement that sheriffs submit a bond to the treasurer to ensure the faithful discharge of their duties. Voters in Connecticut opted instead for a system of federal marshals who don’t bother to take an oath to uphold the Constitution; the marshals’ only loyalty is to those in upper echelons of power who appoint them, not the lowly “we the people” they are supposed to serve.
When you realize the power a local elected sheriff has, you quickly realize why there is a concerted effort to take away the position and change it into some kind of a yes-man governmental appointed fluff job. After all, as Thomas Jefferson said, “Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” The local sheriff’s job is to ensure the existence of that tempestuous sea of liberty, so, of course, liberals are doing everything to take that power away and instead ensure the calm of despotism.
Even as far back as the 1970s, when the threat to eliminate the sheriff was openly before California supervisors, Supervisor William Johnson of El Dorado County persuaded two California State representatives to join him in getting an initiative qualified for the California ballot which stated in print in the state’s Constitution that the sheriff must be an elective office. The proposition on the ballot passed easily and it was entered into California’s constitution. At that time Supervisor Johnson declared that it “was an attempt to put a road block in the way” of the ‘change agents’. It gave the people more time to find ways to protect themselves against the ‘change agents’ who were trying to eliminate the Constitutional sheriff.
Many states, including Montana, Ohio, Kentucky, Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, Michigan, Utah, and New Mexico, are trying to protect the power of their sheriffs in much the same way, with many gun rights bills gaining momentum. Will other states answer the bell and protect their sheriffs from the despotic, power-hungry agents who want to put them out of business? It is essential that they do because what is so eerie about the Colorado bill is that the state is willingly transferring enormous power to the federal government. Is this the new normal?
Welcome to the new police state, America.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Navy Officer Craps the Bed
And the Navy rolls over. ..This should be the headline as a Navy Officer commits adultery, commits fraud then is allowed to retire retaining his rank. Really! Just another example of the Military's Officer corps taking care of each other. Check it out here on a Yahoo! article.
GROTON, Conn. (AP) — A former submarine commander who faked his death to end an extramarital affair should be honorably discharged from the Navy, a panel of officers recommended Friday after a daylong hearing in which the officer said he accepted "full and total accountability" for his behavior.
Cmdr. Michael P. Ward II, a married 43-year-old, sent his mistress in Virginia an email in July posing as a fictitious co-worker named Bob and saying Ward had died unexpectedly. Ward was relieved of his duties aboard the USS Pittsburgh in August a week after he'd taken command and has received a letter of reprimand for adultery and other military violations.
After testimony from Ward's former superior officers, colleagues and shipmates, Ward, in his dress blues, acknowledged to the panel that he had had an affair and sent the bogus email to the woman in an effort to end it.
"The reason I did it was to sever the relationship," he said, "but the choice was ridiculous."
He apologized to the Navy and the sailors who served under him.
The three-officer board of inquiry recommended Ward retain his rank upon being discharged. Its decision goes to the secretary of the Navy for approval within 90 days.
During the hearing, at Naval Submarine Base New London, the government countered that Ward discredited the Navy and that his removal put a strain on the fleet because officers had to be shuffled around to cover his removal.
"Commander Ward's actions show a complete lack of honesty, character and integrity," said Navy Lt. Griffin Farris, acting as prosecutor at the hearing.
Ward said he accepted responsibility for his actions and would regret them all his life, adding that he was grateful to his wife for standing by him.
"I want to apologize directly to my wife for the hurt and harm and humiliation I have caused her," he said as she sat in the front row, her eyes red. "I accept full and total accountability for my actions."
Still, the Navy shouldn't throw away Ward's talent and training, said high-ranking officers with whom he has served. They said he made an awful mistake and was a fast-rising, hardworking officer.
Before moving to Connecticut, Ward served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, where he used his nuclear expertise to provide daily briefings to the chairman as the Fukushima disaster unfolded following the earthquake in Japan. Navy Capt. Lawrence Vincent, who worked with Ward in Washington, said he would serve with again and the handling of the affair struck him as out of character.
"With Mike Ward, it was a true shock," Vincent said.
Ward was honest with his chain of command from the beginning, his lawyer said.
"This man probably would have been an admiral someday, and he's brought shame on himself, and he knows that," said Navy Cmdr. Daniel Cimmino, representing Ward.
But a senior enlisted sailor from the USS Pittsburgh told the panel that Ward at first denied the accusations.
The sailor, Master Chief Chris Beauprez, said he received a call on the submarine from a sister of Ward's girlfriend, who told him what Ward had done.
Beauprez said he told Ward about the call and Ward denied the woman's allegations, then said he'd address the situation himself. Beauprez testified that he had an implicit trust in what his commander said so he didn't take the matter any further.
Days later, he said, he heard Ward was being dismissed.
A fellow Navy officer who had gone through training with Ward, Cmdr. Anthony Moore, testified that he heard about the affair, including the detail that Ward had used the name Tony Moore in an online dating profile that he used to meet the woman, when news of it first surfaced.
"I was very surprised," Moore, who's based on a submarine squadron in Washington state, told the board by telephone. "And frankly, I was a little concerned for my reputation."
GROTON, Conn. (AP) — A former submarine commander who faked his death to end an extramarital affair should be honorably discharged from the Navy, a panel of officers recommended Friday after a daylong hearing in which the officer said he accepted "full and total accountability" for his behavior.
Cmdr. Michael P. Ward II, a married 43-year-old, sent his mistress in Virginia an email in July posing as a fictitious co-worker named Bob and saying Ward had died unexpectedly. Ward was relieved of his duties aboard the USS Pittsburgh in August a week after he'd taken command and has received a letter of reprimand for adultery and other military violations.
After testimony from Ward's former superior officers, colleagues and shipmates, Ward, in his dress blues, acknowledged to the panel that he had had an affair and sent the bogus email to the woman in an effort to end it.
"The reason I did it was to sever the relationship," he said, "but the choice was ridiculous."
He apologized to the Navy and the sailors who served under him.
The three-officer board of inquiry recommended Ward retain his rank upon being discharged. Its decision goes to the secretary of the Navy for approval within 90 days.
During the hearing, at Naval Submarine Base New London, the government countered that Ward discredited the Navy and that his removal put a strain on the fleet because officers had to be shuffled around to cover his removal.
"Commander Ward's actions show a complete lack of honesty, character and integrity," said Navy Lt. Griffin Farris, acting as prosecutor at the hearing.
Ward said he accepted responsibility for his actions and would regret them all his life, adding that he was grateful to his wife for standing by him.
"I want to apologize directly to my wife for the hurt and harm and humiliation I have caused her," he said as she sat in the front row, her eyes red. "I accept full and total accountability for my actions."
Still, the Navy shouldn't throw away Ward's talent and training, said high-ranking officers with whom he has served. They said he made an awful mistake and was a fast-rising, hardworking officer.
Before moving to Connecticut, Ward served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, where he used his nuclear expertise to provide daily briefings to the chairman as the Fukushima disaster unfolded following the earthquake in Japan. Navy Capt. Lawrence Vincent, who worked with Ward in Washington, said he would serve with again and the handling of the affair struck him as out of character.
"With Mike Ward, it was a true shock," Vincent said.
Ward was honest with his chain of command from the beginning, his lawyer said.
"This man probably would have been an admiral someday, and he's brought shame on himself, and he knows that," said Navy Cmdr. Daniel Cimmino, representing Ward.
But a senior enlisted sailor from the USS Pittsburgh told the panel that Ward at first denied the accusations.
The sailor, Master Chief Chris Beauprez, said he received a call on the submarine from a sister of Ward's girlfriend, who told him what Ward had done.
Beauprez said he told Ward about the call and Ward denied the woman's allegations, then said he'd address the situation himself. Beauprez testified that he had an implicit trust in what his commander said so he didn't take the matter any further.
Days later, he said, he heard Ward was being dismissed.
A fellow Navy officer who had gone through training with Ward, Cmdr. Anthony Moore, testified that he heard about the affair, including the detail that Ward had used the name Tony Moore in an online dating profile that he used to meet the woman, when news of it first surfaced.
"I was very surprised," Moore, who's based on a submarine squadron in Washington state, told the board by telephone. "And frankly, I was a little concerned for my reputation."
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Walmart Shopper Having Fun
The following account of a man finding an new career accompanying his wife on shopping trips to Wal-Mart was sent to me through e-mail. It is hilarious and needs to be shared.
After I retired, my wife insisted that I accompany... her on her trips to Walmart. Unfortunately, like most men, I found shopping boring and preferred to get in and get out. Equally unfortunate, my wife is like most women - she loves to browse.
