May 20, 2013
May 8, 2013
From the New York Times:
The F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, has argued that the bureau’s ability to carry out court-approved eavesdropping on suspects is “going dark” as communications technology evolves, and since 2010 has pushed for a legal mandate requiring companies like Facebook and Google to build into their instant-messaging and other such systems a capacity to comply with wiretap orders.
May 7, 2013
Some of the bills vetoed by Bullock Monday included:
HB240, by Rep. Cary Smith, R-Billings, which would have allowed students to have guns on college campuses.<<<Read More from the Billings Gazette>>>
May 2, 2013
April 30, 2013
Tells panel that they don’t know what liberty is because they have never lost it.
April 29, 2013
*Editor’s Note* – Below is what I was told is a copy of a letter of response from Senator Susan Collins of Maine to a constituent who evidently wrote to Ms. Collins about her vote in support of the Manchin-Toomey, so-called “compromise” gun control bill, that got defeated in the Senate. If you read the letter you should notice that Senator Collins, like most progressives, believes that compromising our Second Amendment rights is being a supporter of gun ownership heritage and the right to keep and bear arms. I took the liberty to embolden a few of Senator Collin’s comments and add a bit of my own commentary at the end.
Thank you for contacting me in opposition to gun legislation recently considered by the Senate. I appreciate your comments in defense of our constitutional right to bear arms. Unfortunately, Mainers have recently been flooded by advertisements and mailings from out-of-state special interest groups that not only include distortions, but also blatant misrepresentations about my position. In an effort to set the record straight, I have attached a fact sheet that I hope will be helpful.
I grew up in northern Maine, where responsible gun ownership is part of the heritage of many families. Throughout my Senate service, I have worked to uphold this heritage, and have opposed legislation that would infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. I am strongly opposed to a national gun registry and national buyback programs. As you are no doubt aware, Maine has one of the highest rates of gun ownership, yet the lowest rate of violent crime in the country.
I supported a bipartisan agreement between Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) that would have improved the background check system to help prevent convicted criminals and those with dangerous mental illnesses from purchasing guns without infringing on law-abiding gun owners’ Second Amendment rights. The Manchin-Toomey proposal represented a vast improvement over the provisions authored by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) currently in the bill. Senator Schumer’s language, which I opposed, would have required a father giving a gun to his daughter, or a brother selling a hunting rifle to his brother, to undergo a background check, which I found to be onerous and completely unnecessary. The Manchin-Toomey compromise took a much more common sense approach by requiring background checks only for commercial transactions and exempts family gifts and transfers. To improve the quality and completeness of the data in the NICS, their bill would have mandated improvements that would require states and the federal government to send all relevant records on criminals and the people who are dangerously mentally ill through state plans developed in conjunction with the Department of Justice. It was critical to my support that the Manchin-Toomey bill explicitly banned the federal government from creating a national firearms registry and imposed serious criminal penalties on any person who misused or illegally retained firearms records.
The Manchin-Toomey amendment would have created a National Commission on Mass Violence, a proposal I have long endorsed, that would convene experts to study all aspects of these violent attacks, including the exposure to excessive violence in the media and the lack of mental health services.
As a nation, we must examine the fact that serious mental illness is a factor in many violent crimes. As was the case in the Connecticut, Colorado, and Arizona shootings, mental illness is a common factor in many of these tragedies. We should evaluate how we as a society can better identify and care for troubled individuals who pose a threat to themselves and others. That is why I am an original cosponsor of the Excellence in Mental Health Act, a bipartisan bill that would expand access to mental health care for individuals through our nation’s Community Mental Health Centers. It would also improve the quality of mental health care by holding these centers accountable to higher standards.
I am also the coauthor of anti-crime legislation that would strengthen current laws that prohibit an individual from deliberately purchasing a firearm on behalf of another who is already barred from buying a gun. This bill would help keep guns out of the hands of criminals. This conduct, called “straw purchasing,” is already a felony. Yet, under current law, it amounts to little more than a paperwork violation. The Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act would give law enforcement the tools they need to investigate and prosecute these crimes more effectively, while protecting legitimate sales. The bill does not in any way change who is prohibited from owning a gun. Straw purchasing and trafficking serve one purpose: to put guns in the hands of a criminal. We worked with law enforcement officials, the NRA, and licensed gun dealers in drafting this bill.
I also believe that Congress should examine school safety. I am the lead cosponsor of the School and Campus Safety Enhancements Act, which would provide matching grants to help cover the cost of stronger security measures in schools .
Thank you again for taking time to contact me. As Congress continues to address violence in our schools and communities, I will continue to work to ensure that the Second Amendment rights of our nation’s law-abiding citizens are protected.
Susan M. Collins United States Senator
*Note* I am not including the attachment that came with the email of Senator Collins’ “Fact Check” document as it appears to be an in-house-generated document and it is doubtful any of the so-called fact checking was done by an independent sources. It’s a farce to “fact check” yourself.
First, I want to thank Senator Collins for showing, at least in this document, her support in addressing the issue of mental illness as it is the only common link between events of mass killings. She also dabbles some in school security. Like with anything, it is difficult to pass judgement on that support without real specific information on how to achieve it. The talking points sound good but what about the meat and potatoes of the issue?
What I want to point out here is something that once I thought people understood or at least suspected. In far too many instances in politics, at every level, a bill or proposal arises, often from some brainwashed, totalitarian who feels it is their right to infringe on other people’s rights. And, all too often, people like real supporters of the Second Amendment are always playing defense, seldom on the offense.
When anti-rights bills, like the Manchin-Toomey anti-rights bill, come up for debate, people like Senator Collins, instead of being a true supporter of the things she claims to be in support of, go into “compromise mode.” In compromise mode, this means someone like Senator Collins is willing to give up some of our rights in order to fulfill the demands of a brainwashed constituency demanding, “Something must get done!” This action might make her look good to those who have no understanding of compromise, but ultimately it results in a net loss of freedom. Why can’t people understand that?
I tire so from the relentless drivel I hear from family, friends, neighbors, media, politicians, etc. when they repeat, like little robots, that we need to compromise, reach across the aisle, meet in the middle someplace, all so that we can, GET SOMETHING DONE!
As a result, what has happened to the rights of Americans? Most people don’t know because they don’t read history and study facts and find truth. They have had their minds manipulated so badly through terrible, controlled education institutions and media of all kinds, they don’t realize what has become of their rights. This makes it easier for the brainwashed totalitarian to encroach on our liberties.
It has gotten so bad in this country that with every event, cries go up that we need to cede more rights all for the greater good, for national security, to catch those terrorists, to stop the gun violence, etc.
You must see that on the surface Senator Collins appears to be on the side of the Second Amendment, but she is really a typical compromiser; one who is eager and willing to give up your rights but protect her own.
We need to educate the masses that “getting something done” can be placed on an act to where an anti-rights bill is proposed and defeated, without compromise. That IS getting something done.
April 23, 2013
This is a quote taken from comments made by Michael Bloomberg, Big Brother mayor of New York City. I got news for Mr. Bloomberg. Watching the actions of the Gestapoesque police during the manhunt for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, someone(s) in law enforcement threw the constitution on the ground and pissed on it.
“The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry,” Mr. Bloomberg said during a press conference in Midtown. “But we live in a complex word where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”
April 22, 2013
New Jersey Senator, Frank Lautenberg, is proposing a bill to require full background checks in order to purchase black powder, because…………?
Let’s face it. The logic and reasoning ability of some people is quite flawed. If this is the mindset among men, like Frank Lautenberg, then it is time to expand this list of items that should necessitate a full background check and those items which should be banned by government “for our protection.”
Both lists, using the same level of reasoning, should include but not limited to: Backpacks, baseball hats, sun glasses, nails, ball bearings, glass, pressure cookers, garage sales, boats (where terrorists hide), cars, convenience stores, public events inside and out, planes, shoes, etc. I mean seriously, where do we stop? And for what reason?
When you consider that people lined the streets after the capture of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the younger of two brothers, already condemned to death by the police and media for blowing up people during the Boston Marathon, to applaud their work, one has to wonder: How willing are people to roll over and play dead and hand any or all of their rights to the government? How many of those people applauding the work of the police understood what was taking place in those door to door searches for the suspect? Why did the FBI not keep Tamerlan Tsarnaev under surveillance as promised? The questions go on and on.
I do not think that I am alone when I thought or assumed that when it was announced that the police in Watertown, New York were going house to house “sweeping” the area, it DID NOT involve illegal search and seizure. If you watch the video below, supposedly a video taken of a police “search” of a house in Watertown during the manhunt for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one has to really wonder who it is that we should fear. Are we at greater risk from a fleeing criminal and murderer or a dozen or more heavily armed law enforcement personnel treating you like a terrorist, evicting you from your home and I am assuming they police DID NOT have a search warrant to enter this home. One move by any one of these people would not have been a pretty sight.
One has to wonder if the police were so intent on getting into lawful citizens’ homes to see what they could find and flex their authoritarian muscle, that they simply missed finding the suspect who later was found holed up in a tarp-covered boat.
I think it is time that people woke up and began to understand that if they want to believe what the government and law enforcement is telling them, that this kind of terrorism is the “new normal”, then we should NOT be so eager to give up our arms, especially the assault weapons, and cast our rights to the ground, to appease the police, all in the trumped up cause of national security.
Listen carefully to what law enforcement and government is suggesting that we need to do “to make our communities safer.”
April 11, 2013
BREACH OF TRUST!
After 86 days of false promises on executive orders for gun control, there still remains absolutely nothing posted on the White House website concerning those orders.
It is my opinion that in what is commonplace among failed governments, the people, of whom are supposed to be the governing body in this country, have through progressive teaching, a failure to learn history, while taking their eyes off the Creator, thus losing their way, have no comprehension of the first inalienable right of self protection and in conjunction any understanding as to what our inalienable rights are or the importance to sustaining a moral direction that leads to a prosperous life.
In listening to the leaders and citizens of this country in the past few years, and in particular of late, in discussing such things as forcing people to be slaves to President Obama’s healthcare plan, along with the destruction of gun rights, as well as all our rights, I am constantly reminded of what is written in the book, “The Two Republics”, by A.T. Jones.
Below is a very important excerpt that helps to explain what was the mindset of the Founding Fathers and the root of much discussion about the need to craft the Declaration of Independence and the national Constitution. It is incredible to me that in just a mere 235 or so years, Americans have very little understanding of the importance of independence, self determination, liberty and inalienable rights, all the while believing they, somehow, have a right to take away the rights of others.
“The Two Republics”, by A.T. Jones – excerpt:
In declaring the objects of government to be to secure to the people the rights which they already possess in full measure and inalienable degree, and to effect their safety and happiness in the enjoyment of those rights; and in declaring the right of the people, in the event named, to alter or abolish the government which they have, and institute a new one on such principles and in such form as to them seems best; there is likewise declared not only the complete subordination but also the absolute impersonality of government. It is therein declared that the government is but a device, a piece of political machinery, framed and set up by the people, by which they would make themselves secure in the enjoyment of the inalienable rights which they already possess as men, and which they have by virtue of being men in society and not by virtue of government; — the right which was theirs before government was; which is their own in the essential meaning of the term; and ‘which they do not hold by any sub-infeudation, but by direct homage and allegiance to the Owner and Lord of all’ (Stanley Matthews), their Creator, who has endowed them with those rights. And in thus declaring the impersonality of government, there is wholly uprooted every vestige of any character of paternity in the government.
In declaring the equality of all men in the possession of these inalienable rights, there is likewise declared the strongest possible safeguard of the people. For this being the declaration of the people, each one of the people stand thereby pledged to the support of the principle thus declared. Therefore, each individual is pledged, in the exercise of his own inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, so to act as not to interfere with any other person in the free and perfect exercise of this inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Any person who so acts as to restrict or inter with the exercise of any other person’s right to life, or liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, denies the principle, to the maintenance of which he is pledged, and does in effect subvert the government. For, rights being equal, if one may so act, every other one may do so; and thus no man’s right is recognized, government is gone, and only anarchy remains. Therefore, by every interest, person as well as general, private as well as public, every individual among the people is pledged in the enjoyment of his right to life, or liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, so to conduct himself as not to interfere in the least degree with the equal right of every other one to the free and full exercise of this enjoyment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. ‘For the rights of man, as man, must be understood in a sense that can admit of no single exception; for to allege an exception is the same thing as to deny the principle. We reject, therefore, with scorn, any profession of respect to the principle which, in fact, comes to us clogged and contradicted by a petition for an exception….To profess the principle and then to plead for an exception, let the plea be what it may, is to deny the principle, and it is to utter a treason against humanity. The rights of man must everywhere all the world over be recognized and respected.’ (Isaac Taylor)
From “The Two Republics by A. T. Jones.
April 3, 2013
There’s a full-court press under way, and it’s not just on a basketball floor leading up to the Final Four. The Environmental Protection Agency has joined league with the earth-huggers to smother resistance to their “green” agenda. By colluding with special-interests groups, the EPA has demonstrated the lengths to which it will go to advance the notion that the business of America is environmentalism.<<<Read More from the Washington Times>>>