Feb 25, 2013 Political
A number of firearms manufacturers have publicly stated their policies will be to sell to law enforcement agencies and state governments only the kinds of firearms that citizens in those states can buy. Some companies have indicated they will not sell any firearms to the government agencies in those states.
This is a step in the right direction. The companies listed here are taking a stance against oppressive government and are supporting the PEOPLE in this nation who are being run over by tyrants in government.
Other companies, the big boys of the industry, need to step up and take a stand against this tyranny as well. I realize that many are taking a wait and see posture and that some are probably more than willing to sell to governments and fill the void created by those who refuse BUT the people are watching and many gun owners will not buy from those who support tyranny over freedom.
We will boycott those who refuse to boycott the tyrants.
If those companies really want to make an impact they need to leave states that are enacting unconstitutional laws for states that are more firearms friendly. Many states would love to have companies that produce firearms and accessories and would offer attractive incentives to relocate.
Magpul Industries (manufacturer of polymer accessories) has indicated that it will leave Colorado if proposed anti gun legislation becomes law even if there are exceptions for the company because it will not produce items in a state that would prohibit people in the state from buying them. Good for them. This is what integrity is all about and if this company holds true it will gain even more customers.
Beretta USA in Maryland has indicated it will move its company out of the state if Maryland enacts anti gun laws (laws even more stringent than the unconstitutional laws in effect). Lawmakers think the company is bluffing but it has shown in the past that it does not bluff. It moved part of its operation in the past because of Maryland’s freedom killing laws.
All companies involved in the firearms industry need to boycott states that are enacting anti gun laws and they need to move to friendlier confines. The public will support them and they will prosper.
These companies also need to consider how they will respond if the federal government enacts unconstitutional laws.
Think about how things would work out if the feds could not get the very firearms the government banned for the people (THE PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IN CHARGE). Think about how things would pan out if an entire industry stood up to the tyrants at all levels of government.
Imagine the blow to the tyrants if they could not get the firearms (or accessories) they want to use to control the people.
Never surrender, never submit.
Mar 27, 2012 Political
It looks like it was not a good day for Obamacare and by extension, all those law makers who pushed it. While it is certainly too early to tell and anything can change, it appears that the government had a bad day in front of the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General was so bad that Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kagan interjected to help him out. They were pushing him in the right direction and assisting him in making his case. By the way, Kagan should have recused herself but she is a liberal and they have no ethical principles.
The conservative Justices asked tough and pointed questions that the SG was not prepared to answer. The left has hopes it can pluck one of the conservative justices and win a 5-4 decision (because the liberals will obviously never vote in favor of the Constitution) and they might succeed. Some are left wondering if Roberts or Kennedy will be that fifth vote and most say it is too close to call. I think it will be 5-4 overturning but it would not surprise me to see the thing go the other way.
Our Supreme Court has been a political branch rather than a judicial overseer for far too long and has engaged in social engineering many times. I believe that it is a sad thing that there is not a unanimous decision against something the Constitution does not allow. To see that a number of our highest judges can’t get on board with the Law of the Land is disheartening.
However, I can understand why the Court is confused. The Obama regime called the fine a penalty and then a tax and then a penalty and then a tax and Obama has argued both sides of the mandate. He argued one way as a candidate and another after he won (he was against it before he was for it). This is well illustrated in this video:
This very plainly shows that Obama argued one thing when he wanted you to vote for him (which many of you foolishly did) and then another way after he suckered you into voting for him. This is probably the kind of deception he was signaling when he told the Russians to give him space because he would have more flexibility after the election. Imagine how he could really screw us over when he does not have to worry about reelection…
Like I indicated, it is too early to tell and we really won’t know for sure until the ruling comes out in June but the talking heads were very sure that today was a bad day for the government. The Obama media were all sweating bullets, NPR, CNN, and the rest were in disbelief.
They are already writing the mandate off.
Next up is the severability. If they overturn the mandate will they trash the entire law or just the mandate? There is no severability clause so the entire thing should go but it is unlikely they will do that.
What does it mean? If they only throw out the mandate the other parts of the law will cause private insurance companies a lot of headaches and the Democrats would love nothing more than to have that happen so they could push for a single payer system. Many on the left say that Obama wins either way but I am not so sure.
If it is upheld then it will cause more Republicans to go to the polls to vote in people who will overturn it.
If only the mandate is overturned then Republicans will work just as hard to vote people in to get rid of the rest.
If it is completely overturned then all the people in Congress who voted for this will be painted as people who forced unconstitutional legislation down our throats and the deals and bribes will be brought to bear on them in the election.
In any event, the last two scenarios will cause a lot of Democrats heartburn as they worry about how it will affect their jobs…
It looks now like it might have been a bad idea for Obama to insult the justices during his State of the Union address. It certainly looks like his vote against John Roberts to be on the Court was unwise.
Not that the judges would hold a grudge…
But who would blame them?
