Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Repeating the Mistake of 1986

“Obama said the [immigration] overhaul must provide a ‘pathway to citizenship’ for the more than 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., and that if Congress does not act ‘in a timely fashion’ he will propose a bill ‘and insist that they vote on it right away’.” CNN Report, January 29, 2013

Apparently feeling he is more of a King now than a public servant, Barack Obama is not directing what Congress ‘must’ do and at his ‘insistence.’ In this case, he is demanding a repeat of the failed effort to curtail illegal immigration tried back in 1986.

Rewarding illegal activity not only does not work, it actually draws more illegal activity, evidenced by the words spoken by New York Democratic Representative Charles Schumer from a June 1989 New York Times article 1986 AMNESTY LAW IS SEEN AS FAILING TO SLOW ALIEN TIDE.
Representative Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who was instrumental in shaping the law’s final compromises, said, '”The legislation has had some effect but not close to what it should have been.'” He complained that the Reagan Administration favored passage of the law but never gave the immigration service the resources to enforce it. '”So far, the law really has not been given a fair test,'” he said.
As we have become accustomed to, the blame is always shifted to Republicans instead of any Democratic ever accepting the failure is theirs or acknowledging that all spending measures originate in the House of Representatives.

Regardless, amnesty for illegal aliens was tried in 1986 and failed to curb the flow of illegal aliens crossing our borders. If anything, the numbers increased, also acknowledged in the 1989 article with,
“The 1986 law allowed 3.1 million previously illegal aliens to obtain legal status here. Recent studies show that many thousands of people crossed the border surreptitiously to take advantage of the program, some of them with falsified documents and personal histories. The mass of newly legalized immigrants is also acting as a magnet for illegal aliens who want to come to the United States to join friends and relatives.”
An email sent out by King Obama’s continuing campaign support claims the king calls for
- Continue to strengthen and secure our borders;
- Crack down on companies that hire undocumented workers;
- Establish a legal path to earned citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants who are already here -- including children who were brought here through no fault of their own;
- And streamline legal immigration for those who are already playing by the rules.
Let’s face it, neither of the major parties has shown one inkling of effort to secure our borders. They all campaign on it and make high promises to get elected, but after they make it to office, not one actually does anything to secure our borders.

It’s also disingenuous to say he wants to crack down on companies that hire illegal aliens since he put a halt to deportations of illegal aliens just last year during his campaign for reelection.

Additionally, once they receive amnesty, they are no longer illegal aliens, are they?

“Establishing a legal path to citizenship” is a smoke screen for amnesty, a reward for knowingly violating our laws. And once established, just as happened after the 1986 amnesty law, you can bank on a whole host of others sneaking across the border, obtaining forged documents and also receiving amnesty, all while our economy is seeing a steady decrease in the numbers of people actually participating in the workforce due to too few jobs. A number that has been rapidly decreasing ever since Obama entered office.

We can bank on a streamline of immigration, especially for millions of family members the newly documented aliens will be bringing over, sponsoring and qualifying for public assistance.

That was shown at a local event designed to benefit and assist illegal aliens held at Clark Community College in February 2011 where an immigrant by the name of Adriana Cazorla, who herself was once an illegal alien said,
“Citizenship means you can vote, have a louder voice in community decisions and politics, sponsor family members who want to immigrate too, raise children who are citizens, gain public benefits — and travel.”

She also said her “one fond wish is a job with the U.S. Government, so she can represent her people.”
Her people? Apparently, her goal is not to benefit the American society, but to assist other illegal aliens in the quest to be accepted here by violating our laws and take advantage of American generosity.

Charles Schumer, now a Senator and who acknowledged back in 1989 that the previous amnesty measure had not lived up to expectations, now boasts of this latest effort saying
“that if a proposed immigration law overhaul is successful the estimated 11 million people in the U.S. illegally could come forward and earn a legal right to stay in the U.S.”

“Schumer also noted the political climate for immigration reform has changed. He said in prior years, most of the support was for tightening the borders, but more recent polls show a growing number of Americans also want to see undocumented residents be given a chance for permanent legal residency.”
And what was that line from king Obama above? “Continue to strengthen and secure our borders?”

Seems that isn’t going to be much of a priority, just as it never has over the years.

But we also see from Sen. John McCain as to why spineless Republicans are willing to cave and cater to Obama’s whims again when he states,
“Obama won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 election and the last election’s results are a major reason now why more in the Republican Party are open to an immigration law overhaul.”
Once again, Republicans that lost big once they slid to the left are still fooling themselves by thinking they need to go further left, alienating those conservatives still willing to support them even more.

Republicans cannot and will not ever win elections by trying to out Democrat the Democrats. They just give us one party rule when we are sold out in that manner.

A comparison performed by the Monterey Herald shows that the two measures, the amnesty act of 1986 and now this latest amnesty act are more similar than they are different.

As reported by Fox News, Steve Camarota, director of research for the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies reveals the likelihood that the Cost of giving illegal immigrants path to citizenship could outweigh fiscal benefits, especially given that our economy is now much worse than what it was in 1986.

Commonly credited to Albert Einstein is the axiom, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”

Our politicians in Washington D.C. continue to prove it!

