Tag Archives: big government

Hello. Is Anyone Listening?

For the past month I have been reading, writing, and then rewriting articles that I haven’t finished. I have been wracking my brain, trying to figure out a way to get the message through to people, so they understand we are rapidly becoming a POLICE STATE and quite literally on the brink of civil war.  There are so many factors to consider and so much evidence out there which supports what I am saying, yet, I still wonder why so many Americans remain disengaged or have no interest?  Are they just plain stupid or is it they just don’t care? Whatever the reason, if there is one, once the inevitable occurs it will be way to late for many people.

In the past couple of years tensions under this president have heightened.  States  are claiming sovereignty unter the 10th Amendment http://www.panamalaw.org/US_states_filing_state_sovereignty_laws.html or http://www.panamalaw.org/US_states_filing_state_sovereignty_laws.html.  We have terrorist camps doing military training on our own soil without any interference by the Federal Government whose only role should be to protect US citizens here or abroad. http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2009/02/17/frightening-film-us-terrorism-training-camps.

Our President is allowing drowns to spy on its own people, they have cameras already in place, and more importantly  — no one can get an answer, from the people you put in charge of your life, as to whether or not it is okay to shoot US citizens.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x90cCC1UDWE  Perhaps some of  you think you that will be safe?  I don’t know what what you think? I’m just wondering?  It would appear not many people seem interested in the military training that is suddenly occurring nationwide.  And what about the fact that SOME police and sheriff depts are reporting they will NOT support any Bills which go against the 2nd Amendment, nor will they infringe on the rights, guaranteed in the Constitution,  and take fire on American citizens. Shouldn’t every police dept, sheriff dept be vocal about that?  Why aren’t they. Perhaps you might want to look into that by writing, calling, and getting answers from you city, county, and state depts. http://www.news4jax.com/news/Sheriffs-show-support-for-2nd-Amendment/-/475880/18403042/-/xs13brz/-/index.html

I think everyone, well, most everyone can agree the economy is failing.  When the feds stop printing the the worthless money they are putting out, as the debt continues to spiral out of control, and as taxes continue to rise by a president who ‘swore’ (lol) he wouldn’t raise taxes I think most of us can agree it is just a matter of time before our economic system fails completely.  Some states are already at ways to remedy the inevitable by creating their own currency. http://consumerist.com/2013/02/06/is-virginia-really-trying-to-mint-its-own-money/

If the new health care bill by President Obama is so great  that some of you were so convinced it is the greatest thing since color T.V. then why I ask is President Obama, his family, and Congress are all exempt from it? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/23/obamacare-for-everyone-but-obama/

Article V of the Constitution states:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states,
shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case,
shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this
Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the
several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one
or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first
and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that
no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage
in the Senate.

“What is Convention USA? Convention USA is an interactive, virtual convention being conducted on the Internet for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States in the manner provided for in Article V of the federal constitution. Who is behind it? Convention USA, Inc. is a Florida non profit corporation organized by Judge Thomas E. Brennan and a few associates. Judge Brennan was Chief Justice of Michigan and the founder of the Thomas M. Cooley Law School, which is the largest accredited college of law in America.” https://www.conventionusa.org/

I read an article today which really summarized everything I planned on saying, and then some. You can find the article I am referring to here: http://capitolhilloutsider.com/is-obama-pushing-for-a-civil-war/   The author does a good job putting things in simple terms so everyone can understand what is at stake here.

This article touches on some of the issues at stake. I would be here all day if I tried to present more, plus it might already be overwhelming for some people. Nonetheless you have a moral, ethical, and civil duty, not just to yourself, but to every single person in your life, to examine the facts, do some research, and then prepare accordingly.

FEMA: Burned Out Family Can’t Rebuild

Meet the Taylors, a Sacramento family whose home burned down last August. After dealing with the devastation and emotional trauma the family discovered that FEMA had changed the rules for their area and now would require their home be built 20 feet above ground in order to meet the new flood zone designation. While the fire damage was covered by their insurance the new building requirements were not.

“The city won’t let me fix my house because of FEMA regulations,” Jennifer Taylor said in an interview to Fox News in November. “This is so wrong.”

We bought this home in 1998 because FEMA had certified the levees as 100-year flood protection,” Taylor told FoxNews.com. “Homes are just not being fixed here. … There’s at least a handful of us in this situation.”

In 2008 FEMA revisited flood prone areas and decertified the levee.

Watch their documentary and understand their frustration with the government.

Follow the Taylor’s challenge on Facebook: BurnedOutInNatomas

Oath Keepers Be Damned?

Reported yesterday: “[Obama’s] new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens… . Those who will not are being removed.”

Obama is drenched in Americans’ skepticism about potential for martial law. Gun control fanatics have given more rise to what many perceive as an imminent possibility. Americans’ concerns first arose in 2008 when Obama spoke about instituting “a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as our military. Given similar statements he’d made that ultimately were not what Americans believed his words meant (known as “information dominance”) such as “fundamentally transforming America,” Americans are right to remain concerned.

Subsequently in 2010’s Health Care Bill Obama provided for a “Ready Reserve Corps,” dismissed by some as simply being comprised of health care professionals in event of catastrophe. Since then questionable images have surfaced of Obama’s “civilian army” comprising young black chanting thugs quite unlike any military Americans have ever known. That was enhanced by Obama’s official statements defining “Veterans” and “Christians” as “domestic terrorists;” and by now the well known FEMA Camps that make no practical sense. Admittedly, two-years later Americans still know very little about just what is in the Health Care legislation – and why – so these legitimate questions do persist.

A year or more ago it was reported in legitimate Conservative news that Obama was infiltrating our nation’s military with street thugs, changing its composition with characters who’d have less discipline and no particular loyalty to the American People. I find this believable not only because of its source but mostly because Obama has, on many occasions, indulged in and allowed thuggary and, through his silence on a grand scale, has further encouraged it in his governing of America. Those behavioral examples speak loudly, as they should, regardless of the words being used.