Yesterday my dear wife received the following letter from the local Walmart:
Dear Mrs. Woolf,
Over the past six months, your husband has caused quite a commotion in our store. We cannot tolerate this behavior and have been forced to ban both of you from the store. Our complaints against your husband, Mr. Woolf, are listed below and are "documented by our video surveillance cameras":
1. June 15: He took 24 boxes of condoms and randomly put them in other people's carts when they weren't looking.
2. July 2: Set all the alarm clocks in Housewares to go off at 5-minute intervals.
3. July 7: He made a trail of tomato juice on the floor leading to the women's restroom.
4. July 19: Walked up to an employee and told her in an official voice, 'Code 3 in Housewares. Get on it right away'. This caused the employee to leave her assigned station and receive a reprimand from her Supervisor that in turn resulted in management getting involved causing management to lose time and costing the company money.
5. August 4: Went to the Service Desk and tried to reserve a bag of chips.
6. August 14: Moved a 'CAUTION - WET FLOOR' sign to a carpeted area.
7. August 15: Set up a tent in the camping department and told the children shoppers they could come in if they would bring pillows and blankets from the bedding department - to which twenty children obliged.
8. August 23: When a clerk asked if they could help him he crying and screamed, 'Why can't you people just leave me alone?' Emergency Medics were called.
9. September 4: Looked right into the security camera and used it as a mirror while he picked his nose.
10. September 10: While handling guns in the Sports department, he asked the clerk where the antidepressants were.
11. October 3: Darted around the Store suspiciously while loudly humming the ' Mission Impossible' theme.
12. October 6: In the auto department, he practiced his 'Madonna look' by using different sizes of funnels.
13. October 18: Hid in a clothing rack and when people browsed through, yelled 'PICK ME! PICK ME!'
14. October 22: When an announcement came over the loud speaker, he assumed the fetal position and screamed 'OH NO! IT'S THOSE VOICES AGAIN!
15. Took a box of condoms to the checkout clerk and asked where the fitting room was.
And last, but not least:
16. October 23: Went into a fitting room, shut the door, waited awhile, and then yelled very loudly, 'Hey! There's no toilet paper in here.' One of the Staff passed out.
I wonder if I'll have to go along on many more shopping trips?
After I retired, my wife insisted that I accompany... her on her trips to Walmart. Unfortunately, like most men, I found shopping boring and preferred to get in and get out. Equally unfortunate, my wife is like most women - she loves to browse.
Yesterday my dear wife received the following letter from the local Walmart:
Dear Mrs. Woolf,
Over the past six months, your husband has caused quite a commotion in our store. We cannot tolerate this behavior and have been forced to ban both of you from the store. Our complaints against your husband, Mr. Woolf, are listed below and are "documented by our video surveillance cameras":
1. June 15: He took 24 boxes of condoms and randomly put them in other people's carts when they weren't looking.
2. July 2: Set all the alarm clocks in Housewares to go off at 5-minute intervals.
3. July 7: He made a trail of tomato juice on the floor leading to the women's restroom.
4. July 19: Walked up to an employee and told her in an official voice, 'Code 3 in Housewares. Get on it right away'. This caused the employee to leave her assigned station and receive a reprimand from her Supervisor that in turn resulted in management getting involved causing management to lose time and costing the company money.
5. August 4: Went to the Service Desk and tried to reserve a bag of chips.
6. August 14: Moved a 'CAUTION - WET FLOOR' sign to a carpeted area.
7. August 15: Set up a tent in the camping department and told the children shoppers they could come in if they would bring pillows and blankets from the bedding department - to which twenty children obliged.
8. August 23: When a clerk asked if they could help him he crying and screamed, 'Why can't you people just leave me alone?' Emergency Medics were called.
9. September 4: Looked right into the security camera and used it as a mirror while he picked his nose.
10. September 10: While handling guns in the Sports department, he asked the clerk where the antidepressants were.
11. October 3: Darted around the Store suspiciously while loudly humming the ' Mission Impossible' theme.
12. October 6: In the auto department, he practiced his 'Madonna look' by using different sizes of funnels.
13. October 18: Hid in a clothing rack and when people browsed through, yelled 'PICK ME! PICK ME!'
14. October 22: When an announcement came over the loud speaker, he assumed the fetal position and screamed 'OH NO! IT'S THOSE VOICES AGAIN!
15. Took a box of condoms to the checkout clerk and asked where the fitting room was.
And last, but not least:
16. October 23: Went into a fitting room, shut the door, waited awhile, and then yelled very loudly, 'Hey! There's no toilet paper in here.' One of the Staff passed out.
I wonder if I'll have to go along on many more shopping trips?
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Outdoor Channel Pulls Production From Colorado
I guess it wasn't only Mag-Pul Industries who threatended to move out of Colorado if the anti-constitutional gun ban was passed......
From: Michael Bane Date: Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:09 PM Subject: OUTDOOR CHANNEL Pulls Productions from Colorado To: Steve King
Dear Senator King;
I met you yesterday after the so-called "public hearings" on the anti-gun bills; as I mentioned, I am an Executive Producer for OUTDOOR CHANNEL. I currently have four series in production, including GUN STORIES, the top show on OC, with several additional series in development. My series focus on guns, hunting, shooting and the outdoors.
This morning I met with my three Producers, and we made the decision that if these anti-gun bills become law, we will be moving all of our production OUT of Colorado. We have already canceled a scheduled filming session for late this month. Obviously, part of this is due to our own commitment to the right to keep and bear arms, but it also reflects 3 lawyers' opinions that these laws are so poorly drafted and so designed to trap otherwise legal citizens into a crime (one of our attorneys referred to them as "flypaper laws") that it is simply too dangerous for us to film here.
I can give you chapter and verse on the legal implications if you need, but suffice to say that the first legal opinion was so scary we went out and got two others. Al three attorneys agreed.
We are relatively small potatoes in television, but our relocation of production will cost Colorado a little less than a million dollars in 2013.
Secondly, we have proudly promoted Colorado in our productions (and have been moving more and more production into the state); now we will do exactly the opposite. What does this mean for Colorado? The community of television producers is a small one. Last week I had lunch with a major network producer who was looking to locate his new reality series in Colorado. That producer is also a shooter, and the new reality series will now be based out of Phoenix. That lunch cost Colorado over a million in economic impact.
Thirdly, according to numbers I received from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (for whom I used to work) yesterday, hunting had an almost $800,000,000 impact on Colorado in 2012, driving as many as 8330 jobs. Next month I will be in Texas meeting with most of the top outdoor/hunting producers, and the Number One agenda item will be Colorado. Already, hunting organizations and statewide hunting clubs around the country are pulling out of Colorado, and we expect this trend to accelerate rapidly.
The message we will take to our viewers and listeners is that these proposed laws are so dangerous to hunters and any other person, be she a fisherman or a skier who brings a handgun into the state for self-defense, that we cannot recommend hunting, fishing or visiting Colorado. We reach millions of people, and, quite frankly, we have a credibility that Colorado government officials can no longer match. Colorado Division of Wildlife is already running ads trying to bring more out-of-state hunters to Colorado...in light of the flood of negative publicity about these proposed laws, I can assure you those ads will fail.
We estimate that as many as one-quarter to one-third of out-of-state hunters will desert Colorado in the next 18-24 months, which will quite frankly be a disaster for the hunting industry in Colorado and have a devastating effect on our western and northern communities (certainly cities like Grand Junction).
This is not a "boycott" in the traditional sense of a centralized, organized operation; rather, it is more of a grassroots decision on where shooters, hunters and other sportsmen are willing to spend their money. Look at the collapse of the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show in February. That venerable multimillion dollar trade show chose to ban modern sporting rifles and standard capacity magazines, and within three weeks it collapsed as all vendors and sponsors pulled out.
Colorado is going to pay a huge price for laws that will do nothing. Thank you, sir, for your support.
Best.
Michael Bane
OUTDOOR CHANNEL mbane@outdoorchannel.com
From: Michael Bane Date: Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:09 PM Subject: OUTDOOR CHANNEL Pulls Productions from Colorado To: Steve King
Dear Senator King;
I met you yesterday after the so-called "public hearings" on the anti-gun bills; as I mentioned, I am an Executive Producer for OUTDOOR CHANNEL. I currently have four series in production, including GUN STORIES, the top show on OC, with several additional series in development. My series focus on guns, hunting, shooting and the outdoors.