UPDATE: The Daily Mail points out much of the same…
Never surrender, never submit.
Dec 27, 2010 Political
The worst Congress to ever be seated in this country is finally on its way out and I say “good riddance.” I know there are many out there, particularly the liberal/progressive types who need government intervention, who will argue that this was not the worst Congress. This is because their measure of success is how many laws were passed. The more laws passed, the more successful the Congress.
This, of course, is complete nonsense. The 111th Congress gave us a number of 2000 plus page bills that were not read by any member of the Congress. We were told that we would have to pass them to see what was in them or that no one knows how they are going to work, but they are good legislation. To top it off, the legislation passed was opposed by a large majority in this country, a majority that was ignored by the Congress. The members who are supposed to represent us ignored our wishes and passed their agenda.
This is one of the major reasons Democrats lost so many seats in the November election. Their side will tell you that it was insignificant or meant nothing or was not because of any one thing but the reality is, they lost because they did not listen and people did not like what they were doing. They were taken out of power because they were out of control.
And they did not learn from the election either. In a lame duck session they passed legislation that Americans opposed. They passed legislation that should have received more scrutiny and they gave the go ahead on a treaty that weakens America.
They did not learn.
Yes even now they seem to think that the loss was a fluke and that the public does not know what is good for it. But the burning question remains, if these agenda items were so good for America, why did the Democrat leaders have to bribe so many people to pass the legislation? Why did they have to give away billions in taxpayer dollars to get their own party members on board? I know the popular myth contends that Republicans were the party of “No” and they held everything up but this is a LIE told by progressives in an attempt to hide the fact that they have big enough majorities in Congress to pass what they wanted but were unable to do so.
So, once again, if the legislation was so wonderful, why did they need all the bribes and back room deals? If it was so wonderful then why did it NOT pass when Democrats had a big enough majority to pass anything they wanted?
If all this legislation was so wonderful then why did the Congress have to hold midnight votes? Why did they have to stay in session over the holidays to get things done? Harry Reid used the same tactics two years in a row, threaten to keep them through the Christmas holiday so they will vote for anything to get out of DC. It is absolutely piss poor leadership and Reid is not the only piss poor leader. Nancy Pelosi is one as well.
Those who bow down to her will tell you how much she accomplished and how wonderful she is. This is a lie. She could not get things done with a majority and blamed Republicans for her own party’s inabilities. She had to force her people with threats and that is no way to lead. She was such a poor leader that she lost more House Seats than any Speaker in nearly a century.
Remember, if what they did was so wonderful then they would not have had to bribe people to get it passed. If what they did was so great we would know what was in the legislation and they would not have to lie about the contents (if they had any real idea what was in the things to begin with) and if what they were doing was so great they would not have lost a historic number of seats in the midterm elections.
The liberal/progressives must have been absolutely terrible because after only two years they have been replaced with Republicans and the public is not any more thrilled with them at this point. It is bad news and you know you screwed up when you are replaced by the very party that was thrown out in disgust because of its inability to control spending and its loss of principles.
When you are replaced by people who are hated as much as you just to keep you from running amok and having free reign then you know you truly suck.
The 111th Congress is the worst that has ever been seated. It took a nation in debt and bankrupted it and it passed tons of nanny-state laws to gain more control over our lives.
It did this because a certain part of the leadership thinks that it must rule over people too stupid or inept to care for themselves.
But it also had success because there are certain parts of society that either believes that government must run their lives, that they are unable to run their own without government intervention, or that they are entitled to the fruits of another person’s labor (a message that the nanny-state government has driven home for decades).
And as much as the 111th Congress was a failure, the other failures in this society are the people who actually think that this Congress did good things and who feel good about the forced redistribution of wealth.
We can vote out a bad Congress but, unlike Survivor, we cannot vote the failures among us out of the tribe.
Perhaps they can make a New Year’s Resolution to become self sufficient and stop expecting the government to take care of them.
As for the rest of us, we should resolve to cut the funding from the beast in any legal way possible…
A funny aside: Most progressives have no problem with the nanny-state until the nanny state interferes with what they like. This guy is all for government intrusion into our lives but is upset when it intrudes into football. It is an understatement to say this guy has a warped sense of what is important. For what its worth, I don’t think government should be involved in our lives and I don’t think it should interfere with a game that is supposed to be played regardless of weather…
I also think it is funny that the Pennsylvania Governor commented by calling the canceling of the game a joke; “It’s an absolute joke,” Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, a big Eagles fan, told Fox. “I was looking forward to this. It would have been a real experience. This is what football is all about.”
It is funny because if Rendell even went to the game he would sit in a luxury box and not be exposed to the elements. He is right that the cancellation was a joke but what real experience would it be for a guy who would be pampered at the stadium? Ah yes, a true progressive. I am the king and will be treated as such while the peons get “a real experience.”
Never surrender, never submit.
