The Socialists in the Obama regime (which is all of them) believe that no crisis should go to waste. They see something they can make into a crisis, manufacture the crisis, and then push through legislation that would otherwise not pass. If they can’t get the legislation Obama uses Executive Orders to push through what he wants. The history of this regime is one manufactured crisis after another.
Enter the latest crisis. The gun problem in the states that border Mexico. The people who live in those states have no problems and are law abiding citizens but there are guns making their way into Mexico. The drug cartels are using them and some of our border patrol agents have been killed by those guns.
The regime now wants, and Obama has enacted by Executive Order, new rules requiring the border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California to report the purchase of two or more of certain types of rifles by the same person in a five day period. I can’t see how the regime can require some states to follow certain rules that other states do not have to. It seems to me that this is a violation of the Constitution considering the rule is via an Executive Order and not legislation passed by Congress, you know like the Constitution requires.
The real problem with all this is the manufactured crisis. The gun problem with purchases ending up in Mexico is because of illegal activity by members of the regime. There is corruption very high up and a cover up is under way regarding a program called Fast and Furious. Departments of the federal government, under orders from people in the regime, had people purchase a boat load of guns and send them into Mexico where they ended up in the hands of the drug cartels. The reported goal was to track the guns and see where they went and how they got there blah, blah.
The real goal was to manufacture a crisis involving guns so the regime could react to that crisis. Obama knows that laws violating the Second Amendment have a tough time passing in Congress, particularly if Republicans control any portion of it, so he used an Executive Order to impose new rules. It will not be long before the rules get tougher and extend to other states. This regime has manufactured a crisis in which people were killed by the illegal actions of our government and now it wants to address the crisis to further stifle our rights.
The illegal guns, the purchase of which was sanctioned by the regime, were lost. They ended up being used to kill border patrol agents and now Obama has imposed rules to solve a problem that was manufactured through the illegal actions of his regime.
This cannot go unchallenged. Law abiding citizens should be able to buy as many rifles (or any other legal firearms) as they want without having Big Sis and the rest of the nanny state government prying into their business.
Here is an idea, close the damned border and we won’t have to worry about it.
As for those wishing to buy several firearms, just buy one rifle every six days. Then you won’t be reported.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jul 23, 2008 Political
Earlier this year John McCain called for a gas tax holiday during the Summer in order to ease the burden of the cost of gasoline. Hillary Clinton agreed with the idea but Barack Obama and many other Democrats did not like it and decided it was not a good idea. It was a particularly sore item with regard to union workers in the construction industry who reminded Democrats that a cut in the tax would reduce the money available to work on road projects leading to many unemployed construction workers just prior to the election. This prompted the idea that they needed to raise the gasoline tax 10 cents.
Democrats oppose a tax holiday because it will decrease revenue and it will not bring much relief to people who are buying gas. For what it is worth, I don’t like the idea of the holiday because I think they should abolish the gas tax completely. That is the real source of gouging. It seems that Democrats don’t like the idea of people not paying taxes on their gasoline unless those people are working for the Democrats in order to organize the convention.
It is reported today that the city of Denver has been allowing the people working for the DNC in Denver to fuel the vehicles they are using at the city’s pumps thus avoiding state and federal taxes. This has been going on for four months with the full consent of the Mayor but the Attorney General of Colorado says it looks like an illegal practice. Ya think?
The Mayor, John Hickenlooper, has stated the practice would change but that it should be OK because Republicans are getting the same deal in Minneapolis. Those from the RNC who were contacted about this stated they were buying gas on the market and were therefore paying the appropriate taxes. No such deal is in order for them.
Isn’t it amazing that Democrats always love to raise taxes and they love to tell us how we need to pay our fair share but when push comes to shove they avoid paying taxes every chance they get?
Do as I say and not as I do is the mantra of the left.
Nov 17, 2007 General
Some groups are up in arms (pardon the pun) because the Boston police want to search homes for guns without a warrant. On the surface this sounds like a bad thing and if this were the whole truth it would be. The article goes on to describe that police want to search homes without a warrant after asking permission from the homeowner. If a police officer asks if he may search your home and you say yes he does not need a warrant. You are free to say no.
I will admit that the plan to search children’s bedrooms has flaws. The idea is that parents are so fed up and afraid of the gun violence that they will allow the searches and a warrant will not need to be obtained. In order to get a warrant the police would need probable cause, if they ask the homeowner and are allowed to search they do not need the warrant or probable cause. I would not allow the police to search my home without a warrant. I have nothing to hide but I will not give them access without probable cause and they need that to get a warrant. What will happen to the homeowner if they have other illegal items? Suppose they illegally copy DVDs and they are in the open? A warrant would specifically state what is to be searched and what they may look for. If the homeowner lets them in they can arrest for anything they find. I don’t condone illegal activity but I do not condone bypassing the rights people have. Of course, if someone is not bright enough to know his rights or to exercise them, perhaps he gets what he deserves. In any event, using fear to search a house is not a good way to conduct business.
