Author Archive

From the Office of the Governor:

The Vice President’s committee was appointed in response to the tragedy at Newtown, but very few of his recommendations have anything to do with what happened there.

“Guns require a finger to pull the trigger. The sad young man who did that in Newtown was clearly haunted by demons and no gun law could have saved the children in Sandy Hook Elementary from his terror.

“There is evil prowling in the world – it shows up in our movies, video games and online fascinations, and finds its way into vulnerable hearts and minds. As a free people, let us choose what kind of people we will be. Laws, the only redoubt of secularism, will not suffice. Let us all return to our places of worship and pray for help. Above all, let us pray for our children.

“In fact, the piling on by the political left, and their cohorts in the media, to use the massacre of little children to advance a pre-existing political agenda that would not have saved those children, disgusts me, personally. The second amendment to the Constitution is a basic right of free people and cannot be nor will it be abridged by the executive power of this or any other president.”

Well said.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

From The Weekly Standard:

Official photographic portrait of US President...

Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

According to a background briefer provided by the White House, President Barack Obama is asking doctors to help deal with guns. Here’s the relevant passage:

PRESERVE THE RIGHTS OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS TO PROTECT THEIR PATIENTS AND COMMUNITIES FROM GUN VIOLENCE: We should never ask doctors and other health care providers to turn a blind eye to the risks posed by guns in the wrong hands.

Clarify that no federal law prevents health care providers from warning law enforcement authorities about threats of violence: Doctors and other mental health professionals play an important role in protecting the safety of their patients and the broader community by reporting direct and credible threats of violence to the authorities. But there is public confusion about whether federal law prohibits such reports about threats of violence. The Department of Health and Human Services is issuing a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits these reports in any way.

Protect the rights of health care providers to talk to their patients about gun safety: Doctors and other health care providers also need to be able to ask about firearms in their patients’ homes and safe storage of those firearms, especially if their patients show signs of certain mental illnesses or if they have a young child or mentally ill family member at home. Some have incorrectly claimed that language in the Affordable Care Act prohibits doctors from asking their patients about guns and gun safety. Medical groups also continue to fight against state laws attempting to ban doctors from asking these questions. The Administration will issue guidance clarifying that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit or otherwise regulate communication between doctors and patients, including about firearms.

I love how our president is so concerned about the “rights” of doctors. He is so concerned about those rights that he is ready and willing to enable doctors to gather information on individuals, that some how will not violate patient privacy laws, that sure looks like it infringes on every citizens right to bear arms. How is a doctor going to know if a family owns weapons? Is it any of that doctor’s business? I know if my doctor ask me about guns and etc. I will walk straight out of his office and find myself another doctor. Don’t get me wrong if someone’s life is in danger, a doctor does need to get involved, what the president is suggesting though is outright spying on citizens and reporting information directly to the federal government.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

From the Washington Times:

President Obama is using the national debate over gun violence to push for further action on his health care law…. Mr. Obama, unveiling his gun proposals Wednesday barely a month after the deadly school shooting in Newtown, Conn., will make it clear that his health law, known as the Affordable Care Act, allows doctors to ask patients whether they have guns in their homes, and will tell them they are able to report any threats of violence they hear to police.

Those are some of the 23 executive actions Mr. Obama plans to take whether or not Congress acts on his broader recommendations, the White House said.

Other moves including offering incentives for schools to hire police; finally naming a new director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); and requiring federal authorities to trace all guns recovered in their criminal investigations.

Mr. Obama also will call on his secretaries of education and health and human services to hold a national dialogue on mental health.

The entire list of the actions Mr. Obama is taking comprises:

1. Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rule-making to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a Department of Justice report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate a new director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

12. Provide law enforcement, first-responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun-safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors from asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school-resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental-health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Education Secretary Arne Duncan on mental health.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

I ran across this the last couple of days on a few social media sites and I think the gentleman makes several excellent points:

545 vs. 300,000,000 People
-By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. ( The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.)

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House?( John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. ) If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to. [The House has passed a budget but the Senate has not approved a budget in over three years. The President's proposed budgets have gotten almost unanimous rejections in the Senate in that time. ]

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it’s because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ..

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees… We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The original article is here.

 

President Barack Obama and Vice President Jose...

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

The link to Matt Drudge’s site is here.

 

This is getting serious folks, Joe “foot in the mouth,” Biden has now stated that,

 

The president is going to act…. There are executives orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required….

So the question is now, does Congress play dead and allow this to happen like they did with the President using an Executive Order to legislate from the White House and make the DREAM Act a reality?

 

 

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

From Pravda writer Stanislav Mishin:

Pravda newspaper front page (around 1950s). Th...

Pravda newspaper front page (around 1950s). The head article title says: From the Soviet Leadership (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

…it (gun control) is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question.

The gentleman from the former Soviet Union has it spot on. Control is the issue. Think about this for a few minutes. If the second amendment falls, what of the others? Free speech, illegal searches and seizures (already happening to some in the name of “security”), having a national guardsmen in your home,  and the right to not incriminate yourself just to name a few. A further look at amendments and the constitution suggest that if the 2nd amendment falls that it would also be possible for the 22nd amendment to be ignored as well. Think on the ramifications of that, a president seeking a third term….

