Posts Tagged ‘freedom’

Is this the end..?

September 16, 2014

“Hey, Martin,” he called out across the room at a meeting I attended recently.

He walked closer so that no one would hear what he was about to say.

“What chance do you give our survival as a nation?” he asked.

“Not much,” I said, as I walked off. I did not want to engage in this type of conversation in a setting where eavesdropping ears were nearby. He followed me to an area off to the side of the room where he continued to press me on the issue.

“That’s a terribly morbid assessment there, Martin. I would have hoped that you would not take such a morbid point of view.”

“Morbid or not,” I said, “Those are the facts. Either we face the facts and do something drastic to save us from disintegration as a free nation, or we can go on pretending that this is only a passing phase, a part of a cycle that is to be expected, knowing that the pendulum will swing back in the other direction. The only problem is this time, the pendulum is not swinging back. This is not a passing phase in a cycle. Too many of our freedoms have been annihilated by this government, and too much of the Constitution has been shredded for this to be merely a passing phase.

“What has happened,” I continued, “is that we as a nation have crossed the threshold into a post-Constitutional era. Once that happens our freedoms and liberties and rights are either vulnerable or completely gone.

“Note the lesson of history,” I said. “Once freedoms are trampled upon and rendered inoperative by oppressive government, that government never gives those liberties back to the people. Never. The people are forced to take them back.”

The United States has already outlived all other great nations in history. As noted by the following quote that has been attributed to various and sundry political experts, “Great nations rise and fall in 200 year cycles.” We as Americans are already well beyond that limit.

And as incredibly pessimistic a statement such as the following may be, it is a terrible truth that must be faced — the upcoming election in November is not going to save us from our current fateful course. Too many Americans have thrown in with peddlers of taxpayer funded entitlements that they will continue to vote for them no matter what. Even if the Senate goes Republican we are not out of the woods. Too many of them have aligned themselves with the D.C. elitist class. To be sure there are candidates and elected officials here and there who are trying their best to guard the Constitution and restore the parts that have been shredded. But there are not enough of them.

Thus, so far precious little has been done to stop the ominous tide of “progressive” anti-constitutionalists who are leading us over the cliff. Unless this is stopped, we’re done.

And the next step will be war. Patriots will never start a war due to the fact that most of us hate war with a passion. Americans have never supported war activity unless we were forced into it. The problem is we are gradually being forced into it by the progressive cabal that is firmly embedded in the permanent political class. Sooner or later the forces of anti-freedom will do something stupid and fire off some shots at the citizenry. When that happens all bets are off. There will be no stopping what will follow. Even those of us who do not want any civilians hurt will have little or no say in the matter. Once this genie is out of the bottle, it will take on a life of its own that will be out of our hands


Index of Economic Freedom: 2010

October 19, 2010

“The 2010 Index of Economic Freedom lowers the ranking of the United States to eighth out of 179 nations — behind Canada! A year ago, it ranked sixth, ahead of Canada. Don’t say it’s Barack Obama’s fault. Half the data used in the index is from George W. Bush’s final six months in office. This is a bipartisan problem. For the past 16 years, the index has ranked the world’s countries on the basis of their economic freedom — or lack thereof. Ten criteria are used: freedoms related to business, trade, fiscal matters, monetary matters, investment, finance, labor, government spending, property rights and freedom from corruption. The top 10 countries are: Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Switzerland, Canada, the United States, Denmark and Chile. The bottom 10: Republic of Congo, Solomon Islands, Turkmenistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Libya, Venezuela, Burma, Eritrea, Cuba, Zimbabwe and North Korea. The index demonstrates what we libertarians have long said: Economic freedom leads to prosperity. Also, the best places to live and fastest-growing economies are among the freest, and vice versa. A society will be materially well off to the extent its people have the liberty to acquire property, start businesses, and trade in a secure legal and political environment. … Why is the United States falling behind? ‘Our spending has been excessive’ [says Bill Beach, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis]. … ‘We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. (Government) takeovers of industries, subsidizing industries … these are the kinds of moves that happen in Third World countries.’ … If we want to reverse America’s decline, we’d better get to work. There’s a lot of government to cut.” –columnist John Stossel


Puerto Rico Statehood, another threat to freedom in Wyoming

May 4, 2010

Reprinted with permission. Please follow the link for comments that are there.

Line in the Sand
Image: A.Bouchard

The newest “line in the sand” has been drawn, a Washington D.C. hostile takeover of your freedoms in the form of a push to make Puerto Rico a part of the Federal Union.

From the news – House Approves Puerto Rico Statehood Measure, “The House voted Thursday to allow Puerto Ricans to change the island’s commonwealth status, in what critics are saying is a backdoor attempt to force Puerto Ricans into choosing U.S. statehood…which passed 223-169 and now must be taken up by the Senate, would introduce a two-step ballot measure for Puerto Rico to decide if its residents want to change their current relationship with the United States”.

This is happening despite the incompatibility of the Constitution of this unincorporated U.S Territory, specifically the right to keep and bear arms. Unlike our Republic (a nation of Constitutional laws), Puerto Rico by a review of their Constitution and the actions of their Parliament, Puerto Rico is a Democracy (of men). Ever wondered the difference between a Republic and a Democracy, well the answers are right here. Just read on…


Puerto Rico’s Constitution states it is a Democracy-
Section 19. The foregoing enumeration of rights shall not be construed restrictively nor does it contemplate the exclusion of other rights not specifically mentioned which belong to the people in a democracy. The power of the Legislative Assembly to enact laws for the protection of the life, health and general welfare of the people shall likewise not be construed restrictively.

By contrast the Wyoming Constitution clearly defines the form of government as Republic-
97-1-007 – Absolute, arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority.

Also to be noted there is no mention of the “right to keep and bear arms” in the Puerto Rican Constitution, but the Wyoming Constitution states this-
97-1-024 – The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied.

Motive – If Puerto Rico is forced into Statehood by Congress they will have a new partner to impose strict gun control in the U.S. and this backdoor attempt is just another step toward full federal control.

Nothing new here! In fact, similarly states like New York and California have become enemies to liberty in Wyoming by imposing their will in our state on issues such as land, wildlife and mining. More recently, legislation has been introduced in Washington that could alter “Water Rights” in Wyoming forever.

Obama started to circle the wagons while campaigning in Puerto Rico in 2008, as you will see in this video.

With the recently passed HealthCare Mandate and the coming Value Added Tax (VAT) and ”Cap and Trade”, it should be even more alarming that – this combined with new found allies supporting full “gun control”…Well, I believe you see the big picture.

A summary of Puerto Rico’s GUN CONTROL-

  • “FULL GUN REGISTRATION” scheme in place, “Any legal firearm…shall be registered in the registry of weapons”. You notice “legal firearm”? Once again criminals are exempt, only law abiding citizens must ask permission and register their firearms.
  • Licensing, you must ask the Government to purchase and possess firearms and ammunition.
  • Clinton style weapons ban in full force.
  • The government has the ability to seize weapons as they see fit.
  • Strict ammo purchase and possession scheme, one cannot possess ammunition for which you do not have a licensed firearm.
  • If you fail to license all of your activities including “target shooting” you are guilty of a felony and will be imprisoned.
  • BUT OF COURSE, in Puerto Rico…ALL Government officials (even the Parliament) can have special privileges to carry and possess firearms.

The Puerto Rican Government stated this about the New Weapons Act of Puerto Rico in 2000 – “By enacting this law, the State exercised its inherent power of regulation”.

It is this very thing that concerned the Founders as well as the Wyoming Legislature in 1889, “a government that CAN and WILL push to take away your inalienable rights”.

By contrast the Wyoming Constitution says this-
97-1-001 – All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness; for the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.

I will leave you with this last thought – It has never been so important to be a “vested” member in WyGO – Wyoming Gun Owners.

Research sources:
Wyoming Constitution

New Weapons Act of Puerto Rico 2000
Amendments in 2002
Puerto Rico Constitution

Anthony Bouchard is a staunch supporter of the Bill of Rights and limited government – he is also the Director of WyGO – Wyoming Gun Owners Association, Wyoming’s Only No-Compromise Gun-Rights Organization. Anthony is also the –  Cheyenne Government Examiner.

WyGO / Wyoming Gun Owners

May Day…

May 2, 2010

Yesterday we were entertained (NOT) by a section of the American populace that are out to save the world. These folks are peaceful and just want to give peace a chance as they say…

Okay, first H/T to All American Blogger, what follows, is Adult content due to language. Please watch accordingly…

Heck, one might think that those people were from the Religion of Peace or something the way that they carry on…

Coming to YOUR State soon!: The epic fail Obama’s minions are hard at work!

February 28, 2010

It has been said that California leads the way when it comes to social change. Usually for the worse… I would however submit that as distorted and stupidly off course as my home state  most often is? New York is just as much a leader in the destruction of freedom and Liberty. I mean think about it? This is a State that continually elects people like the straw purchase felon Michael Bloomberg, and the overtly treasonous to his oath to uphold the Constitution Charles Schumer!

New York, the State, is actually pretty conservative, if not outright Libertarian. However, democracy, being what it is? New York City rules the entire state. That’s a fact Jack! I think that is pathetic. Further, I think that the rest of New York should just pull up stakes, and secede from the city. Tell them to go take a hike,and form their own state. Much as my home state of California should be split into three entities… Or become parts of Nevada or Arizona…

Take a look at just what the minions of epic fail obama are trying to pull off in New York… As pissed as I get at the NRA? This should have been FRONT page at Gun Owners of America!

Read on faithful readers…

Laundry List of Anti-Gun Bills Introduced in the Empire State
Friday, February 26, 2010
Please contact your lawmakers and urge them to oppose the laundry list of anti-gun bills pending consideration in Albany prior to the Assembly’s annual “gun day.”  The package includes the following bills:

  • Assembly Bill 801A and its Senate companion, S 1598A, would require five-year renewals on pistol licenses.
  • Assembly Bill 1093 and its Senate companion, S 1715, would create liability for legal firearm retailers when criminals misuse firearms.
  • Assembly Bill 1275 and its Senate companion, S 1712, would outlaw the private sale and transfer of long guns.
  • Assembly Bill 1326 and its Senate companion, S 5228, would outlaw the sale of all handguns not equipped with so-called “child proofing” devices.
  • Assembly Bill 2881 and its Senate companion, S 2379, would ban the sale of common self-defense and hunting ammunition.
  • Assembly Bill 2884 would prohibit gun shows on public property.
  • Assembly Bill 2885 and Assembly Bill 2910 would establish standards for guns sold in the state and would allow the state police to prevent ANY firearm they deem unsafe from being transferred into the state.
  • Assembly Bill 3200 and its Senate companion, S 2953, would require ammunition coding or bullet serialization.
  • Assembly Bill 3346 would outlaw affordable handguns commonly used for self-defense.
  • Assembly Bill 3477 and its Senate companion, S 1188, would expand the failed 10-year-old ballistic imaging program to include even more firearms.
  • Assembly Bill 4441 and its Senate companion, S 4338, would prohibit the manufacture, sale or transfer of handguns not equipped with so-called “smart gun” technology.
  • Assembly Bill 5844 and its Senate companion, S 3098, would prohibit keeping firearms available for self-defense in the home.
  • Assembly Bill 6157 and Assembly Bill 6294 and their Senate companion, S 4084, would drastically expand the state’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” to include virtually all semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can accept detachable magazines.
  • Assembly Bill 6468B and its Senate companion, S 6005, would outlaw the sale of all semi-automatic handguns not equipped with so-called “microstamping” technology.
  • Senate Bill 4752 would ban certain firearms based upon bore diameter.

As the anti-gun agenda awaits activity, a few other measures deserve our support. They include Assembly Bill 5118A and its Senate companion, S 2430A, which would grant a tax exemption to conservation clubs and rod and gun clubs owning land having an assessed value of $500,000 or less. These bills are in the Assembly Real Property Tax Committee and the Senate Local Government Committee respectively.

NRA-ILA also supports Assembly Bill 7463A and its Senate Companion, S 3299A, which would expand hunting opportunities by allowing the use of a rifle to hunt deer or bear in certain parts of Chautauqua County.  These bills are pending in the Assembly and Senate Environment Committees, respectively.

Please contact your lawmakers and urge them to oppose the anti-gun bills pending in the Assembly and to support AB5118A/S 2430A, AB7463A/S 3299A in both the Senate and Assembly.

State Assembly Members can be reached by phone at (518) 455-4100.  To find your Assembly Member, please click here.

Your State Senator can be contacted through the Senate switchboard at (518) 455-2800. To find your State Senator, please click here.


February 24, 2010

No, I refuse to drink the Kool Aid, this is not at all about “officer safety” it is about power and control. It is about the taking of Freedoms and Liberty from the American people, not just the people of Wyoming!