Americans have taken comfort in believing our military will stand with us, they having sworn duty to our Constitution, not to any one president or his ideology. The formation of Oath Keepers gave us some reassurance. Oath Keepers had their first annual conference in 2009, understandably so given Obama’s wholly unAmerican handling of the Health Care Bill despite majority demands of The American People in opposing it. From the Oath Keepers site:

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore … to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution.

On Monday Dr. Jim Garrow, a well-respected man dedicated to rescuing infant girls from China’s one-child policy and Nobel Peace Prize nominee, reportedly posted on Facebook:

I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not.” Those who will not are being removed.

When asked who his source was Garrow reportedly answered: “The man who told me this is one of America’s foremost military heroes.” Read Garrow’s Amazon bio here. The Examiner reported on this yesterday, adding:

This comes on the heels of Sunday’s report in the Washington Free Beacon (WFB) that the head of Central Command, Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis is being dismissed by Obama and will leave his post in March.

Lest we forget the three high-ranking Generals plus an Admiral who were inexplicably and untimely unseated from their positions immediately following Obama and Hillary Clinton’s “stand-down” orders in Lybia; and their nonsensical lies about a little-known “film” that clearly did not lend to that great American tragedy. Reports of inordinately replacing these officials were buried, curiously superseded by the just as suspicious “scandal” surrounding Lybia and our otherwise renown for his ethics general, General Patraeus.

Oh what a wicked web we weave when we seek first to deceive. God bless our Oath Keepers. God bless America.

A Citizen Challenge

Chances are you haven’t heard (and won’t hear) about this Federal report from the Liberal media.

Two days ago the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its Annual Audit of the United States Government for fiscal years 2011 – 2012. The government’s own conclusion is this:

“… Absent policy changes – the Federal Government continues to face an unsustainable fiscal path.” (Minute 00:35)

That means – if the Federal Government does not stop the wild spending – the U.S. dollar will collapse.

tsunamiThis is like telling people on a beach, “Hey, a tsunami is coming and if you don’t move you will be killed.”

But the beach folks say, “I like it here, I’m not moving,” and eventually the wave comes in and kills them.

That’s exactly what’s happening now.

We The People are allowing this.

Only We can change this.

The best Talking Points I’ve heard in a long time:

Video Courtesy of MrFeshamon & YouTube

“He Said She Said” with Demetrius & Stacy

  cdnlogoWhen: Wed, Jan 9, 10PM EST/7PM Pacific

Where: Listen here: He Said She Said with Demetrius & Stacy

What: Have you ever wondered what Black Conservatives think about the political issues of today? Well wonder no more, “He Said, She Said” with Demetrius and Stacy. brings you an inner peek into the mind of the conservative: bold, full strength, and unfiltered.

Tonight: Special guest: Rep. Dr. Paul Broun, (@DrPaulBrounMD), Congressman in 10th district of Georgia, and Dean Clancy (@DeanClancy),  Vice President for FreedomWorks.

drpaulbroun deanclancy

The Progressives Push For New “Assault” Weapons Ban Is Bad Policy

I stand firm with my fellow members at the National Rifle Association.  I couldn’t be more proud to be part of an organization that defends the Second Amendment, which is one of the most important rights within our Constitution.  Over the past forty-eight hours, the NRA has been slammed for being somehow complicit in the various incidents connected gun violence – with the most recent being that awful tragedy in Newtown, CT. As some in the media continue to inject hyper-emotionalism into this debate, liberals simply cannot control themselves. When it comes to gun violence, the left-wing’s end goal is the eradication of the Second Amendment from civil society.  However, as we obsess over carnage – and who to blame for it.  Let’s look at some facts.  Conservative Daily News colleague Kyle Becker posted on December 19 highlighting these interesting statistics:

  1. Mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, and dropped in the 2000s. Mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929. (According to Grant Duwe, criminologist with the MinnesotaDepartment of Corrections.)

  2. “States that allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns enjoy a 60 percent decrease in multiple-victim public shootings and a 78 percent decrease in victims per attack.” John Lott, Jr. and Bill Landes, “More Guns, Less Crime.”

  3. “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”– John Lott, Jr. Co-author with Bill Landes of “More Guns, Less Crime.”

  4. “Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.” [John Fund, NRO. “The Facts About Mass Shootings.”]

Tobacco kills almost 500,000 Americans each year.  That’s including the 49,400 deaths from second handsmoke exposure.  Traffic accidents kill anywhere from 35,000-44,000 Americans each year – and Congress hasn’t been so emotional, or energized, to support legislation to curb Americans’ right to smoke or drive.  It’s abjectly stupid – and this is why the numbers game fails.  Liberals constantly cite the 12,996 deaths caused by guns because it’s juicy.  It grabs people’s attention, and frames a false narrative against anyone against gun control as an accomplice in mass murder.  However, as the data shows, Mr. Marlboro man has killed more Americans that guns could ever muster in a single year.

On December 19, President Obama, along with Vice President Joe Biden, announced a new anti-gun task force to discuss the amount of gun violence perpetrated by the mentally unstable in this country.  Joe Biden is heading this commission, but made a fast and furious move towards the exit when question time from the press arrived.

It is our imperative – as conservatives – to block any suggestions this anti-gun committee produces over the next few weeks.  This isn’t about gun control.  It’s about power.  It’s about government centralizing more control over the dynamics of our society. This is progressivism after 100 years of maturation.  A point aptly made by columnist George Will last winter.

As we’ve seen on the news, Connecticut has some of the most stringent gun control laws on the books – and they worked.  Adam Lanza was unable to buy a rifle due to his age, but even if that weren’t the case.  He was unwilling to subject himself to a background check.  He had to commit a homicide and steal the guns from his mother to unleash the depraved fury on Sandy Hook Elementary last week.