This morning I met with my three Producers, and we made the decision that if these anti-gun bills become law, we will be moving all of our production OUT of Colorado. We have already canceled a scheduled filming session for late this month. Obviously, part of this is due to our own commitment to the right to keep and bear arms, but it also reflects 3 lawyers' opinions that these laws are so poorly drafted and so designed to trap otherwise legal citizens into a crime (one of our attorneys referred to them as "flypaper laws") that it is simply too dangerous for us to film here.
I can give you chapter and verse on the legal implications if you need, but suffice to say that the first legal opinion was so scary we went out and got two others. Al three attorneys agreed.
We are relatively small potatoes in television, but our relocation of production will cost Colorado a little less than a million dollars in 2013.
Secondly, we have proudly promoted Colorado in our productions (and have been moving more and more production into the state); now we will do exactly the opposite. What does this mean for Colorado? The community of television producers is a small one. Last week I had lunch with a major network producer who was looking to locate his new reality series in Colorado. That producer is also a shooter, and the new reality series will now be based out of Phoenix. That lunch cost Colorado over a million in economic impact.
Thirdly, according to numbers I received from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (for whom I used to work) yesterday, hunting had an almost $800,000,000 impact on Colorado in 2012, driving as many as 8330 jobs. Next month I will be in Texas meeting with most of the top outdoor/hunting producers, and the Number One agenda item will be Colorado. Already, hunting organizations and statewide hunting clubs around the country are pulling out of Colorado, and we expect this trend to accelerate rapidly.
The message we will take to our viewers and listeners is that these proposed laws are so dangerous to hunters and any other person, be she a fisherman or a skier who brings a handgun into the state for self-defense, that we cannot recommend hunting, fishing or visiting Colorado. We reach millions of people, and, quite frankly, we have a credibility that Colorado government officials can no longer match. Colorado Division of Wildlife is already running ads trying to bring more out-of-state hunters to Colorado...in light of the flood of negative publicity about these proposed laws, I can assure you those ads will fail.
We estimate that as many as one-quarter to one-third of out-of-state hunters will desert Colorado in the next 18-24 months, which will quite frankly be a disaster for the hunting industry in Colorado and have a devastating effect on our western and northern communities (certainly cities like Grand Junction).
This is not a "boycott" in the traditional sense of a centralized, organized operation; rather, it is more of a grassroots decision on where shooters, hunters and other sportsmen are willing to spend their money. Look at the collapse of the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show in February. That venerable multimillion dollar trade show chose to ban modern sporting rifles and standard capacity magazines, and within three weeks it collapsed as all vendors and sponsors pulled out.
Colorado is going to pay a huge price for laws that will do nothing. Thank you, sir, for your support.
Best.
Michael Bane
OUTDOOR CHANNEL mbane@outdoorchannel.com
Monday, April 15, 2013
Lesson for a Mindless Liberal
Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the older woman, that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the ...environment.
The woman apologized and explained, "We didn't have this green thing back in my earlier days." The young clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations."
She was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day.
Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were truly recycled. But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.
Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags, that we reused for numerous things, most memorable besides household garbage bags, was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our schoolbooks. This was to ensure that public property, (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribbling's. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags. But too bad we didn't do the green thing back then.
We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.
Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throwaway kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day.
Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana.
In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.
Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then.
We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But we didn't have the green thing back then.
Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.
But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?
The woman apologized and explained, "We didn't have this green thing back in my earlier days." The young clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations."
She was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day.
Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were truly recycled. But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.
Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags, that we reused for numerous things, most memorable besides household garbage bags, was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our schoolbooks. This was to ensure that public property, (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribbling's. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags. But too bad we didn't do the green thing back then.
We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.
Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throwaway kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day.
Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana.
In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.
Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then.
We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But we didn't have the green thing back then.
Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.
But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?
Saturday, April 13, 2013
The Apple Does Not Fall Far From The Tree
An alternative title would be "Corruption is in the genetic code" as the daughter of President Barack Obama’s former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was indicted on charges of lying to federal authorities and money laundering.
You remember Reverend Jeremiah Wright don't you? Obama's pastor for over 20 years,.....the man who said "Not God Bless America, but God Damn America!" because in his eyes and the eyes of many liberal douche bags, America is bad,.........America is the enemy.
Anyway back to the family tree,....Jeremiah Wright's daughter Jeri Wright was charged with seven counts of giving false testimony to a grand jury, two counts of money laundering, and two counts of making false statements to federal officers in a case involving a $1.25 million state grant for a non-profit program called “We Are Our Brother’s Keeper.” The indictment alleges that Wright bagged three checks totaling $28,000 in funds intended for work related to the grant.
Nice! Chicago Democrat politics at it's best!
You remember Reverend Jeremiah Wright don't you? Obama's pastor for over 20 years,.....the man who said "Not God Bless America, but God Damn America!" because in his eyes and the eyes of many liberal douche bags, America is bad,.........America is the enemy.
Anyway back to the family tree,....Jeremiah Wright's daughter Jeri Wright was charged with seven counts of giving false testimony to a grand jury, two counts of money laundering, and two counts of making false statements to federal officers in a case involving a $1.25 million state grant for a non-profit program called “We Are Our Brother’s Keeper.” The indictment alleges that Wright bagged three checks totaling $28,000 in funds intended for work related to the grant.
Nice! Chicago Democrat politics at it's best!
Friday, April 12, 2013
It Figures,...More NY Politicians Arrested for Corruption
U.S. charges New York assemblyman, others with corruption, from Reuters
NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York State Assemblyman Eric Stevenson and four others were charged with corruption by U.S. prosecutors on Thursday, in the second federal graft case brought against New York politicians this week.
Federal prosecutors have accused Stevenson of taking more than $22,000 in bribes in exchange for official acts, which included drafting and sponsoring legislation to assist four businessmen in opening a network of adult daycare centers in the Bronx and avoid competition.
A Democrat from a prominent Bronx political family who was elected in 2010, Stevenson also sought to have one of the daycare centers named for his grandfather, according to prosecutors.
Stevenson's district office offered no comment.
"For the second time in three days, we unseal criminal charges against a sitting member of our state legislature," U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara told a news conference.
"The allegations illustrate the corruption of an elected representative's core function - a legislator selling legislation," Bharara said. "And based on these allegations, it becomes more and more difficult to avoid the sad conclusion that political corruption in New York is indeed rampant and that a show-me-the-money culture in Albany is alive and well."
Since 1999, 20 state legislators in New York have been ousted because of criminal or ethical issues, according to the good government group Citizens Union. The New York Public Interest Research Group found that, since 2007, state senators have been more likely to be arrested than to lose their seats in a general election.
Allegations that elected officials were all too eager to hand the legislative process over to individuals offering a modest financial awards have shaken the New York political establishment, and led to urgent calls for reform.
In a separate case on Tuesday, Democratic New York State Senator Malcolm A. Smith was arrested and charged with trying to buy a place on the Republican ticket in the city's mayoral race, in what prosecutors said was his central role in a series of bribery schemes that reflected pervasive corruption in New York politics.
Five other politicians - three Republicans and two Democrats - were also arrested and charged with collectively accepting more than $100,000 of bribes in meetings that often took place in parked cars, hotel rooms and state offices, according to court papers.
In Thursday's case, two of the other defendants were charged in connection with paying a bribe to another assemblyman, who was cooperating with federal prosecutors at the time. Bharara said the assemblyman, whom he did not identify by name, has agreed to resign from office as part of a non-prosecution agreement.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York State Assemblyman Eric Stevenson and four others were charged with corruption by U.S. prosecutors on Thursday, in the second federal graft case brought against New York politicians this week.
Federal prosecutors have accused Stevenson of taking more than $22,000 in bribes in exchange for official acts, which included drafting and sponsoring legislation to assist four businessmen in opening a network of adult daycare centers in the Bronx and avoid competition.
A Democrat from a prominent Bronx political family who was elected in 2010, Stevenson also sought to have one of the daycare centers named for his grandfather, according to prosecutors.
Stevenson's district office offered no comment.
"For the second time in three days, we unseal criminal charges against a sitting member of our state legislature," U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara told a news conference.
"The allegations illustrate the corruption of an elected representative's core function - a legislator selling legislation," Bharara said. "And based on these allegations, it becomes more and more difficult to avoid the sad conclusion that political corruption in New York is indeed rampant and that a show-me-the-money culture in Albany is alive and well."
Since 1999, 20 state legislators in New York have been ousted because of criminal or ethical issues, according to the good government group Citizens Union. The New York Public Interest Research Group found that, since 2007, state senators have been more likely to be arrested than to lose their seats in a general election.