When Constitutional Carry Legislation is brought forth like HB-113 the ANTI-GUN POLICE UNION begins to lobby the legislature with the mantra “we just want to keep our officers safe” as if somehow law abiding citizens are the threat. The legislators even treat these lobbyists as an authority, forgetting the duty to represent the people and protect their “Second Amendment Rights” guaranteed to them by the Constitution.

The Venomous Union will stop at nothing, even performing background checks on law abiding gun rights advocates. These tactics don’t belong in Wyoming, it’s time the ANTI-GUN POLICE UNION stops lumping “Law abiding citizens” in with the COP KILLERS!

Here’s the truth about the COP KILLERS – they are Career Criminals!
The following is a summary of “Cop Killer Profiles” from the 2008 FBI Summaries of Officers Feloniously Killed. To see report click here

Of course none were in Alaska, Vermont or Wyoming…the following reveals the profile of the Cop Killers that don’t care what the law is.


1. The 25-year-old suspect had a prior criminal record and was known to use drugs.

2. The 42-year-old a known drug dealer, was arrested in Mexico and at the time of this publication, was still in custody there for unrelated smuggling charges and was awaiting extradition to the United States to face trial in this case.


1. The man had a prior criminal record including weapons violations and was a known user of narcotics.

2. Call that became a tactical situation…at a beauty shop where an employee’s ex-husband had broken the front window to gain entrance and was making threats and displaying a weapon

3. The man, who was on parole at the time of the incident and who had a prior criminal record that included violent crime, drugs, police assault, and weapons violations…


1. The man had a prior criminal record that included violent crime, drugs, and weapons violations.

2. The man had suffered some mental problems…His family had attempted twice on the previous day to have him involuntarily placed under psychiatric observation, but he had left the hospital twice on his own. He had proven to be verbally abusive and uncooperative to law enforcement and hospital staff involved in both episodes…the man’s brother was waiting in a pickup truck at the house. He informed the deputies he and his companion could hear his brother moving about in the house and that his brother had a shotgun in his possession.


1. A 26-year-old male…Probation Violation, and Marijuana Possession.


1. The 44-year-old offender, who was a known drug user with prior mental disorders.

2. The 37-year-old suspect, who had prior convictions for violent crimes, drugs, and weapons violations.

3. The 41-year-old offender, who had a prior criminal record that included violent crime and weapons violations.


1. The 17-year-old assailant, who had a prior criminal record


1. The 41-year-old suspect, who had a long list of prior offenses, including murder.

2. The 44-year-old suspect, who had a prior criminal record including violent crime.


1. Vehiclular Homicide – The driver…struck the victim sergeant, and dragged him over 200 feet before fleeing the scene.


1. 16-year-old assailant, who had a prior criminal record and was on conditional release at the time of the incident.


1. The suspect, who had a prior criminal record that included violent crime.

2. The 41-year-old man, known to the police as a drug dealer and user with prior convictions.

North Carolina

1. The 37-year-old man, who was a known drug user and who had a prior criminal record that included arrests for drugs, police assault, and weapons violations.

2. Domestic dispute between a man and a woman. The woman was still inside the residence with three children, but the man had left the home, possibly armed…Following a 5-day manhunt, the 32-year-old suspect was found dead of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound.


1. Observed what appeared to be a drug transaction taking place between a man in a vehicle and a man in front of an abandoned house.

2. [Police Officer] was fatally shot while he was attempting to make an arrest…Officers located a 26-year-old suspect, who still had one handcuff on his wrist.


1. 32-year-old suspect…The man had a criminal record with prior convictions, probation, and parole. a 57-year-old male was also arrested in connection with the case and charged with six counts of Aggravated Murder, two counts of Attempted Murder, First-Degree Assault, and Possession of Explosive Device.


1. The 34-year-old offender, who had a prior criminal record for violent crime.

2. The 27-year-old offender was wanted at the time of the incident for aggravated assault and parole violation, and he had an extensive criminal record of violent crime, police assault, and weapons violations.

3. The 40-year-old woman was arrested and charged with Murder of a Federal Agent, Assault by Use of a Dangerous Weapon, Use of a Firearm in a Crime of Violence, Aiding the Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon, Drug Conspiracy, Possession with Intent to Deliver More than 50 Grams of Cocaine Base, Possession with Intent to Deliver Cocaine, and Possession of a Firearm While Using Unlawful Controlled Substances. She was known to use, deal, and possess drugs, and she was under the influence of narcotics at the time of the incident.

