Second Amendment vs. the UN

Earlier this week, the UN announced that it was "shelving" the Small Arms ATT Treaty, at least for the time being. This rings in good news for the TEA Party, US Constitution loyalists, Second Amendment advocates, and American Citizens.

The summit and conference concerning the treaty met in New York City last week. Several member countries, to include the US Ambassador to the UN, expressed deep concerns over Iran being among the countries named to oversee the enforcement of the treaty if ratified. Thus, international support for the treaty waned.

Here in the US, the treaty threatened our national sovereignty as a blow against the Second Amendment. If the treaty had been agreed to and ratified, it would have circumvented our constitutionally protected rights.

Why do we have the Second Amendment in the first place? Don't we have the police to protect us? Guns kill innocent people, don't they? Why do you need a gun? These are several questions domestic supporters of the treaty have uttered. Well, let us go to that first question for the most important reason to own firearms. Our forefathers were subjected to King George's standing army confiscating private property and forcing colonists into servitude at the barrel of several muskets. In addition, the Red Coats tended to confiscate any arms the colonists possessed. They did so for two reasons. The first reason was to leave colonists defenseless and unable to protect their own property. They sought to disarm all colonists so they did not have the means to resist tyranny. The second reason for the confiscations was to further arm the tyrants, using the colonists' own weapons.

After the War for Independence, during the days of the Articles of Confederation, the early Americans feared a strong government that controlled a standing army. Though the Articles permitted the national government to draft and enlist soldiers from the various states, they had no means to tax the states in order to equip, arm, and pay the soldiers. States were asked to donate funds. Those that did usually gave less than what was perceived as their per capita share. Most did not, however. This was their means of keeping the national army from becoming too strong and a vehicle design to assert another tyrannical oligarchy upon the citizens.

In attempting to draft the US Constitution, the individual states would not do so. The base document allowed for taxation in order to fund, equip, pay, train, house, and maintain standing Naval and Ground forces. However, there were no provisions that allowed the states and the individual citizens a means of protection in order to prevent a tyranny. Thus the Second Amendment was added to the US Constitution. Its wording is clear. Because the federal government and the state governments were allowed to maintain militias to protect the nation and the states (state police are considered a militia), the rights to own and carry arms (firearms) by individual citizens are not to be infringed, ever. That includes requiring a permit to own or to carry (even concealed).

Those Second Amendment rights are necessary to our sovereignty. The ATT would infringe upon them. However, the argument made most emphatically during the summit was against Iran, a country known for its disregard for individual rights, being a part of the UN committee. In reality, Hillary Clinton could care less about Second Amendment rights.

The treaty is not gone. It needs to not be forgotten. As long as it remains a possible proposal, it is a threat against out national sovereignty. Other treaties within the Agenda 21 collection remain threats to our sovereignty. Among those is a treaty concerning the care of "the disabled". Another is a treaty concerning international educational requirements (including granting the UN taxing powers to pay for them). Others restrict our ability to conduct preemptive actions, counter-attacks, or defense operations without first garnering a majority vote from the UN. That treaty would take away our US Congress's power to declare war. Then we have the LOST treaty. The LOST treaty has been around for decades. It has been resurrected among the Agenda 21 treaties. Now that the ATT has been "shelved", you can expect it to re-emerge in the future, like many of the other Agenda 21 treaties are repackaged versions of past poor treaties.

Stay Alert, stay alive. 

The Idiot Bowl -- Chick-Fil-A, Homosexuals, & The War on Capitalism

By now, the subject is no longer breaking news. It is a distracting point of debate the Marxist and Fascist demagogues are employing using useful idiots as pawns. That should also not be a surprise to those who pay attention to the world around them.

The president and CEO of Chik-Fil-A voiced the opinion that the company has held since its inception. Chik-Fil-A was founded by faithful Christians who follow their beliefs. The restaurants are closed on Sundays and Christian holidays. They also believe in the biblical tenets that state marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman for the purposes of creating life and raising children. Because of that belief, the company is facing some controversy.

While campaigning for various elected offices in the past, to include his 2008 campaign for President, Barack Obama stated several times he also held to that belief. Bill Clinton, while in office, supported and signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which also supported that belief. Yet certain demographics ignore those facts while taking aim at the more conservative-leaning and Christian-minded Chik-Fil-A.

Since making the statement, many so-called "gay rights" groups have taken aim at Chik-Fil-A, intending to boycott and impede the capitalist business of the company.

Chik-Fil-A has the right to have their religious beliefs. The CEO has a right to his religious beliefs. He has a right to run the company in accordance with those beliefs. That is the plain truth. They also have the right to publicly state those beliefs. It may have been a bit stupid of them to do so. However, it is still their right.

Gay people also have the right to state their disagreement with Chik-Fil-A. They have the right to take their business elsewhere if they do not want their money going to a company that demonstrates an opposing religious view. That is their right. Heck, they can even call for a boycott, as long as they don't impede, threaten, or otherwise infringe upon the rights of those who wish to patronize the restaurants.

I oppose Yum foods and Pepsico. I have since the 1990s when I discovered that both companies support so-called "charities" that are known to funnel funding to Islamic extremist groups such as CAIR, Al Q'aeda, and Ansar al-Sunna. I refuse to go to their restaurants. I refuse to purchase their products. I will not have them in my home. However, I do not tell others that they cannot patronize or purchase them if they choose. I also do not lobby my town, county, state, or nation to refuse to allow Yum or Pepsico to do business.

If cities such as Chicago, San Fransisco, and Philadelphia seek to ban fast food restaurants because of political disagreements and differing religious views, perhaps they should start by banning Pizza Hut, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and Taco Bell. If you want a political reason to ban capitalism, one would think banning those who fund the murderers that destroyed the World Trade Center and attacked our Pentagon would take precedence over their beef with Chik-Fil-A. After all, Islamic Extremists not only oppose same-sex marriage, they support stoning homosexuals to death as evil. Taco Bell and Pepsico give them money.

It is idiotic to oppose giving Pepsico and Yum business licenses. Let them have their businesses. 

Chik-Fil-A doesn't pay people who attack our country and seek to murder homosexuals. Pizza Hut and Mountain Dew do. However, the useful idiots don't bother to look at facts or reality. Instead they go to Rahm Emanuel and ask him to not issue business licenses to Chik-Fil-A. This is even more idiotic than denying licenses to Yum and Pepsico.

These sanctuary cities, all of which are known to not enforce federal immigration laws, issue licenses to business owners who are illegal immigrants, support illegal immigrants, hire illegal immigrants, and funnel funding to enemies of our great republic. However, they want to ban a chain of restaurants because they stupidly stated publicly they have certain religious views.

The reason for the bans is simple. The CEO and many board members of Chik-Fil-A support conservatism and capitalism. If they were to open stores in Chicago, they would be supplying non-union employment opportunities. They would bring more numbers to the tax-base thus increasing overall revenue from income, payroll, property, sales, and capital gains taxes. Socialists cannot have that. They want to oppose capitalism. They want to tax only those who earn a living so they can give to the lazy who refuse to do so. They want to buy votes. So, to gain the votes of homosexuals, they ban the "evil gay-hating capitalists" in order to appeal to one small demographic, offering them special "rights" and "entitlements". In reaction, the idiots will follow blindly.

