Banning Firearms & Firearm Accessories: Democrats Get It Wrong Again.

Here we go...

"Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) will introduce legislation in the next Congress to ban the sale of high-capacity magazines, his office told The Huffington Post on Monday." -  The Huffington Post (THP)

The good Senator should know that criminals, and others who wish to do harm, are often deterred when the balance of power lies with the potential victim.  Firearms, along with concealed carry laws, help provide that balance.

Concealed carry laws give the law abiding the balance of power and an opportunity to defend themselves. When the criminals do not know who are victims and who have the power to defend against them they must assume anyone can defend themselves and look elsewhere for victims.  That is one reason why crime in right-to-carry states is lower than those areas where law abiding citizens are prevented, by law, from defending themselves. Much like our public schools, these areas are free fire zones for criminals and wackos to do as they please.

Consider that government agencies, such as the police, cannot be there to defend anyone when there is no time. The Newtown Police Station is 1.6 miles from Sandy Sandy Hook Elementary School*. And no police officer got to the school in time to save the children and their teachers.  People must be permitted to defend themselves. Do do otherwise is a grave disservice.

No legislation will stop a criminal who is intent on doing harm.  But smart gun laws reduce the open opportunity for criminals to do harm and gives the balance of power to the correct group: law abiding citizens.

THP goes on with "The legislation would simply reintroduce the prohibition of high-capacity magazines that existed under the federal Assault Weapons Ban from 1994 to 2004."

OK, easy enough to understand, but since it has already been tried with no success at any of its advertised goals, one would think that our elected officials would know better.  But if you consider this as simply a way to remove these tools from law abiding citizens the action makes more sense.

Senators Lautenberg , Feinstein, Schumer and the rest of the anti-gun crowd who want to ban firearms and firearm accessories, have gotten it wrong again.  They prefer to blame the tools instead of the person using them.

One more thought.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." --Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment, quoted by Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book retrieved from The Patriot Post email Newsletter, 20 December 2012.

* According to Google Maps

Resign With Honor

A letter to the President....

Dear Mr. President.

In light of the factual information escaping from Libya, it's time to consider that your cover-up has failed, so I humbly recommend that you tender your resignation immediately.

The repeated requests for increased security and the previous attacks that went unheeded by your State Department, resulted in 4 dead Americans, including a US Ambassador, your ambassador, and Al Quaida flags flying over US Soil, reveals one horrible decision after another. And this time it cannot be blamed on the previous administration.

With your refusal to help them, the cover-up and the attempts to divert attention to a video that you knew, and now everyone else knows, had nothing to do with the problem, it is time to step up and take responsibility. resign as quickly as you get a staffer to draft your resignation speech.

Remember President Nixon resigned due to an unlawful cover-up and no one even lost their lives because of his mistake.

Thank you for your service and happy trails to you.

Sincerely yours,
Individual Americans

No Merry Christmas, No sale

No Merry Christmas, No sale.

Sounds good to me.  Really, it sounds pretty good.






 Merry Christmas

Was General Patraus a Member of President Obama's Re-election Campaign?

Was General Patraus a member of President Obama's re-election campaign?  It would appear he was providing cover for the President's decisions concerning the Benghazi murders.  According to his testimony the words identifying Al Queada or terrorists were in the draft report, but someone changed it.after it left Langley.  But then, a days later, he tells everyone that the attack on Benghazi was by protesters who were incited by a YouTube video.  He new at the time that this was not true.

Add this to the fact that his resignation came two days after election day can mean only one thing: He was providing cover for President Obama until after the election.

The Fiscal Cliff is Just Ahead

"Moving forward now!"

Yes, the fiscal cliff is just ahead.

Do you recall that vile Obama commercial that showed a Ryan lookalike pushing grandma off a cliff.  Well substitute grandma with the economy and Oblama doing the pushing.  It's a more realistic view of what's going on in government.

Oil, It's Only Common Sense

It seems everyone loves to blame oil for lots of our current problems: real and imagined.  Oil use causes global warming, funds terrorism, and pollutes our rivers, streams and air, to list a few.  But oil is the single most useful and wonderful gift from God that we have access to.

Without oil, there would be no internet, no computers, no zip lock bags, no cars, no individual freedoms, no prosperity, no medicine that wasn't mixed up by a witch doctor, no chain saws, no EMS transport to the ER, no ER, no grapes from California or Brazil, no pineapples from HI, no instant news, no record albums/tapes/CD's/DVD's, no concrete for homes, no air conditioning, no water in your home/apartment/parent's basement, no refrigerator, no electric lights, no TV, no space program, no clean air or water, and no garbage removal.  Did I leave anything out?