Allegations that elected officials were all too eager to hand the legislative process over to individuals offering a modest financial awards have shaken the New York political establishment, and led to urgent calls for reform.
In a separate case on Tuesday, Democratic New York State Senator Malcolm A. Smith was arrested and charged with trying to buy a place on the Republican ticket in the city's mayoral race, in what prosecutors said was his central role in a series of bribery schemes that reflected pervasive corruption in New York politics.
Five other politicians - three Republicans and two Democrats - were also arrested and charged with collectively accepting more than $100,000 of bribes in meetings that often took place in parked cars, hotel rooms and state offices, according to court papers.
In Thursday's case, two of the other defendants were charged in connection with paying a bribe to another assemblyman, who was cooperating with federal prosecutors at the time. Bharara said the assemblyman, whom he did not identify by name, has agreed to resign from office as part of a non-prosecution agreement.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Another Bankrupt California City
Retiring from the City at 50 years old and drawing 90% of your highest pay or being employeed for as little as six months and getting life time health benefits are a couple of the reasons Stockton, California is going bankrupt.
The people of Stockton will feel financial fallout for years after a federal judge ruled Monday to let the city become the most populous in the nation to enter bankruptcy. This coming from an Associated Press article yesterday.
But the case is also being watched closely because it could answer the significant question of who gets paid first by financially strapped cities — retirement funds or creditors.
"I don't know whether spiked pensions can be reeled back in," U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Klein said while making the ruling. "There are very complex and difficult questions of law that I can see out there on the horizon."
The potential constitutional question in the Stockton case is whether federal bankruptcy law trumps a California law that says money owed to the state pension fund must be paid. In making his ruling, Klein disagreed with creditors who argued that Stockton failed to pursue all avenues for straightening out its financial affairs.
"It's apparent to me the city would not be able to perform its obligations to its citizens on fundamental public safety as well as other basic government services without the ability to have the muscle of the contract-impairing power of federal bankruptcy law," Klein said.
A statement released by creditors said the group "respectfully disagrees with the court's ruling." The legal team for those creditors declined to say whether it would ask Klein for permission to appeal his decision — a requirement of bankruptcy code.
Stockton has tried to restructure some debt by slashing employment, renegotiating labor contracts, and cutting health benefits for workers. Library and recreation funding have been halved, and the scaled-down Police Department only responds to emergencies in progress. The city crime rate is among the highest in the nation.
Since cities can't liquidate assets, those that declare bankruptcy must come up with a plan for creditors to forgive some of the debt.
Holders of the biggest portion of Stockton's debt insured $165 million in bonds the city issued in 2007 to keep up with payments to the California Public Employees Retirement System as property taxes plummeted during the recession.
Stockton now owes CalPERS about $900 million to cover pension promises, far the city's largest financial obligation. Many struggling cities across California are in the same situation.
So far, Stockton has kept up with pension payments while reneging on other debts, maintaining it needs a strong pension plan to retain its pared-down workforce.
Attorneys for creditors argued that it was unfair for their clients to accept reduced payments while the pensions negotiated in flush times went untouched. They argued that employees who shared the wealth during good times should bow have to endure some of the pain with cuts to their pensions.
Legal observers expect the creditors to aggressively challenge the repayment plan presented by Stockton in the next phase of the process.
"That's where it will be precedent-setting," said Karol Denniston, a municipal restructuring expert who monitored the trial. "Does bankruptcy code apply to CalPERS or not? If bankruptcy code trumps state law, then that's huge and it has huge implications in terms of what happens next for other municipalities across California."
The state pension plan manages $255 billion in assets but was underfunded by $87 billion in 2011, the last time calculations were made. CalPERS is in the process of setting new rates to close the liability, said spokeswoman Amy Norris.
The changes could further strain at least two dozen other financially strapped cities, including San Bernardino, San Jose, Compton, Fairfield, Watsonville, Atwater.
"Just about everybody has an unfunded liability," Norris said.
Legal observers of the first-ever Chapter 9 bankruptcy case questioning state pension obligations expect an appeal to decide whether the 10th Amendment that gives rights to states is more powerful than federal bankruptcy code
Even Judge Klein, who was inclined at first to approve bankruptcy without a trial, said he was going forward with the hearing that ended Monday to create an appellate record.
Now the city of nearly 300,000 people begins a months-long process of negotiations over debt repayment. Already Stockton has spent $2 million on mediation and up to $5 million on the eligibility case, said Bob Deis, Stockton's city manager.
"There's nothing to celebrate about bankruptcy," he said. "But it is a vindication of what we've been saying for nine months."
The people of Stockton will feel financial fallout for years after a federal judge ruled Monday to let the city become the most populous in the nation to enter bankruptcy. This coming from an Associated Press article yesterday.
But the case is also being watched closely because it could answer the significant question of who gets paid first by financially strapped cities — retirement funds or creditors.
"I don't know whether spiked pensions can be reeled back in," U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Klein said while making the ruling. "There are very complex and difficult questions of law that I can see out there on the horizon."
The potential constitutional question in the Stockton case is whether federal bankruptcy law trumps a California law that says money owed to the state pension fund must be paid. In making his ruling, Klein disagreed with creditors who argued that Stockton failed to pursue all avenues for straightening out its financial affairs.
"It's apparent to me the city would not be able to perform its obligations to its citizens on fundamental public safety as well as other basic government services without the ability to have the muscle of the contract-impairing power of federal bankruptcy law," Klein said.
A statement released by creditors said the group "respectfully disagrees with the court's ruling." The legal team for those creditors declined to say whether it would ask Klein for permission to appeal his decision — a requirement of bankruptcy code.
Stockton has tried to restructure some debt by slashing employment, renegotiating labor contracts, and cutting health benefits for workers. Library and recreation funding have been halved, and the scaled-down Police Department only responds to emergencies in progress. The city crime rate is among the highest in the nation.
Since cities can't liquidate assets, those that declare bankruptcy must come up with a plan for creditors to forgive some of the debt.
Holders of the biggest portion of Stockton's debt insured $165 million in bonds the city issued in 2007 to keep up with payments to the California Public Employees Retirement System as property taxes plummeted during the recession.
Stockton now owes CalPERS about $900 million to cover pension promises, far the city's largest financial obligation. Many struggling cities across California are in the same situation.
So far, Stockton has kept up with pension payments while reneging on other debts, maintaining it needs a strong pension plan to retain its pared-down workforce.
Attorneys for creditors argued that it was unfair for their clients to accept reduced payments while the pensions negotiated in flush times went untouched. They argued that employees who shared the wealth during good times should bow have to endure some of the pain with cuts to their pensions.
Legal observers expect the creditors to aggressively challenge the repayment plan presented by Stockton in the next phase of the process.
"That's where it will be precedent-setting," said Karol Denniston, a municipal restructuring expert who monitored the trial. "Does bankruptcy code apply to CalPERS or not? If bankruptcy code trumps state law, then that's huge and it has huge implications in terms of what happens next for other municipalities across California."
The state pension plan manages $255 billion in assets but was underfunded by $87 billion in 2011, the last time calculations were made. CalPERS is in the process of setting new rates to close the liability, said spokeswoman Amy Norris.
The changes could further strain at least two dozen other financially strapped cities, including San Bernardino, San Jose, Compton, Fairfield, Watsonville, Atwater.
"Just about everybody has an unfunded liability," Norris said.
Legal observers of the first-ever Chapter 9 bankruptcy case questioning state pension obligations expect an appeal to decide whether the 10th Amendment that gives rights to states is more powerful than federal bankruptcy code
Even Judge Klein, who was inclined at first to approve bankruptcy without a trial, said he was going forward with the hearing that ended Monday to create an appellate record.
Now the city of nearly 300,000 people begins a months-long process of negotiations over debt repayment. Already Stockton has spent $2 million on mediation and up to $5 million on the eligibility case, said Bob Deis, Stockton's city manager.
"There's nothing to celebrate about bankruptcy," he said. "But it is a vindication of what we've been saying for nine months."
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Iron Lady Margret Thatcher Passes
The world is a little bit of a lesser place to live as Iron Lady Margret Thatcher passes away.
From a CNN report on Monday 8 April 2013. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, a towering figure in postwar British and world politics and the only woman to become British prime minister, has died at the age of 87.
She suffered a stroke Monday, her spokeswoman said.
Thatcher's funeral will be at St. Paul's Cathedral, with full military honors, followed by a private cremation, the British prime minister's office announced.
