Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
I realize I've written versions of this post before, but after the President's press conference Tuesday I'm compelled to write this again. March 15th The Los Angeles Times had an article about the weaponry that the drugthugs are using in Mexico. The article mentions not only the standard AK-47, which not EVEN THE SEMI-AUTO versions are made in the United States. They were a Warsaw Pact weapon, meaning COMMUNIST. Since Central America had several marxist rebellions during the 1980's the full-auto AK-47's would be in huge supply. They also mentioned the AR-15's, While Gene Stoner designed the AR-15 as a select fire (full-auto/three-round burst/semi-auto) and when adopted by the military became the M-16, the civilian version of the AR-15 is NOT CAPABLE of full-aut0. For civilians in this country to get a select fire M-16 it will run TWELVE THOUSAND DOLLARS, sign away their Forth Amendment Rights, and go through a background check that makes the NSA phone captures look like getting carded at a bar.
The article mentioned Barrett .50 Cals. Here's the thing the US government either gave or sold the Mexican Government Barretts and M-16's.
There are somethings about the AK-47's that make them an attractive weapon, including they don't jam and they will cost about $500 where as the semi-auto AR-15 will be anywhere between $800-$4000. I have a hard time believing that a druglord would be willing to pay some American $12 grand and I have a hard time believing someone that goes through the long process to get a class three weapon would sell, especially since the batf can check 24-7-365 if the aforementioned weapon is where it is supposed to be. Get a Superior weapon, of higher caliber for $500 or $1000 for a semi-auto rifle...I know what I would do.
Further in the article it talks about how the druglords have gotten their hands on grenades, rocket propelled grenades, and heavy machine guns. EVEN with a Class Three licence an American citizen CANNOT possess an RPG. So, where are these weapons coming from? Again, they are coming from south of Mexico. The President is trying to re-instate the Assault Weapons Ban, but no Assault Rifles were banned last time because they fell under the National Firearms Act of 1934, the only ones that were 'banned' were those that looked like their military cousins. An assault rifle by definition is a select fire rifle with an intermediate round. The first assault rifle was the Sturmgavier 44.
Those of us that complained about what was occurring with ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION and the drug war in Mexico were called racists or nativists, so why isn't the President being called a racist now?
I don't know what bugs me more, the fact that this President is willing to subvert our sovereignty (which President Bush did when he didn't do anything when we were worried about the drug war down their three years ago.) or that he is totally misrepresenting the truth or that the media is letting the commie get away with it. Sorry for the rant, but I'm worried about our freedoms and this close-to-the-fort-politician doesn't give a warm bucket of spit about American and demands we give up our freedom.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
I have to give a hat tip to the Democrat Senators from Montana for protecting the taxpayer and ammo reloaders. The Outdoor Wire has this:
At about five-thirty yesterday evening, the lengthy feature that was to
have gone in today's editions of both the Outdoor and Shooting Wires was
rendered unnecessary. Normally, that's not a reason for celebration. But this
was no ordinary occurrence. After having spoken with Larry Haynie of Georgia
Arms regarding the Department of Defense decision to require all once-fired
military brass be shredded rather than sold for repurposing to consumers and
domestic agencies, it seemed the set-piece battle over gun ownership was
underway. This morning, there is no discomfort whatsoever to report that the
Department of Defense has been introduced to the idea that unilateral decisions
of this magnitude don't come without consequences. The voice of reason came from
the United States Senators from Montana. More accurately, the voices of reason
came from the Democratic senators from Montana.
Known for pushing ethics
reform, Senator Jon Tester apparently isn't afraid to push for gun owners, too.
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) a hand on the purse strings gets everyone's
attention - even at the DODAt approximately 4:15 p.m. Eastern yesterday
afternoon, Senators Tester and Baucus of Montana faxed a cosigned letter to the
Department of Defense asking DOD to reverse their new policy requiring
"mutilation" of fired military cartridge brass. At approximately 5:30 p.m.