We can easily fix a few of oil's problems.  The biggest headache from is funding of terrorism.  The world buys oil from OPEC and it is reported that a lot of the money goes to support terrorist activities.  Since we buy oil and terrorists target this country, we should reduce the number of dollars we send to them   This is only common sense rearing its (mostly) unwanted head here.

The easiest way to reduce those dollars sent over seas is to develop our own resources here, on this continent. Of course those who believe they are smarter than the rest will insist that drilling and mining will ruin our environment.  But these same people make lavish use of oil products and byproducts themselves, so the only reason I can think of for them not wanting to harvest our resources is the old 'not in my back yard' syndrome that is very popular, but mentioned little, in this country.

Those people should be ignored to the point of shunning and we should drive ahead with using our own resources.  If we put enough oil on the market, we will be getting those dollars instead of our friends overseas and we can then have a hand in what groups can dip their hands in the money pot.

It only makes common sense.

The Great Recession of 2008: Set the Record Straight

Sometimes you just have to say what the...?  So I wrote to my congressman.

Here is what I asked last Sunday...


Dear Representative Buchanan.

Ref: Democratic Party narrative, i.e., "the failed Policies of the Bush administration caused the recession in 2008." (Here, here, here, here in contrast to this, this & this)

I am trying to understand why you, along with Gov. Romney and the rest of the GOP, are allowing the Democrats to constantly and consistently repeat the lie with no one able or willing to counter it.  Why is that?  Really, I want to know what the problem is.  Or maybe it is true.  If it is true, I want to know that as well.  And I'd like to know before I receive my absentee ballot.

Whenever a Democrat, or Democratic Party supporter in the legacy media, repeats this whopper, there must be a GOP member or supporter to counter the lie with the facts.  You/they would not need to get 'into the weeds' on this, but a few simple facts would go a long way.  Here they are.

1.  Until 2007 after Democrats took control of both houses of the US Congress, there were 52 months of job growth (8.3 million new jobs), unemployment averaged under 5% through 2008, wages were up by 11.8%, GDP was averaging 2.9% annually and inflation was low.  These are the facts.

2.  If you want to know why this problem occurred, you have to look at it honestly.  Derivative securities based on mortgages. The collapse of the derivative market caused the mortgage meltdown: with many mortgages guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (i.e., the taxpayers).

These two entities are the babies of the Democratic Party.  This crash started building under the policies of Democratic party and their leaders as far back as FDR.  FDR's ill advised meddling in the housing markets lead to the creation of Fannie Mae.  This meddling upset real market forces by taking a large amount of responsibility away from the financial institutions involved. In 1968 LBJ decided making Fannie and Freddie publicly traded commodities; making it a cash cow  In 1999 President Clinton changed the banking laws (Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act), allowing the financial institutions to engage in very risky investing.  Finally, throughout the George W. Bush administration, who repeatedly warned of such a failure and was blocked by Democrats in both houses of Congress; Democrats who pressured banks to make mortgages with little or no credit checks and promoted sub-prime loans. In 2007, the Fed started raising interest rates, Payments doubled and tripled, payments were missed, and the house of cards came down.

3.  It was not Bush policies, Bush tax cuts or the capitalist system that failed.  It was Democratic Party’s sacred cows that caused the mortgage meltdown and subsequent recession.  This president, Barack Obama, is employing the same FDR inspired policies and he will extend the high unemployment and weak economy for a decade or more.

Again, someone has to be out there setting the record straight.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.  I will be looking for your response and will post both on my blog, Move It Right.

Sincerely Yours

News Corpse Chronicling Media decay -Limited Edtition

I just found News Corpse, a website that is "The Internet's Chronicle of Media Decay", according to them.  But it only took a moment to deduce that it is dedicated to slandering News Corp., their Fox News Channel and conservative values in particular.  


Evidence?


I googled for info on Dr. Keith Ablow; who had I just heard on Fox & Friends. One of the first results was News Corpse's post critisizing Dr. Ablow, a contributor on Fox News who "Mark" characterizes as


"a member of the Fox News Medical “A” Team, keeps showing up on Fox properties dispensing the most absurd opinions .."


Mr. Mark reads, 


"Ablow: Well, he’s seemingly unable to let go of it because I think we finally have to start taking him at his word. And you know this is a favorite theme of mine, that people want to try to find some other explanation than the obvious. The obvious explanation is that the President has contempt for that branch of government, is egocentric, and believes that any form of authority, perhaps other than that vested in himself, is untrustworthy. Particularly the longstanding authority associated with branches of government of the United States. That’s literally the most obvious explanation."