As progressives and the Democratic Party readies itself to reinstate an ‘assault weapons’ ban, which infringes on our Second Amendment rights, we should have some clarification on the language that will be used when the new Congress is convened in 2013.  It shows how little Democrats, or any anti-gun activist, knows about guns.

Hans Bader at the Competitive Enterprise Institute wrote a great piece on December 19 about the futility of a new ban on so-called ‘assault weapons.’ “Semi-automatic guns, including ‘assault weapons,’ are not machine guns. They do not fire more than one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, unlike a machine gun. The sale of machine guns and fully automatic weapons has long been banned.  By contrast, much of America’s guns are “semi-automatic.” Indeed, so many guns in this country are semi-automatic — the way most cars run on gasoline — that The Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney says that ‘semiauto is the norm,’ according to Bader.  He’s right.

Furthermore, he wrote that:

Congress and the president may pass an “assault weapons” ban to make themselves feel good, but I won’t expect much in the way of results for public safety if they do. As Professor Volokh notes:

So-called “assault weapons” are no deadlier than other weapons. To begin with, note that assault weapons are not fully automatic weapons (which is to say machine guns). Fully automatic weapons have long been heavily regulated, and lawfully owned fully automatics are very rare, very expensive, and almost never used in crimes. Rather, assault weapons are a subset of semiautomatic weapons, generally semiautomatic handguns and rifles. Semiautomatic handguns and rifles — of which there are probably at least about 100 million in the country, and likely more — are undoubtedly extremely deadly; but the subset that is labeled “assault weapons” is not materially deadlier than the others. One way of recognizing that is looking at the definition in the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban; the ban lists several types of guns by name, and then provides these generic definitions:

(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of–
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a bayonet mount . . . .[see additional examples at Volokh’s web site]

Guns that fit these categories may look more dangerous; but they aren’t more dangerous. . . .

Banning assault weapons thus has basically no effect on the lethality of gun crime, or of mass shootings more specifically.

Although Volokh says that assault weapons bans would be useless, he also says that they would likely be constitutional, since “such bans leave law-abiding citizens with ample access to other guns that are equally effective, and therefore don’t substantially burden the constitutional right” to keep and bear arms.

Screen Shot 2012-12-20 at 2.00.11 AM

However, as conservatives, we should be uneasy with government banning anything.  We banned alcohol with disastrous results.  We have continued to support a ban on illicit drugs that has also produced disastrous results.  We should re-think our drug policy, but that’s for another time.

The prevalence of so-called ‘assault weapons’ was “a modest fraction of all gun crimes.’  Furthermore, the study from the Urban Institute said they:

were unable to detect any reduction to date in two types of gun murders that are thought to be closely associated with assault weapons, those with multiple victims in a single incident and those producing multiple bullet wounds per victim. We did find a reduction in killings of police officers since mid-1995. However, the available data are partial and preliminary, and the trends may have been influenced by law enforcement agency policies regarding bullet-proof vests.”

A ban on assault weapons is constitutional, but data shows that it isn’t worth the political capital that could be spent addressing the faults in detecting and treating mental illness in America.  Frankly, I’m against any measure by the government that limits the options for Americans in which they can defend themselves.  As such, Republicans should just say no to the new push to ban ‘assault weapons.’  It’s time to put this issue away, so our snobby New England brethren can never bring it back again.

Gun control laws, or at least Connecticut’s regulations, worked in preventing Lanza from buying a firearm to create havoc.  Yet, the left is still guns, bodies, and carnage obsessed.  People seem to forget he had to commit a crime to get those guns.  That’s an unstoppable situation, unless we’re living in a universe more to the liking of Philip K. Dick’s Minority Report.

The first assault weapons ban had a negligible impact on reducing crime when it was enacted in 1994 – and had a negligible impact when it expired in 2004.  As such, we must ask ourselves why Democrats wish to pursue this matter – with a renewed optimism – if it weren’t to infringe on our liberty?  Do they just habitually sponsor and advocate bad policy?  It would also show how government spends an exorbitant amount of time debating bad policy that would yield infinitesimal results in reducing violent crime.  Well, that part is mostly tradition.  Just say no to new gun regulations.  Just say no to the assault weapons ban.

Originally posted on The Young Cons.

Repeat after me: gun control isn’t the answer

Screen Shot 2012-12-15 at 7.40.44 PM

The tragedy in Newton, CT should shake us all to our very core. Of the 26 who were killed yesterday, 20 of them were children. It’s evil. It’s grotesque. And I’m sure many mothers and fathers were holding their children a little tighter last night. Sadly, for twenty families, that will no longer be possible. Our thoughts and prayers should go out to everyone, especially to the brave teachers who sacrificed their lives to save their students. One teacher, Vicki Soto, shielded her students from the gunfire – and made the ultimate sacrifice. Recently, the full list of the deceased were released by the police.

Charlotte Bacon, 6

Daniel Barden, 7

Rachel Davino, 29

Olivia Engel, 6

Josephine Gay, 7

Ana Marquez-Greene, 6

Dylan Hockley, 6

Dawn Hocksprung, 47

Madeline Hsu, 6

Catherine Hubbard, 6

Chase Kowalski, 7

Jesse Lewis, 6

James Mattioli, 6

Grace McDonnell, 7

Anne Marie Murphy, 52

Emilie Parker, 6

Jack Pinto, 6

Noah Pozner, 6

Caroline Previdi, 6

Jessica Rekos, 6

Avielle Richman, 6

Lauren Russeau, 30

Mary Sherlach, 56

Victoria Soto, 27

Benjamin Wheeler, 6

Allison Wyatt, 6

Details are still being released about the shooter, Adam Lanza, but you have to be one mentally disturbed individual to kill your own mother, take her guns, and proceed to murder twenty children. These kids were no older than ten. What would possess someone to commit such an egregious act of depravity? We shall find out soon enough. However, while decent Americans mourn the loss that has devastated an entire community, the liberals in this country have seized on another tragedy to further their agenda.

