Recently in Government Force Category

Really!

We have the Second Amendment (2nd Amendment) for a host of reasons; BUT, mainly it is to ENSURE the other Nine Amendments (9 Amendments) in the Bill of Rights are not abridged, AND protect the citizenry from a TYRANICAL GOVERNMENT.

A tyrannical government was something our founders understood all too well!

As I mentioned in > Don't Stock up on Guns (Dec 2008) AND Will You be a Criminal too (Jan 2009), there are only a couple of reasons to disarm law abiding citizens: one is to ensure only criminals have guns, and the other reason is so sinister that it should be grounds for impeachment (or recall) who support it: The abrogation of our Second Amendment Rights.

Below are the names of the 46 senators who have abandoned their oath of office and their sworn duty to protect the Constitution of the United States of America:


Baldwin (D-WI), Baucus (D-MT), Bennett (D-CO), Blumenthal (D-CT), Boxer (D-CA), Brown (D-OH), Cantwell (D-WA), Cardin (D-MD), Carper (D-DE), Casey (D-PA), Coons (D-DE), Cowan (D-MA), Durbin (D-IL), Feinstein (D-CA), Franken (D-MN), Gillibrand (D-NY), Harkin (D-IA), Hirono (D-HI), Johnson (D-SD), Kaine (D-VA), King (I-ME), Klobuchar (D-MN), Landrieu (D-LA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), McCaskill (D-MO), Menendez (D-NJ), Merkley (D-OR), Mikulski (D-MD), Murphy (D-CT), Murray (D-WA), Nelson (D-FL), Reed (D-RI), Reid (D-NV), Rockefeller (D-WV), Sanders (I-VT), Schatz (D-HI), Schumer (D-NY), Shaheen (D-NH), Stabenow (D-MI), Udall (D-CO), Udall (D-NM), Warner (D-VA), Warren (D-MA), Whitehouse (D-RI), Wyden (D-OR)  (list Provided by Luis Pacelli  at Freedom Works )

Not only are those mentioned above 'oath breakers' - they are traitors to their office and perpetrate treason on every citizen whom they were elected to serve! 

Yesterday, obviously giddy over the Head Socialist's victory over American liberty, Secretary of Health and Human Resources, Kathryn Sibelius said that this legislation will cause the pharmaceutical industry to see its profits reduced by some $90 billion.

A few questions come immediately to mind.  The first is obvious:  What the %^@*?  The second is:  Who gets to take the $90 billion and what will they do with it?  But the third is far more important:  If Big Pharma loses $90 billion, doesn't that mean that they have $90 billion less to spend on research and development of new drugs that have the potential to cure cancer, aids, obesity, diabetes and dozens of other fatal or debilitating diseases that plague our nation?

Who is going to pay for that R&D once the government re-appropriates that $90 billion?  Right now it costs upwards of a billion dollars to bring a new drug to market.  It takes, on average, 15 years to move a new drug from the laboratory to pharmacists' shelves.  One of the reasons being the FDA's slow approval process.  If the pharmaceutical companies can't realize a decent profit does anyone believe they will put over a billion dollars into the development of a new drug?  If you do, then you're obviously a product of our liberal education system that has taken away your ability for rational thought.  Maybe you think the government will all of a sudden take over the job of finding and developing new drugs.  Let me clue the clueless:  the federal government has never created anything but debt.

Let me point out that as our new and improved, and all-fair and all-caring, and all-knowing and all-seeing, let's all have a group hug government-run health care system is implemented, we WILL have rationed care.  And not rationed by doctors or nurses or anyone else with even a modicum of medical training, basing their decisions on sound medical practice.  We will have a bunch of bureaucrats running the country's biggest HMO basing their decisions on the bottom line. 

Does anyone remember the HMO scandals of the 1980s?  Let me remind you, HMOs were RATIONING care.  And our representatives in Congress were screaming "unfair." 

Think I'm being dishonest?  Just look to Canada, France, and Great Britain.  Their socialized system of medical care has to make hard choices.  If you're 72 years old and need a kidney transplant and there's a 24 year old who needs one too, guess who's going to get approved for surgery.  Now for those of you who recently graduated from public school, I'll give you a hint; it's not the 72 year old.  Why, you might ask?  Well quite simply the government bureaucrats must make their decisions based on the rationing of care to keep the system solvent.  There is only so much money to go around.  I don't care how much money the government steals from the rich, there is NOT an infinite amount of money. 

And unlike all the phony figures being thrown around by Congress and The White House, 2 + 2 still equals 4.

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
Thumbnail image for seiu.jpg

It certainly appears as if SEIU -the  Service Employees International Union - have been granted a new higher profile roll in the political machine - that of enforcer.