Sunday, January 27, 2013

What Difference Does It make?

By now most everybody has heard of Hillary Clinton’s little outburst in her testimony concerning Benghazi and the death of 4 Americans in a terrorist attack that first labeled a spontaneous protest over some film critical of Islam, the film maker still in prison after the truth was revealed.

In the midst of a heated exchange between her and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) she abruptly blurted out at one point, “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?”

As the willing accomplices of our lamestream media who can’t uncover anything revealing on this administration and carry their water continually, you have to wonder how they would have reacted if other leaders in the past were to blurt out anything like “what difference does it make?”

Yes, what difference does it really make?
I guess none, if you are a Democratic.

Friday, January 25, 2013

So, Some of You Ladies Think Combat Is ‘Fun?’

Few people reaching the age to enlist in today’s Military will remember the TV Show, Combat. It aired from 1962 to 1967 and hasn’t seen a wide syndication. But reading some comments from a few women and supporters of opening combat positions to women tells me they have unrealistic views of just what combat is, almost as unrealistic as it is portrayed in TV Shows, Movies and Video Games.

In announcing the end of the ban on women serving in combat roles, Leon Panetta said “everyone is entitled to a chance to become a combat soldier in a military that will now adopt gender neutral standards.”

One big problem for Mr. Panetta and those who feel they have something to prove, there is no such thing as “gender neutrality.” We are born male or female with distinct differences. One being upper torso strength, on average females having much less. And yes, I acknowledge that some females might have sufficient upper torso strength to equal the average male and even some men do not.

But our Military isn’t geared to individuals, it is geared to teams, units that are no stronger than their weakest link.

But what I find disturbing is quotes from former Military members who are female that were interviewed by the media bout the ending of the ban.

One, an Isis Costa interviewed at Ft. Bliss, Texas and who served in Iraq was quoted, “When I was in the military, I wish I would have been able to do combat, but unfortunately that was not an option.”

A former active duty Lieutenant, Valerie Warner says as a young officer, “she wanted badly to be part of an infantry unit” and that her biggest regret is that the decision to lift the ban came too late. “I wish this could have happened 12 years ago,” she says in a Washington Post article.

But what is disturbing is reading further, she says how she “loved walking long patrols, land navigation and firing weapons. It’s the fun stuff.

Believe me, there is nothing “fun” about being in combat, especially when engaged in battle. And anybody who wishes to be in it is in for a very rude awakening should they ever make it.

Reading a little further we see Ms. Warner “wanted to be like her grandfather,” Volney Warner, a retired four-star general who “helped oversee the integration of women into the Army in the 1970s.”

Trying to live up to someone you admire is a very poor reason to seek serving in the infantry, especially given that the person she wants to be like says, “I remain convinced that women are better at giving life than taking it,” and “although women play an important role in the Army, they have no place in combat units.”

Somewhere along the line women have been convinced to surrender their unique femininity, just be one of the boys. Problem there, they aren’t boys and cannot be boys anymore than boys can be real girls.

It is not denigrating to recognize the distinct differences between men and women and the important roles each plays in our existence. We cannot balance nature and make things naturally unequal by the wave of a legislative pen, nature doesn’t cooperate.

Troublesome to me is the current unequal standards being used in order for women to qualify for other Military fields.

Since much of this is so women may enhance their personal careers, we can expect women to apply for Navy SEAL training, unarguably the toughest training within all of the Militaries that only some 25% of highly qualified & conditioned men successfully pass.

If they can’t match up and fail to earn their “SEAL Trident,” will there be lawsuits to lower the standards for women as we have seen in other areas of the Military and thereby compromise the SEALs mission capability?

I’m sure we all recall early on in the Iraq theater of the War on Terror, the hair raising tails of Jessica Lynch that were proven false after a few days. Less known, thanks to the Clinton-era toying with the Military to appease feminists, training standards were lowered and she did not receive adequate training for serving in a combat zone, much less combat itself.

From the article Private Jessica Lynch’s Army: The Clinton Legacy by Gerald L. Atkinson we read,
“ In a departure from the basic training given to Army mechanics, supply clerks, and cooks in America’s armed forces in the past, the Clinton administration (during the 1990s) watered down the physical and other ‘war-fighting’ standards for such soldiers in a New Age, a mixed-sex, gender-normed training program that essentially ‘feminized’ the tail part of the tooth-to-tail military. In a departure from their ‘fathers’ Army, where clerks, cooks, and mechanics were trained as, and expected to be ‘warriors,’ capable of fighting off enemy attacks on the often vulnerable ‘rear’ of an army, the Clintons’ Army would become a job-corps, a socialized military substructure that promised equal opportunity to minorities and women. Pvt. Jessica Lynch belonged to just such a ‘toothless’ unit.”
Sadly that was proved all too true when on March 23, 2003 her convoy came under ambush and her weapon, not properly cared for or cleaned, jammed, being unable to fire a single shot.

Eleven others lost their lives. During her brief captivity, she was raped.

She had joined the Army feeling it an easy way to earn college benefits and thinking war was not to come for her.