Yes, the Hollywood Left, to show that they aren’t a bunch of detached narcissists, called for more gun control over Twitter – with Cher eloquently telling the NRA to F**k Off. Mayor Bloomberg, Gov. John Hickenlooper (D-Co), and Mark Kelly, husband of former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, have all called for tighter gun regulations. After all, we know that tighter gun regulations are followed religiously by criminals and those who are mentally disturbed. Welcome to liberal logic 101. If you find it abjectly stupid, you’re not the only one.

I’m starting to see liberals as core-less and depraved beings. Sustained and guided solely by emotion – and not fact – they’re were right behind their Hollywood allies in the call for more gun control. Are liberals happy that this atrocious act occurred? I don’t know. But if the narrative changes in this country in favor of more gun control, then this could be a turning point. Hence, a good thing for American liberalism – and the media is making it all the more easier for progressives to make their point. Some are already seeing this event as a ‘tipping point.’ As Breitbart contributor Warner Todd Huston wrote on December 15, the media has been consistently flawed in their coverage.

…from the beginning, the murderer was reported as having strode through the school with a .223-caliber rifle, often referred to by the media here as an “assault weapon.” This also turned out to be untrue. In fact, he only had handguns with him in the school, not any “assault rifle.” He did have a rifle but it was reportedly left in his car and not carried into the school.

Many media outlets reported that the school principal, and a victim of the murderer, was the one that let the shooter into the building. But it turned out that the killer broke glassto gain access to the school. He wasn’t buzzed-in by the principal as was reported and there is no evidence he was recognized by anyone working at the school and allowed in as a result.

Lanza is also being said to have been wearing “combat gear.” What does this even mean? Some reports say it was a black shirt, or maybe some sort of vest and “possibly a mask.” Is a black shirt somehow automatically “combat gear,” now? This “combat gear” claim, though universally picked up by the Old Media as a description of Lanza’s appearance, is meaningless without any actual listing of that “gear.” What does “combat gear” even mean, here? We have no idea. But it sure sounds menacing, eh? Quite emotional. Whatever he was actually wearing, this descriptive term was used before any hard facts were known.

The killer’s mother was also reported to have been a teacher at the school and found dead on the premises. That also turned out to be untrue. The killer’s mother was found dead in her home and it appears she was not connected to the school. Her name does not appear on the school’s list of teachers. She may have been a substitute teacher, but even that isn’t clear. But the Old Media definitively reported that she was a teacher and was killed inside the school.

Some reporters are calling the killer’s mother an “avid gun collector.” There is no basis for this label. It is an emotional phrase meant to make the deceased mother into some “gun nut.” In truth there is no public knowledge about how many guns she owned and whether or not she considered herself a “collector.” She may have been, of course, but we just don’t have any knowledge to say so.

On the blogosphere, it wasn’t much better.

As conservatives on Twitter and Facebook urged all of us to come together and pray for the victims, liberals were already launching salvos. The Huffington Post was dominated with pro-gun control posts. Jezebel was much more tasteful with their featured ‘F**k You, Guns‘ column.

Whether it’s done in a sarcastic tone or not – I tend to disregard 99% of the material on these abysmal sites anyway – Katie J.M. Baker, who wrote the ‘F**k you Guns post, closed by saying:

F**k you, NRA. You guys are f**king murderers.

Today, we don’t need prayers. We don’t need thoughts. We need action. We need to politicize this, and we need to politicize this now. Fuck everyone who isn’t ready to talk about gun control. You’re the reason 27 people (and counting) died today. Don’t forget it.

Well, liberals are the ones who booed ‘God’ during the Democratic National Convention last summer. So, no surprise to their aversion to prayer. The key sentence is ‘we need to politicize this.’ I don’t remember the twenty-six who were killed ever signing up to be part of the left’s campaign to curb liberty and stomp all over the Constitution. In addition, to slander/libel people who are proud members of the NRA, such as myself, and those who aren’t pro-gun control, as complicit in mass murder is the reason why your argument fails.

People don’t like to be yelled at, but that’s what liberals have been relegated to do since the facts aren’t on their side. More amusingly, the most recent comments on that post were from pro-Second Amendment individuals , or people who saw this tragedy as part of a larger problem. Lastly, since Jezebel is a women’s site, it doesn’t help them dispel the sexist attitudes towards female’s monthly cycles by writing ‘f**k you’ posts, but I digress. Still, some liberals are convinced that gun control works.

CNN host Piers Morgan, a British citizen, had the temerity to give his opinion about guns in America saying, “there are nearly 12,000 murders a year from guns in this country… when are you guys going to focus on that, and stop telling me the answer is more guns? It is not the answer! How many more kids have to die, before you guys say, ‘we want less guns, not more?”

However, the UK has strict gun control laws – and they’re drowning in their own blood. Back in 2009, The Daily Mail reported that:

the latest Government figures show [at the time] that the total number of firearm offenses in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year – a rise of 89 per cent. In some parts of the country, the number of offenses has increased more than five-fold.

In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled. The statistic will fuel fears that the police are struggling to contain gang-related violence, in which the carrying of a firearm has become increasingly common place. Last week, police in London revealed they had begun carrying out armed patrols on some streets. The move means officers armed with sub-machine guns are engaged in routine policing for the first time.

The UK has abjectly failed to curb gun violence. As in the U.S., crime is perpetrated by felons, who don’t live by the rule of law, and it’s the law-abiding citizens who are the ones impacted by silly legislation aimed at stopping violent crime.

Townhall’s Katie Pavlich also noted the UK’s abysmal gun control laws – but also pointed out that since the landmark D.C. v. Heller case, which struck down the District’s handgun ban, “the murder rate fell below triple digits for the first time since 1963.” On the other hand, Chicago, a bastion of corruption, liberalism, and anti-gun sentiment, had 436 homicides this year, which exceeded last year’s total of 435. Let’s open some champagne!

Dana Loesch, conservative activist and Breitbart editor, wrote on her blog – and gave a litany of reasons why gun control isn’t the issue.