 

In true newspeak fashion the real 'angry mob' is not the grassroots American Citizenry truly about to be disenfranchised by their own guv'ment take over of healthcare. The angry mob is NOT the mothers, fathers, college students, grandmothers and neighbors who you see voicing their concerns all over the country. Instead the 'angry mob' are those commanded - by the "Joker-in-chief" and his willing collaborators who will stop at nothing - to make compulsory a new collective, socialized America of 'Hope and Change'.


 

For eight years of the previous administration we heard that dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Now, we learn that dissent against the current administration is "verboten". In true Brown Shirt fashion, enforcers will be sent from the Reichstag to "push back harder" against all who demonstrate their concerns against the proposed socialized initiatives.

 

So, we open a new chapter in American History where the guv'ment is actively seeking to deny the will of the American people - through fear, intimidation or force.  Never before has our own guv'ment engaged in overt activity to exert its own aims over "the aims of the governed" in such violent fashion.  Let me rephrase that: the guv'ment is attempting to enact its own objective contrary to the consent of the government. In the United States it is constitutionally prohibited for our elected political leaders to exercise the authority outside the 'consent of the governed'. This usurpation of our rights continues for as long as the American People allow it. It is our duty - us normal American Citizens  to remind those elected officials of their oath to the constitution and that they have a constitutional mandate to represent us. In other words: they work for us, we don't work for them.  Don't Tread on Me!


obj.jpg

Well somebody has to pay!

 

Or as you may have heard, or even once believed yourself; "free as in speech not as in beer!" Or, "You can't have your cake and let your neighbor eat it, too!" Or, "TANSTAAFL!"

 

TANSTAAFL?

 

TANSTAAFL - as Milton Friedman (and others) used to say "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch".  (Or, for my 'up east' friends, without the double negative - TINSTAAFL - There is no such thing as a free lunch! )  Even if the sign says "free lunch" - you can bet the drinks cost twice as much as other places....

 

Socialism is the Great Lie 'where everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else!' But, make no mistake someone has to pay! Just because something might be free to the recipient, it doesn't mean it was free to create. True for the bread you eat, true for the music you listen to, true for school lunches,  true for the health care you receive.

 

The fact of the matter is that you, I or society as a whole can not get something for nothing. Even if you get something at no cost to you, someone somewhere has to pay for it. Someone's has to pay, even though the costs may be hidden or distributed redistributed to others.

 

And now, we have those in Washington, our own elected leaders, of all political persuasions - even republican and democrat alike - engaging in extra-constitutional actions that are directly opposite what our founding fathers intended.

 

Our great republic hinges on the framework of an individually responsible electorate. And, absent that, we as a citizenry are like the cartoon character Wimpy; "gladly paying Tuesday for a hamburger today!"  Only, we are already paying the interest today -  you see those costs reflected in the continued destruction of our manufacturing base, mounting  job losses, the devaluation of our currency and in a staggering and sputtering economy.  

 

You also see that cost reflected in the loss of liberty - for when the government takes confiscates your money, they take from you - the one thing you have that is yours - time! When the government taxes your income they essentially seize the time you toiled to earn that income. Right now, the guv'ment is currently thieving time from us, our children and our grandchildren. And, in true 'Wimponian fashion' they have enslaved future generations for a "hamburger today".

 

As Q.E.D.'ed  over and over again the "Great Lie" is an unsustainable economical model with dire costs to everyone. If the guv'ment compels philanthropy through force there is likely to be little or no voluntary charity. Not because of hard heartedness; but, because we will be left with nothing to give of our own free will.

 

Unclear to me is why we haven't chased these thieves from the halls of congress already? I have a few extra pitchforks and torches . . .

 

"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." -- Professor Bernardo de la Paz from the novel The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, Robert A. Heinlein


As the Fabric of our nation frays from the constant "tug of war"   between personal freedom and welfare state slavery, there is much nefarious afoot.

 

So, just when you think things can't get any worse, there is this prognostication that the United States will fall apart in 2010. And, that the ensuing economic and moral collapse will trigger civil war and accomplish what the "war between the states" could not: the eventual breakup of the US. Source (Wall Street Journal):

 

(yes the map is to get you to read the story link above.)

 


dividedstates.gif

 

The real story isn't the ongoing predictions of the demise of America, instead the story is that many forces both internal and external seemed to be aligned to make this a reality.

 

While "Dear Leader" signals weakness to the Islamic-Fascists and to our national economic competitors many of our long standing adversaries seemed poised to affect advantage over both our failing economic situation and quite obvious moral decline.  

 

Though most immediate challenge to the United States and our principals of Liberty, Freedom, Personal Responsibility and Pursuit of Happiness seems to come not from our enemies; but, from our very own elected officials who are at this very moment scheming to steal from every taxpaying American - all the while telling us we are NOT paying enough or is that (patriotic enough)


Perhaps that is why they (Alibama and the Forty Thieves) are so anxious to:



bhussein-smoking.jpgb. Hussein through his 'office of the president elect', transition team and others who wish to arm criminals(*) 'sez;' don't stock up on guns!/? 