Another area that is a definite degradation to a Military unit’s Combat Effectiveness is seen in a recent article from Stars & Stripes, Navy Seeks to Combat Unplanned Pregnancies where it is reported that the Navy is suffering from “a staggering 74 percent unintended pregnancy rate.” While this is occurring in all branches of the Military, it the highest in the Navy.

A Military unit must be ready to deploy on short notice where needed, sometimes with but a few minutes to prepare, just long enough to throw a few of your belongings into a duffel bag. If they don’t have the full contingent of personnel, their probability of a successful completion of the mission is hampered.

Should a woman find out she is pregnant while on the front lines, she must be pulled back and they may be short trained personnel waiting for a replacement.

It also points out the very real problem of mixing the sexes in high stress situations and how people tend to cope with such stress, but only the woman will end with child, requiring she be removed to a rear area or back home for the birth.

A 2007 article that appeared in Marie Claire, Life as an American Female Soldier seemed to indicate some other areas of concern for women in the Military.
“Hair falling out, periods on hold, and peeing in a cup: for female soldiers, life on the front lines involves stuff men never have to think about.”
And that “stuff men don’t have to worry about?”
“…you had to wait in long lines no matter where you were: in the mess hall, bathroom, shower. Frizzy hair and no flatiron. You can't wear earrings. Makeup can't be excessive. There probably aren’t many times you can feel like a girl,” said Sergeant Stephanie James.
To counter her menstrual periods, she took Depo-Provera that has yet unknown long-term effects on women’s health, but “has been associated with an increased risk of breast cancer in women under age 35.”

Another woman, Captain Jennifer Errington relayed a story,
“When you were on a convoy, you couldn’t say, ‘Please stop, I have to go to the bathroom.’ You just had to hold it. Once, a female second lieutenant asked if anybody had a cup. Two guys in the vehicle held up a poncho to give her privacy. She peed in the cup, then threw it out a window.”
A January 7, 2013 AP article found a surprisingly low number of women even interested in front line combat service. As one woman put it, “The choice to join combat arms should be a personal decision, not a required one.”

Men have not had that luxury in times past when there was a draft and thee is all likelihood that should we return to a draft, something currently advocated by many, there is the very real chance that women too may be drafted and sent where needed in the Military instead of where you would prefer to serve, now that the barrier to women in combat has been removed.

A recent facebook discussion over the woman’s comment I quoted about, about Combat being the “fun stuff” brought the comment from a woman, a Karin Olson of,
“And how many men thought the same? It isn't about her comment it’s about being able to do the same as anyone else. Because you didn’t like the comment only verifies that she should not be in combat? I don’t think so. Who are the people that say one can and one cannot? Poor thing was born disabled being a woman and all. I remember wanting to wrestle in school [it isn’t combat} but never the less I was laughed at told that it just isn’t possible, that isn’t what girls do. Not the same yet it is. I have never put limits on myself since everyone else will do it for me.”
This is the mentality we see today from those who feel they are not receiving something they are entitled to. Nobody said anything about being born a female being a “disability,” just how ignorant it was to say that combat was “fun stuff.”

Combat is not an entitlement nor is it a privilege. It is a brutal, bloody nightmare when involved in it. It is an unpredictable as can be. You do not get to take a break, play down the controller and get yourself a drink and go back and finish the game.

It takes its toll on the body and the mind and anybody who thinks it is “fun stuff” is a raving lunatic.

But this is what a few women with penis envy have said they want. And now that they have it, the rest of you woman, many who know the differences between men and woman and appreciate that difference, will be caught up in it.

Women have long served our country with honor and distinction. We could not have won World War Two without their sacrifices and willingness to take over the job of building the tools of war. They have served in theater, given their lives and endured hardships, all without being front line Troops or held to the same standards as their male counterparts.

Wouldn’t it be great if we could get our Military back to winning wars instead of using them as social clubs to make a few people feel good?

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Think It Can’t Happen Here?

For any who can’t understand why many of us advocate arming qualified volunteer teachers in schools, I give you the facebook outburst of one unhinged frustrated parent here in Clark County

This parent, who according to KATU News remains unidentified, was “frustrated” after a basketball game Tuesday evening between the Camas and Skyview boys teams. Police have been notified and are investigating this parent.

But in the meantime, how does a parent get so worked up over a basketball game that he publicly hopes the school gets “shot up?”

Worse yet, if they get so worked up to post something so utterly stupid on a place like facebook, what would stop them from doing it themselves, since it is also reported that he confronted a group of players outside the gym after the game and apparently receiving some negative responses, began flipping them off?

As can be expected, some on KATU’s website automatically assign him to the side advocating arming qualified volunteer teachers without giving any thought at all to it is people who get so worked up over a High School Basketball game being the reason we advocate such a change.

If this guy does own any guns, he should lose his privilege after such an outburst, given the recent shootings we have seen. He obviously does not have the mental capacity to safely own one.

It is reported that Clark County Sheriff’s Deputies have talked with both the man and his son and taken statements. It is unknown if charges will be filed, but according to Clark County sheriff's Sgt. Fred Neiman, “some sort of action is anticipated.”

To those who say this is an example of why teachers should not be armed if qualified, you’re dead wrong. It is people like this that gives a good example of why they should.

Ask yourself, what would have happened if instead of his finger being shown to students it had been a pistol used to take out his frustrations?