Aug 20, 2009 Political
Well, its good to be king, if you are only really a kinglet- you know, like piglet, only without the good connotations.
Apparently, if you are Henry Waxman or Bart Stupak, you feel that you can do anything you wish, even if it flies in the face of the Constitution and the capitalist free market. What scum they are.
Ever since the “bailouts” of the banks and lending institutions, these little kings have decreed that there will be no excessive pay or bonuses with taxpayer money (ignoring, of course, the pay raise they gave themselves, those hypocrites), but that was in the case of taxpayer subsidized bailouts, and partying on the taxpayer’s dime is a little gauche- and these little kings should know, because they party with the best of them.
But since the memo went out from Nancy the numbskull (quite literally- I understand excessive botox does numb the nerves in a head- some of them possibly vital) to demonize the insurance companies, now the mental pygmies Waxman and Stupak are leading the charge to investigate the pay of insurance CEOs and other honchos. What moral midgets they are.
Two powerful House Democrats have sent a letter to insurance companies asking them to provide detailed information about their conferences and retreats, executive pay, and other business practices.
The letter comes in the midst of a campaign by Democrats, as part of their push to build support for a health overhaul, to portray the insurance companies as the villains of the health-care system. Insurers say they are working with Congress on an overhaul and resent being cast as the bad guy.
The letter is from Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.), who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rep. Bart Stupak (D., Mich.), who heads the panel’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
It might appear that these a**holes are trying to show the Resident how tough they are, but the bottom line is that what they are doing in this instance, in essence threatening these companies with the weight of a government “kangaroo investigation” into executive compensation. They have no right, period. Not when these companies haven’t taken the taxpayer’s money. In a free market, which is what our system is based on, people are free to earn as much as they can, the whole purpose of this system is to get ahead.
If you are constrained in how much you can earn by government dictate, then you are living under a totalitarian regime, that much is certain, and this is not the United States I know and love.
The letter, sent Monday, did not refer to the health overhaul debate, saying only that the committee “is examining executive compensation and other business practices in the health insurance industry.” The letter requests the companies’ help, but is not a subpoena.
Chris Curran, a spokesman for Cigna Corp., said the company had not yet received a letter from Mr. Waxman, but like the rest of the industry, expects to get one shortly. He said the company planned to respond appropriately.
Mr. Curran defended the company’s executive compensation program, saying it is designed to reward executives and attract talent, and added that more than 90% of the compensation of Cigna’s CEO is performance-based.
Much of the information requested in the letter is available in public documents, Mr. Curran added, and the company has no problem turning it over.
The government does not actually have the powers to do what these liberal pimps want to do. Not when there is no taxpayer assistance involved. It is just a naked power play by some very insecure people, and someone needs to challenge them so this can go to the Highest Court in the land.
It’s way past time for the third branch of the government to weigh in, because the “fourth branch” of the government is gutless, and will not be critical of their new “buddies”.
They are BFFs on each other’s Facebook- why would they want to spoil that?
Mar 10, 2008 Political
Republican Tim Couch of Kentucky is introducing legislation making it a crime to post to the Internet anonymously. His bill would make it a crime for a person who runs a website to allow anonymous comments and would require people to register with the website using their real names.
Couch proposes a first offense $500 dollar fine to those who allow anonymous comments. Subsequent “violations” would cost $1000. Couch states that this is to cut down on online bullying which he claims happens a lot in his home state.
The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law that abridges free speech. Couch is a member of his state legislature and it would have to enact this law which would abridge free speech. Certainly he is not in the US Congress but he would be part of a government body trying to curb free speech. If a website owner wants to delete bullying comments or ban commenters then that is the web site owner’s prerogative. The government (state or otherwise), on the other hand, is forbidden from doing this by the First Amendment.
Couch might believe that this would stop online bullying but I have my doubts. I also doubt he is strictly motivated by the bullying “problem.” People could register using any name that appears legitimate. How would a webmaster know? Why would a webmaster be fined because John Doe commented? We don’t get the names of every person who joins a protest and some of the signs they carry have messages that could be considered bullying and certainly some of their actions amount to bullying. Will we require those who carry disparaging signs to disclose their names?
Couch is trying to stifle free expression and that is a violation of our Constitution. Perhaps the bullying he refers to comes from those who write about the stupidity of members of government, such as say….Tim Couch.
It is not the job of government to be the nannies of all Americans whether at the state or federal level. The government works for us, not the other way around. We have the right to express ourselves as we wish and website owners are free to police their sites as they see fit, not as Mr. Couch sees fit. Perhaps Mr. Couch would better serve his constituents if he did some serious work rather than try to play nanny to Kentucky citizens who can do quite well without an intrusive government or its officials.
As Ronald Reagan once said; “We are a nation that has a government – not the other way around.” One could substitute state for nation and it would still be just as meaningful.
Maybe Mr. Couch should reexamine his conservative values and either straighten them out or switch parties.
Action News WTQV