The bigger issue here is why are there so many illegal guns in Boston and why are there so many shooting? Massachusetts has very tough gun control laws and the gun grabbers all tell us that the way to get guns off the streets by having these kinds of laws. If they are correct then there should be very few guns and very little gun violence. Perhaps there is some realization that criminals do not obey the law. As Thomas Jefferson noted in his Commonplace Book (quoting Cesare Beccaria), ‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’ [Federalist Patriot]
So how do so many guns end up in a state or a city in that state when the gun control laws are so strict that people get jail time for having BB guns? Obviously those who have little or no regard for the rule of law will not follow the law.
There are two issues here. Should the police be allowed to search without a warrant? No, unless of course the homeowner gives permission and only a fool would do that. Secondly, why is there a problem if gun control laws really work?
The founders recognized that we had an inherent right to carry arms in order to defend ourselves against invaders, the lawless and a tyrannical government. This is undeniable and clearly explained in their writings on the issue. We are also protected against unlawful search and seizure so it would be in the best interest of Boston homeowners to just say no…
Hillary Rodham is still having trouble with the issue of driver’s licenses for ILLEGALS. It has been over a week since she answered the question about it several different ways and twenty-four hours after her waffle she came out in support of giving ILLEGALS licenses. It would appear, despite her claims of being clear on the issues, that she has not been clear on this one. In her latest nuance, Rodham says that issuing licenses to ILLEGALS should depend on the state. She stated that in a state like New York there is a huge security problem and a lot of ILLEGALS but that in other states it might not be a big deal. I guess the idea that it is wrong to reward ILLEGAL activity at all has never crossed her mind.
I know I have indicated that Rodham is a poll driven candidate but it would appear as if she is on the other side of public opinion on this one. About 77% of Americans surveyed [Washington Times] do not favor allowing ILLEGALS to get a driver’s license and yet, depending on when you talk to her, Rodham is for it, against it, for it and against it, or believes it is up to individual states [Breitbart]. Perhaps she is in favor of it because people often register to vote at the same time they get a license (motor voter) and if they do not have to prove they are legal when getting the license they do not have to prove they are eligible to vote. Obviously, it helps Democratic candidates to have a huge number of ILLEGAL voters on the books and Rodham is probably pandering to that large contingency. A huge Hispanic vote cannot hurt her in the election.
Obtaining a driver’s license is a privilege, not a right (though ILLEGALS have few rights under our Constitution) and bestowing a privilege on people who do not deserve it is wrong and counter productive. If the government of any state rewards bad behavior then the result is more bad behavior. By allowing ILLEGALS to get licenses we are telling them that what they did is perfectly OK and that they can continue to break the law. There is a lot of public outrage when ILLEGALS break the law and commit some terrible crime but what should we expect? We do not punish them for their initial bad behavior so they continue to exhibit bad behavior.
This is not to say that there are not millions of hard working, good people in this country who happen to be here ILLEGALLY but the fact is, even the good ones broke the law to get here. Hillary Rodham is fond of blaming this on Bush and saying that this country does not have an immigration policy. She is wrong on both counts. First of all, Ted Kennedy gave us both of the huge amnesties of the past and he promised after the last one that it would never be necessary again because the Congress would fix the problems. Here we are 23 years later and we still have the mess but we have millions more ILLEGALS. Kennedy and the Congress dropped the ball long before George Bush became president. Additionally, Bush tried to give a huge amnesty package that was defeated by the Republicans (and some Democrats) in Congress after the public outcry.
As for the idea that this country does not have an immigration policy, this is plain hogwash. We have plenty of laws concerning entering this country and we have rules that are supposed to be followed. The problem is not that we do not have a policy, the problem is that this country fails to enforce it. Instead of securing the border and stopping the flow of ILLEGALS, our government jails the border patrol agents who are trying to enforce the law while people continue to walk in unabated.
The United States Congress needs to get its head out of its rear end and start enforcing the laws we have and we need to start deporting ILLEGALS we catch. We need to jail those who break the law and we need to hold judges and elected officials responsible for failures in the system. Unfortunately, this issue will not receive the proper attention until an ILLEGAL rapes or murders a politician’s or judge’s wife or daughter or until one of their family members (or the entire family) is wiped out by an ILLEGAL driving a vehicle with or without the license Hillary wants them to have.
As for Rodham, she has bounced this ball back and forth for more than a week and is still unclear as to her position. I imagine it will change a few more times before the primary and she will take a more firm stance against it, should she make it to the general election. Hillary fails to understand that ILLEGAL behavior is wrong and that people should not be rewarded for it.
But, that should not surprise us. She and hubby Bill have been involved in a lot of illegal activity. Their people have also been involved in illegal activity for the benefit of the Clintons. Those people are rewarded for what they do, no matter how wrong it is.
Sandy Berger, anyone [The Hillary Project].