California Anti Gun Law

The recent legislation that was passed in California should be of great concern to all who believe in freedom and the Constitution. The claim that it is similar to other laws in southern states such as Texas are not totally accurate and are intended to distract you and make you think it is an acceptable law. The problem is, those laws may not be good, but they got passed thanks to liberal progressive legislators. In Texas for example, the law allows for law enforcement to make a claim against an individual and say there is a mental condition that requires a person’s firearms to be confiscated, which then requires the individual to defend their rights, all without a medical examination by a psychologist or psychiatrist.

The law in California is stated to be perfectly safe for individuals and totally within the Constitution, which is not accurate and intended to distract you from the intent to confiscate firearms. The California law has added a new wrinkle in that it allows a family member to go to the courts and say their family member has a mental health issue and may be a threat. The court then issues a ruling that allows law enforcement to enter the person’s property and confiscate all firearms, based not on a mental health doctor (which has issues with differing opinions of the doctors) but based on family member opinions.

Consider a situation where you the parent will not allow your 14 year old daughter wants to date and you set a rule that she can not date until she is 16 and that alone angers her, or you add in that the boy she likes is not acceptable to you while she is that young and she becomes angry. Your daughter then files a complaint against you and then you have your firearms confiscated. Thus your journey to defend yourself begins, all based on an angry daughter. Perhaps you and your brother have an argument and your brother files a complaint, and again, you the individual must defend your rights based on a family member’s opinion which was swayed by anger. There is no consideration this will be abused, though they claim a false report will be punished with a misdemeanor charge (a slap on the wrist for violating another’s rights) and who decides to charge the person with a misdemeanor? Will the father have his daughter charged? And if not, then they violate an individual’s rights without fear of punishment.

Without any real consideration this law may be abused, the legislators in their anti-gun agenda may have also overlooked, or perhaps counted on and dreamed of, the fact that once you are brought before the court for mental health issues, and your firearms are confiscated, there is a record. Just as when you are arrested and then found innocent and released, there is an arrest record that may not be deleted form the system and can be used against you in the future. Will the mental health issue based on a false claim by an angry family member stay on record and be used against you in the future? Will your employment background check which can find a past arrest record even though you were innocent and released, and may prevent you employment, also find a past mental health claim and be used to deny you employment? Employers must consider their other employees and their own liability. What happens if they hire you and something does happen in the future, then they could be sued for liability since they hired you, and if you were not the issue of a future event, your past record may be sued against the company in a lawsuit because the person who may have committed a violent crime may have been hired with prior knowledge of mental health issues of other employees, even though you were always innocent and did nothing wrong. You will be held against the employer, so the employer will take steps to protect itself by not hiring you in the first place. When another employee who does have a mental health issue commits a crime, they will not have you or others held against them.

There is plenty of room for this law to be abused, yet the anti-gun legislators will tell you it is perfectly safe, and there is no fear of false imprisonment or violation of your rights. Perhaps, we should look at the Constitution, and consider it says, The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms, Shall Not Be Infringed. The Constitution does allow for that right to be lost through your actions that show you are not trustworthy, such as committing a crime, but they can not do so based on a statement from a family member or even a law enforcement officer. There must be a crime or mental health diagnosis which does provide for the loss of rights, including your loss to vote. This does not include an angry family member, or the opinion of a law enforcement officer.

Those who may support this law, or any law restricting the Second Amendment, should consider with great thought, if one right can be taken so can others. What will happen when they come from your First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech, and they require you to pass a background check and obtain a permit to exercise your right to Free Speech? What will happen, what will you do, when they pass legislation that takes your right to a jury trial, and declare you guilty based on their political opinion?

If one right is taken, even in small steps, all rights can be taken.

Personal Responsibility; the Liberal Progressive Idea of Society Is Responsible Not the Individual

Freedom and liberty provide opportunities for each individual. The Constitution guarantees that you the individual have freedom and liberty and equal rights but not equal results.

During recent discussions, there are those who think there should be equal results and a fair share for all. That may sound good to them; unfortunately, to have equal results the individual must lose some freedom and liberty. To provide equal results, the freedom of each individual must be reduced. There will be a requirement for each individual to provide labor without compensation to allow others to receive that compensation so all will have equal results and equal share.