 

WTF?  ["what the fa.." < -insert fav expletive here]  

 

As I said in the Blessing of Liberty, the US Constitution guarantees the right of US citizens to buy and keep guns. Much obfuscation is underway regarding this sacrosanct right.

 

Meanwhile b. Hussein's anti self-protection record is well documented, let's recap just  the highlights: as both a state and U.S. Senator he voted for some of the most repressive forms of gun control including:  

  1. supporting a state ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns, is consistently on record as opposing concealed carry  laws
  2. voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting (United States Senate, vote no. 217, S. 397, July 29, 2005)
  3. Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.  (Illinois Senate, SB 2165, vote 20, March 25, 2004)
  4. Voted against confirming Supreme Court Justices who have affirmed individual rights to keep and bear arms.

 

 B. Hussein went on to say; "I believe in common-sense gun safety laws and I believe in the second amendment" - Parse this carefully!!!! -Common-sense by whose standards?

 

Irrespective of what the "office of the president elect" says his actions indicate that he does NOT support individual rights to bear arms and also believes that the "State" has the authority and duty to impose regulations on that right for the "safety of the community". . . .

 

Sweet Mother of Pearl, I can see where this is going - a disarmed population and the revocation of Posse Comitatus  but I digress!

 

Anecdotally, evidence is up that sales are booming for gun shop owners all across the nation - many are reporting the best year ever!! While 'spinners' for the "office of the president elect" suggest that this increase in sales are not new gun owners but instead are previous owners who already have enough guns to protect themselves and family. . . . Absent the question of who is the arbiter of "enough" I must say 

au contraire mon ami

 

I personally know several people who - until know - never in their wildest imaginations would feel the need to own and KNOW HOW TO OPERATE a firearm for personal protection.

 

My, my, look - already :  "Change we can believe in"

 


(*) Moreover, I can only surmise that anyone wishing to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding, FBI background checked, severely scrutinized and often vilified citizens can only wish to arm criminals - in that they send a signal to those law breaking criminals, "Come and GET'em" - 'cause they can't protect themselves.

shark.jpgLike a shark dive without the cage, our Trotskyite inspired congress is swimming through the ocean of 'red (and black) inked' businesses - jaws agape - filter feeding high and low along the corporate food chain. Swallowing whole, businesses to "big to fail" and extorting equity partner positions among the 'small fry' easy enough to bully and mollify.  Like Tony Soprano with more leverage - bada bing!

 

Just a few years ago - heck - even a few months ago, such a tectonic shift from a free-market to socialism seemed nigh on impossible in our beloved Republic.

 

Now the Bolsheviks cry:  bailout -  bailout - bailout - the revolution begins and is over without a whimper, without a shot being fired - only a sigh for what once was. If most Americans held a better appreciation for the "noble call" of commerce, this state of affairs could not be allowed to stand.

 

Instead, we have a population that doesn't understand or "misunderstands" the purpose of business and its role in society.

 

Regrettably, most workers just assume that the purpose of business - any business - is to give them a job. And if that job goes away - no big deal - they'll just get another job. And if that job goes away, well then there's always the "gov'ment" to turn to.

 

Just as many don't understand business; it evident that they understand the role of our government even less. Consequently, we just had 52 million Americans vote for a presidential candidate promising goodies from the public treasury.

 

What every American needs to know:

 

The government does NOT HAVE except that which it takes from others. In order for the government to give you a dollar - it MUST first take it away from someone else. . . Not fair, Not moral; but that's the way it is.

"The power of the county" - the Posse Comitatus ACT was passed 1878 to keep the United States Military specifically from traditional civilian law enforcement duties and return it to its role of defending the borders of the country.

 

During Reconstruction and prior to its passage, the army was used to enforce presidential authority over a civilian population - including stationing of federal troops at political events and polling places.  Can you say voter intimidation?

 

"Change you can believe in" may soon be coming to a polling place near you - as president elect Barrack Hussein Obama is clearly advocating the creation of a Civilian National Security Force. (see vid below)

 

 

 

Now, if the real purpose of the CNSF were to 'fight crime', why not increase funding to existing law enforcement in every city, in every county and every state? And before we add any NEW LAWS, why not attempt to enforce the ones already have?/!

 

Though I suspect that the real purpose of the CNSF is to impose conformity, tamp down dissent and enforce presidential authority over a civilian population. 

 

News from the front: the payer vote is still speaking - and two days post election the Dow was down again - almost 450 points! Holy cow! Suppose the capitalists on Wall Street are a bit anxious about what the socialists in Washington may be planning?