According to the Washington Times, the Obama Administration has developed a new technique to inhibit private citizens from gun ownership, contrary to the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
In 2011,The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) listed gun dealers at “high-risk” for loans. The basis for such decision is unknown, but we can speculate that it may have come from the Obama Administration.
As a recent follow-up, Eric Holder's Justice Department, which works for Obama, has developed a new initiative called Choke Point to open wide-ranging investigations of banks and payment processors associated with the businesses on the FDIC list. As of last year, Justice had issued more than 50 subpoenas to banks and payment processors. The banks have gotten this high-pressure message and rather than risk the complexities of investigation, they have significantly cut credit availability to gun dealers. This obviously reduces availability of guns to the public, as dealers are denied financing for expansion and the proper carrying of inventory.
An interesting aspect of the situation is that justice/Obama can do this, because the wording of the Second Amendment is that "Congress should make no law, etc." Apparently, the founding fathers did not anticipate the deviousness of future Administrations.
However, Congress can move to bring the situation into its proper perspective, in that it has constitutional authority to pass a law, which prohibits the Administration from these devious maneuvers, particularly with respect to public gun ownership.
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
US Position on Syria and Afghanistan
The Washington Times has three reports as follows:
Obama to push Syria escalation; most U.S. troops to leave Afghanistan by end of 2016.
Obama wants 9,800 troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014.
Obama to deploy U.S. military advisers to Syria.
We can dispose of all three in one fell swoop.
We have no "interests" in Syria. There is a civil war with no justification on our part that we should side with one position on the other. Assad was in power for many years and caused us no difficulty. Do we want to now make an enemy of him by sending in military advisers presumably to help the rebels? If we stay out, we make no enemies. If we side with one position or the other, we make an enemy. If we think that Syria is going to turn into a training camp for terrorists, we handle that when it happens by surveillance followed by drones to knock them out.
In Afghanistan, we said we were going to get out, which was a good decision. We should never been there in the first place. However, leaving 9800 troops or even one troop is not getting out. The Afghanis and Pres. Karzai do not want us there. We have no "interests" there. If we have a problem with terrorist training camps, handle them with surveillance and attack drones, as with Syria. If we don't like their production of heroin, use attack drones to spray their fields with herbicide.
Obama to push Syria escalation; most U.S. troops to leave Afghanistan by end of 2016.
Obama wants 9,800 troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014.
Obama to deploy U.S. military advisers to Syria.
We can dispose of all three in one fell swoop.
We have no "interests" in Syria. There is a civil war with no justification on our part that we should side with one position on the other. Assad was in power for many years and caused us no difficulty. Do we want to now make an enemy of him by sending in military advisers presumably to help the rebels? If we stay out, we make no enemies. If we side with one position or the other, we make an enemy. If we think that Syria is going to turn into a training camp for terrorists, we handle that when it happens by surveillance followed by drones to knock them out.
In Afghanistan, we said we were going to get out, which was a good decision. We should never been there in the first place. However, leaving 9800 troops or even one troop is not getting out. The Afghanis and Pres. Karzai do not want us there. We have no "interests" there. If we have a problem with terrorist training camps, handle them with surveillance and attack drones, as with Syria. If we don't like their production of heroin, use attack drones to spray their fields with herbicide.
Renewable Energy Gone Amok
Here's a little story from a Political Associate indicating how the federal government fritters away your tax dollars in massive amounts on ridiculous projects.
"If you are not sitting down, go ahead and get settled because what I am about to tell you is going to make you hot.
My nephew is in the Navy and when he first started telling me this tale I thought it couldn't be true. He said that the Navy was forced by the Pentagon to spend $150 per Gallon on jet fuel made from algae. Jet fuel (kerosene basicly) weighs in at 6.79 lbs per gallon. A typical F 18E carries 14,400 lbs of fuel (green, yellow, red any color you want) in its internal tanks. 14,400/6.79 means that this plane carries 2120 gallons of fuel. So a fill up for a 3-4 hour sortie burning algae jet fuel only cost 2120 x $150 or $318,000 as compared to $6,360 for the conventional stuff.!!!
Now if you are like me right about now you are thinking you are hearing a tall tale, so I am including below a link to an article about the program, all in the name of 'green'.
http://rt.com/usa/157724-pentagon-green-jet-fuel-cost"
"If you are not sitting down, go ahead and get settled because what I am about to tell you is going to make you hot.
My nephew is in the Navy and when he first started telling me this tale I thought it couldn't be true. He said that the Navy was forced by the Pentagon to spend $150 per Gallon on jet fuel made from algae. Jet fuel (kerosene basicly) weighs in at 6.79 lbs per gallon. A typical F 18E carries 14,400 lbs of fuel (green, yellow, red any color you want) in its internal tanks. 14,400/6.79 means that this plane carries 2120 gallons of fuel. So a fill up for a 3-4 hour sortie burning algae jet fuel only cost 2120 x $150 or $318,000 as compared to $6,360 for the conventional stuff.!!!