We’re fortunate it was only a finger, this time.

UPDATE: No charges will be filed against this moron "Camas Police Department said the parent's actions did not constitute an immediate threat."

UPDATE 2: Man who threatened to shoot up Washington schools sentenced to 3 months

If only he had said "I hope somebody shoots up the school." all would be okay?

Monday, January 21, 2013

If Canadians Can See It, Why Can't Our Government?

Canadian M.P. Pierre Poilievre lays out precisely what led to and keeps America rushing over the cliff.

Why isn't any of our elected officials screaming this from the roof tops?

Scariest is seeing that the interest paid on our debt will soon be funding 100% of China's Military and other countries as well.

Michelle Obama Shows Her Disdain For Boehner

Without the audio it can’t be said with certainty what triggered the eye roll, but not what we expect to see from a First ‘Lady’ during an official function.

Regardless though, we do expect a certain degree of decorum and civility towards each other, especially while dining at any official function our government holds.

While the video is rapidly reaching viral, the UK Daily Mail has picked it up and goes into a bit more detail than our own lamestream media, who will undoubtedly spin it in the next few days to twist it around.

According to the Daily Mail,
“She shook her head from side to side as she rolled her eyes and stared straight ahead, refusing to make eye contact with Boehner.”

“The president put his hand on his wife's shoulder and squeezed it, but the gesture did not change her stone-cold body language.”

“The source of the animosity between Mrs Obama and MR Boehner remains a mystery, though it likely has something to do with the fact that he and her husband are political foes.”
I am left to wonder about Barack Obama’s urging for us all to “come together as one.”

Maybe Michelle didn’t get that memo.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Clark County GOP Puts Elected Officials on Notice - Our Rights Are Not Negotiable

The Constitution of the United States of America is one of the most remarkable documents ever written. It clearly and in plain language lays out the foundation of our nation, the makeup of our government and establishes the rights of our citizens along with the limitations of government.

It has served our nation well in our short history and guided us into becoming the super power we have been known as, along with being the freest nation on the planet a long as we have abided by it and followed the basic tenets of it.

But government wishes to grow and assume powers our country was founded to get away from, putting the limits on citizens and granting more powers to government denied it when we adhere to our Constitution.

In my 64 years I have seen our Constitutional freedoms slowly removed from the citizens and taken by government, purportedly for the “common good” we are told by those who read what they wish into our constitution and twisting clearly laid out rights to mean something they are not.

Most recently we see this effort as presidential executive orders are being signed to place limits on the right o law-abiding citizens to “keep and bear arms” as laid out in our 2nd Amendment that states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Using the tragic and horrendous murder of school children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, Barack Obama and the Democrat Party have launched an unprecedented attack on our Second Amendment Rights, calling for the return of the “Assault Weapons Ban” that failed to curb gun violence the 10 years it was in effect.

Also in play is limiting the capacity of magazines semi-automatic weapons may hold as well as promoting a registration system for every gun and owner, letting government know just where those guns are should they ever desire to move to a gun confiscation policy and disarm the public.

Along with this move to limit our ability to purchase ammunition for our guns by requiring background checks to purchase ammunition as well as calls for increasing taxes on it to discourage and impair ability to afford to purchase ammunition.

Democrats have launched a well orchestrated attack, likening efforts to strip the National Rifle Association, the largest pro-gun organization in our country, to defeating Germany’s Nazi’s in World War Two along with comparing to the killing of Osama bin Laden.

One email sent out by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has even twisted their attacks into us and the NRA attacking them.

Most Democrats seem to be lining up behind these efforts to strip us of our Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms while a few Republicans seem to be leaning to cave to Democrats demands, hoping to retain their offices next election or not wanting to stand up for our rights.

While we are seeing County Sheriff’s stand up for our rights by publicly stating they will not enforce any unconstitutional measure that violates our right to keep and bear arms, elected officials are not coming out as strong or are remaining silent in the face of the Democrats assault.

It was very pleasing to receive a press release this evening from the Clark County Washington Republican Party that proposes a strong stand on protecting our constitutional right and putting elected officials on notice that if they side with the Democrats assault, “The Clark County Republican Party may refuse to support and may condemn, and/or recruit opposition to any holder of public office and any candidate for public office who the Board finds has taken any action to infringe, impair or usurp our Natural and Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, regardless of their party affiliation.”

A strong stand that I wholly support and believe will easily be passed into an official resolution at the next Central Committee Meeting in February.

A quick review of the Clark County Washington Democrat Party revealed no stand one way or the other on this assault, but I highly doubt they will stand against Obama and their party leaders to support citizens and our Constitutional Rights.

Knee Jerk reactions to tragic events are often not well thought out and end up hurting more than helping by focusing on the wrong area and ignoring the real problem. While the 23 executive orders signed by Obama do have a slight indication of “discussing mental health,” none of them address the over reliance our society has seen over the years on Psycho-therapeutic drugs and the ill effects of their use or withdrawing from not taking them as prescribed.

More often than not they seem to play a central role in these mass shootings and are not being addressed currently.

In the meantime, calls for arming teachers who would have a better chance of ending a maniacal shooter before they commit mass murder of children is scoffed at and ridiculed, primarily by Democrats and a few Republicans, some not even willing to look at the proposal as a potential solution.

