A SKIVING couple told last night how they claim £17,680 a year in benefits — and don’t even bother looking for work because it would leave them worse off.
Danny Creamer, 21, and Gina Allan, 18, spend each day watching their 47in flatscreen TV and smoking 40 cigarettes between them in their comfy two-bedroom flat.
It is all funded by the taxpayer, yet the couple say they deserve sympathy because they are “trapped”.
They even claim they are entitled to their generous handouts because their hard-working parents have been paying tax for years.
The couple, who have a four-month-old daughter Tullulah-Rose, say they can’t go out to work as they could not survive on less than their £1,473-a-month benefits.
The pair left school with no qualifications, and say there is no point looking for jobs because they will never be able to earn as much as they get in handouts.
Financially, they as individuals can see what’s in their best interest. It’s in their best interest to take from the taxpayer.
Gina admits: “We could easily get a job but why would we want to work — we would be worse off.”
They’re just a symptom. The disease is the governmental policies that enable and support them.
The blue is take-home wages after taxes, and the rest are handouts from various sources. There are greater rewards to less work. In Britain, it’s become so bad that there are greater rewards for no work at all.
The welfare-taker is just exploiting a system that’s set up for exploitation. It works the same in the US. The working stiff is busting her butt for 8-10 hours a day, while the welfare-taker is at home on his butt playing Xbox for 8-10 hours a day, then going out to party at night. He doesn’t have bills to worry about, as they’re all paid for by people who are working. She does have to worry about bills. He has an entire political party dedicated to telling him that he’s downtrodden and oppressed, and that only they, who give him free stuff, will help him. She’s got a choice between two parties – one that says they support her, but that takes her money and gives it to the welfare-taker, and the other that “compromises” because they don’t want to look like meanies… and so mostly does the same thing.
The welfare-taker (or zero-liability voter, as Andrew Wilkow likes to call them) is voting himself largesse from the public treasury, and one party wholly supports him – because they know they have his vote for as long as they give him plunder from other citizens. The working stiff has her tax money diverted from legitimate functions of government (national defense, post roads, etc.) and sent to the welfare-taker.
At some point, solely looking at the bottom line, it becomes clear that one is the winner – having their life provided for by the state, and one is the loser – being taxed by the state to provide for others they have no obligation to. In the long run, the system implodes. In the short term, the politician who provides welfare is the one who gets benefits – being able to demonize those who oppose welfare as “heartless”, directly giving handouts to people to pay for support, and they get the constant reassurance that their meddling is “necessary” because they are the only ones who can “save” the little people. It’s Munchausen by proxy on a massive scale. And it serves the interest of the politicians’ Curley Effect.
Drudge has been on the ball on this. That he’s on the ball isn’t really that big of a surprise, but that he’s recognized how important the right to keep and bear arms and the attempts to disarm the citizen both are is a testament to good journalism.
Joe Biden’s still talking about 19 executive actions or 19 executive orders. Which is about the same as saying “the president will take unilateral executive action against the right to free speech and establish speech controls and speech registration for those who want to exercise the right for what we say its intended purpose was”, and every bit as chilling.
The Washington Examiner says Obama’s going to surround himself with children in order to tug at heartstrings and get people do disarm the Jews once and for all for the good of the children. Did I say the Jews? I meant the freedmen blacks. Did I say the blacks? I meant the American Indian tribes. Did I say the Amerind tribes? I meant the issei and nisei Japanese. Wait, am I just listing minorities who’ve been oppressed by government?
Meanwhile, the evil Newt Gingrich, with a heart two sizes two small and filled with spiders; who hates children and all the Whos in Whoville, suggests that if gun control works, why not meet in Chicago? He must hate children to say things like that.
President of the National Assocation of Police Officers and Boston Police Officer Thomas Nee is a member of Vice President Joe Biden’s gun control task force, which was created by President Obama in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Nee’s son, Joseph Nee, was convicted in 2008 for planning to commit mass murder of students and teachers at Marshfield High School in Massachusetts, similar to that of Columbine in 1999. After spending nine months in prison, Nee’s conviction was upheld by the Supreme Judicial Court.
But not all the news is bad, horrible, insulting death of the republic stuff.
The NRA, which represents law-abiding gun owners by virtue of the fact that they voluntarily pay for their representation, has had an influx of over 250,000 members since the murders in Connecticut prompted anti-rights politicians to dance in the blood of children.
”I’m against having a king,” said the Senator. ”I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over, and someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress, that’s someone who wants to act like a king or monarch.”
…
Bypassing Congress is an aggressive method of ruling without representation. It’s supposed to be difficult to force sweeping national agendas upon a free people. The modern appetite for swift, “efficient,” all-powerful centralized government is a denial of that principle. It’s tough to find issues where Rand Paul agrees with, say, Harry Reid, isn’t it? Good. That difficulty defines the boundaries of what the federal government is supposed to be doing. Battles over the extension of those boundaries should be nice and vicious. The American people deserve no less.
This Article reviews the British gun control program that precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events that changed a situation of political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment.
Furious at the December 1773 Boston Tea Party, Parliament in 1774 passed the Coercive Acts. The particular provisions of the Coercive Acts were offensive to Americans, but it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them that primed many colonists for armed resistance. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: “That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles.” A South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate.
The Royal Governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, had forbidden town meetings from taking place more than once a year. When he dispatched the Redcoats to break up an illegal town meeting in Salem, 3000 armed Americans appeared in response, and the British retreated. Gage’s aide John Andrews explained that everyone in the area aged 16 years or older owned a gun and plenty of gunpowder.
Military rule would be difficult to impose on an armed populace. Gage had only 2,000 troops in Boston. There were thousands of armed men in Boston alone, and more in the surrounding area. One response to the problem was to deprive the Americans of gunpowder.
…
Two days after Lord Dartmouth dispatched his disarmament recommendation, King George III and his ministers blocked importation of arms and ammunition to America. Read literally, the order merely required a permit to export arms or ammunition from Great Britain to America. In practice, no permits were granted.
Similar to the threats of ammunition taxes, restrictions, shipping bans, etc., that are going on today. Same gun control plans, same tyrannical objectives.
The British government was not, in a purely formal sense, attempting to abolish the Americans’ common law right of self-defense. Yet in practice, that was precisely what the British were attempting. First, by disarming the Americans, the British were attempting to make the practical exercise of the right of personal self-defense much more difficult. Second, and more fundamentally, the Americans made no distinction between self-defense against a lone criminal or against a criminal government. To the Americans, and to their British Whig ancestors, the right of self-defense necessarily implied the right of armed self-defense against tyranny.
…
At Lexington and Concord, forcible disarmament had not worked out for the British. So back in Boston, Gage set out to disarm the Bostonians a different way.
On April 23, 1775, Gage offered the Bostonians the opportunity to leave town if they surrendered their arms. The Boston Selectmen voted to accept the offer, and within days, 2,674 guns were deposited, one gun for every two adult male Bostonians.
Gage thought that many Bostonians still had guns, and he refused to allow the Bostonians to leave.
Someone disarming you who doesn’t honor their word? Naw, never happened before!
To the Americans of the Revolution and the Founding Era, the theory of some late-20th Century courts that the Second Amendment is a “collective right” and not an “individual right” might have seemed incomprehensible. The Americans owned guns individually, in their homes. They owned guns collectively, in their town armories and powder houses. They would not allow the British to confiscate their individual arms, nor their collective arms; and when the British tried to do both, the Revolution began. The Americans used their individual arms and their collective arms to fight against the confiscation of any arms. Americans fought to provide themselves a government that would never perpetrate the abuses that had provoked the Revolution.
For the last several decades, the United States and Canada have enjoyed robust scholarly inquiry into the law and policy issues regarding gun control and gun rights. Yet in the United Kingdom, scholarly attention to firearms policy has been almost nil.[4] As a result, the definitive history of the right to arms guarantee in the 1689 English Bill of Rights was written by the American Joyce Lee Malcolm. Her book To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right focused on the century of political developments leading up to the 1689 Bill of Rights, and on the effect of the 1689 arms rights guarantee during the eighteenth century in Great Britain and the United States.[5] In Guns and Violence: The English Experience[6]Malcolm broadens her scope to tell the story of the arms possession, arms control, and violent crime in England from the Middle Ages through the end of the twentieth century.