With a free society, there will always be those who have less and those who have more. That is a fact that can not be changed. There will be those who provide more labor. Have more skills and training, invent a new product, or create something that produces more income or wealth while others will not earn as much, create anything, and has less skills and training.

The one side of the discussion, liberal progressives, stated that there are people who need to earn more money. They claimed the minimum wage needs to be raised as people could not live on the minimum wage. They overlook the fact that the minimum wage is technically an entry level wage and not intended for long term careers and to provide for a family.

When that side of the discussion was asked who was responsible for the individual to earn more, they stated….SOCIETY. That sided of the discussion argued against personal responsibility. When presented with the idea that an individual is responsible for themselves, the liberal progressive almost foamed at the mouth. The idea that the individual was responsible for seeking the training, education, skills, and/or experience to either take a higher paying job at the current employer or to move to a new employer for a higher wage seemed to cause the liberal progressive pain. It was not the individual’s responsibility according to the other side; it was the responsibility of society. The individual may not be able to afford the schools, training, or education and society must provide that for the individual.

That is transferring responsibility from the individual to others. If you, the individual need to earn more, you the individual is responsible to seek the required skills, training, or education to obtain a higher wage.

The liberal progressive that was the primary spokesperson for their side then attempted to change the discussion. They began to claim that people were starving, and conservatives did not care if poor people or poor children went hungry. The idea that poor people may be hungry and children may be hungry does not change the FACT that the individual, or individuals in the case of two parents, are responsible for their own selves and should seek more training. They also claimed they never stated it was the responsibility of society. Typical liberal progressive tactic, change your story when you are caught in something without any data to support your views.

The liberal progressive seemed to put forth the idea that if you need to earn more money, you should be able to tell your employer you want more money and do not want to do more work, learn more skills, or become more valuable to the company to qualify for earning more money. Their view is the company is evil and should simply give the employee more money and free health insurance and the individual; the employee has no responsibility to improve their own selves and their situation.

Affordable Care Act and why you will not be responsible

The statements of supporters of the Affordable Care Act portray the health reform as beneficial to all people in the nation. This ignores those it affects negatively, those whose costs increase, whose deductibles increase, or those who loose the insurance coverage the previously had. It is not something to report as it will appear detrimental to the politicians and organizations that pursue this agenda of government program to provide for individuals.

A recent report in the Danville Register and Bee news paper on 27 April 2014, states the ACA law “has improved a lot of things about health insurance”, according to Consumer Reports. They state you can not be turned down or charged more if you have a pre-existing condition, all types of basic services are covered, and plans can not cap annual or lifetime benefits. There is also a provision that states you will have a maximum out-of-pocket expense which means that once you pay for yourself up to $6,350 for an individual and $12,700 for a household you will not be required to pay for yourself, your insurance will pay 100% of the expense. The statement all type of basic services are covered by insurance policies under the new law mean you must have them regardless of whether you want those services or not you must now have them. The out of pocket rule means that the insurance company which has rules for what they can charge, will be required to pay out more and may force these insurance companies to declare bankruptcy and go out of business.

The supporters of the ACA had claimed that the government forces you to buy car insurance so why not FORCE you to buy health insurance. Unfortunately, this analogy does not work as you are NOT forced to purchase car insurance if you DO NOT own a car and do not drive. Unless they force all citizens to purchase car insurance, even those without cars, it is not a valid comparison. Let’s use that comparison though in a different sense. If you have a car and have the very basic liability insurance and you are in a crash and your car is damaged (pre-existing condition) and you want to go purchase full coverage car insurance to fix your car you can not be turned down or charged more. That is the same as the rule for no extra charges for pre-existing conditions. If you are more expensive (i.e. you have a bad driving record and several accidents, you will pay more for your car insurance) then you will be charged more. You crash your car several times in a year and only must pay a maximum out of pocket expense of $6,350 to repair your car before the insurance company must pay 100% to repair your car for you.