Now if you are like me right about now you are thinking you are hearing a tall tale, so I am including below a link to an article about the program, all in the name of 'green'.
http://rt.com/usa/157724-pentagon-green-jet-fuel-cost"
Monday, May 26, 2014
Sell VA Hospitals to Private Industry
Aside from the Veterans Administration scandal of ineptitude and handling patients and the prosecution of administrators, we need to take a more basic look at government physical facilities.
We should start with the premise that government should never have physical facilities unless they involve security of US citizens. Here are a few of government physical facilities which should be permitted: the Capitol building and is various offices, the White House, all facilities of the military including Air Force, Army, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard, various laboratories and test sites for weapon development, embassy buildings in foreign countries, and perhaps there may be one or two more.
Note that in the above list, nothing is included which can be supplied from private: commercial sources. For example, offices of the Internal Revenue Service can all be leased from private owners, if that is not now the case. Government ownership of property is a continuing infringement on the rights of citizens. We have continually been moving in the direction of government ownership as we expand the federal government and expand its socialistic concepts, which involve government ownership of all property.
This has not always been the case. During World War II, private industry facilities were converted by the owners to produce war goods, such as Army uniforms, airplanes, tanks and other military vehicles, ships, etc.. There were two exceptions: synthetic rubber and penicillin. With the Japanese controlling Southeast Asia, supply of natural rubber for vehicle tires and other uses was cut off.. Synthetic rubber compositions were developed by university professors, of which Carl Marvel was the leader. They settled on a composition of butadiene and styrene. The product was called Government Rubber Synthetic (GRS) and the government built several plants for its production. Penicillin had also been newly discovered by Alexander Fleming, but there were no facilities available for its production. The government built at least one production plant in Connecticut.
At the close of the war, the government sold off its GRS rubber plants and its penicillin production facilities to private industry; a return to private property rights and a reduction of physical property owned by the federal government.
In the case of the Veterans Administration, the government has a number of Veterans Administration hospitals. These hospitals are not particularly different from privately owned hospitals. The Veterans Administration should sell its hospitals to private industry. In other words, get out of the hospital business, in the same way that the government got out of the GRS rubber business and penicillin business after World War II.
Veterans have a magnitude of health problems, but none of these are particularly different than those handled by privately owned hospitals. It is only a matter of patient quantity. For example, there are many more veterans who have lost limbs from improvised explosive devices (IED's) than normally occur in the general population. But, the technology of treatment is not unknown or unused in private hospital operations.
Veterans with physical or mental disabilities, diagnosed by the branch of service from which they have been released should be given a veterans health card which allows them free private treatment at any hospital for the condition that they have been previously diagnosed.
Simply put, the VA should sell off its hospitals, and any of their other physical facilities and issue health cards to disabled veterans. The VA should act as a controlling body to assure that the private hospitals are doing the proper job in treatment of veterans, and should also concentrate on the other benefits that veterans should receive according to law. This latter has not come up in recent discussions, but I have had a particular difficulty with the VA supplying the proper educational support for my grandson, who was a tank driver in Iraq. The VA was had been so slow on its feet that without my personal financial support my grandson would never have achieved the education which now makes him an integral part of our society.
We should start with the premise that government should never have physical facilities unless they involve security of US citizens. Here are a few of government physical facilities which should be permitted: the Capitol building and is various offices, the White House, all facilities of the military including Air Force, Army, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard, various laboratories and test sites for weapon development, embassy buildings in foreign countries, and perhaps there may be one or two more.
Note that in the above list, nothing is included which can be supplied from private: commercial sources. For example, offices of the Internal Revenue Service can all be leased from private owners, if that is not now the case. Government ownership of property is a continuing infringement on the rights of citizens. We have continually been moving in the direction of government ownership as we expand the federal government and expand its socialistic concepts, which involve government ownership of all property.
This has not always been the case. During World War II, private industry facilities were converted by the owners to produce war goods, such as Army uniforms, airplanes, tanks and other military vehicles, ships, etc.. There were two exceptions: synthetic rubber and penicillin. With the Japanese controlling Southeast Asia, supply of natural rubber for vehicle tires and other uses was cut off.. Synthetic rubber compositions were developed by university professors, of which Carl Marvel was the leader. They settled on a composition of butadiene and styrene. The product was called Government Rubber Synthetic (GRS) and the government built several plants for its production. Penicillin had also been newly discovered by Alexander Fleming, but there were no facilities available for its production. The government built at least one production plant in Connecticut.
At the close of the war, the government sold off its GRS rubber plants and its penicillin production facilities to private industry; a return to private property rights and a reduction of physical property owned by the federal government.
