Listen to the spin and tell me it isn't an out right lie. This is taken directly from WhiteHouse.gov:
When I took office, the American auto industry – the heartbeat of American manufacturing – was on the verge of collapse. Two of the Big Three – GM and Chrysler – were on the brink of failure, threatening to take suppliers, distributors and entire communities down with them. In the midst of what was already the worst recession since the Great Depression, another one million Americans were in danger of losing their jobs.
As President, I refused to let that happen. I refused to walk away from American workers and an iconic American industry. But in exchange for rescuing and retooling GM and Chrysler with taxpayer dollars, we demanded responsibility and results. In 2011, we marked the end of an important chapter as Chrysler repaid every dime and more of what it owed the American taxpayers from the investment we made under my Administration’s watch. Today, we’re closing the book by selling the remaining shares of the federal government’s investment in General Motors. GM has now repaid every taxpayer dollar my Administration committed to its rescue, plus billions invested by the previous Administration.
But today we have learned the truth:
The government bailout of General Motors ended on Monday with the Treasury Department’s announcement that it had sold its final shares of G.M. stock.
Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew said the government sold the last of what was once a 60 percent stake in G.M. Taxpayers lost about $10 billion on their $49.5 billion investment in the Detroit automaker. “With the final sale of G.M. stock, this important chapter in our nation’s history is now closed,” Mr. Lew said. [NYTimes]
Why do Americans let him get by with this level of deceit?
Both Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi made it clear: if you have a pre-existing condition, Obamacare will provide you with coverage you can't get elsewhere. It was then and is today a lie.
One of the key promises from the Obama administration was that, at the very least, people with pre-existing conditions would be insured. Now these people are having their insurance canceled – because of Obamacare.
The funeral for Nelson Mandela has been advertised to be the biggest such event in modern history. President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama will travel to South Africa today on Air Force One, accompanied by former President George W. Bush and his wife Laura. As world leaders arrive let's set history straight.
"Apartheid" is an African word that means living apart. In other words, it is an official policy of racial segregation.
This policy began long before South Africa was a nation, back when it was a Dutch Colony. It eventually became the official policy of the nation and was enforced with League Of Nations support even in South West Africa. Eventually the ruling government removed the citizenship of black residents based solely on skin color.
The Apartheid government was the subject of sanctions by the United States and Great Britain. But little else was done to end the serious mistreatment of black people in South Africa.
As blacks protested the worsening conditions of their lives, the government arrested and jailed them. This in turn brought protest to a much more violent confrontation. [Wikipedia]
Educated, wealthy black skinned people in South Africa organized and formed a variety of groups with the mission of ending the Apartheid through negotiations and political pressure. Among those who led such groups was Nelson Mandela.
Mandela was college educated. He was a member of the Thembu royal family. While his early efforts to end Apartheid were non-violent, he eventually formed a militant group called Umkhonto we Sizwe. He aligned himself with the Communists who engaged in many acts of terrorism. Madela was a Communist Party member when he was arrested.
His group had led a sabotage campaign that landed him in jail. He was convicted of conspiracy to overthrow the government and sentenced to life in prison. He spent 27 years behind bars.
Mandela was released in 1990 and began negotiations with the government of South Africa to end Apartheid. Apartheid officially ended in 1994 with multi-racial elections which made Mandela South Africa's first black president.
He only served one term in office after which he focused on social reform, charitable work and became known as "The Father Of The Nation", a respected international figure whose passing will receive world wide notice.
He has been denounced as a Marxist, a Communist and a terrorist. All of these are true. And while many of us to this day hold dear the right to petition the government for redress in a non-violent, peaceful process of debate and persuasion, that has not always been our history here, in the United States. [Wikipedia]
I remind you of the words of Patrick Henry, spoken to the Virginia House of Burgess, at a time when we in this land were under colonial rule, subjects of a tyrant and without the full measure of our God given rights:
Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!
...The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come. [History.org]
Would our founders have been called traitors? They were. Would their actions have been declared terrorism? They were. Would they have been arrested, killed, jailed and broken by the King's men? All of this happened.
But after our founders won, they established a new nation and in that form gave us each a peaceful way to revolt against the government, to replace those who do not represent us, to end abuses, and govern ourselves. The entire House of Representatives is elected every two years. Every seat at one time. Our forefathers gave us the law by which we can replace our government without blood shed.
Today there are some in this nation who have called for armed revolution. Even among presumably rational people frustration runs high. And in some circles the most radical among us are losing patience and decry the system of elections as not producing the kind of results they want, fast enough.
When the world remembers Nelson Mandela it would be wrong to exclude the facts that he was a Communist and a terrorist as much as it would be wrong to forget that he fought for liberty.
It will be up to you to decide what his life was about, not the revisionists who are working to change history. And it will be up to you to decide if there is ever a rational basis for the murder of innocents.
Let's hope that his funeral will inspire these kinds of discussions rather than the mere glorification of one man's life.
One writer has prepared a public eulogy of sorts for Nelson Mandela that most who lament the death of nationalist leaders dare not repeat. I share it here because history is made of facts. I report, you decide.
With the media gushing about the greatness of Nelson Mandela now on the day after his death, a counterpoint with the rest of the story is badly needed. Below are a few video interviews of South African missionary Peter Hammond, who tells the real truth about Mandela.
Portrayed as a liberator by the media, Mandela was a Marxist and convicted terrorist. Hammond relates of Mandela:
He admitted in open court—pleaded “guilty”—and remember, he was trained as a lawyer—he pleaded “guilty” to 156 acts of public violence and terrorism. He was the head of the revolutionary terrorist wing of the ANC [African National Congress] “Umkhonto we Sizwe.” And he was behind so many different operations: from the plotting of bombs in the railway station (which killed women and children, which crippled people), bombs in shopping centers, attacks on farmers, . . . so many acts of violence.
He goes on to say that modern portrayals make Mandela out to be a saint, but never mention why he was in prison to begin with. It was for good and just reason. “Not even the Amnesty International would take his case, because they said he wasn’t a political prisoner. He had had a fair trial and a reasonable sentence. He had his day in court. He was not a political prisoner. He was in jail for acts of violence.”
In light of the truth about Mandela, Hammond can say, “I’m astounded that so many in the west idolize Nelson Mandela and lift him up as a messianic figure, because they obviously don’t know what he teaches, what he believes, or what he does, or his support for some of the most radical Marxist dictatorships on the planet.”
This includes many Christians: “A lot of Christians out there idolize Nelson Mandela just because they’ve only been given false, misleading, and incomplete information.”
In the wake of the Boston bombings, Obama stated that the acts would be investigated as acts of terrorism, because, “Any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians it is an act of terror.”
“Any time. . . .”
Yet this morning, when addressing the death of Mandela only a few months later, the same president said, “We’ve lost one of the most influential, courageous, and profoundly good human beings that any of us will share time with on this earth.”
There is indeed a disconnect in the public discourse.
And yes, even, many Christians will be confused and cornered. Many will find themselves trapped by the perceived dilemma created by the whitewashed narrative of Mandela. If opponents openly criticize him, they risk being publicly associated a friends of apartheid and racism (just as supporters of states’ rights in the U.S. today get associated unduly with slavery and racism). Give Mandela a pass, however, and you give a pass to his Marxist ideology and terrorism. It sounds a lot like many other lesser-of-two-evils decisions presented to us. [American Vision]
Statistics show that young voters make up only a small percentage of the overall vote totals but they are an important part of the picture nonetheless. Why? Because winning their loyalty has been, historically, the way to keep them in the fold until they get old enough to feel like voting.
Democrats won the youth voters in the 1960's and kept most of them. Ron Paul began his revolution on college campuses where "Google Ron Paul" was a brilliant strategy aimed at capturing the loyalty of what has become the core activists and young elected officials coming out of the TEA party who are now in their 30's.
What did both of these movements among young people have in common? Freedom from the government.
In the 1960's it was all about ending the war, free love, pot smoking and a general desire to have no rules. The Ron Paul movement tracked very similar to these things.
But now with daily news of an even bigger Big Brother spying on the text messages, cell phone conversations and emails of American citizens on a staggering scale, the idea of government intrusion into private lives has taken on a far more menacing visage, and in most of these areas that intrusion is touching young people where they meet, socialize and communicate.
It would be a very good idea for the GOP, including mainstream republicans, to ride that bull and not get thrown. If there is any one area where the GOP can take the lead and get on board with the angst of the next generation of likely voters, it would be a dedicated effort to end government snooping.
Obama can't pull it off and neither can Hillary. Their fingerprints are all over this mess.
Of course the Bush administration started the ball rolling after 9-11 with the Patriot Act, and as many of us predicted, it has been perverted from its original intent (to catch terrorists BEFORE they acted) into a runaway vehicle indiscriminately mowing down civil liberties all across the nation.