Thatcher served from 1975 to 1990 as leader of the Conservative Party. She was called the "Iron Lady" for her personal and political toughness.
Former world leaders Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan met many times as partners in diplomacy and policy-making and developed a public friendship. "We have lost a great president, a great American and a great man. And I have lost a dear friend," Thatcher said at Reagan's funeral in 2004.
Thatcher won the nation's top job only six years after declaring in a television interview, "I don't think there will be a woman prime minister in my lifetime."
During her time at the helm of the British government, she emphasized moral absolutism, nationalism, and the rights of the individual versus those of the state -- famously declaring "There is no such thing as society" in 1987.
Nicknamed the "Iron Lady" by the Soviet press after a 1976 speech declaring that "the Russians are bent on world dominance," Thatcher later enjoyed a close working relationship with U.S. President Reagan, with whom she shared similar conservative views.
But the British cold warrior played a key role in ending the conflict by giving her stamp of approval to Soviet Communist reformer Mikhail Gorbachev shortly before he came to power.
"I like Mr. Gorbachev. We can do business together," she declared in December 1984, three months before he became Soviet leader.
Having been right about Gorbachev, Thatcher came down on the wrong side of history after the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, arguing against the reunification of East and West Germany.
Allowing the countries created in the aftermath of World War II to merge would be destabilizing to the European status quo, and East Germany was not ready to become part of Western Europe, she insisted in January 1990.
"East Germany has been under Nazism or Communism since 1930. You are not going to go overnight to democratic structures and a freer market economy," Thatcher insisted in a key interview, arguing that peace, security and stability "can only be achieved through our existing alliances negotiating with others internationally."
West German leader Helmut Kohl was furious about the interview, seeing Thatcher as a "protector of Gobachev," according to notes made that day by his close aide Horst Teltschik.
The two Germanies reunited by the end of that year.
A grocer's daughter
Thatcher -- born in October 1925 in the small eastern England market town of Grantham -- came from a modest background, taking pride in being known as a grocer's daughter. She studied chemistry at Oxford, but was involved in politics from a young age, giving her first political speech at 20, according to her official biography.
She was elected leader of the Conservative Party in 1975, when the party was in opposition.
She made history four years later, becoming prime minister when the Conservatives won the elections of 1979, the first of three election victories to which she led her party.
As British leader, Thatcher took a firm stance with the European Community -- the forerunner of the European Union -- demanding a rebate of money London contributed to Brussels.
Her positions on other issues, both domestic and foreign, were just as firm, and in one of her most famous phrases, she declared at a Conservative Party conference that she had no intention of changing her mind.
The Iron Lady indeed.
Monday, April 8, 2013
Paul Ryan's Proposed Budget Cuts
This is a list of what Congressman Paul Ryan and the Republicans proposed to cut from the Federal Budget,....not nearly enough, but a decent start in our book. And note that the popular Democrat talking points, lies actually, that Ryan wants to cut Social Security and military spending, are not on this list. Let's compare to President Obama's budget looks like, supposedly coming out the day after tomorrow.
* Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy -- $445 million annual savings.
* Save America 's Treasures Program -- $25 million annual savings.
* International Fund for Ireland -- $17 million annual savings.
* Legal Services Corporation -- $420 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Arts -- $167.5 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Humanities -- $167.5 million annual savings.
* Hope VI Program -- $250 million annual savings.
* Amtrak Subsidies -- $1.565 billion annual savings.
* Eliminate duplicating education programs -- H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
* U.S. Trade Development Agency -- $55 million annual savings.
* Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy -- $20 million annual savings.
* Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding -- $47 million annual savings.
* John C. Stennis Center Subsidy -- $430,000 annual savings.
* Community Development Fund -- $4.5 billion annual savings.
* Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid -- $24 million annual savings.
* Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half -- $7.5 billion annual savings.
* Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20% -- $600 million annual savings.
* Essential Air Service -- $150 million annual savings.
* Technology Innovation Program -- $70 million annual savings.
* Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program -- $125 million annual savings.
* Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization -- $530 million annual savings.
* Beach Replenishment -- $95 million annual savings.
* New Starts Transit -- $2 billion annual savings.
* Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts -- $9 million annual savings.
* Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants -- $2.5 billion annual savings.
* Title X Family Planning -- $318 million annual savings.
* Appalachian Regional Commission -- $76 million annual savings.
* Economic Development Administration -- $293 million annual savings.
* Programs under the National and Community Services Act -- $1.15 billion annual savings.
* Applied Research at Department of Energy -- $1.27 billion annual savings.
* Freedom CAR and Fuel Partnership -- $200 million annual savings.
* Energy Star Program -- $52 million annual savings.
*Economic Assistance to Egypt -- $250 million annually.
* U.S.Agency for International Development -- $1.39 billion annual savings.
* General Assistance to District of Columbia -- $210 million annual savings.
* Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority -- $150 million annual savings.
*Presidential Campaign Fund -- $775 million savings over ten years.
* No funding for federal office space acquisition -- $864 million annual savings.
* End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
* Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act -- More than $1 billion annually.
* IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget -- $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
* Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees -- $1 billion total savings.WHAT THE HELL IS THIS ABOUT?
* Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees -- $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
* Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of -- $15 billion total savings.
* Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress. WHAT???
* Eliminate Mohair Subsidies -- $1 million annual savings.
Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- $12.5 million annual savings. WELL ISN'T THAT SPECIAL
* Eliminate Market Access Program -- $200 million annual savings.
* USDA Sugar Program -- $14 million annual savings.
* Subsidy to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) -- $93 million annual savings.
* Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program -- $56.2 million annual savings.
* Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs-- $900 million savings.
* Ready to Learn TV Program -- $27 million savings.
* HUD Ph.D. Program.
* Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.
* TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years
My question is, what is all this doing in the budget in the first place? Maybe this is why the Democrats are attacking Paul Ryan. Be Paul Revere - let people know about this.
* Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy -- $445 million annual savings.
* Save America 's Treasures Program -- $25 million annual savings.
* International Fund for Ireland -- $17 million annual savings.
* Legal Services Corporation -- $420 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Arts -- $167.5 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Humanities -- $167.5 million annual savings.
* Hope VI Program -- $250 million annual savings.
* Amtrak Subsidies -- $1.565 billion annual savings.
* Eliminate duplicating education programs -- H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
* U.S. Trade Development Agency -- $55 million annual savings.
* Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy -- $20 million annual savings.
* Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding -- $47 million annual savings.
* John C. Stennis Center Subsidy -- $430,000 annual savings.
* Community Development Fund -- $4.5 billion annual savings.
* Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid -- $24 million annual savings.
* Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half -- $7.5 billion annual savings.
* Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20% -- $600 million annual savings.
* Essential Air Service -- $150 million annual savings.
* Technology Innovation Program -- $70 million annual savings.
* Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program -- $125 million annual savings.
* Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization -- $530 million annual savings.
* Beach Replenishment -- $95 million annual savings.
* New Starts Transit -- $2 billion annual savings.
* Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts -- $9 million annual savings.
* Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants -- $2.5 billion annual savings.
* Title X Family Planning -- $318 million annual savings.
* Appalachian Regional Commission -- $76 million annual savings.
* Economic Development Administration -- $293 million annual savings.
* Programs under the National and Community Services Act -- $1.15 billion annual savings.
* Applied Research at Department of Energy -- $1.27 billion annual savings.
* Freedom CAR and Fuel Partnership -- $200 million annual savings.
* Energy Star Program -- $52 million annual savings.
*Economic Assistance to Egypt -- $250 million annually.
* U.S.Agency for International Development -- $1.39 billion annual savings.
* General Assistance to District of Columbia -- $210 million annual savings.
* Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority -- $150 million annual savings.
*Presidential Campaign Fund -- $775 million savings over ten years.
* No funding for federal office space acquisition -- $864 million annual savings.
* End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
* Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act -- More than $1 billion annually.
* IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget -- $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
* Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees -- $1 billion total savings.WHAT THE HELL IS THIS ABOUT?
* Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees -- $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
* Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of -- $15 billion total savings.
* Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress. WHAT???
* Eliminate Mohair Subsidies -- $1 million annual savings.
Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- $12.5 million annual savings. WELL ISN'T THAT SPECIAL
* Eliminate Market Access Program -- $200 million annual savings.
* USDA Sugar Program -- $14 million annual savings.
* Subsidy to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) -- $93 million annual savings.
* Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program -- $56.2 million annual savings.
* Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs-- $900 million savings.
* Ready to Learn TV Program -- $27 million savings.