Between 2008 and 2009, the FBI’s preliminary numbers indicate that murders fell nationally by 10 percent and by about 8 percent in cities that have between 500,000 and 999,999 people. Washington’s population is about 590,000. During that same period of time, murders in the District fell by an astounding 25 percent, dropping from 186 to 140. The city only started allowing its citizens to own handguns for defense again in late 2008.

A three-year prison term for violating a gun-free zone represents a real penalty for a law-abiding citizen. Adding three years to a criminal’s sentence when he is probably already going to face multiple death penalties or life sentences for a murderous rampage is probably not going to be the penalty that stops the criminal from committing his crime.

[…]

Examining all the multiple-victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1999 shows that on average, states that adopt right-to-carry laws experience a 60% drop in the rates at which the attacks occur, and a 78% drop in the rates at which people are killed or injured from such attacks.

Many have argued that it is the increased availability of firearms that has led to increased gun homicides, that the use of guns in the commission of violent crimes increases the likelihood of injury and lethality, or that decreased availability reduces homicide.

Although many of these positions seem intuitively obvious and have shaped arguments for increased control and restrictions on firearm availability and access, theoverall prevalence of handgun use in the commission of all violent crimes is relatively low. A handgun was used in approximately 9 percent of all violent offenses.

Furthermore, concerning Adam Lanza, Loesch wrote that this wasn’t a case of not enough gun regulation. Conservative blogger for The Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin, put it aptly on ABC’s This Week in the wake of the tragic shooting in Aurora – that our nation suffers a deficit when it comes to detecting and treating people with mental illness in this country. It’s not about guns. It’s about those who are mentally unstable, and the people ignoring their signs of disturbed behavior. As Loesch noted:

what did recent shooters like Adam Lanza, Jared Lee Loughner, and James Holmes have in common? They were disturbed young men that no law could deter from their intended destruction. Why were the warning signs ignored? All of these men were clearly troubled, all three were on medication. Loughner’s warning signs went ignored. We don’t yet know if Lanza’s family knew he was experiencing problems or if they witnessedwarning signs. Holmes was severely medicated and apparently abused his regimen.

Lanza could not have legally obtained the firearms he used because it is illegal in Connecticut to purchase or possess a firearm under the age of twenty-one. Lanza was twenty. You must have a permit to purchase and carry a handgun in CT and pass a background check to merit a handgun eligibility certificate. He stole his mother’s firearms. That is not a failure of gun laws, it is a failure of personal responsibility. What will more, redundant laws do when the laws already in effect fail to stop a criminal — who, by the very definition of the word, has no intention of following the law anyway? More laws for criminals to not follow?

We’re a nation where guns are an integral part of our socioeconomic fabric. We’re suspicious of government, which has grown exponentially over the past four years – so don’t expect any significant moves towards more legislation aimed at curtailing law-abiding citizens ability to defend themselves curbing gun violence.

It doesn’t negate the fact that only 26% of Americans approve of a handgun ban, 47% of Americans own a firearm, and only 44% think guns laws should be more strict. Recently, the U.S. Court for Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that “Illinois’ total ban on carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home or business is unconstitutional.” So, if the liberals – and their allies in the media – want a war, I think we should give it to them. We’ll easily retake Congress. How’s that for politicizing the issue!?

Lastly, Gun Owners of America astutely pointed out that the “CDC admits there is no evidence that gun control reduces crime. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has long been criticized for propagating questionable studies which gun control organizations have used in defense of their cause. But after analyzing 51 studies in 2003, the CDC concluded that the ‘evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these [firearms] laws.'(9)”

So, repeat after me: gun control isn’t the answer!

Jim DeMint – Change in Washington Can Only Come From the Outside

Great conservatives like Marco Rubio, Mike Lee and Rand Paul can only be topped with a Senate majority. If so, it won’t be with Senator DeMint as he moves to the Heritage Foundation. The true fight in engaging Washington and politics in general is from the outside.

…you cannot change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside. That's how I got elected. That's how the biggest accomplishments like healthcare got done was because we mobilized the American people to speak out.

Barack Obama

 

Universities indoctrinate thousands of liberals annually, these indoctrinated students are painfully brought back to reality through life experiences. Some never leave their theoretical world, only to validate their flawed concepts. As universities place these misguided in powerful positions, our society begins to deteriorate.

Media and Hollywood reinforce these false concepts with keenly worded polls and convenient news to push political agendas. Bob Costa's choose gun control over Jovan Belchers' fractured family? How convenient a Small Arms treaty is awaiting ratification rather than the destruction of unwedded parents, raising a child in a dysfunctional home. You have the perfect contributions of Hollywood when you throw in cinematography, a famous actor and a great storyline.

MI protestCommunity organizations and unions drive similar messages. Life's hard lessons are the fault of greedy bankers loaning money to the poor or business owners providing jobs rather than bad legislation. In 2010, union workers made up 11.4% of the workforce; now only 7%. Unions see private businesses fall apart because they bargain for more power, squeezing every last profit out until no business has anything to fall back on. Community organizations (also referred to as Non Governmental Organizations) such as the Sierra Club, PETA or ACORN advocate for the distressed. If negotiating or the problem was solved, community organizations and unions would no longer need to exist.

Universities, unions, community organizations and media use groupthink, authority and compartmentalization to whip mobs into frenzies so they maintain their political power. These outside agencies influence our political system through subversion and power. They use individual actions to justify their broad, collective advocacy or propaganda.

In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson

     Our Constitutional Republic was created to protect individual rights from the frenzied mobs. As they lobby the collective, the repercussion destroys the individual and any opposition. Change to Washington must come from the outside. Instead of solving problems on there own, these groups demand Washington and local governments intervene through legislation.

The true power struggle is no longer in Washington DC, we must realize the front lines are in our community. Our reality and way of life is threatened as long as universities, unions, community organizations and media maintain power through manipulation and coercion. This is why Jim DeMint made a fabulous move in moving his fight to the outside.