And concludes, 

"He (Dr. Ablow) has been relentlessly pushing his delusional theory that the President is acting out some sort of suppressed rage as a result of a deprived upbringing."

I suppose it doesn't matter that Dr. Ablow never suggested that the president was acting out suppressed rage or that the president had a deprived upbringing.

He complains,

"Ablow has never examined (or even met) the President,"

Well I'm not a psycho analyst, but it seems to me that aside from some labs, psycho-analysts normally observe and listen to the "patient" to make determinations and we have plenty of President Obama's videos and statements to watch and listen to.

He goes on to characterize President Obama as a kid 

"who excel academically, graduate with honors from Ivy League law schools, and enter careers in public service that lead to the White House."

It seems Mr. Mark has some secret sources that none of the rest of the media, wikileaks included, do not have: President Obama's academic record. Very good Mr. Mark.  A gold star for you.


So Mark, where does that come from?  I don't expect answers as the left does not specialize in facts. It seems to me as though Mr. Mark has a vivid imagination.


That is the thing with your average kool aid drenched Progressive:  Always short on facts and long on disparaging characterizations. I wonder if anyone believes his tripe.

"Rights" Misused Again - DOMA & Speaker Boehner

 Over at the the Huffington Post they are trying to paint the GOP House leader as a bigot for following his oath of office, while playing the President as their knight in shining armor, even though the president will not clarify his position on gay marriage (in the past Mr. Obama has stated that he does not support gay marriage, then he did,). From the Huffington Post (Link)

"That's why I was shocked to hear that Speaker John Boehner decided to use our tax dollars to intervene and stand up for DOMA to deny LGBT Americans the rights they deserve. This is discrimination -- plain and simple."

You were shocked!  I was shocked that the Obama government used our tax dollars to sue our states for doing the job Mr. Obama won't do. 


While there are many rights that individual Americans have, there are only a few "rights" that are protected by the rule of law.  If you study the US Constitution, and including the Bill of Rights along with the rest of the amendments, you will be unable to find marriage mentioned at all.  There is a reason for this. Many natural and "implied" rights cannot and should not involve government's heavy hand to interfere with individual adult choices. And there is a reason for this.  We need only look at the state of the economy to know how well government meddling works.

Our government was founded around a mostly 'hands off' philosophy (where individuals are concerned) unless one infringes on the "protected rights" of others.  And now, some are begging government to be the decider of who can marry whom. It boggles the mind.

But as much as some people wish that their particular issue was protected by law, the plain fact is many are not.

But married people have no more actual "protected rights" than anyone else.  That is why I believe using the word "rights" when discussing gay marriage is more of a propaganda tool than an actual "right" that should be protected by law.  Those special treatments that a married couple enjoy are the result of centuries marital disputes and contract law where the aggrieved parties seek a resolution through the government.  Politicians pandering to a large voting block have enacted many marriage friendly laws.  But today, we are much more enlightened about different lifestyles and can offer the same laws covering property and other issues that arise to cover gay and lesbian couples that would be unheard of in decades past.

If you want a "right" to gay marriage, I recommend a Constitutional amendment  to add the right.  It would then be protected by government.

ObamaCare's Cruel & Unusual New Taxes

The Orwellian Affordable Care Act (ACA), un-popularly known as "ObamaCare", was advertised as saving money for health care in the United States of America.  Imagine the shock when people learned that it would cut $500 Billion from Medicare, something the Democrats railed against GOP Congresspersons throughout the 1990's.


Not only is it cutting Medicare, but it is increasing taxes everyone, including the middle class (who were promised no tax increases by Candidate and then President Obama). The Americans for Tax Reform  (ATR) has published a list of 17 new taxes that become effective over a period of years (listed HERE). Some are already effective, keep reading... 


Of the more egregious money saving maneuvers, an Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals, "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS (ATR). Personally, I fail to see how this will save anyone anything, including lives or money.  It looks suspiciously as though the political class is trying to punish charitable organizations.  You know, the competition.

The “economic substance doctrine” gives the IRS the power to arbitrarily disallow legitimate deductions.  Isn't that a power we all would like to have?


And then there is the "Tax on Innovator Drug Companies".  What does that say to you? ATR describes it as a "$2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year."  So, if a business that creates and manufactures life saving or life improving or other medications, and has the politically incorrect result of making a profit, Obama is going to take some of it from them.  That sounds like a protection racket, where the business must pay a thug to protect his/her business from that same thug.