Rand Paul is on the forefront and this might be his best single message at this time. Others in the TEA party are on top of this issue but as usual the mainstream GOP is a little late to the game.
If the GOP wants to regain its status as the party of smaller government, more individual responsibility and the defender of liberty, then now is the time to grab this issue and claim it.
The NSA problem spells disaster for the democrats in the long run. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country, and all good republicans to stand up for liberty.
When Barack Obama's uncle Onyango was arrested for DUI the POTUS claimed the two had never met. But the uncle told police that he was going to arrange bail through the White House and that the president had lived with him for a while. Obviously both couldn't have been telling the truth, so the press assumed that the uncle lied.
Well, now as it turns out, the drunk uncle has more credibility that the president of the United States.
President Obama acknowledged Thursday that he lived with his Kenyan uncle for a brief period in the 1980s while preparing to attend Harvard Law School, contradicting a statement more than two years ago that the White House had no record of the two ever meeting.
Their relationship came into question Tuesday at the deportation hearing of the president’s uncle, Onyango Obama, in Boston immigration court. His uncle had lived in the United States illegally since the 1970s and revealed for the first time in testimony that his famous nephew had stayed at his Cambridge apartment for about three weeks. At the time, Onyango Obama was here illegally and fighting deportation.
In November 2011, a White House spokesman told the Globe he had no record of the two ever meeting. The Washington Post had also reported that scholars believed the two had never met.
The White House never moved to correct the record, until the president’s fiercely private uncle took the witness stand in Boston immigration court two days ago. [Boston Globe]
After moving into a nursing home, an elderly woman’s 18-year-old grandson began staying at her house. He was home alone early one morning when he was awakened by a noise coming from a back room of the home. He grabbed a shotgun from under the sofa he was sleeping on and went to investigate. He spotted what looked like the light from a flashlight coming from behind a curtain covering a glass door. As the teen moved forward, the back door was kicked in and he was confronted by two burglars. The teenager fired several shots. One suspect fell to the ground with a fatal gunshot wound, while the other fled the scene. He was later found at a nearby hospital being treated for gunshot wounds. It was last reported that he was in critical condition. The teen staying at his grandmother’s home was not injured. (Houston Chronicle, Baytown, TX, 8/29/13)
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will now allow live streaming of its proceedings but the US Supreme Court is still reluctant to allow such public access. Judges and lawyers know that the vast amount of time in court rooms is spent on matters which the public would likely view as extremely mundane.
The drama of court proceedings as portrayed on television and in movies is a far cry from reality. And though the public would expect the Supreme Court to be debating important matters like gun rights, civil liberties and abortion as Justice Scalia observed, most of the time they are dealing "with ERISA, with patent law, with all sorts of dull stuff that only a lawyer could understand and perhaps get interested in." [POLITICO]
Today and tomorrow the Kentucky Bar Association will be holding its district bar meeting in Covington and while little of interest for the general public will likely be discussed we lawyers should be ever mindful that our sworn duty to defend the Constitution must be our first priority. Our focus must not be misdirected by the clamor of public opinion or political interests or the pursuit of an income. And neither must we willingly abandon this solemn obligation in order to pursue the desires of a particular client or to "go along to get along" with the winds blowing about within the bar.
I will be live blogging from the convention and will be looking to see if any of the discussions tend to encourage and renew the oaths we took or whether the convention will focus on the sorts of dull stuff that only a lawyer could understand.
Many of you know your right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as protected by the Fourth Amendment. But did you know that while the government needs a warrant to open your mail or enter your office desk, that emails stored on a server for more than 180 days are unfettered by that restriction?
The law which at the time in the mid 1990's seemed to protect email users, now is outdated. The use of cloud computing and the storage of data on servers such as Carbonite, may expose all of your emails to legal snooping.
Modifications to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act are being supported on a bi-partisan basis. But these upgrades may not get the full attention of Congress unless you let them know how important they are to you.
A significant blast of very cold air coming in behind a warm and rainy weather pattern could produce a heavy accumulation of ice tonight causing widespread power outages repairs of which could be hampered by more freezing weather and snow which will fall on top of the ice on Friday, according to the weather service.
Areas to be affected are identified on the maps below. Those of us in the Ohio Valley will not be spared the ice and sleet but may only get a couple inches of snow. [Weather.com]
Nice to know that others are thinking the same things I am.