In the case of the Veterans Administration, the government has a number of Veterans Administration hospitals. These hospitals are not particularly different from privately owned hospitals. The Veterans Administration should sell its hospitals to private industry. In other words, get out of the hospital business, in the same way that the government got out of the GRS rubber business and penicillin business after World War II.
Veterans have a magnitude of health problems, but none of these are particularly different than those handled by privately owned hospitals. It is only a matter of patient quantity. For example, there are many more veterans who have lost limbs from improvised explosive devices (IED's) than normally occur in the general population. But, the technology of treatment is not unknown or unused in private hospital operations.
Veterans with physical or mental disabilities, diagnosed by the branch of service from which they have been released should be given a veterans health card which allows them free private treatment at any hospital for the condition that they have been previously diagnosed.
Simply put, the VA should sell off its hospitals, and any of their other physical facilities and issue health cards to disabled veterans. The VA should act as a controlling body to assure that the private hospitals are doing the proper job in treatment of veterans, and should also concentrate on the other benefits that veterans should receive according to law. This latter has not come up in recent discussions, but I have had a particular difficulty with the VA supplying the proper educational support for my grandson, who was a tank driver in Iraq. The VA was had been so slow on its feet that without my personal financial support my grandson would never have achieved the education which now makes him an integral part of our society.
Sunday, May 25, 2014
National Security Agency's Phone Record Collection
According to the Washington Times, the House voted Thursday to cancel the NSA’s bulk-data phone records collection program, marking an overwhelming show of bipartisanship that would have been unthinkable just a few months ago and delivering a stern message to the nation’s intelligence community that lawmakers want limits on what the spies are snooping. Backers touted the bill as the first major restriction imposed on government surveillance since the late 1970s and said if it becomes law, the National Security Agency will no longer be able to collect and query most Americans’ phone records.
The House bill had relatively good bipartisan support, but the Senate will have to approve the bill before it goes to President Obama for his signature. A favorable aspect is that Pres. Obama appears to indicate his support. Since the Democratic Senate generally follows the President's lead, there's a good chance that the bill will become law and therefore consistent with the 10th Amendment to the Constitution on property rights.
The House bill had relatively good bipartisan support, but the Senate will have to approve the bill before it goes to President Obama for his signature. A favorable aspect is that Pres. Obama appears to indicate his support. Since the Democratic Senate generally follows the President's lead, there's a good chance that the bill will become law and therefore consistent with the 10th Amendment to the Constitution on property rights.
New IRS Tax Rules for Nonprofit Political Groups
The Washington Times says the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will start over on rules governing the federal income tax status of tea party groups and other nonprofits.
It's about time, but it may be another political move to take the heat off the investigation of malpractice in the first place. Let's not be duped fellow Republicans. Keep pushing to find out who gave the orders to penalize opposition groups.
It's about time, but it may be another political move to take the heat off the investigation of malpractice in the first place. Let's not be duped fellow Republicans. Keep pushing to find out who gave the orders to penalize opposition groups.
Harry Reid Off-Base in Renaming Sports Teams
The Washington times says that Senate Leader Harry Reid and several other Democrats have suggested that the Washington Redskins change their name, because the name "Redskins" is racially offensive.
Team president Bruce Allen responded to Harry Reid in a letter. He suggested that if Mr. Reid would attend one of the games he would witness first-hand that the Washington Redskins are a positive, unifying force for the community in a city and region that is divided on so many levels. He also said the Redskins‘ name “originated as a Native American expression of solidarity” and that the team logo was designed by Native Americans in 1971.
He also noted that 90 percent of Americans in one poll didn’t find the team name offensive, and that an Associated Press survey earlier this year found 83 percent of Americans supported keeping the team name. The team also played up its recent charitable efforts through a new foundation that in just two months has funded 40 projects to help Native Americans.
Sounds to me like a good response, but the key issue is whether Harry Reid should be messing around with the names of sports teams. Is that all he has to do as Senate Majority Leader?
Team president Bruce Allen responded to Harry Reid in a letter. He suggested that if Mr. Reid would attend one of the games he would witness first-hand that the Washington Redskins are a positive, unifying force for the community in a city and region that is divided on so many levels. He also said the Redskins‘ name “originated as a Native American expression of solidarity” and that the team logo was designed by Native Americans in 1971.
He also noted that 90 percent of Americans in one poll didn’t find the team name offensive, and that an Associated Press survey earlier this year found 83 percent of Americans supported keeping the team name. The team also played up its recent charitable efforts through a new foundation that in just two months has funded 40 projects to help Native Americans.
Sounds to me like a good response, but the key issue is whether Harry Reid should be messing around with the names of sports teams. Is that all he has to do as Senate Majority Leader?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