How does raising taxes on Blue Cross/Blue Shield lower the cost of insurance?  Anyone who is vaguely aware of how business works would understand that when their costs go up they pass it on to their customers.  Who doesn't know that?


With the "Medicine Cabinet Tax", ObamaCare punishes you for buying nonprescription medications.  Yeah, that will save me a wad of cash.. not.  Maybe US Rep. Pelosi really didn't read it?


Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 began in 2012, so don't be surprised when it shows up on your W-2 at the end.  ATR describes it as a "Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns". I believe them.


These are just a few, along with some others, of the new taxes that have already taken effect.  There are other new taxes,  such as a tax on tanning parlors (tanning beds are health care related?), and plenty more to come after the presidential election (How did that happen?).


You can see all of the ACA taxes, with references to the relevant paragraph in the ACA, at ATR's webpage, here.

Getting Bin Laden: Go, Don't Go From President Clinton?

President Clinton questions whether presidential candidate Mitt Romney would make the tough call to kill Osama Bin Laden. I find the decision to use Mr. Clinton to be really weird because it was President Clinton who failed to make that very same decision while he was president.

In the book, Dereliction of Duty, Lt. Col. Robert Patterson* describes the situation when our forces had "eyes on" Osama Bin Laden in 1998. A two hour window to hit him with a cruise missile (the president's second favorite toy) or let him go.

Describing the incident, Col. Patterson says the president was unreachable for an hour after the NSC Director, Sandy Berger, was informed of the situation and tried to contact the president for instructions. When they finally did contact the president, he wanted more study, more time to be sure. You know, hash it over with the Secretaries of Defense and State for a while.

That is the thing about tough decisions, one normally doesn't get a lot of time to mull it over (that's what makes them tough).

The rest is history. Instead of being dead, Mr. Bin Laden arranges the murders of 3000 Americans, stunts the US economy, starts a war, and has the US government and others chasing him for 10 years.

Dear President Clinton. Thank you for your service.

Here is the paid political advertisement by former President Clinton.





*Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, one of the president's Aides from May 1996 through May 1998, carried the "nuclear football" for President Clinton, among other duties.

Paul Krugman. Can We Talk?

Op-Ed Columnist Paul Krugman asks,

"So, can we talk about the Paul Ryan phenomenon?

(The Gullible Center, NYT, Published: April 8, 2012)

He seems to have a problem with Senator Paul Ryan, describing him like this ...

"He’s a garden-variety modern G.O.P. extremist, an Ayn Rand devotee who believes that the answer to all problems is to cut taxes on the rich and slash benefits for the poor and middle class."

Extremist?

This is pretty good for conversations around the kool aid trough, but people with common sense know better.

Let's say that a common sense definition of "extreme", in reference to politicians and politics, by an example. Can we say that if you propose a budget and even your own party will not vote for it is "extreme"?

The president's 2011 budget proposal received 0 (zero) votes from Senate Democrats or Republicans. Here

The president's 2012 budget proposal received 0 (zero) votes from Senate Democrats or Republicans. Here

On the other hand, if you are supported 40% of the US Senate and most of the US House of Representatives, may be you are not so extreme. Paul Ryan's budget received 40 yeas out of 97 in the US Senate (Here) and picked up 235 votes in the US House (Here).

It was a party line vote in the Senate, and 4 Republicans voted against it in the House, but still, it received a lot more support than 0 and that doesn't Look so extreme to me.

Mr. Krugman illustrates the intellectual irresponsibility of the left in America today.

Obama to Trash Military Health Care: letter to My US Representative.

This a copy of the email I sent my Representative today.

Dear Representative Buchanan.

I am writing to urge you to stop the Obama administration from trashing TriCare Prime. It looks as though this administration is going to balance the budget on the backs of active duty service persons and veterans by increasing the premiums over 400%, while leaving unionized federal workers untouched.

This is completely unacceptable. Veterans such as myself were promised healthcare for life upon retirement from military service. Instead, we pay for health care insurance through the TriCare program. And even this will get converted to Medicare at age 65.

To be clear, TriCare is not a hand out or even a hand up. It is an benefit earned after a lifetime of sacrifice that helps veterans and our families survive in this economy.

I would not complain about the current premium because it is very affordable when compared to other insurance programs. But, raising the premiums will be another slap in the face of those men and women who make the American way of life possible.