Yes, you are idiots. You are allowing yourselves to be used as political pawns by people making false promises to grant you special "rights". By falling for the stupidity, you are setting the "gay rights" movement back by 30 or 40 years. If you want those "equal rights", you should support Chik-Fil-A in being issued those licenses. Then, support your own individual right to not purchase their products. 

If you don't like Chik-Fil-A's religious views, don't eat there! However, don't be stupid enough to infringe on their natural right to open a business. It is that simple. then again, so are the idiots who oppose free-market capitalism while supporting Fascism. Denying Chik-Fil-A the right to run a business because they don't fall in lock-step with your political agenda is fascism.  

In the meantime, I won't be going to Chik-Fil-A with my homosexual friends. I won't be going to Yum's restaurants. You will not see Pepsi products in my home. Then again, I usually go to In and Out for my fast-food fix every couple of months. I also rarely drink carbonated soft-drinks. When I do, I stick to Sprite or Jones' Sodas.

Teachers Union Will Sue If They Can't Have Your Kids

Is This Symbolic of What Teachers' Unions Want To Do To Keep Control of Your Kids & Your Tax Dollars?

After the not-so-heartwarming speech given by a Louisiana state legislator a few months ago, I made a statement about not seeing a desire to visit New Orleans or the rest of the state any time soon. My statements was a commentary about the attitude towards military veterans that some politicians in Louisiana openly expressed. Now emerges yet another reason to strike the state from my list of possible future residences.

The left loves its indoctrination programs. Many of their comprachicos that have infiltrated the government school system count on their positions to misinform your children. Then then demagogue any action taken by their unions as "for the kids". In reality, those union demands rarely have anything to do with bettering the education of children or improving educational resources. They are meant to line the pockets of the union officials with a few extra pennies and benefits kicked over to teachers' union members while fleecing the tax-payers under lies of "it's for the kids". If you want a comparison, look at the average annual income of a pediatric nurse ($63,750) versus that of tenured comprachicos in cities such as Chicago ($75800). The $12,050 a year difference (~$1,000 a month) in the average should startle you, especially given that teachers require less of an education and work fewer hours.

When states such as Indiana and Arizona passed education reform bills, citizens should have expected backlash from the socialists. Why? Well, those reforms, though they do redistribute wealth, don't do so in a manner that benefits the socialists' agendas. It does so to actually benefit the students. Indiana and Arizona both have voucher programs in place that do actually help the students. If the students live in a school zone that does not "make the grade", then the parents can exercise school choice. In doing so, they get a rebate of the amount of tax revenue earmarked for a student that is then transferred to whatever school the student ends up attending, even if it is a private school.

Bobby Jindal took a hard stance on instilling similar reforms in Louisiana. Like in Arizona, if the government school the student is zoned to attend does not meet the state's standards, the child gets a voucher equal to his or her allotted tax revenue to defray the costs of a private, charter, or parochial school.

The comprachicos unions don't like this idea. They want to control the kids and what they are told in schools. They do not want kids to actually learn the facts, learn how to compete, and learn how to prosper. So, what is their response? They intend to sue any non-government school (non-public school) that receives funds from these vouchers. Yes, that is correct. They don't want those tax funds to go to the kids. they never did. They want those funds in their own pockets. Threatening to file these suits reduces down (using Occam's Razor) to simple acts of intimidation and extortion.



Another of the reasons behind the suits is that teachers (and the unions parasites that feed off of their work) fear the new "Value Added" evaluation system the state is set to employ. They fear that they will fall short, and the truth behind their efforts to indoctrinate instead of educate will be exposed. If they fall short, the legislation for the voucher programs then takes funding from their pockets and uses it towards actually educating kids. The Louisiana Federation of Teachers' (LFT) website is covered with propaganda that cannot stand up to actual empirical data analysis.


The new evaluation program revokes tenure for any teacher who falls into the bottom 10% of the evaluation. What does this mean for unions? Well, it means fewer qualifying members. With fewer qualifying members, they have fewer people paying dues. Fewer dues means less profit for the union administrators and their lawyers. Similar litigation has been filed in Arizona since the Brewer Administration decided to enforce federal laws and regulations that mandate that Arizona public school teachers pass English language comprehension and competency exams set at a SIXTH grade level. So, it again becomes obvious that teachers' unions care little for the students/kids. If they did, they would support such evaluation programs and standards requirements. No, they oppose those. So, they want low quality educators and comprachicos wasting your tax money and your kids' time in the classroom. Why? Again, the reason goes back to fleecing tax-payers for more cash to line union administrators' pockets. 

Then again, if the unions actually wanted more funding for education, they would oppose the practice of issuing lists of school supplies that are three to four times what your child will actually use. They do so with the intent of redistributing the supplies you bought to cover those parents who didn't buy supplies for their kids. If they actually wanted tax funds to go to improving education, then they would use the funds to provide supplies for all students and not ask any parent to buy any supplies. The additional supplies are "donated" (by force) so the unions can keep your tax money for themselves instead of using them as intended. No, they don't want those funds going to educational supplies. They want them for their pockets. They want parents to not only pay property and sales taxes to support education. They want parents to buy supplies for their kids as well as two to three others in addition to paying those taxes. When you see your child needs 5 boxes of Crayola Crayons, 64-Count, Standard Size, buy 2. When they ask for 4 packs of Woodcase #2 Pencils, 72/pk buy 2. Keep one at home for when your kid runs out.

Imagine if you were a parent in Baton Rouge. Now imagine that you dislike the public school system there. Say you and your spouse both have graduate degrees. Let us say that the closest parochial schools are religious in nature but not the same religious sect as you. So, you decide to home school. Well, the next logical step with the comprachicos' unions would be to sue parents who take the tax rebates and have the audacity to actually spend them on educational materials for their own kids! Expect it. The LFT doesn't want parents to have liberty or choice. They want to rule over your kids. They think parents are ignorant and incompetent. the unions oppose competition and capitalism. They want to take your money while providing nothing. They also want the chicks (kids' minds and free wills) for free.

Like the legislator in Louisiana did a few months ago in openly displaying how the left despises those who served and fought to support and defend the US Constitution (which they loathe); the so-called "educators" in Louisiana deftly tipped their hands to reveal their true nature when it comes to education. It is more than obvious, the last thing teachers' unions give a sniff about is your kids.

Firearms Frenzy of 2012

It's all over headlines this morning. The Drudge reports that firearms sales have, again, spiked. Speculations on why bring up multiple reasons. Those purchasing firearms in the recent frenzy will state any of these reasons for their decision to purchase now.

One of the largest reasons for the frenzy rests in the current UN conference regarding the ATT Small Arms Treaty I discussed in an earlier article. The conference ends on Friday July 27, 2012. Americans fear that Obama, Clinton, and their minions in the Senate will push for ratification of this intrusive treaty that will circumvent the constitutionally protected Second Amendment right to own and carry weapons.

Leading up to this treaty are several other events the left is attempting to use as excuses to infringe upon those rights. The most recent is the tragedy in Aurora Colorado when one unstable lunatic went on a shooting rampage during a showing of the most recent Dark Knight movie. That event spurs new gun sales from two directions. First, Americans understand the ban on Ex Post Facto laws, meaning that if made illegal, the government is not allowed to "grandfather" the law making those already legally owned illegal. So Americans are rushing to purchase weapons before they are made illegal. The second motivation generated by this event is people purchasing concealable firearms and registering for classes necessary to apply for concealed carry permits in those states that unconstitutionally infringe upon the right to carry by requiring a permit to do so. The reason is simple. Had somebody been legally carrying a concealed firearm in the theater that morning, they could have, possibly, shot the madman before he harmed that many people.