I told you recently that the democrats are going with a new "ism" in the ramp up to Hillary's run in 2016. They are replacing "racism" with "sexism". We've seen it tried already in Kentucky.
It is rewarding to see others now beginning to discern the same thing.
As NewsBusters reported Sunday, liberal cartoonist Ted Rall was recently banned from the progressive website Daily Kos for publishing a comic strip with Barack Obama in it that was deemed to be racist.
On Monday, Rall spoke with Newsmax TV’s Steve Malzberg about the incident, and warned that if Hillary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, “sexism will be the new racism”
"If you look at the vast majority of people who came down on me, these are white Democrats, white guy Democrats who are just using this as an excuse," Rall added. "Get ready, because in 2016, if Hillary is the nominee, it’s just going to be sexism will be the new racism...It’s what you use when you don’t have anything."
Indeed it is, but Rall's right. Just as anyone that criticized Obama the past six-plus years was accused of racism, in the coming years, anyone that criticizes Hillary if she runs will be depicted as sexist. The so-called "Republican War on Women" will be dusted off again, and every utterance by an opponent or commentator that isn't flattering will be due to Clinton's lack of a Y-chromosome and not because of her views. [Newsbusters]
Remember the John Birch Society? Do you remember the people in Northern Kentucky who have been involved with them over the years? Do you see where those people are now and who they support for elective office? Wasn't there a day when being associated with the John Birch Society meant you were a dangerous extremist?
It has always been a well known fact that socialism and communism are systems that defraud ordinary citizens into believing that the government is "looking out for the worker/little guy" when in reality they are systems designed to enslave the "little guy" for the benefit of the ruling class and their friends.
Socialism and communism are perverted forms of governing by kings. Through the pretend elective process and the propaganda machines that those systems employ, socialism and communism fool citizens into believing that they are in control of government in contrast to the system of governing by kingship. The truth is that the rulers under socialism and communism acquire similar powers to kings, execute those powers by the same methods and end up with all the riches.
Here is how it works.
President Obama will cast growing income inequality and a decline in economic mobility as a “fundamental threat to the American dream” during a speech Wednesday in Washington.
Wednesday’s event will take place in Anacostia, a predominantly African-American section of Washington, D.C., with a high unemployment rate.
The event will be sponsored by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank founded by former Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta. [The Hill]
The fraud is worked by constantly convincing the "poor" and "threatened" with promises that your agenda, your plans for the future are designed to eliminate "income inequality". But what is the truth?
Furthermore, poverty in America is at the highest rate since the 1960's.
The number of Americans living in poverty has spiked to levels not seen since the mid 1960s, classing 20 per cent of the country’s children as poor. [Daily Mail]
And of course the number of people on food stamps is at an all time high.
So despite all the rhetoric coming out of the Obama administration, all the phony claims that he is going to end "income inequality" what we are really witnessing is socialism at work. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer and those in control and their buddies rake in all the goodies.
Pray for those who vote for these kind of people. They need enlightenment and wisdom as the fraud of socialism continues to fool more and more Americans.
When gun control advocates in the Colorado legislature barely got a few of their many gun control proposals passed second amendment folks got busy and recalled some of the elected officials then turned their attention to Senator Evie Hudak, who you will remember I talked about right here.
Gun control nuts who opposed her recall then turned to "thuggish" tactics. Those seeking to recall Hudak report the following:
This time, in desperation, the gloves came off.
“As we speak, we have multiple cars monitoring us at our offices and filming us from the parking lot,” Mike McAlpine, who headed up the recall effort, told me yesterday. “This is not a one-off event. We hold sign-and-drive events on the sidewalks near to busy intersections, and we hold signs inviting people to pull over and sign the petition. Our opponents have taken to blocking us: as cars pull in, they run up to the driver’s side door and physically stand next to the door so that the person inside cannot open the door and come outside.”
Elsewhere, opponents have formed human chains in order to block anyone who wants to sign. “They yell at the person while they’re at the table trying to sign, or blow an airhorn in their ear,” McAlpine added. “There have been a half-dozen examples of that. In addition, when we go out to knock on doors and present the petition, they will follow us down the sidewalk and scream and yell.” Recently, McAlpine told me, protesters encircled a young black man who was collecting signatures. “They yelled at him, ‘you killed Trayvon! You killed Trayvon!’”
The anti-recall groups also took to distributing flyers accusing those collecting signatures of being sex offenders:
“I have three cars following me at all times,” McAlpine continued. “We have tails in most of our locations, and the police will not address this. We’ve shared the statute with the police. We think this is stalking and intimidation.” [National Review]
Despite the thugs, it now looks like the recall group was successful in getting rid of Hudak.