Disarming more law-abiding citizens or limiting our ability to protect ourselves from either criminals or a future tyrannical government is not a viable solution, as seen in our larger cities that currently have strict gun regulations and gun bans, while also having the highest gun murder rates.

This stand by the CCGOP is what I got used to seeing from Republicans, taking a strong stand for citizens and our rights years ago.

Seeing it returning is what I have been hoping to see for some time now and I applaud the new party chair, Lynda Wilson for standing up for the people, not necessarily the politician.

We need to see more of this from conservatives, letting elected officials know that our rights are not negotiable.

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Stand Your Ground, Stand Up For Your Rights

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin 1759

Over the years we have all heard the above quote or a disambiguation of it, usually from the anti-war crowd, twisting it to mean if we submit to any measure for security, we are not deserving of liberty.

What they and many others did not do, though, was to research the quote and its context. Had any done just a little research they would have discovered Ben Franklin was addressing those who would not accept one of the guns he purchased to help protect what was then the frontier from marauders and murderers.

“Those Who Would Give Up A Little Liberty To Gain A Little Security”

Sadly we are once again facing the claim of if we just give up a little bit of our liberty, that being our rights under the second amendment to bear arms freely, we can be safer and our children less likely to be slaughtered in schools or even on the streets in drive-by gang shootings.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Using the recent, tragic Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, Barack Obama today announced he was signing 23 Executive Orders and memorandums he says will make us safer, with a back drop of children around him.

While I cannot say every proposal a bad one, ultimately we are expected to allow infringement upon our second amendment rights in order for Obama to make us safer. Or so he wants us to think.

For all of his talk over the years of “we cannot return to the failed policies of the past,” that is exactly what he is doing now, returning to failed gun control policies that did nothing to make anybody safer.

We had a so called “assault weapons ban” in effect from September 1994 to September 2004. We also saw some 32 School Shootings, including the deadliest High School shooting in our history, Columbian during that period. The ban did nothing to prevent a single one of them.

This time around we are seeing more red herrings thrown in designed to convince the general public how we must accept more infringement on our right to bear arms. Obama and others advocating more laws like using phrases such as “weapons designed for the battle field have no place on our streets.”

That statement is 100% true, but it is also very misleading as such fully automatic Military weapons are already banned for the general public, only those with special licenses willing to pay higher fees and keep them registered being able to purchase one. They are already highly regulated and few have the ability to even get near one.

But due to the appearance of several weapons we can legally have, semi-automatic firing, some even using the term “self-loading” lately, the effort is to discourage or ban those merely because they look scary.

Another red herring being used is the capacity of the magazine, most wanting them to be restricted to 10 or less cartridges. That a magazine can be changed out in just a couple of seconds slips by them as does a criminal or maniac arming themselves with several weapons. Empty the magazine, throw it down and pull out another.

Once again we see the call of “background checks” as if none are being done already. Even at gun shows, a licensed dealer must submit a background check before delivering a buyer a weapon, unless of course they possess a concealed carry license that would show they have already passed a background check.

There is a call to require such checks on private sales, but how will they enforce such a requirement? Criminals dealing in stolen or illegal weapons will not be rushing to have the latest forms required when selling such weapons from the trunk of their cars nor will there be much a background check of those smuggling illegal weapons in over our porous borders that both Obama and past presidents have refused to seal.

The futility of these ongoing attempts to disarm innocent citizens and infringe upon our second amendment rights was pointed out in a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy that stated, “Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not.”

We can see the same outcome right here in some of our larger American cities like Chicago, Illinois and Washington D.C., both of whom have stringent anti-laws and restrictions along with some of the highest murder rates in the nation.

We are supposed to believe these new measure are “reasonable” and “common sense.” They are not.

We are supposed to believe nobody is intending to take our guns away from us and disarm us. I don’t buy it. If that is not the ultimate goal, why then does the left always jump to such knee jerk reactions after a tragic shooting, almost always where guns are not permitted, of infringing upon the rights of law-abiding citizens instead of looking closer at potential root causes, such as the affects of Psycho-therapeutic drugs?

Since the intent of the second amendment is to give citizens the ability to ward off any despotic, overbearing government control over us, not hunting, we should we very wary of any effort to infringe on that right, regardless of promises to make us safer.

As Harvard discovered, it actually places us more in danger.

It’s time we stood our ground and stand up for our rights. Ruger Firearms has a page up on their website providing us with links to our elected officials along with a link to a letter to be sent to your elected representative telling them we want our rights preserved, not infringed upon.

We are seeing some states and County Sheriff’s standing their ground, informing the administration they refuse to enforce any new restrictions that violate the second amendment.

We need to stand with them and support them. We need to let Obama and others in government know our rights are sacrosanct and not open to negotiation.

We need to remind them they are public servants, not lords over us.

These are our rights and nobody should be allowed to fool us into believing if we just give them up a little, we will be better off.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Obama To Surround Himself With Children At Gun Measures Announcement

It is now being reported that Barack Obama will surround himself with children when he announces his proposals to curb gun violence. While the proposals are expected to be controversial, using children as props seems to be a common theme with certain leaders of the past.

Friday, January 11, 2013

Where Does the 14th Amendment Grant Dictatorial Power?

The latest effort to impose dictatorial control over the American people comes from Democrat Senate Leader out of Nevada, Harry Reid as he lends his voice to those from last year in calling on Obama to simply bypass congress and raise the nation’s debt as he sees fit, claiming he is granted that authority under the 14th amendment, passed shortly after the Civil War.

One of three ‘Reconstruction Amendments,’ the 14th is comprised of 5 sections primarily stating freed slaves were citizens of America with the full legal rights of any other citizen in the first three section and the 4th section basically laying out that the U.S. was not responsible for nor would pay any debts incurred by the Confederacy during the war.

Section 5 grants congress the power to enforce the amendment.

Section 4 is where Democrats now claim to have the authority for Obama to bypass congress on raising our public debt, claiming it says, “the validity of the public debt of the United States...shall not be questioned.”

In total, Section 4 says,
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.”

While I make no claims of legalize, law school or attendance in any public institution of higher liberal indoctrination that allows me to read words that do not exist in a document or twist and convolute what is written to mean something other than what is says, I do see an awful lot of words left out and ignored by Democrats in this effort to bankrupt our country.

Clearly, the debt mentioned is qualified as being “authorized by law,” not by dictate. Presidents do not write law nor do they pass laws, they sign them once written and passed by congress.

Furthermore, nothing in the section says debt can be added at anytime, just that existing debt may not be questioned. No one questions that we have a $16.4 Trillion debt facing us, threatening to eat our nation and swallow our freedoms from excess taxation.

Currently, there has been on effort by either party controlling the country to pay off or even pay down our national debt, just make payments on the interest on our debt that already amount to hundreds of billions in our tax dollars every year and growing higher as the debt increases.

But that doesn’t seem to matter to Democrats and Harry Reid as they state in a letter to Obama,
“As you know, increasing the debt limit does not authorize new spending. It merely ensures that we meet our existing obligations.”

Somehow, it remains ignored that those “existing obligations” exceed the government’s means by spending billions of dollars more than revenues, necessitating an endless cycle of incurring debt that will either lead to a total collapse of our economy or printing of money that will be worthless, also leading to a collapse of our economy.

In simple laymen’s terms, you cannot borrow your way out of debt.

Oddly enough, as we now see Democrats embracing what they want the 14th Amendment to mean, it was Democrats who through much of the late 19th century and over half of the 20th century that outright ignored the existence of the 14th Amendment.

We read,
“In 1868 the 14th Amendment was passed giving equal rights to all citizens regardless of race. It states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Republicans in congress passed it unanimously while not one single Democrat voted for it. This was the case with every other civil rights bill passed in the 1800s. By 1875, ten years after the end of the war to abolish slavery, almost 2 dozen civil rights laws were passed by Republicans and opposed by Democrats.”

“By 1892, when the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the White House, they began to repeal all of the Civil Rights laws and the Supreme Court chose to ignore the 14th Amendment and saw the Constitution as a “living breathing document” that reflected their racists, segregationists views. In 1896 they ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that equal didn’t necessarily mean that blacks and whites should share in the same things at the same time, and that institutionalized segregation was acceptable despite the fact that the 14th Amendment was clear that it wasn’t. This ruling was overturned almost 60 years later in Brown v. Board of Education. The Democratic response to this was to issue the Southern Manefesto which repudiated this ruling. It was signed by 100 Democrats from the House and Senate . . . not one Republican signed it.”

When it conflicted with their racist, segregationist views, they had no need for it and ignored it completely as they placed freed slaves and their offspring into slums and once again relegated them to non-citizen status, except of course, paying their taxes to the government.

In the hypocritical fashion we have come to expect from Democrats, we read in that Southern Manifesto mentioned,
“The original Constitution does not mention education. Neither does the 14th amendment nor any other amendment. The debates preceding the submission of the 14th amendment clearly show that there was no intent that it should affect the systems of education maintained by the States.”

Nor does it today or ever has mentioned a lone politician having any authority to raise the debt limit imposed by congress at anytime they feel warranted or a political party granting such authority to a lone politician.

Our constitution and its amendments are being shredded by Democrats and the Obama administration, right before our very eyes.

Democrats are willing to bypass congress to shut out Republicans seeing the need to rein in our growing debt in order to incur even more debt.

Obama has shown his willingness to misuse executive orders and write declarations, bypassing congress’ authority and the separation of powers.

Every year, both parties have over spent revenues and grew the debt, now the largest debt of any single nation on the planet. Obama now says increasing the debt limit, and the debt, is not open to debate.

He doesn’t owe that money, you and I do and it is being passed along to our children, grandchildren and their children for generations.

How long can we remain a free nation with the people being ignored and saddled with generations of debt, ostensibly for our own welfare?

This has to stop and both the Democrats and Obama must be reined in and forced to remain within the confines of our constitution.

Tuesday, January 08, 2013

Get Illegal Guns Off Of The Streets

Once again we see people deeply divided over the issue of gun control and our second amendment rights following a maniac committing mass murder in a school of young children. Some blame the gun while others blame the shooter and our mental health care system as both sides dig their feet in to promote their perceived solution.

As the rancor increases, bills are introduced by the droves in state legislatures and at the federal level, letters are written to newspapers, online forums light up with varying views and even face to face discussions occur, many heated and all too often, misrepresenting, misinterpreting or misunderstanding the opposing view.

Case in point, a video put out by the City of Newark, New Jersey featuring their Mayor, Cory Booker offering a $1,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of someone carrying a gun within the city.

Some within our community have only recently stumbled cross this video and are promoting it as if a new program. It isn’t. The Gunstoppers program in Newark actually began back in 2007 and seems to have been an effort to combat gang violence and shootings.

Some who fancy themselves as “journalists” state the Mayor makes no distinction between legal and illegal guns. Not so. Although not said until late in the video, Mayor Booker clearly states, as well as it is clearly shown in text that the program is addressing illegal guns, stolen, homemade or in the possession of someone who shouldn’t have one due to criminal history, age or mental health.

Since I live nearly 3,000 miles from Newark, I have no real opinion on how the city is run and whether or not this program is effective overall. I did email the city requesting information on its effectiveness and still await another reply.

But, the one point both sides can agree on and often do, shortly before diverting back into our entrenched views, illegal guns are a big part of the problem and must be taken out of the hands of criminals, gang bangers and others not legally entitled to or who shouldn’t have a gun.

Regardless of what we read into Mayor Booker’s program, that is what I see him trying to do, address illegal guns within the city he leads.

Like the rest of us, he was outraged over the Sandy Hook shooting and joined the call for Pragmatic and Achievable Gun Law Reform in a post at the Huffington Post. I can’t say I agree with every point proposes, such as banning so called high capacity magazines and banning assault weapons, since that designation is applied due to appearance and not function, real assault rifles as used by the military already banned for the general public, but he is initiating a discussion.

Mayor Booker further affirms his actions taken in the video are in regards to illegal guns in an interview covered by the Star Ledger where he is quoted, “I’m not afraid of law-abiding citizens who buy a gun,” and “Criminals are killing people. Not law-abiding gun owners.”

He also said in that same discussion, “what frustrates me about this debate is it’s a false debate, it’s a false debate. This is a convenient trick to try to divide our country more. Most of us in America, including gun owners, agree on things that would stop the kind of carnage that’s going on in cities all over America” and “all the shootings in my city only one was done by a law-abiding citizen that’s mentally stable that bought a gun.”

Let’s put it to rest that he makes no distinction between legal and illegal guns. Clearly, he does make that distinction.

As I said above, this program began back in 2007. It seemed to make national notice about a year ago by a blogger who put the video out on his blog and gained the attention of Fox News who like others, seems to have missed the effort. Researching a little, something those who consider themselves “journalists” who do well to try some times, I found it being discussed on a discussion forum back in July 2009 where the claim is made, “Booker’s video would have us believe all firearms are illegal. Booker makes the distinction near the end of the video, not that it matters — the distinction will be lost on snitches interested only in pocketing a thousand bucks.”

I disagree as I credit the Police with more ability to discern and investigate than that. Seeing that the claim was being made by Alex Jones’ Infowars, it doesn’t surprise me to see it misrepresented and blown way out of proportion, as Jones’ and his frequent conspiracy theories are noted for doing.

Since program has been affect since 2007, I asked about the effectiveness of it and found an article on Newark Crime Statistics where it is said in 2011, “There was a surge, however, in gun recoveries with 432 of 696 total seized within June through December 2011, compared to just 278 during that same time the year before.”

Newark Police Director Samuel DeMaio said, “How many of those guns … saved a shooting? How many of those guns we recovered saved someone from being murdered?”

Of course, we cannot give a definitive answer to that, but we have to believe taking nearly 700 illegal guns off of the streets, hopefully with incarceration of the one who illegally had it, a number of gang related crimes were prevented.

I’m still waiting for more information from the city of Newark on later numbers.

While I am probably a political opposite of Cory Booker, hyperbole and misrepresentations of his views is of no service to the gun debate or of conservatism. We must cut through the hype of both sides and look for ways to curb criminals’ access to illegal guns.

Disarming law-abiding citizens or making self defense illegal, as Rep. Sherry Appleton from the 23rd district in Washington State proposes is not a solution.

Mayor Booker called for us to meet in a “pragmatic center” where we agree and pass legislation from there.

Our problem seems to be finding that “pragmatic center” in the first place. That and I’m not so sure adding legislation is any better. Given the murder rates where there is strict legislation, perhaps that is part of the problem.

Like others, I don’t have the answer, just my point of view. But this is a matter we must address as our society continues to bleed.

But first, let’s stop the hype, cut through the smoke & mirrors and realize the real problem is not the gun, it is those who misuse the gun.

But above all, stop misrepresenting each other’s point of view in order to win the argument. That only makes all of us lose.

Saturday, January 05, 2013

Publishing Gun Owners Names & Addresses

In typical leftist knee jerk fashion, some moron in New York at The Journal News decided to help curb gun violence, they would produce a list of all licensed concealed carry permit holders and place them on a map, letting any and all see just who in New York’s Westchester and Rockland counties owned a gun in their neighborhood.