If the premiums are raised four or more times the current amount then what did government's contract with the troops mean? To me it means another failure of government to abide by its obligations to its citizens and their families in favor of political expediency. This all goes to the integrity of our government and how it values service to our country.

Again, I urge you to stand up to this President's misguided budget machinations and keep the promise to our veterans.

More information at: http://freebeacon.com/trashing-tricare/

Thank you for your support in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

First Sergeant
US Army, Retired

PS I will get back to you again before I turn 65 years old. My TriCare premiums are due to go up over 500% when Medicare takes over.

Chevy Captiva: Return of the Saturn Vue?

I spotted this on the way home Fridayand said, "What?" It looked like a Saturn Vue, but was badged as a Chevrolet with the familiar Chevy bow tie and a nameplate identifying it as a Captiva.

The North American production of all Saturn models was shutdown by the Obama Administration as part of the government's directed bankruptcy of General Motors.

With a quick search found a story about the 2012 Chevrolet Captiva Sport. A press release is posted there and I learned that it is imported

"to help satisfy growing demand for compact crossovers by fleet customers."

Interesting.

President Obama, and Congressional Democrats, decided in 2009 that GM was over invested in a multitude of divisions and products, and especially in SUV's and Trucks. GM was then ordered to divest themselves of Pontiac, SAAB, Hummer, and Saturn. Of course when the dust settled, GM had to let go over 100,000 employees. This was all part of Mr. Obama's job creation agenda. Focusing on the Saturn Vue, it appears that mistakes were made.

Since now we are importing SUV's that used to be manufactured in this country, I just have to ask: How did this promote job creation and help the economy in this country?

Mr. President?

Ya Can't Fix Stupid*

Well this will be fun. I believe I will try to post any stupid I hear in the news, and if I have time, recall and research some some from the past and list them here.

Where to start.... How about here.

Today I learned that "PETA Sues SeaWorld for Violating Orcas' Constitutional Rights".

This one is stupid on many levels, but the most obvious comes from the US Constitution's first ten amendments, where it never once mentions any animals, finned or otherwise. PETA decision makers don't seem to understand the meaning of the term "constitutionally protected" and "inalienable rights". As I often tell people who invent some newly imagined protected right, they should put the idea out there, get support for it, and then get the US Congress to adopt a constitutional amendment to include their preference, and then put it to the state legislatures. If it passes then Hurray for you. We know it can be done as pigs have constitutionally protected rights in Florida.

Next



* comedian Ron White

On Global Warming - Sixteen Disagree

A new article published by the Wall Street Journal says "No Need to Panic About Global Warming". The title says it all.

I cannot understand how anyone can believe that climate change is a "crisis" issue. As far as I see from easily available information, the temperature has risen less than one degree and it is projected to increase, off and on, at a snails pace for decades.

So why the panic?

I don't know. But as the 16 scientists suggest, "follow the money".

There are some (Former US VP Albert Gore and his Chicago Climate Exchange comes to mind) who have become very wealthy selling the climate change panic through speaking fees, books, and from actually marketing methods to mitigate global warming. The US government is in such a panic that the Obama administration has sent billions of borrowed dollars ("American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or "Stimulus", includes $43 billion in tax credits, grants and loan guarantees for energy projects) into the black hole of "alternative energy"*.

This another post of mine on the topic of climate change. Read the two others at these links.

Fraudulent Green & Fraudulent Green Revisited.


*alternative energy: fuel from corn, algae, wave action, windmills, solar panels, etc. Basically energy from sources other than petroleum products. The progressives who support and make money off of green energy projects are the same people who have been railing against petroleum products for as long as I can remember.

National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis Follows Lawless Obama Administration

Anyone watching National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis' testimony on O'Reilly, along with Megyn Kelly's assessment of his testimony (National Park Service under fire for helping 'Occupy') , witnessed yet another abuse of power.

The abuse is the director's admitted inaction that unevenly enforces the law based on his classification of groups of people or due to their purpose.

It seems to work like this: If you are merely camping he will give you the boot. But if you are a member of a protest group, then he cannot burden your First Amendment free speech rights. Nonsense! The bottom line is that it is against the law to camp in national forests where it has been specifically prohibited.

I am not sure if it was his decision or if he was hold to allow the protesters to camp there from on high. Either way, it is wrong.

This is illegal, of course. Under the 14th Amendment, law enforcement does not have the discretion to overlook violations of the law simply because they agree with the law breakers' cause. But this sort of conduct is endemic of the Obama administration (search on New Black Panthers intimidate voters).