The claim that the ACA is a benefit is not valid and it is far too early to see if there will be catastrophic damage or not with health care due to the law. Will we see people come to believe they are entitled to health insurance simply for being born? Will we see people demand others continue to pay for them as if they are owed something? Or will we see a collapse of the entire health industry as doctors retire and leave and are not replaced, insurance companies are forced to pay out more and are not able to earn a profit, and investors take their money elsewhere since buying stock in insurance companies is not an investment that earns a return?

Perhaps you should look at personal responsibility and take care of yourself, pay for yourself. If you can buy new cell phones and large flat screen Televisions then you can purchase your own health insurance. If you want to give up your freedom and liberty for some measure of security, even though it means the government controls your income, your housing, and your movements, feel free to live that way, but do NOT demand everyone be forced to live the way you want. You want the government to provide for you, fine. Those who want to live their own lives and have liberty and freedom should not be forced to live your socialist dream. Do not take my money or property, though you can give up yours if you want. Pool your money from within your own group and leave those who wish to have the freedom to succeed or fail, earn more with more effort, alone.

Lady Thatcher versus Mandela and the Shame of the United States

The Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, led Great Britain through some rough periods. While some of the policies implemented were disliked by unions and those who see the government as the responsible party to care for and provide for each individual and as a collective, those polices are seen by others as helping to restore prosperity and increase economic activity. Just as some policies of President Reagan were said to have helped bring prosperity and economic activity back to the United States both Lady Thatcher and President Reagan are criticized and denigrated.

Regardless of your political leanings though, the very fact that Lady Thatcher was the British Prime Minister should have had a more significant impact on the United States and at her passing if for no other reason then diplomacy and perhaps a show of respect there should have been a stronger presence at her funeral. The administration of President Obama failed to provide a current high ranking member to attend, when in fact President Obama himself should have and did not.

We look today at the ceremony surrounding Nelson Mandela. President Obama attended as did several high ranking members of his administration, members of Congress and former Presidents who failed to attend Lady Thatcher’s. This respect given should be considered carefully, as should the disrespect for Lady Thatcher. Mr. Mandela had been a criminal, a terrorist and was a communist. Today, that is overlooked much as the fact that Yasser Arafat was a terrorist and was invited into the White House and treated as a statesman and honored guest. President Clinton invited Arafat into the White House and showed him respect. Arafat was the leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) which was a terrorist organization and was responsible for many deaths.

It is a grave and serious statement that the President of the United States would disrespect the former Prime Minister of Great Britain and honors the former President of South Africa where there is higher poverty and crimes of murder and rape since Mandela’s administration. The living conditions in South Africa have not improved. The level of poverty and crime has increased, there have been in excess of 3,000 murders of white farmers, and black girls are raped in numbers that should have every human rights group screaming. Julius Malema has stated the world is not remembering Mandela correctly as they recall him after he was released from prison. The militant aspect is what is celebrated and honored by Malema and the African National Congress (ANC). The ANC was on the list of terrorist organizations until 2008. At the ceremony to honor Mandela, the song being sung was a song of hate and the United States President and members of Congress attended this ceremony and by doing so gave respect and credibility to that song. What does this say about the United States and what we as a nation present to the world. What does this say about our beliefs and what example are we setting. Perhaps it is simply being Politically Correct. We disrespect Great Britain and honor South Africa for the sake of appearances.

It may be a pattern. The Democrat Party of New York gave Robert Mugabe a celebration and reception. Considering Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia) had, under Mugabe’s leadership, their currency being destroyed by hyper-inflation, and the land being redistributed without compensation and given to those who were not ready, willing or trained to farm. The country went from a food exporter to a food importer with periods of famine. Why would the Democrat Party of New York honor Mugabe?

As a former federal employee who worked in support of the nation, it is with great sadness that today, as a nation, we fail to respect those who stood with us and then show great respect for those who said “If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don’t care for human beings.” Mandela said this while the United States gives billions in foreign aid each year.