Another event, or series of events, revolves around the unethical (and illegal) Operation Fast and Furious conducted by the ATF, ICE, and the Department of Justice under the corrupt Eric Holder. When the operation went south and Border Patrol SRT agent Brian Terry was murdered by weapons supplied by this operation, anti-gun activists circled the wagons and decided to demagogue the crime facilitated by Eric Holder's people as reasons to ban firearms or, at least, make acquiring firearms a more difficult task.

Of course, people, such as Obama and Clinton, who wish to disarm law-abiding citizens, falsely use these events as excuses to push for ratification of the UN ATT & Small Arms Treaty, which is part of the Agenda 21 compilation of UN intrusions upon national sovereignty.

Other reasons for the frenzy include current speculation that a certain patent will be made available for public use. That patent involves what is called "micro-imprinting". A few years ago, rumors of micro-stamped or micro-imprinted ammunition caused a run on bullet sales. However, those stockpiling ammunition for this reason did not understand the technology. The rounds and their casings are not imprinted at the factories. The chambers and firing pins of the firearms are imprinted. Small identification codes are placed on the chambers and firing pins. When the weapons are fired, these imprints leave a unique identification code on the brass and the primer cap. When combined with the unique striations caused by the bullet traveling down the barrel can lead to quicker and more conclusive evidence tying a specific weapon to a specific crime. However, very few weapons current available for sale do not employ this technology. Should laws mandate its use on future sales, the weapons sold today are, again, protected from Ex Post Facto laws. Therein lies another reason for the frenzy -- to purchase weapons that are not micro-stamped.

Some politicians are attempting to block a reform bill that protects the rights of veterans. For a non-veteran, it currently takes a court order declaring the citizen unfit for the citizen to be reported to the FBI database that restricts firearms purchases. However, if a veteran has problems budgeting or paying bills on time, the VA can declare the veteran unable to handle his/her personal affairs. In attempts to "protect" the veteran from things such as bankruptcy or homelessness, the VA appoints somebody to manage the veteran's affairs. In doing so, the veteran automatically gets reported to the FBI's database, without a court order, and without any legal actions against them. So, without a hearing or trial, the veterans lose the very Second Amendment rights they swore to support and defend.  Some among Second Amendment supporters see the move to block the bill that requires a court order to strip veterans' rights as a form of US Constitution opponents telegraphing a desire to strip any American of the right without a court order or legal action.

Historically, the previous Democratic presidents since the 1970s have supported stricter gun laws. Second Amendment supporters look up and see an axe hanging over their head. The axe is supported by a thin hair. They are just waiting for that hair to give way and drop the axe on their gun rights. So far, Obama has not, yet, instituted any additional Second Amendment infringements. However, if re-elected, he will not have the necessity to appease potential voters stopping him from becoming far more extreme in his socialist agenda. That socialist agenda also includes convincing the average American to disarm, giving up the protection from a militia employed by a tyrant that the Second Amendment is designed to safeguard. Obama is already starting to demagogue for such legislation, executive orders, or fiat policy in the wake if the Aurora, Colorado incident.

Look at Nanny-Mayor Bloomberg of New York City. He wants Law Enforcement Officers around the country to go on strike until Americans are disarmed. 

One final reason for the current firearm purchasing frenzy is simple. People see taxes are going to rise if more tax and spend politicians are elected. If firearms are allowed to be considered luxuries and vices as opposed to necessities for self defense, then excise taxes on firearms and ammunition are bound to rise. They are bound to be added to help pay for the execution of the PPACA, among other government programs that overstep constitutionally allowed federal authority.

However, those of you jumping into the frenzy, let me give you a few words of advice. First, the frenzy may cause a supply shortage and drive up prices due to the laws of supply and demand. Waiting a few months may actually allow the prices to stabilize back to normal.

Second, there are many instances where a firearm won't protect you. Anybody with a yellow belt or better in one of the more common martial arts knows that within 10 feet (3 yards or so), a firearm can be avoided. At that range, you are better off knowing hand to hand defense techniques than trying to pull your Glock. In fact, pulling one within that range stands a 60% chance of being used against you by your assailant.

Third, take a class or two. Taking hand to hand techniques will add to your self-defense toolbox. However, there are other necessary classes. Most concealed carry classes teach you federal and state laws on escalation of force and self-defense laws. Not knowing these laws is not an excuse if you violate them. Other classes you may want to take are on negotiation techniques, crisis management, anger management, conflict resolution, and similar. Simply put, working out a solution where nobody gets killed is far better than one where such is necessary. The classes won't guarantee such instances don't occur. However, they do give you tools that may help to keep situations from escalating to that point.

Since the possibility will still exist, take classes in marksmanship, shoot/don't shoot training, and quick draw techniques. If you must shoot, it is best to shoot 2-3 well-aimed shots that hit your target than 6-7 in your target's general direction that result in a single hit. In addition, those 6-7 quasi-aimed shots stand a chance of hitting an innocent bystander, even if they do penetrate the target first. Practice these. Safe and effective practice equipment such as the ASP 07302 Red Training Gun Glock 9mm/40 are great.

My final piece of advice is the simplest. Be a law-abiding and polite American. Enjoy the freedoms of our country. Do not let those who detest the US Constitution take away the protections it provides or the limitations upon federal government it intends/dictates. 

US Sovereignty in Jeopardy -- Agenda 21 Round 2

Agenda 21. A year ago, the name for the series of international treaties sounded like some strange conspiracy theory name to me. Like many of you, my brain clicked and likened Agenda 21 to Area 51.

However, Agenda 21 isn't some alien plot to take over the world. It is a collection of international treaties that grant the UN powers to govern over sovereign nations. Many of the provisions will assist third-world countries with steep economic and social problems. The total package is over 300 pages long (slightly larger than 1/10th the length of the PPACA AKA Obamacare law) and contains 40 chapters. Along with each are several provisions for local an global implementation.

What they mean to the US is that our country, under this treaty, will give up all we have worked to achieve since 1775. Provisions among the treaties give the UN taxation powers over the US. Another treaty among the collective gives the UN the power to dictate what our children will be allowed to learn in schools.

The Agenda 21 treaties are a subject of hot debate in the Senate halls. On the nightly news, you hear crickets about them. If you follow various committee meetings, statements, and other actions taken by the Senate and House, however, you will discover deeply entrenched lines on both sides of the issues. Several Senators, including John Kyl from Arizona, have signed agreements refusing to ratify any of the Agenda 21 treaties. 

One of the treaties among the bunch is the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). That treaty does several things. It restricts where US sovereign waters end and international seas start. They place our flagged vessels that are within international waters under UN laws instead of within other treaties we have already made with sovereign nations. They will restrict what products are allowed to be carted by ocean-going vessels. It also restricts how our Navy can respond to any threats to our flagged carriers that might be attacked on the seas. In other words, it keeps us from using our own Navy to protect and defend our own citizens.

