VIDEO: An interesting discussion on the founding of the NRA and the reason for it. Listen carefully to the historic references and then ask yourself if they are true – go find out.
“On Wednesday, with just three weeks to go until he leaves office, Mr. Bloomberg’s controversial Board of Health is set to vote on new rules that would force children as young as six months old to be immunized each year before December 31 if they attend licensed day care or pre-school programs.”<<<Read More>>>
*Editor’s Note* – Below is a link to an article I just read that I find a bit too late and also a bit “snickerable.” (Yeah, I know.) The writer of the piece, M. Northrop Buechner, seems to be claiming that Barack Obama wrote the book on how to tread on the Constitution and circumvent it with Executive Orders and any other crooked legal and non legal finagling to get his way. In short, claiming this president is a tyrant, a despot, a dictator, monarch, choose your poison.
Of course he is all of the above but he did NOT write the book on this but I do believe he is contributing several chapters for future dictatorial puppets to follow.
What is interesting is that whatever Obama’s “approval” rating is, (40%ish) – that percentage of people, and I’m being generous in attributing them with enough brains to understand that their president is actually sidestepping the Constitution – love his illegal maneuverings because they agree with his agenda (lies), and they probably falsely believe it is of some benefit to them.
Ignorant as ignorant can be, what happens when Obama is gone, and during his despotic reign, nothing is done to correct the breaking of laws because a president refuses to accept the rule of law that he doesn’t agree with? Simple! The next president, should he or she have a different fake party designation, I can pretty much guarantee will be a tyrant with a pretended “different” agenda, and Obama’s 40% of fans will now come in line with those demanding that the new president be impeached, or something, because he or she is abusing executive authority, etc.
It will happen as it has in the past. This is what happens when people ignorantly and eagerly follow a “party” over the cliff. How’s that working out anyway?
“The main responsibility the Constitution assigns to the President is to faithfully execute the Laws. If the President rejects this job, if instead he decides he can change or ignore laws he does not like, then what?
The time will come when Congress passes a law and the President ignores it. Or he may choose to enforce some parts and ignore others (as Mr. Obama is doing now). Or he may not wait for Congress and issue a decree (something Mr. Obama has done and has threatened to do again).”
Murray and the White House insist that every business should be compelled by law to protect its employees’ “right” to “contraception” that is “free.”
I put all three words in quotation marks because these are deeply contentious claims. For starters, the right to free birth control – or health care generally – is not one you’ll find in the Constitution. And even if you think it should be a right, that is hardly a settled issue in American life.
The right to own a gun is a far more settled issue constitutionally, politically and legally in this country, but not even the National Rifle Association would dream to argue that we have a right to free guns, provided by our employers.<<<Read More>>>
New York, Los Angeles, Chicago Move to Restrict Devices that Help Smokers Quit
New York, NY – On the same day the Los Angeles City Council moved to regulate e-cigarettes, the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Jeff Stier testified at a New York City Council Health Committee hearing on a similar measure being rushed through the New York City Council.
In his testimony, the New York-based Stier, who heads the National Center’s Risk Analysis Division, encouraged council members to think twice about whether it is in fact “prudent” to extend New York City’s ban on smoking in public places to include e-cigarettes:
“I would caution you that this is not the prudent thing to do. The prudent thing to do here is to help cigarette smokers quit. Rushing to judgment here could have serious, unintended consequences that you need to be aware of. It will stop people from quitting smoking. E-cigarettes are not a gateway to smoking. The data does not show that. E-cigarettes are a gateway to quitting smoking.”
E-cigarettes, which do not produce smoke, have been a boon to those who have tried to quit smoking but have failed.
“Nicotine,” Stier explains, “is addictive, but not particularly harmful, especially at the levels consumed by smokers or users of e-cigarettes, who are called ‘vapers’ for the vapor, rather than smoke, emitted by e-cigarettes.”