Republicans, Democrats in Republican Cloths

Many issues face this nation today. We are heading into the dustbin of history unless we correct the path we are on. Illegal immigration, irresponsible spending, (The spend more to get out of debt idea or spend more to be wealthy [Keynes illogical economic ideas]), lack of moral character and far to many on government handouts. We need strong leadership, instead we get……

Rewarding illegal behavior. We are asking for our rights to be taken away. We have politicians who we expect to represent us that believe they are ordained and we work for them, they worry about their power and re-election. Ann Coulter and Charles Krauthammer both have stated that Conservatives need to step aside and let the liberal Republican win, the watered down Democrat, the Republican in Democrat cloths.

Question: Why vote for a watered down Democrat when you can vote for the real version.

In North Carolina they are preparing to issue a driver’s license to illegal aliens, known as illegal immigrants, known as law breakers. Special interest groups and politicians who worry about the votes are pushing the idea that it is not their fault and they should be given amnesty. That will not solve the problem with illegal border crossing and non citizens being granted privileges of citizens. Immigrants who came here legally had respect for our laws and the nation, while those who violate our laws to come show disrespect for our laws and our nation and politicians who support amnesty disrespect our laws, our nation, our veterans who fought to defend this nation, and the very rule of law that makes our nation what it is.

The license to drive being issued in North Carolina, and how many other states it may be considered is not yet known, is rewarding violations of our law. A license to drive that states “no lawful status” is fine except for one thing, why are we rewarding those who have violated our laws with a license to drive. It should not matter what is put on the license, they should not have a license. They should not be allowed to vote, they should not be granted any rights or privileges of citizenship. Illegal immigrants are here illegally. Does the word illegal mean something different today?

The fact the illegal immigrants in question were brought here at a young age does not change the fact they are illegal. People are held accountable for the law regardless of knowledge or lack thereof of each law. An article about the license stated one person had come here at 15 years of age with her parents. That is old enough to know it was illegal and wrong, and she is now 22 and has had several years to attempt to return home and re-enter properly. She has had time to even attempt to correct her illegal status while remaining in this country and she has not done so. She wants to have a license to get a job and drive to work, yet it must be asked again, why are we rewarding someone for violating our laws and rules. They have even stated that the illegal immigrant has a “legal presence” even if they do not have a “lawful status”. Now that really sounds like political speech and a way to twist things. How can you have a legal presence yet not be lawful?

Some have said we can not harvest our crops without illegal aliens. What is the unemployment rate? If you are healthy and able to work, those sitting at home collecting money at another’s expense should get up off the sofa and get a job harvesting crops. It is a job and an honorable one. Any job is more honorable then sitting at home collecting unemployment checks, welfare, foodstamps or other assistance which comes from others.
Should we all do as we please and demand to not face any punishment for violating laws, as it appears we are allowing illegal immigrants to violate laws and be rewarded? Immigrant groups state that it is not fair to deport illegal immigrants, it is bigoted and racist to want laws enforced, and illegal immigrants only want a better life for themselves and their families. By that standard, a bank robber should not be arrested as he only wants the money to have a better life for himself and his family.

We can not be a nation of laws if we ignore our laws and reward those who violate our laws. Unfortunately, those who refuse to deal with the issue and call anyone who want the laws enforced bigots and racists are setting up a system that may create resentment. The ones who are against illegal immigration do not hate the immigrants, nor do they want to send all immigrants away, they want the laws enforced and those who enter to enter this nation legally. If we allow an amnesty, and the borders are not secure, then 5 years from now we will have another 5 or 10 million illegal immigrants and they will demand amnesty.

We have the debt issue in this country as well, and again the Republicans or Democrats in Republican cloths are surrendering. The sequestration was the idea of President Obama and now that it may actually happen, President Obama is attempting to stop it and blame the Republicans for the budget cuts. First, it was the President’s idea, second it is not reducing spending. The cuts the sequester deals with is simply a reduced increase. We will spend more in 2013 then we did in 2012, yet the sequester will still spend more in 2013 then in 2012 only less of an increase. Instead of a $6 increase it will be a $5 increase. Even with this the Democans are considering surrendering to President Obama. Even a Representative in Virginia has stated he wants the sequester stopped. Randy Forbes, a Republican or Democan (Republican in Democrat cloths) has stated he wants it stopped, he fears the loss of jobs and perhaps his re-election chances.

Republicans must show courage. The election did not give you a job you must grovel and surrender your principles and values to maintain unless you falsely portrayed yourself as a conservative with values. Either have the courage to hold to your values, principles, and Conservative small government, individual freedom and individualism and stand against social justice, social salvation, and anything that takes rights from the individual.

We are either a nation of laws, or a lawless nation. We are either a responsible nation and we control our spending or we are a bankrupt nation. Keynesian principles are false and do not work. If we as a nation owe ourselves a debt, why can we not pay it back to ourselves? The nation is tipping over the brink of the abyss. We will be a great nation or we will cease to exist.

Phil Mickelson Should Apologize

Yes, Phil Mickelson needs to apologize for apologizing. Did Mr. Mickelson earn his money, did he practice in his field and excel? If he did not take that money by theft and he earned the money he has by excelling in his chosen field then it is his and he should not apologize for expecting to keep what he earns. He earned his money, it is his, and why would anyone think they had a right to his money.

Mr. Mickelson may have stated his thoughts in public and that may have been considered by some insensitive, yet he does have free speech or has that been taken away also? The idea that a person can not express his disagreement with high taxes is concerning in that his income being higher then many does mean that he has more money taken then those who earn less. Why worry what they think when they seem to be more concerned with class warfare and the idea that Mr. Mickelson earns more he should be more then glad to have the government take from him to redistribute. At least he did not apologize for what he said, just that he said it. Perhaps he should have kept his thoughts private, but he should not be forced to nor attacked for what he said nor worry about the liberal media and if the sports reporters are that liberal, Marxist, progressive, and anti-freedom and anti property rights then perhaps they should give up there incomes and work for the good of the collective.

This nation was founded with individual rights and freedoms, not the collective. Perhaps we need to review what it means to be a Constitutional Republic.

Must we now EARN Tax Cuts, What are liberal progressives thinking

This was the response to a post, where the person stated it was conservative policy to ask for $1 now and make our children pay $10 in the future due to the nations debt.
The reply to that was by me that conservative priorities are not to spend money now and ask our children to pay, conservatives want smaller government, lower taxes, and less regulation plus a reduced debt. It is the liberals who keep expanding the social entitlement programs that is spending this nation into bankruptcy; the original poster replied;

Nomad, no one but the most rabid conservatives believe this anymore. “Convervatives” turned a budget surplus into a deficit. They fought two unfunded wars and gave tax cuts to taxpayers who hadn’t earned it. Democrats tax and spend, it’s true. Republicans just spend, passing the debt to our children.

Get the part about Earning Tax cuts…….

It is amazing that some feel that the Conservatives are asking for our children to spend more money for the people today, in other words some think it is the Conservatives who are committing generational robbery. The liberal progressives have increased the entitlement programs and the number of those on food stamps and yet they forget that the cost must be paid. They attempt to blame conservatives because most conservative values are smaller government, less taxes, and less regulation and because of this belief, conservatives are against higher taxes. The liberals look at less taxes as a way to say conservatives are to blame for the nations debt, yet they fail to look at their spending.
It is true that both parties are to blame and you must NOT confuse conservatives with Republicans as the republicans are almost as liberal and progressive as the Democrats.

What ever happened to the idea that you have the money and property that you earn and buy and it belongs to you. Now it seems if you have something it was not yours in the first place and it is more then your fair share. Now liberals think you must EARN a tax cut and if you did not EARN it you can not have a tax cut. More class warfare.

Typical liberal progressive thought. Just like the idea that we will only restrict your Constitutional Rights a little, we will only limit your rights a little, and if it saves one life we must try, regardless of the Constitution.

So what about, we will only limit your freedom of speech a little? Oh wait, they have done that with the multicultural diversity training and sensitivity training. Someone, ONE person, is offended and everyone else, as many as 20 or 30, loose their freedom of speech.

We will only limit your right to be secure in your persons, and houses, and effects….oh wait, that was destroyed by the Patriot Act. Both political parties went for that one.