* HUD Ph.D. Program.
* Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.
* TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years
My question is, what is all this doing in the budget in the first place? Maybe this is why the Democrats are attacking Paul Ryan. Be Paul Revere - let people know about this.
Sunday, April 7, 2013
Texas Moves To Repatriate Its Gold From The Federal Reserve
Texas moves to repatriate its Gold from the Federal Reserve deciding that it is better to have possession of the physical gold rather than just the certificates.
Call it the Rick Perry gold rush: The governor wants to bring the state’s gold reserves back from a New York vault to Texas. And he may have legislative support to do it. Freshman Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, R-Southlake, is carrying a bill that would establish the Texas Bullion Depository, a secure state-based bank to house $1 billion worth of gold bars owned by the University of Texas Investment Management Co., or UTIMCO, and stored by the Federal Reserve. The idea isn’t entirely new.
Some Republicans worked on a gold bill last session that was never filed. And gold-standard-backing Ron Paul, the former Lake Jackson congressman, has raised repeated concerns about the safety of states’ gold supplies.
“If you think gold is a hedge, or a protection, you always want it as close to the individual and the entity as possible,” Paul told The Texas Tribune on Thursday. “Texas is better served if it knows exactly where the gold is rather than depending on the security of the Federal Reserve.” Bringing Texas’ gold home has gained traction this session because of Perry’s vocal support.
On conservative radio host Glenn Beck’s show Tuesday, the governor said Texas is “in the process” — the legislative process, he later clarified — of “bring
ing gold that belongs to the state of Texas back into the state.” He argued that the state is at least as capable as the Federal Reserve of safeguarding Texas’ “physical gold.”
“If we own it,” Perry said, “I will suggest to you that that’s not someone else’s determination whether we can take possession of it back or not.”
Call it the Rick Perry gold rush: The governor wants to bring the state’s gold reserves back from a New York vault to Texas. And he may have legislative support to do it. Freshman Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, R-Southlake, is carrying a bill that would establish the Texas Bullion Depository, a secure state-based bank to house $1 billion worth of gold bars owned by the University of Texas Investment Management Co., or UTIMCO, and stored by the Federal Reserve. The idea isn’t entirely new.
Some Republicans worked on a gold bill last session that was never filed. And gold-standard-backing Ron Paul, the former Lake Jackson congressman, has raised repeated concerns about the safety of states’ gold supplies.
“If you think gold is a hedge, or a protection, you always want it as close to the individual and the entity as possible,” Paul told The Texas Tribune on Thursday. “Texas is better served if it knows exactly where the gold is rather than depending on the security of the Federal Reserve.” Bringing Texas’ gold home has gained traction this session because of Perry’s vocal support.
On conservative radio host Glenn Beck’s show Tuesday, the governor said Texas is “in the process” — the legislative process, he later clarified — of “bring
“If we own it,” Perry said, “I will suggest to you that that’s not someone else’s determination whether we can take possession of it back or not.”
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Conn. lawmakers unveil bipartisan gun control plan
This was written before the Connecticut Vote,.....which unfortunantely passed depriving law abiding Connecticut citizens basic rights.
Conn. lawmakers unveil bipartisan gun control plan, by Susan Haigh of the Associated Press
With an announcement of sweeping proposals to curb gun violence, Connecticut lawmakers said they are hoping to send a message to Congress and other state legislators across the country: A bipartisan agreement on gun control is possible. Update: Not only possible but this new restrictive, un-constitutional gun control pased into law........Colt Manufacturing should packup and leave Connecticut for any state that supports and defends the unalienable rights affiremd by the Constitution.
Legislative leaders on Monday revealed proposals spurred by the Dec. 14 Newtown school shooting following weeks of bipartisan, closed-door negotiations. A vote is expected Wednesday in the General Assembly, where Democrats control both chambers, making passage all but assured.
"Democrats and Republicans were able to come to an agreement on a strong, comprehensive bill," said Senate President Donald E. Williams Jr., a Democrat from Brooklyn, who called the proposed legislation the strongest, most comprehensive bill in the country. "That is a message that should resound in 49 other states and in Washington, D.C. And the message is: We can get it done here and they should get it done in their respective states and nationally in Congress."
The massacre reignited the gun debate in the country and led to calls for increased gun control legislation on the federal and state levels. While some other states, including neighboring New York, have strengthened their gun laws, momentum has stalled in Congress, whose members were urged by President Barack Obama last week not to forget the shooting and to capitalize on the best chance in years to stem gun violence.
The Connecticut deal includes a ban on new high-capacity ammunition magazines, like the ones used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School that left 20 children and six educators dead. There are also new registration requirements for existing magazines that carry 10 or more bullets, something of a disappointment for some family members of Newtown victims who wanted an outright ban on the possession of all high-capacity magazines and traveled to the state Capitol on Monday to ask lawmakers for it.
The package also creates what lawmakers said is the nation's first statewide dangerous weapon offender registry, creates a new "ammunition eligibility certificate," imposes immediate universal background checks for all firearms sales, and extends the state's assault weapons ban to 100 new types of firearms and requires that a weapon have only one of several features in order to be banned.
The newly banned weapons could no longer be bought or sold in Connecticut, and those legally owned already would have to be registered with the state, just like the high-capacity magazines.
Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, a Fairfield Republican whose district includes Newtown, said Republicans and Democrats have understood they needed to "rise above politics" when they decided to come up with a legislative response to the massacre.
"At the end of the day, I think it's a package that the majority of the people of Connecticut I know will be proud of," he said.
The bill also addresses mental health and school security measures, including gun restrictions for people who've been committed to mental health facilities and restoration of a state grant for school safety improvements.
After clearing the state legislature, the bill would be sent to Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who has helped lead efforts to strengthen the state's gun laws but has not yet signed off on the proposed legislation. Earlier Monday, Malloy voiced support for the Newtown families and their desire to ban the possession of large-capacity magazines.
Ron Pinciaro, executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence, said his group will live with the lawmakers' decision not to ban them as other states have done. He said the leaders made their decision based on what was politically feasible.
"We have to be satisfied. There are still other things that we want, we'll be back for in later sessions," he said. "But for now, it's a good thing."
Robert Crook, executive director of the Connecticut Coalition of Sportsmen, contended the bill would not have changed what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School, where gunman Adam Lanza fired off 154 shots with a Bushmaster .223-caliber rifle within five minutes. He went through six 30-round magazines, though half were not completely empty, and police said he had three other 30-round magazines in addition to one in the rifle.
"They can register magazines and do all the rest of this stuff. It isn't going to do anything," he said.
Gun owners, who've packed public hearings at the state Capitol in recent months, voicing their opposition to various gun control measures, are concerned they've been showing up "for virtually nothing" after learning about the bill, Crook said.
Six relatives of Newtown victims visited the Capitol on Monday, asking lawmakers to ban existing high-capacity magazines. Some handed out cards with photographs of their slain children.
Allowing magazines that carry 10 or more bullets to remain in the hands of gun owners would leave a gaping loophole in the law, said Mark Barden, whose 7-year-old son, Daniel, was killed in the shooting.
"It doesn't prevent someone from going out of the state to purchase them and then bring them back. There's no way to track when they were purchased, so they can say, 'I had this before,'" Barden said. "So it's a big loophole."
Barden and other victims' family members who visited the statehouse on Monday did not immediately respond to messages seeking their reactions to the agreement.
Jake McGuigan, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which is based in Newtown, said he wouldn't comment on the proposal until he saw it in the writing, but he questioned the mechanics of a registry for magazines.
"How will they register a magazine? It seems a little weird," he said. "How do they register a magazine? " By placing your name on a list owning x number of magazines,..so when the time is right the State or Federal Government will knock on your door and confiscate them.
Conn. lawmakers unveil bipartisan gun control plan, by Susan Haigh of the Associated Press
With an announcement of sweeping proposals to curb gun violence, Connecticut lawmakers said they are hoping to send a message to Congress and other state legislators across the country: A bipartisan agreement on gun control is possible. Update: Not only possible but this new restrictive, un-constitutional gun control pased into law........Colt Manufacturing should packup and leave Connecticut for any state that supports and defends the unalienable rights affiremd by the Constitution.
Legislative leaders on Monday revealed proposals spurred by the Dec. 14 Newtown school shooting following weeks of bipartisan, closed-door negotiations. A vote is expected Wednesday in the General Assembly, where Democrats control both chambers, making passage all but assured.