It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions…There are men, in all ages…who mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters…

Daniel Webster

The Lonely Position of Neutral

Screen Shot 2012-12-12 at 2.29.52 AM

I hate raising taxes.  I find high tax rates immoral.  However, we lost the election.  An increase in revenue is inevitable.  What’s perverse about this whole episode is that if we fall off the cliff – Democrats will get everything they want. They’ll get their tax increases, their revenue, and defense cuts.  They would complete their decade-long project of ending the Bush Tax Cuts and gutting of the Pentagon.  They have no incentive to meet us halfway, or negotiate in a meaningful way to make sure the markets don’t tank.  They don’t need to.  They won.  In the meantime, Americans should prepare for the worst.

Since the tax hikes from falling off the cliff are far more severe, I’ve written in previously that Republicans will have to swallow the concept of raising taxes.  However, there is latitude within this debate.  Republicans should press Democrats to increase the tax rate on those making $500,000 a year, instead of $250,000.   As George Will aptly noted on This Week a few months ago, a Chicago school principal with twenty years experience, who is married to a cop with twenty years experience, is almost rich in the eyes of the Obama administration.  Cops and school principals aren’t your typical fat cats, hence this is an area where conservatives on the Hill could construct a narrative that this tax increase – within this particular income bracket – a) isn’t really hitting the rich and b) effects professions associated with the middle class.

There’s been some movement towards pushing the amount of taxable income above the $250,000 bracket, and addressing other areas relating to federal spending.  As Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane at The Washington Post wrote on December 9, continued negotiations have produced the following:

●Fresh tax revenue, generated in part by raising rates on the wealthy, as Obama wants, and in part by limiting their deductions, as Republicans prefer. The top rate could be held below 39.6 percent, or the definition of the wealthy could be shifted to include those making more than $375,000 or $500,000, rather than $250,000 as Obama has proposed.

Obama wants $1.6 trillion over the next decade, but many Democrats privately say they would settle for $1.2 trillion. Boehner has offered $800 billion, and Republicans are eager to keep the final tax figure under $1 trillion, noting that a measure to raise taxes on the rich passed by the Senate this summer would generate only $831 billion.

●Savings from health and retirement programs, a concession from Democrats necessary to sell tax hikes to GOP lawmakers. Obama has proposed $350 billion in health savings over the next decade. Boehner has suggested $600 billion from health programs, and an additional $200 billion from using a stingier measure of inflation, reducing cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients.

●Additional savings sufficient to postpone roughly $100 billion in across-the-board agency cuts set to hit in 2013, known as the sequester, and to match a debt-limit increase. The sequester, perhaps paired with an automatic tax hike, could then serve as a new deadline, probably sometime next fall, for wringing additional revenue from the tax code and more savings from entitlement programs.

I like the fact that liberals are willing to increase the rates on those making $500,000, which we can fix if we retake Congress in the 2014 midterms.  However, concerning the entitlement spending, I want deeper cuts that are also immediate.  Nevertheless, the dynamic is the same – and it’s no love fest.

As Meredith Shiner and Daniel Newhauser of Roll Call wrote in the early morning hours on December 11:

…the primary differences between the two sides remain. Boehner’s office said the speaker is waiting for the White House to come back to Republicans with more spending cuts. And the White House says the president is waiting for the GOP to give more on revenue. Two years of fighting over how to rein in the federal debt is now coming down to two weeks of deal-making at best and he-said/she-said at worst.

“The Republican offer made last week remains the Republican offer, and we continue to wait for the president to identify the spending cuts he’s willing to make as part of the ‘balanced’ approach he promised the American people,” said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel, who confirmed conversations with the White House “are taking place” but declined to specify the nature of those talks.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters aboard Air Force One that Obama has offered specifics on cuts — pointing to the president’s original deficit reduction plan that has repeatedly been dismissed by the GOP. Carney added that the Republicans are the ones stalling talks by not giving more detail on what they would be willing to do on revenue.

Frankly, both deals are bad. I’m not happy with either of them.  I know that caving on our principles won’t make liberals like us better.  Yet, as in the 2012 election, it’s all about messaging and making the argument.  Barack Obama pervasively made the argument that Bush ruined the economy, and raising taxes will fix it.  Mitt Romney and his communications team, which was always on defense, never made the argument against this claim. Conservatives don’t have the high ground in this fight.

Montgomery and Kane wrote that “a Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll last week found that a majority of Americans would blame the GOP if talks between Obama and Boehner fail to avert more than $500 billion in automatic tax hikes and spending cuts set to hit in January, potentially sparking a new recession.”  Now, Pew and WaPo are left-leaning polls, but it doesn’t matter. It’s almost axiomatic that the GOP will be savaged by public opinion if we go over the cliff.  While Democrats can take cover under a cloud of legitimacy and have the sober satisfaction that they’ll get what they want anyway, even if Republicans won’t budge on tax increases.

Our movement doesn’t need anymore setbacks right now.  With the debt ceiling, that’s a different debate. But for now, we may have to hold our noses and increase taxes on people making $500,000 or more, which is the only (gulp) compromise Republicans should accept on revenue.  They should also keep pressure on the White House for more immediate cuts to federal spending.  Now, while some, like NYT’s Helene Cooper, say that Obama would own the recession if we fall off the cliff, I’m still dubious if that would happen.  Some said that Obama’s extension of the Bush Tax Cuts in December of 2010 would be an albatross around his neck during his re-election campaign.  It wasn’t.  As I’ve said, I hate raising taxes, but the alternative not to, at this time, could be more damaging than the vote for them.  It should give conservatives more incentive to win in 2014.

Right now, debt talks will probably remain in neutral as the car tumbles towards the jagged rocks below.

