Australia thinks gun control worked???

Yesterday, in an online NY Times article, titled "I Went After Guns. Obama Can, Too" Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, outlines why and how he disarmed his population.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/australia-banned-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html?_r=0

As he writes, giving background to his reasons for gun control, and his lack of hurdles, compared to the United States, he tellingly claims the following (bold font added by myself for emphasis):

Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms.

First, this "leader" believes it is CORRECT that his people are not protected by a Bill of Rights. Remember, the American Constitution has a Bill of Rights which is the people telling the government what our rights are, and not the other way around. It is a limitation on government, and protection against abuses that so many governments around the world have perpetrated on their subjects (emphasis, subject, not citizens).

Next, he is bragging, maybe not in tone, but in context, about his government having MORE POWER AND CONTROL over the INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS of Australian subjects. That is exactly like self-government, except not. Some governments rule, others represent. Guess which one this is... Anytime a people have their "rights" dictated and controlled by the government, they are not a free people, they are not a represented people.

As I've quoted numerous times on this blog (probably because it is SO appropriate and accurate, having endured for several hundred years):

…or it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of ensuring their rights are in the possession of those whom they entertain the least suspicion. - Alexander Hamilton

Lastly Mr. Howard again brags about his courts having LESS CONTROL. The American government system of checks and balances was established with an exectutive leader (President), a legislative branch (Congress), and a judicial branch. That judicial branch is the last say on the actions of laws passed and approved by the other branch. It has the power to throw out laws deemed unconstitutional, as a final protection, or check, against bad government for the American people.

I do like Mr. Howards choice of words throughout the article; it makes the task of revealing the fallacies in his logic so much easier...

To make this plan work, there had to be a federally financed gun buyback scheme.

Scheme... I know some would argue what the technical definitions of "scheme" is, however I submit the average person knows the context and usage most commonly associated with that word, or words like it, for good reason.

Ultimately, the cost of the buyback was met by a special one-off tax imposed on all Australians.

His scheme involved raising taxes on ALL Australians... talk about turning the knife after stabbing the people with it... Disarm his subjects and make them pay for it as well! Hey, at least he called it "special" and everyone likes special things, so that makes it ok.

This required new legislation and was widely accepted across the political spectrum. Almost 700,000 guns were bought back and destroyed — the equivalent of 40 million guns in the United States.

My rights are not "political spectrum material", and certainly are not subject to "widely accepted". Read between those lines and it becomes obvious that it was not unilaterally accepted, but "widely" only, by his claim.

How much resistance was there? By his own claim:

City dwellers supported our plan, but there was strong resistance by some in rural Australia.

So just the rural areas, obviously a small portion of the population...

Australia is an even more intensely urban society, with close to 60 percent of our people living in large cities.

So some simple math and FORTY PERCENT (40%) of his population is rural... and yes, I understand that he did not say "all" of them in that area, but rather, "some". I also understand that he did not say "all" when he described the 60% living in cities were onboard and supporting his ban.

Ultimately, that is why our Founding Fathers formed a representative republic and not a democracy, because as Thomas Jefferson said (reference here):

"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."

How dangerous is that? Think about 51% of the population being unemployed, living on welfare or other government support... and then when the government is running out of cash, the obvious solution is for that 51% to vote a tax increase or wealth confiscation, on the other 49% minority, because hey, democracy - majority rules.

The most revealing look into Mr. Howards new tyranical soul, is this statement in his article:

Many farmers resented being told to surrender weapons they had used safely all of their lives. Penalizing decent, law-abiding citizens because of the criminal behavior of others seemed unfair. Many of them had been lifelong supporters of my coalition and felt bewildered and betrayed by these new laws. I understood their misgivings. Yet I felt there was no alternative.

In other words, law abiding citizens, oops, subjects, with an exemplary record of safety, no criminal background, and existing as productive members of society, were PENALIZED for the CRIMINAL ACTIONS of others. Not only that, they had supported him, but Mr. Howard knew what was best for them and society, him being in charge of citizens rights and all, as demonstrated above, and REGARDLESS of his betrayal of their trust, he did what he wanted.

Ayn Rand, in an article published in a 1944 edition of Reader's Digest titled "The Only Path To Tomorrow" made the bold statement:

Throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing ``the common good.´´ Napoleon ``served the common good´´ of France. Hitler is ``serving the common good´´ of Germany. Horrors which no man would dare consider for his own selfish sake are perpetrated with a clear conscience by ``altruists´´ who justify themselves by-the common good.

If Mr. Howard were the mark, this article is the sniper's crosshair trained on him. It shows "do-good" politicians for their true nature. They sleep with a clean conscience because they have convinced themselves they are doing the right thing for the greater good. They will never tire of their oppressive actions and until removed from power, will continue on relentlessly.

And now this man is being put on a pedestal by the NY Times, describing how the rights of the American people can be usurped. The NY Times has their freedom of the press giving this man his freedom of speech (although he's not a US Citizen and has no Constitutional right giving him such) describing how to take our right to keep and bear arms away from us.

So how successful was the disarming of the Australian population? From his article:

And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Journal of Law and Economics found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.

So he claims not that homicide and suicide rates fell, not supported with statistics, but rather, having chosen his words carefully to avoid criticism, states "there is a wide concensus". A wide concensus is not proof, it is opinion. It does not state wide concensus among whom? Australlian city dwellers who supported gun control? Or maybe the 40% of the rural Australians came around to his way of thinking and believe it now? Yeah, right...

But ok, the suicide and homocide rate MAY have fallen... but what about the other violent crimes? You know, rape, robbery, assault - all the horrible reasons many citizens choose to be armed? Here is a link to an article published by his cited Australian Institute of Criminology, a government run organization mind you...

**Link updated 6/25/16 due to AIC website revamp**

http://aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/341-360/tandi359.html 

At the very top of that article, the author says:

The public's perception is that violence is increasing

So who is right? The "wide concensus" that murders and suicides are down or the "public concensus" that violent crime is rising? It makes you wonder... also in Australia, from that article:

Homicide has decreased by nine percent since 1990 and armed robbery by one-third since 2001, but recorded assaults and sexual assaults have both increased steadily in the past 10 years by over 40 percent and 20 percent respectively.

Since 1990 homicide dropped 9%? But his article in the NY Times claim he was elected in 1996 and enacted the Australian gun confication/ban shortly after... so why not compare apples to apples? Where is the homicide rate since 1996, not 1990? Also, interesting choice of words, his article claims homocide RATE dropped, but the government website just says "homocide" decreased. Apples and oranges, yada yada...

So now, "armed robbery" dropped by one third since 2001??? Again, what happened to armed robbery between 1996 and 2001, after the gun ban? Also, as more guns are forcibly removed from society, you could imagine the "armed" part of robbery could be going down. So what about other robbery? Physical Assault? Rape? This government sanctioned article not only fails in showing that crime actually decreased (it asserts that violence is up actually) as a result of gun banning, but also picks and chooses statistics so carelessly, taking them out of context, leaving them stand alone when they clearly need support, that it paints yet again, the traditional gun-grabber picture, where statistics which support their cause are hard science, yet the overwhelming majority of statistics that contradict them, are merely meaningless numbers.

Screw it, I'm not going to line-by-line dissect this article, it's too easy and too painfully repetitive, as our misguided liberal friends resort to this sort of misdirection all too often. Here is the opening paragraph... try to keep your food down or at least not squirt soda out of your nose when you laugh.

The public's perception is that violence is increasing, but trends in violent crime reported to police since the early 1990s reveal a mixed story. Homicide has decreased by nine percent since 1990 and armed robbery by one-third since 2001, but recorded assaults and sexual assaults have both increased steadily in the past 10 years by over 40 percent and 20 percent respectively. The rate of aggravated assault appears to have contributed to the marked rise in recorded assault, and for both assault and sexual assault the rate of increase was greater for children aged under 15 years, with increases almost double that of the older age group. Neither population changes among young adult males nor rates of offending seem to explain the trends in recorded violent crime, and indicators of change in reporting to police provide only a partial explanation. Based on self-reported victimisation and reporting to police, it would seem increased reporting of assault is somewhat responsible for the rise in recorded assault rates against adult victims. However, victimisation survey data suggest there has been little change in rates of sexual assault, although reporting to police by women seems to have increased. Victimisation survey data also do not illuminate the most significant recorded increase in violent victimisation, against children, as they are collected less frequently and only apply to those aged at least over 15 years. The paper speculates that the rise could be due to better public understanding of child protection issues and increased reporting due to public awareness of what constitutes physical and sexual assault - especially within the family - but this requires further investigation to examine how many recorded violent crimes against children relate to current and/or past events and of the relationship to the offender.

Yes, people really are this stupid. Tread carefully in these times.

The Power of the Second Amendment

First, the Second Amendment text:

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.

I know, some legal eagles out there will point out that there are two versions, the first, as passed by Congress, and the other as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson. The difference is punctuation and capitals, so I will list the other version as well.

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.

Thanks to Wikipedia for this bit of assistance.

So what was the purpose of the Second Amendment (2A)? While our Founding Fathers had just defeated the world super power of the day, Britain, and were creating a document guaranteeing the rights of citizens and establishing a government, they decided that they forever wanted Musketts to be a protected class of weapon for hunting and sport shooting? Hardly...

Thomas Jefferson once said:

On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

A bunch of rag tag colonists just kicked Britain's behind, with some help from France of course. These colonists were businessmen, merchants, writers, farmers, hunters... In writing the Constitution, they were addressing the grievances that had been earlier addressed in the Declaration of Independence, and ensuring that a government would exist that would not replace the tyranny of King George.

In the following discussion, note the lack of terminology that implies our rights are granted by the government. The government, federal, state, or local, does not "grant" rights to the people, but rather the rights are natural, inherent to the people, claimed by the people, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights is the people declaring our rights to the government and what LIMITED powers the government would be granted by us, not the other way around.

These brilliant men declared that "We the People"
1. Retained Freedom of Speech so we could speak out against those who would oppress us.
2. They claimed Freedom of Religion (not "seperation between church and state" like the media and the governments of today would have you believe) so no government could adopt a national religion and oppress their citizens for not conforming to it.
3. They claimed Freedom of the Press so citizens could challenge the governments actions and spread the word, if the government became tyrannical.
4. They established Due Process to guarantee no government could imprison someone who objected to the actions of that government, without first meeting a burden of proof that a jury of that persons peers, not government agents, were satisfied with.
5. They forbid governments from forcing citizens to house soldiers except in time of war, and only then as prescribed by law. This prevented the government from intimidating citizens in time of peace.

Then they brilliantly claimed that this Bill of Rights, 10 articles in all, and by no means limited to the rights listed above, was not all inclusive, and that ANY right not itemized above was retained by the States and the People. This means they realized they could not envision every situation, could not codify every possible question that could arise in the future, and realizing their limitiations, restricted the powers of the Federal Government and granted those powers and rights to the States and more importantly, to WE THE PEOPLE.

So that begs the question... Why on earth, while limiting the powers of government, ensuring tyranny in government would be prevented or combatted, just as the Founding Fathers had fought it recently, would they then decide to ensure the right of the people to go hunt ducks and deer with Muskets?

The answer of course, is that this is not the intent of the 2A. As Jefferson said, if we recollect the "spirit manifest in the debates" and "conform" to the most probable intent of its passing, then having just fought a war with THE superpower of the world, the Founding Fathers were ensuring that an armed citizenry, the true power, and the true governing body of this country, could ONCE AGAIN fight a war against tyranny and oppression executed by the government of those people against them, AND WIN.

Our not-so-bright liberal friends and media will argue that the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned the weapons of today, and that the 2A is about hunting and sport shooting. Using that logic, they would ban "high capacity" magazines (arbitrarily decided by liberal politicians as containing more than 10 rounds). They would ban semi-auto "assault" weapons because by their logic, the Founding Fathers never envisioned these weapons. They argue that the federal government has nukes, tanks, missiles, drones, satellites and rockets and that assault weapons are useless against this technological terror anyways, so lets just ban them to prevent their use in crimes or against innocent civilians.

I will agree with them on the point that indeed, some of the technology our nation, the world, possesses today, could not possibly be imagined by the Founding Fathers. That is why they wrote in the 9th and 10th Amendments at the end of the Bill of Rights, as a "cover their ass" clause, to ensure citizens could STILL oppose tyranny in government.

If you turn liberal "lack of" logic back on the purveryors of such ignorance, nothing on the internet should be construed as freedom of speech, because our founding fathers could not have conceived such technology.

New media on television, cable, computers, internet, using satellite communication, is not protected by freedom of speech or freedom of the press, because no way could anyone 200+ years ago have forseen such wonders, and therefore it is not within the protection of rights granted under the First Amendment.

DNA evidence should not be admitted, because it was unknown to the Founding Fathers and therefore is not covered under due process.

You see how rapidly these smoke-and-mirror arguments by the liberal left collapse under scrutiny, yet day in and day out, these same arguments are quoted on facebook, spoken by celebrities, and regurgitated by politicians (democrat and republican alike) to justify a little bit more loss of freedom in the name of safety.

This blog was not about crime statistics, gun control statistics, arguments for or against based on civilian shootings... those arguments have been beat to death (with the gun control crowd usually losing). This is about the purpose of the Second Amendment, the purpose of the entire Bill of Rights, and that is for what Thomas Jefferson claimed:

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Or how about what George Washington said:

When firearms go, all goes - we need them every hour.

Gotta kill us some turkeys and deer or this nation is screwed?

Or Alexander Hamilton when he stated:

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.

The people AT LARGE? That they be PROPERLY ARMED? He meant armed with musketts right? Yes, he did, because the British were also armed with musketts. If the British had been armed with assault rifles, then so would he have claimed we the people should be armed with them as well.

What did James Madison think?

The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

Now our government refuses to trust us, We the People, with arms...

That is the spirit manifest in the debates of the 2A and the most probable one for which it was passed. This is why we are armed, why we possess assault rifles, high capacity magazines, and all caliber of firearms - because our government has them too, because governments around the world have them.

Fiscal Cliff versus Fiscal Abyss

I would say that anyone who pays attention to politics or watches TV, should be grossly saturated with the political pundits new popular phrase "the looming fiscal cliff". The caveat to that, is that it is a gross over-estimate of the average American's ability to pay attention let alone understand what is happening, even while being slapped in the face with it.

Doubt me? I present exhibit A: Google Searches for "Who is running for president" spike on election day... in the graph, 100 does not represent hits, but rather 100% or the highest hit rate.



So yeah, over $1 Billion spent on the presidential campaigns, saturating the airwaves for months, and some of these registered voters still had no idea... scary isn't it?

Anyways, back on topic - Fiscal Cliff.

This of course, is in reference to the imminent expiration of Bush era tax cuts, 5% across the board for all taxpayers, the expiration of the 2% Social Security tax holiday, and the increase in capital gains tax rate, from 15% to 20% across the board, and some earners (over $200k/year) paying an additional 3.8% on their capital gains.

http://apiexchange.com/index_main.php?id=8&idz=236

In the above article, it also describes the source of this 3.8% tax increase... from the healthcare bill, aka "Obamacare", passed in 2010:

Beginning in 2013, the national health care reform legislation that became law in March, 2010, imposes a new 3.8 percent tax on certain investment income. The new tax will apply to single filers with incomes over $200,000 and married taxpayers with incomes over $250,000.

This rhetoric being thrown around the nation's capital, is that if we do not raise taxes on the richest Americans, those who our Pretender-in-Chief claim can afford it (ie, anyone making over $200k/year) that all these wonderful tax increases expire on EVERYONE. That, and the deep deep mandatory spending cuts that are supposed to be automatic after the failure of the bi-partisan "Super" committee last year to arrive at a resolution to taxation and spending cuts.

You remember that of course, don't you? Where the Republicans refused any deal that would raise taxes and the Democrats refused to talk about spending cuts unless tax increases were on the table? And lest we forget, what resulted in the formation of the "Super" committee to begin with, where the Republicans staunchly refused to consider debt ceiling increases, and then caved in when our Messiah went public with scare tactics claiming if we did not raise the debt ceiling, that as early as the next month, people would stop receiving social security checks?

End result, Republicans caved and approved the debt ceiling increase, "Super" committee failed, automatic spending cuts are to take effect and tax increases go up automatically, and we, the American people get screwed!

And now here we are, with these Republicans having committed to a pledge 20 years ago to not raise taxes on anyone, now agreeing to go back on that agreement.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/23/politics/fiscal-cliff/index.html

In that article, one Senator from Georgia, Saxby Chambliss is renouncing his pledge in the interest of saving his country... or so he claims.

"I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge," said Chambliss, who faces re-election for a third Senate term in 2014.

Referring to Norquist, who has vowed to oppose candidates who break the pledge, Chambliss said that "if we do it his way, then we'll continue in debt, and I just have a disagreement with him about that."

In response to Chambliss, Norquist told CNN that the senator "wrote a commitment to the voters of Georgia."

"He got elected and re-elected making that commitment," said Norquist. "He's never promised me anything."

Essentially, as most politicians are known to do these days, he promised one thing to those who elected him, then once elected, spits on that promise and goes about business as usual, telling himself whatever lies he needs to, in order to sleep at night and live with whatever remnants of a shriveled conscience remains in his dark soul.

But broken promises aside, the more revealing detail is his belief that raising taxes on the "wealthiest" Americans, will fix our debt issue.

And don't drink the "Cool"-aid presented in this article, where it claims:

Obama's victory this month with a slightly stronger Democratic majority in the Senate and a slightly weaker Republican majority in the House signaled general public acceptance of the president's main campaign theme: raising more tax revenue from the rich as part of a deficit-reduction package.

Obama in 2008, beat McCain by a score of 69.5 million to 59.9 million, roughly 9.5 million total votes. In 2012, Obama only beat Romney by a score of 64.9 Million to 60.5 Million or roughly 4.5 Million total votes. The long and short of that, is Obama lost almost 5 million votes he had four years earlier, and his challenger, gained over half a million votes. A win is a win, but it by no means implies general acceptance of his policies, but rather the exact opposite, that his views have lost favor with a large chunk of the voting population who used to back him.

Enter my next exhibit: Wall Stree Journal Article - November 28th, 2012.
In the interest of not receiving any copyright or infringement "cease-and-decist" emails, I will not copy and paste the entire article, though it warrants it. Instead, the summary of the article, is that the $15.9 Trillion deficit tied to our fiscal cliff discussion, and the $1.2 Trillion 2012 deficit immediately tied to it this year, is actually a staggering 86.8 TRILLION DOLLARS. That is the true debt the government owes not just to other countries and other people, what they always talk about, but how much they owe in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unfunded government pensions.

This number, 86.8 TRILLION DOLLARS is over five times (5x) our entire GDP. That means, our government would have to take EVERY dollar earned by EVERY person/family making over $200k/year (ie, the "richest" Americans who can "afford it") AND EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR earned by EVERY corporation in America, JUST THIS YEAR to cover THIS YEARS true deficit of roughly 8 TRILLION DOLLARS.

Of course, after you raped every corporation and "richest" family of every penny they owned, there would truly be nothing left next year to take from either of them. This would amount to a farmer eating all their wheat one winter, then wondering how they were going to grow crops since they did not hold out any for seed the following season.

So looming "Fiscal Cliff" or already here "Fiscal Abyss"? The answer is easy, unless you are one of those voters who had to look up who was running for president the weekend before the election...

That didn't take long...

So on Tuesday, the people spoke, and what they said was "Obama for President". Actually, that's the loose translation; what they actually said was "Baaaaahhhh". But you get the idea.

So there were two options. The first,  go to bed Tuesday night, wake up Wednesday and realize the world didn't end, business as usual and go about living, with a relatively oblivious and unchanged perception of reality. Or the second, scream the sky is falling, set your hair on fire and run around like chickens with our heads cut off. You know... act like most liberals do when they do not get their way, all because "The One" was re-elected, when a monkey should have been able to defeat him this election (enter Romney, an all new class of monkey).

Like watching the news these days, where you turn on MSNBC, listen to it, then turn on FOX, and after listening to it, add them together, divide by 2, to approximate truth - the reality of day to day life should be somewhere between oblivious blissfulness and the Michael Jackson in a Pepsi commercial squealing with his hair-on fire-antics.

So what happened? Page one, first paragraph, first line, first word from the liberal playbook, happened...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE8A627J20121107

First line of that story: "Hours after U.S. President Barack Obama was re-elected..." Emphasis on HOURS!

Hours after U.S. President Barack Obama was re-elected, the United States backed a U.N. committee's call on Wednesday to renew debate over a draft international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global conventional arms trade

Long story short:
1. essentially, the UN Disarmament committee "moved quickly" following Obamas win...
*I'll bet they did*
2. Talks broke off back in July but not because Obama was running for re-election...
*Oh really?*
3. UN Officials REALLY REALLY wanted to vote before the election but Hurricane Sandy precluded it...
*And I have lake front property in the Sahara*

But typical gun-control lobby shenanigans aside, this next quote almost made me vomit.

Jeff Abramson, director of Control Arms, a coalition of advocacy groups, urged states to agree on stringent provisions.

"In Syria, we have seen the death toll rise well over 30,000, with weapons and ammunition pouring in the country for months now," he said. "We need a treaty that will set tough rules to control the arms trade, that will save lives and truly make the world a better place."

Here's a little known secret this guy apparently isn't aware of... The Syrian military already had guns and ammo and is the ones killing their own citizens, the 30,000 civilians of their country. So who is using these guns and ammo "pouring" into their country now? THE OPPRESSED CITIZENRY.

So why would some archaic neanderthal of a non-humanitarian want to stop weapons  from flowing into Syria now (since the rest of the world has turned a deaf ear to their citizens cries for help)? There is only one reason, to eliminate any opposition to the existent government structure.

Geniuses like this do not care about what people are using the guns for, to save their lives and their famlies lives from brutal dictators circa Nazis vs Jews. All they see is a chance to solidify the powers of government, to control people and to run their lives on every level, and without an armed society to fight back, they will win.

What did our founding fathers, the original, they the people, think about guns?

Let us ask Thomas Jefferson:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AGAINST TYRANNY IN GOVERNMENT".

Or maybe George Washington:

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have SUFFICIENT ARMS AND AMMUNITION to maintain a status of independence from ANY who might attempt to abuse them, which would include THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT".

Can James Madison shed some light on the issue?

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Remember that "Give me liberty or give me death" guy, Patrick Henry?

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

And finally, good 'ol Noah Webster, of Webster's Dictionary fame...

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

And now how about a Dictator to play devils advocate for me?

"History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall."

Thank you, Mr. Hitler...

Voter Fraud: Fact or Fiction?

Let's start with a link from ABC:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-fraud-real-rare/story?id=17213376

According to this story:

"Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud, according to a Department of Justice study outlined during a 2006 Congressional hearing. Only 26 of those cases, or about .00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas."

That is just over 1 in 1 million, by ABC and Department of Justice (run by Eric Holder) calculations? So how is it that we have such a non-existent problem that is taking up so much voter and politician time?

Before continuing on about voting, I will reference a document describing firearm purchases and denials statistics, for 2009:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/234173.pdf

Consider this first, that in 2009, 6,083,428 applications for a firearm were submitted to the FBI NICS (National Institute for Criminal Statistics) for consideration under the Brady Law. Of those applications, 67, 324 (1.1%) were denied. Now, remember, this application form has a great big warning on it saying: http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

"I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law."

Of all of those denials, or people that said they were able to own firearms, only 140 cases were referred for prosecution, of which 45% (63) were denied or not further pursued for prosecution, meaning only 77 cases were followed through for prosecution. So 77 prosecutions out of 67,324 denials, and not just denials, but FEDERAL FELONIES punishable by UP TO 10 years in prison AND a $250,000 fine IN ADDITION to state prosecution. So 77 divided by 67,324 = 0.11 percent of the denials prosecuted, or just over 1 in 1000????

Oh, and for good measure, some more math, 77 prosecutions divided by 6,083,428 total applications = .0012 percent.

Keep those numbers in mind now, as we talk about voter fraud. The article referenced above at the start of this blog, would make us believe that because it is such a low number of actual voter fraud cases, that there is no need to pass voter ID laws, or voter reform laws, and that states should stop wasting their time on laws such as these, because they are useless.

First, if we discard laws that prohibit even a minute fraction of voter fraud, then why have the NICS checks? Such a SMALL percentage of people get denied anyways, less than 1% and then when its all said and done, only 0.1% are prosecuted... but again, only .0012 percent of all gun purchases in 2009 were prosecuted. Where are the liberals who are saying we do not need voter ID laws at, defending the uselessness of this federal gun law?

Make no mistake, they are embracing the anti-gun laws, including these NICS checks, with every breath of their being.

Ok, but now, since I said "First" it stands to reason I must follow with a "Second" and that is exactly what I intend to do. The SECOND I wish to discuss, is the fallacy of the ABC article data, making lite of how severe a problem voter registration fraud actually is.

The GAO (Government Accountability Office) released a study:
http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05478.html

This article goes on to say that in one district court, as much as 3% of the jurors reporting for duty were dismissed because they were not US Citizens. THREE PERCENT! Do you know where jury duty members are selected from? Exactly, REGISTERED VOTER ROSTERS.

SO in just ONE district as much as THREE PERCENT of the registered voters got out of jury duty because they were not US Citizens? Less than one percent spread warrants a recount in most elections, and if you remember the Bush - Gore election in 2000 when Florida was a swing state with all kinds of shenanigans going on, recount after recount, throwing some ballots out, bringing others back in... THREE PERCENT would have swung that vote either in favor of the losing candidate or pushed the winning candidate beyond recount realm.

So why the spread? Why does one article claim less than .00000013 percent of voter fraud while the GAO is claiming as much as 3%? For the same reason that only 77 out of 67,324 FEDERAL FELONIES pertaining to unlawful gun purchases by lying on the form, were prosecuted in 2009. The government just does not care. Just because some governmental instution does not choose to prosecute, does not mean the crime is not being committed, it just means the government would rather look the other way.

Here are a few links of actual counties where there are more registered voters than actual people in the county: It is in states and counties that are both red and blue, some which waiver back and forth.

14 out of 102 counties in Illinois (roughly 1 in 7)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_852141.html

15 out of 114 counties in Missouri (almost 1 in 8)
http://watchdog.org/25408/missouri-f...us-population/

1/3 of Mississippi counties
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/mis...0/27/id/326164

7 counties in Nebraska
http://watchdog.org/52641/some-nebra...s-than-adults/

6 counties in Alabama
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2008/10/...e_registe.html

6 counties in Utah
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2008/10/...e_registe.html

Make no mistake, the liberals will grab your guns every chance they get, they will tout their anti-gun laws, throw statistics out there, put spin on the numbers, then spin their spin.  DO NOT turn a blind eye to this, nor to the very real issue of voter fraud. Electing our leaders is a right of US Citizens, not immigrants, not terrorists, not foreign nationals. Is 3% a small number? Maybe, but it is MUCH MUCH larger than .0012%, a number which liberals embrace and justify our tax dollars being wasted on NICS checks to stop all those evil gun owners from getting hands on a gun. After all, if you tell them they cannot have a gun, they will stop committing violent crimes right?

I know, it's been a few months since my last post, but I was inspired by the upcoming election, and a reader who posted earlier this month on my blog and said it was a must read for him. My apologies for taking such a long break, sometimes it seems as though I'm talking to the sky, because no matter what forums, blogs, websites those of us with intelligence post on, the not-so-bright keep on supporting failed liberal ideology.

I cannot post as often as I wish, but I'll try to post a bit more often, to confuse those of liberal pursuits, with the facts.

Boycott Bank of America, Bass Pro, and Wells Fargo

Generally, when writing, you establish your opening paragraph with a thesis, build supporting topic paragraphs, then summarize your paper with a closing paragraph. Think of a pyramid, building the base, and working your way to the top with support.

Today, I say screw that, here's my closing statement... BOYCOTT BANK OF AMERICA!

Ok, now I'll build this pyramid the proper way, to avoid any angst from teachers I have had in the past, who may happen across this (not likely, no one reads this blog hardly anyways).

So there is a company called McMillan Group International who sells some of the best after-market rifle stocks in the industry. Almost every custom gun builder uses McMillan stocks. In recent years, they have become a custom firearms manufacturing company as well. Canadian sniper, Rob Furlong, used the McMillan "Tac-50", a bolt action 50 BMG rifle, to make what at the time, was the record for longest confirmed killshot, at over 1.5 miles.

Here is a picture of that firearm:

Anyways, they provide firearms and accessories to the U.S. Military, our allies, law enforcement and government agencies, and civilians. In this recession (which "allegedly" ended in June of 2009, but we working class know better) firearms and related businesses, have boomed. Record gun sales, record background checks reported by NICS (National Instant Background Check System), and ammo shortages all attest to this fact. Last Christmas, as reported by USA Today, NICS ran a record 1,534,414 checks in December alone. Many of those are multiple gun purchases, not just a one to one ratio. So the firearm business is doing fine, while many other industries are struggling.

A few weeks ago, April 19, 2012, as reported on McMillan's facebook page:

McMillan Fiberglass Stocks, McMillan Firearms Manufacturing and McMillan Group International have been collectively banking with Bank of America for 12 years. Today (April 19, 2012) Mr. Ray Fox, Senior Vice President, Market Manager, Business Banking, Global Commercial Banking came to my office. He scheduled the meeting as an “account analysis” meeting in order to evaluate the two lines of credit ...we have with them. He spent 5 minutes talking about how McMillan has changed in the last 5 years and have become more of a firearms manufacturer than a supplier of accessories.
At this point I interrupted him and asked “Can I possible save you some time so that you don’t waste your breath? What you are going to tell me is that because we are in the firearms manufacturing business you no longer what my business.”
“That is correct” he says.
I replied “That is okay, we will move our accounts as soon as possible. We can find a 2nd Amendment friendly bank that will be glad to have our business. You won’t mind if I tell the NRA, SCI and everyone one I know that BofA is not firearms industry friendly?”
“You have to do what you must” he said.
“So you are telling me this is a politically motivated decision, is that right?”
Mr Fox confirmed that it was. At which point I told him that the meeting was over and there was nothing left for him to say.

I initially came across the story from another news article I was reading, linked from one of the forums I frequent, Survivalistboards.com. Always the skeptic, I did a little research, found a few more references to it on various other news outlets, none of which started with MSNBC, CNN, ABC, or CBS (no suprise there). So I took it on myself to write an email to McMillan, following their link from their website.

I received the following reply, from Mr. Kelly McMillan (to whom I must now apologize, for referring to him as "she" in other correspondence and on forums):

Kelly McMillan [k.mcmillan@mcmillanusa.com]Actions
To:MMcCall, Shannon
Friday, April 20, 2012 9:21 PM

The statement posted on the McMillan Group International Facebook page is exactly as it happened and accurate. I would ask that you redact the gentleman's name but leave his title if you repost the statement. Thank you for your support.

http://www.facebook.com/McMillanGroupInternational

Kelly D. McMillan
Director of Operations
McMillan Group International, LLC
623-582-9635
1638 W Knudsen Dr
Phoenix, Arizona 85027
McMillan Integrity-Global Vision
http://www.mcmillanusa.com/

For the naysayers out there, Snopes already has this on their website, though their conclusion at this point is "undetermined".

So essentially, Bank of America told a thriving business that they no longer wanted them as a customer, because they deal in the manufacture of firearms. This is a legal business, following all State and Federal regulations, providing weapons that serve to protect us and citizens, in the hands of law enforcement and military personnel around the world.

Of course, with the backlash from the firearms community and supporters of Second Amendment rights across the nation, Bank of America denies this claim as false. Bank of America spokeswoman, Anne Pace, even pointed to BofA's dealings with the "Freedom Group" as proof that this story could not be true. Her reference was to an article in the Chicago Tribune, that has a snippet down near the bottom.

Personally, I think uncommon sense dictates that IF Bank of America is indeed supporting firearms companies, such as the Freedom Group as their press release and slanderous statement against McMillan's claim states, and are trying to make a profit on the other firearms companies in that group (Remingtong, Bushmaster, DPMS, Marlin, H&R, etc) then the more likely cause of all of this commotion, is trying to muscle out a company producing a superior product that competes with the companies they are buying up or investing in!!!

That, or the more nefarious "buy up all the gun companies then close them down when we own them all" approach... I'll let your inner optimist and pessimist duke this one out.

But no one wants to be "that guy" who has to admit either to opposing the Second Amendment, opposing small business, or trying to bully out the competition...

One thing to note, Bass Pro Shops (an outdoor sporting good store, that also sells firearms) issue their customers credit financed by Bank of America. So why did Bass Pro "disseminate" Bank of America's corporate response to this issue?

"However given Bank of America's significant involvement within the... industry, the information regarding the termination of this relationship was misrepresented or misinterpreted."

Maybe Bass Pro does not want to piss off mommy dearest, who funds the customers buying on credit, essentially transferring wealth from us to them, by selling over-priced guns, camping gear, and clothes. But seriously, coming to the defense of someone trampling on a small business, to protect their corporate interests? I guess the Supreme Court nailed it on the head when they said the Bill of Rights applies to Corporations as well...

SO here's my question... if McMillan is issuing false statements, slandering Bank of America, spreading false information around the web, where's the cease and decist orders? Where's the army of Armani suit-wearing lawyers crushing all opposition to what should more appropriately be called, the "Bank of Unamerica"???

There are hundreds if not thousands of people already closing their Bank of America accounts over this, just based on Facebook, blogs, and forum comments. Chump change to B of A? Probably, I mean, they DID just lose a TWENTY BILLION DOLLAR settlement for unlawful and illegal forclosures in the last couple of years. From the NPR article:

"B of A and Countrywide also failed to foreclose on mortgages that were in default, choosing instead to keep taking the fees received for servicing the loans, according to the investors. B of A has denied the claims."

Seems like Bank of America has this denial thing down!

Since my topic said to boycott Bank of America, Bass Pro, AND Wells Fargo, I should touch on why Wells Fargo is on that list.

From BuyMilSurp:

Wells Fargo/Wachovia/Central Payment/iPayment closed another gun companies account, held $17,000 and demanded that he submit "a recent profit and loss statement, balance sheet, and three months of checking account statements and I will CONSIDER  releasing SOME of YOUR funds on hold".

These are banks that took TENS OF BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars in bailouts, who pay HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars to their CEO's, even when the CEO runs the company into the ground, and who feel they can pick and choose the winners and losers in a given industry, and tell everyday Americans running these businesses to take a hike.

So in conclusion (see, summary statement, as promised near the opening of this blog) here is a list of the companies that we should be boycotting:

Bank of America (public enemy number one)
Wells Fargo/Wachovia
Central Payment
iPayment
Bass Pro

And one more, for good measure:
PayPal (they will freeze your account and seize your funds if they find out you use their services to transfer money used in the purchase of firearms or anything related).

From the Acceptable Use Policy agreement from PayPal:

"2(i) ammunition, firearms, or certain firearm parts or accessories, or (j) ,certain weapons or knives regulated under applicable law."

So they are banning their service for firearms, parts, accessories, ammo OR certain weapons or knives regulated under applicable law... They are NOT saying ILLEGAL firearms, parts, accessories, just all guns, ammo, and parts... They are NOT saying illegal knives or weapons... just those that are regulated under law, which includes pretty much all knives/blades that aren't bought in the kitchen section of your local store...

And apologies again to MISTER Kelly McMillan for referring to him as a female!

What was January 24th?

It passed us by with hardly a notice, aside from the almost two hour Obama campaign speech, er, State of the Union address, which allowed him to talk un-rebutted, heavily rehearsed and teleprompter assisted rhetoric, which amounts  to nothing more than his usual talking points/bullets he's said over and over again while accomplishing little.

What passed us by you might say? What were we distracted from, by the Pretender-in-Chief's monotonous speech?

It was the day that marks 1,000 days since the last time Congress passed a budget for our nation. That's right, well over two-and-a-half years, since April 21st, 2009.

How long can the government continue it's policy of passing measures to fund this group, that group, etc??? And don't forget, not only are they 1,000 days delinquent in actually doing the ONE FRICKING THING the federal government should ACTUALLY be doing (instead of officially declaring pizza a vegetable, for example) they actually FORGOT to fund the FAA before going on a week long break (as reported on the Communist News Network, aka, CNN).

Remember when the Senate defeated House Budget Committe Chairman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) bill 57-40, without ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT voting for it?  At least the House of Representatives is somewhat doing their job, as outlined in the U.S. Constitution:

“Article I Section VII - All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

If only our government were as committed to operating on an approved budget, doing what they are elected to do, as they are in spending money and raising the debt ceiling. Of course they CAN take the time to vote down a balanced budget amendment proposal to the Constitution, saying something to the effect that the repurcussions of a balanced budget would be far more damaging than the benefits... ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

Sure lets have talking points on why it should be an amendment... sure, maybe it's a tough call in economic downturn. Ok, I get that, BUT if you were passing a budget every year and made that argument, for short term issues, sure, people might buy it. BUT YOU MORONS HAVEN'T PASSED A BUDGET IN 1000 DAYS (AND COUNTING). Guess what, you don't get to talk about Congress ceding powers to the courts, social welfare spending, and repurcussions, because YOU FAILED AT YOUR JOB ALREADY.

There are 435 House members, and 100 Senators... that's 535 people that should not have a job over the next six years of elections. FIRE THEM ALL!