Let The Obamacare Cull begin
Feb 20, 2013 Political
You have to pass it to know what is in it. Those words from Nancy Pelosi described the inappropriately named, Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. It seems that on a daily basis some new problem with Obamacare comes to light.
For those of us who did not want this monstrosity the revelations are not surprising. We knew that there would be very few free rides and that a much larger audience than was advertised would end up paying. We also knew that there would be rationing and that death panels would be real. We knew that this was unaffordable. We knew that people would be burdened with regulations and costs and that they would be surprised because they thought they were going to get stuff for free.
They were wrong and now it looks like many more people will be paying for insurance or paying a tax (called a penalty) for not having insurance. The fund set up by the government for high risk people is out of money and no new enrollees are being allowed. The plan is costing billions more than we were told AND there will be about as many folks uninsured as before the plan was signed into law (which is probably what they want to get to single payer).
Another thing the informed knew was that businesses would react in a manner that was favorable to their businesses and that has happened.
Universal Orlando (one of the largest employers in Central Florida) will stop covering part time employees. The mini plans were low cost ($18 a week) and had minimal benefits but part time employees liked them. Obamacare does not allow them so these folks will be on their own. Many other companies are reducing the number of employee hours so that they do not have to provide insurance. Yes, those folks who thought they were going to get free health care or that their employers were going to be forced to provide wonderful care are going to be uninsured AND have less money in each paycheck. Wal Mart and Darden Restaurants are cutting hours to avoid Obamacare mandates and businesses with just over 50 employees (the Obamacare threshold) are scaling down to be under that number.
This is what happens when an intrusive government gets involved in things it has no business being in. The business community reacts in a manner that benefits its bottom line regardless of what the government wanted it to do.
I have no doubt that many of these folks who will be affected voted for Obama and supported Obamacare.
Now they will have to pay for that support and it will not be inexpensive.
Good. Pain is a great teacher.
I hope they learn a hard lesson.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: aca, business, cull, dropped, insurance, lies, obamacare, uninsured
Anti American Police Chiefs Are A Threat To Public Safety
Feb 19, 2013 Political
Chicago Police Chief Garry McCarthy has blamed everything for the plethora of gun related deaths in his city. He has blamed Sarah Palin and is now blaming the Second Amendment. Yes, the right to keep and bear arms is evidently the problem in Chicago where the right is infringed. You see, in Chicago there are very strict gun control laws that violate the US Constitution.
Yet the city is deluged with gun violence and gun crime.
The reason is obvious; criminals do not obey the law. If there was ever a fine example of how gun bans do not work, Chicago is it. The reality that gun control does not stop gun crime has been debated time and again and is generally pointless since brain dead liberals in the anti gun crowd do not understand common sense.
The same people who use all sorts of illicit drugs (those banned under law) think that laws banning guns will stop people from using them illegally.
The bigger issue here is that the police chief of a major city is expressing his view that part of our Constitution is a problem and that those who follow that Constitution are a threat to public safety.
The real threat to our safety is public servants like McCarthy who are not upholding their oaths. These people are dangerous because they believe it is Ok to ignore the Supreme Law of the Land to push their agenda. People who do this are the very reason we have a Second Amendment. It is in place to protect a preexisting right so that we the people have the means to fight tyranny within their own government.
McCarthy wants guns banned and the Second Amendment ignored so he and other like him can do as they wish and can abuse people at will.
They are dangerous and are a stark reminder of how important the Second Amendment actually is.
McCarthy believes the Second Amendment limits citizens to only owning smooth bore muskets. First of all, the Constitution does not limit citizens; it limits the government (which is why liberals do not like it). Second of all, the Second Amendment does not prescribe any particular type of firearm. Additionally, if McCarthy thinks that the Constitution only applies to items available when it was written then he and his officers need to give up their modern firearms. He needs to stop speaking on TV, the radio and the Internet and limit his communication to the newspapers and the US Mail.
McCarthy, not content with his anti Second Amendment lunacy, also said that judges and legislators should rely on opinion polls when interpreting the Constitution.
I imagine that would only pertain to things that liberals agree with. Public opinion polls showed that a huge majority of people were (and still are) opposed to Obamacare (is it any wonder why?).
What about any opinion polls showing that Obama should be impeached? How about those where people think Obama is not eligible to hold office?
In fact, the majority of people polled support our right to keep and bear arms so McCarthy would be SOL on that issue as well.
People like this are dangerous. He is unable to police his violent city and he is an idiot. He needs to be replaced and Chicago needs to stop violating the Constitution.
But in typical liberal fashion he blames everything that is NOT the cause of the problem.
If Obama had a son..
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: chicago, constitution, gun laws, lies, Obama, police chief, Second Amendment
Gun Confiscation; Could It Happen In America?
Feb 14, 2013 Political
There is no doubt that liberals do not like the Constitution which they view, as Obama said, as deeply flawed. They hate the Second Amendment and the fact that it protects the right to keep and bear arms, a right that preexisted the document. The Founders protected that right because they saw firsthand what a tyrannical government can do to people.
Liberals love to go after law abiding citizens when some lunatic uses a firearm illegally. The left is more than happy to punish the millions of people who did nothing wrong. Their idea on gun violence would be like solving drunk driving by banning sober people from buying cars. The big difference, of course, is that keeping and bearing a firearm is a right and driving is a privilege so even though banning sober people from owning cars is moronic, it would not be unconstitutional.
What government gives you government can take away. Government allows us the privilege of driving. The right to keep and bear arms is a God given RIGHT. Government cannot take away that which was given by God (absent a valid reason like committing a crime in which case one surrenders the right as a consequence of an action).
Obama has always hated firearms (except those used to protect him and his family). He has never wanted people to have them and has worked to get rid of them. Every time some nut uses a firearm to commit a crime Obama calls for common sense laws to prevent such things. No such laws exist and those laws enacted would only harm lawful owners. Obama seems unable to comprehend the fact that criminals do not obey the law. Obama should be aware of this because all the laws against drug use did not stop him and his Choom Gang from using drugs. Would tougher laws against drugs have prevented little Barry Obama from using pot and cocaine to get stoned with his buddies?
Liberals across the nation have trotted out laws to infringe on the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. In Missouri the Democrats have crafted a bill that would outlaw all firearms designated as assault weapons and all magazines designated as high capacity. People would have 90 days to surrender (render permanently inoperable or remove from the state) all such firearms or face criminal charges (another reason not to have a registry of firearm owners).
I would like to think this bill would not pass but in this day and age the Constitution means nothing to politicians, particularly the progressives/liberals, and government at all levels is becoming more tyrannical. I can only imagine that if this were to pass there would be many clashes between those who try to confiscate and those who say no.
The real danger is that this is an Overton Window. The liberals introduce this outlandish legislation and people revolt. Then they back off to what they really wanted and people say it is OK believing they averted a disaster. It is an incremental approach to banning firearms.
Say NO to this kind of stuff. There are no qualifiers in the Second Amendment that allows government to determine the size or type of firearm or magazine. There are laws that prohibit government from keeping a registry of firearm owners. As an aside, Democrats are willing to ignore those laws while expecting us to believe that criminals (private sector criminals, as opposed to those in government) will follow any law banning firearms, magazines or ammunition.
Many law enforcement officers across the nation are making it known they will not follow any law that infringes on the Second Amendment. This is for federal laws. We need such people strongly asserting that they will not follow state or local laws that infringe.
One such officer is Police Chief Mark Kessler of the Gilberton Borough Police Department in Pennsylvania.
We, as a people, need to stand up and fight the tyranny. We have the soap box, the ballot box and the bullet box. What we choose depends on what government does.
Do you still think government will not deny your rights or confiscate your firearms? Do you think that it could not happen in America?
How would it have played out if those people were organized and fought back? How would it have played out if they were prepared and had in mind that government might confiscate firearms? How would it have ended if they had been ready before the police and NG organized?
The government is preparing. Are you ready and how will YOU respond?
MOLON LABE
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: gun confiscation, katrina, lies, missouri, nra, Obama, rights, Second Amendment
This Is How Seriously Maryland Democrats Take Us
Feb 7, 2013 Political
Jamie Raskin, a democrat that “represents” Montgomery County Maryland was in attendance at the hearing over the Maryland Governor’s push for anti Second Amendment gun control and confiscation. One would think that such a historic event in which thousands of pro gun citizens showed up to testify would garner the full attention of the legislators. Hell, one would think that full attention would be required when any citizen appears. After all, they work for us, we pay their salaries and they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
But not so much with Raskin who is anti gun. Here is a video taken at the hearing and Raskin is playing a computer game of chess. Why would this guy be allowed to waste our money playing computer games ANYTIME?
Feel free to contact him to let him know he is a waste of taxpayer money and that he is a disgrace to the citizens of Maryland.
James Senate Office Building, Room 122
11 Bladen St., Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 841-3634, (301) 858-3634
1-800-492-7122, ext. 3634 (toll free)
e-mail: jamie.raskin@senate.state.md.us
fax: (410) 841-3166, (301) 858-3166
It won’t matter much that he is a disgrace since most Democrats in Maryland are a disgrace and it starts with Governor Martin O’Malley.
[note]On March 1, 2006, during a Maryland State Senate hearing regarding same-sex marriage, Raskin, speaking as a constitutional law expert, told a lawmaker, “People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution; they don’t put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.”[/note]
And Jamie, the Second Amendment is part of the Constitution. In fact, alleged Constitutional law expert, the right to keep and bear arms is specifically spelled out in that document. Marriage, same sex or not, appears nowhere in it.
Yet, you will fight tooth and nail to get a law not supported by the Constitution while violating that oath you took with regard to firearms.
Idiot…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: computer chess, democrat, jamie raskin, lies, maryland senator, no respect, taxpayer money, waste
Government Defines AR 15 As Suitable For Personal Defense
Feb 7, 2013 Political
The term assault weapon is a manufactured term applied to firearms that the anti gun crowd finds scary. The state and federal government’s anti gun folks and their stenographers in the media use this term to demonize those who own them. This is why you hear the term assault weapon whenever an AR 15 is used. They want you to think that this is some magical firearm that can be used to kill more people than a firearm that is not designated as an assault weapon.
The anti gun (which means anti Constitution) crowd banned these firearms in the past. The bans were based on cosmetic items and had nothing to do with functionality. Any firearm that did not have the cosmetic items but fired exactly the same was not an assault weapon.
Bans do not work. Columbine happened in the middle of the last ban.
[note]One of the cosmetic items is a bayonet lug (for non gun folks that is the part of the firearm that allows a bayonet to be attached). This item makes a firearm an assault weapon despite Barack Obama’s assertion that we have not used bayonets in about 100 years.[/note]
When people who own these scary firearms say they use them to hunt and for personal protection the anti gun folks say that no one needs an AR 15. These firearms, we are told, are only suitable for the battlefield or for the police. Taking the battlefield argument out of it (despite what we have been told, America is not an actual battlefield) why do the police, the people who interact with citizens in America, get to have them? If the people do not need them then neither do the police.
Hell, the very same people who tell us that items that are suitable ONLY for the battlefield should not be on American streets are all too happy to have police departments and government law enforcement agencies patrolling around in vehicles designed for battle with people who carry weapons designed for battle.
But I digress.
The gun grabbers say your AR style firearm is not a personal defense weapon.
However, the government has designated these types of firearms as suitable for that very purpose. In fact, a DHS solicitation for 7000 select fire weapons (semi automatic AND fully automatic) indicates that the department solicited for 5.56mm NATO select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense
If the firearm the DHS will use is suitable for personal defense then the civilian model of that firearm is certainly suitable for the same purpose.
Those of us with a brain already knew this and can see the hypocrisy of the words used in the solicitation.
The Second Amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms and that Amendment does not define what those arms shall be. SCOTUS rulings have already made it clear that firearms protected under the 2A are those with a military function and our Founders made it clear that citizens were to be allowed arms equal to those used by a standing army to ensure we had the ability to fight our government should it become tyrannical.
Politicians at all levels of government have limited authority to define what kind of firearms free people may possess. It does not matter what they like or feel the 2A is clear. Government has no authority to limit the number of rounds one can buy or the number of rounds a magazine can hold. It has no authority to ban or confiscate firearms that it does not like.
Period.
Our Founders protected our right because of the very things we are seeing today.
It would be unwise for any government to try and disarm us. DHS knows it because it has purchased 7000 personal defense firearms to fight the people with dangerous assault weapons. /snark
The government is setting up the perfect storm and it is preparing for the unrest it is encouraging. The government has purchased many more firearms than this and has purchased over a billion rounds of ammo. That is enough to wage a war the scare of Iraq at the highest level of ammo expenditure for 30 years.
Any question about what they are planning?
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: 5.56mm nato, ar 15, assault weapon, dhs, lies, personal defense firearm, Second Amendment, tyranny