Mr. Stanislav’s article discusses the disarmament of the Russian population, particularly the former members of the tsar’s army:

Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.

Trust politicians much? I don’t. Again the idea of the slippery slope applies. If we give up our right to bear arms, what recourse do we have as, “The People,” if some or all of our enumerated rights disappear? I would go into unenumerated rights but Senator Fienstein just wouldn’t be able to comprehend my argument or I would have to direct her to John Locke if she knows who that is.

And now for the Soviet Union’s slippery slope:

… the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle.

Sounds like fun doesn’t it?

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government” – Thomas Jefferson

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted: December 30, 2012 by JBH in Bill of Rights, Crime, Guns, Liberty, Oathkeepers
Tags: ,

JBH:

This whole deal shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. This is more solid, concrete proof that the media is not willing to talk about both sides of an issue.

Originally posted on 'Nox & Friends:

On Sunday December 16, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his ex-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!

Now aren’t you wondering why this isn’t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?

There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a…

View original 562 more words

From Gateway Pundit:

, member of the United States House of Represe...

, member of the United States House of Representatives (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Sheila Jackson Lee.

Bless her heart….

“I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns,” Jackson Lee said on the House floor. “Oh no, I’m not going to take your guns. But look at what Dick’s Sporting Goods did … they wanted to be part of the solution and part of America.”

Part of the solution, congresswoman, is removing the ever so asinine gun ban around our schools. Arm the teachers and/or principles if they are trained, licensed and willing to carry a fire arm. Those children died as a result of the school teachers and school staff (private guns) not being able to respond to the situation appropriately. In this case it was meeting force with force. In what world,  congresswoman, can a school teacher or principal defend their students when they are banned from doing so? If one followed that type of thinking the federal government is ultimately responsible for the deaths at Sandy Creek.

Oh wait, we are supposed to wait on the first responders (government guns) to exterminate the intruder taking lives inside the school. How did that turn out in this last school shooting at Sandy Creek? Not very well I think.

I do not want to turn my guns in after this horrible mess at Sandy Creek if anything I wish I could go to school with my son everyday and sit in a corner  not bothering anyone armed to the teeth, just in case a demented individual decided that he or she need to shoot up the school. I would offer my services gladly to any school district where I live to provide that protection for any human being as would many other people I have the privilege of knowing.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Pearl Harbor Revisited

Posted: December 8, 2012 by JBH in Veterans

PearlHarbor

Official Portrait of Congressman

Official Portrait of Congressman (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

From Las Vegas TSG Business News:

Democrat Gerry Connolly from Virginia has told constituents that his challenger for his congressional seat, Colonel Chris Perkins, is “unqualified” to hold congressional office. His reason? Connolly believes that Colonel Perkins hasn’t been around enough to “…demonstrate, sweat-equity….”

Wow…

Some of Connolly’s remarks concerning Colonel Perkins “availability”:

“In an October 22nd Washington Post interview, Connolly “dismisses Perkins as unqualified” (my emphasis) for Congress, despite Colonel Perkins’ many leadership assignments that included command of a Special Forces Battalion of over six-hundred men, and numerous combat deployments.”

“While speaking to a local Chamber of Commerce a few weeks earlier, Connolly asked the audience, “Where has my opponent been” (my emphasis) while Connolly served in local government for 16 years.”

“Days later at a neighborhood civic association, Congressman Connolly subsequently pressed his line of attack dismissing Colonel Perkins’ extensive military experience saying, “I expect a [Congressional] candidate to have demonstrated some sweat-equity” (my emphasis) on local issues, ignoring the 24 years Colonel Perkins served as an Army Green Beret.”

So all those years of Colonel Perkins’ service to his country are moot? Just because he was off giving service (federal service at that) to his country? Really? That’s the best you can do to keep your seat? What about your record? Can’t run on that? Sounds like a presidential candidate I know.

Colonel Perkins’ response to this issue?

… I am disappointed that Congressman Connolly believes that military men and women are ‘unqualified to serve in Congress’ of the country they gave their lives to protect and defend…. Connolly’s statements are outrageous and demonstrate an out-of-touch career politician that thinks that only those who climb the ladder of local politics can graduate to higher office…. By Congressman Connolly’s standard, many of our forefathers, including George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower, would have been ‘unqualified’ to hold office…. His statements are offensive to every service member, career first responder and their families who have sacrificed so much for the country we love…. Mr. Connolly asked where I was when he was building schools and laying sidewalks locally…. I’ll tell you where I’ve been. I was in Iraq hunting down SCUD missiles that were targeting Israel.  I was chasing down mass-murdering terrorists in Bosnia, Kosovo and Africa.  And, I was at Arlington National Cemetery seventeen times paying last respect to the brave men and women that I had the privilege and honor to serve with…. Our country’s Veterans and career first responders don’t just have sweat equity in their community, they have blood equity in America””

People of the 11th congressional district of Virginia it will be soon time to choose. Where will your vote go? To a career politician who thinks a veteran is unqualified to hold a congressional seat because he hasn’t invested enough “sweat-equity”, or to a retired special forces with “blood-equity” in the United States? Which was the greater “public service” (which the democrats are so fond of) sacrifice sweat or blood?

Enhanced by Zemanta