Eastern our sources tell us, Senator Tester's office received a fax back from
the Defense Department saying the brass destruction policy IS reversed. Already,
websites that coordinate the sale of DOD surplus are beginning to remove the
"Mutilation" requirement from their listings. This only hours after they began
adding the mutilation stipulation. In short, it seems a fax from the Chairman of
the Senate Finance Committee and another Senator had considerable powers of
persuasion. That translates to a win for the law-abiding gun owners of the
United States. It is only appropriate that we recognize the party affiliation of
both these men, because their willingness to go to bat for the ammunition
industry demonstrates that, despite all the indications to the contrary,
Washington is not irrevocably divided down party lines. When it comes to
firearms and Second Amendment rights, it seems party affiliations can still be
disregarded. That is reassuring. Today, firearms owners owe these two gentlemen
a vote of thanks. They didn't wait for an opinion poll, they acted. Still, this
is still no time to relax when it comes to firearms. DOD has seen the light, but
Attorney General Holder and the Justice Department seem determined to try and
convince America the problems with Mexican drug smuggling and the related
violence is due to the ease with which American arms are being purchased here
and smuggled into Mexico. Fortunately, not everyone is sitting still for that
argument. Last week, Chris Cox, executive director of the National Rifle
Association's Institute for Legislative Action warned a House subcommittee not
to make American gun owners "scapegoats" for the Mexican crisis. "According to
some," Cox said in a prepared statement, "the violence in Mexico is not the
fault of the Mexican drug cartels or their American customers, nor is it the
fault of decades of Mexican government corruption. In their views, the fault
lies with American gun owners." That, Cox continued, "is an outrageous
assertion." But that assertion continues. And last week, three Democratic
lawmakers were quick to notify Attorney General Holder of their "vigorous
opposition" to any new gun restrictions the Obama administration might be
considering. The three lawmakers were Alaska Senator Mark Begich and - you
guessed it - Montana Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester. Despite some ugly times
that will likely lie ahead, it seems it's not too-late to hope for some
non-partisan common sense to be injected into Congress. OK, maybe that's
optimistic, but we'll take this win - and all the support we can muster. Thank
you, Senators Tester and Baucus, for your unhesitating support. Oh yeah - the
following note is up on the Georgia Arms website: "Dear Loyal Customers, Thanks
to your voice, DOD has rescinded the order to mutilate all spent cases as of
4:30 pm on 3/17/09. We appreciate the time and effort that you expended,
together we all made a difference. We will be posting the email we received from
DOD as well as any additional information within the next 12-16 hours. Thanks so
much and lets get to work!!!"
The AP is reporting:
Contact: Craig Roberts of The American Legion, +1-202-263-2982 Office,
WASHINGTON, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The
leader of the nation's largest veterans organization says he is "deeply
disappointed and concerned" after a meeting with President Obama today to
discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment
of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and
injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private
insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such
"It became apparent during our discussion today that the President
intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan," said Commander David K.
Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is looking to generate $540-million
by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and
government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."
Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, "This
reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ' to care for him who
shall have borne the battle' given that the United States government sent
members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance
companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support
any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected
disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of
Commander Rehbein was among a group of senior officials
from veterans service organizations joining the President, White House Chief of
Staff Rahm Emmanuel, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Steven
Kosiak, the overseer of defense spending at the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). The group's early afternoon conversation at The White House was
precipitated by a letter of protest presented to the President earlier this
month. The letter, co-signed by Commander Rehbein and the heads of ten colleague
organizations, read, in part, " There is simply no logical explanation for
billing a veteran's personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility
to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right
now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have
already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable."
Commander Rehbein reiterated points made last week in testimony to both
House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees. It was stated then that The
American Legion believes that the reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with
the mandate that VA treat service-connected injuries and disabilities given that
the United States government sends members of the armed forces into harm's way,
and not private insurance companies. The proposed requirement for these
companies to reimburse the VA would not only be unfair, says the Legion, but
would have an adverse impact on service-connected disabled veterans and their
families. The Legion argues that, depending on the severity of the medical
conditions involved, maximum insurance coverage limits could be reached through
treatment of the veteran's condition alone. That would leave the rest of the
family without health care benefits. The Legion also points out that many health
insurance companies require deductibles to be paid before any benefits are
covered. Additionally, the Legion is concerned that private insurance premiums
would be elevated to cover service-connected disabled veterans and their
families, especially if the veterans are self-employed or employed in small
businesses unable to negotiate more favorable across-the-board insurance policy
pricing. The American Legion also believes that some employers, especially small
businesses, would be reluctant to hire veterans with service-connected
disabilities due to the negative impact their employment might have on obtaining
and financing company health care benefits.
"I got the distinct impression
that the only hope of this plan not being enacted," said Commander Rehbein, "is
for an alternative plan to be developed that would generate the desired
$540-million in revenue. The American Legion has long advocated for Medicare
reimbursement to VA for the treatment of veterans. This, we believe, would more
easily meet the President's financial goal. We will present that idea in an
anticipated conference call with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel in the
"I only hope the administration will really listen to us then.
This matter has far more serious ramifications than the President is imagining,"
concluded the Commander.
SOURCE The American Legion
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Saturday, March 07, 2009
The Freedom of choice act would cause health care workers to violate their moral conscious. The St. Louis Today has an article announcing that Catholic Bishops are threatening closing Catholic hospital rather than allow abortions to be done. The article mentions the 11 hospitals in the St. Louis area the Catholic Church might close because of the act.
The President keeps saying health care is a priority, but his voting record shows he would rather see dead children than healthy people.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
As I was waiting in the doctor's office to find out I lost 90 lbs, (sorry I'm just thrilled) the Today show had a story about how people are foregoing day care and having the grandparents watch their kids....While the Today Show isn't a true news show, not that the New York Times is really a newspaper either, it is nothing new. Grandparents have watched the Grand kids since Seth had Adam and Eve watch them when he went out hunting.
The story was geared to see how bad the economy is, Grandma and Grandpa have to watch the rug rats. Look, I grew up with kids that even during good economic times Grandma watched the kids.
I realize the economy is bad, but I'm sick of stupid stories that really aren't news that point to the only conclusion: the tax payer has to pick up the bill for someone else's brat.