In short:

 

In Treatment

Screen Shot 2012-12-12 at 2.04.42 AM

Yes, Republicans are in treatment after their catastrophic loss last November.  We kept our majority in the House due to gerrymandering, and we lost two seats in the Senate.  Romney’s loss was bad, but our inability to gain seats in the Senate was ignominious.  Democrats were tasked with defending twenty-three senate seats, and twelve of those races had eminently beatable incumbents.  However, due to some of our party members’ obsession with rape and pregnancy, we’re short two seats when the next congress convenes.

What’s becoming increasingly clear is that the conservative movement is on defense.  For the past quarter century, it’s been the opposite.  I dare say that progressives have gotten inside the conservative psyche with ruthless efficiency.  Furthermore, we have an operational deficit.  Democrats are eons ahead of Republicans concerning targeting future voters.  The era of Karl Rove is over, and an heir apparent is absent.  President Obama outspent Mitt Romney ten to one on social media in his re-election effort.  The other side gets it – and they look cool doing it.  Obama’s team is the best out there.  It’s the meanest, toughest, and most vicious collection of political minds we’ve ever faced – and we lost.  There’s not way Eric Fehrnstrom, or anyone on Romney’s team, would’ve been able to counter their skills.  So, where do we go from here?

Abby Livingston at Roll Call wrote on December 10 that RNC Chairman Reince Priebus announced a new initiative to tackle the issues where Republicans are lacking.  It’s called the Growth and Opportunity Project.

There will be five chairmen of the effort. They are:

  • Henry Barbour, a national committeeman from Mississippi
  • Sally Bradshaw, a veteran senior strategist in Florida and national politics
  • Ari Fleischer, the former White House press secretary
  • Zori Fonalledas, a national committeewoman from Puerto Rico
  • Glenn McCall, a national committeeman from South Carolina

The objective of the group, according to a release, is “reviewing past practices and also making critical recommendations for the future” in eight areas:

  • campaign mechanics and ground game
  • messaging
  • fundraising
  • demographic partners and allies
  • third-party groups
  • campaign finance issues
  • presidential primaries
  • lessons learned from Democratic campaign tactics

Politico first reported the news and also noted that a similar self-examination is occurring with the Republican super PAC American Crossroads. And last week, CQ Roll Call reported that a similar postmortem occurred with regards to Republican digital efforts in 2012.

Yes, we all should remember the infamous Project ORCA, which was an unmitigated disaster. For example, GOTV operations were virtually paralyzed in Colorado.  The price for centralizing a decentralized campaign tactic was leaving 30,000 Romney volunteers unable to conduct strike listing, make phone calls to remind Republican voters, and turn them out in general.  Never. Again.

However, even conservative grassroots organizations, like Americans for Prosperity, have to lick their wounds.  They spent close to $120 million on this election cycle, which ended with conservative influence decreased in Washington.  Concerning the loss, I asked Stephanie Fontenot, AFP’s New Media Manager, if the organization had any plans to release more ads to put pressure on Republicans to not raise taxes during the volatile fiscal cliff negotiations.  She said “as for ads – we’re doing a lot of our reach organically, really concentrating on getting our followers and activists to push this out and put on the pressure online. Twitter gives us a unique way to get our message out in a more direct way to each member and his/her staff.”

One area that Republicans  – and conservatives  – desperately need to improve on is Hispanic outreach. We cannot continue to lose the Latino vote by a margin of 75%-23% again.  Additionally, Romney lost the Cuban vote in Florida, which paints an even bleaker picture when a once reliable bloc of voters switches sides.  To put things into perspective, Bush won 44% of Hispanics in 2004.

Fontenot said that “our [the conservative] message of economic freedom affects all Americans and we seek to reach Americans as a whole. We do recognize the need to craft that  message so that everyone is able to receive it. We are currently working on op-ed’s that will be published in English and in Spanish. Our AFP-Florida state chapter sends most of their press releases in more than one language.”  I couldn’t agree more.  However, the next step is actually putting some boots on the ground to touch voters in those communities.  Hispanics have a lot that is malleable with the Republican Party. It’s time we capitalize on that with a renewed fervor.

While AFP is looking to target Latinos and use social media to articulate conservatism to the masses, it all falls on how the establishment will take this new era.  Will they continue their efforts to moderate the party?  Will they finally decide that growing a backbone is essential in this fights?  I’m not sure.  The Republican Party’s sixty minutes aren’t up yet.

Welfare State Advocate Spews Inaccuracies on PBS NewsHour

The PBS NewHour has yet to invite a hard core conservative on the program to talk about the fiscal cliff.  Last week, they had NYT’s columnist, left-wing economist, and Obama cheerleader – Paul Krugman to detail his view.  Then, they had Sen. Bob Corker ( R-TN), but the December 6 broadcast was the most interesting. PBS invited the Norquist of the left Max Richtman, of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, that we shouldn’t be in a rush to reform our entitlement spending.  After all, when the unfunded liability of both programs is around $100 trillion dollars, what’s the big hurry? Where’s the fire?

Richtman started his argument with semantics and a false narrative.  First, he wants to call these programs ‘earned benefits,’ instead of entitlement programs.  Second, it’s called welfare when the baby boomers’ parents received all of these benefits by paying next to nothing in contributing to the system.   The entire interview beset on a throne of lies.

When the question related to the solvency of Social Security arose, Richtman confidently said that this program doesn’t add a dime to the deficit. As USA Today aptly pointed out on November 27, Social Security ran a deficit of $48 billion last year.

Furthermore, Richtman thinks the American lifespan hasn’t increased.  Therefore, Medicare is safe.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let’s talk about Medicare again for a moment…

MAX RICHTMAN: OK.

JUDY WOODRUFF: … the other large so-called entitlement program.

We heard — we have heard a lot of conversation about raising the eligibility age. We know Americans are living longer. Why isn’t that a reasonable solution? President Obama himself has said that’s something that should be considered.

MAX RICHTMAN: Well, it’s not true that — as you know, not all Americans are living longer.

We might be able to do a program like this for a long time, but there are some jobs that are much harder to continue working and have health care benefits and have those available.

Raising the age for eligibility in Medicare would be particularly hard on communities of color. These are people, for the most part, they tend to have poorer health conditions at an earlier age. They have accumulated less wealth to pay for health care out of their pockets between, let’s say 65 and 67 because of lower lifetime earnings, and they have shorter life spans. So we don’t need to do that. We don’t need to look at reducing benefits, whether it’s by raising the age for eligibility or means-testing the program or charging seniors more.

This is a lie.  And Woodruff made no effort to correct him in this area.  Even John Podesta’s Think Progress and National Public Radio posted stories showing that the elderly Americans are living longer, are healthier, and have increased their chances of living to eighty-five or older.   Pharmacology has increased American life by almost two decades, and it’s rather amusing to see those on the left omit this accomplishment since it chips away at their welfare state narrative.   In terms of a percentage, Americans who are 85 and older represent the fastest growing segment of the population.  Demographics don’t lie, and math, not the reformers of our welfare state, are the enemy.

Now, Richtman says they aren’t against reform.  They’re just against reform right now.  Nothing is more indicative of an organization that prefers to kick the can down the road.  Richtman’s grand plan for reform rests with “improving the efficiencies of the programs, by maybe bringing in some more revenue, [but] not going back to the old mantra of let’s cut, cut, cut.”  Yes, tax increases are the option of choice for liberals for any economic defect.  As for “improving the efficiencies.” I commend Richtman for being purposefully vague.

As Christmas is approaching, there is one item on my list.  Invite Grover Norquist on the PBS NewsHour.

 

AFP-PA presents taxpayer Xmas list, urges PA governor to reject exchange program

It’s Christmas Winter solstice/holiday time – and Governor Corbett seems tepid to reject the federal-state health care exchange program, which will be instituted under Obamacare.  Mitt Romney implemented a similar program, at the state level, when he was Governor of Massachusetts – which explains why conservatives were unable to make the 2012 election a referendum on Obamcare.  As Grace-Marie Turner at Forbes wrote in her column on December 1o, “at least 21 states have said they definitely or probably will not set up state exchanges, with Ohio, Wisconsin, Maine, Nebraska, South Carolina,Georgia and Indiana most recently joining the opposition.”

Furthermore, concerning American enterprise – and the nation’s socioeconomic fabric as a whole – Turner added:

Businesses: Companies with more than 50 employees are searching for ways to avoid the penalties for not complying with the law’s employer mandate. They must either provide government-approved health insurance or pay a fine of $2,000 for each full-time worker. But companies can escape the fines if they make the painful decision to cut workers to part-time – defined in the law as less than 30 hours a week.

Denny’s franchise owner John Metz of Florida said he would “love to cover all employees” with health insurance, “but to pay $5,000 per employee would cost us $175,000 per restaurant, and unfortunately, most of our restaurants don’t make $175,000 a year. I can’t afford it.”

Religious leaders: The Obama Administration’s decision to force employers to provide access to contraception, abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization at no cost to their employees has prompted 40 lawsuits by Catholic dioceses and other organizations claiming it violates their First Amendment protection of religious liberty.

Although churches themselves are exempt, the mandate applies to religiously affiliated hospitals, colleges, charities and social service agencies. Cardinal Timothy Dolan recently said the Catholic Church will “not obey” the Obama Administration’s HHS mandate, a policy he classified as “immoral.”

In the Keystone state, Jennifer Stefano, State Director for Americans for Prosperity- Pennsylvania, is holding a rally in Harrisburg this week to support the taxpayers and economic freedom. She’ll be presenting a “taxpayer’s Christmas holiday wish list.”

Americans for Prosperity to bring Santa and “Naughty/Nice List” to State Capitol

Hosting Press Conference to Urge Governor Corbett to Reject Health Care Exchange

Washington Crossing, PA— Americans for Prosperity-Pennsylvania (“AFP-PA”) will host a press conference this Thursday, December 13th at the state capitol to urge Governor Corbett to put Pennsylvania on Santa’s “Nice” list. The group is joined by Santa Claus, Representative Gordon Denlinger, doctors, and business leaders who want Governor Corbett to reject a state health care exchange and support other policies that lower the state tax burden.

“Americans for Prosperity is proud to bring Santa Claus to the Capitol to present the ‘Taxpayer’s Christmas wish list’,” explained Jennifer Stefano, state director of Americans for Prosperity. “At the top of that list is for Governor Corbett to announce he will fully reject setting up a state or a joint federal-state health care exchange.”

WHAT: Press conference to urge Governor Corbett to opt out of the state health care exchange.

WHEN: Thursday, December 13, at 10:30am

WHERE: Pennsylvania State Capitol Rotunda

WHO: Representative Gorden Denlinger (R – Ephrata)

Jennifer Stefano – State Director of Americans for Prosperity – Pennsylvania

Leo Knepper – Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania

Nathan Benefield – Commonwealth Foundation

Kirby Sensenig – President of Richard Sensenig Co.

Dave Nace – Wickersham Construction

Anna McCauslin – Manufacturer & Business Association

Dr. James W. McManaway III – Pediatric Ophthalmalogist

Twenty other states have chosen not to establish a state level exchange as provided for in the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”). The deadline for the Governor to inform the federal government’s Department of Health and Human Services if Pennsylvania will be establishing an exchange is Friday, December 14, 2012.

Rep. Denlinger submitted a letter in July, which he re-submitted on December 4, 2012, urging Governor Corbett to opt out of the state level exchange as well as the Medicaid provision of the ACA, which this summer’s Supreme Court ruling made optional. Forty-seven (47) other state legislators signed the letter.

Stefano said of the letter, “We thank Rep. Denlinger and the other representatives who have taken a bold stand for the people of Pennsylvania.  They join a growing number of Governors and state legislators across America who are standing up for working families and small business owners this Christmas season.”

For more information or to schedule an interview, please contact Jennifer Stefano at [email protected] or call 610-207-7901.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »