|
 |
|
— Tell HHS their new regs are crazy
“Gun Owners of America [has] spent the months since Newtown doing tremendous damage, insisting that expanded background checks will lead to a gun registry.” – New York Times, April 4, 2013
It’s quite a compliment when the New York Times thinks that you are doing “tremendous damage.” But you can be sure that the other side is not going to go away quietly.
And sure enough, the Obama Administration is trying to unilaterally undo our recent victory in the Senate – and to undo the “damage” that all of us inflicted together.
But first, a little history.
Remember when Senators Pat Toomey, Joe Manchin and Chuck Schumer formed an unholy alliance during the recent gun battle on Capitol Hill? Remember how their amendment would have encouraged your psychiatrist to turn you in to the FBI’s gun ban list?
And you remember how we stopped that provision, because over 40 senators found it to be odious and a violation of the Second Amendment?
Well, guess what? Barack Obama has just concluded that “he don’t need no stinkin’ Senate.”
Instead, Secretary Kathleen “ObamaCare” Sebelius – and her Department of Health and Human Services – has promulgated regulations which would, by executive fiat, waive all federal privacy laws and encourage you doctor to report you to the FBI.
Understand a couple of things: First, the standard which your doctor would use to turn you in is embodied in Clinton-era ATF language and in the anti-gun Veterans Disarmament Act of 2007. Specifically, you doctor would “drop a dime” on you if he suspected you were even a slight “danger to yourself of others” or were “unable to manage your financial affairs.”
So if they say you can’t balance your checkbook, then you lose your constitutional rights.
But there’s another problem: The day these regulations become law, lawyers will be lining up to sue “deep-pocket” psychiatrists for every case where they failed to turn in a patient to NICS – if the patient subsequently engages in a horrific act.
The bottom line? Any psychiatrist who failed to report all of his patients to the NICS system risks losing everything if any of them engages in harmful conduct. Soon the rule of thumb will be: See a shrink; lose your guns.
And the regulations will apply to private, as well as government-employed psychiatrists.
The bad news is that 165,000 military veterans have already lost their gun rights because of the “see a VA shrink, lose your gun rights” precedent from the Clinton-Bush era.
Sadly, what happened to military veterans has now begun in the private sector – especially in places like New York, after they recently passed their misnamed SAFE Act.
According to gun rights reporter, Dan Roberts, firearms are now being confiscated from gun owners because of their mental health information. For example:
“[John Doe] received a letter from the Pistol Permit Department informing him that his license was immediately revoked upon information that he was seeing a therapist for anxiety and had been prescribed an anxiety drug. He was never suicidal, never violent, and has no criminal history.”
So now taking anxiety pills can result in one’s forfeiting their Second Amendment rights in New York!
This is where the gun haters want to push their agenda. And this is one reason why background checks are so dangerous – because they give government bureaucrats the opportunity to deny law-abiding people their constitutionally-protected rights.
But the good news is this: The HHS rulemaking is still at an early stage, and HHS is (no doubt reluctantly) taking the views of the general public.
ACTION: Go to the Federal Register – at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-04-23/pdf/2013-09602.pdf – and respond to the regs entitled “HIPAA Privacy Rule and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).”
Let the HHS know how you feel about waiving all federal privacy laws for people who seek counseling.
Also, be sure to tell your congressmen that you oppose the “see a shrink, lose your guns” regs issued by the HHS. Ask him to issue his own comments as well.
The regs themselves lay out several ways that you may submit your opposition. The comment period ends on June 7, 2013.
Received in an email from a friend. No time to completely verify it all, but if even a quarter is true then I would submit that full blown treason has happened at the highest levels at worst, utter cowardice at best…
Read on…
Submitted by Ian56 on Thu, 05/09/2013 – 13:50
in
Gregory Hicks: “I Swore an Oath to Uphold and Defend the Constitution, I am Here to Honor That Oath.”
by Stewart Rhodes * May 09, 2013
One of the most moving statements made by star Benghazi witness Gregory Hicks during yesterday’s hearing was about his oath. During his opening statement, Hicks said, “On February 19th, 1991, I swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. I am Here to Honor That oath.”
And honor it he did, with frank, honest, and heartfelt testimony that laid bare the horrendous fact that two inexplicable stand-down orders were given that left Hicks and Special Forces personnel in stunned disbelief and outrage, and left their brothers in Benghazi to fend for themselves.
Stand-down order #1 was when Hicks requested deployment of the special incident Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST), which is specifically designed to handle such attacks. Hicks testified that the FEST team had dedicated aircraft capable of responding within four hours – which is exactly why that team was created after the attack on the USS Cole. When asked why the FEST team was not deployed, Hick’s answered, “I don’t know.”
Stand-down order #2 was when the Special Forces team in Tripoli was all set to jump on a C-130 and fly to Benghazi and rescue their brothers, when their commander, Lt. Col. Gibson, was ordered to stand-down and stay in Tripoli.
As Hicks said, “I told him to go get our people and that is what he wanted to do.” When asked how Colonel Gibson reacted to being told to stand-down, Hicks said he “was furious.”
Continued at:-
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2013/05/09/gregory-hicks-i-swore…
Submitted by eduardo89 on Thu, 05/09/2013 – 12:35
in
Submitted by sunny on Thu, 05/09/2013 – 15:52
in
This video was put together after the event today at 10 AM EST, National Press Club.
PLEASE Watch AND Share.
This is SO important!
I hope this is the straw that does it!
Navy SEAL Team VI Families to reveal governments culpability in death of their sons in the fatal helicopter crash in Afghanistan following the successful raid on bin Laden’s compound.
Submitted by TommyPaine on Thu, 05/09/2013 – 13:03
in
First, we were told that some Muslims didn’t like a YouTube video, so they killed some Americans. Now, even the Dems are not believing that lie.
Now, we are being told that it was “terrorists” who wanted to kill some American officials, but it was covered up so Obama could get re-elected.
That doesn’t make any sense, either, because the American sheeple would be waving the flag if they knew upfront that Muslims were killing American officials. Why try to hide that? Makes no sense. And it probably makes no sense because it probably is not true.
The REAL story just might be that Obama and Clinton were running an illegal war both in Libya and Syria and that Chris Stevens was a central figure in the Iran-Contra style of illegal shipment of weapons from Libya to Turkey and Syria — and that Obama/Clinton were doing this to SUPPORT “al Qaeda terrorists.”
The story also involves General Paetreus, in that the REAL reason for his resignation was about Benghazi and not an affair.
Here are some stories with some background supporting evidence for this theory (note, skip down to the story with the title “The Real Story at Benghazi”):
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-05-07/benghazi-new…
And:
http://www.slideshare.net/kynize/the-real-benghazi-story-us-…
And (although the author does not believe it, he cites a general who claims it is true):
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/former-special-forces-comman…
This angle makes A LOT more sense for a cover-up, is consistent with what we know about black ops and CIA, is consistent with what we know about “The Database” (aka “al Qaeda”), explains why Hillary would get in such a hissy fit over any investigation (as head of the State Department, she would have been a KEY person in making the decision to do what was done), and explains why even the Repubs are sidetracking this issue to only discuss why there was no military response after the attack began.
“I will never leave a fallen comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy and under no circumstances will I ever embarrass my country.” The Creed, an abridged portion thereof.
In an unprecedented abuse of power, politicians in Colorado are presently meeting to silence you and millions more law-abiding gun-rights supporters. Their clear goal is to shut down Rocky Mountain Gun Owners once and for all.
In what can only be described as a kangaroo court proceeding in the Colorado legislature, anti-gun politicians are in the process of sanctioning and silencing a private citizen whose only offense is steadfastly defending the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.
As you will see, their ultimate goal is to close you off from the political process and bankrupt Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, eliminating the most effective gun-rights group in Colorado history.
Because if we lose… it could be the last political battle we are able to fight.