Another of the treaties is the Small Arms Treaty, also called the ATT treaty. This treaty restricts the number of rifle and handguns a citizen can own, and what calibers. It also restricts the number of rounds of ammunition a magazine can hold. In addition to restricting the number of weapons a citizen can own, it restricts the total number of rounds of ammunition a citizen can keep for each. In other words, this treaty is an attempt to circumvent and destroy our Second Amendment through the use of international law. How? Any treaty ratified by the Senate carries the weight of a passed and signed piece of domestic legislation.

That leaves one question that pings in the brains of many Americans -- What about the Second Amendment? Well, the trick about the treaty is that congress is not passing any law infringing upon our rights to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (weapons). It is ratifying an international treaty. So, it is a constitutional gray area. In effect, if ratified, it will go into effect. The outcome of any US Supreme Court opinion cannot be determined. It may be held as constitutional.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton likes this treaty. It goes further than her assault weapon ban did when her husband was president. It will be more restrictive than California's ban against any weapon that can take larger than a 10 round magazine. In effect, it will disarm Americans. Those few allowed to keep their weapons will have to register them locally, federally, and internationally.

The UN Office for Disarmament Affairs sees all small arms, including a .22cal target rifle used for shooting competitions, as one of the largest threats to world security. Of course, many member nations of the UN do not recognize individual property rights. So it follows, logically, that they do not subscribe to the need for these arms for an individual to protect one's life, liberty. or property from criminals. In addition, they don't recognize a need for these arms to defend one's life, liberty, or property from tyrants and oppressive governments. They think that the governments, even the most tyrannical, are there to protect the people and know what is best for them.

In order to punctuate the role tyrants are playing in this international treaty, one of the 14 officiating nations that is in charge of the conference in New York City is Iran. Yes, that Iran. The Iran who is building nuclear weapons. The Iran who supports Al Q'aeda, Ansar al-Islam and Ansar al-Sunna terrorists in Iraq and Yemen. The Iran who supports Hizb'allah terrorists in Palestine, Jordan, and Lebanon. The Iran who murders and jails those who have dissenting political opinions. Obviously, Iran doesn't want its average citizens to be armed and able to defend themselves.

That is against the very core beliefs our country was founded upon. It goes against the very fabric of what makes our country great. We prosper because of individual property rights, individuals' rights to life, and the freedom to do with our lives and possessions what we wish so long as we do not infringe upon those rights of others.

The UN Conference that is plotting and planning to take away those rights is meeting right now, in New York City. The conference concludes on July 27th.  Here is US Ambassador to the UN Donald Mahley's statement. Mahley made two major points of contention about the conference and the treaty. The first is that Iran was named as one of the senior officiating countries for the conference and the treaty. Iran still funds and supplies Hizb'allah and the Abu Nidal Organization (responsible for the 1979-1980 hostage crisis). Mahley also expressed concerns about the necessity to strengthen and facilitate legitimate arms trade as well as bolstering individual rights to self-defense. 

Among the US Senators expressing serious reservations about the ATT is Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia. Upon discovering that Iran will be among the countries dictating the provisions and enforcement of the ATT, among other Agenda 21 treaties, the Senator stated the following.

"I have expressed my concern about the threat to the United States second amendment, our constitutional right to bear arms, and my concern over the U.N. subordinating U.S. law to itself. But I have never ever been as concerned as I am today to find out that Iran has been named, without objection, as a member of the conference that will lead this debate. 

"Iran has been seeking a position on this U.N. conference on small arms and arms trade treaty agreement for some time. That has been known. 
 
"This is the same Iran the U.N. has sanctioned four times in the last 3 years for its progress on its nuclear arms program and the enrichment of nuclear material. It is the same Iran that as recently as last week the U.N. sent its former chief head president to try to negotiate a settlement on the horrible things that happened in Syria. This is the same Iran that is accused of shipping arms to Syria and to the Asad regime, which has resulted in the killing of over 17,000 Syrians in the last year.

How in anybody's right mind could they allow a country that is in the process of doing that and that has been sanctioned four times by the U.N. to ascend to a position to negotiate a conference on a treaty on small arms on behalf of the U.N.?"

 

You see and hear little about the Agenda 21 treaties such as the LOST and the ATT in the mainstream media. Why? It appears they hope your rights are stolen through ratification of these treaties with little notice until it is too late. They hope that such will be just a scant footnote in their skewed versions of historical texts 10 years from now. They want to control the information, the facts you are allowed to know, therefore controlling what you think. 


Despite what many may think, in the US, it is not the job of police to protect and safeguard your life, your family's lives, or your property. It is their job to pursue anyone who HAS infringed upon them and broken laws. It is not their job to stop people who are violating them. If you want to protect your life, your family, and your property, then it is up to you to do so. The US Supreme Court has made that same ruling more than once. Ratifying the ATT Small Arms Treaty with the UN will take away your basic right of self-defense. That defense is against criminals, murderers, and tyrants.


Why would left-leaning socialists wish to support such an idea? Simple, to gain power. First, Hitler, Lenin, etc. took over the media. Next they too over the schools. The third step was to disarm the people while claiming they would protect them. What was their next step? Well, Hitler ordered the systematic murders of over 11 million people. It should be more than obvious that their goal is to leave law-abiding citizens defenseless when the hordes of Bolsheviks and the SS start knocking down your doors, confiscating your property, and taking your kids off to re-education camps. You may find this a slight exaggeration. I know many progressives who honestly believe such things "would never happen here". I know others who believe it would be a good thing if such DID happen here. The only reasons such wouldn't happen here is because enough people would stand up against such. However, these days, there are too many sheep that would follow the scapegoat to the slaughter. In 1930s Germany, many people thought "That could never happen here". In 1919 in the newly established USSR, many thought "that may happen under the Czar, but it won't happen here, now". Well, it happened.

Write your Senators. If you live in Texas, while Dewhurst and Cruz battle for the nomination this week, put the subject before them. (Cruz has already publicly stated he will not vote in favor of ratifying ANY of the Agenda 21 treaties). Put the question before ALL candidates. Hold them accountable. Let them know that the Agenda 21 treaties are evil and against everything this country stands for. Let them know that voting in favor of ratifying them is, in effect, violating their oaths of office to support the US Constitution against all enemies. In effect, supporting these treaties or ratifying them is equivocated to treason.

To those who support the ATT Small Arms Treaty, I say two words borrowed from the Spartans:  "Molon Labe".  They can count my ammunition as they inventory it, one round at a time, in rapid succession, sent out most expeditiously.   

Media's War Against Individual Rights

In the early morning of July 20th, 2012, a gunman entered a showing of the latest Dark Knight movie and shot several people. It is a tragedy. The gunman is a criminal and mass murderer. When the actual person is captured, hopefully the evidence will lead to an apt punishment and swift justice. The families of the slain deserve nothing less.

However, the gunman most likely did not act at the behest of conservatives who support the Second Amendment. Sean Hannity did not tell people to go on shooting rampages. Rush Limbaugh did not go on the air and say "Somebody should shoot up a showing of a Batman movie". Neal Boortz did not come out and say "shooting people in a theater is patriotic".

TEA Party members, by and large, are law abiding citizens. The Second Amendment is intended for self-defense against would-be criminals and protection against government militias who may attempt to instill tyranny. The Second Amendment is for protection of self, life, family, and property. It is not a license to go on shooting rampages. TEA Party members live this philosophy. Yet, the media is attempting to blame this shooting on conservative and libertarian talk show personalities and on the TEA Party.