Hmm, does the Constitution exist anymore? Or do we now have to EARN tax cuts, do we now have to EARN free speech, do we now EARN the right to be free. Sounds like Mao, Lenin, Stalin, or Hitler. What a way for the United States to pass into history.

SNAP, how to live off of others

SNAP! No, that is not what you do with your fingers nor is it the sound made from smacking someone with a rolled up towel. It is the acronym for a government program where tax payers help subsidize and pay for another person. But do not worry, the Food and Drug administration has modified the nutritious food groups and added honey-buns, soda, chips, and chocolate candy. So SNAP!

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP also known as “Food Stamps” was to assist lower income families to purchase food and ingredients and provide nourishing meals in their homes. This was for items such as flour, milk, eggs, bread and other ingredients to prepare a meal at home. It was not for already prepared foods such as sandwiches from the refrigerated coolers in convenience stores. This seems to have changed. Now it appears that when you ask for assistance from others you can now purchase items that were once considered non-nutritional. Can someone explain the words in the name of this program? When did potato chips, cookies, doughnuts, sugary sodas, and pies become nutritious? A person who asks for assistance from others to purchase food can use food stamps, EBT, SNAP whatever you wish to call it for the purchase of candy, chips, sodas, and items generally considered “junk food”. At what point do we look at personal responsibility? If you have sufficient financial means to purchase candy then you can use your own money and not ask for money from others.

The system has been changed so much that in some areas of the country, EBT cards can access ATM’s and the person can obtain cash which can then be used to purchase anything they choose. What kind of controls remain on this program to ensure it is used for the purpose of providing nutritious food for the family, the children?

Hey Mayor Doomberg, err Bloomberg, you who wants to stop people from spending their own money on items you consider unhealthy, why have you not put a stop to this misuse of funds in essence begged from others who are working to provide for their own family, and money is taken in higher taxes to give it to someone to buy a honey-bun. Yes, a honey-bun. When you stand in the checkout line at a convenience store and the person in front of you is purchasing two honey-buns and a soda and they tell the clerk it will be an EBT sale and they use their EBT card, it makes you wonder when honey-buns were added to the United States nutritious food list. Lets go check that FDA nutritious food groups chart again.

This has become a wasteful expense of the government and it must have controls put back in place or be discontinued. Ask yourself, why you would work to provide food, not for your family, but for others and then they buy sodas, cookies, and candy.

Obama has anti-Constitutional Stance

In a very telling statement of beliefs, President Barack Obama, claiming to be a Constitutional scholar yet apparently not understanding the Constitution and showing a clear distaste of it, along with Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has issued condemnation against the Honduran people for following their Constitution.

Honduran President Manuel Zelaya violated the Honduran Constitution when he attempted to change it to allow for his remaining in power. The Supreme Court of Honduras acting on the Constitution issued a arrest warrant for President Zelaya. The Honduran people acted in accordance with their Constitution and yet President Obama has called it a coup. Then demands have been made to force the return of Zelaya. The United States has revoked visas of four Honduran officials to protest their nations adhering to their Constitution. President Obama has shown a distaste for the Constitution of the United States and seems to be following that up with a distaste of the Honduran Constitution.

The people of Honduras have stated that they will not bow to outside pressure, shredding their Constitution as President Obama is demanding. Would the people of the United States bow to pressure from another nation to dissolve our Constitution or do we simply bow to the pressure of our own political parties and allow them to dissolve the Constitution.

This should be a wake up call to Americans. The very act of demanding another nation to shred its Constitution and attempting to force the return of a possible dictator in the making combined with his and many of those in Congress attempting to violate our own Constitution should clearly show the direction this nation is being led. It would appear that President Obama and many of those in Congress simply dislike the fact the Constitution provides liberty and freedom for the people and places the power in the hands of the people instead of the federal government, him and congress.

As Benjamin Franklin responded when asked “what did you give us sir”? “A Republic, if you can keep it”. We the people hold the power in this nation, yet we allow those we elect as our representatives and public servants to run rough shod over us.

We need to return to fundamentals and principles. Actually teach the Constitution and the philosophy of our founding fathers which we have not done in a long time. We forget our history and why we have a republic.