“Nicotine’s bad reputation should be attributed to its most common delivery device, cigarettes,” says Stier. “Nicotine itself is about as dangerous as the caffeine in soda. Along the same lines, while too much soda can cause weight gain, nobody seriously suggests that caffeine causes obesity. Similarly, e-cigarettes provide the nicotine and the habitual activity of smoking, without the danger of burning tobacco.”
“Mayor Bloomberg and his nanny state allies in New York City and Los Angeles have steam coming out of their ears about e-cigarettes. Here is a product created by private-sector innovation that is doing what many hundreds of millions of dollars of government spending, costly litigation, addictive excise taxes, warning labels and punitive regulation have been unable to do: help cigarette smokers quit happily. ”
“Regulators understand that in order to maintain not only their huge budgets, but their basis for authority to control both private-sector businesses as well as personal decisions, they must demonize, delegitimize, and defeat e-cigarettes every step of the way,” Stier says.
“Some, without any basis in science, allege that e-cigarettes are a ‘gateway’ to smoking. But initial studies, as well as empirical evidence, show that e-cigarettes are a major gateway away from, not toward, smoking. For all the heated rhetoric, there’s little dispute in the scientific community: those who quit smoking cigarettes and switch to e-cigarettes reap immediate as well as long-term health benefits. And those improvements are dramatic.”
Stier concludes: “Regulations that treat e-cigarettes the same as their deadly predecessor will have the unintended consequence of keeping smokers smoking. Quitting nicotine use altogether is the best choice. But for those who chose not to, or find it too difficult, e-cigarettes are a potentially life-saving alternative.”
Outgoing New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, nicknamed “Nanny Bloomberg” by many for his use of government tools to influence what private citizens eat and drink, supports the New York proposal. Bloomberg’s administration imposed New York City’s ban on public smoking in 2003.
Like Los Angeles and New York, Chicago is considering banning the use of smokeless e-cigarettes anywhere in the city tobacco smoking is banned. The proposed ban is supported by Mayor Rahm Emanuel. The sale of e-cigarettes to minors is already appropriately illegal under Illinois state law.
The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.
Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.
Late last October, I provided readers with a link to a story posted on Ammoland website. The article at Ammoland was about the Doe Run Company, a lead smelting plant in Herculaneum, Missouri that was forced, through added costs and EPA regulations to shut down. It was mentioned in this article and several others, as well as being spread like wild fire across social networks, that this forced closing was the fault of Barack Obama’s “back door” gun control policies.
The Blaze, an Internet media platform owned by Glenn Beck, a man who seems to shift positions as much as the wind and can be easily influenced by powers that could limit his popularity and ability to make money, has another article, written by Becket Adams, stating that the closing of the smelt plant will not effect ammunition production and it isn’t Obama’s fault. Really?
According to information provided by Adams in his article, it isn’t Obama’s fault that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Marxist tactics to force business (Doe Run Company) to close due to over-regulation, because Doe Run and the EPA were battling over regulations beginning in 2003.
It’s important to note that the Doe Run Company has been battling the EPA since at least 2003 and that the particular regulation cited by the company as the reason for the closure is from 2008 — before Barack Obama was even inaugurated.
It only matters to shallow or non thinkers that somehow the blame for Doe Run Company having to shut down is the blame of one person or one political party. Let’s face it. We have been over-regulated for decades now and regardless of which party was in office and controlled Congress, the Marxist/leftists and fascist/rightwing government expansion and control hasn’t really changed at all. Remember, it was under Bush, Jr’s watch that the EPA was granted extensive powers to control business if anything they were doing had any effect on “commerce.”[Edited: This is actually stated backward I believe. The power given the EPA by Bush's Supreme Court was that the EPA had power over any business(commerce) as it pertained to environmental issues.] The short of it is that the EPA has never shrunk any during anybody’s watch in the White House.
Instead of getting caught up in a fake two-party blame game, why not recognize the simple fact that perhaps Doe Run Company was forced out of business by government regulation (by design?), period.
In addition, let’s not kid ourselves. Depending on who the puppet is in the White House and the leadership in Congress, they have influence (gang mentality) over how a government agency like the EPA goes about its business and the bravado it may or may not exert.
But, let’s move beyond the blame game for a minute and look at other information presented in this article that the author seems to be telling readers that the closing of the only mined lead smelting plant in the U.S. will not have any affect on the availability of ammunition, or at least that one might consider a “back door” gun control maneuver by the President.
Adams’ claims are based on information he used that ammunition lead does not come from mined lead ore but from recycled lead. As a result, the closing of a smelting plant that processes only raw lead ore, will have no effect on ammunition.
“[T]he majority of the lead used by ammunition manufacturers comes from secondary smelters that recycle lead from car batteries,” Bob Owens of Bearing Arms wrote.(emboldening added)
“More than 80 percent of all lead produced in the U.S. is used in either motive batteries to start vehicles, or in stationary batteries for backup power,” the company states on its website. “In the U.S., the recycle rate of these batteries is approximately 98 percent, making lead-based batteries the most highly recycled consumer product. These batteries are recycled at secondary lead smelters.”
It’s easy, on the surface and without much thought (or perhaps with an agenda) to repeat these statements while not considering what they are really saying. For instance, it says that “the majority of the lead” used for ammunition comes from recycled lead. That tells us that not ALL of the lead used for ammunition comes from recycled lead. So, how much is a majority? How much raw lead is used for ammunition? The article really never says what those amounts are. It intimates anywhere from 80% to 98% is from recycled lead. Perhaps this statement comes the closest.
Roughly 80 percent of “lead used in the United States secondary market (which is what most ammunition manufacturers use) comes from recycled batteries and another 7 percent to 9 percent of lead on the market comes from other scrap sources,”
Perhaps 10% to 13%, or less, of lead for ammunition comes from mined ore smelted at Doe Run Company?
Consider two things. First, if the only lead smelting company in the U.S. is closing, that means importing lead that will be lost when the plant closes. It doesn’t matter whether lead from the Doe Run Company is used directly for ammunition. More than likely imported lead will force the price of lead higher. That increase will show up at all levels of lead use, including ammunition. The cost to make goods involving lead will go up, which in turn will force the price of recycled lead higher. Will this increase in the price to purchase ammunition be a deterrent to one’s ability to purchase ammunition? Of course it will, at least to some degree. Will it be enough to effect a “back door” gun control manipulation and/or a limitation on our Second Amendment rights? Maybe?
The second issue to consider is based on the statement shown above that says that the “majority” of lead used to manufacture ammunition, comes from recycled lead. And, as I stated, that means not all of it. We are left once again asking ourselves the question, “Just how much of the lead produced from mines and locally smelted is used in ammunition?”
This article doesn’t tell us any information about that, and I haven’t been able to find anything to assist in this debate. In the meantime though, consider this. We are just now coming out of a shortage of ammunition. There existed for some time, bare shelves, where those seeking to purchase ammunition could not. Depending on whose sob story you wanted to believe as to why there was no ammo, would influence how you thought about what was going on and was this also some kind of “back door” gun control.
The most common excuse for no ammunition seemed to be that people wanted to buy lots of ammunition, the motivation rooted in fear, real or imagined, of a despotic president telling the people out of one corner of his mouth that he supported the Second Amendment and out of the other corner that he wanted to take our guns away. People began to prepare. For what exactly, I’m not sure.
It appeared to me, through my own research, that for whatever the reasons ammunition was scarce, it was certainly a fickle industry, vulnerable to some fairly small outside influences, such as availability of brass and lead and political influences. Therefore, one has to ask just how much impact the loss of some lead will have on a person’s ability, into the future, to readily and within manageable costs, purchase ammunition?
Depending on one’s perspective of whether a glass is half full or half empty, the closing of the only smelting company in America, results in a “back door” gun control measure, even if its small and incremental. Do we blame Obama for this? Yes and no! Yes, in that he is just another puppet, a part of a bigger power brokerage that cannot implement fully its agenda until guns are taken away from the American people. And, no, because I don’t think that Barack Obama, as much as people want to believe he is a very intelligent person, had deliberate foresight and action, of his own accord, to shut down a lead smelting factory in order to incrementally destroy our Second Amendment rights. Or I’m all wrong.
VIDEO: I suppose the NFL has the right, as a private entity, to set the standards for what they will allow to air as advertisements during events like the Super Bowl. What we should be looking at here is whether or not the NFL is consistent in their denial of ads and the reasons for them. By law, the NFL cannot discriminate against one company or companies of the same kind. Is that what’s going on here? Leave your thoughts and comments below in the comments section.
Yes, “True Believers”, we really do NOT live in a free country. What’s free about it? Sorry! You keep on following the herd. I’ll be quiet. I keep forgetting we need “reasonable” government control and censorship. Oh, wait! The NFL is a “private” enterprise and so they can do whatever they want and this kind of discrimination is okay, right?
The NFL has denied a television commercial for the Superbowl because: “5. Firearms, ammunition or other weapons are prohibited; however, stores that sell firearms and ammunitions (e.g., outdoor stores and camping stores) will be permitted, provided they sell other products and the ads do not mention firearms, ammunition or other weapons.”
Daniel Defense has a store that sells many outdoor items and guns. There was nothing in the ad with pictures or text or audio that mentioned any of those awful, scary things, with the exception of a logo with the picture of a gun on it. Even after offering to remove that picture and replace it the NFL said no.
Washington, DC – With the U.S. Supreme Court set to address whether businesses can obtain a conscience exemption from ObamaCare’s contraception mandate, a constitutional scholar with the Project 21 black leadership network is “pleased” the Court is addressing a “fundamental principle of religious liberty” that the Obama Administration has turned into “a political wedge issue.”
In taking up the case, the justices are expected to decide on an issue that has divided the lower courts in the face of dozens of legal challenges from for-profit companies seeking ObamaCare exemptions based on constitutional protections of religious freedom. These lawsuits ask for the businesses to be spared from having to cover some or all forms of contraception, including abortifacients that effectively terminate unborn babies.
“I am pleased to see that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper, a former professor of constitutional law and former leadership staff member with the U.S. House of Representatives. “The Obama Administration clearly over-reached in this case. Being so fixated on maintaining a political wedge issue to frighten women voters in America, they were willing to trample on religious freedom in the process.”
This latest legal challenge to the President’s signature policy initiative comes from the consolidation of two of 40 similar cases.
One case involves Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., an Oklahoma City-based arts and crafts chain with 13,000 full-time employees. The owner of Hobby Lobby says he runs his business on Biblical principle and is opposed to the contraception mandate found in ObamaCare. Hobby Lobby won in lower courts. In the other case, the Mennonite-owned Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation lost on a similar religious challenge.
The cases will likely be argued in March of 2014, with a decision rendered by the end of June. Arguments will undoubtedly touch on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the previous Court ruling in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Project 21′s Cooper added: “This case need never have gone forward if the White House would have simply accepted the counsel of people of faith both within and without the Obama Administration that its contraception mandate went too far. Just as the President refused to listen to those urging a go-slow approach on the ObamaCare web site and the overall roll-out, the Obama Administration pushed forward with disastrous and disruptive results for many Americans. Apparently, only the U.S. Supreme Court can force this White House to put the fundamental principle of religious liberty ahead of its dogmatic left-wing ideology.”
In 2012, Cooper authored a National Policy Analysis paper for the National Center for Public Policy Research about the unconstitutionality of ObamaCare’s contraception mandate. That paper can be found here.
During the last term of the U.S. Supreme Court, Project 21 was involved in the race preferences case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin and the voting rights case of Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder. It will also be involved with the re-hearing of the Fisher case at the lower court level. Project 21 legal experts and other members have discussed these cases in media interviews this year on MSNBC, Fox News Channel, HBO, Glenn Beck’s Blaze TV, the nationally-syndicated Jim Bohannon radio show, Florida Public Radio, the Christian Science Monitor and Reuters.
Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives for over two decades, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative, free-market, non-profit think-tank established in 1982. Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated .