Obama’s Gun-Grab Sham

 

The latest Obama gun-grab effort entitled Now Is The Time is a disgrace. It is as phony as the tears shed by Obama when he announced the executive order.crying

It’s little more than a Progressive give-away disguised as “The President’s plan to protect our children and our communities by reducing gun violence.” While the advertised purpose of this executive order is to protect civilians by deterring illegal gun sales and ownership, and does neither; it is a multi-Billion dollar (over $5 Billion) give away, and attempts circumventment of Congressional approval, by allowing laws to be written by administrative departments like DHS (Department of Health and Human Services), you know the food stamp folks.

It’s a sneak attack on privacy laws set up under HIPAA, by blurring the lines of what is legal and what is not.

In other words; gun purchase, sale, and ownership are no longer clearly defined by law, but are subject to the discretion of some undefined agency, or appointed agency head.

For example (from the facts sheet):

“Clarify that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks.”

What exactly qualifies as a gun dealer? Is it one sale, ten, or is it just sales in specific locations?

Reading further:

“Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement.”

So it’s subjective? The identity of what constitutes a ‘gun dealer’ is determined by the government agent in charge at the time?

None of guns used in the recent mass-shootings were purchased from a gun show, yet this is a major focus of the Obama administration, and is nothing more than straining at a gnat while swallowing a $5 Billion camel.

This executive order adds 200 ATF agents and gives them an initial expense budget of $4 Million to crackdown on this non-existent gun show loophole.

The order continues the attack on the privacy of American citizens, which the Obama Administration has been doing since2009 (mascaraed as Internet Security), this time, by creating legal loop-holes in the HIPAA law.

Of these new rules were created by the Department of Health and Human Services, not the Congress.

One of these changes reads;

“Among the persons subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor are individuals who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution; found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity.”

Which is current law. But what follows is a dangerous twist:

“or otherwise have been determined by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to be a danger to themselves or others or to lack the mental capacity to contract or manage their own affairs, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease.”

Determined by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority?

What defines a board? And who decides the definition of a ‘board’? Who decides who will sit on this board? And what constitutes a lawful authority? Who determines what a lawful authority is? Subjective and fluid regulations can be interpreted to mean a number of things depending on the person or agency doing the interpreting. Subjective interpretations are guided by a person’s personal beliefs as well as their political views.

These unexplained definitions create grey areas as wide as Loretta Lynch’s definition of a gun dealer. Is this what we want; the law meaning different things at different times?

The ACLU has had quite a bit to say regarding the administrations dangerous attack on HIPAA.

“Not  only  is  such  an  exemption  for  HIPAA  unnecessary,  because HIPAA does not pose a barrier to the transmission of relevant information to the  system,  the  creation  of  such  an  exemption  may  increase  the  risk  of inadvertent  disclosure  of  private  information,  including  medical  records, thus  subjecting  countless  individuals  to  a  loss  of privacy  and  certain  civil liberties.”

Of course the cure for all of this ‘new found’ mental illness is money. Spend more taxpayer funds for something that was supposed to have been taken care of under the great Affordable Care Act.

$100 million of the ACA budget was already earmarked for mental health, and because that $100 million is not getting the job done, the president proposes adding another $500 million to the ACA budget to address mental illness as part of gun control. What exactly does spending $600 million on mental health have to do with the 2nd amendment again?

Nothing, but it sounds good doesn’t it.

That brings me to the real reason for this executive order, the meat-and-potatoes of Obama’s ‘protecting our children and community’ dribble. Money.

Pumping more money into our failing education system (more government paid jobs): Let’s look at the list-

  • Put up to 1,000 new school resource officers and school counselors on the job: $150 Million
  • Help schools develop and implement emergency plans: $30 Million
  • Help 8,000 schools create safer and more nurturing school climates: $50 Million
  • Provide “Mental Health First Aid” training for teachers: $15 Million
  • Make sure students with signs of mental illness get referred to treatment: $40 Million
  • Support individuals ages 16 to 25 at high risk for mental illness: $25 Million
  • Help schools address pervasive violence: $25 Million
  • Train more than 5,000 additional mental health professionals to serve students and young adults: $50 Million

Grand total $385 Million (in an already gun-free zone).

Again, exactly how does putting all of these social workers in schools, at a cost of $385 Million, make any meaningful difference in reducing gun violence outside of the school building?

It doesn’t!

The $385 Million influx of money into the public school system is reminiscent of the President’s 2009 stimulus plan that pumped $145 Billion into public education (which largely went to bail out teacher retirement accounts).

The executive order does state part of the cost of this order will spend $4 Billion to “help keep 15,000 cops on the street in cities and towns across the country.”

Even this $4 Billion outlay is extremely non descriptive. It doesn’t say add 15,000 cops to an already overworked police force, it’s just “help keep.” Considering the presidents attack on police departments across the country I suspect this money is meant to impose federal control in local police departments by the lure of grants. If you want the money you have to allow the feds to regulate the way you conduct law enforcement.

Prove me wrong!

Then there are the usual, and pointless research grants (about $30 Million) to discover what we already know – the decline of faith and families has fostered a growing lawless society. But Progressive pin-heads would never admit faith and family is necessary for a civil society. They still think spending money and creating more rules will suddenly make criminals behave.

The normal attack on magazine capacity, armor piercing ammunition (where do you buy that anyway), and ‘assault rifles’. Yawn!

There is a $10 Million request for the CDC to conduct research “the causes and prevention of gun violence, including links between video games, media images, and violence.”

I have advocated for years the link between gun violence, in fact violence in general, is encouraged by video games. Many of the violent crime scenes we see greatly resemble scenes in the video games such as Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty.

The Sandy Hook shooter; “Adam Lanza had notched up more than 83,000 ‘kills’ on his beloved video games including 22,000 ‘head shots’ as he trained himself for the horrific Sandy Hook massacre, it has emerged.”

As well of the rest of the recent mass-shooting perpetrators (except the incidents where the perpetrators were Islamic Radicals) according to this article:  Mass killers in US all found to be addicted to playing violent video games

I’m not sure $10 Million is needed to research this link (my research on this cost nothing).

One only need to allow local law enforcement to investigate if a gun-violence perpetrator has violent video games in his possession, and how much time the perpetrator spent playing those games.

In the end, this executive order is anything but “a plan to protect our children and our communities.” It’s all about the money.  Wasted money – padding the pockets of public employees at the expense of the taxpayer, while lying to those same taxpayers about the true intent of this executive order.

Shame on you Mr. President for exploiting the children so you can continue to fund lost causes.

The Progressives Continual Attack On The 2nd Amendment

Almost immediately following the San Bernardino tragedy, before the incident was fully investigated, President Obama, along with Hillary Clinton in her familiar robotic tone, began beating the drum for the need to enact more gun control legislation to prevent such tragedies in the future.

Pet phrases like “we can do better,” “something has to be done,” and “common sense approaches,” are synonyms for we want you to give up a little more of your freedom.

2nd Amendment restrictions have always been a top priority of Progressives, believing the government is more capable of running our lives than we are.

While insisting more gun-control legislation is what is needed to prevent such tragedies, preventing future tragedies is not their real intent, their real intent is restriction of our 2nd amendment right, and they shamelessly use any gun-related tragedy to further their objective.

Would restricting my 2nd amendment right have prevented the San Bernardino tragedy? How about yours? Or any other law-abiding gun owners? Emphatically no!

Obama and candidate Hillary Clinton’s hasty implication that stricter gun control laws would have somehow prevented the massacre, over the course of the days that followed San Bernardino, turned out to be entirely false.

Their proposed gun-control legislation would not have prevented San Bernardino, and they knew it when they said it, and they still know it. But this isn’t about San Bernardino, it’s about control. Government control.

We now know San Bernardino was terrorist attack perpetrated by Islamic radicals Syed Rizwan Farook and his “wife” Tashfeen Malik.

The Progressives want you to look past the fact the attack was carried out in a gun-free zone, and Syed Rizwan Farook didn’t purchase the rifles used in the attack from a gun store, fearing he wouldn’t pass a background check. Nor would they want to admit because of Farook’s avoided retail gun stores, or gun shows, the current gun laws did their job.

San Bernardino revealed a weakness in legislative policy, but it wasn’t a weakness in gun control, it was a weakness in immigration policy.

The White House’s rhetoric how refugees from the Middle East are “thoroughly and “rigorously vetted rang woefully empty in light of the San Bernardino terrorist attack.

Farook went to Saudi Arabia and returned with his new wife Tashfeen Malik, passing all of the touted thorough and rigorous government vetting processes.

Had those vetting processes simply included looking at Tashfeen Malik’s Facebook page maybe someone at the DHS would have known she was a terrorist, and 14 people would still be alive.

Sadly, the Obama administration has forbade DHS from looking at anyone’s Facebook page as part of the immigrant visa screening process. So much for Progressive ‘common sense.’

The Legislation proposed is the same bill proposed in 2013 (which didn’t pass then either) but with a couple of additions.

The new gun-control legislation proposed by the Obama administration, candidate Hillary Clinton, and sponsored in the Senate by Chuck Schumer, is a Trojan horse.

While the bill’s supporters say tying gun background checks to the government no-fly list is a ‘common sense’ forward step, it’s really a slight of hand.

Tying our 2nd amendment right to a no-fly list would jeopardize that right.

How so?

The 2nd amendment, like the 1st, is a fundamental right, a right guaranteed by the Constitution, meaning it cannot be taken away by the Federal government except as the result of conviction of a felony in a court of law by a jury of your peers.

Restrictions can be placed on your right to purchase a gun, but those restrictions are enforced at the state level, not at the federal level. They also can be directly appealed in court.

The proposed legislation by Obama, Hillary, and Schumer, would diminish your 2nd amendment right by changing it from a fundamental right to an entitlement right (a right determined by the government, or a government bureaucrat).

On a side note, ole Chuck Schumer hasn’t mentioned the 100 Million dollar budget that goes along with this legislation, has he?

For example;

You go to a sporting goods store to purchase a firearm. You fill out the paperwork, and suddenly you’re denied because your name is on the government no-fly list. You want to know why your name is on the no-fly list, so where do you start?

You’re a law-abiding citizen, haven’t been convicted of anything, you may not even ever had a traffic ticket, so there must be some sort of mistake.

You begin your inquiry by contacting local law enforcement, upon which you’re informed your denial comes from the DHS (Department of Homeland Security).

What then?

Lucky for you the government has established a department and a website where you can challenge your placement on the no-fly list; the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP for short).

Your appeal starts by filling out a form, once you realize there is no 1 800 number to call and quickly get this resolved. In the mean-time your 2nd amendment right has been suspended.

There is an excellent article on the ACLU’s website detailing the bureaucratic nightmare involved in challenging your placement on the no-fly list, warning;

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-if-you-think-youre-no-fly-list

“Because there is no other alternative available at this time, we generally advise people to follow the process in the hope that the government will change it’s mind.”

So how could your name wind up on the no-fly list to start with?

This article mentions 7 ways, siting just 3:

  1. You could raise “reasonable suspicion” that you’re involved in terrorism. “Irrefutable evidence or concrete facts” are not required.
  2. You could post something on Facebook or Twitter that raises “reasonable suspicion.”
  3. Or somebody else could just think you’re a potential terror threat.

Potentially innocent actions, if considered as threatening by someone at the Department of Homeland Security, could decide your name should be added to the list.

At his point a government agent has suspended your 2nd amendment right; without a trial, and making a subjective decision based on reasonable suspicion. Who determines what qualifies as reasonable suspicion?

If you ever wind up on a no-fly list, even in error, in all likelihood you would never be able to find out who decided to add you to the list.

Even if you challenge the reason or reasons you are on the no-fly list, and are fortunate enough to talk to an official, it’s likely that official will only have a summary of reasons why you are on the list:

“You should know that the government’s summary likely will not include all of its reasons for your placement on the list.”

They also don’t have to tell you why your name is on the list.

“the U.S. government’s privilege against disclosing classified information that could harm national security. This makes it difficult for those prosecuting these claims to investigate the reason behind their inclusion on the List or to challenge the List on constitutional grounds because they cannot easily show a pattern of improper behavior.”

An unnamed government agent, operating under privilege, has determined you guilty, based on suspicion or error, without a trial by jury of your peers, has revoked your 2nd amendment right.

In other words; whomever at DHS, or at one of its agencies, decides your name should be on the list, can add it without any accountability to you or the public at large.

What is to prevent a government official from deciding who is added to the no-fly list based on their personal prejudices?

Without accountability they could add your name to the no-fly list for any number of reasons: maybe because you are a Conservative, a Liberal, a Christian, white, or maybe they just don’t like your friends or Facebook page. Any of these reasons, or dozens of others, could be used to suspend your 2nd amendment right indefinitely.

The inherit dangers of this kind of government rule-making, without accountability, has already happened, and more than once.

Remember Lois Lerner, the IRS official who was removed from office because she was caught intentionally obstructing tax free applications for Republican organizations during the 2012 presidential campaign?

She was removed from office with full pay and benefits. I guess that’s the government’s definition of being held accountable. Wouldn’t it be great if we in the private sector could be fired yet keep our pay and benefits?

The founders were very shrewd in the verbiage used in the 2nd amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

There is no constitutionally justifiable reason the 2nd amendment should be altered, or infringed upon, based on a list compiled by any government agent or body who is not accountable to the public. Doing so could be considered a violation of another constitutional right, the 6th amendment.

The ACLU is currently challenging the government’s no-fly list in court.

“Until the No Fly List Is Fixed, It Shouldn’t Be Used to Restrict People’s Freedoms.”

Tying our 2nd amendment right to the no-fly list is truly a Trojan horse. This is purely an assault on our 2nd amendment right by the government. President Obama, Senator Chuck Schumer, and Hillary Clinton, democratic candidate for President, are leading the assault.

We must not allow ourselves to be conned into giving up our 2nd amendment right by slick-talking Progressives whose only interest is exerting more government control over our lives.

Be assured if they can control the 2nd, we will soon after lose the 1st for our freedom of speech is only guaranteed by the 2nd.

 

North Carolina Under Assault

A friend of mine in North Carolina sent this article to me, and with apologies to her I’m just now getting around to it.

defaea7fb47bf9e0ba70491ce4de43ac

The title of the article Why North Carolina is the new Selma, is a ridiculous and unjust comparative statement. If accuracy mattered at all the writer, which it doesn’t, it should have read Progressives try to compare their march on Raleigh to Selma.

The article written by Penda Hair, co-founder of the Progressive org Advancement Project, who still has strong (financial) ties to the NAACP. So one could rightly suggest the article is slightly, or radically biased, to the left.

But I will give the devil her due, for you could argue my articles are biased slightly to the right. And rightfully so.

The article is full of misplaced adjectives, exaggerations, and flat out lies.

“Today, voting rights are being targeted with more subversive mechanisms.” What rights are we talking about here?

Using her list from the article:

  1. cuts to early voting
  2. the elimination of same-day registration
  3. a ban on out-of-precinct provisional ballots
  4. the end of a successful pre-registration program for 16- and 17-year-olds
  5. strict photo ID requirements

Let’s use a little common sense and examine her claims:

  1. The law in NC is early voting begins 12 days prior to Election Day. 12 Days. You have 12 days to exercise your right to vote.
  2. And 3. Were stayed by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling so we will not hit those too hard other than to say the change in voting laws in this bill are more than fair and are far more liberal than those set down by the founders of the U.S.

And the North Carolina law created ample opportunity for legal voters to cast their ballots as seen in the following:

“If you moved to a different precinct in your county less than 30 days before the election, you can vote at your old precinct’s polling place on Election Day. If it has been more than 30 days, you can either (1) go to your old precinct, ask for a “transfer,” take it to your new precinct’s polling place and vote, or (2) go to your new polling place and ask for a Provisional Ballot if your name is not on the voter roll.

The most convenient and reliable way to vote if you have moved within you county but have not updated your registration is to vote at an Early Voting site during Early Voting.”

After the liberal court ruling, the NAACP and the Advancement Project made this victory statement:

“The evidence is clear that the elimination of same-day registration, and the prohibition of counting out-of-precinct ballots, make it disproportionately harder for African Americans in North Carolina to vote,” said Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, president of the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP.

So was this about voting rights or just race? So if you’re black you move more often, or tend to register and vote on the same day more than if you were white? Lame at best.

If I was black, I would be offended by the implication that as a black man (or woman) I was different than my white counterpart, somehow less than, so special rules had to be created to accommodate me?

Maybe I should allow myself to be a pawn in an effort to further the Progressive expansion of the government plantation where I am told for whom I should vote. Where I have sold my vote for a government handout.

  1. Why should the state (the taxpayers) feel any obligation to pre-register minors to vote? The excuse of voters being ‘more likely to participate in future elections’ is not good enough. Once you turn 18 years of age, and want exercise your right to vote, then you must exercise the initiative to go register and vote. Having a right is the same as having a responsibility. You must exercise responsibility to exercise your rights.

The Progressives would rather you allow them to vote on your behalf much like a proxy vote in a stockholders meeting. They don’t care about you, just your vote.

  1. There is no legitimate excuse not to have a photo ID when you vote. Period. Adequate provisions are in place for those who “cannot” obtain one because of medical problems. All of the excuses I’ve read are just that, excuses.

 

gary-varvel-voter-id

Why was it necessary to include “Hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians – Black, White, Latino, Asian and Native American; Democrat, Republican and independent; people of faith and nonbelievers; gay and straight; students, parents and retirees?”

To further the lie. Why not just say “Hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians.”

But then you couldn’t highlight the NAACP could you? You couldn’t draw attention to the groups who took part in this circus.

Then there’s Moral Monday. How does that equate to voting rights? Well I’m sure some Progressive Academic could contrive a convincing thesis, but there is no direct link. Somehow though Progressives step over morality to defend the rights of immoral people.

However, miss-representing the truth and outright lying, as the writer of this article has done, is a moral issue.

And just for the record these Moral Monday marches used to be called The Jones St Rally, then the The hkonj rally (Sponsored by NC Now National Organization of Women). In fact this was the 7th in a row, The voter rights folks just decided to jump on the bandwagon.

And their stated purpose for this voting rights march on Raleigh?

“This is a great event that brings progressive voices from across the state to the capital to demand economic justice and an end to poverty.”

So all these protesters were protesting what exactly? It the typical Progressive shotgun. Protest about anything and everything and call it whatever suits your cause.

We see this has little to do with voting, and certainly nothing to do with morals.

Next exaggeration (lie) “In 2014, an estimated 80,000 people flocked to Raleigh to march against the state’s attacks on justice and democracy.”

80,000? Hardly. According to this article  the number came in around 20,000. 20,000 is still a good crowd, but it ain’t 80,000.

Now, let’s look at a summary of demands from the various groups who participated in the event. Brought to you by Bluenc

  •  Secure pro-labor, anti-poverty policies that insure economic sustainability;
  •  Provide well-funded, quality public education for all;
  •  Stand up for the health of every North Carolinian by promoting health care access and environmental justice across all the state’s communities;
  •  Address the continuing inequalities in the criminal justice system and ensure equality under the law for every person, regardless of race, class, creed, documentation or sexual preference;
  •  Protect and expand voting rights for people of color, women, immigrants, the elderly and students to safeguard fair democratic representation.

Like I said earlier, this Moral Monday rally is an illustration of the Progressive shotgun. A crudely put description of the Progressive shotgun; blow crap against the wall and see what sticks.

From our examination of this article we see this rally had no real comparison to Selma. Those who marched in Selma were not marching for any of the demands listed by these groups. And to equate the efforts of rabid Progressives in NC to those who marched in Selma is a disgrace to all of those who suffered injustice in Selma.

Penda D. Hair you should be ashamed. Your article is full of lies and half-truths. It is an opinion piece and deceptive at best.

Thankfully these groups are in still the minority, even though you would be led to believe by the Progressive Media they are the majority.

Don’t be deceived; Progressive demands are NOT moral issues, they are political ideals.

North Carolina is truly under assault by Progressive radicals, the NAACP, homosexual groups, Van Jones, and other political deviants. Progressives realize North Carolina is a swing state. Once solid blue, North Carolina is returning to Conservative roots and principles.

I can only pray the Conservative Majority in NC will not allow these groups to trash their great state.

 

No Action On Sergeant Andrew Tahmorressi Says White House

A petition signed by over 134,000 people submitted on the White House’s We-The-People-Website finally garnered a response, an unwelcome one to be sure. The White House’s response implies they are going to take a wait-and-see approach:

The response “The U.S. State Department continues to provide extensive consular assistance to Mr. Tahmorressi, and will do so until his case is resolved,” indicates a bureaucratic brushoff. While no one should expect an armed incursion to return Sergeant Tahmorressi, this response does not bode well as adequate treatment for a veteran of two foreign wars.

Meanwhile, as of today, Andrew Tahmorressi is still incarcerated. This story began in Late March of this year.

On March 31st Sgt. Andrew Tahmorressi was arrested At Tijuana’s El Chaparral Port of Entry for illegal possession of firearms. He missed the last exit before arriving at the border crossing ‘’while driving to meet friends to eat Mexican food in San Ysidro,” Tahmorressi said.

Tahmorressi further stated ”he tried to stop at the automatic crossing gates, but was waved through, and then guided to an inspection area.”

They say (Mexican officials), ‘What have you got back there?’ I said, ‘A whole lot of stuff and three guns.’ I said, ‘I didn’t even mean to be in Mexico.’

He was soon surrounded by soldiers and civilian law enforcement officers, and taken into federal custody.

As it turns out, this situation is not all that uncommon. According to The U.S. State Dept. other U.S. citizens have faced arrest for unintentionally violating Mexico’s weapons policy.

Tahmorressi served four years in the Marines, including two tours in Afghanistan, became a section leader and had been promoted to sergeant by the time he was discharged honorably in November 2012.

Recently California Senator Joel Anderson(R) has refused to attend a dinner honoring Mexican President Pena Nieto, stating “I do not have an appetite for foreign officials who deny U.S. citizens their basic human rights.”   “I am concerned that our military would feel betrayed if it appeared we condoned the harsh and unfair treatment of Sgt. Andrew Tahmorressi.”

‘’We believe the evidence supports Andrew’s claim that he mistakenly entered into Mexico,” wrote the congressmen. ”One of the most compelling pieces of evidence is a 911 call Andrew made at the border checkpoint, where he stated he was unaware of his location.”

Looking at this photo one could see how missing the last exit could happen as only a portion of the signage is in English.

1200px-I-5_South_San_Ysidro

It may seem easy to decipher to those who live in the area, but to me, one who has never been there, it would be quite confusing.

Secretary of State John Kerry has had conversations with Mexican Officials regarding Tahmorressi, but the content and progress of those conversations are not known.

While these talks will hopefully continue, President Obama has yet to mention Sgt. Andrew Tahmorressi’s name in public, much less taken questions concerning the jailed marine.

There are websites, beside the official government petition website, collecting signatures demanding the release of Tahmorressi and a couple of Facebook pages.

Sgt Andrew Tahmorressi remains in Mexican custody as of this date. And though thousands of Mexicans enter this country illegally every year, Mexican President Pena Nieto has refused to release Tahmorressi.

And the White House has done little to help this veteran.