They did the same when a left-wing activist attempted to assassinate Rep. Gabby Giffords in Tucson, AZ. Immediately after the shooting, the media attempted portray the shooter as a "Right Wing Nut Job" who went nuts and shot up the town hall meeting. However, once the evidence came to light, the shooter turned out to be a left-wing activist (a socialist). Of course, once that evidence was revealed, you didn't hear a peep from the left-wing biased mainstream media.

When Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK, the media did the same. They portrayed him as a right-wing activist. In truth, he turned out to be a Marxist.

Why does the media seem to get this wrong every single time?

Simple, they don't want people to know the truth. They wish to obfuscate the truth and lie to the citizens of the US, misleading them in an effort to frame those who love individual rights as evil. In other words, they despise the very basic ideals our country was founded upon. They support the Agenda 21 treaties that are design to steal US sovereignty and strip our citizens of our constitutionally protected individual rights.

Here are some truths the media failed to publish. The men who restrained the Tucson shooter and kept him from harming more people were all TEA Party members. They had concealed carry permits. (A couple of months later, no concealed carry permits were required in Arizona to carry concealed). They did not use their weapons because there was no way to shoot the criminal without endangering other lives. So they wrestled him to the ground instead. However, the shooter himself, not the brave men who stopped him, was the one the media labeled as being a TEA Party member.

The DC sniper(s) were left-wingers tied to Islamic extremist groups. They were not conservative Americans.

What are not reported are shooting incidents in places that ban firearms on their property. By and large, when these occur, those with concealed carry permits wish they had their weapons on them. However, being law-abiding citizens, they do not carry their firearms and are left defenseless. So are those around them that the concealed weapons carriers could have protected.

If the theater in Aurora, CO banned firearms on their property (it is their property and they have the right to do so), how many people did they prevent from having a means to stop this shooter? He shot 14. If they had allowed concealed carry, could one armed citizen have shot this murder after the first one or two and saved 12-13 lives in the process? Yes. However, the media seeks to vilify those law-abiding citizens who followed the rules and left their weapons locked up elsewhere instead of bringing them into the theater.

Criminals break laws. They have no regard for laws. They see laws as "morally relative" (like liberals and socialists see the US Constitution). They don't care if there is a "no firearms" sign posted. They will still bring the weapons in and use them. Such was the case in Chicago in 1990. Chicago had strict "no handguns" laws in city limits. Yet criminals still bought weapons, illegally, and brought them into theaters to conduct gang-related shootings. The gun restrictions didn't matter to them.

In states and municipalities that have lesser violations of Second Amendment rights, violent crime rates are much lower. It's a proven trend. 

I recently moved from Arizona. Arizona got it right. They passed a law allowing concealed carry without need for a permit. For decades prior, Arizona allowed open-carry without a permit. In my new state, I have to acquire a concealed permit. They would reciprocate Arizona's had I not let it lapse due to it no longer being necessary. More states need to follow Arizona's example. Arizona is a state that understands the full intentions of the Second Amendment. The amendment states "Keep" (own, posses) and "Bear" (carry, wear, have on one's person) "arms" (weapons, firearms). There is nothing in there that says "as long as somebody issues a permit". In fact, it says that the rights "will NOT be infringed". That means states issuing permits for concealed carry or restricting the carrying of a weapon are violating the Second Amendment.

However, the mainstream media wants people to fall in line with the tyranny of the government. They want people to look to government to feed, clothe, house, protect, nurse, nanny, and wipe their butts after they have a bowel movement. They want to be the only source of "information", determining what you will believe. They want to control what facts you receive. They want you enslaved to the statist, socialist, collectivist, "progressive", "liberal", Marxist, Marcusian masters.

There was a party in 1930s Germany called the "National Workers' Socialist Party". They took over and controlled the media, filtering facts and lying to the people. They greatly influenced the election of a man named Adolf Hitler to become their chief executive. They took away the guns because "the state will protect you, you don't need them", thus disarming those they wished to enslave. They then committed genocide under a party of tyranny that was intent upon world domination. It all started with the media telling people what to think and convincing them that the violations of their individual rights were for their "general welfare".

In the near future, the international "Small Arms Treaty" will be signed and forwarded to the Senate for ratification. It is part of Agenda 21. This shooting in Aurora, CO will be used to propagate that vile, evil, affront to individual rights. The left doesn't want you to have individual rights. To take them away, first they must take away your ability to defend them. That is what the media is attempting to facilitate.

The Media Research Center, a mainstream media watchdog group that reports and comments on accuracy (inaccuracies and biases) in the media published this video. It's worth the few minutes of time to watch.

America Needs Karen Harrington In Congress

A couple of weeks ago, I published an article comparing and contrasting Ms. Karen Harrington with incumbent Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. The article was titled "The Contender vs. The Hand-Puppet". Mostly it concentrated on Ms. Wasserman-Shultz's shortcomings. Since then, I have had the pleasure of interviewing Ms. Harrington and some of her staff both via telephone and email. Today, I bring you Karen's answers on four key issues as well as personal commentary on those answers.

In addition, I provide some counter-point based upon my perceptions and interpretations of Debbie Wasserman-Shultz's past statements and sound-bytes. Representative Wasserman-Shultz provided no input to this article.



The Federal Budget and a Balanced Budget Amendment

"Karen supports a Balanced Budget amendment with a clause that Congress fulfill it's duty and pass a budget every year." 

Karen supports a comprehensive and directly stated Balanced Budget Amendment to the US Constitution. Deficit spending, plain and simple, is when congress establishes a budget requiring more expenditures than revenue. Many times, there is a projected revenue based upon GDP, workforce participation, and average income. However, the amount anticipated exceeds the amount actually collected. So even if the amount budgeted matches the projected revenue, it often exceeds that amount collected. The difference is called the deficit. Now, if the budget exceeds even that projected amount, it is intentional deficit spending.

In household "home economics" terms, that means taking on more bills than household income, and  using credit cards to cover the difference for the month. If that amount (deficit) is not repaid within a certain time frame (in the case of the federal government, when the fiscal year ends on September 30th) it turns into debt. This is how the national debt is increased.
The best policy is to balance your household budget, keeping those credit cards only for emergencies instead of using them to pay for luxuries we cannot afford today, hoping we will make the money tomorrow. Some amount of debt, if regular payments are made, is not necessarily bad. However, being in debt to pay for a steak dinner and opera tickets every Friday night is not "good debt". Well, our federal government is taking its 30 closest friends out for seven-course gourmet meals and flying them to Berlin to see Die Nibelung every night, on credit cards. The current revenue can barely afford a Kraft Easy Hamburger Helper Cup, 6/pk and a Netflix streaming movie.

Ms. Harrington supports an amendment dictating better accountability for federal spending. In addition to an amendment mandating the federal budget match the revenue accrued, Karen further supports a clause calling for that balanced budget to be done annually. Currently, congress needs only pass a budget. There is an act in effect that directs the budget be done annually. However, there is no constitutional mandate to do so. The only budget that is mandated by the US Constitution on a regular basis is the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The US Constitution states that it needs to be done every 24 months at a minimum. Currently, congress attempts to produce one each year. A clause in a Balanced Budget Amendment mandating an annual budget would make that cycle annual.



Tax-and-Spend-crazy Debbie Wasserman-Shultz would prefer to keep spending federal revenue on Gucci purses, using our credit cards, knowing we can barely afford a Walmart purse.