DENVER — State Sen. Evie Hudak has decided to resign rather than risk facing a recall election that, should she lose, would flip control of the senate to Republicans, FOX31 Denver was first to report Wednesday.
Later Wednesday morning, Hudak made her resignation letter public.
“In the interest of preserving the progress made over the last year, I am resigning as State Senator for District 19, effective immediately,” Hudak wrote.
Hudak, D-Westminster, could have been the third Democratic lawmaker to face a recall over a package of gun control bills they helped pass earlier this year.
Sens. John Morse, D-Colorado Springs, and Angela Giron, D-Pueblo, both decided to fight recall elections against them, but were ousted in September in favor of Republican replacements.
Hudak’s decision, finalized Tuesday after days of conversations with top Democrats including Senate President Morgan Carroll, is a gamble of sorts.
Instead of going all-in and risking a Republican takeover of the senate in the early months of a midterm election year, Hudak is playing it safe.
By resigning before the signatures are turned in, she assures that a Democratic vacancy committee will appoint her replacement, keeping the seat — and the senate — in the party’s hands, at least through November, when her successor will be forced to win reelection. [FOX]
It has been a common them on many websites, that Barack Obama wants to be president for life, or at least a dictator. People point to his repeated use of Executive Orders to circumvent Congress, his compulsive lying and his open respect for the powers that dictators have which he does not.
Until now this concern was dismissed as nothing more than a crazy conspiracy theory. But now the Washington Post has published an editorial suggesting that at least one more term for BO would be a good idea.
End presidential term limits
In 1947, Sen. Harley Kilgore (D-W.Va.) condemned a proposed constitutional amendment that would restrict presidents to two terms. “The executive’s effectiveness will be seriously impaired,” Kilgore argued on the Senate floor, “ as no one will obey and respect him if he knows that the executive cannot run again.” I’ve been thinking about Kilgore’s comments as I watch President Obama, whose approval rating has dipped to 37 percent in CBS News polling — the lowest ever for him
Regardless of his political approval ratings, Obama could expect Republican senators such as Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and John McCain (Ariz.) to attack the agreement. But if Obama could run again, would he be facing such fervent objections from Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)?
Probably not. Democratic lawmakers would worry about provoking the wrath of a president who could be reelected. Thanks to term limits, though, they’ve got little to fear.
Oh isn't that nice? What Jonathan Zimmerman is saying is that we need a president who is powerful enough to make people fear him and Obama could get that with a third term in office.
Nor does Obama have to fear the voters, which might be the scariest problem of all. If he chooses, he could simply ignore their will. And if the people wanted him to serve another term, why shouldn’t they be allowed to award him one?
“I think our people are to be safely trusted with their own destiny,” Sen. Claude Pepper (D-Fla.) argued in 1947. “We do not need to protect the American people with a prohibition against a president whom they do not wish to elect; and if they wanted to elect him, have we the right to deny them the power?”
It’s time to put that power back where it belongs. When Ronald Reagan was serving his second term, some Republicans briefly floated the idea of removing term limits so he could run again. The effort went nowhere, but it was right on principle. Barack Obama should be allowed to stand for re election just as citizens should be allowed to vote for — or against — him. Anything less diminishes our leaders and ourselves.
Oh it would take a Constitutional Amendment to eliminate the term limits and that process isn't likely to happen, but since we have a president who seems very willing to find ways by which to shred or at least ignore the Constitution, might he find another method by which to accomplish this goal?
Though the Washington Post didn't come right out and say as much, might that be what they meant when they said: "[I]f the people wanted him to serve another term, why shouldn’t they be allowed to award him one?"
Keep your eyes open. Don't forget what I've Told Jah: There's more than one way to skin a cat.
There is a very sneaky way in which the Obama administration is trying to implement stricter gun control measures without Congressional action. He has recently begun using the "regulatory" features of Obamacare to require insurance companies to provide "mental health" coverage and impose "transparency".
What does this mean? Well, consider this:
Polls also indicate the public favors increased mental health treatment as a way to prevent gun violence. Asked how much better mental health services would help the problem, 46% said "a lot," while 35% said "some," and 9% said "not much," according to a CBS News poll from February 2013—at the height of this year's gun control debate.
When President Barack Obama announced a series of 23 executive actions in his gun control push this year, four of them focused on mental health components. [CNN]
And what does the "transparency" feature mean?