My friend, this is happening right now. Let me give you the facts:
RMGO knows the most effective means of pressuring weak-kneed politicians is by contacting their constituents and having them directly lobby their so-called “representatives.”
That’s exactly what we did with a certain Colorado GOP “representative” named Cheri Gerou. However, Gerou didn’t like hearing from her pro-gun constituents on gun-rights issues and she EXPOLODED with a public temper tantrum.
On February 15th, “Representative” Gerou initiated a public and violent altercation with gun rights supporter and RMGO staffer Joe Neville.
With the height of arrogance, “Representative” Gerou summoned Mr. Neville to her, confronted him violently, verbally assaulted him — saying F**K YOU — multiple times, and physically intimidated and assaulted him by poking him in the chest multiple times.
And when Mr. Neville very calmly replied by suggesting to the “representative” that he believed RMGO would notify her constituents of her behavior, she EXPOLODED AGAIN, summoned the Sergeant of Arms and demanded the gun-rights defender be kicked out of the State Capitol.
Then in a clear effort to turn the tables after her despicable behavior, “Representative” Gerou scurried to the anti-gun, Democratic Speaker of the House and filed an official complaint against Mr. Neville.
That’s right, despite her role as the instigator, aggressor, and arguably criminal actor in this encounter, Rep. Gerou had the arrogance to file a complaint against Mr. Neville and demand that he be “investigated.”
Those are the facts.
However, I can’t begin to tell you how bad it will be if we lose this fight…
1) Mr. Neville and others could be banned from the State Capitol, eliminating their rights to lobby their representatives.
2) All real, pro-gun dissent could be muted at the State Capitol.
3) Lawyer fees could bankrupt Rocky Mountain Gun Owners – preventing RMGO from contacting you regarding the actions of anti-gun politicians like Representative Cheri Gerou.
4) A loud, chilling message will be sent to gun-rights supporters across the country — standing up for your God-given right to own a gun will come at a political and financial cost.
You see, if the anti-gun politicians are successful in silencing the pro-gun community in Colorado, it will send chilling shock waves through the pro-gun community not only in the Rocky Mountains, but across the country.
Anti-gun politicians are making a clear statement: if you stand up for your 2nd amendment rights you will be harassed, cursed at, charged with a crime, called before an anti-gun tribunal, ridiculed publicly in the press and ultimately have sanctions imposed by an anti-gun legislative body.
My friend, I’ve spent my entire life fighting for gun rights. I have stood toe-to-toe with Dianne Feinstein fighting the so-called “assault-weapons” ban. I led the charge against former Colorado Governor Bill Owens when he supported gun control legislation in Colorado. I have been under fire, testifying in front of hundreds of legislators across the county defending your 2nd Amendment rights to “keep and bear arms.”
Today, it seems like I’m fighting them all at the same time and more.
And while I will never give up the fight for the 2nd Amendment… I can’t continue to fight without your immediate help.
Your donation of $100, $50, or even $30 – or whatever you can afford – will help us battle this onslaught.
My friend, as I wrote above… we are in trouble.
I have never written a more personal note for help before and I don’t know that I ever will again. And I hope after reading my email you will decide to join me in fighting back by going to this link and making the most generous contribution you can afford.
I’m going to fight back with — or without — your help. The only question is: will I have the necessary resources to fight and win or will we be run over by the anti-gun mobs that clearly have the system rigged in their favor?
It’s up to you.
Please send help if you can.
Very Sincerely Yours,
Dudley Brown
Executive Director
P.S. Anti-gun forces and politicians around the country are trying to muzzle gun rights activists with threats of intimidation, personal attacks and even hauling us up on trumped-up “ethics” charges.
If we let them get away with it, there will literally be nothing stopping them from destroying our Second Amendment rights. ~snip~
Alright folks, the battle lines are drawn. Are we a Constitutional Republic or a utilitarian one size fits all democracy where the majority always rules? Where the political correctness of the day rules. Think about it people. There was a time when women could not vote. When only land owning white males could vote, own land, or (sickeningly) other humans. When weapons were denied based upon race, gender, or religion.
Think about it; Most of the real problems in our society are directly associated with the heavy hand of government at some point in our history. Be that local, County, State, or on the Federal level. On the about me / opening page of this blog I said that Liberty and Freedom most often provide solutions. Government most often only causes problems. I am a philosophical LIBERTARIAN and that will never change! Nothing has changed at all to alter that position.
I am a MARINE CORP BRAT! Figure out the consequences.
In closing I have one thing to say;
Come and kill me. Today is a good day to die.
In reaction to the U.S. Senate‘s rejection of a gun control bill he had been pushing Congress to pass, Barack Obama blew his stack in his comments about the defeat, pitching a tantrum in front of the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn.
Attorney and radio commentator Hugh Hewitt, reacting to Obama’s explosive tone, stated that the president had acted in a manner that is unbecoming to the office of president and added to the pain and heartache of those who are suffering in the wake of the Newtown shooting.
Vowing that he would continue to do all that is necessary to pass more gun control legislation, Obama castigated Senate Republicans and a few Democrats who voted with them in defeating the Toomey-Manchin compromise measure that would have vastly expanded background checks on gun purchases.
But Obama reserved his harshest words for the National Rifle Association (NRA) that had vigorously opposed the new gun control measure, accusing the organization of lying to the public:
The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill. It came down to politics. They (the NRA) claimed that it would create some sort of big-brother gun registry, even though it did the opposite. This pattern of spreading untruths … served a purpose. A minority in the U.S. Senate decided it wasn’t worth it. They blocked common-sense gun reforms, even while these families looked on from the Senate gallery.
Hewitt went further to say that despite Obama’s threats, Americans by and large oppose any more gun control and place the issue near the bottom of the list of issues voters view as important.
If anything, said Hewitt, voters in Colorado, for example, will probably turn out dozens of Democrats from the state legislature which engaged in serious overreach in approving draconian gun control laws over the objections of the voters in the state. Hewitt stated that Colorado may even go as far as to have recall elections for many of the Democrats who voted in favor of the gun control measures.
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Really, such an epic failure… He sounded like a cry baby throwing a temper tantrum.
Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) – NRA A rated
Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) – NRA A rated
Richard Burr (N.C.) – NRA A rated
Saxby Chambliss (Ga.) – NRA A rated
Tom Coburn (Okla.) – NRA A rated
Susan Collins (Maine) – NRA C+ rated
Bob Corker (Tenn.) – NRA A rated
Jeff Flake (Ariz.) – NRA A rated
Lindsey Graham (S.C.) – NRA A rated
Dean Heller (Nev.) – NRA A rated
John Hoeven (N.D.) – NRA A rated
Johnny Isakson (Ga.) – NRA A rated
Mark Kirk (Ill.) – NRA F rated
John McCain (Ariz.) – NRA B+ rated
Pat Toomey (Pa.) – NRA A rated
Roger Wicker (Miss.) – NRA A+ rated
13 of these Senators have NRA “A-ratings.”
Urgent action required. It is urgent that every gun owner call their Senators today and demand that they oppose the “See a Shrink, Lose your Guns” sell-out bill that is being authored by Senators Pat Toomey (R) and Joe Manchin (D) – but which also has Chuck Schumer’s fingerprints all over it. Call immediately at 202-224-3121.
See a Shrink, Lose your Guns. The anti-gun “ranters” have spent the last week telling us that Republican Senators can’t filibuster Harry Reid’s gun control bill; that they can’t cut off debate to a bill they haven’t seen yet. “Let the bill come up,” they say. “We need to see the bill” before Senators can vote against cloture to proceed to it.
Well, we’ve seen the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer sell-out, and it’s worse than the Feinstein gun ban, which will reportedly be tied to it and offered simultaneously in a Senate procedure known as an “amendment tree.”
Toomey and Manchin will claim that their bill only covers “gun show sales” and Internet sales. But if you’ve ever talked about your gun and /or let it be known you’d like to sell or buy a gun on the Internet, this language covers you. If you advertise your gun in the church bulletin and the bulletin is put on the Internet, you’re covered.
The only exemption is for sales that are sold exclusively by word of mouth. The increased number of background checks would likely exacerbate the system breakdowns (inherent to NICS) which have shut down gun shows over and over again. It would mean that Americans who were illegally denied firearms because their names were similar to other people’s would effectively be barred from owning a gun. (We would never tolerate such delays for voting rights or other freedoms that we are guaranteed.)
And for those Republicans who think they’re going to be able to offer their useless amendments, guess what? Reid is reportedly going to use a procedure to block out all amendments (called an “amendment tree”). And there are plenty of Senators standing in line to make sure that the Senate doesn’t give “unanimous consent” to let those Republicans offer their amendments.
So if you live in a rural area, you’re effectively barred from selling or buying a gun – or it at least becomes very, very difficult.
Incidentally, the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer “national registry” language is full of holes. There will be a national gun registry as a result of this sell-out.
But that’s not the worst part. Under an amendment in the bill to HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), you could have your guns taken away because your private shrink thinks you’re “dangerous” and could send your name directly to the FBI Instant Check system.
Did you think it was terrible that 150,000 military veterans had been added into the NICS system because they’d seen a VA shrink about their PTSD? Well guess what? Now it’s going to happen to the rest of the population … by the millions!
And the next step, of course, will be to begin to sue psychiatrists that don’t send every single patient’s name to the Instant Check system, and to make sure that their lives are ruined if they don’t send a patient to NICS and anything goes wrong.
The bottom line: “See a shrink; lose your guns.”
All of this will reportedly be on an amendment tree with the Feinstein gun ban and magazine bans.
Repeal of gun owner protections. In addition, Toomey no doubt unintentionally agreed to repeal one of the most important protections for gun owners that was included in the 1986 McClure-Volkmer Act – the provision that would allow you to take an unloaded, locked-up gun through states like New York without being stopped. Under a new subsection (c), the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer bill would require you to “demonstrate” to the satisfaction of New York police where you were coming from and where you are going to. And, if you don’t do that to their satisfaction, they can arrest you.
Please keep in mind, nothing in this bill would have stopped Newtown dirtbag from killing his mother and taking the firearms that she owned and perpetrating the horrible crimes that he committed.
Nothing is this bill would actually make children safer at schools. There is nothing that will actually keep bad guys from stealing or illegally acquiring guns, but there’s plenty that will threaten our gun rights!
ACTION: Click here to contact your two senators immediately. Tell them the “see a shrink; lose your guns” sellout is even worse than the Feinstein gun ban which will reportedly be on the same amendment tree with it. Distribute this alert far and wide.
Time is short, so if you call – at 202-224-3121 – you may click here to see the pre-written letter and use the contents to help direct your comments.
1.) Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.
2.) The majority of respondents — 71 percent — say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime. Just over 7 percent took the opposite stance, saying they believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect.
3.) About 85 percent of officers say the passage of the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have a zero or negative effect on their safety, with just over 10 percent saying it would have a moderate or significantly positive effect.
4.) Seventy percent of respondents say they have a favorable or very favorable opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions. Similarly, more than 61 percent said they would refuse to enforce such laws if they themselves were Chief or Sheriff.
5.) More than 28 percent of officers say having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public, followed by more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons (about 19 percent) and more armed guards/paid security personnel (about 15 percent).
6.) The overwhelming majority (almost 90 percent) of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident.
7.) More than 80 percent of respondents support arming school teachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms and carry one in the course of the job.
 | Patrick Sperry on On Not so civil wars… |
 | TexasFred on Guest commentary… |
 | MaddMedic on Guest commentary… |
| Patrick Sperry on The Stupid runs deep… |
| Patrick Sperry on Math for planning in the comin… |
Conservative Libertarian Outpost 