 Immigration Reform and Border Security

"On Immigration, Karen believes that the first step is to secure the border. If we do not secure our border no one will believe that their is a real effort to fix the problem. The other part of the illegal immigration issue is employers. An e-verify system will ensure that that people who are in the U.S. illegally will not be able to find work unless they are part of a guest worker program. We need to fix our broken visa system and develop a guest worker program for seasonal workers."

Karen understands a common sense approach to these issues. Before any immigration reform can take place, the border needs to be secured. No reforms, not even amnesty, can work until that first priority is accomplished. Along with sealing the borders, legal crossing points needs to increase in both number and efficiency.

Karen's second step is to make it painful for employers to hire illegal immigrants. Some people do not understand the importance of this step. First, illegals are paid less, work longer hours, and are treated worse than legal workers. In effect, many illegals work in "sweat shops". They are treated, in effect, as slaves. Those on the left who claim to be concerned with social issues and "fairness" cannot reasonably argue that sweat-shop workers who are employed at the level of indentured servitude are even constitutional, much less moral. In addition, the "employers" who "hire" the illegal immigrants dodge payroll taxes, etc., by doing so. Laws that mandate systems such as E-Verify and provide steep punishments (fines or worse) for those caught in violation will actually increase the tax-base. By increasing the tax-base, more people will be paying taxes. With more people paying their "fair share", there will be more funding available for all of those "social[ist] programs" they demand.

After securing the borders, making legal crossing points more efficient, and increasing legal sanctions on employers, Ms. Harrington sees increasing incentives to immigrate legally. The visa program needs an overhaul. It needs to be streamlined in order to encourage those hard-working and moral people that want to become citizens to do so the proper way. The current system is so bogged down with red tape that many find it easier to enter illegally. Our current system actually deters legal immigration.

Ms. Harrington also supports establishing a guest worker program that enables seasonal or migrant workers to come to our country during those seasons when their labor will benefit both employers and the workers. For example, workers who are adept at repairing roads and are better acclimated to the summer heat could get guest worker visas to help repair the interstate roads. Since the workers want to come for a season to work a select contract, coming to the States to do that sort of work needs to be easier. In addition, if on a guest worker program, part of that visa would include some amount of state and/or federal revenue. For some projects, US businesses need that expertise for those projects. They will also lead to increased employment of US citizens.

Debbie wants to just grant amnesty for illegal immigrants, give them all tax breaks, put them all on food stamps, house them all in Section 8 housing, and have US Citizens pay for them to be here. While first and second generation Americans empathize with family members or individuals of common ethnic heritage, Debbie thinks those hard workers should pay for those who want to immigrate regardless of what they bring to the neighborhood in terms of business, service, productivity, or morals. In short, Debbie wants more slaves dependent upon the government ("We The People") to take care of them.


Health Care Reform 

"There are several steps to help bring down the cost of healthcare and increase healthcare accessibility. The cost can be brought down by offering people more choices. This can be accomplished by allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines, allow people to take their insurance with them if they change jobs, and even allow business associations to buy insurance together."

While some aspects of the PPACA may enact some level of needed reforms, Karen stated that the law needs to be repealed.

First of all, a 2,800+ page law is arduous. It is far too complicated for the average citizen to understand. A person should not need to consult a lawyer prior to seeing a doctor for a shot of penicillin and some influenza medication.

Healthcare is a private industry. Healthcare plans such as HSAs, insurance, and the like need to be. However, some level of legislation may be necessary to regulate those plans in order to enable greater competition. One such method to increase the competition is to allow plans to follow a client from job to job, so they are not tied to place of employment. Another method to increase the competition is to enable plans to cross state lines smoothly. That would make them interstate trade. However, healthcare should not be a tax.

In addition, the supply side of health care service needs to include means to reduce overhead. Once place to do so is through legislation that reduces malpractice costs for healthcare providers. The PPACA does little to reduce those costs and actually contains clauses that increase those expenses.

Karen seems to have too many ideas on this subject to cover in this article alone. Her bottom line is:  accessibility needs to be increased, choices need to be increased, insurance needs to be able to be carried across state lines, and plans need to be able to be transferred from job to job with no penalties to either employees or employers.

Ms. Wasserman-Schultz thinks that the PPACA is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Of course, that is because she is exempt from it.


Social Security and Retirement Reform

"Social Security has to be dealt with a serious manner. Both of Karen's parents receive social security so she wants this program to be solvent and sustainable. Some of the steps that can be taken at first to help sustainability our means testing, raising the retirement age to 67 and with the clear understanding that those who are 55 and older will not be effected."

Karen sees the necessity to reform Social Security in a manner that benefits everybody without taking anything from those already receiving the benefits or reducing future benefits for those who have already paid into the system. That presents a sticky problem. Both of Karen's parents currently receive Social Security. She doesn't want to see her parents lose their benefits. She doesn't want to see anybody's parents lose their benefits. People paid into the fund and have earned those benefit checks.

However, the fund is broke. More is being paid out than funds are coming into the fund. We cannot continue under the current program. That much is clear.

Ms. Harrington clearly states that any reform should not affect anybody over the age of 55. Those over that age should continue under the current system. It is too late in their lives to start paying into a new system and expect the benefits they already have due to them.

However, one of Karen's suggestions is that those under 55 see their Social Security eligibility age raised to 67. Longevity has increased since the program started. People are living longer and collecting the benefits longer. So once fix is to raise that age by two years, closing that gap in years receiving the benefits, making them more in line with the number of retirement years calculated in the original bill.

There are many programs and plans that could work. Karen supports doing extensive means testing before jumping onto any one suggested reform. Among those possible reform programs is the one placed into effect in Galveston County, Texas. However, that is but one possibility. Picking the best program for America is a must. Karen does not want to make such an important decision in a light manner. All possibilities needs to be pragmatically tested and compared. Our citizens deserve the best.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz demagogues Social Security Reform as "Trying to steal your benefits". That is furthest from the truth. The truth is Karen wants to maintain if not increase the benefits without spending money that is not there or increasing the burden on future generations to provide for the current ones not yet retiring.

The Contender vs The Hand-Puppet

VS.

 





The reigning "representative" from Florida's 23rd Congressional District, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, is facing off against a conservative contender deemed an underdog by the Mainstream Media. However, Debbie has national exposure and is the current head of the DNC. So, why is Debbie so worried?

Simple, Karen Harrington fights hard, fights honest, and packs a killer combo of truth, facts, determination, and a desire to actually represent her constituents. This worries Debbie. Why? Debbie has a glass jaw.

In her national exposure, Ditzy-Debbie Hand-Puppet has loyally stood by her master in the White House. So, why should this be one of her greatest detractors? Well, she was elected to represent her constituents, not to fall in lock-step with Obama with her jackboots shined. She has failed to do her job.

Debbie panders to special collectives, making promises she knows she won't keep. She'll turn on her constituents to tow the party-line every time. She'll do this even in the face of facts and data that openly display her lies and inaccuracies. If you want to see this, just do a search for any debate between Debbie and Paul Ryan. Among the favorites are ones where Debbie attempts to quote CBO and GAO figures while saying "President Obwumah says...". Each time, Rep. Ryan brings up the actual numbers and calculations from those offices with info-graphics. See, Debbie comes across as though she failed 8th Grade pre-algebra and hasn't passed a math quiz since.

She cannot even get her own platform straight. First she emphatically stated that the PPACA was not a tax. After the USSC decision, she backpedaled stating it is, indeed, a tax "absolutely". However, her puppet-masters Obama and Valerie Jarrett still hold that it isn't a tax. For somebody who is a so-called expert on the bill, who attempts to explain it to her constituents, it appears she hasn't even read the it.

Debbie uses her own bout with cancer as an emotional plea for votes. She uses that heart-string pulling in an attempt to get sympathy and empathy votes. In addition, her claims lead people to believe that, without Obamacare, they'll die of cancer, untreated. That is just plain factually inaccurate. The tactic is also reprehensible. I dare somebody to find one instance of Herman Cain politicizing the fact he is a cancer survivor. ("But Herman Cain is Rich!" -- Well so is Ditzy-Debbie Hand-Puppet). One key fact that Debbie failed to acknowledge is that Karen Harrington is also a cancer survivor who has worked countless hours with various charities to help others in their battles with the disease.

For somebody who allegedly supports the "99%" socialists and Occupiers, Debbie does one heck of a job obfuscating her belief she is of the elite who should rule (not lead). She refuses to release her tax records and her travel records and expenses, for example. She's not exactly the pillar of transparency she claims to be. Then again, Ms. Hand-Puppet takes her cues from Obama and Jarrett.  

Then Debbie goes on to pander to her "Latino Base". She believes that lying to American citizens attempting to convince them that devaluing their voices and votes by allowing non-citizens to cast fraudulent ballots is somehow in their best interests. Furthermore, she panders to them promising to make them more dependent upon the government. They, instead, seek to be free to live and control their own lives. Debbie panders  under the guise of being "the benevolent master". If those constituents blink away the shining lights and wait for the fog machines to stop, they'll realize that she wants to put them under the very thumb that many of them fled Cuba, Venezuela, Chile, Honduras or Mexico to escape.

Javier Manjarres at The Shark Tank has years of coverage on Debbie's inconsistencies. I suggest reading his site often.

So who is this contender, Karen Harrington? Ask Karen or anybody who has taken the time to interact with her. From my personal experience, I can attest she has a great sense of humor. She is willing to listen. She is honestly grateful of any support, even if it is kind words. I get at least one "tweet" a day from her just thanking me for mentioning her. She is connected with the people. It is obvious that this is not just for campaign purposes.

This is a stark contrast to Debbie who is aloof and condescending, even to those who DO know better. Her attitude and demeanor express a desire to "rule from above" not to represent and lead from among her constituents. Karen has a desire to lead and represent from within. It's her calling, not her desire for elitist power. 

Karen's stance on "the issues" is clear. It's more than obvious that she understands that the US Constitution was designed to grant certain LIMITED powers to the federal government. She knows it is not a list of what the government "allows" to the people. It's obvious that she holds true to the concept that "We the People..." agree to give those authorities to the federal government in conjunction with shouldering that government with the weight of all the responsibilities that go along with them. That includes being accountable for any blame for misuse or abuse of those authorities.

Debbie holds to the false concept that "We the elite in power give to you, the little people. Aren't we nice and kind?". No Debbie, that isn't kind. You hold the idea you can take from us and give us back a small portion with a smile and a lie. What you claim to "give" is ours in the first place. You are giving us nothing.

While Debbie attempts to obfuscate her membership in the so-called "1%", Karen is self-made. She and her sister run their family restaurant, building a life and demonstrating the blessings of liberty, hard work, and Adam Smith styled capitalism. Her work ethic and business sense already serve as a strong example to her community. That same example, service-oriented mentality, and dedication have been missing from Florida's 20th CD since Ditzy-Debbie took office.

While Debbie has the backing of the hoodwinked "Occupiers" and union indoctrinated socialists, Karen has the diverse backing of TEA Party supporters, "established" Republicans, "independent" conservatives, and libertarian-leaning personalities. If you look at her list of endorsers, this becomes more than evident.

Why do they back Karen? The first answer you'll hear many emote is "She's not Debbie Hand-Puppet". However that is not the root of her support. While many people across this great republic would love to see Wasserman-Shultz out of office, Debbie actually does a lot for the conservative-minded by constantly making the left look bad in her radio and television appearances. No, the main reason people support Karen is that Karen WILL represent her constituents. The people believe in Karen.

The major difference is between Karen and Debbie is simple. Debbie wants to deceive her constituents into voting for her fairy-tale. She is phony. Karen Harrington is real. She wants to better this real country in the very real world. She doesn't want you to pray for magic. She wants to do so that others may prosper. 

Stay tuned. Ms. Harrington has agreed  to answer a few questions. The results of the interview will be in a future article. In the meantime, please go to The Shark Tank. Javier not only covers Debbie, but is a great conduit of information relating to all of Florida, including Rep. Allen and Sen. Rubio.

Is There a Doctor in the House? ('Gone Galt'?)

On July 1st, William Bigelow at Breitbart.com published an article on a survey of doctors' reactions to the PPACA. As many as 83% of those surveyed are considering closing their offices and "Going Galt". 39% of  those surveyed see the healthcare industry and the services provided declining drastically over the next five years.

PJ Media published an article covering a video captured by Ari Armstrong at an Anti-Obamacare rally in Colorado hosted by Americans For Prosperity. In that video, Dr. Jill Vecchio describes how the law will force physicians to practice substandard medicine and violate their Hippocratic oaths.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (deemed a tax law by the US Supreme Court) does little to actually protect patients. It also makes healthcare more costly to 60% of adult US citizens through increased taxes and fees. The hard truth found in the first, second, and third order effects of this law is that it will make healthcare less accessible to people in the long run.

Some of the provisions, already in effect, are having a negative impact on healthcare availability and the providers' ability to service their patients. One medical administrator stated the impact she has already encountered in her workplace.

First, the sluggish economy and provisions of the bill forced her doctor and his medical cooperative to sell to the largest for-profit healthcare conglomerate in Massachusetts. This forced cost increases to those patients with private health insurance, Healthcare Savings Accounts, or paying out of pocket; undoing what little good "Romneycare" had done in the first place.

Next, the impact upon the salaries and benefits of the workers (including the doctor, who is now an employee) reduced. That gives less an incentive to actually work. In addition, the number of allowable sick days, Paid-Time-Off (PTO), and personal days decreased for these workers, which can add to burnout (therefore chance of more mistakes).

Another key impact is the increase in red-tape now involved in seeing the doctor. Those who may qualify for or are receiving any form of government subsidy for healthcare have paperwork to complete. The forms required have more than doubled in length, requiring as long as 45 minutes to complete. And these forms must be completed each visit. So, what would have been a simple hour-long visit to a doctor's office just doubled. That is if the patient doesn't require assistance from the administrators in filling out the paperwork. Already overloaded with an increased workload of administrative paperwork, those administrators need to make time to help those patients. So a patient may have to wait up to 30 additional minutes for that assistance.

One would think the simple answer would be to hire more administrators. Due to decreased wages and increased overhead, many doctors simply cannot afford to hire them. The workload has doubled, but the ability to hire the necessary personnel is impeded. To hire that additional administrator the doctors would have to fire a nurse, technician, or physician's assistant. That would mean more administrators and fewer healthcare providers.

Then you have the mandated limits on treatment such as those that Dr. Vecchio discussed. The administrator spoke of similar limits imposed upon her doctor already. These limits mean limits on services provided by technicians such as phlebotomy technicians, X-ray technicians, sonogram technicians, medical laboratory personnel, and physical therapists.

The PPACA also contains salary caps for healthcare professionals set to go into effect over the next 3 years. Combined with the increased overhead, limits to care allowed to provide, and imposed violations to the Hippocratic Oath, doctors are looking to retire early or simply will not be able to afford to practice.

One surgeon called into Neal Boortz's syndicated radio show broadcast out of WSB in Atlanta, GA. This surgeon and his wife, also a surgeon, have decided to move  to New Zealand. They have bought land and already received their visas, according to the caller.

A cardiologist, age 53, stated his intent to retire within the next year. He simply cannot afford to keep his practice. The administrators, nurses, and technicians he employs are scrambling to find other employment, which appears not readily available.

One X-ray technician, in Texas, was shocked at the possibilities before her. She now sees her new career is in jeopardy. What first appeared to be a stable long-term career is now looking unstable. After reading sections of the 2800+ page PPACA, she now worries if she'll have a job next year or the year after as more provisions are implemented.

Increasing the administrative bureaucracy while decreasing the availability of actual healthcare providers will make the medical services provided by the Veterans' Administration look streamlined and efficient compared to what will be provided by the once private industry. 

This I'll Defend

"This We'll Defend". It's the actual motto of the US Army. It is emblazoned upon the uniform patch earned and worn by Drill Sergeants in the US Army. If you take a look at the patch, it contains the rattlesnake from the Gadsden Flag ("Don't Tread on Me") being protected by an old breastplate. The symbolism is plain to see. The motto refers to the deep desire to defend the very founding principles of this great republic.

That very core foundation is found within the writings of Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, John Adams, John Locke (English Philosopher who wrote about the Natural Rights of Life, Liberty, and Property -- "The Pursuit of Happiness"), Adam Smith (Economist), George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson.

Upon entering military service, reenlisting, accepting a warrant, or taking the mantle of a commission Service Members take a solemn oath to "Support and Defend The Constitution of the United States against all enemies". I spent 24 years in uniform upholding that oath. Upholding that oath includes the implied responsibility to read and understand the US Constitution. Any person true to that oath would also seek to know what the meanings of those phrases were in the day they were written. That means reading the Federalist Papers written by "Publius", (John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison). Any modern interpretations based upon current slang and jargon are not proper interpretations. You have to go to the vernacular of the time.

Understanding the spirit of those intentions and the basic founding principles of individual Natural Rights, requires an understanding of the Declaration of Independence that led to the spirit of the US Constitution. Understanding the Declaration means reading Locke, Montesquieu, and Paine who explain and define those Natural Rights. I have done so.

Now, a year after I took off the uniform and started  my retirement leave, I look back. I still hold true to that oath. I still defend this great republic and all it stands for. I no longer do so while wearing body armor and employing weapons against our nation's external enemies. Instead, I do so with my words. I do so by living according to those principles. I write. I speak. I attempt to educate. I love this Republic. I see people attempting to erode what she stands for and what our core, founding beliefs.

Well, This I'll Defend!

The core principles our country was founded upon are under attack from left-wing socialist oligarchy. Instead of keeping states from prohibiting or regulating interstate trade, the federal government is now forcing interstate trade. Instead of upholding individual rights to pursue happiness (own and keep lawfully purchased property, run a business, keep what is rightfully earned), they are opting to do the very opposite.

Instead of being allowed the option of purchasing health insurance or seeing a doctor, you are now under a tax if you refuse to do so. It is the first time in history  that somebody is taxed for NOT purchasing a product. You now have a gun to your head telling you to buy something. If you don't waste your money on something you don't want, you will have your property taken away, violating the 4th Amendment.

I strictly oppose taking up arms against my countrymen, especially over a difference in political ideology. You invade my home, attempt to harm my family, my property, my livelihood, or my person, you will find I will defend those with whatever force is necessary. That is my right guaranteed by the Natural Rights given by God and further guaranteed by several clauses in the US Constitution including the 2nd and 4th Amendments. However, for pure political ideology, I oppose violence.

That does not mean I oppose action. The weapons are those of the mind, of word, and of education. I employ the same means Paul Revere used in his newsletters. I prefer the same means that Benjamin Franklin employed with his newspapers and pamphlets. Yes, we our country is under an ideological threat. That threat chooses to use force. You need look no further that the violence employed by the Occupy crowd and the two men that attempted to firebomb the 2008 RNC to see it.

We MUST get back to what our country stands for. Before we do that, we MUST send the leaders of this socialist movement packing. We MUST send a clear message that their views are not welcome in our legislature, in our courts, or in our executive branch at both the state and federal levels. Our weapons are our legal, lawful, verified, and non-fraudulent votes. Let them cheat. We'll just outnumber them with our will and the truth.

I hope you enjoy the embedded video. I had a lot to say this time out. Future videos should be much shorter.

Veterans Fought for Your Rights -- Theirs in Jeopardy

Photo property of © P-G Matuszak, 2010.

The current state of affairs is unimaginable. Dr. Phil produced a show allegedly about Veterans with Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and/or Post-Traumatic Stress (PTS) whose original title referred to veterans as "monsters". The Mainstream Media sensationalizes any news report involving a veteran, painting the veteran as mentally unstable. Events and practices such as these create false perceptions that any military veteran is a ticking time-bomb and a potential, unpredictable danger to ordinary citizens.

Bolstered by these fallacies is the fact that many veterans are denied basic constitutional rights due to injuries or circumstances that would not necessarily preclude ordinary citizens from these rights. The most affected rights are those that are meant to be protected by the Second Amendment.

If a soldier is injured at war, returns home, and falls upon hard economic circumstances due to the disability, veterans can seek help through the Veterans' Administration. In many cases, the VA may deem the veteran incapable, at least temporarily, of handling their personal finances. Say that disabled veteran also suffered a divorce due to injuries and hard financial times. Say the spouse normally took care of the bills, budget, and the like so the disabled veteran could concentrate on recovering and rehabilitating. Add the poor job market into the mix. Now you have a veteran that needs that financial assistance.

Having bouts of aphasia and needing classes in budgeting are not crimes and should not automatically disqualify these heroic men and women that sacrificed so much.

To "protect" the disabled veteran, the VA then will deem him incapable of handling his own finances. At that point, the veteran is placed into the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), even if  the disabled veteran has not committed any crime greater than a speeding ticket. Once on that list, the veteran is denied purchasing or carrying a weapon.

Soldiers and Marines receive extensive escalation of force training coupled with "shoot/don't shoot" scenario training. Other than perhaps seasoned police officers, Soldiers and Marines are the best trained in use of force. They know that pulling that trigger is a final option once all others have been exhausted. The amount of training and practice received far outnumbers the amount received for your average concealed carry permit holder. Yet, because a disabled veteran needs help managing a budget, this training and the basic right to bear arms is taken away as though they are a violent criminal.

Fortunately, a Senate Bill was introduced, now for the third time, to protect those veterans. Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina and 21 Co-Sponsors introduced the "Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act". The bill was re-introduced in October of 2011 and was referred  to the Senate Committee for Veterans' Affairs on June 27, 2012. Under this bill, a veteran must not only be deemed "mentally incompetent" due to an injury, but be found a direct danger to himself or others by a court of law before being added  to the NICS database. Hopefully this will preserve the rights these veterans served to protect so they may enjoy them as well.