On Friday, the Obama administration announced new rules that place mental health and substance abuse services on par with medical and surgical benefits.
The rules, which will apply to almost all forms of health insurance, will likely have far-reaching consequences, states the New York Times, as they are critical to Obama’s program for preventing gun violence, i.e., his belief that more availability of mental health treatment will reduce gun violence. In issuing the new health insurance regulations, the administration said it will have acted on all 23 executive actions that Obama announced earlier this year to reduce gun crime following the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut last December. [Breitbart]
So how does 'nudging' the American people into believing that more "mental health" treatment will result in fewer mass gun crimes help the Obama agenda to impose stricter gun control laws?
As odd as it seems, Obamacare contains provisions that jeopardize gun ownership, especially for veterans. Anti-gun provisions were added to initial drafts of Obamacare legislation under the pretext of prohibiting people with mental illness – which can include PTSD - from owning guns. Fortunately, the NRA stepped in and got some of the worst language revised last December. Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c. prohibits the creation of a firearms database and stops doctors from disclosing or collecting information relating to a patient’s firearms. Ironically, this provision was probably the only positive result of most members of Congress not bothering to read the bill before voting on it. However, the provision does not go as far as prohibiting doctors from asking their patients if there are any firearms in their home. In January, Obama issued 23 executive actions and orders regarding firearms. Order 16 stressed that Obamacare does not prohibit doctors from asking patients about their firearms, and the fact sheet includes, “Clarify that no federal law prevents health care providers from warning law enforcement authorities about threats of violence.” What constitutes a “threat of violence” could be very arbitrary. [TownHall]
Arbitrary indeed. Just think of all the "mental health loopholes" that could be used to take away your right to gun ownership. Depression and PTSD are so common that they advertise drugs for treatment on television every single day. Could these conditions be enough to take away your right to defend yourself and your family?
A 72 year old war veteran had some things on his mind so he went to see a VA counselor at his doctors suggestion. He had high blood pressure and bad memories of helicopter crash rescues he'd been on. He'd lost his mother, his wife, a son and a granddaughter in the last few years. He was very sad.
Then when he got home the police called. They asked if he had any guns in the house. He told them that he had three antique firearms, including a musket that was more than 100 years old, but no ammunition.
But that night about 11 p.m. there was a knock at Lovi’s door. His son answered and saw four or five police officers standing outside.
“Dad, you better come out here,” he said. The police came to his house and took his antique firearms. [BluegrassBulletin]
And if you still think that it can't happen here, think again. Democratic Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes has been identified by First Lady Michelle Obama as an important part of Barack Obama's plans to impose gun control.
Dorothy Hendrix returned home at about 1am when two armed men and one woman approached her attempting to rob her, coroner Greg Shore said.
Hendrix pulled out a gun and fired at the suspects, and one of them returned fire, hitting her twice. One neighbour reported the gunshots to police.
Hendrix, known as “Dot” to friends and family, managed to shoot one of the intruders in the stomach before she died at the scene. The other two suspects ran off.
The wounded suspect was taken to the hospital for surgery, Shore said. The Anderson County Sheriff's Office said they will release more details after they interview him.
Lollis said this wasn't the first time Hendrix was attacked. In October 2011, deputies said Hendrix was at the same home when she became the victim of an armed robbery, a case which has not yet been solved.
According to Lollis, Hendrix bought a gun and learned to fire it for protection after the first attack.
And the NFL says we shouldn't be warning people that they need to protect themselves?
Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
All original content on this blog is copyrighted to Marcus Carey. All rights to all content on this blog are reserved to Marcus Carey. Any use of the ideas, imagery, analogies, analysis, comments or other content is subject to approval. You may link to any content on this site and approval to use content will be freely granted upon request subject to appropriate attribution.
COMMENT POLICY NOTICE
Vulgar or profane language will not be published. Defamatory language will not be published. Your right to post comments may be revoked at any time without recourse. All comments are moderated. Comments do not necessarily reflect or represent the opinions, attitudes or beliefs of the blogger, but reflect only the opinions of the comment writer. Publishing a comment does not mean that I have either adopted or agree with the comment or support any of its content.
If for some reason you cannot abide by these simple rules, you are invited to read here only.
SUPPORT FOR THIS BLOG:
From time to time this blog will post paid advertisements, and may link to Amazon.com where this blog is participating in a revenue generating program offered by Amazon.com for purchases made of products accessed by the link on this blog.