"Democrats and Republicans were able to come to an agreement on a strong, comprehensive bill," said Senate President Donald E. Williams Jr., a Democrat from Brooklyn, who called the proposed legislation the strongest, most comprehensive bill in the country. "That is a message that should resound in 49 other states and in Washington, D.C. And the message is: We can get it done here and they should get it done in their respective states and nationally in Congress."
The massacre reignited the gun debate in the country and led to calls for increased gun control legislation on the federal and state levels. While some other states, including neighboring New York, have strengthened their gun laws, momentum has stalled in Congress, whose members were urged by President Barack Obama last week not to forget the shooting and to capitalize on the best chance in years to stem gun violence.
The Connecticut deal includes a ban on new high-capacity ammunition magazines, like the ones used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School that left 20 children and six educators dead. There are also new registration requirements for existing magazines that carry 10 or more bullets, something of a disappointment for some family members of Newtown victims who wanted an outright ban on the possession of all high-capacity magazines and traveled to the state Capitol on Monday to ask lawmakers for it.
The package also creates what lawmakers said is the nation's first statewide dangerous weapon offender registry, creates a new "ammunition eligibility certificate," imposes immediate universal background checks for all firearms sales, and extends the state's assault weapons ban to 100 new types of firearms and requires that a weapon have only one of several features in order to be banned.
The newly banned weapons could no longer be bought or sold in Connecticut, and those legally owned already would have to be registered with the state, just like the high-capacity magazines.
Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, a Fairfield Republican whose district includes Newtown, said Republicans and Democrats have understood they needed to "rise above politics" when they decided to come up with a legislative response to the massacre.
"At the end of the day, I think it's a package that the majority of the people of Connecticut I know will be proud of," he said.
The bill also addresses mental health and school security measures, including gun restrictions for people who've been committed to mental health facilities and restoration of a state grant for school safety improvements.
After clearing the state legislature, the bill would be sent to Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who has helped lead efforts to strengthen the state's gun laws but has not yet signed off on the proposed legislation. Earlier Monday, Malloy voiced support for the Newtown families and their desire to ban the possession of large-capacity magazines.
Ron Pinciaro, executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence, said his group will live with the lawmakers' decision not to ban them as other states have done. He said the leaders made their decision based on what was politically feasible.
"We have to be satisfied. There are still other things that we want, we'll be back for in later sessions," he said. "But for now, it's a good thing."
Robert Crook, executive director of the Connecticut Coalition of Sportsmen, contended the bill would not have changed what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School, where gunman Adam Lanza fired off 154 shots with a Bushmaster .223-caliber rifle within five minutes. He went through six 30-round magazines, though half were not completely empty, and police said he had three other 30-round magazines in addition to one in the rifle.
"They can register magazines and do all the rest of this stuff. It isn't going to do anything," he said.
Gun owners, who've packed public hearings at the state Capitol in recent months, voicing their opposition to various gun control measures, are concerned they've been showing up "for virtually nothing" after learning about the bill, Crook said.
Six relatives of Newtown victims visited the Capitol on Monday, asking lawmakers to ban existing high-capacity magazines. Some handed out cards with photographs of their slain children.
Allowing magazines that carry 10 or more bullets to remain in the hands of gun owners would leave a gaping loophole in the law, said Mark Barden, whose 7-year-old son, Daniel, was killed in the shooting.
"It doesn't prevent someone from going out of the state to purchase them and then bring them back. There's no way to track when they were purchased, so they can say, 'I had this before,'" Barden said. "So it's a big loophole."
Barden and other victims' family members who visited the statehouse on Monday did not immediately respond to messages seeking their reactions to the agreement.
Jake McGuigan, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which is based in Newtown, said he wouldn't comment on the proposal until he saw it in the writing, but he questioned the mechanics of a registry for magazines.
"How will they register a magazine? It seems a little weird," he said. "How do they register a magazine? " By placing your name on a list owning x number of magazines,..so when the time is right the State or Federal Government will knock on your door and confiscate them.
Friday, April 5, 2013
15 Year Old Girl a Proper Witness for Gun Rights
Courtesy of the Maryland Minuteman and You Tube. This girl presents an educated, articulate and common sense face to gun owners. She OWNS the politicians she was speaking to - you go girl!!
Post Script: This young lady is being interviewed on Fox News as I post this. Smart girl! Too bad her idiot elected law makers are teaching her that that because you are an adult doesn't mean you have any sense.
Post Script: This young lady is being interviewed on Fox News as I post this. Smart girl! Too bad her idiot elected law makers are teaching her that that because you are an adult doesn't mean you have any sense.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Pedophilia Is A Sexual Orientation Under California Bill
Are you KIDDING ME!! I thought this was a joke until I read it on ReThinkSociety.com in an article posted by Lisa A. This is a dedicated attempt to destroy any morale values in our nation.
California Congresswoman, Rep. Jackie Speier CA (D), wants to federalize a state law to prohibit counseling to change a person’s sexual orientation. That doesn’t sound that extreme, but pedophilia is a sexual orientation according to this bill as well.
Under the bill’s language, a mental health counselor could be sanctioned if there was an attempt to get a pedophile or gay individual to change his behavior or speak negatively about their behavior as it relates to sexuality.
The bill calls on states to prohibit efforts to change a minor’s sexual orientation, even if the minor requests it, saying that doing so is “dangerous and harmful.”
The text of the legislation doesn’t specifically ban “gay” conversion therapy. Instead, it prohibits attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation.
“Sexual orientation change efforts’ means any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation,” the bill says.
Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that, “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation.” However, the Democrats defeated the amendment. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law, and accordingly decided that pedophilia is a sexual orientation that should be equally as embraced as homosexuality.
“This language is so broad and vague, it arguably could include all forms of sexual orientation, including pedophilia,” said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute. “It’s not just the orientation that is protected—the conduct associated with the orientation is protected as well.”
Who Cares If Pedophilia Is A Sexual Orientation?
It also means that, if pedophilia is a sexual orientation, that discrimination laws also apply to pedophiles. That means you cannot block a pedophile from being a preschool teacher or any other high-risk occupation.
Recently, a United States District Court Judge, William Shubb, sided with Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) by granting their plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against the legislation, which is known as California SB 1172.
“Because the court finds that SB 1172 is subject to strict scrutiny and is unlikely to satisfy this standard, the court finds that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims based on violations of their rights to freedom of speech under the First Amendment,” wrote Judge Shubb.
“This victory sends a clear signal to all those who feel they can stifle religious freedom, free speech, and the rights of parents without being contested,” said PJI President, Brad Dacus. “We at PJI are ready to fight this battle all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.
“This will be a long, grueling battle with tremendous consequences for generations to come. We are grateful to those who are willing to support us in this critical time to preserve our freedoms and protect our children,” he continued.
Thankfully, for the time being, this legislation has been blocked, but many questions still remain.
This bill establishes a dangerous precedent for normalizing the behavior of pedophiles while stripping parents of their rights and peace of mind.
One can certainly make the argument that homosexuals are “born that way,” and we generally would not dispute that. However, when we have legislators that want to extend the “born that way” defense to pedophiles, this crosses a very dangerous line.
Whether a pedophile is born that way or not, it still does not make their behavior acceptable in any way.
If so, then you could declare rapists are “born that way.” They can’t help that they need to rape! Poor them!
Let’s be real.
Sex between an adult and a child too young to understand what is going on is not the same thing as sex between two consenting adults.
The operative word here is “consenting.” Children—by both law and basic common sense—cannot “consent.” If Jackie Spier had a son or daughter, and an adult “had consensual sex” with him or her, we do not believe that what she would be so adamant about protecting them.
What liberals conveniently ignore is the fact that all societies who participated in pedophilia—such as the Hittites, Canaanites, Greeks, and Romans—eventually caved in on themselves due to corruption and depravity.
Further, let’s not also forget that their favorite form of entertainment was watching people get torn to shreds by lions, hacked to death, and burned alive.
Recognizing sexual ‘orientation’ is walking a razor’s edge. Unlike gay-oriented legislation, pedophilia has victims who must be protected.
We don’t put pedophiles in prison to make them stop being pedophiles; we put them there because they threaten the safety of the most vulnerable people in a society.
California Congresswoman, Rep. Jackie Speier CA (D), wants to federalize a state law to prohibit counseling to change a person’s sexual orientation. That doesn’t sound that extreme, but pedophilia is a sexual orientation according to this bill as well.
Under the bill’s language, a mental health counselor could be sanctioned if there was an attempt to get a pedophile or gay individual to change his behavior or speak negatively about their behavior as it relates to sexuality.
The bill calls on states to prohibit efforts to change a minor’s sexual orientation, even if the minor requests it, saying that doing so is “dangerous and harmful.”
The text of the legislation doesn’t specifically ban “gay” conversion therapy. Instead, it prohibits attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation.
“Sexual orientation change efforts’ means any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation,” the bill says.
Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that, “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation.” However, the Democrats defeated the amendment. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law, and accordingly decided that pedophilia is a sexual orientation that should be equally as embraced as homosexuality.
“This language is so broad and vague, it arguably could include all forms of sexual orientation, including pedophilia,” said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute. “It’s not just the orientation that is protected—the conduct associated with the orientation is protected as well.”
Who Cares If Pedophilia Is A Sexual Orientation?
It also means that, if pedophilia is a sexual orientation, that discrimination laws also apply to pedophiles. That means you cannot block a pedophile from being a preschool teacher or any other high-risk occupation.
Recently, a United States District Court Judge, William Shubb, sided with Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) by granting their plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against the legislation, which is known as California SB 1172.
“Because the court finds that SB 1172 is subject to strict scrutiny and is unlikely to satisfy this standard, the court finds that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims based on violations of their rights to freedom of speech under the First Amendment,” wrote Judge Shubb.
“This victory sends a clear signal to all those who feel they can stifle religious freedom, free speech, and the rights of parents without being contested,” said PJI President, Brad Dacus. “We at PJI are ready to fight this battle all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.
“This will be a long, grueling battle with tremendous consequences for generations to come. We are grateful to those who are willing to support us in this critical time to preserve our freedoms and protect our children,” he continued.
Thankfully, for the time being, this legislation has been blocked, but many questions still remain.
This bill establishes a dangerous precedent for normalizing the behavior of pedophiles while stripping parents of their rights and peace of mind.
One can certainly make the argument that homosexuals are “born that way,” and we generally would not dispute that. However, when we have legislators that want to extend the “born that way” defense to pedophiles, this crosses a very dangerous line.
Whether a pedophile is born that way or not, it still does not make their behavior acceptable in any way.
If so, then you could declare rapists are “born that way.” They can’t help that they need to rape! Poor them!
Let’s be real.
Sex between an adult and a child too young to understand what is going on is not the same thing as sex between two consenting adults.
The operative word here is “consenting.” Children—by both law and basic common sense—cannot “consent.” If Jackie Spier had a son or daughter, and an adult “had consensual sex” with him or her, we do not believe that what she would be so adamant about protecting them.
What liberals conveniently ignore is the fact that all societies who participated in pedophilia—such as the Hittites, Canaanites, Greeks, and Romans—eventually caved in on themselves due to corruption and depravity.
Further, let’s not also forget that their favorite form of entertainment was watching people get torn to shreds by lions, hacked to death, and burned alive.
Recognizing sexual ‘orientation’ is walking a razor’s edge. Unlike gay-oriented legislation, pedophilia has victims who must be protected.
We don’t put pedophiles in prison to make them stop being pedophiles; we put them there because they threaten the safety of the most vulnerable people in a society.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Pelosi: Oh No! The Government May Start to Disappear If We Make Any Cuts
When I hear that there will be “very little” of the “public space” of the government left, my first reaction is to smile and fist bump the closest person to me. After all, the private sector is the productive sector.
In the video above, click on the link, and you can see Pelosi, when asked about Boehner’s stance that any increase in the debt ceiling should be matched dollar for dollar with spending cuts, she said (via CNSNews.com):
“Yes, that’s what the Speaker says, and that is certainly in keeping with the anti-government ideologues that are in his caucus,” Pelosi said. “If you keep cutting investments in the future that way in order to do something that should be pro forma here to pass the debt limit, this shouldn’t even be this kind of a debate.”
“I mean, you can have the debate, but there shouldn’t be any doubt in anybody’s mind as to what the outcome is about the full faith and credit of the United States of America,” she said.
“If you keep saying ‘dollar for dollar,’ you will have very little in terms of the public space,” Pelosi said.
Believe it or not, it is [somehow] understandable from where the Democrats are coming, but there just must be a better solution than what they are offering. There is soooooo much waste in government spending it is unbelievable; Kyle Becker has reported on the DHS buying 1.6 billion bullets just because it was a good deal and also on a federal grant to study duck penises, and I have written about the Senate barbershop costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars each year while the National Science Foundation is spending over $1 million studying the impact of playing video games on seniors’ brains.
So Mrs. Pelosi, it’s fairly hard to believe that there aren’t cuts to be made in our government, and if we have to get rid of a few pointless government expenditures, I think we will be okay. If they do it smartly, they can even do it without just slinging pink slips to government employees. However, it will take both sides sitting down to look through all of the government spending to find the waste – it’s not any different than what an efficient business would have to do to save money.
Monday, April 1, 2013
Save Money on Veteran's Funerals?
Didn't believe this when I received an e-mail on this until I read it on-line via the St Louis Post Dispatch. That article is titled, "St. Louis Post-Dispatch House Liberal: Let’s End Military Funeral Honors For Veterans", with the unbelieveable tag line.....“Most Veterans Did Nothing Heroic”, this article was written by Jim Hoft. We owe him a thanks for bringing this to national attention.
SSGT. David Johnson plays a “ceremonial” bugle Friday, Sept. 14, 2007 at Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery in St. Louis. Beginning Saturday, the Missouri National Guard’s honor guard members will use ceremonial bugles, outfitted with an electronic device that plays a digital recording, instead of live buglers at graves.
Columnist Bill McClellan has been spewing his liberal worldview in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch for decades now. Today McClellan espoused ending military funeral honors.
“Most veterans did nothing heroic.”
From McClellan’s column in the St. Louis Post-Disgrace:
According to the program’s website, it is funded by the federal government and the Missouri National Guard Trust Fund.
Both the federal government and the state government are broke. So why are we providing military funeral honors for all veterans? It is a nice gesture we can’t afford.
Certainly, men and women killed in combat deserve full military honors. It’s a way for the country to say, “We honor the memory of those who died in our service.” These military honors — and the thought behind them — are intended to provide some solace for the families of the fallen.
But what about the guy who spends a couple of years in the military and then gets on with his life? Bear in mind that most veterans did nothing heroic. They served, and that’s laudable, but it hardly seems necessary to provide them all with military honors after they have died. In fact, it seems generous enough to provide veterans and their spouses with free space and headstones at a national cemetery.
Why not let the veterans organizations provide military honors at the funerals of their members? If a person gets out of the Marine Corps and wants to stay connected, he can join the Marine Corps League. I’m sure the 101st Airborne has an association. In a more general vein, we have the American Legion and the VFW.
Providing military honor funerals for their members would be a boon to these organizations. Membership would presumably climb, and veterans who want the military funerals could still get them.
Everybody knows government needs to cut costs.
This is exactly how you do it.
SSGT. David Johnson plays a “ceremonial” bugle Friday, Sept. 14, 2007 at Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery in St. Louis. Beginning Saturday, the Missouri National Guard’s honor guard members will use ceremonial bugles, outfitted with an electronic device that plays a digital recording, instead of live buglers at graves.
Columnist Bill McClellan has been spewing his liberal worldview in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch for decades now. Today McClellan espoused ending military funeral honors.
“Most veterans did nothing heroic.”
From McClellan’s column in the St. Louis Post-Disgrace:
According to the program’s website, it is funded by the federal government and the Missouri National Guard Trust Fund.
Both the federal government and the state government are broke. So why are we providing military funeral honors for all veterans? It is a nice gesture we can’t afford.
Certainly, men and women killed in combat deserve full military honors. It’s a way for the country to say, “We honor the memory of those who died in our service.” These military honors — and the thought behind them — are intended to provide some solace for the families of the fallen.
But what about the guy who spends a couple of years in the military and then gets on with his life? Bear in mind that most veterans did nothing heroic. They served, and that’s laudable, but it hardly seems necessary to provide them all with military honors after they have died. In fact, it seems generous enough to provide veterans and their spouses with free space and headstones at a national cemetery.
Why not let the veterans organizations provide military honors at the funerals of their members? If a person gets out of the Marine Corps and wants to stay connected, he can join the Marine Corps League. I’m sure the 101st Airborne has an association. In a more general vein, we have the American Legion and the VFW.
Providing military honor funerals for their members would be a boon to these organizations. Membership would presumably climb, and veterans who want the military funerals could still get them.
Everybody knows government needs to cut costs.
This is exactly how you do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)