With no thought of burglars also pick up and read newspapers, a representative of the paper said readers “are understandably interested to know about guns in their neighborhoods.”

The utter ignorance of such an act cannot be understated and the paper has been hearing the outrage from citizens, both those that own guns and others who don’t ever since they published the list shortly before Christmas.

The archives of the News Journal do not go back far enough, but if readers will recall, in the 1990’s a controversial website was created called the Nuremberg Files that listed the names and addresses of doctors who provided abortion services and was sued over the dangers those doctors were exposed to by the published list.

As the case weaved its way through various courts it was eventually ruled “to constitute a clear and present threat to doctors and therefore beyond the boundaries of free-speech guarantees.”

Putting the issue of abortion aside for the time being, many in the media were outraged at such an irresponsible list made public and during the time, some doctors were shot or killed.

Maria Vullo, a lawyer for the plaintiffs that sued the web site told jurors at a trial, “Just like bounty hunters of the Old West, the defendants want to stop the doctors by any means—dead in their tracks. It’s terrorism.”

One doctor said of the made him “wear a bulletproof vest, cover his windows, always sit with his back toward the wall and to be leery of any contact with strangers.”

The American Coalition of Life Advocates who established the list attempted to counter saying, “nothing in the ‘Nuremberg Files’ advocates violence against the doctors or clinic workers…”

Nonetheless, people were killed or injured by some who used the list to find targets and it was ultimately ruled to not be protected free speech under our first amendment due to those dangers.

Whoever at the News Journal decided it would help curb gun violence by pushing not only a list of names and addresses of gun permit holders, but maps are no less reckless.

While there may be no wholesale death threats against gun owners, criminals and maniacs unable to legally purchase guns now know where they are being kept, if they wish to burglarize the home to steal a gun.

With guns in high demand and many unable to legally purchase one, due to mental health issues or criminal background, the News Journal published a list with maps of exactly where private guns are being kept and with their criminal expertise, can be stolen.

Even for those who don’t wish to steal one of the guns from homeowners, criminals also know what homes are less likely to have armed occupants if they choose to break in.

While media supportive of the “jump on the gun-ban’ wagon remain relatively silent, Fox News asked and received answers from Ex-Burglars Say Newspaper’s Gun Map Would’ve Made the Job Easier, Safer

They quote an aging reformed burglar, “That was the most asinine article I’ve ever seen,” said Walter T. Shaw, 65, a former burglar and jewel thief who the FBI blames for more than 3,000 break-ins that netted some $70 million in the 1960s and 1970s. “Having a list of who has a gun is like gold - why rob that house when you can hit the one next door, where there are no guns?”

Another reformed burglar, turned crime prevention specialist said, “They just created an opportunity for some crimes to be committed and I think it’s exceptionally stupid. Professional burglars are always looking for an edge, and like most folks, they read the paper.”

He also stated, “[G]uns are on the top of the list of what you want to steal. They can walk out with a shotgun and a couple of handguns and sell them on the street for $300 or $400 a pop. They can sell them to a gangbanger who ends up killing someone.”

While the News Journal mistakenly feels they helped towards curbing gun violence, they may very well have given the next madman wanting to shoot up a school full of children the gun to do it with.

Even more ignorant than the News Journals gun owners map, we read of a Connecticut lawmaker, the state that recently saw the horrible shooting of unarmed teachers and children at Sandy Hook Elementary, introducing a measure in his state “that could make public the names and addresses of 170,000 handgun permit holders in the state.”

State Rep. Stephen Dargan, a Democrat says of his measure, “[It] was not intended to pit gun control activists and pro-gun groups against each other. Instead, it’s to get a broader discussion going on gun issues and mental health in the state.”

Giving criminals a list of where private guns are stored is hardly efforts to initiate “a broader discussion going on gun issues and mental health,” it’s stupidity to an extreme.

He says, “I want to make sure we look at all the ways we can prevent another horrific shooting from happening.” Yet, should he succeeds in revealing where every gun in the state is stored, he may very well be telling a madman where he can find such a gun to use.

Since the list was published, we also read it is not only private gun owners now in danger, but Law Enforcement and Corrections Officers as well who are reporting inmates attempting to intimidate them, coming up and telling the officers they know where they live now.

Liberals, in their usual knee jerk fashion now say they want to take whatever measures they can to prevent another horrific shooting like Sandy Hook. But so far, they ignore the obvious measure to stop another shooter from killing children and opt to disarm the very people that likely could intervene and stop the next madman.

Properly trained and qualified citizens, teachers, school staff, Mall Security Guards and several more are the first line of defense against such a maniac as we saw at Sandy Hook.

But these knee jerk liberals claiming they want to prevent another shooting refuse to even discuss ending gun free zones like schools and parks or allow more citizens to carry a concealed weapon after they go through the proper background check.

No, they would rather tax ammunition, making it more difficult for gun owners to purchase or register the sale of ammunition like a gun itself and erect all sorts of stumbling blocks for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and others.

But, providing criminals with the names, address and map to private owners of guns home has to be the dumbest idea so far.

The cities may as well hand guns out to criminals as freely as they do hypodermic needles to drug addicts, also likely to break into your home, steal your gun and sell it for their next fix.