Malcolm describes the patterns of gun possession and violence, as well as changes in British culture due to war, food shortages, politics, and crime policy. She pays particular attention to changes in the culture of self-defense, both from the viewpoint of the Crown and of the subjects, and to how crime victims are treated by the government. Formerly, Britons happily contrasted their own permissive gun laws with the repressive laws on the Continent, and considered liberal British laws to exemplify the superior and free character of the British nation. But today, British gun controls are the most severe in the western world.[7]
Malcolm’s story is significant for readers interested in comparative criminology or British history. But the story of what happened in Great Britain over the last century is also of worldwide importance, because the modern British government has been aggressively working to export its policies on firearms and self-defense. At the United Nations, the British delegation has been in the forefront of efforts to create a legally binding system of international gun control. The Foreign Office has been extremely active in many other world fora, in regional conferences, and in bilateral relationships, in promoting the broadest gun prohibition policies possible, wherever possible. The British government is also a major funder of international gun prohibition lobbies and organizations. Quite plainly, the British government believes that it has gotten gun control policy just right, and that the British model must be imposed worldwide.
Britain’s violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.
Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa – widely considered one of the world’s most dangerous countries.
Today, Great Britain is generally a more dangerous place than the United States.[40] Great Britain is also a place which has successfully crushed the spread of a large American-style gun-culture. While America’s gun culture is still composed, overwhelmingly, of law-abiding, hard-working, family-oriented people, Great Britain’s new gun culture consists of armed criminals, and armed police.[41] One fact is undeniable: the Firearms Act “did not stop the use of guns, it prevented their use by honest citizens – and created a monopoly, with the ownership and use of guns confined to two classes: professional criminals and the police.”[42]
Guns and Violence tells a remarkablestory of a society’s self-destruction, of how a government in a few decades managed to reverse six hundred years of social progress in violence reduction. The book is also a testament to the amazing self-confidence of British governments; Labour and Conservative alike have proceeded with an extreme anti-self-defense agenda, although the agenda has never had much supporting evidence beyond the government’s own platitudes. Whether the rest of the world should follow that bipartisan British agenda is an essential question in the current United Nations debate over international gun control.
We already know how this game plays out. We’ve seen it over and over again, as citizens are reduced to serfs – usually just economically. Gun control physically reduces citizens to serfs.
There’s a problem with all of their ((control advocate)) hyperbole: it is based upon myth and manipulated data.
I personally believed in civilian disarmament until an acquaintance in law enforcement challenged my gun-banner’s assumptions with questions and points I could not rebut. This began a research journey limited only by my decision to exclude any data cited by the NRA. At the time, I was convinced only caring people like the Brady Campaign would present the truth.
Surprisingly (to me, at the time), I found no dataset proving civilian disarmament made anybody safer.
In response to Ezra Klein’s report titled “Twelve facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States,” below are eight fictions about gun control.
Do note: all data cited below are from sources supportive of gun control.
It’s a very interesting piece, especially since, as Nemerov notes, he was for greater government control, and using only Brady Campaign for citizen disarmament data, he found their conclusions weren’t supported by their own data.
–
Also, for those who missed it, the US is nowhere near as violent as loudmouthed media blatherskites would have you believe. In fact, the paragon of modern gun control, Britain, has worse violent crime than the US… or South Africa.
–
And just because it might bear noting for some readers, I used blatherskite well before Bill “I Call Deborah Norville At Night And Breathe Heavy Into The Phone” O’Reilly started going through a thesaurus. I went ahead to see if that misogynistic cretin used it, and he (or his staff) had, as I figured he’d get around to it eventually, since he likes to think he’s smarter than a sea sponge. No offense to fans of sea sponges.
Piers Morgan, anti-rights Brit and CNN host, has been recently hit with a petition at Whitehouse.gov requesting he be deported. You can sign the petition here.
Piers Morgan lost his job in Britain due to faked photos of British troops abusing detainees. Of course, he fabricated the whole thing, was forced to admit to it, and was forced to leave in shame – like he deserved. He fabricated a story that put Tommy Atkins in danger just so he could push his own agenda.
And now he’s in the states doing the same against the Second Amendment, railing every night on his TV show against RKBA.
The petition to deport him has passed 80,000 signatures, but the Brits don’t want him back.
ShortTimer
JBH