South Carolina

1. Burglary in progress – The burglars fled the area before additional deputies arrived. In the ensuing investigation, officers arrested two suspects on September 5. The first suspect, a 19-year-old male with a prior criminal history, was charged with Murder, 4 counts of First-Degree Burglary, and 1 count of Second-Degree Burglary. The second suspect, an 18-year-old male who was on probation at the time of the incident, was also charged with Murder, 3 counts of First-Degree Burglary, and Second-Degree Burglary.
2. 41-year-old…had prior convictions for violent crime, was under the influence of narcotics and was on conditional release at the time of the incident.


1. While serving an individual with a warrant for a misdemeanor violation of probation….The suspect was on probation at the time of the incident and had prior convictions for drugs.


1. While handling a prisoner…The individual was able to open the sliding partition between the front and rear seats and retrieve the corporal’s backup weapon, a .40-caliber semiautomatic handgun, from the front seat.

2. The 28-year-old suspect, who had a long criminal history including arrests for police assault, violent crime, and drugs.

3. The 37-year-old suspect had an extensive list of prior convictions and was on parole. He was also known to use and possess drugs and was under the influence of narcotics.


1. In the serving of a search warrant at the home of a suspect…28-year-old man who had a prior criminal record involving drugs.

2. Felony traffic stop – a citizen reported that her former companion had been in the stairwell of her apartment building with a gun… An alert was issued and his vehicle was located in a nearby shopping center. When police approached, the man fled in his vehicle and headed directly to the apartment complex where the complainant lived.

3. Undercover narcotics sting – 23-year-old male who was under supervision/conditional release.


1. 28-year-old assailant, who had a previous criminal history that included violent crime and drug violations.

2. While investigating a suspicious person…The dispatcher advised the officer that the man was a convicted felon, had a temporary protection order and a no contact order placed against him, and that he was on parole…The deputies shot and killed the 36-year-old suspect. Further investigation revealed that the suspect had also killed a second victim, a recently retired correctional officer who was shot to death and whose vehicle was found at the store where deputies had killed the suspect.

Note: One officer killing was not in the original report and this profile summary reflects the killers not the number of officers killed.

Join WyGO Today – Wyoming’s Fastest Growing Gun Rights Organization


Liberty? What for?

October 19, 2009

“Conservative arguments against President Obama are becoming increasingly silly. They oppose Obama rescuing businesses despite all the jobs on the line, they’re against government taking control of health care from soulless insurance companies, and they oppose increased taxes on energy consumption despite the sorry state of the environment. And why do they oppose these most sensible actions? Because of their irrational, brain-dead obsession with liberty. Of course, everyone likes freedom — to a point — but there are a number of loud, stupid Americans who just take it to ridiculous extremes. They hoard their freedoms like greedy little dwarfs hoarding gold when they have little actual use for most of it. People need rules and order and guidance, but they hardly ever need liberty. Liberty doesn’t feed your family. Liberty doesn’t heal you when you’re sick. Liberty doesn’t educate your children. A strong government can do all those things, but apparently that’s against liberty. … Just look at this ludicrous debate over health care reform. Of course the government should provide health care for everyone; how obvious can anything be? The government has the money and smart people working for everyone’s interests to make sure all get health care, so why would anyone be against that? Because apparently people aren’t ‘free’ to make their health care choices for themselves. … Real freedom is not having to worry about health care, and that’s what you get when you have the government take it over. Yes, you’ll have little control over who gets what kind of care, but some people will just have to suffer some for the betterment of the whole. The advantage of having the government in control is that it makes sure the fewest number suffer, and those that do aren’t particularly important. … Most of the civilized world has moved beyond this uncompromising view of ‘freedom’ — if they were ever foolish enough to adopt it in the first place. Can you think of any other country that would permit its citizens to have guns like America does? Of course not; that’s beyond moronic. People know freedom is a dangerous, scary thing, and you have to be careful how much you tolerate.” –columnist Frank J. Fleming

(To submit reader comments click here.)

The preceding was satirical humor


Obamacare = Anti Liberty and Freedom

October 9, 2009

You heard it here first!  Obamacare (caps only for grammar purpose’s) The devil, is ALWAYS in the details! Well, the details are starting to roll in, and, as I warned. The obamacare assault on personal freedom and liberty will be a back door attempt at gun control.

Recently, a good friend and fellow bloger has gotten into a spitting match with a Texas Mayor. I have refrained from commenting, as I intend to allow this…. So-called Gun Rights supporter to spew enough rope to hang His-self… And? You knew it was coming! 😀

Most of the comments at my friends website, as well as at a local MSM outlet call for enforcement of all existing laws… Friends, Americans, Liberty Countrymen across the world!

I call for fewer laws that restrict any persons ability to defend themselves…

I call for the repeal of laws that take away anyone’s unalienable rights save conviction of classic felony’s or demonstrated mental incompetence. No more Lautenberg, period. He is a proved traitor to his oath to uphold our Constitution. No more Schumer; he is Lautenberg’s Page. No more Pelosi. We are not her grandchildren. Ex post facto law is immoral, and I don’t give a damn if the Supreme Court endorsed it being the cowards that they are. The list goes on, but those are the main players in the drum roll to abolish freedom and liberty. Not just here, but world wide. The obaminaion is their lap dog.

Read on…

ObamaCare Could be Used to Ban Guns in Home Self-Defense
— Important vote to occur on Tuesday

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408

Friday, October 9, 2009

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has something to say to gun owners:  “Own a gun; lose your coverage!”

Baucus’ socialized health care bill comes up for a Finance Committee vote on Tuesday.  We have waited and waited and waited for the shifty Baucus to release legislative language.  But he has refused to release anything but a summary — and we will never have a Congressional Budget Office cost assessment based on actual legislation.  Even the summary was kept secret for a long time.

But, on the basis of the summary, the Baucus bill (which is still unnumbered) tells us virtually nothing about what kind of policy Americans will be required to purchase under penalty of law — nor the consequences.  It simply says:

* “all U.S. citizens and legal residents would be required to purchase coverage through (1) the individual market…”;

* “individuals would be required to report on their federal income tax return the months for which they maintain the required minimum health coverage…”;

* in addition to an extensive list of statutorily mandated coverage, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would be empowered to “define and update the categories of treatments, items, and services…” within an insurance plan which would be covered in a policy constituting “required minimum health coverage.”

ObamaCare and gun control

It is nearly certain that coverage prescribed by the administration will, to control costs, exclude coverage for what it regards as excessively dangerous activities.  And, given Sebelius’ well-established antipathy to the Second Amendment — she vetoed concealed carry legislation as governor of Kansas — we presume she will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and self-defense using a firearm.  It is even possible that the Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any kind in a household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense.

The ObamaCare bill already contains language that will punish Americans who engage in unhealthy behavior by allowing insurers to charge them higher insurance premiums.  (What constitutes an unhealthy lifestyle is, of course, to be defined by legislators.)  Don’t be surprised if an anti-gun nut like Sebelius uses this line of thinking to impose ObamaCare policies which result in a back-door gun ban on any American who owns “dangerous” firearms.

After all, insurers already (and routinely) drop homeowners from their policies for owning certain types of guns or for refusing to use trigger locks (that is, for keeping their guns ready for self-defense!).  While not all insurers practice this anti-gun behavior, Gun Owners of America has documented that some do — Prudential and State Farm being two of the most well-known.

The good news is that because homeowner insurance is private (and is still subject to the free market) you can go to another company if one drops you.  But what are you going to do under nationalized ObamaCare when the regulations written by Secretary Sebelius suspend the applicability of your government-mandated policy because of your gun ownership?

All of this is in addition to something that GOA has been warning you about for several months … the certainty that minimum acceptable policies will dump your gun information into a federal database … a certainty that is reinforced by language in the summary providing for a study to “encourage increased meaningful use of electronic health records.”

Remember, the federal government has already denied more than 150,000 military veterans the right to own guns, without their being convicted of a crime or receiving any due process of law.  They were denied because of medical information (such as PTSD) that the FBI later determined disqualified these veterans to own guns.

Is this what we need on a national level being applied to every gun owner in America?

Incidentally, failure to comply would subject the average family to $1,500 in fines — and possibly more for a household with older teens.  And, although a Schumer amendment purports to exempt Americans from prison sentences for non-purchase of an ObamaPolicy — something which was never at issue — it doesn’t prohibit them from being sent to prison for a year and fined an additional $25,000 under the Internal Revenue Code for non-payment of the initial fines.

ACTION:  Contact your two U.S. Senators.  Ask him or her, in the strongest terms, to vote against the phony Baucus bill.

You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at to send your senators the pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

You already know that the phony Baucus bill:

* Is predicated on $283 billion in phony “cuts” which have never, never ever been realized since a similar commitment to cut Medicare costs in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 — and will never, never ever be realized under the Baucus bill;

* Requires massive numbers of Americans to have government-approved insurance which the CBO predicts will be more expensive than current policies;

* Refuses to provide a cost for these policies, making it almost certain that more and more Americans will find insurance beyond their reach;

* Has no legislative language and nothing but a CBO “guesstimate” of the cost and benefits, based on a summary.

On the basis of the summary, the Baucus bill tells us virtually nothing about what kind of policy Americans will be required to purchase under penalty of law — nor the consequences.  It does say that the “Secretary of HHS [Kathleen Sebelius] would be required to define and update the categories of treatments, items, and services…” within an insurance plan which would be covered in a policy constituting “required minimum health coverage.”

This could spell trouble for gun owners.

It is nearly certain that coverage prescribed by the administration will, to control costs, exclude coverage for what it regards as excessively dangerous activities.  And, given Sebelius’ well-established antipathy to the Second Amendment — she vetoed concealed carry legislation as governor of Kansas — I presume she will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and self-defense using a firearm.  It is even possible that the Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any kind in a household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense.

This is, of course, in addition to the certainty that minimum acceptable policies will dump my gun information into a federal database — a certainty that is reinforced by language in the summary providing for a study to “encourage increased meaningful use of electronic health records.”

Incidentally, failure to comply would subject the average family to $1,500 in fines — and possibly more for a household with older teens.  And, although a Schumer amendment purports to exempt Americans from prison sentences for non-purchase of an ObamaPolicy — something which was never at issue — it doesn’t prohibit them from being sent to prison for a year and fined an additional $25,000 under the Internal Revenue Code for non-payment of the initial fines.

Please oppose the Baucus bill.


On target about gun control?

September 24, 2009

It’s not all that often that today’s print media takes a real look at controversial issues. Once in the proverbial blue moon it does happen though. Gun Control is not, I repeat not, just about guns. It is about others controlling you, your life, and those of any that are dear to you.

By Dave Shadow

What don’t you understand about gun control?

When thinking about this subject, two words come to mind that relate to our condition or position on the subject of gun control.

Some of us fall into one category, and others may slip into the other.

Unfortunately, most of what we think of and how we behave as the average American certainly falls into one of these categories.

I believe that we are very fortunate to live in the best of times, in the best country and finest society that has ever existed since time began. But I also believe that it’s slipping away while we sit idly by and watch it happen. I am not a doomsday prophet or anything like that, but I’d like to think that I see our personal freedoms and constitutional rights situation either more clearly or with more interest than the vast majority of our voting neighbors. Actually, that’s not exactly right; I don’t want to see the situation more clearly. I want to share some thoughts that may make you look at our positions in a different light.

First of all, get the ideas out of your mind that our elected politicians have everything under control and all have of our best interests at heart. Secondly, bear in mind that they work for us; we are not subject to their personal agendas and wishes based on lobbying efforts. We can make differences if we will pay attention, be vocal and vote accordingly.

If we as average, normal, working class citizens will think and talk about subjects that our forefathers felt so imperative to our rights and the eventual survival of our society, we can make a difference. The liberal activists on these subjects are vocal and very active. We must be also!

The two words mentioned above are “apathetic” and “pathetic.”

Most of us have become apathetic over time. The thesaurus defines this word as being “indifferent, lethargic, listless and unconcerned.” We simply let others take charge of the decisions in the everyday workings of our worlds and we rest assured that our legislators will all make those decisions that are good for us. Isn’t that about where we are? We get excited and even upset over bad calls in sporting activities such as ball games, but we let our politicians erode our personal freedoms without even a groan. It’s time to get excited about those things that affect our Second Amendment rights and other personal freedoms before it’s too late!

Just in case you’ve forgotten your grade school class that discussed the Constitution, the Second Amendment was designed to give us the right to bear arms. It says: “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.” This and the Christian principals that were the basic foundations of our country are being misinterpreted and undermined by groups and individuals with undesirable intentions while we sit back and say nothing.

Radical individuals and groups seeking to destabilize the very and basic principals that our great country was based upon make a lot of very elegant noise while we sit back quietly and think that all of this stuff really means nothing to us. Unfortunately, many of these campaigners of “control” speak very eloquently, very loudly, and relentlessly. Couple that with the recruitment of many celebrities and Hollywood stars and you get a very believable group of control advocates, many of who do not see the whole picture or realize the eventual effect that the demonizing of our freedoms will have.

Full Story

Fines proposed?

September 8, 2009

So? The Democrats are not fascist? Yet, they are going to fine you for not goose stepping along their road to disaster, and helping them to destroy your own liberty?

Read on…

WASHINGTON – Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as divisions among Democrats undercut President Barack Obama‘s effort to regain traction on his health care overhaul.

As Obama talked strategy with Democratic leaders at the White House, the one idea that most appeals to his party’s liberal base lost ground in Congress. Prospects for a government-run plan to compete with private insurers sank as a leading moderate Democrat said he could no longer support the idea.

The fast-moving developments put Obama in a box. As a candidate, he opposed fines to force individuals to buy health insurance, and he supported setting up a public insurance plan. On Tuesday, fellow Democrats publicly begged to differ on both ideas.

Democratic congressional leaders put on a bold front as they left the White House after their meeting with the president.

“We’re re-energized; we’re ready to do health care reform,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., insisted the public plan is still politically viable. “I believe that a public option will be essential to our passing a bill in the House of Representatives,” she said.

After a month of contentious forums, Americans were seeking specifics from the president in his speech to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night. So were his fellow Democrats, divided on how best to solve the problem of the nation’s nearly 50 million uninsured.

The latest proposal: a ten-year, $900-billion bipartisan compromise that Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., a moderate who heads the influential Finance Committee, was trying to broker. It would guarantee coverage for nearly all Americans, regardless of medical problems.

But the Baucus plan also includes the fines that Obama has rejected. In what appeared to be a sign of tension, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs pointedly noted that the administration had not received a copy of the plan before it leaked to lobbyists and news media Tuesday.

The Baucus plan would require insurers to take all applicants, regardless of age or health. But smokers could be charged higher premiums. And 60-year-olds could be charged five times as much for a policy as 20-year-olds.

He said Tuesday he’s trying to get agreement from a small group of bipartisan negotiators in advance of Obama’s speech. “Time is running out very quickly,” he said. “I made that very clear to the group.”

Some experts consider the $900-billion price tag a relative bargain because the country now spends about $2.5 trillion a year on health care. But it would require hefty fees on insurers, drug companies and others in the health care industry to help pay for it.

Just as auto coverage is now mandatory in nearly all states, Baucus would a require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled. Penalties for failing to get insurance would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level — about $66,000 for a family of four — would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950.

Baucus would offer tax credits to help pay premiums for households making up to three times the poverty level, and for small employers paying about average middle-class wages. People working for companies that offer coverage could avoid the fines by signing up.

The fines pose a dilemma for Obama. As a candidate, the president campaigned hard against making health insurance a requirement, and fining people for not getting it.

“Punishing families who can’t afford health care to begin with just doesn’t make sense,” he said during his party’s primaries. At the time, he proposed mandatory insurance only for children.

White House officials have since backed away somewhat from Obama’s opposition to mandated coverage for all, but there’s no indication that Obama would support fines.

One idea that Obama championed during and since the campaign — a government insurance option — appeared to be sinking fast.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters a Medicare-like plan for middle-class Americans and their families isn’t an essential part of legislation for him. Hoyer’s comments came shortly after a key Democratic moderate said he could no longer back a bill that includes a new government plan.

The fast-moving developments left liberals in a quandary. They’ve drawn a line, saying they won’t vote for legislation if it doesn’t include a public plan to compete with private insurance companies and force them to lower costs.

Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., who once supported a public option, said Tuesday that after hearing from constituents during the August recess, he’s changed his mind.

“If House leadership presents a final bill that contains a government-run public option, I will oppose it,” Ross said.

House Democrats are considering a fallback: using the public plan as a last resort if after a few years the insurance industry has failed to curb costs.

Obama’s commitment to a public plan has been in question and lawmakers hoped his speech to Congress would make his position on that clear.

Baucus is calling for nonprofit co-ops to compete in the marketplace instead of a public plan.

An 18-page summary of the Baucus proposal was obtained by The Associated Press. The complex plan would make dozens of changes in the health care system, many of them contentious. For example, it includes new fees on insurers, drug companies, medical device manufacturers and clinical labs.

People working for major employers would probably not see big changes. The plan is geared to helping those who now have the hardest time getting and keeping coverage: the self-employed and small business owners.


%d bloggers like this: