tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-85170273504023444162024-03-14T04:03:52.245-07:00Reasoned PoliticsVince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.comBlogger189125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-74353149662749532552018-09-17T14:28:00.001-07:002018-09-17T14:28:19.273-07:00WHY A KAVANAUGH DEFEAT COULD BE HORRIBLE FOR WOMEN IN THE WORKPLACE<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.humanresourcesmba.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/women-cube.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="300" src="https://www.humanresourcesmba.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/women-cube.jpg" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>First, let me say, I am an advocate for equal rights for women. </b>I am proud to have raised a daughter who is now a staff pastor at her church. I think women should be able to do whatever job they want to do and are able to succeed at. Discrimination is unacceptable.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>However, as a pastor, I know what it is like to have guard against false allegations of misconduct</b>. For instance, I never counseled a woman without my wife being present. I have to not only behave properly, I had to be able to prove that I had not acted improperly.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Additionally, this accusation is a “recovered memory” - which have proven to be false and have resulted in many convictions that have been reversed.</b> In these cases the accuser sincerely believes the misconduct took place – even when it can be proven that it never happened.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Worst of all, some left wing media are citing the fact that Kavanaugh hired women and mentored women as proof that the charges are true</b> – even though none of these women have accused him of any misconduct, and many have come to his defense.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>At this point, none of us know what they outcome of this senate probe will be – but, if on the basis of a single accusation of misconduct that is 38 years old, he is defeated, the effect upon women in the workplace could be profound.</b> What man is going to hire a woman for a position where she will work closely with him when he could be destroyed by a false accusation she might make decades later? What man is going to mentor a woman if this becomes a reality? Remember, even a false accusation can destroy your life and career. This could have a chilling effect on opportunities for women for decades to come.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>At this point, none of us knows how this will play out.</b> Perhaps more women will come forward with more recent and more credible accusations – but absent such a development, a Kavanaugh defeat would be very bad for women in the workplace.</span>Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-6606578697605027122017-11-17T13:48:00.000-08:002017-11-17T13:48:05.191-08:00The House Tax Bill - What Will You Pay and Other Details<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>The bottom line, how much can you make before you are taxed:<br /></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Single Taxpayer: </b><br /><b>Now, $10,400.00</b> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Under this bill, </b></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>$14,700.00</b> (</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">$12,200.00 + $2500.00 due to $300.00 Credit)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /><b>Married Couple:</b><br /><b>Now, $20,800.00</b><br /><b>Under this bill, </b></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>$26,900.00</b> (</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">$24,400.00</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">+ $2500.00 due to $300.00 Credit)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /><b>Married Couple With Two Children:</b><br /><b>Now, $28,900.00</b></span><br />
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Under this bill, </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">$</span></b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>53,578.00</b> (</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">$24,400.00 </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">+ $2500.00 due to $300.00 Credit + $26,678.00 due to child tax credits)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /><b>Married Couple With Four Children:</b><br /><b>Now, $28,900.00</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Under this bill, </b></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>$80,256.00</b> (</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">$24,400.00 </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">+ $2500.00 due to $300.00 Credit + </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">53,356.00 due to tax credits)<br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">After these amounts, you begin being taxed at 12% - but at these income levels many people will end up being taxed at 15% under current tax laws.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><br /><br />First of all remember this: 50% of Americans pay no income tax whatsoever under the current system. </b> In fact many, actually get money from the government. This has resulted in massive fraud. Under this bill, those who pay no tax would no longer be allowed to claim tax credits in excess of what the owe. <b>Much opposition centers on this issue.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>The House bill consolidates those into four brackets:</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">12% (up to first $45,000 of taxable income for individuals; $90,000 for married couples filing jointly)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">25% (over $45,000 to $200,000 for individuals; over $90,000 to $260,000 for married couples)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">35% (over $200,000 to $500,000 for individuals; over $260,000 to $1 million for married couples)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">39.6% (over $500,000 for individuals; over $1 million for married couples)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There is also a 6% surtax or “bubble rate” that applies to adjusted gross income over $1 million ($1.2 million for couples)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Household Exemptions and Credits</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Doubles the standard deduction: </b>The bill raises today’s standard deduction for singles to $12,200 from $6,350 currently; and it raises it for married couples filing jointly to $24,400 from $12,700.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Eliminates personal exemptions:</b> Today you’re allowed to claim a $4,050 personal exemption for yourself, your spouse and each of your dependents. The House bill eliminates that option.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Expands child tax credit: </b>The bill would increase for five years the child tax credit to $1,600, up from $1,000, for any child under 17. But that $600 increase won’t be available to the lowest-income families if they don’t end up owing federal income taxes. The bill would let more people claim the child tax credit - raises the cut off to $230,00.00 for married parents.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><b style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Creates a new $300 family tax credit: </b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Taxpayers may claim a $300 non-refundable tax credit for themselves as well as any non-child dependent — for instance, a son or daughter over 17 whom you’re supporting, an ailing elderly mother or an adult child with a disability. The family credit would expire after five years (although it is quite likely to be renewed).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Home Ownership:</b> The bill preserves the mortgage deduction as is for existing mortgages. But for newly purchased homes, you would only be able to claim a deduction for interest you pay on mortgage debt up to $500,000, down from $1 million today. Preserves an itemized property tax deduction for property taxes but only up to $10,000. Note that with the doubling of the personal deduction, few homeowners will benefit from these deductions.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Repeals the estate (death) tax:</b> The estate tax today affects just 0.2% of all estates, and only those with more than $5.49 million in assets (or $10.98 million if you leave a spouse behind). This will mean that hiers will no longer have to sell farms and other family businesses in order to pay the tax. These business are most often either liquidated or sold to large corporations.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Corporate Taxes:</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Lowers corporate tax rate:</b> The bill would permanently cut the corporate rate to 20% from 35% (literally the highest in the entire world). There is little question that this high tax rate is costing is jobs.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Creates territorial tax system:</b> The House GOP bill would switch corporate taxation to a territorial system. That way, American companies would owe U.S. tax only on what they earn here. Their offshore profits would only be taxed by the country where the money is made. The current system, that taxes corporations on income generate both domestically and overseas is unique in the world and definately cost the U.S. jobs and companies flee the country.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-72824124295215185862016-10-13T13:16:00.002-07:002016-10-13T13:16:45.536-07:00REPUBLICANS: JOIN ME IN ASKING THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE TO REPLACE TRUMP WITH PENCE!<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We need to email the RNC at:<a href="mailto:ecampaign@gop.com"> ecampaign@gop.com</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Feel free to copy and paste the following message:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Dear Sirs and Madams,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Recent revelations concerning our candidate for president make it clear that he is unqualified to serve in such a high office. We need not rely on the statements of his accusers - his own recorded statements are damaging enough. The RNC is empowered to act to replace a candidate in order to deal with situations precisely like this.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I have voted Republican my entire life - and should Trump be on the ticket I will vote for him. The alternative is even worse. However, we all know that he will lose. We cannot afford to lose this election. The nation cannot afford to lose this election. Given the recent revelations concerning Sec. Clinton should ensure a Republican win - an there is every reason to believe that exactly what will happen IF WE HAVE A "CLEAN" CANDIDATE.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I implore you to replace Donald Trump with Mike Pence. Please do the right thing for the party and the nation.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> </span><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-16862400692777469442016-10-11T11:07:00.000-07:002016-10-23T15:08:53.423-07:00What Constitutional Rights Are At Risk Should Hillary Clinton Become President?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4oh3tQKmHepiipoqzNEMGSsyU9qGVyhzhW7TKg8tVg-PG8PEvgxEpNUAW8M_wrklKF7QU2_py6EzQP_BKIE4L1hU_i4hSvQMQPdL1Sg1_Knli6WrYR_SKlUjfWi_luqSM1byyWM_TXxZU/s1600/bill+of+rights.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4oh3tQKmHepiipoqzNEMGSsyU9qGVyhzhW7TKg8tVg-PG8PEvgxEpNUAW8M_wrklKF7QU2_py6EzQP_BKIE4L1hU_i4hSvQMQPdL1Sg1_Knli6WrYR_SKlUjfWi_luqSM1byyWM_TXxZU/s320/bill+of+rights.jpg" width="278" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>YOUR 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PRACTICE YOUR RELIGION. </b> Hillary Clinton would continue Obama’s policies. His Civil Rights Commission said: “The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ … remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance”. She would push for repeal of RFRA, which is the only thing protecting religious freedom at this point.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>YOUR 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. </b> Hillary Clinton wants to make it illegal for you to band together with like-minded people to speak out on issues in the months leading up to elections. Of course millionaires and billionaires – as well as labor unions – would be unaffected. She has advocated the partial repeal of the 1st Amendment to accomplish this – what other people does she wish to muzzle?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>YOUR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO OWN FIREARMS.</b> Hillary Clinton has said “the Supreme Court got it wrong on the 2nd Amendment” – yet all their rulings did was establish that the 2nd Amendment protects a personal right for sane and law abiding citizens to own firearms. Many gun control measures are unaffected. She also has advocated “the Australian model” in which over half the nation’s civilian firearms were confiscated. In the recent debate she flat out lied about the nature of the Heller decision and why she opposes it. Heller had nothing to do with toddlers - it was a ban on all handguns and a ban on functional long guns. This is the law Heller overturned. Safe storage laws are unaffected, ans are DC's background check and training requirements. The only reason to want to overturn this historic ruling is to be able to ban handguns.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>YOUR 5TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW. </b> In a move opposed by the ACLU, the NAACP and the NRA (among others), Hillary Clinton wants to use the so called “no fly list” to deny firearms rights to people who have never been convicted of anything – in spite of the fact that we do not know how people get on the list and there is no way to get off. Many people have been on the list in error (even Sen. Kennedy!). If your due process rights can be denied in this area of law – they can be denied in any area of law.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Hillary Clinton is the only modern presidential candidate to advocate the de facto repeal of portions of the Bill of Rights. She must not become president.</b></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-88794518823916753642016-09-24T12:32:00.000-07:002016-10-08T15:26:50.092-07:00Seven Reasons Why Christians Should Vote For Trump<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSLmiLiabjeOFYTe9Cu_rbw-TNWCR9Bj87eb8LxobkbPTbWqizrPhjjkKXj4MjXWbWkcyyAbwLfnIyZI-w3IQIcte0OmZW0HjLG00v6pXNfNx6WLnerWW8cEYpNUltwr_Bb64IBWkkwjNt/s1600/Christains+for+trump.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="220" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSLmiLiabjeOFYTe9Cu_rbw-TNWCR9Bj87eb8LxobkbPTbWqizrPhjjkKXj4MjXWbWkcyyAbwLfnIyZI-w3IQIcte0OmZW0HjLG00v6pXNfNx6WLnerWW8cEYpNUltwr_Bb64IBWkkwjNt/s320/Christains+for+trump.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In this election, there is no one running whom Christians can wholeheartedly support. Both Trump and Clinton have their issues. I sincerely wish that Ted Cruz was on the general election ballot – but he isn’t there. On the Democratic side, we cannot choose a Jimmy Carter, a John Kennedy, or even an honest Socialist like Bernie Sanders. Although I am a conservative, I would give serious consideration to any of the preceding Democrats – because of their character - but they are not running.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">We all must face this reality: Just because we must choose between two poor candidates this does not mean that our choice is not important. There are many reasons why, in this election, Donald Trump is the better choice. Here are seven of them.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>1) Christians will have significant influence in a Trump administration; they will have zero influence in a Clinton administration.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Outside of extremely theologically liberal churches, Hillary Clinton certainly doesn’t want or need to listen to Christians. On the other hand, Trump absolutely needs the support of evangelicals, theologically conservative Catholics and other theologically conservative Christians (as well as theologically conservative Jews). He will not be elected without our votes and he will not be able to advance his legislative agenda without us either. Trump’s choice of Mike Pence – a solid evangelical - as his running mate certainly reflects his recognition that he needs us.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXpaeXjWY_zNVd-R67VHTsElWeGmyqAd3E2yIUQEixlbKc1sCbSOV3Vi_VmUtONsmnYuMnGKmL6I9qznfxcQOsm-kDvPK19KZt4O4WzTtLuWSSh_u1DfoCmB-lCNmeNOhk2IicUs9hB_9-/s1600/quote-i-m-a-christian-a-conservative-and-a-republican-in-that-order-mike-pence-143632.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="187" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXpaeXjWY_zNVd-R67VHTsElWeGmyqAd3E2yIUQEixlbKc1sCbSOV3Vi_VmUtONsmnYuMnGKmL6I9qznfxcQOsm-kDvPK19KZt4O4WzTtLuWSSh_u1DfoCmB-lCNmeNOhk2IicUs9hB_9-/s400/quote-i-m-a-christian-a-conservative-and-a-republican-in-that-order-mike-pence-143632.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;">Trump's choice of Mike Pence, a solid evangelical,<br />as his running mate is huge.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So, be it immigration reform, or the matter of Christians being persecuted overseas, or any other issue that concerns us – we will have influence in a Trump administration. Hillary Clinton has never cared what we think and never will.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>2) Trump will be held accountable by both parties – Democrats will continue to give Hillary Clinton a pass on any and everything she may want to do.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGC0gb5CrsmWIh3NcWOjzLl4PX4ba3vefpCuq3kTJoskIFo7G37JbOSnYtowE4ciwu0TSkgVCQnMa8674H1tuo-_Z5OmQYnu1U7Avhhoz3_6Z-aU1gF_PqupTpoEElENtcvrBvvW9-BCdq/s1600/accountability.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="140" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGC0gb5CrsmWIh3NcWOjzLl4PX4ba3vefpCuq3kTJoskIFo7G37JbOSnYtowE4ciwu0TSkgVCQnMa8674H1tuo-_Z5OmQYnu1U7Avhhoz3_6Z-aU1gF_PqupTpoEElENtcvrBvvW9-BCdq/s200/accountability.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">We have seen the Democratic party pull out all the stops to nominate someone with massive ethical and even criminal issues. Short of homicide, it appears that she can do nothing that will cause the Democratic leadership to stop covering for her. On the other hand, Trump is not only despised by Democrats, he is a complete outsider in relation to Republicans – having won the nomination by attracting both new voters and crossover votes from Democrats. Should Trump do any of the things that opponents fear, the Republican leadership would not hesitate to impeach him. After all, his replacement – Mike Pence – is a rock solid conventional conservative, someone the Republican establishment would consider a vast improvement over Trump. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>3) Clinton presents a significant threat to religious freedom – Trump does not.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgv73r-AMQupDBpk7NXF69Fov5PeGoQtfnbcjSZqHIWm7pkYn2I4tk4ji5oZl6owxwsnburESsODFTp9n28SJqV7QN9lz9GeBXnaPp4F8IWLiu9wm4exQ0t2WxAsR9eVfyREGWCIV5cZPxY/s1600/religious+liberty.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgv73r-AMQupDBpk7NXF69Fov5PeGoQtfnbcjSZqHIWm7pkYn2I4tk4ji5oZl6owxwsnburESsODFTp9n28SJqV7QN9lz9GeBXnaPp4F8IWLiu9wm4exQ0t2WxAsR9eVfyREGWCIV5cZPxY/s200/religious+liberty.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Our religious freedom is hanging by a thread – and has been for many years. In the late 1980s and early 1990s SCOTUS issued several rulings that gutted the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment. Taken together, they require religious individuals to obey “all generally applicable laws”. In other words, unless the law is specifically designed to apply only to religious people, religious individuals must obey it even if it conflicts with, and substantially burdens, the free exercise of their religion.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">These rulings alarmed both left and right – so much that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Sen. Ted Kennedy was a co-sponsor and it passed the Senate 99-0. It could never pass today. It was RFRA – not the 1st Amendment free exercise clause - that was the basis of the Hobby Lobby decision. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Without RFRA, here are just a few of the things that the federal government could do:</span><br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Require all doctors, as a condition of licensing, to participate in at least one abortion. (This has actually been proposed in the past.)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Draft Quakers, Amish and others whose religion forbids their participation in war and require them to serve in combat units.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Require religious hospitals to conduct abortions, regardless of their views.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Churches that allow non-members to rent their facilities for non-member weddings could be compelled to allow same sex couples to rent their facilities, regardless of their views on such unions.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Require religious organizations, perhaps even churches, to hire people whose conduct and/or beliefs conflict with the official positions of the organization.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Religious schools could be required to use government-mandated curriculum on any and every subject.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Everyone who solemnizes marriages – including priests, ministers and rabbis – could be required to do so for all persons issued a license.</span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In short, as long as religious individuals and institutions are not singled out – almost anything goes.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Just in case you still think that Democrats are in favor of freedom of religion, consider this statement from the Obama administration’s Commission on Civil Rights:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><i>“The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ … remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance,” </i></b> This terrifying statement does not reflect an off hand comment by a single official – <a href="http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/obama-admin-condemns-religious-liberty/">it appears in an official report and reflects official policy</a>. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Indeed <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-obama-legacy-an-assault-on-the-bill-of-rights/article/2601342?custom_click=rss">many of our civil rights are now at risk</a> and may be lost if Clinton is elected. She and most other Democrats would love to repeal RFRA, but this is unlikely. However, do not forget that if elected she will appoint several justices to SCOTUS. Chance are that in addition to reversing recent 2nd Amendment rulings, a willingness to overturn RFRA as unconstitutional will be a litmus test. Either way, Hillary Clinton will try to end religious freedom as we know it. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>4) Clinton can be counted upon to do everything possible to silence Christians.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5eSv3KI4rexraKQVPUfBIfOGt7skVeF4BqOTT_zPtS1anNtg0juyRLTOe2hbu1V_6v2odU0C9xBnxqbvc2kMkfU4nLvmOUI93kRpA98FvGTlHV6vjtXgYKi1DZCptnmEY4BgAfPIUat3P/s1600/tape-over-mouth-woman-1508x706_c.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="158" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5eSv3KI4rexraKQVPUfBIfOGt7skVeF4BqOTT_zPtS1anNtg0juyRLTOe2hbu1V_6v2odU0C9xBnxqbvc2kMkfU4nLvmOUI93kRpA98FvGTlHV6vjtXgYKi1DZCptnmEY4BgAfPIUat3P/s200/tape-over-mouth-woman-1508x706_c.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Democrats of today have no respect for the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech clause either. Under the guise of “election reform” they want to limit the ability of persons to join together and speak their mind for months before elections. Of course, organizations favorable to Democrats, such as unions, would be exempted. Without question, this is yet another effort to fix elections.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Given that the single most reliable predictor of a Republican vote is church attendance, a Clinton administration will definitely do everything possible to silence Christians. Given that the Obama administration has already used the IRS against conservative groups, it is highly likely that the IRS will be weaponized against Churches and Christians. It is likely that any clergy endorsing Republican candidates can expect their churches to be audited. Look for the IRS to say that by virtue of their association with the church, personal endorsements constitute an endorsement by the church. Any clergy member speaking out will risk their church’s non-profit status. Ditto for churches where a significant number of parishioners are politically active. The IRS will allege that with so many members involved in conservative causes, the church is simply a cover for political activity. The IRS does not have to win these cases to accomplish their goal – they can and will make life so difficult for politically active Christians that they learn to keep their mouths shut. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>5) If elected, Clinton will be the first person elected after committing an impeachable offense. (Perjury, without question she lied under oath to Congress – the FBI findings directly contradict her testimony.)</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3q3dmvvqaFSqSlh3lUSCmpmjKWBBzNHh3c0DrLMJp5iCARqkrg_lb_ncIT8gMT76vovvx_ixaAwbWKecs0AFrP7C8SFXjty2B2YiBCANEzcIkGTLylGhXUSkv5QgjZBKy7E1fHOTVDPlc/s1600/hillary+before+congress.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="132" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3q3dmvvqaFSqSlh3lUSCmpmjKWBBzNHh3c0DrLMJp5iCARqkrg_lb_ncIT8gMT76vovvx_ixaAwbWKecs0AFrP7C8SFXjty2B2YiBCANEzcIkGTLylGhXUSkv5QgjZBKy7E1fHOTVDPlc/s200/hillary+before+congress.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Hillary Clinton testified under oath, before Congress, that she had never sent or received any classified material via her private email – the FBI found over 100 such communications. She testified that she had turned over all of her work related emails, the FBI found thousands more she had not turned over. I could go on, but what is totally clear is that Hillary Clinton committed perjury before Congress. There is no question that this constitutes an impeachable offense.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Donald Trump has no such problems.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>6) Hillary Clinton is not only corrupt – she does not even attempt to hide her corruption.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNgXdtOUDgUh7bMDBN_4hPT27vRfx1hyJTVDHtjvr1rqcga8CktUTvWqyw8pn3VSNgftEE7sQZRWBNRTF5bwpYTiVzGAbRn1pXBEyKjIJlJ5OHi-sue7EnVSC0twU5bRURnYv8cylaru1Y/s1600/weapons+deals.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNgXdtOUDgUh7bMDBN_4hPT27vRfx1hyJTVDHtjvr1rqcga8CktUTvWqyw8pn3VSNgftEE7sQZRWBNRTF5bwpYTiVzGAbRn1pXBEyKjIJlJ5OHi-sue7EnVSC0twU5bRURnYv8cylaru1Y/s1600/weapons+deals.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;">Weapons Deals Are But A Tiny<br />Fraction Of Cases Where A<br />Favorable Act By The State<br />Department Was Followed By<br />A Huge "Gift"</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As Secretary of State, Clinton turned the State Department into her own cash machine. President Obama was so concerned about this, that he had Hillary Clinton sign a document agreeing that her foundation would not take contributions from persons or nations having business before the State Department. She began violating this agreement almost immediately. During her four years as Secretary of State, her foundation took tens of millions of dollars from persons and nations having business before the Department of State. In addition, time after time, after getting a favorable ruling from the Clinton State Department, Bill Clinton would be hired by those who sought the ruling to give a speech. He was paid between $250,000.00 and $1,500,000.00 for these “speeches”. All of this was done right out in the open. If this had been done by anyone else, the press would be all over this – but when it comes to Hillary, this obvious corruption is ignored. Imagine what she would do as president…</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">All of this is well documented <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyC4DRXRxvA">in this documentary</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Donald Trump has no issues that rise to this level.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>7) According to the FBI director, it would be highly unlikely, after mishandling classified documents, that she could obtain a security clearance – this alone should completely disqualify her.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYoVjq4YLjkNS2ceihqiDeCqHc5uiBisKpbUye2bD1NwbFOLNs1HYZt5qw7pHyPjG8M_ksyFxmP5HIzt-qoc25oLtKkIdky49aE8G1uzswcfpPhj4BQI-1PJIaq85GE2XRvYDTL2YR0yMz/s1600/Double+Standard.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="241" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYoVjq4YLjkNS2ceihqiDeCqHc5uiBisKpbUye2bD1NwbFOLNs1HYZt5qw7pHyPjG8M_ksyFxmP5HIzt-qoc25oLtKkIdky49aE8G1uzswcfpPhj4BQI-1PJIaq85GE2XRvYDTL2YR0yMz/s320/Double+Standard.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;">General David Petraeus Mishandled One<br />Classified Document - Sec. Clinton<br />Mishandled Hundreds</span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Should we elect someone as president who has already demonstrated that she cannot be trusted with classified information? Should we elect someone as president who could not qualify to be a presidential aide? Should we elect someone as president who barely escaped prosecution for an offense that, in addition to other punishment, would have barred her from ever holding public office? I think the answer is obvious.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">For all of the above reasons, given the actual choice between these two candidates, the only choice for serious Christians is Donald Trump. Should he be elected, this Christian will be watching him closely in order to hold him accountable.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-8347336454845212982016-01-06T12:04:00.000-08:002016-01-06T12:11:03.217-08:00Do Democrats Keep People Out Of Poverty?<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Red_state,_blue_state.svg/2000px-Red_state,_blue_state.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="197" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Red_state,_blue_state.svg/2000px-Red_state,_blue_state.svg.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Based on Presidential Election Wins 2000-2012<br />Blue = 4 Democratic Wins<br />Light Blue = 3 Democratic Wins<br />Purple = 2 Wins Each<br />Pink = 3 Republican Wins<br />Red = 4 Republican Wins</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Democrats claim that they do the best job of keeping people out of poverty. Is that really true? Well, let's check.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The key to getting it right is the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA). In some states the cost of living is so high that people who make a lot of money still are impoverished. In others, the cost of living is low and people making much less are not in poverty. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The map at left gauges control of states by charting the winners in the last 4 presidential elections. This mirrors control of state government - especially legislatures - quite well.<br /><br /><br />Here are the most impoverished states when COLA is factored:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">1) California - Blue State (Most impoverished state)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">2) Hawaii</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">- Blue State</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">3) New Jersey</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">- Blue State</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">4) Florida - Purple State</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">5) Nevada - Purple State</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">6) Maryland</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">- Blue State</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">7) Virginia - Purple State</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">8) Massachusetts</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">- Blue State</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">9) </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Connecticut - Blue State</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">10 </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> New Hampshire</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">- Blue State</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Observations:</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1) All ten of the most impoverished states are solidly Democratic or lean heavily Democratic.<br /><br />2) Even more significantly, not one of the states is solidly Republican or leans Republican.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3) Only one state - Florida - is in the Deep South</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">4) Many of the top ten states are losing populations as people move to - you guessed it - Red States.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.newgeography.com/files/cox-states14-4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.newgeography.com/files/cox-states14-4.png" height="295" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">These states are losing population</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.newgeography.com/files/cox-states14-1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.newgeography.com/files/cox-states14-1.png" height="306" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">These states are gaining population</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Sources:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states<br /><br />http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/11/01/24-7-wall-st-poverty-states/18104313/<br /><br />http://www.newgeography.com/content/004818-2014-state-population-rise-south-and-west-continues</span><br />
<br />Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-17230366214082293502015-12-05T16:32:00.001-08:002015-12-07T13:51:56.362-08:00Facts Related To The San Bernardino Terrorist Attack <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://st.depositphotos.com/1035297/4104/i/450/depositphotos_41044047-Terrorist-shooting.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://st.depositphotos.com/1035297/4104/i/450/depositphotos_41044047-Terrorist-shooting.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In the wake of the horrible terrorist attack upon our fellow Americans in San Bernardino, as the media is filled with highly opinionated commentary and a great deal of disinformation, I would like to share some<b> FACTS.</b></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Christians and Jews Are Targets</span></b></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br />Fact #1: The terrorists may have chosen to attack this group <a href="http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Slain-Messianic-Jew-had-argued-Islam-Israel-with-San-Bernardino-shooter-436343" target="_blank">because a Messianic Jew debated with the man.</a></b> The issue? The Messianic Jew refused to concede that Islam is a religion of peace. No joke.<br /><br /><b>Fact #2: Islamic terrorists have attacked Christians and Jews overseas.</b><br /><br /><b>Fact #3: Most churches are soft targets, with no armed security.</b><br /><br /><b>Conclusion: Churches and Synagogues (and even moderate Mosques) are likely to be targeted in the future.</b> Clergy should lead their congregations in establishing real security, and those measures must include multiple armed and trained persons or they will be completely ineffective against armed attackers.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>Gun Control and Terrorism</b></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: start;"></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Fact #4: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation#India" target="_blank">Gun control laws far beyond US constitutional limits did not stop the terrorist attack in Mumbai, India</a></b> - they simply ensured that the terrorists victims were unable to effectively resist the terrorists as they roamed the city for days killing defenseless people.<br /><br /><b>Fact #5: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation#Kenya" target="_blank">Gun control laws far beyond US constitutional limits did not stop the Kenyan mall attack</a></b> - they simply ensured that the terrorists victims were unable to effectively resist as they roamed the mall killing helpless people.<br /><br /><b>Fact #6: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_France" target="_blank">Gun control laws beyond US constitutional limits did not stop the Paris attacks</a></b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_France" target="_blank"> </a>- they merely insured that the victims were unable to effectively resist as the terrorists continued shooting people for over an hour.<br /><br /><b>Fact #7: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California" target="_blank">California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, and they failed to stop the San Bernardino attacks.</a> </b> Having lived under these laws, I am very familiar with them - and most of what has been stated by the media is wrong. Specifically:<br /><br /><b>1) The rifles used in the attack were obtained illegally. </b> California requires a state and federal background check and change of registration on all transfers of ownership or possession for more than 30 days. This did not happen in this case. I expect that we will see the person who transferred them to the terrorist arrested. Take note: California has no "gun show loophole" and the law accomplished nothing.<br /><br /><b>2) The rifles used in the attack are illegal to possess under California law. </b> They had been illegally modified by removing the magazine lock that slows magazine changes. They were equipped with muzzle brakes, pistol grips, forward grips, and 30 round magazines - every one of which is illegal in California.<br /><br /><b>3) California makes it nearly impossible for an average person to obtain a permit to carry a firearm</b>. In fact, the 9th Circuit recently ruled these restrictions to be unconstitutional. The state has appealed. <b>All this law did was insure that no one could shoot back.</b><br /><br /><b>4) The building in question is a "gun free zone"</b> - meaning that in the unlikely event that someone had a permit to carry, they could not do so in this building.<br /><br /><b><u>In short, California's laws completely failed to even slow this attack - in fact, they made things much easier for the terrorists.</u></b><br /><br /><b>Fact #8: Banning people on the Terrorist Watch list from purchasing firearms is absolutely unconstitutional. </b><br /><br /><b>There is no constitutional right to fly on an airplane.</b> This enables the government to place people on the watch list with no due process whatsoever. Such persons are not even notified that they are on the list. <a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/victory-federal-court-recognizes-constitutional-rights-americans-no-fly-list" target="_blank">In fact, the ACLU is working hard to overturn the watch list because, among other things, there is no due process. </a> The list is a wide net, and many people with nothing to do with terrorism are on it. The Huffington Post (not exactly a conservative publication!) has published at least two articles detailing how inaccurate the watch list is. (See "<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/terrorist-watch-list_n_5617599.html">7 Ways That You (Yes, You) Could End Up On A Terrorist Watch List</a>" and "<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/terrorist-watch-list-database_n_1936515.html">Ford Motor Co., 2-Year-Old, Innocent Man Have Records In Terror Database</a>".) At one point <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/us/senator-terrorist-a-watch-list-stops-kennedy-at-airport.html?_r=0">Sen. Kennedy could not fly</a> because someone with an identical name was on the list. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller" target="_blank">There is a constitutional right of purchase and own firearms</a>. People cannot be deprived of their constitutional rights without due process of law.</b> Banning people on the watch list from buying firearms is every bit as unconstitutional as rounding up all Muslims and placing them in camps without charges or due process. A law banning people on the watch list from buying guns would be struck down in days, if not hours.<br /><br /><b>Fact #9: The FBI is notified every time a firearms background check is done on someone who is on the Terrorist Watch list</b>. (<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/politics/people-on-terror-lists-cleared-to-buy-guns/index.html?eref=rss_topstories" target="_blank">See 3rd paragraph of this CNN article.</a>) They are then able to take action if they have real evidence that the person is a threat.<br /><br /><b>Fact #10: Gun control advocates cannot point to a single instance where any countries gun laws have stopped a terrorist attack.</b> The reason: It has never happened - in fact some of the worst terrorism has happened in countries where the possession of firearms is banned or virtually banned.<br /><br /><b>Conclusion: Gun control is not going to stop or even slow terrorists.</b> Administration efforts to enact new gun laws are an effort to distract from the real issues and co opt this tragedy to advance their pre-existing agenda.<br /></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">What Can Stop Terrorist Attacks?</span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /><b>Fact: <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-chief-ponders-armed-citizenry/story?id=20637341" target="_blank">The head of INTERPOL has stated that armed citizens are the most effective way to stop terrorist attacks like those in Kenya and San Bernardino.</a></b><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-chief-ponders-armed-citizenry/story?id=20637341" target="_blank"> </a> In the wake of San Bernardino, several leaders in law enforcement <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/3/armed-citizenry-seen-as-mass-shooting-terrorism-de/?page=all" target="_blank">have called for more armed citizens.</a> This includes a <a href="http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/12/03/ulster-county-sheriff-carry-guns/" target="_blank">New York state sheriff</a>.<br /><br /><b>Fact: In spite of lies to the contrary, legally armed citizens <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/" target="_blank">have stopped many mass shootings</a>. </b><br /><br /><b>Fact: Armed citizens are forbidden to carry in places that are most commonly attacked - thus reducing the number of times they are able to stop mass shootings.</b> Indeed, since 2009, <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/10/11/report-92-percent-of-mass-shootings-since-2009-occured-in-gun-free-zones/" target="_blank">92% of mass shootings such as the San Bernardino and the Oregon College shooting</a></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/10/11/report-92-percent-of-mass-shootings-since-2009-occured-in-gun-free-zones/" target="_blank"> have taken place in so called gun free zones.</a> <a href="http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CPRC-Mass-Shooting-Analysis-Bloomberg2.pdf" target="_blank">(More)</a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Fact: The FBI defines a mass shooting as a incident in which <a href="https://www.blogger.com/goog_773219259">at least four people are shot</a></b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting#Definition">.</a> Since shootings armed citizens almost always stop shootings before four people are shot, <b>when they succeed, IT DOESN'T COUNT AS A MASS SHOOTING! Talk about a "catch 22"!</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="180" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YXfX68wWNgo" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Israeli Citizen Using His Gun To Stop A Terrorist Attack</span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Fact: Israel effectively stopped mass shootings by terrorists by arming large numbers of citizens.</b> In recent years, the number of <a href="http://mops.gov.il/english/aboutusenglish/firearm/pages/history_firearm.aspx" target="_blank">persons authorized to carry fell to 170,000</a> - still a huge number when you consider that NYC, with about the same population has <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/lifestyles-rich-packin-high-profile-celebrities-seeking-gun-permits-rise-article-1.441377#ixzz1bl328eaZ" target="_blank">well under 10,000</a>.. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> Recently, in response to stabbing incidents, they have increased the number of armed citizens - leading to many women being called </span><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/10/12/glocker-mom-other-israeli-settlers-carry-guns-amid-palestinian-violence/73811790/" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;" target="_blank">"Glock moms".</a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> In fact, the </span><a href="http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/04/cornell-university-warns-mistletoe-isnt-inclusive-enough-and-students-shouldnt-use-it/" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;" target="_blank">Israeli Prime Minister recently urged all those legally allowed to carry firearms to do so.</a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> His call was echoed by <a href="http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/27507/Default.aspx" target="_blank">the Jerusalem mayor</a>. More </span><a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/10/israeli-ministers-encourage-citizens-to-carry-guns-to-eliminate-the-enemy/" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;" target="_blank">HERE</a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.tap3x.com/US_State_Concealed_Carry%202015-2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.tap3x.com/US_State_Concealed_Carry%202015-2.png" height="328" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Fact: Approximately <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/14/murder-rates-drop-as-concealed-carry-permits-soar-/?page=all">13 Million</a> Americans have permits to carry.</b> Terrorists must take this into account when planning attacks (unless they are planning an attack in CA!). These people are <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/02/24/guns-and-new-york-times-why-shouldnt-americans-be-able-to-defend-themselves.html">more law abiding than police officers</a> and can be a major resource in stopping terrorist attacks, if and only if, we do away with so called gun free zones where only law abiding citizens are disarmed.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Conclusion: </b>Ask yourself this question: <b>People are being shot at your church. Do you want to wait ten minutes or more for police to arrive, o would you rather have people in your church prepared to act immediately?</b> I think thre answer is obvious.<br /><br />Finally, I urge everyone to view <a href="http://outdoorchannel.com/showvideos.aspx?show-id=25702">this documentary on mass shootings.</a> You will find it quite informative. </span>Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-75660207921269202752015-11-12T15:32:00.000-08:002015-11-12T15:32:56.136-08:00Gun Control Is Based On Propaganda<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiANDWqXfBkQ8TJcyBeicaRm0-wf1uDnRhJz8WuOs5Mdl7vTcC1fmt9ZecmLz2VvgwFZWGRfb4Qi_CnXItSptCmp5EBQQmXQFAsAV1PFdsShDYuU0pJX8peeGVewcx33Wl8JEvbJavUuFPg/s1600/propaganda.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiANDWqXfBkQ8TJcyBeicaRm0-wf1uDnRhJz8WuOs5Mdl7vTcC1fmt9ZecmLz2VvgwFZWGRfb4Qi_CnXItSptCmp5EBQQmXQFAsAV1PFdsShDYuU0pJX8peeGVewcx33Wl8JEvbJavUuFPg/s320/propaganda.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This post is available for download as a PDF file <a href="http://www.douloscomputer.com/Gun_Control_Is_Based_On_Propaganda.pdf" target="_blank">HERE</a><br /><br />I realize that this is a radical statement. Of course, not all gun laws are bad. I don't want felons to have guns. Ditto for the mentally ill. However, we already have laws on the books to deal with these kind of situations. I'm not talking about these laws or minor adjustments to them - I am taking about the typical gun control arguments we have all heard many times.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What is propaganda? Is it not when you simply make stuff up in order to justify a public policy? Nearly all gun control arguments are based on PHONY INFORMATION - and I can prove it. . I urge you to check the following facts out for yourself. Specifically these are prime examples of the phony information gun control arguments are based upon, none of which are ever questioned by the mainstream media: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>Phony Facts (i.e. Lies):</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Gun control advocates frequently speak of the "epidemic of gun violence". </b> They do so because they want you to believe that gun violence is increasing - and it is working. Most Americans believe that gun crime is rising. But what are the real facts?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEJb0sTKWU9vDSKZelC3CxHOIeaU9YBPR2C04iEWPxgeS87BbaRXX5RwgFareO35oeAQhpstFG-i_T4XcO7C4oa5psUXTgG-heDZXLS6cuG3bl0g4YUlKmKrbc-5RAfbvms8TnJr87DG9A/s1600/SDT-2013-05-gun-crime-1-1.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEJb0sTKWU9vDSKZelC3CxHOIeaU9YBPR2C04iEWPxgeS87BbaRXX5RwgFareO35oeAQhpstFG-i_T4XcO7C4oa5psUXTgG-heDZXLS6cuG3bl0g4YUlKmKrbc-5RAfbvms8TnJr87DG9A/s640/SDT-2013-05-gun-crime-1-1.png" width="257" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>The real facts: GUN CRIME, INCLUDING GUN HOMICIDES, ARE DOWN BY NEARLY 50% SINCE 1993.</b> Even more significant, the nations gun supply doubled and concealed carry massively expanded during this same time frame! <b>Yep, more guns and more concealed carry resulted in a 50% drop in gun crime!</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This information does not come from the NRA, but from official government statistics - reported by the highly regarded public research organization PEW RESEARCH.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Pew reports that this propaganda has largely succeeded. Indeed, their report is entitled, <b><a href="http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/" target="_blank">" Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware"</a></b>. Even more significantly, this drop has taken place with the number of firearms in the hands of the public as doubled and "shall issue" citizen concealed carry has expanded from a handful of states to 43 states.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Does it bother you that the American public has been successfully deceived by the gun control movement and the mainstream media? It should.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And this is but one example. Other phony facts include: Firearms are infrequently used in self defense, mass shootings are never stopped by armed citizens, gun free zones save lives, most Mexican crime guns come from US gun stores and many people are killed with so called "assault weapons". <b>All of these so called facts are completely false.</b> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>Phony statistics</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>First, I invite you to check the sources of data used by pro-gun rights advocates.</b> You will find that organizations supporting gun rights almost exclusively use official government data. The exception is when government doesn't collect data - such as defensive gun use. <b>They can do this because the actual facts support their pro-gun rights arguments.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>In contrast, gun control organizations usually do not do this. Instead, they simply make up their own terms and statistics that provide false support for gun control. </b> <b><i>No greater example exists than their oft used "gun deaths" statistic.</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As we have seen above, criminal use of firearms is down - so gun control advocates create their own statistic - not used or issued by any government agency. They add gun homicides, gun accidents and gun suicides together to create the largest number possible. However, when the use this figure in the media, they almost never tell you that they have done this. Why? <b>SIMPLE: THEY WANT THE PUBLIC TO THINK THEIR PHONY FIGURE IS THE GUN HOMICIDE FIGURE! </b> Indeed, most in the media never dispute this - instead, they too speak as if it is the firearms homicide figure.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCChX127GyWie03u6ewGsd33qIUL543lDZPTchyphenhyphengDMGro2BZmhj65nOdmmY6JANRT8gUAcoY0-laABYgBTM3iWA2atA6y_TT_ev7JSKPi_fJSnVnJ_V8J4uwH0Tp_Jt-k9aUsQHY3wkHtC/s1600/suicide+rates.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCChX127GyWie03u6ewGsd33qIUL543lDZPTchyphenhyphengDMGro2BZmhj65nOdmmY6JANRT8gUAcoY0-laABYgBTM3iWA2atA6y_TT_ev7JSKPi_fJSnVnJ_V8J4uwH0Tp_Jt-k9aUsQHY3wkHtC/s400/suicide+rates.png" width="332" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Many Nations With High Suicide Rates Ban or Nearly<br />Ban Firearms - Yet This Doesn't Stop Suicides.<br />People Who Really Want To Kill Themselves Will Find A<br />Way. Note that the UK and The US Have Nearly Identical<br />Rates of Suicide In Spite Of Draconian Gun Laws in The UK.</b></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>This is important because the majority of their "gun deaths" (about 60%) are not homicides, they are gun suicides. </b> When they are forced to admit that their phony figure is mostly composed of suicides, they argue that more guns equal more suicides. They point to comparisons between cherry picked states to support this argument. <b> They reject the argument that someone who really wants to kill themselves will find a way - but what are the facts?</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Well, we can look to three nations that are very similar: The US, Canada and the UK.</b> All three are English speaking, they share a common history and even, to a great extent a common media. All three are modern industrial nations. <b>They do differ widely in one area: Firearms ownership.</b> The US has firearms in a bit less than 50% of homes (if not more), Canada has firearms in a bit less than 30% of homes and the UK has firearms in less than 4% of homes. If firearms availability is a major factor in suicides, than the suicide rates in these three nations should vary widely. <b>However, this is not the case - their suicide rates are virtually identical, PROVING THAT THE AVAILABILITY OF FIREARMS DOES NOT AFFECT THE SUICIDE RATE.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Of course, if firearms are available, they will be used to commit suicide - but if they are not available people will simply choose another method.</b> That is why many nations with actual or virtual bans on private firearms have much higher rates of suicide than the US, the UK or Canada. Clearly, other factors are at play here.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Gun control advocates know full well that combining firearms suicides with firearms suicides is dishonest. They simply do not care. They are quite willing to make up phony statistics to support their positions.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>Phony Comparisons</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This is yet another way in which the gun control movement uses propaganda methods. The perhaps most well known, of these false comparisons is comparing the number of suicides and homicides with the number of justifiable homicides.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The propaganda is presented as follows: <b>"You should not own a firearm because a firearm in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. THEREFORE YOU SHOULD NOT OWN A GUN." <i>Remember, this is the whole point behind this phony comparison.</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Boy, it sure sounds like a gun in the home is a really bad idea doesn't it? It sounds like the self-defense benefit is far outweighed by the danger, right? WRONG!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The problems here are many:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Phony, invalid comparison: Is the purpose of a defensive firearm in the home to kill intruders? NO, IT IS NOT. </b> <i><b>The purpose of a defensive firearm in the home is to protect the occupants. </b></i> In the vast majority of cases this can be done without firing any shots. When confronted with a firearm, most intruders will run. In the minority of cases were shots are fired in defense, no one dies. Justifiable homicides are only a tiny minority of defensive gun uses. By including only cases where an attacker is killed, the anti-gun propagandists intentionally eliminate the vast majority of successful defensive gun uses. Even the most conservative figures (sadly, no official figures are available) on defensive gun use result in dozens to hundreds more defensive uses than deaths.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What we do know that is more LEGALLY OWNED firearms results in less crime and fewer legally owned guns results in more crime:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZD7MfCyyhBqDw5B5M49x1GUkqG5nZUwvrA2o1sedhvLQJEafuyn2QfdEXSwqfXouI_d8MNELRzQLtkC4fhCFBqgrLZYrEvlal0DkF7U-nqef_lY-r0_AOyH5baSTp3a27tlwusjoEetBk/s1600/69d5c-gunownershipviolentcrimeeng.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><br /></a><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_uljJ4_c_x9zUZgsPQuwDwGKBac6p7LsjRf_O8vBdo-UuiGMwXs4dUrPhu6UfldJA1oPYBOgBxv2W4f_BMynFLLlNPyPMtYReTiyXCk8NhA1054HNuoFA_zOB8PGooQEvDiaWte3gUZF8/s1600/GunOwnershipVCrimeRate.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="315" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_uljJ4_c_x9zUZgsPQuwDwGKBac6p7LsjRf_O8vBdo-UuiGMwXs4dUrPhu6UfldJA1oPYBOgBxv2W4f_BMynFLLlNPyPMtYReTiyXCk8NhA1054HNuoFA_zOB8PGooQEvDiaWte3gUZF8/s320/GunOwnershipVCrimeRate.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><b>US Gun Ownership and Crime Rates</b></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZD7MfCyyhBqDw5B5M49x1GUkqG5nZUwvrA2o1sedhvLQJEafuyn2QfdEXSwqfXouI_d8MNELRzQLtkC4fhCFBqgrLZYrEvlal0DkF7U-nqef_lY-r0_AOyH5baSTp3a27tlwusjoEetBk/s1600/69d5c-gunownershipviolentcrimeeng.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="219" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZD7MfCyyhBqDw5B5M49x1GUkqG5nZUwvrA2o1sedhvLQJEafuyn2QfdEXSwqfXouI_d8MNELRzQLtkC4fhCFBqgrLZYrEvlal0DkF7U-nqef_lY-r0_AOyH5baSTp3a27tlwusjoEetBk/s320/69d5c-gunownershipviolentcrimeeng.gif" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><b>UK Gun Ownership and Crime Rates</b></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Notice that in the US, where more guns have been added to the civilian supply, crime is down. In the UK, where government has actively worked to reduce gun ownership, crime is up! Even within the EU, countries such as Sweden, Finland, Norway and Switzerland - where gun ownership is common, have low crime rates, while the country with the fewest legally owned guns - you guessed it - the UK - has the highest crime rate. Simply checking official figures on Wikipedia will confirm this.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Inflated death figure: </b>As we have seen above, firearms ownership does not causes suicides. Again, gun control advocates, without disclosing it unless asked, combine suicides and homicides to massively inflate their death statistic. <a href="http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html" target="_blank">In fact 87% or 37 of the deaths in this statistic are suicides.</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">While suicidal people will use firearms if they are available, they quite clearly will use something else if they are not - therefore, these deaths are not as a result of a firearm being present and should not be counted.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Mixed data set:</b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> So, at this point our invalid comparison is reduced to six domestic deaths for each justifiable homicide. However, even this figure is not really accurate. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i><b>In compiling this statistic, no effort was made to distinguish between firearms legally owned by law abiding citizens and firearms owned illegally by criminals, drug abusers and the mentally ill.</b></i> Obviously, these people are much more likely to kill - intentionally or unintentionally. They are much more likely to leave a firearm unsecured where a child can find it. In short, a huge number of the deaths must have come from this group. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i>Additionally, no effort was made to distinguish between homes in which domestic abuse and/or alcoholism was present and those homes without such problems. </i></b>Again, common sense and experience tells us that the risk of domestic violence is much high in these homes than in healthy homes.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>So, of what use is this phony 43:1 statistic to a healthy, mentally stable, law abiding citizen who lives in a home without substance abuse or domestic violence? Answer: IT IS OF NO USE AT ALL.</b> It completely irrelevant to such a person. It does not predict the risk for such a person or household - and yet, this is exactly how the gun control advocates use it.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Of course, this is but one example. Simply ask yourself when a comparison is made: Is this a VALID comparison?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>Phony Terms</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>The gun control movement loves to make up phony terms of their own. </b> The reason is simple: Once the term has been vilified in the eyes of the public, the gun control movement can then expand it's definition (because it really doesn't have one), while the opinion of the public at large does not change. <b>In short, the reason the that gun control advocates use phony terms is to deceive the public.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"Saturday Night Special", "Cop Killer Bullets", "Gun Show Loophole" and "Assault Weapon" are but a few examples of the phony terms used by gun control advocates. Currently, the most used of these terms is "Assault Weapon", so let's look at the history of this term.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>The gun control advocates initially chose the term "Assault Weapon" because it is so close to the real term "Assault Rifle" that the two are easily confused.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What is an "Assault Rifle"? Invented by the Germans during WW2 and named by none other than Hitler himself, assault rifles are standard equipment in most of the world's armies. To be an assault rifle, a rifle must have all three of the following characteristics:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1) Intermediate cartridge - It must fire a round less powerful than a full power rifle cartridge and more powerful than a pistol cartridge</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2) Fed from a detachable magazine</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3) Capable of BOTH semi-automatic and fully automatic fire</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Legally, real assault rifles are machine guns. As such, they are very tightly controlled and cannot be purchased in a typical gun store</b>. In fact, the number in civilian hands is so small that legal fully auto weapons cost tens of thousands of dollars.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A machine gun is legally defined as any firearm that fires more than one round per pull of the trigger. In other words a machine gun can spray bullets. In contrast, a semi-auto firearm, examples of which have been around for more than 110 years and are commonly used in hunting, can only fire one shot per trigger pull.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXNDdC4kNhA6lrbP4MBi2nnDb4AA2YIvMIOSVrE1H_tX3O2XgznquRQZrMn8qs-GJedwVLzPNRdoXNwdXWa3ZIPiEFVbU8nPrJg7Yj8eos4VrGIzAGVVMcCXb0pU6D5lauyO3H62H5GaMb/s1600/Assault+rifle.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="182" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXNDdC4kNhA6lrbP4MBi2nnDb4AA2YIvMIOSVrE1H_tX3O2XgznquRQZrMn8qs-GJedwVLzPNRdoXNwdXWa3ZIPiEFVbU8nPrJg7Yj8eos4VrGIzAGVVMcCXb0pU6D5lauyO3H62H5GaMb/s320/Assault+rifle.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What civilians can and do own - in very large numbers - are semi-auto versions of the military rifles. <b> These are functionally no different than rifles that have been around since the early 1900s - but they look nearly identical to their military counterparts. This provided an opportunity for gun control advocates to introduce confusion.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>In the late 1980s, they coined the term "assault weapon" - and initially employed in only against guns that had fully automatic military versions.</b> Even though these firearms were FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL to all other semi-automatic firearms, they convinced many in the public that because of their appearance they were uniquely dangerous. <b>They were <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5IEoJnrAZB2Z2medexF825Vi2XPFn3Fd4ao_-lfdQySOtioGCR2RgqOODav5da2JWu3F07j7I77iS13yEy8zvDROgj5wvB6WJlCYsrfKA1pkW9za3eGfZiQlY68-jnGdMoubOrJUJ-T-7/s1600/same+gun.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5IEoJnrAZB2Z2medexF825Vi2XPFn3Fd4ao_-lfdQySOtioGCR2RgqOODav5da2JWu3F07j7I77iS13yEy8zvDROgj5wvB6WJlCYsrfKA1pkW9za3eGfZiQlY68-jnGdMoubOrJUJ-T-7/s1600/same+gun.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>The Rifles Above Actually Have The Same<br />Internal Parts - They Are Functionally<br />Identical - Yet The Bottom Firearm<br />Could Be Banned Based On Looks </b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
helped in this effort by a few police and media outlets that showed the fully automatic military versions being fired on full auto, and then referred to the civilian versions AS IF THEY WERE THE SAME GUNS.</b> Of course, they weren't - but by now you know that lies are the gun control movement's stock and trade.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>So, initially the gun control movement said, "We just want to ban these evil military rifles, not sporting or target guns."</b> (Never mind that the number one target gun in the US is the AR15.) So, in my native State of California, these were banned in the late 1980s. Next, having convinced the bulk of the public that "assault weapons" were terrible, they expanded the definition. <b>Now, any semi-auto rifle with a <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2TV8hUXrZChS_hMAz-O9aWDFeT0HSQIeQWtwsqSXc4m97MKdIrTl0JTwmcmYhzHQrksbT3lpOZSOBUsXIK6OkmyT0B8JLBYURBwiWuByF2hx8rkb92c55zbMAcTW7b7LTbcrVqEfc20Sh/s1600/carbine.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2TV8hUXrZChS_hMAz-O9aWDFeT0HSQIeQWtwsqSXc4m97MKdIrTl0JTwmcmYhzHQrksbT3lpOZSOBUsXIK6OkmyT0B8JLBYURBwiWuByF2hx8rkb92c55zbMAcTW7b7LTbcrVqEfc20Sh/s1600/carbine.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>The ONLY Difference Between These Rifles<br />Is The Stock - In CA The Bottom Rifle Is<br />Banned While The Top Rifle Is Not</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
detachable magazine and some much as one of five "evil, military features" (none of which affect the functioning of the firearm) was an assault rifle. </b> This expanded the ban to hundreds of more models. <b>Finally, in 2014, gun control advocates in the California legislature expanded the definition to include any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine. This would have banned virtually all semi-auto rifles - by calling them "assault weapons". </b> This was too much for even Democratic Governor Jerry Brown - who vetoed the bill. However, you can bet your life that it will be back.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>That is the pattern: Create a phony term, demonize it then, after the public thinks that type of gun terrible - expand the definition. Classic deceptive propaganda.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>Phony Solutions</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>By this I mean that in response to a tragedy - such as a mass shooting - gun control advocates rush to push gun control measures that would have not stopped, or even slowed, the tragedy.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Over the past three years, as we have been going through a cycle of mass murder incidents (historically, these horrible incidents do happen in cycles). In response to every one of these incidents, <b>gun control advocates have said the same thing every time: "This is why we need to close the 'gun show loophole' and establish universal background checks!"</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Of course, there is only one problem: Every single gun used in these mass shootings was purchased at a gun store - where the buyer (usually the shooter) passed a federal background check! </b>None of these guns was purchased at a gun show. None of these guns were purchased from a private party. None were purchased by someone outside the shooter's household. Some were purchased in states that required background checks on all sales and had their own system in addition to the federal system (such as California). None of these measures stopped the shooters from buying a gun through legal, retail channels.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYMEnb621Wdg63gvnrM9Zkb5mb2lJwTCsOpef8Nyml4xTu-XogboCr-gP2kNobiV8nebpAqbIrHXOkfjg59t-MvIYMUi2DBxv-srGtyKAJi1jQ4U0OmCfio3rmV4X6OPdKEQT8puPOGYND/s1600/Brackground+check+FAIL.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="388" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYMEnb621Wdg63gvnrM9Zkb5mb2lJwTCsOpef8Nyml4xTu-XogboCr-gP2kNobiV8nebpAqbIrHXOkfjg59t-MvIYMUi2DBxv-srGtyKAJi1jQ4U0OmCfio3rmV4X6OPdKEQT8puPOGYND/s640/Brackground+check+FAIL.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>This attempted mass shooter (and murderer) should have been in the background check database - both because of criminal charges and a mental health commitment - but he passed a federal background check! This is how every recent mass shooter obtained his guns.</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Why is this? Simple: The system's database is terribly flawed - <a href="http://www.fixnics.org/" target="_blank">and the only groups that seems to care is the gun industry and gun rights groups! </a></b> <b><i>Gun control advocates do not care that the system's database is flawed - but they want it expanded to all gun "transfers". </i></b> This is why so many think the goal is not to stop criminals from getting guns - but to provide a paper trail for other purposes, such as future confiscation.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The fact that expanded background checks won't stop mass shootings is so firmly established that <a href="http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/06/16/bloombergs-top-gun-control-advocate-admits-proposals-wouldnt-stop-mass-shootings-n1852230" target="_blank">even a leading gun control advocate had to admit it!</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">However, you can be sure that the fact that it did not stop the mass shooter from obtaining firearms will not stop gun control advocates from proposing any and all "solutions" on their wish list.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>Conclusion</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I think I have firmly established that most gun control arguments are nothing but propaganda. However, you can only fool the American people for so long before the see through you - and the good news is that more and more Americans are seeing through the phony gun control arguments. That's why support for gun control is at an all time low.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>One final thought: If gun control advocates have to habitually resort to these tactics - if they are the rule and not the exception - if they are used, not by individuals, but by well established gun control organizations - WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT THE STRENGTH OF THEIR ARGUMENTS?</b></span><br />
<br />Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-49628698947959510502015-11-02T13:55:00.000-08:002015-11-02T13:55:33.320-08:00Religious Leaders on Guns and Self-Defense<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">One of the major reasons why people own firearms is self defense. The Supreme Court has held that this is one of the core reasons for the 2nd Amendment. Yet, if one listens to the mainstream media, one wold think that all religious figures are opposed both to the ownership of firearms and the use of deadly force in the defense of self and others. In reality, many religious figures have spoken in support of self defense and the right to keep and bear arms. Consider these quotes:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://media.ldscdn.org/images/media-library/gospel-art/old-testament/moses-parting-red-sea-barrett-301889-print.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://media.ldscdn.org/images/media-library/gospel-art/old-testament/moses-parting-red-sea-barrett-301889-print.jpg" height="186" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i>“If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed;" Law of Moses Exodus 22:2-3 (NIV)</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<a href="http://guyanachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/jesus-christ-returns.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://guyanachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/jesus-christ-returns.jpg" height="106" width="200" /></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i></i></b></span><br />
<b><i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></i></b>
<b><i>"He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Jesus Christ, Luke 22:36 (NIV)</i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://d39ya49a1fwv14.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/st-augustine-of-hippo-21.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://d39ya49a1fwv14.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/st-augustine-of-hippo-21.jpg" height="200" width="140" /></a></div>
<b style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></b>
<b style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></b>
<b style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>"Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men."</i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i>- St. Augustine</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://pastorbrianchilton.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/thomas-aquinas-6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://pastorbrianchilton.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/thomas-aquinas-6.jpg" width="150" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i>"Without doubt one is allowed to resist against the unjust aggressor to one's life, one's goods or one's physical integrity; sometimes, even 'til the aggressor’s death.... In fact, this act is aimed at preserving one’s life or one’s goods and to make the aggressor powerless. Thus, it is a good act, which is the right of the victim."</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i>- Thomas Aquinas</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/dynastywarriors/images/4/44/TR5_Munenori_Yagyu.png/revision/latest?cb=20120928063722" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/dynastywarriors/images/4/44/TR5_Munenori_Yagyu.png/revision/latest?cb=20120928063722" height="200" width="194" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i>It is written [in the Taoist classic "Dao De Jing"] that weapons of war are ill-omened, and he who follows the Way of Heaven shuns their use, save when necessary. But those who take up arms when this is necessary, are also following the Way of Heaven. If you ask me why this is so, I reply that flowers and greenery bloom among the spring breezes, but they wither and fall in the frosts of autumn.</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i>—Yagyû Munenori, sword instructor and Buddhist scholar</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://tusb.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/dalai_lama.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://tusb.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/dalai_lama.jpg" height="200" width="161" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i>“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - The Dalai Lama</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i.ytimg.com/vi/V24PW9gC0wI/hqdefault.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://i.ytimg.com/vi/V24PW9gC0wI/hqdefault.jpg" height="150" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i>Gun control is “a long-term assault on your Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.” Richard Land, then the chief public policy spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention </i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://irishcatholic.ie/sites/default/files/styles/article_details/public/main/articles/Pope-John-Paul-II-A.jpg?itok=-6b9Kiow" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://irishcatholic.ie/sites/default/files/styles/article_details/public/main/articles/Pope-John-Paul-II-A.jpg?itok=-6b9Kiow" height="141" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i>"….legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the state. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life.” Pope St. John Paul Evangelium Vitae </i></b><br /><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://historyofmormonism.com/files/2014/11/joseph-smith.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://historyofmormonism.com/files/2014/11/joseph-smith.jpg" height="200" width="152" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i>"There is one principle which is eternal; it is the duty of all men to protect their lives and the lives of the household, whenever necessity requires, and no power has a right to forbid it, should the last extreme arrive, but I anticipate no such extreme, but caution is the parent of safety." - Joseph Smith (HC 6:605.)</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://myhero.com/images/guest/g209279/hero50715/g209279_u56437_martin-luther-king-face.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://myhero.com/images/guest/g209279/hero50715/g209279_u56437_martin-luther-king-face.jpg" height="200" width="156" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i>“Violence exercised merely in self-defense, all societies, from the most primitive to the most cultured and civilized, accept as moral and legal. The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi.” - Rev./Dr. Martin Luther King </i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i>(It should also be noted that Rev.King applied for a carry permit under a Southern "may issue" system and was turned down because he was black.)</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Those of us among the clergy who take a stand in favor of the 2nd Amendment and the right of self defense are in good company. Many people who advocate the disarmament of the American public might be shocked to discover that many people they admire disagree! </span>Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-82098319093601296402015-10-17T14:43:00.000-07:002015-10-17T14:43:24.118-07:00Did Hillary Throw Away The Election this Week?<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What would happen to Donald Trump's chances if he made this statement: "I think that an abortion ban makes sense. If I'm elected, I will order the arrest of anyone performing an abortion." How long would it take the mainstream media and the Democrats to destroy him? How long would it be before commentators pointed out that his actions would directly violate the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court? Should we not be afraid of ANYONE who promises to violate the Constitution before they are ever are elected?</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />Well, you didn't miss Donald Trump's statement - because he didn't say that. However , Hillary Clinton said something just as devastating: SHE ADVOCATED DRACONIAN GUN CONTROL, INCLUDING A COMPLETE HANDGUN BAN - AND SHE DID IT ON VIDEO!</span>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/JctBYrIaKvY/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JctBYrIaKvY?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></center>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To understand that this is exactly what she is proposing, you have to understand two things:</span></div>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /><b>1) The question she is answering is: Australia basically banned handguns and confiscated them by the millions. Can we do that?</b><br /><br />Notice that she NEVER says that banning handguns is going too far, or is unconstitutional. In fact, she goes on to praise such action.<br /><br /><b>2) She references three nations as shining examples of gun control: </b></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Australia</b></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b> (near handgun ban), Canada (near handgun ban) and the UK (actual total handgun ban).</b> If these are the countries see wants to model our laws after - then she is proposing such a ban.<br /><br />So, there is ZERO DOUBT that Hillary has doubled down on her call for massive gun control - including a handgun ban. So, you say - "What's wrong with that?" Well, two things......<br /><br /><b>First, such action would directly violate the US Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller" target="_blank">2008</a> and again in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago" target="_blank">2010</a>.</b> It would be just as unconstitutional as banning all abortions. In fact, the decisions specifically held that handguns are protected by the 2nd Amendment. Notice that Clinton never says anything about their being ANY constitutional limits on gun laws.<br /><br />In contrast, Bernie Sanders has only supported gun control measures that have not been ruled unconstitutional.<br /><br />So, you say, "No president would ever directly violate an order of the Supreme Court!" I suggest you go to Oklahoma and ask the Cherokee. They were forcibly removed to that locate AFTER the Supreme Court told Pres. Johnson he could not do so. So, if she wants to try, she certainly can IF she gets elected.<br /><br /><b>Second, she has no clue what the American people really believe about handgun laws. </b> Presently 43 states allow citizen concealed carry. That's 86% of the total. Not one state has ever repealed such a law.<br /><br />Then there is the results of several polls:<br /><br />The American people oppose ANY new gun control by a narrow margin. <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/domestic-issues/gun-control/" target="_blank">(Source)</a><br /><br />Another poll (by Gallup) 52% want laws to stay the same or be made less strict. <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx" target="_blank">(Source)</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">When we move away from gun control in general - which includes less severe measures such as increased background checks - to the issue at hand BANNING HANDGUNS.<br /><br />Well, on this issue, the news is worse. Again, according to <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-favor-handgun-ban.aspx" target="_blank">Gallup polling</a>, 73% of Americans oppose a ban on handguns. In fact, opposition to such a law has been growing for decades:<br /></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/n9ggmdee1k60atawqdbprq.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/n9ggmdee1k60atawqdbprq.gif" height="226" width="400" /></a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />A good gauge of the level of support for the 2nd Amendment in a given state is the support for citizen concealed carry. If a state is shall issue, which means that it allows those who can legally own guns to carry them. then support for the 2nd Amendment is strong. After all, one one state was forced to do this by the courts. Check out this map:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrAGNRRaXjQzSlp1qg9ejWrG3WFREOyR_m3dFn8e27Edg3QDsphuHJ21PgoQeW6scuXqKBKOknPSGY3ipPkPyJOj7Qmj7dFP_fhQhXeyzCQ-4HDdpZ8m7atpgTGkkLbiDEc5A-dKex0lEC/s1600/ccwmap.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="263" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrAGNRRaXjQzSlp1qg9ejWrG3WFREOyR_m3dFn8e27Edg3QDsphuHJ21PgoQeW6scuXqKBKOknPSGY3ipPkPyJOj7Qmj7dFP_fhQhXeyzCQ-4HDdpZ8m7atpgTGkkLbiDEc5A-dKex0lEC/s400/ccwmap.gif" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
86% of US states, containing 72.7% of the US population, allow anyone able to pass the training and the background check to carry the very handguns Clinton wants to ban! Does she think that she can win more than one or two of these states after saying these things on video? Remember, all but one of these states enacted their carry laws with strong public support. Every one of these states has seen crime drop. People in these states LIKE the fact that they can legally carry a handgun if they want to.<br /><br />There is a very good reason why Pres. Obama downplayed gun control until after his reelection. He absolutely knew about the reality of this map. This map is why he was not even able to get expanded background checks - for which there is much more support - through a Senate dominated by his own party.<br /><br />Now Hillary Clinton has decided to challenge the gun owners in these very same states that passed citizen concealed carry. Gun rights activists in these states are organized, motivated and ready. She has handed them the very thing that they need to motivate their flow gun owners and their families - a threat of an unconstitutional gun confiscation program. Many of these people voted for President Obama in the last two elections - but when they believe their gun rights are threatened, history proves that they vote one way: In favor of their 2nd Amendment rights.<br /><br />Hillary's comments may get her the Democratic nomination - but they have likely cost her - and her party - the general election and the presidency. She has already lost.</div>
</span>Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-29252999927003179162015-10-14T16:58:00.000-07:002015-10-14T17:46:32.746-07:00The Divided States of America?<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Since the 2000 election resulted in the blue states vs red states map, things have not gotten any better. The division of the United States continues. Christian and conservatives are leaving the red states in droves - and California in particular. We are quite simply no longer one country. Politically and geographically, there are very few moderates.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There are two, very different nations. One believes in Religious freedom, the other does not. One believes in the Bill of Rights - the other does not believe in freedom of speech or 2nd Amendment rights (and is questionable in its' support of many others). One believes that the Constitution is important, the other believes that judges should completely ignore what it says so that they can rule in the way they want. One believes in personal freedom - the other believes the government should take care of everyone and control their lives in any way government wants.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Political division is nothing new - but this division is not just political, it is geographic. It's not just political - it's Constitutional. Never before has a whole political party treated the Constitution like it is written on toilet paper. We have only been this divided once before: During the decade before the Civil War.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I'm certainly not the only person to express concern about the division in out nation leading to a disaster in our nation. Slate magazine - not exactly a right wing rag - <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/07/hobby_lobby_and_the_cultural_divide_is_america_in_danger_of_fracturing_into.html" target="_blank">carried an article</a> suggesting that the US may very well split into two nations. The cause? Religion. There are still other issues that drastically divide us - and <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/actually-there-are-11-americas-map-2013-11" target="_blank">this article</a> based on a long article un Tufts Magazine identifies 11 different cultural areas that divide us.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/5282636c69beddc13f60db33-1100-750/tufts%20which%20america%20map%20copy.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/5282636c69beddc13f60db33-1100-750/tufts%20which%20america%20map%20copy.png" height="435" width="640" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Looking at the map (and reading about the groups) - The greatest division is between the Eastern areas of the Yankeedom and New Netherland - and the Left Coast. These areas are quite left of center and largely secular. The entire rest of the nation is largely religious and conservative. To be sure, there are areas with that are secular and progressive, but most of the counties outside the Northeast and the coast are conservative and religious. While these divisions have always existed, these two areas are growing further and further apart. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Suspicion that one side or the other will may some extra-constitutional move is growing on both the right and the left. While I do not think this is going to happen, there are some things I find very troubling. There have been too many reports that high ranking military officers are being asked, "Would you order those under your command to fire on American citizens?" for there to be nothing behind it. The number of executive orders - and more importantly the scope - of executive orders issued by Pres. Obama should concern everyone. The outrage over the agreement with Iran - passed over the overwhelming objection of both the American people and their elected representatives is much greater than the news media has reported. Again, the outrage is much greater in the red states.<br /><br />Worse yet, many on the left - particularly those who live on the Left Coast or the urban Northeast - simply do not understand that many in the rest of the country would be quite willing to fight should the federal government infringe upon religious freedom or gun rights (as in partial or complete confiscation - not something less like expanded background checks). When the president of the United States calls for UK or Australian style gun control - and calls it reasonable and "common sense" - it reveals just how much he is out of touch. Gun owners know that both of these nations have confiscated millions of firearms, in actions that clearly would be unconstitutional here. In fact, the UK has the most restrictive gun laws in the EU! If any president was stupid enough to attempt to take such action, the result would be civil war. Entire states, including their state governments, would resist with force. They would not do so because they love guns, but because they would see this as only the first step towards a totalitarian government. The fact that most people on the coasts or the Northeast have no clue that the president's suggestions clearly violate the Bill of Rights or the disaster that would result if he got his way - is absolutely frightening.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">No nation can long survive if it is as divided as we are. We either must find something to unite around, or this nation faces a very real danger of falling apart - or worse. That rallying point should be the Constitution. Even though both sides object strongly to some rights protected by it - such as the right to own and carry firearms, or the right to have an abortion, it is the Constitution that holds us together, provides the system for debating and resolving disagreements. Either we must stop talking about doing things that violate that critically important document, and start respecting it - or we will soon cease to exist as a nation. It really is up to us.</span><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-27999443949252461472015-10-10T13:00:00.000-07:002015-10-10T13:00:06.681-07:00Five LAWFUL Executive Orders Pres. Obama Could Issue On Guns<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">With increased talk of more "executive orders" on guns, I thought I would suggest five LAWFUL and CONSTITUTIONAL orders Pres. Obama could issue that would actually do some good.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>1) President Obama could order the BATFE to start arresting and prosecuting people who lie on the background check form.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="http://cdn.stripersonline.com/1/1f/1000x1000px-LL-1f30800f_atf.jpeg" target="_blank"><br /></a></span>
<span style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><a href="http://cdn.stripersonline.com/1/1f/1000x1000px-LL-1f30800f_atf.jpeg" target="_blank"><img alt="http://cdn.stripersonline.com/1/1f/1000x1000px-LL-1f30800f_atf.jpeg" border="0" src="http://cdn.stripersonline.com/1/1f/1000x1000px-LL-1f30800f_atf.jpeg" height="465" width="640" /></a></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">According to gun control advocates, the background check system stops 60,000 people a year from buying firearms. They want you to believe that all of these people are prohibited because of criminal convictions or mental health issues - when the fact is that tens of thousands of these people are wrongly denied. Many appeal and eventually get their guns. Never the less, many people <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473" target="_blank">DO LIE ON THE FORM. This is a felony</a>.<br /><br />Since the person's name and signature (not to mention fingerprints) are on the form, and they had to present ID at the time they filled it out, prosecution is very easy. So, there must be hundreds, if not thousands of convictions every year, right? WRONG. The reality is that prosecutions run less than ten per year. So, prohibited persons have virtually no chance of being punished if they attempt to buy a gun through legal channels. With nothing to loose, that is exactly what many prohibited people do.<br /><br />Gun control groups do not care about this - and up to this point, neither does President Obama. Never mind that about 1/3 of these people slip through and get guns. (See point #2.) Never mind that they then turn to the black market and still get guns. Focusing upon criminals and other prohibited persons tends to take the focus off of restrictions placed upon the law abiding - and this is their priority.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<a href="http://www.fixnics.org/images/NSSF_Logo_BW.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><br /></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">2) President Obama could withhold some federal funds from states that are not reporting felony convictions and mental health commitments to the FBI background check database.</span></b><br /><br />At least 1/3 of prohibited persons are not in the FBI's background check database, due to </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">many states not making reporting a priority. One would think that a president who was truly concerned about keeping guns out of the wrong hands would make sure that states report felony convictions and mental health commitments. Not so, neither the president or most gun control groups care about this. (Kudos to the Giffords for being the ONLY gun control advocates to address this issue.)</span><div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br /><div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Who does care about this? Who is working hardest to fix this? <a href="http://www.fixnics.org/" target="_blank">THE GUN INDUSTRY</a>.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.fixnics.com/Images/logo.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.fixnics.com/Images/logo.png" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.fixnics.com/images/NSSF_Logo_BW.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.fixnics.com/images/NSSF_Logo_BW.png" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">3) President Obama could order BATFE to establish "Project Exile" nationwide - starting with Chicago.</span></b><br /><br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile" target="_blank"><b>Project Exile</b></a> was an ATF program that embedded ATF agents in local law enforcement agencies. They then investigated firearms crimes committed by criminals - who were then prosecuted in federal courts and sentenced to federal time in prisons far away from home. It turns out that criminals have families who visit them in local state prisons - but cannot visit nearly as often (if at all) when they are sent to a federal prison several states away. Therefore, many criminals are much more afraid of doing federal time. Hence the name: Project Exile.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wxxi/files/201111/1512707-74661190.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wxxi/files/201111/1512707-74661190.gif" height="150" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><b>Many Criminals Responded To Warnings <br />Like This By Getting Rid Of Their Guns</b></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign both supported Project Exile - so why not do it nationwide.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /><br />This approach was very successful - it resulted in drug dealers deciding that carrying a gun was a bad idea. It did not stop criminals from committing crimes - but it did cause many of them to stop carrying or using guns. Think how much good this could do in Chicago!<br /><br />There is only one problem: If it works, it would remove pressure for other actions that would remove firearms from the hands of the law abiding. Since restricting the rights of law abiding citizens is the real priority, Pres. Obama won't do this either.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>4) President Obama could give private sellers access to the FBI's NICS background check system.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/image/nics-seal" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/image/nics-seal" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">While the NRA and most, but not all, other gun rights groups oppose mandatory background checks on private sales and transfers of ownership - they do not oppose making the system optionally available to private sellers. Many private gun owners would use the system when selling to a stranger - and if this is really how criminals are getting guns, then gun control advocates and the president should support this action.<br /><br />However, this would likely result in more criminals being denied guns through lawful channels and decreasing pressure for more radical gun restrictions - and that is why it won't happen. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">5) President Obama could direct federal law enforcement funding towards training police officers to recognize the dangerously mentally ill.</span></b><br /><br />Before people can be placed on the prohibited list they must be identified. Most mentally ill <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2015/01/22/Local/Images/SOTU_0531421944750.jpg?uuid=NMhy5KJVEeSR_H3_laFEWA" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="223" src="https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2015/01/22/Local/Images/SOTU_0531421944750.jpg?uuid=NMhy5KJVEeSR_H3_laFEWA" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: small;">Most Mentally Ill Murderers Have Had <br />Multiple Law Enforcement Contacts <br />Before They Kill</span></b> </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
mass murderers have had multiple contacts with law enforcement before they kill - but they were never evaluated. Laws exist in most, if not all, states allow people who are a danger to others to be sent in for mental health evaluation. Such evaluations would result in many dangerous people being identified, treated and placed in the database of prohibited persons.<br /><br />However - you guessed it - this won't happen because it takes the focus off of restricting the gun rights of law abiding, sane Americans.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.publiusforum.com/images/gun_confiscation_large.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.publiusforum.com/images/gun_confiscation_large.jpg" height="184" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><b>Australia Confiscated Hunting<br />Rifles & Shotguns - This Is Pres. Obama's<br />Idea Of Common Sense Gun Laws</b></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Sadly, President Obama won't do any of these things because he is committed to the near disarmament of the American people. </b> Want proof? Obama cites two countries as examples of "common sense" gun control: </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Australia and the UK.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /><br /><b>Australia is the more reasonable to these two examples. They only confiscated about 40% of their firearms</b> - including millions of hunting shotguns and rifles. Recently, there </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">has been a debate over the legality of a lever action shotgun invented in 1887. No matter how high crime is in your neighborhood, self-defense is not a good enough reason to get the government to allow you to own a gun. No wonder armed robberies went up after these restrictions were put in place.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/02/article-1196941-05900DF7000005DC-677_468x636.jpg" height="400" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="293" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><b>Although the UK Has The Most Restrictive<br />Gun Laws In Europe & Low Murder Rates<br />It Has The Has The Highest Rate Of<br />Violent Crime - Over 4 Times That Of The US</b></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /><b>The U.K. has the most restrictive gun laws in the E.U.</b> - their Olympic Pistol Team has to practice in Switzerland, because all pistols - even target pistols - are banned. Special exemptions had to be passed to allow the London to host the Olympics. Want to own a rifle? Well, you have to first join a club (takes six months) - and then jump through countless further hoops. Owning a shotgun is easier, but still very hard. Finally, you guessed it, the U.K. has confiscated tens of millions of previously legal firearms. In addition, all defensive uses of firearms are illegal. Oh, by the way, with all of this - they have still had mass shootings in public. Gun crime, which has always been low - even when guns were widely available, has actually increased. <b><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html" target="_blank">The U.K. also has the highest rate of violent crime in the E.U. - a much higher rate than the U.S.</a> The lowest crime rate? Switzerland - the nation with the most guns! Finland, Sweden and France all have many more legally owned firearms and much lower crime rates than the U.K.<br /><br /></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>The fact is that crime rates - including murder rates - do not fall when guns are banned <a href="http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/" target="_blank">THEY RISE</a>.<br /></b></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">These Charts Document The Change In </span></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Murder Rates After Handgun Bans In Three Countries </span></b></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRN3D59NTQIRaVQgIwm2PZNsaAiBbAalr8kPurDucgocHqYMr4G8HHF0jbHZgTGxonwOK3NQCfAwuWAB7kgf-Le0FUJdgcMpN_hmDXBCdPGbtXqjmRMzmGtFGVxw2QsQNUzIAKXGmIuj1g/s1600/Screen+Shot+2012-12-22+at++Saturday,+December+22,+9.26+PM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRN3D59NTQIRaVQgIwm2PZNsaAiBbAalr8kPurDucgocHqYMr4G8HHF0jbHZgTGxonwOK3NQCfAwuWAB7kgf-Le0FUJdgcMpN_hmDXBCdPGbtXqjmRMzmGtFGVxw2QsQNUzIAKXGmIuj1g/s1600/Screen+Shot+2012-12-22+at++Saturday,+December+22,+9.26+PM.png" height="475" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Ireland-Jamaica-2.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Ireland-Jamaica-2.jpeg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Pres. Obama's so called "common sense gun laws"</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>did not work in the UK, Ireland or Jamaica </b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Of course, these actions would be unconstitutional here in the U.S - but since when has the Constitution stopped this president from doing anything?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /><b>Now that you know the facts, do you still think this president is only proposing "common sense" gun restrictions? Is it any wonder that gun owners do not trust this president?</b><br /><br /></span></div>
Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-51278642152341447602015-08-28T21:13:00.001-07:002015-08-28T21:13:05.516-07:00An Open Letter To Andy Parker<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">First of all, I understand your grief. What parent could not? I have a daughter just a few years older than yours. I also understand your desire to have something good to come out of your daughter's life and death. I hope to help you in that regard.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>You have an opportunity to do things differently than others who have faced similar tragedies. You can start by reaching out to the gun rights community. </b> You may be shocked to find out that we actually want our gun laws to work. We too want to prevent as many crazy people as possible from getting their hands on firearms. We can also tell you why our current laws are failing. One more thing: The political reality is that nothing will be passed at a federal level without the support of gun rights activists. If you really want to get something done, you cannot alienate us.<br /><br />Additionally, we have to work within the limitations placed upon all constitutional rights. A law that is simply aimed at reducing the number of guns in the country would not only accomplish little - it would be as unconstitutional as a law limiting free speech or regulating religion.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The good news is that gun rights advocates want these problems fixed. We want the background check system to work. In fact, we have been working to fix some of them, with little to no support from gun control advocates, and zero press coverage. There is much that can be done with zero resistance from the gun rights community.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The problem is not primarily a lack of "gun laws" - it is a failure in the support system that is needed to make them work. This is why we react so strongly against calls for more laws. The fact is that, while we would be open to minor changes, we have all the gun laws we need. The changes are needed elsewhere - as I will detail below.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Here are the problems that are causing our background check system to fail:</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /><b>Massive under reporting of disqualified persons.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is estimated that at least one third of people who have been prohibited by law from owning firearms have not been reported to the FBI for inclusion in the background check database. The murderer at Virginia Tech should not have been able to buy a firearm due to his mental health history. After this incident the NRA called for better reporting and supported legislation to that effect - even though this caused concern among many members. Sadly, even the passage of this law has failed to solve this problem - as the recent racist church shooting sadly proved. It may surprise you that the gun industry has continued to work to improve reporting. See<a href="http://www.fixnics.org/" target="_blank"> http://www.fixnics.org</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Virtually zero enforcement of laws against trying to buy a gun illegally.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Sadly, it has become common knowledge that prohibited persons have at least a one in three chance of buying a firearm through legal channels. So criminals and the mentally ill frequently try to buy guns at licensed dealers. Although they stand a good chance of being rejected, they have less than a 1 in 300 chance of being prosecuted. Although tens of thousands of people are rejected each year, prosecutions run less than 20 per year. The Obama administration has actually said that such prosecutions are "a waste of resources". In fact, the feds do not even notify local authorities - who frequently could bring state charges or violate the criminal's parole or probation. Until there is enforcement of this law - violation of which is a felony - then criminals and the mentally ill will continue to try get guns from dealers. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Failure of the mental health system to identify and treat dangerous people.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Supreme Court has made it clear that severely mentally ill people can be banned from owning or possessing firearms. However, common sense tells us that before someone can be banned from owning firearms they must be identified. Sadly, many of the murderers in the recent incidents had displayed bizarre and disturbing behavior. Those who perpetrated the Giffords shooting the Isla Vista stabbing/shooting and the Navy Yard murders, had many police contacts that SHOULD have resulted in a mandatory mental health evaluation, but did not. Police are the eyes and ears of the mental health system - if they leave mentally ill people on the street, the system fails. If they send them in for evaluation, with a good description of why they are doing so, then there is a good chance that action will be taken that would result in a firearms ban and reporting to the FBI background check database. If this never happens, they will continue to be able to pass a background check.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Depriving someone of a constitutional right requires due process.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The reality is that firearms ownership is a constitutional right. In criminal cases, there is no problem - because due process is well established. In mental health cases, the federal disability also requires due process - specifically a mental health commitment by a court. In order to be legal, any additions to the law would also have to provide for due process. Furthermore, a person cannot be required to prove their sanity in order to exercise a constitutional right. The burden of proof rests upon the government. Additionally, I would ask you to consider this: If someone cannot be trusted with a firearm due to mental defect, should they be left on the street? I think not - because that leaves them a lot of options for harming people. In addition to illegally buying a gun on the black market, they could build a bomb, start a fire or run people down with a car. If they cannot be trusted with a gun, they need treatment - and we must insure that they get it. After this, I have no problem with a law that requires them to prove their sanity before being allowed to possess a firearm. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Once the background check system is truly fixed, it will be much easier to expand it to private sales.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">At this point the vast majority of lawful sales, including those at gun shows, go though the background check system (the 40% figure frequently used is bogus - it is based on a phone survey that covered two full years before the background check was in place). As outlined above, it is a deeply flawed system that most gun rights organizations want fixed. On the other hand, most gun control organizations completely ignore the flaws in the system, and instead want it expanded to private sales before it is fixed. This is one of the biggest reasons why so many gun owners are opposed to expanding background checks - we don't trust the motives of groups that don't care that the current system doesn't work. Frankly, it seems to many of us that some of the gun control groups WANT the current system to continue to fail - because if it were to work, their would be less chance of passing their draconian restrictions. Unlike yourself, many of these people want an outright repeal of the 2nd Amendment.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">On the other hand, if we fix the current system and it begins to actually work. it will be seen that the motive is solely to do all we can to keep guns out of the wrong hands - and the greater the support will be among gun rights activists will be for expanding such checks to private sales.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">You will remain in my prayers and in the prayers of many other Americans. It is my hope that you will realize your stated goal of preventing as many mentally ill people as possible from harming others. If you reach out in good faith to the gun rights community, you will find that we share that very same goal.</span><br />
<br />Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-58345255483226411232015-08-23T14:45:00.003-07:002015-08-23T14:45:50.779-07:00San Jose Decides That Some Parts Of The Bill Of Rights Don't Apply In Their City<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.right-of-assembly.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Bill-of-Rights-Violated.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.right-of-assembly.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Bill-of-Rights-Violated.jpg" height="280" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Well, the city of San Jose is headed for a huge civil judgement. <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/23/city-san-jose-seizes-guns-from-woman-prompts-lawsuit/?intcmp=trending" target="_blank">They have seized a woman's personal firearms </a>because her husband was sent in for a psychiatric evaluation and is forbidden to possess firearms (a law that is on shaky ground to begun with). Think about this for a moment: This woman is being deprived of a basic civil right - protected in the Bill of Rights - because of her husband's actions. Let's take a longer look at this case.<br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;">A Basic Constitutional Right</span></b><br /><br /><b>First, it must be understood that the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller" target="_blank">Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects a basic right to buy and possess firearms</a> in "common use". </b> Furthermore, in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago" target="_blank">McDonald</a>, the high court has stated that this right is "fundamental to our system of ordered liberty". In short, the right to own a gun is protected in exactly the same way as the right of free speech or freedom of the press. The court made it clear that criminal and the severely mentally ill can be forbidden to own or have access to firearms - but these restrictions only apply after due process before a court. Even California's liberal governor Jerry Brown wrote a brief in support of the 2nd Amendment right in McDonald. This is no longer controversial - it is settled law.<br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;">She could have retained her firearms and still complied with the law</span></b><br /><br /><b>California law requires "safe storage" of firearms and merely complying with this law would prevent her husband from having access to her firearms,</b> since they would have to be placed in a safe. Additionally, she could have stored the firearms at another location - such as a relative's home. Local authorities could have worked with the wife to insure compliance. Instead, San Jose Police simply seized all her firearms - and have said that they will not be returned.<br /><br /><b>I have a question for San Jose PD: What have you done in the past when the spouse of one of your police officers has been sent in for evaluation under the same law? </b> Notice that I did not say "what would you do IF a spouse of one of your officer's was sent in for evaluation" - because with a department as big as San Jose, it has probably happened many times. <b>You can bet your life that the officer's firearms were not seized</b>. No way. Instead, the officer was likely reminded that they had to take action to insure that their spouse had no access. You can be absolutely sure that when the civil suit goes to trial, that this will be an issue - and San Jose will have a very hard time arguing that police officers have more rights under the 2nd Amendment.<br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Law Itself Is On Shaky Ground</span></b><br /><br />As a former California paramedic, I have a great deal of experience with California's emergency commitment law. <b>First of all, in most cases, the people responsible for sending people in for evaluation are police officers - not mental health professionals</b>. Yet, simply being sent in for evaluation by mental health professionals results in the loss of your gun rights. Sure, if you have the money to hire a lawyer and some mental health professionals you can, in theory, get a court to restore your rights - but most people do not have the thousands to tens of thousands of dollars this costs. The average person simply looses their gun rights.<br /><br />Now let me be clear: No one wants severely mentally ill people to be able to legally possess firearms. The issue here is that it is not and mental health professional and a court making this determination: It is a police officer. Federal law bans people from owning firearms if a court finds them to be severely mentally ill, based on the testimony of mental health professionals. The due process rights of the individual in question are protected.<br /><br /><b>Do we really want to empower cops to simply remove someone's constitutional rights on nothing more than their own opinion? I sure hope not.<br /><br />Do we want our government to punish someone for their spouse's actions? Again, I sure hope not.</b><br />Even if you don't like guns, this case should still be important to you - because if they can ignore the 2nd Amendment - they can just as easily ignore the 1st, 4th or 5th Amendment too. That's why San Jose is going to lose this one - and why it will likely cost San Jose taxpayers several million dollars.<br /><br /></span>Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-1457073620296367822015-04-30T00:30:00.004-07:002015-04-30T00:38:51.971-07:00How Divided Is America?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Typically, when it comes to politics, we tend to focus upon the presidential race. However, that contest decides who controls but one third of one level of our government. To really see how divided we are, it is helpful to look at other races that make less national news.</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/114th_United_States_Congress_Senators.svg/800px-114th_United_States_Congress_Senators.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/114th_United_States_Congress_Senators.svg/800px-114th_United_States_Congress_Senators.svg.png" height="198" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">US Senate</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Solid Colors = 2 of Same Party<br />Purple = 1 of Each Party<br />Stripes = 1 Independent</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>First let's look at the US Senate.</b> The Senate tends to be a lagging indicator because it takes six years for the entire body to face reelection. Still, it provides a great deal of insight into the political divide. Counting the two independents who function as Democrats as what they effectively are only 15 states have one senator from each party. <b>That means that 70% of states are represented by two senators of the same party.</b> Nearly all of these states are solidly conservative or liberal with little chance of the Democrats or Republicans winning a statewide office.</span></div>
<div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/United_States_Governors_map.svg/800px-United_States_Governors_map.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/United_States_Governors_map.svg/800px-United_States_Governors_map.svg.png" height="198" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">State Governors</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;">Alaska's Governor is a Right Leaning Independent</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Let's move on to Governors. </b> Here the picture begins to become more clear. Note that Republicans hold control of governorships in a huge swath of territory from Arizona to North Carolina. In addition, they control most of the former industrial states, the bulk of the Midwest and Mountain West (32 states). Democrats are in solid control of the West Coast and most of the North East (18 states). These numbers can be somewhat deceptive</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> because most of the 18 states Democrats control have high population densities.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.ncsl.org/portals/1/ImageLibrary/WebImages/Elections/PartisanComp_11-6_1045am.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.ncsl.org/portals/1/ImageLibrary/WebImages/Elections/PartisanComp_11-6_1045am.jpg" height="344" width="640" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>When we look at the control of state legislatures, the Republican domination of the South, Mid-West and Mountain West becomes even more clear - as does the Democratic domination of the West Coast and the Northeast. </b><br /><br /><b>Furthermore, the parties are much further apart than ever before. </b> These divisions are no longer simply a matter of how best to accomplish a mostly shared goal, such as economic growth. Today, the two parties represent two radically different world views. The single most reliable predictor of which party someone will vote for is no long class or race. The most reliable predictor is: Does the voter attend religious services regularly. If they do, they are very likely to vote Republican. Today the Republican world view is theistic and includes a belief in moral absolutes. The Democratic world view is secular and includes a belief in moral relativism. Republicans believe strongly in personal responsibility, while Democrats tend to believe in collective responsibility. Republicans believe in the free enterprise system, while Democrats increasingly believe in outright socialism. Republicans believe that our Constitution is to be followed as written and only changed via the amendment process. Democrats believe that our Constitution is a "living document" that can and should be interpreted in any way necessary to accomplish the "greater good". <b>The parties haven't been this far apart since the Civil War.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>The conclusion is inescapable: The US is deeply divided not only politically, not only in their fundamental world views, but geographically too.</b> Some foreign observers have even predicted a break up of the US into two or more countries. Let us hope that our democracy and our nation can survive this division - without a second civil war.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-29038125553193422052015-04-01T17:25:00.000-07:002015-04-01T18:44:09.171-07:00Religious Freedom Versus Non-Discrimination - A Civil and Tolerant Approach<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWtpbFGb83kgYwPr8xrIMXibLpIr-wq2LKC7ZiVORqZPaU1gjHSzEXaZrAyKrIcrvoqZ8PQAVyJICShWfLwa9Y4imOwoiQ_wfynlL80iOizVf-YcrjcEU9vxb067c1wwNH0jjcZP_Z6IBC/s1600/Relgious+discrimination.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWtpbFGb83kgYwPr8xrIMXibLpIr-wq2LKC7ZiVORqZPaU1gjHSzEXaZrAyKrIcrvoqZ8PQAVyJICShWfLwa9Y4imOwoiQ_wfynlL80iOizVf-YcrjcEU9vxb067c1wwNH0jjcZP_Z6IBC/s1600/Relgious+discrimination.jpg" height="400" width="305" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Sadly religious freedom is all but dead in America. </b> Religious discrimination is widespread and much of it is directed against evangelical Christians (see graphic). It's a real shame that we cannot seem to have a civil discussion about this subject. Instead, it seems that most on the left are intent upon transforming freedom of religion into freedom of worship - which is very different. WE HAVE NOW MOVED FROM RELIGIOUS PEOPLE BEING INTOLERANT OF GAY PEOPLE TO THE ENTIRE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT BEING INTOLERANT OF RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. </span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Tolerance seems to be, in the eyes of the left, a one way street. </b> Everyone is required to be tolerant of their constituencies - in the recent controversy the gay community. Hence, the uproar over the mere possibility that religious individuals might not be LEGALLY FORCED to violate their faith by participating in same sex wedding ceremonies. As usual, the left has cranked up the "lie machine" to gin up their base. There is ZERO CHANCE that a religious exemption to anti-discrimination laws would be granted outside of the narrow area of wedding ceremonies. This is not about leases, admission to hospitals or any of the other issues brought up to scare people into opposing the new law in Indiana. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Successfully claiming a religious exemption under any of the RFRA laws is extremely difficult.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1) It is an affirmative defense - the burden of proof is on the claimant.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2) The religious belief must pre-date the law for which the person claims exemption - you can't make up a belief to get out of the law.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3) Exemptions are narrow in scope - a person with religious objections to war can be exempted from military service, but not from paying taxes to support a war.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">4) No religion I am aware of - and this is my field of expertise - generally prohibits its' members from doing business with gay people, to include serving them in nearly every capacity. Additionally, once someone does serve gay people, it becomes nearly impossible to get an exemption after doing so.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>5) The only possible exemptions that might be upheld -<i> and so far everyone who has sought this has lost - </i>would be participation in a same sex wedding ceremony.</b> In other words, a baker absolutely could not claim an exemption for generally baking cakes for gay customers - but might be exempted from baking a wedding cake. A photographer cannot refuse to take a portrait of a gay person, but might be able to refuse to photograph a same sex wedding. In order to claim an exemption, one must prove that one is being asked to ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE in something forbidden by their faith.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In short, the idea that anyone would be able to generally discriminate against gay people, in violation of an anti-discrimination law, is completely bogus.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">IMHO, it is long past time for the culture wars to end. However this will never happen as long as both sides want to crush the other. That will only cause further division and discord. It's time for real tolerance, tolerance that flows both ways.</span><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://diginomica.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Intolerance-300x225.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://diginomica.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Intolerance-300x225.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><b>Unless the intolerance is directed<br />at people of faith......</b></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There is a simple solution to this problem. Write specific and narrow religious exemptions into anti-discrimination laws. Follow the example of the medical profession. If a patient requests an abortion from a doctor who has religious objections to performing the procedure, he or she cannot be forced to do so. However, he or she must provide a referral to a doctor willing to do so. This preserves the rights of both doctor and patient.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I see no reason why this same solution could not be applied to the issue of same sex wedding ceremonies. If a baker, a wedding planner, a photographer, or even an officiate like myself, has religious objections to same sex marriage, do not force them to violate their conscience - but do require them to find someone who will provide that service. Again, the rights of all parties are protected.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I'm an evangelical minister. I cannot do a same sex wedding. No matter what government may do to me, I still won't violate my faith. HOWEVER, I have attended a same sex wedding. Why? Because the couple were and are my friends. They knew I wasn't there affirming their actions, they knew I was there because they are important to both God and myself. I would rise in a heartbeat if gay people were generally discriminated against. I have no objection to, and generally support in principle, anti-discrimination laws - provided that said narrow religious exemptions are provided.<br /><br />I have not even mentioned the fact that countless people whose religious beliefs prohibit same sex activity have been persecuted, run out of public or private office, or generally had their lives ruined because of their faith. Not to mention the fact that one city even tried to subpoena sermons from local churches, while others have tried to require permits for home Bible studies. In short, there is a war on all conservative religions in America today. </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTo5oBBuj_ZbQnnho2wvREskiEBPtLpM4WznsWzy1fTGGu9VK46NggQUxTl4mpkmghYtHPMyzAApolIbjEoxWF1mEOo3YrT4MFpvCbBiMua0XJKKtveRLXKfLU0fdMBG23NucrO8ohcMwZ/s1600/no-christians.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTo5oBBuj_ZbQnnho2wvREskiEBPtLpM4WznsWzy1fTGGu9VK46NggQUxTl4mpkmghYtHPMyzAApolIbjEoxWF1mEOo3YrT4MFpvCbBiMua0XJKKtveRLXKfLU0fdMBG23NucrO8ohcMwZ/s1600/no-christians.png" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Our nation is more divided than at any time since the Civil War. Religious freedom may not be important to many in the "blue states", but it is very important to nearly everyone in the "red states". Crush it, eliminate it, or subvert it and the result will be even greater division. Enough division, and you will split the nation apart. Indexed to today population, over 5 million people died in the Civil War. Please, let us not have a second one.</span>Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-57814011751402134772015-03-10T21:32:00.000-07:002015-03-10T21:32:03.032-07:00Hillary's Emails: The Tech, The Whole Tech And Nothing But The Tech<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/hillary-clinton.jpg?quality=65&strip=color&w=1100" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="264" src="https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/hillary-clinton.jpg?quality=65&strip=color&w=1100" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As many readers know, I have my own domain which I use for email. What many may not know is that I am also a certified network technician, certified PC tech and I have operated my own email server for nearly 20 years. For 15 of those years I operated my server in my residence - just like Bill and Hillary Clinton. (In recent years I have leased a server in a data center, which I administer remotely.) All of this qualifies me to comment on the technical issues surrounding this controversy.<br /><br /><b>1) Security Issues</b><br /><br />I am going to assume that the Clintons had enough money to hire a very good tech to make sure that they were not going to be hacked. Absent more information, IMHO this is not an issue.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>2) Bogus Excuse </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Today, Secretary Clinton stated that she used her personal email address at the Clinton's personal domain and server because she did not want to carry two devices. The reason this is a bogus excuse is that it is easy for most email clients to handle more than one email account. At one point I had four email accounts in one program: Personal, business, church and Civil Air Patrol. It's actually quite common. Hillary's excuse doesn't make sense. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>3) Hidden and Easily Destroyed Communications</b><br /><br />Someone who is using a governmental account for email creates an indestructible record. "Delete" does not destroy the data. As Col. Ollie North found out way back in the 1980s, the messages are recoverable not only from the original drive on the server that the account exists on, but on others it may have been relayed through, as well as on backup drives or tapes. Recently Lois Learner's emails - which we supposedly unrecoverable - were found on backup tapes. This is consistent with a failed effort to destroy them.<br /><br />Someone using a private email system such as Gmail, Yahoo Mail or Outlook.com faces much the some challenge in getting rid of messages. Messages might be recoverable for a long time after the user deletes them.<br /><br />When one moves to a private email server, everything changes. Someone running their own server has total control over everything. They can create and delete accounts. They can destroy backups. They can delete or even edit emails. Most importantly, after accounts and emails are deleted the drive can be scrubbed, making recovery impossible.<br /><br />A government official - any government official - using their own server, could set up accounts not only for themselves, but for any other people they wished to communicate with - inside and outside government. In this case, emails between accounts on the same server would never show up anywhere outside of the private server and the computers or devices of the users. It would be a secure and completely private way for officials to communicate "off the radar". When the need for such communications ends, deleting the emails and running a secure delete or scrub program on the server and the devices would completely destroy any trace of the messages. The only evidence would be the absence of any deleted files from before the date the drive was scrubbed.<br /><br />This is why the use of private email systems by government officials is so dangerous. It allows for completely secret communication that can later be completely destroyed. In short, exactly what laws passed after Watergate were passed to prevent. IMHO legislation should be passed post haste to require all governmental officials currently required to preserve communications to use government email accounts for ALL email communications - both private and work related.<br /><br />It remains to be seen if Secretary Clinton used her private server to get around the law - but her deletion of mails she considered "personal" certainly raises suspicion. If she wants to establish that nothing illegal took place she can have an independent computer security firm examine the server. If it hasn't been scrubbed, then as many emails as possible should be recovered. An independent agency - such as the FBI can then determine if any of them are work related. If the drive has been scrubbed, the only reason to do that is to hide something..... either way, if she wants to be president we probably need to know.</span>Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-17941825960586506872015-02-19T13:18:00.002-08:002015-03-10T19:10:36.477-07:00TRUTH AND LIES ABOUT CCW PERMIT HOLDERS<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>THE ANTI-GUN RIGHTS VPC AND NEW YORK TIMES GET CAUGHT LYING AGAIN!</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.militianews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Im-sick-of-the-lies..jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.militianews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Im-sick-of-the-lies..jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Violence Policy Center (VPC) recently updated a list of what it calls "Concealed Carry Killers," claiming that there have been 722 "Total People Killed by Concealed Carry Killers, May 2007 to the Present" in a few hundred incidents involving "Concealed Handgun Permit Holders." On cue, the New York Times, endorsed VPC's effort in an editorial misleadingly titled <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/opinion/concealed-carrys-body-count.html?_r=2" target="_blank">Concealed Carry's Body Count</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There's only one problem - the VPC's figures are intentionally false. I have <a href="http://reasonedpolitics.blogspot.com/2014/07/how-violence-policy-center-deceives.html" target="_blank">previously documented VPC's intentional deception</a> and this latest report is more of the same. The Crime Prevention Research Center <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/02/17/nyt-claims-concealed-carry-holders-are-bad-guys-with-guns/" target="_blank">has also exposed their lies</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150213/boomerang-handgun-ban-group-validates-right-to-carry" target="_blank">Here are the facts about those 722 incidents</a>:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>1) 38% of these incidents were SUICIDES, not shootings of another person.</b> Most took place at home. It should be obvious that a carry permit, or for that matter even a gun, is not required to kill yourself. VPC wants you to think that these deaths are cases where CCW permit holder has shot someone else - something that is clearly deceptive.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Incidentally, the suicide rate among permit holders is less than half that of the general public!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2) <b>Over 10%</b> of the shootings took place in locations where a permit was not required or where carrying was illegal even with a permit - THUS THEY <b>ARE COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO THE ISSUE OF PERMITS.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3) <b>The VPC frequently counts both pending charges and convictions IN THE SAME CASE thus doubling the count!</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">4) <b>VPC's figures actually include people not killed with handguns</b>, including five people killed in auto accidents!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">5) <b>The 722 incidents include cases of lawful self defense, cases where charges have not yet been resolved and cases in which the shooter did not have a carry permit.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>THE BOTTOM LINE: THE VPC HAS INTENTIONALLY INFLATED IT'S FIGURES BY AT LEAST 100%.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>THE REAL FACTS ABOUT CCW PERMIT HOLDERS</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.concealedcarrynevada.com/images/attacker.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.concealedcarrynevada.com/images/attacker.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Fortunately, we do not need to depend upon the VPC's bogus report to determine how law abiding permit holders are. We have the revocation rates for many states. In most cases, revocations do not involve abuse of a firearm - so these figures are actually much, much higher than the number of criminal homicides committed by permit holders.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Crime Prevention Research Center has <a href="http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Concealed-Carry-Revocation-rates-by-age.pdf" target="_blank">produced a report</a> using official reports from state governments. Florida and Texas have extensive experience with CCW permits. Two paragraphs from the report are quite relevant: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>"During almost three decades, from October 1, 1987 to May 31, 2014, Florida issued permits to almost 2.66 million people. These permits have been revoked for firearms-related violations at an annual rate of only 0.0003 percent. For all revocations, the annual rate in Florida is 0.012 percent."</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>"The numbers are similarly low in Texas. In 2012 (the latest year that crime data are available), there were 584,850 active license holders. Out of these, 120 were convicted of either a misdemeanor or a felony, a rate of 0.021 percent. Only a few of these crimes involved a gun."</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So in Florida - with 25+ years of experience - <b>the chances that a CCW permit holder will have their permit revoked for a firearms related offense</b> (the vast majority of which are not homicides) <b>is 1 in 30,000</b>. The revocation rate for all reasons was a bit more than 1 in 500.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Even more significantly, these revocations take place when the permit holder is CHARGED NOT CONVICTED! The conviction rate of CCW permit holders is about 5%. Yep, 95% of cases brought against permit holders do not result in convictions. In these cases, the former permit holder is again eligible to get a permit. <b>IN OTHER WORDS, THE PERMANENT REVOCATION RATE FOR ALL REASONS IS 1 IN 9500!</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Again, using publicly available figures from Florida, the Crime Prevention Research Center <a href="http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Concealed-Carry-Permit-Holders-Across-the-United-States.pdf" target="_blank">has established that CCW PERMIT HOLDERS ARE LESS LIKELY TO COMMIT CRIMES THAN POLICE OFFICERS!</a> </b> (Also see <a href="http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2015/02/comparing-conviction-rates-between-police-and-concealed-carry-permit-holders/" target="_blank">this page</a>.) Let that sink in - the people the VPC is trying to disarm are actually safer to arm than cops. Of course, these same people want to disarm cops too......<br /><br /><b>Not surprisingly, the report ignores the increasing evidence that firearms are frequently used to save lives in self defense. </b> Nearly 1,500 of examples from the last two years can be found <a href="http://gunssavelives.net/" target="_blank">here</a>. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">When the VPC and the New York Times have to distort and lie to make CCW permit holders look bad - when the facts prove exactly the opposite, something is very, very wrong.</span>Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-56909193508872072312015-02-14T01:05:00.000-08:002015-02-14T01:05:15.514-08:00Four Good Reasons For Gun Control Advocates To Support National CCW Permit Reciprocity.<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDsqfQZidp_-CzwDjy3pZ3m92Uzya2DJIN9NuE3Fi_68tGdD0lDtMWZ8SzOCTm5CXRjJPGYyXtjZH6-DQ4E9nyFzMT8k_fntavedUT-w7oLvM14Nn54DJt6SaK_pXlFTAyVSbAjyBxTIpS/s1600/rtc2013.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDsqfQZidp_-CzwDjy3pZ3m92Uzya2DJIN9NuE3Fi_68tGdD0lDtMWZ8SzOCTm5CXRjJPGYyXtjZH6-DQ4E9nyFzMT8k_fntavedUT-w7oLvM14Nn54DJt6SaK_pXlFTAyVSbAjyBxTIpS/s1600/rtc2013.gif" height="240" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><b>Citizen Concealed Carry 1987-2013</b></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It may seem absurd to suggest that gun control advocates should support a federal bill that would set up nationwide reciprocity (or recognition) of concealed weapons permits, but I think a strong case can be made that such a bill could be in their interest. Here it is:<br /><br /><b>1) "Shall Issue" concealed carry permits are here to stay. </b> 50 states have permitting systems in place - 43 of them are shall issue, meaning that there is no requirement that "good cause" be proved before a permit is issued. Last year the 9th Circuit - the most liberal appeals court in the federal system - ruled that carrying a firearm outside of the home is a civil right under the 2nd Amendment. Not one state has ever repealed their concealed carry law. In short, the gun control side has lost the battle to stop concealed carry - both politically and legally. <b>If it cannot be stopped, the best thing you can do is to set uniform standards - and the best way to do that is a federal reciprocity law.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>2) A reciprocity bill could be used to increase training requirements. </b>Currently, states require anywhere between zero and sixteen hours of training before a permit is issues. Some states, such as Idaho, actually offer two different permits - one of which requires more training in order to be recognized in more states. Gun control advocates could offer to support a reciprocity bill, provided it raises the training requirement to a 16 hour minimum - roughly the same required of armed security guards.<br /><br /><b>3) A reciprocity bill would encourage more people to get permits - even if their state does not require them.</b> Currently at least five states all permit-less or "constitutional" carry. More states are considering such bills every year. Under such laws, anyone legally permitted to own a firearm may carry it openly or concealed. The primary reason people in such states obtain permits is to carry in other states that do require permits, or require them of non-residents. <b>If a permit meeting national standards was good in every state, more people in "constitutional carry" states would obtain them - and this would require them to meet national standards of training.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>4) Gun control advocates might be able to get some things they want - such as expanded background checks - in return for agreeing to national carry permit reciprocity.</b> If background checks are really that important - if they really would do a lot of good - then why not trade for them? Especially when what you would be trading is something you are likely to loose in the courts anyway. So, attach background checks to the reciprocity bill. Gun control advocates might be surprised at who supports the package.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So, there you have it - four good reasons for gun control advocates to support CCW reciprocity. Sadly, I highly doubt that they will do so.</span>Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-6766158968254524522015-01-15T19:30:00.001-08:002015-01-15T19:44:43.329-08:00A Heroic Gun Dealer Who Stopped Four Criminals From Stealing Dozens Of Guns Needs Your Help<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/q4fd4o/picture5724741/alternates/FREE_960/shooting%20tl%2010915%200341F.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/q4fd4o/picture5724741/alternates/FREE_960/shooting%20tl%2010915%200341F.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In recent years, I have had the privilege of getting to know some gun shop owners - both as a customer and when I had my business as a computer tech. Every one I of them I have met have been great people who took the responsibility of selling deadly weapons quite seriously.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">My guess is that most people reading this would think of the need to do background checks to keep guns out of the hands of prohibited persons - and the need to maintain records in accordance with federal law - records that allow guns to be traced should they be used in a crime. While these are all important, they are not the most important responsibility a gun shop owner must fulfill.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
By far, the most critical responsibility is that of securing their inventory against theft. The average person has no clue how much efforts gun shops put into security. Bars on the doors and windows are just the beginning. Every night, just after closing, even though the building has bars on every window, even though the doors are made of heavy steel, even though there is an alarm which - if tripped will result in an immediate police response - in spite of all of these measures - every handgun is locked away in one of several heavy duty safes.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
However, thieves do not always come calling when the gun shop is closed. That is why in every gun shop I have ever been in that sells handguns (the weapons criminals most desire) the staff is armed. Every employee carries a loaded sidearm. I had this responsibility driven home one day when I was working on a shops computers. The shop was closed, but when the only owner who was there left to get us lunch, I was handed a loaded .357 and warned not to open the door for anyone but her.<br /><br />This week, in Shawnee Kansas, the thing gun shop owners fear most happened. The owners of "She's a Pistol" gun shop and training center - a husband/wife team - were both working. That is when four armed robbers burst in. Police believe that they were responsible for several other armed robberies. They certainly were not there for money - they were there to take as many guns as they could. They outnumbered the owners two to one - and they had the element of surprise. What they did not think of, or did not know, is that both husband and wife were instructors who taught defensive firearm use for a living.<br /><br />Upon entry, it is reported the one of the four opened fire on the husband - while another struck his wife in the face. The husband - Jon Bieker - was able to return fire almost immediately. While details are sketchy it is probable that both he and his wife Becky were able to get shots off. We likely won't know exactly what happened for some time. What is certain is that when the smoke cleared, two of the armed robbers lay on the floor, too severely wounded to flee with their fellow criminals. Another was wounded, but managed to flee a short distance before being tracked down and arrested by police, Only one of the four escaped injury - and arrest. Sadly, Becky was significantly injured and Jon lay on the floor mortally wounded. He died a short time later at the hospital. He gave his life to defend his wife and to prevent the theft of the firearms in his care. Not one gun was stolen that day. Jon and Becky stopped that from happening. The cost of doing so was high - but who knows how many lives they may have saved, lives that would have been lost if those four men had gotten those guns and lives that would have been lost if they had simply been permitted to continue committing armed robberies. In my book, both Jon and Becky are heroes. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/vabjjz/picture6070632/alternates/FREE_960/Becky%20and%20Jon%20Bieker.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/vabjjz/picture6070632/alternates/FREE_960/Becky%20and%20Jon%20Bieker.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This experience has not changed Becky's views on guns and self defense:<br /><br />“Thank you to my friends, family, and community for their love, prayers, and support during this very difficult time. I have lost my husband in this senseless murder. Although tragic, he saved my life because he carried a firearm,” Becky said in a statement.<br /><br />“Guns are not evil,” she added. “I would not be able to make this statement if private citizens such as Jon and I were banned from owning them. Please respect my husband’s memory by refusing to turn this tragedy into a political statement in support of banning firearms.”<br /><br />BECKY CAN USE YOUR HELP!<br /><br />She needs help with her husband's final expenses and help to save her business. Please follow the link below and give SOMETHING. It all ads up - but we have to give something, or it adds up to nothing.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
<b><a href="http://www.gofundme.com/jz27b4" target="_blank">PLEASE FOLLOW THIS LINK AND SEND BECKY A FEW BUCKS.</a></b></span>Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-81888843925223048312015-01-12T14:56:00.001-08:002015-01-12T14:56:05.483-08:00Washington DC Mayor Vows To Restrict Civil Rights As Much As Possible<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/bill-of-rights21.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/bill-of-rights21.jpg" height="400" width="347" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Imagine the uproar that would happen if a Southern mayor said in a speech, "I know that the courts have said that Black people are equal to Whites, and I have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution - but I hate integration. I will do as much as I can within the law to keep Blacks in their place."<br /><br />Imagine the uproar if a mayor anywhere in the US said, "I know that the Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and I am sworn to uphold it - but I hate Muslims. I intend to do everything I can to keep them out and if that fails to make life as difficult as possible for them."<br /><br />Imagine the uproar if a U.S. mayor said in a speech, "I hate being criticized - so I hate the press. I know that the Constitution provides for freedom of the press - but I am going to restrict the press as much as possible."<br /><br />Imagine if a New York mayor said, "I know that the 4th Amendment provides protection against unreasonable searches - but I am instructing my police force to search as many "suspicious" people on the street as they possibly can. If that results in more black men being searched - oh well......" Oh wait, we don't have to imagine - that is exactly what two NYC mayors did and there was a huge uproar and the policy was reversed.<br /><br />The press would never tolerate any of the above actions by a mayor - and neither would the Administration - or the Congress. We hold our civil rights dear - except for one. Consider these comments by Washington D.C.'s newly minted mayor, Muriel Bowser:<br /><br />“<b>You have a mayor who hates guns</b>,” she said. “If it was up to me, we wouldn’t have any handguns in the District of Columbia. <u>I swear to protect the Constitution and what the courts say, but <b>I will do it in the most restrictive way as possible.</b></u>” <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/wp/2015/01/09/muriel-bowser-you-have-a-mayor-who-hates-guns/" target="_blank">(Source)</a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Notice that there is no wishy-washy language about supporting the 2nd Amendment, but wanting reasonable restrictions. This woman is quite clear - if she had her way she would eliminate a basic civil right, placed in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers. But since she can't do that, she will restrict the right as much as possible. Having this mayor upholding the 2nd Amendment rights of her citizens is like putting the KKK in charge of enforcing civil rights laws.<br /><br />Of course, the mainstream press won't cover these comments - because it would cause an uproar among the roughly 50% of Americans who own firearms. True, many of these gun owners do support some reasonable restrictions - like instant background checks - but when you start talking about banning firearms protected by the 2nd Amendment, they tend to get VERY UPSET. They also tend to get organized and demand solutions. Thankfully, they also have their own communication system, and they WILL FIND OUT.<br /><br /><b>Civil rights are not unrelated to each other.</b> Like pillars in a building, each one works with the others to support the roof - which in this case is is AMERICAN FREEDOM. If you are opposed to one of our freedoms, you are undermining all of our freedoms.<br /><br />So, what should be done? <b>Congress has looked at this issue before and threatened to use a simple solution that is within their rights because Washington D.C. is a federal enclave: A preemption of all of D.C.'s gun laws.</b><br /><br />It should be noted that this would in no way eliminate all restrictions on firearms. Robust federal laws - including background checks - would remain in place. What would not remain in place would be the D.C. mayor's attack on the basic civil rights of her citizens and visitors.</span>Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-49633552803118545382014-12-07T19:06:00.000-08:002015-11-01T17:58:18.900-08:00Did Jesus Order His Disciples To Be Armed?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.plusxp.com/wp-content/uploads/gunandsword1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.plusxp.com/wp-content/uploads/gunandsword1.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></div>
<i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Luke 22:35-36 (NIV): </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; <b>and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.</b></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <b>The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.</b></span></i><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>So, what was Christ's purpose in telling his disciples to be armed?</b> Some have said he gave this command so he could tell them later that they should not use them. However this makes no sense because Peter and the others were already armed. Furthermore, Jesus would have known - having traveled with them for years - what kind of weapons they carried. If Jesus did not want them to carry weapons, why didn't He address the issue in the three years they were together? Every other explanation I have seen falls just as flat. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So, I took a careful look at this passage - and this is what I found.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>Point One: Christ's reference to their prior missionary journeys indicates that the need to be armed is directly related to their future missionary journeys.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Effectively, Jesus said, "Your last journey was easy (See <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010" target="_blank">Luke 10:1ff)</a> - but, in the future you will need to be prepared. You will not have the support of most people."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Why would Jesus include a sword in the same category as money and camping gear? The answer is simple: Traveling the roads back then was a very risky endeavor. Robbers and bandits were very common (Paul mentions this in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+11%3A26&version=NIV" target="_blank">2 Cor 11:26</a>) and it was common for travelers to carry arms to protect themselves. After all, 911 wasn't available for about 1950 years! Travelers were on their own.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In short, the most logical reason - the one the fits the context best - is that the disciples needed to be able to defend themselves.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>Point Two: The original Greek word (machaira) means any edged weapon or tool of any length.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">While the context of most NT passages containing this word indicate that an edged weapon is in view, in many cases we cannot, in most cases, know how long the blade was. Looking at other Greek documents is very instructive.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"Homer mentions the makhaira, but as a domestic knife of no great size. In period texts, μάχαιρα has a variety of meanings, and can refer to virtually any knife or sword (taking the meaning of today's Greek μαχαίρι), even a surgeon's scalpel....... "(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhaira">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhaira</a>)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As is the case today, a knife of - say four to five inches - would be suitable for defense, but also would be absolutely necessary for everyday use while the disciples traveled. It would likely be used for everything from cleaning fish to cutting cordage to cutting and eating food. It is certain that each disciple would have carried some kind of knife for daily use. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>Point Three: The best interpretation of the disciples response is that each disciple possessed both a short and a long blade. </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Let's examine the disciples response in Luke 22:38: 'The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he (Jesus) replied.'</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>So what are the possible interpretations of this verse?</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>1) Between the eleven disciples then present, there were only two blades of any kind.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>2) Between the eleven disciples then present, there were only two blades long enough to be useful for defense.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>3) Each of the eleven disciples then present had two blades - one for every day use (a short, likely single edged knife) and a longer blade that would today be considered a long knife or a short sword.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We can rule out the first possibility as being impossible, because, as we have previously mentioned, at a minimum each disciple would need to have some kind of blade while traveling.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Moving on to the second possibility, this also does not fit. On their first journey, Jesus sent them out in groups of two. Both tradition and the New Testament (especially the Book of Acts) indicate that the disciples also traveled in groups of two to three. It therefore makes no sense for Jesus to approve of only two edged weapons, as this number would have many of the disciples defenseless.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The most logical interpretation is that when Jesus gave his command, the disciples each simply opened their garment and displayed both their every day blade and a longer blade - such as a long knife or a short sword. At the same time, they would have said, "See, I already have two blades." Seeing this, Jesus said that this was enough.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>Conclusion: Jesus did tell his disciples to arm themselves in order to be able to defend themselves on the road in coming years.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Please note that this analysis is limited to this passage. The Bible has a great deal to say about how and when it is necessary and morally justified to use force, including deadly force. There are many good articles on the net that address this subject. I urge you to carefully read some of them. That said, there is no doubt in my mind that Jesus commanded his disciples to be armed.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>What does this mean for Christians today? </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>First, it establishes that Christians may carry and use arms defensively</b> - at least in some circumstances.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Second, the weapons Jesus spoke of were particularly suited for personal defense rather than offense.</b> Jesus certainly was not advocating that the Christian faith be spread at the point of a sword - if this was his goal, spears and bows would have been needed. Additionally, when persecuted for their faith by governmental authorities, the Biblical record and history make it clear that Christians did not resist - just as Jesus did not resist.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Third, Christians need to be careful about advocating the disarmament of the public.</b> While Christians can certainly disagree concerning gun laws, calls for total bans on the ownership and even the lawful carrying of firearms clearly violate the principle found here. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-75327779905334450512014-11-21T16:30:00.000-08:002014-11-21T16:30:31.119-08:00Why I Support Immigration Reform AND Impeaching Pres. Obama<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>dic·ta·tor noun \ˈdik-ˌtā-tər, dik-ˈ\</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>: a person who rules a country with total authority</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>First everyone reading this should understand that I am supportive of content of President Obama's executive order. </b>For decades we have encouraged people to sneak into the US to work here, often in the underground economy. Both parties have looked the other way while this has happened - Republicans because some businesses want it and Democrats to please their Hispanic constituents. Expelling people who have been here for years (often decades) would be as unjust as a complete amnesty. A plan that enables them - after paying a fine, paying back taxes, and becoming functionally fluent in English - to obtain permanent guest worker status is both just and compassionate.<br /><br /><b>Second, THERE IS ZERO DOUBT THAT WHAT PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS DONE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL - AND HE KNOWS IT. </b> It is not an exaggeration to say that he has just made himself a dictator - albeit a compassionate one.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>If this is tolerated, American democracy is over. </b> Pres, Obama's reason for issuing this illegal order is simple: Congress refused to do what he wanted them to do - so he decided to assume the power granted to congress and "do it without them". Think about this for a moment. Think about what this means in the future. Quite simply, if tolerated, the House and Senate just became completely powerless and irrelevant, If a president can simply bypass a coequal branch of government with the stroke of a pen, why should they even bother to meet? <b>The danger here is not the direct effect of this illegal order - it is the precedent it establishes. If Obama gets away with this, what is to prevent him - or a future president of either party - from simply ruling by decree? </b> What is to stop him or her from ignoring Supreme Court rulings? Perhaps most frightening, what is to prevent this or a future president from declaring an emergency and suspending elections in order to stay in office? THE ANSWER TO ALL THESE QUESTIONS IS THE SAME: NOTHING! Sadly, such actions are the norm in much of the world, because the rule of law is ignored. We are now one huge step closer to joining them.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>There is also zero doubt that President Obama knows that what he is doing is illegal and unconstitutional.</b> He knows full well that this is an impeachable offense. In fact, he has said such action would be illegal - on video - more than two dozen times. He is a constitutional lawyer and professor, <b>He knows that he just became a dictator. </b>Consider these <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/19/Speakers-Office-highlights-22-Times-Obama-Against-Exec-Amnesty" target="_blank">22 documented quotes</a> and the following video clips:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="195" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ehH8KMIxntQ" width="320"></iframe></center>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Yes, there are many legal things any president may do in regards to those who are here illegally. </b> He can prioritize those who are deported - ignoring those working to support families and otherwise obeying the law and focusing upon criminals. He can also pardon anyone - including those here in violation of immigration law (which is not, in and of itself a crime - it is a civil matter) - of any crime they have committed. These actions are within his authority as president. He may also, when supported by underlying law, issue executive orders. <b>However, what our president has just done DOES NOT FALL INTO ANY OF THESE CATEGORIES.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Even MSNBC is questioning the legality of what President Obama is doing:</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="195" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/xUEf6bnKbWo" width="320"></iframe></center>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>His order goes far beyond simply ignoring those here illegally who are behaving themselves - it grants them legal status AND THAT REQUIRES PASSAGE OF A NEW LAW. A new law can only come from Congress.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>One might also ask this question: What is the emergency?</b> None of these people are in danger of being deported because President Obama's lawful prioritizing of deportation. When one considers this fact it exposes this action for exactly what it is: <b>A RAW POWER GRAB BY A PRESIDENT WHOSE PARTY JUST LOST AN ELECTION BY A LANDSLIDE.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Additionally, the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to this action.</b> According to this poll, <a href="https://www.numbersusa.com/blog/poll-only-20-tuesdays-voters-supported-obama-executive-amnesty" target="_blank">only 20% of voters in the recent elections supported such an order</a>. <b>Stunningly, 54% of Hispanics opposed such an order!</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Dictatorships emerging from democracies (without a coup) seldom begin with harsh and unpopular decrees.</b> Hitler, after getting lawmakers to vote themselves into irrelevance, did not start with a decree ordering millions to be killed - he began by issuing decrees to put people back to work. <b>As I have said, the real danger here may not be what this president does - but what a future president may do.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>So, what shall be done?</b><br /><br /><b>First, it should be understood that it is not just Republicans who are concerned about this issue.</b> Remember, this order effectively makes all lawmakers irrelevant - not just Republicans. This, combined with pressure from voters has caused several Democrats to come out against President Obama's action. Consider this <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/20/Live-Updates-Obama-Exec-Amnesty-Speech" target="_blank">quote from CNN's Jake Tapper</a>:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"Several Senate Democrats are not happy with Obama’s executive amnesty order. Tapper said he’s gotten “expressions of concern about POTUS action from Dems” including Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Joe Manchin (D-WV). Sen. Angus King (I-ME), an independent who caucuses with Democrats, also expressed opposition to Obama’s amnesty order."</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"Before the election, Democratic Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Al Franken (D-MN), Mark Warner (D-VA) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) all came out against it too. This number of Democrats and independents is enough to overcome the 60-vote threshold for cloture to block Obama’s executive amnesty with funding orders, if the Democrats who said they’re against it are serious."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Doing the math, this means that Republicans are starting with six Democratic Senators who are prepared to go on record TODAY as opposing this illegal order.</b> Combined with the 54 votes from Republicans, that's enough to use the power of the purse to invalidate the order - and should it come to it, Republicans only need 7 more votes to remove Obama from office.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There are basically two ways Congress can successfully oppose this order:<br /><br /><b>First, and most likely, the Congress could split funding into several bills each funding an area of government - and then withhold funding from INS, thus preventing them from implementing the order. </b> This would leave the president with three choices:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1) Admit defeat and withdraw the order</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2) Veto all the funding bills and demand funding for his order</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3) Issue another unlawful order funding his previous unlawful order</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Given that he has already violated the Constitution by issuing the order, I think it likely that he will choose the last option. Why not? It is supported by all the same arguments and is no more or less unconstitutional. <b>That will leave us with one option: IMPEACHMENT.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>If impeachment is attempted, it should be remembered that this time it will not be about something "unrelated to his job", it will be about his actions as president.</b> Additionally, there are several unrelated scandals being investigated right now (think Benghazi and Fast and Furious) that could "blow up" both providing more charges and reducing public support for Pres. Obama. <b>Contrary to what Democratic pundits supporting the president are saying, I do not think President Obama wants to be impeached.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>In addition to this, legal action is possible. It is even possible that the Supreme Court could expedite hearing such a case. </b> There is zero doubt that the current court will rule against the president by at least five to four. It could be unanimous. <b>However, once again, there is the question: Will the president simply ignore the order? If he does, we are back to impeachment.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>This crisis - and it is a crisis - is the greatest internal threat the nation has faced since the Civil War. Every American who prays should pray for our nation. </b></span>Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-62033319285235625672014-11-11T11:37:00.001-08:002014-11-11T11:53:13.229-08:00Why We Need To Write And Pass Expanded Background Checks - An Open Letter To My Fellow Gun Rights Advocates<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Alan Gottlieb is a leader in the gun rights movement. His <a href="http://www.saf.org/" target="_blank">Second Amendment Foundation</a> (SAF) has won <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_Foundation#Legal_action" target="_blank">many significant legal victories</a> securing and expanding gun rights. SAF is also headquartered in Seattle Washington - and because of this he was heavily involved in the battle of I-594. As such, he foresaw the outcome of that battle and the implications for gun rights nationwide. At this year's NRA convention, he said this:</span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="195" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2oRWMxfTcfs" width="320"></iframe></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />Sadly, he has been proved to be right. In spite of our best efforts I-594 passed. The gun banners are not stupid - they too have and will learn from this victory. We were successful in electing many pro-gun rights legislatures, governors and, of course, a pro-gun Senate. However, none of this matters if Bloomberg and his buddies can bypass those elected legislators as they did with I-594. Remember, I-594 is much, much more than a simple expansion of NICS checks to private sales. <a href="http://reasonedpolitics.blogspot.com/2014/10/who-is-telling-truth-about-i-594-actual.html" target="_blank">Hidden in the measure were many horrible provisions having nothing to do with sales</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>It is critical that we understand the new reality following this Bloomberg victory:</b><br /><br /><b>1) Now that they have been successful, it is certain that these billionaires will employ the same tactic in many more states.</b> In fact, <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/06/universal-background-checks/18550243/" target="_blank">they have said that they will do so</a>. In 2016, we can expect to have to fight the same battle we just lost in many more states. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In states where initiative measures are not possible, we can expect Bloomberg and friends to use the same dirty tactics they used in Colorado. <a href="http://www.ammoland.com/2014/11/how-i-594-gun-control-was-passed-in-washington-state/#axzz3IlQrgReC" target="_blank">An excellent analysis of why we lost can be found HERE. </a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>2) A majority of people - including some gun owners - will vote for a measure labeled as "universal background checks"</b> - especially when a billionaire or two floods the airwaves with advertizing. They also will not understand that the measure contains many additional anti-gun provisions. Trying to explain the details when both the billionaire's money AND the media are shouting that it's just about background checks is a fool's errand. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>3) It quite simply does not matter that these background checks are of limited value in stopping criminals and the insane from obtaining firearms. </b> What does matter is that a majority of the public thinks this is a good idea - in contrast to all other gun control measures which lack majority support. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>4) NICS checks have been in effect for a long time (about a decade) and present few if any problems. </b> In our own bill we can and should make improvements designed to prevent abuse of this system.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>5) Perhaps most significantly WE CAN USE THE SAME TACTICS USED BY BLOOMBERG TO BEAT HIM!!! </b>We can push our own background check bill through Congress, that expands NICS checks to private sales AND contains a bunch of pro-gun provisions, including federal preemption of state and local background checks, as well as safeguards against creating an underground registry.* We can turn a background check bill into a net win.<br /><br /><b>The reality is that expanded background checks are going to happen - the only question is will anti-gun rights or pro-gun rights provisions be attached to it. What we choose to do will determine which of these possibilities we have to live with.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">*Pro-gun rights provisions that should be attached to any federal bill expanding background checks:<br /><br />Safeguards:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1) As is the case now, no firearms specific data shall be required to run a NICS Check.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2) As is the case now, all data on approved NICS checks shall be destroyed in 72 hours or less.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3) As is the case now, 4473 forms and dealers bound books shall be the only place firearms specific data is maintained.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">4) Dealers shall be exempt from all civil liability for conducting background checks.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">5) The charge for a background check shall be capped by law at no more than $25.00 adjusted for inflation.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">6) Records (4473 forms and bound books) of closed FFLs shall no longer be surrendered to ATF - instead, all prior and future records shall be maintained jointly by the NSSF and the NRA, As is the case with records of open FFLs, they shall be available only for traces involving a criminal investigation.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">7) The entire area law governing of firearms purchases, transfers and ownership shall be preempted by the federal government.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">8) Since this entire area of regulation is being preempted by federal law, all state and local registration records shall be destroyed.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9) Anyone creating a registry of firearms shall be guilty of a felony punishable by a minimum of 15 years in prison. In addition to federal authorities, the Attorney General of any state shall be authorized to investigate and prosecute such offenses.<br /><br />Pro-gun provisions:<br /><br />Violation of the safe transit provisions of FOPA shall be considered civil rights violations and governments violating the provisions of FOPA shall be subject to both civil and criminal penalties.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">National CCW Reciprocity/National Shall Issue CCW system.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Removal of the restriction that you may only purchase firearms in your state of residence.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Anything else that we can get!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-34950601248608177152014-10-31T13:59:00.000-07:002014-10-31T13:59:19.232-07:00Americans And Guns - According To Gallup<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As we go into the elections, gun control is once again in the news. I think that in many races, especially in places like Colorado and Washington state, guns are going to be a huge issue. What do people actually believe?</span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="195" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/_jiWBkkLXBs" width="320"></iframe>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So, as reported in the above video:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Only 26% of Americans favor a handgun ban.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>63% of Americans believe that having a gun in the home makes the home safer.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(This is in spite of decades of bogus propaganda in the news and entertainment media trying to convince people that having a gun in the home is dangerous.)</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>44% of Americans report that they have a gun in their home</b> - a figure that is likely under reported. (Many people simply will lie about having a gun for a variety of reasons.) The fact that this figure is rising in spite of the average household size decreasing is even more significant.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Additionally, according to industry research,<b> <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/2014/08/report-more-women-suburbanites-carrying-guns.html" target="_blank">48% of first time gun buyers are now female</a>. </b>This fact will have long term implications for gun control support among women.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDQrYh-U8jRYvQ46bymVdlRsXANzJI8EVnHn_3hTajMgg7xsr5j6VLbt_En5S7kGI4WuljpfcURKPd5zptHmUsiBUwv-_NBEbmR8Qk1L9IMGU8lBI-SRyhs3SNnI5_PbUbL7a7aQpfH71M/s1600/gun+laws+in+general.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDQrYh-U8jRYvQ46bymVdlRsXANzJI8EVnHn_3hTajMgg7xsr5j6VLbt_En5S7kGI4WuljpfcURKPd5zptHmUsiBUwv-_NBEbmR8Qk1L9IMGU8lBI-SRyhs3SNnI5_PbUbL7a7aQpfH71M/s1600/gun+laws+in+general.png" height="255" width="400" /></a></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Today less than half of Americans support any changes to laws governing the purchase of firearms - while 52% want them to remain the same or made less strict.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpmoVCdr1nMPMFh80b0s_KR_qKJlRn1OYD3qZJvvRwT89C-Dsif-0l-skfPK849h0KEn8KlOVc5tiJ2NX4C7VrpbAdRdXHFELyAJgnKsUOIDQcFP3Z3120xNqFm2T8WbeJVYrNucL134zV/s1600/long+term+trend.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpmoVCdr1nMPMFh80b0s_KR_qKJlRn1OYD3qZJvvRwT89C-Dsif-0l-skfPK849h0KEn8KlOVc5tiJ2NX4C7VrpbAdRdXHFELyAJgnKsUOIDQcFP3Z3120xNqFm2T8WbeJVYrNucL134zV/s1600/long+term+trend.png" height="251" width="400" /></a></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Looking back 24 years, the trend is clear - support for stricter gun laws is dropping.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGZchv_D9PB-kWY9VHPB1_CvFLa8rrWIEMxRkEIBD_CQwvdraD_mLSnxNUaoi_-ySSO8_B7uooqAb7eDFoyoYGUWsg50tZXzdOZSF8hkplujsBpAjIo0qHMNc7RvfHIVh62bNIUMY_Ojpl/s1600/handgun+ban.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGZchv_D9PB-kWY9VHPB1_CvFLa8rrWIEMxRkEIBD_CQwvdraD_mLSnxNUaoi_-ySSO8_B7uooqAb7eDFoyoYGUWsg50tZXzdOZSF8hkplujsBpAjIo0qHMNc7RvfHIVh62bNIUMY_Ojpl/s1600/handgun+ban.png" height="255" width="400" /></a></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">When looking at the issue of banning handguns, the trend becomes even clearer. In 1959, nearly 2 out of 3 Americans were in favor - now nearly 3 out of 4 are opposed.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(Note: In 2008 the Supreme Court ruled that such bans were unconstitutional.)</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZSOsl8FMgCrMP3-NJXh0fXwZv1hsi8iTpPoIpR9eMTXSvwREcQ5vbuFIY92FwfKeMMBHYilceoQhkBqla3A0LgXvtGZfEOvU-FfadGcLmkQHcYKc4Mp8pf1caexMViIySOkeAwE7UQp2a/s1600/demographic+views.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZSOsl8FMgCrMP3-NJXh0fXwZv1hsi8iTpPoIpR9eMTXSvwREcQ5vbuFIY92FwfKeMMBHYilceoQhkBqla3A0LgXvtGZfEOvU-FfadGcLmkQHcYKc4Mp8pf1caexMViIySOkeAwE7UQp2a/s1600/demographic+views.png" height="400" width="341" /></a></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Breaking the issue down by demographic group, there is not one group in which support has not dropped since 2012. It is worth noting that support for gun rights among Democrats, Liberals, Non-whites and Women - while a minority view, is still significant.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Views of Mass Shootings</span></b></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfg9t9prSzPG9E-ifCFDxX0Dh1690K-ETXp5i84GSmpZR1HNUMer_xh7Xrplg57mqVZwqTv4wVaLy3r7ZMX_KLo60Xk50-Hbg6bRVTITgx-wkObo0JKGJo2YAgJ3LMU3qHIHjogkdmzirF/s1600/mass+shootings+2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfg9t9prSzPG9E-ifCFDxX0Dh1690K-ETXp5i84GSmpZR1HNUMer_xh7Xrplg57mqVZwqTv4wVaLy3r7ZMX_KLo60Xk50-Hbg6bRVTITgx-wkObo0JKGJo2YAgJ3LMU3qHIHjogkdmzirF/s1600/mass+shootings+2.png" height="280" width="400" /></a></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In spite of the media's effort to promote gun laws as the answer to mass shootings, the public believes that the failure of the mental health system as the greatest factor. This makes a great deal of sense, given that every gun used in high profile a mass shooting was purchased with a background check. Background checks cannot work without a good mental health system.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7YMsvJYaVCoXk-y7Tw-YeGrpqu992hBLoREWjUaV1oZ1hEhsx76Aw6gcjhOv8tzL3scjA8WT9X_a71HGZTm90bJw1K3dyIyr_dMZUOqL88Vr5imeU8hlCBb6ugunREgUGVLjN0duy6NX-/s1600/mass+shootings.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7YMsvJYaVCoXk-y7Tw-YeGrpqu992hBLoREWjUaV1oZ1hEhsx76Aw6gcjhOv8tzL3scjA8WT9X_a71HGZTm90bJw1K3dyIyr_dMZUOqL88Vr5imeU8hlCBb6ugunREgUGVLjN0duy6NX-/s1600/mass+shootings.png" height="257" width="400" /></a></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Comparing 2011 and 2013 figures on the same question, lack of good mental health screening remains steady - but "easy access to guns" has dropped by 6%.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So, what is the bottom line? With the possible exception of background checks, gun control is a losing issue outside of California and the Northeast and many politicians will learn this lesson on November 4th.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0