Sunday, June 12, 2016

The Problem with Guns

There is no problem with guns, there's a problem with people.  The problem with guns is that people are focused on guns and not the real problem, people. If gunsare to blame for heinous crimes, why have no guns been convicted of murder?  Simple, guns are inanimate objects, people are the ones committing heinous crimes.  These criminals and terrorists don't follow laws. They don't care if there are gun laws. If someone is going to commit murder, a crime that has the death penalty/life imprisonment, do you really think gun laws will deter them? Terrorists and insane people who want to hurt people will find a way.  If not guns, explosives, planes, cars, or other means to cause harm.  This is because it's not the weapon that is causing the death, it's the person intent on causing death.  The focus must be on preventing people from carrying out heinous crime, not preventing law abiding citizens from protecting themselves and loved ones from those out to hurt them.

The way to prevent these types of incidents isn't to regulate or ban guns, it's to to identify terrorists and to identify and treat those with mental illness who are a danger to themselves and others before they commit heinous acts. To reiterate, people are the problem, not their weapons of choice. Remember, no guns were involved in the 9-11 attacks.

Let's look at facts:

  • Gun control doesn't work.  None of the worst attacks would have been prevented by any form of gun control and likely it was gun laws which prevented people from being armed defending themselves and others.


  • People misuse the term "assault rifle." There is a specific type of rifle, fully automatic that is called an "assault rifle."  Fully automatic rifles are illegal for most people other than military or police and a few select people to possess.  None of the recent attacks involved fully automatic rifles. Media, either intentionally or because they are ignorant, mistakenly call rifles used in the recent crimes "assault rifles."  "AR' does not stand for 'assault rifle' or 'automatic rifle' it stands for ArmaLite rifle, the company that developed it.

In case you don't know what an assault rifle is and what it isn't, here is an explanation:






Some have included semi-automatic weapons that are capable of switching to automatic in the definition of "assault rifle" but they all have the characteristic of being able to fire automatically.  Guns that are strictly semi-automatic are not "assault rifles."  Some people also confuse "assault rifles" with "Assault Weapons" which is something completely different.

The best way to understand firearms, and I recommend this to anyone prior to commenting on gun control laws, is to go to a range, speak with the range master and fire different types of weapons.  

  • The government must do a better job identifying terrorists and prevent them from carrying out heinous acts. We must prevent terrorists from entering the country by improving vetting people who come into the country.  If you can't vet someone, they shouldn't be allowed to enter the country.  Government, FBI, law enforcement must also do a better job identifying terrorists who are in the country. 


  • It is impossible to prevent all attacks and to prevent terrorists from getting firearms (they get them in countries where firearms are banned).  

  • Terrorism and terrorist attacks are only going to get worse, we must be prepared.  We must be armed and trained to protect ourselves and our loved ones.


  •  Most importantly, the government should not make laws that make people incapable of protecting themselves. It is not feasible for police to be everywhere.  What is feasible and what would be the best way to protect ourselves, our families and our children is to be armed and trained.
  • School staff should be properly trained and armed like they do in Israel. We train teachers and staff how to perform first aid/CPR and use an AED to save kids, why not train them to use firearms? This is just another way to protect our precious children.

Israeli Elementary School


  • Firearms are a good defense against terrorism.  People in the nightclub in Orlando were sitting ducks, being murdered while waiting for police with guns to come and save them instead of being armed and saving themselves.




  • For those who say that terrorists and those with mental illness who are dangerous shouldn't be able to get firearms I say, no they shouldn't.  They shouldn't be on the streets where they can buy firearms, or knives or a piece of string.  Identifying them and getting them off the streets is where the focus must be.
Bill Whittle sums it up nicely:




For further information see my post: "Does Research and Statistics Support Gun Control?"

Revisiting "Does Research and Statistics Support Gun Control?"

Author’s note: I reached out to a respected expert on gun control statistics, Dr. Gary Kleck, professor of criminology at Florida State University.  He was kind enough to send me the chapter The Great American Gun Debate:What Research Has to Say  from The Criminal Justice System, 10th edition, Edited by George F. Cole and Marc G. Gertz. Wadsworth. (Published January 2012). [Note: this paper had been hacked at one point and nasty, unrelated stuff added, I'm working on a new link.]   He also sent me a copy of National Vital Statistics Reports Volume 60, Number 3  which is the final report for 2009 which he says “provides the most recent final mortality data, showing numbers of deaths from all causes, with separate counts for gun deaths.”

There is no problem with guns, there's a problem with people.  People are the ones committing heinous crimes.  These criminals and terrorists don't follow laws. They don't care if there are gun laws. If someone is going to commit murder, a crime that has the death penalty/life imprisonment, do you really think gun laws will deter them?  Terrorists and insane people who want to hurt people will find a way.  If not guns, explosives, planes, cars, or other means to cause harm.  This is because it's not the weapon that is causing the death, it's the person bent on causing death.

The way to prevent these types of incidents isn't to regulate or ban guns, it's to help identify and treat those with mental illness who are a danger to themselves and others and to identify terrorists before they commit heinous acts.  People are the problem, not their weapons of choice. Remember, no guns were involved in the 9-11 attacks.



1. Gun control doesn't work.  None of the worst attacks would have been prevented by any form of gun control and likely it was gun laws which prevented people from being armed defending themselves and others.

2. People misuse the term "assault rifle." There is a specific type of rifle, fully automatic that is called an "assault rifle."  Fully automatic rifles are illegal for most people other than military or police and a few select people to possess.  None of the recent attacks involved fully automatic rifles. Media, either intentionally or because they are ignorant, mistakenly call rifles used in the recent crimes "assault rifles."  "AR' does not stand for 'assault rifle' or 'automatic rifle' it stands for ArmaLite rifle, the company that developed it.
In case you don't know what an assault rifle is and what it isn't, here is an explanation:






Some have included semi-automatic weapons that are capable of switching to automatic in the definition of "assault rifle" but they all have the characteristic of being able to fire automatically.  Guns that are strictly semi-automatic are not "assault rifles."  Some people also confuse "assault rifles" with "Assault Weapons" which are something completely different.

3. Guns are not the problem, people are the problem

4. We must do a better job at preventing terrorism, preventing terrorists from entering the country by improving vetting people who come into the country.  We must also do a better job identifying terrorists who are in the country.

5. Most importantly, the government should not make laws that make people incapable of protecting themselves. It is not feasible for police to be everywhere.  What is feasible and what would be the best way to protect ourselves, our families and our children is to be armed and trained.  School staff should be properly trained and armed like they do in Israel.
Israeli Elementary School
We train teachers and staff how to perform first aid/CPR and use an AED to save kids, why not train them to use firearms? this is just another way to protect our precious children.

People in the nightclub in Orlando were sitting ducks, being murdered while waiting for police with guns to come and save them instead of being armed and saving themselves.




5. Identifying those with mental illness, especially those with the potential of causing harm must be improved.  The public school systems are failing our children. Schools don't know what to do with smart kids who don't fit the social 'norms' even though they are required, by law, under The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) , to identify and "provide early intervention, special education and related services to infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities." This includes not only those with physical disabilities, but also mental and emotional disabilities.  School systems are failing to do this.  "Mental health is still not adequately diagnosed or treated in the United States, and especially not among young people...not delivered in a very effective manner.”

In fact,  a Connecticut state review panel has concluded "Medical professionals and school staff missed multiple opportunities to help Adam Lanza with his severe emotional and psychiatric disorders."


So, what does research and statistics say about gun control?

What are the statistics of guns used for violence versus gun use for protection and

“Perhaps what is most striking about the patterns of gun ownership in the US is that ownership is generally highest in those groups where violence is lowest.” (Kleck 1997, Chapter 3).  “It is well known that guns are used in many violent crimes in the US. [However] The best available evidence indicates that guns are used by victims in self-protection considerably more often than crimes are committed by offenders using guns.  For example, victims used guns defensively about 2.0-2.5 million times in 1993, compared to fewer than 600,000 violent crimes committed by offenders with guns (Kleck and Gertz 1995).”


“Defensive gun use is effective in preventing injury to the victim and property loss.  Research based on interviews with large nationally representative samples of crime victims consistently indicates that those who use guns during crime incidents are less likely to be injured or lose property than those who either adopt other resistance strategies or do not resist at all. These effects are usually produced without shooting the gun or wounding a criminal -  only 24 per cent of gun defenders even fired the gun (including warning shots), only l6 per cent tried to shoot the perpetrator, and at most 8 per cent wounded the offender (evidence summarized in Kleck and Kates 2001, Chapter 7).”




“There is also evidence indicating that some criminals may be deterred from making some criminal attempts in the first place by the prospect of victim gun use against them. Criminals interviewed in prison indicate that they have refrained from committing crimes because they believed a potential victim might have a gun, and crime rates have dropped substantially after highly publicized instances of prospective victims arming themselves or being trained in gun use, or victims using guns against criminals. (research summarized in Kleck and Kates 2001, Chapter 7).”



Information I had not even considered, “that when criminal aggressors possess guns in a crime incident, they are substantially less likely to attack and injure their victims in the first place. At least nineteen studies have found that offenders possessing guns are less likely to injure their victims than offenders with other weapons or no weapons. The explanation appears to be that possession of a lethal weapon enables aggressors to intimidate victims without actually attacking them, in crimes where the offender’s goal is not to kill the victim.” Kleck 2011

Many gun control proponents state that having stricter gun control laws that restrict who can purchase guns will prevent criminals from obtaining guns.  Studies show that most criminals do not obtain their guns from a conventional retail dealer of guns. 


Eight four percent, of 943 felon handgun owners surveyed, 
did not purchase the gun from a conventional retailer.


Since many use death rates to defend their anti-gun agenda we must compare the mortality rates related to gunshot wounds as compared to mortality rates by other mechanisms.

Why do people focus more on gun injury related deaths? Why guns when more people have died from poisoning and motor vehicle accidents individually and followed closely by falls? There are restrictions on some types of poisons, but that didn’t prevent 41,592 deaths by poison in 2009. There are even less restrictions on motor vehicles which caused 34,485 deaths in 2009.Both of these cause more deaths than guns. All of these can be used by in the commission of murder.  It's about an anti-gun agenda, controlling the population through gun control has long been used by governments. Anti-gun advocates have believed the government's use of emotional brainwashing that guns are evil and kill people.  They use 'crime stats' to back up their position.  

Let's look at crime stats.

Choose your own crime stats:




According to: National Vital Statistics Reports Volume 60, Number 3 December 29, 2011Deaths: Final Data for 2009 (Table 18) in 2009, a total of 177,154 deaths were classified as injury related Four major mechanisms of injury in 2009— poisoning, motor-vehicle traffic, firearm, and fall— accounted for 75.1 percent of all injury deaths.


Mechanism
Number of Deaths 2009
Percentage
Poisoning
41,592
23.5%
Motor-vehicle traffic  
34,485
19.5%
Firearm
31,347
17.7 %
Fall
25,562
14.4 %




If you want to see more statistics, you can check out the Explore the Wallstreet Journal's interactive murder database of killings committed in the U.S. from 2000 to 2010 (h/t Adam Baldwin) where can limit your search by criteria.  For example: There were 28 drowning murders in 2009.   I'm not sure how accurate the interactive database is, the database  does not include Florida.  The CDC's 2009 vital statistics report, Table 18, says 41 drowning murders in 2009. If the interactive database is correct, 13 occurred in Florida.  That seems a little high to me, but it's possible. Still the interactive database lets you get a feel for the numbers and gives you the ability to compare different categories.

Why then are guns singled out as needing restriction or banned? Could it be, perhaps, a matter of politics? Though there are gun proponents and gun control advocates on both ends of the political spectrum, it seems as though it is mostly the liberals and progressives that want gun control and the conservatives and moderates that defend the second Amendment right to bear arms. That this topic has become entrenched in people’s political belief system, it is difficult, but not impossible, for people’s minds to be changed on the topic of gun control.

Research shows that gun control will not help prevent gun related crimes, nor will it prevent people from obtaining guns. In fact, stricter gun control would cause an increase in crime, increase gun related crime, and victim injury/death.
In response to the question:  What is the defense of those that would try to discredit this study?

Dr. Kleck responded: "I have thoroughly rebutted all of the criticisms of my and others' survey estimates of the frequency of defensive gun use in one convenient source, a chapter in the 2001 book Armed, by Gary Kleck and Don B. Kates."

Dr. Kleck stands by the data in the study. 

Thank you Dr. Kleck!



REFERENCES


Kleck, Gary. 1997. Targeting Guns: Firearms and their Control. N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter.

Kleck, Gary, and Marc Gertz. 1995. “Armed resistance to crime: the prevalence and nature of self-defense with a gun.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86:150-187.

Kleck, Gary, and Don B. Kates.  2001.  Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control.  Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.

Monday, September 14, 2015

What If We Eliminated Government Handouts Became Like This Man?

What if we eliminated government handouts became like this man?



If we became like Narayanan Krishnan charity would once again become about giving, about helping, about loving our neighbor instead of about taking what can we get. People would help each other get back on their feet. People would be grateful for what they have and work hard to support themselves.  People would be proud of what they accomplished, not what they can 'get.'  People would begin to join together, inclusiveness not divisiveness.

Is this not what the bible teaches charity is?  Charity is to help each other, not to give money to someone else and let them do it for you. Charity is something you must do for yourself.

Why is it better to give/do charity yourself?

When you give/do charity yourself, as Narayanan Krishnan' does, you would see where your charity, where your money, is going.  There would be a human connection. With government handouts, there is not human connection, there is no human interaction between you, the giver (tax payer), and the receiver.  You, the giver, has no way to know where your hard earned money goes and who receives it.  How do you know your money is going to someone who really needs it, to someone that honestly need your help and is someone who you believe deserves to be helped?

People who perform charity would give not only money, but time.  They would help those who truly need it, they would be motivated to not only give immediate assistance, but to help people get on their feet, to succeed, to become independent.  They would also be motivated to help their own, who cannot care for themselves, instead of relying on someone else or the state to do it.  There would be less burden on others. The givers would also be motivated to work together with other givers to help groups of people.

Those who are sincerely needy will be cared for and those who can care for themselves will become not only independent, but givers.

If we became a nation of individual givers of charity, doers of charitable deed, not a nation of 'charity' via government interference, we would become a nation of givers, not grabbers and our government might be able to balance the budget.

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

Your Tax Dollars Fund Organization That Knowingly Breaks Federal Law

The fifth undercover video by The Center for Medical Progress on Planned Parenthood’s deceptive practice of selling baby parts was released today.  


This video shows the Director of Research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Melissa Farrell, advertising the Texas Planned Parenthood branch’s track record of fetal tissue sales, including its ability to deliver fully intact fetuses.

First, think about what it takes to retrieve an 'intact fetus.' 
The following show standard abortion procedures, only the induction abortion would result in an 'intact fetus.'


The procedures involved in ensuring an 'intact fetus' are much more complicated and there is a chance the baby will be born alive.  The risk to the baby in any abortion is dire, the intent is that the baby dies, so it’s rare that a baby survives the procedure, but it is possible.  

To retrieve an 'intact fetus,' the baby must be killed in utero and then labor induced and the baby delivered.  There have been cases where the baby is born alive and, considering that over a thousand babies are born alive, that we know of, and the number of abortions Planned Parenthood does it is consistent that there would be some, if not many, born alive at Planned Parenthood.  As of this moment I don’t know for sure what happens in these cases at Planned Parenthood, it's likely future videos will address this.  If the baby is born alive it is no longer considered an abortion but a birth and killing the baby at this point would be considered a homicide.


Now back to the undercover video.  In the video, Melissa Farrell confirms that Planned Parenthood has broken several federal laws. The two most blatantly violated federal laws are that of illegal profiting from selling baby parts and illegally manipulating abortion procedures.

In the video Farrel says: 

We bake that into our contract, and our protocol, that we follow this, so we deviate from our standard in order to do that.”

 “Some of our doctors in the past have projects and they’re collecting the specimens, so they do it in a way that they get the best specimens, so I know it can happen.”
She admits they deviate from the standard to collect baby parts. Federal law, 42 U.S.C. 289g-1(2)(A)(ii): no alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue; 

The investigators ask Farrell how she will frame a contract in which they pay a higher price for higher quality fetal body parts, and she replies, 
“We can work it out in the context of--obviously, the procedure itself is more complicated,” suggesting that “without having you cover the procedural cost” and paying for the abortion, the higher specimen price could be framed as “additional time, cost, administrative burden.”
Farrell finally summarizes her affiliate’s approach to fetal tissue payments: 
“If we alter our process, and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, we can make it part of the budget that any dissections are this, and splitting the specimens into different shipments is this. It’s all just a matter of line items.”
They take the intact baby and divide it up to make the most profit. “It’s all just a matter of line items.”  The baby and his/her parts have now become “line items.”

“I think everyone realizes, especially because my department contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization here, you know we’re one of the largest affiliates, our Research Department is the largest in the United States. Larger than any the other affiliates’ combined.”
Take that in for a minute.  Her department, the research department, the department that procures and sells baby parts “contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization.”  This means they are making a profit on the selling of baby parts:


In a Texas Senate hearing on July 29, former Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast clinic director Abby Johnson estimated that the affiliate had previously made up to $120,000 per month off of aborted fetal tissue.

Not only should Planned Parenthood be defunded, they should be investigated and prosecuted.

The defense for continued funding of Planned Parenthood is that it the tax money goes to other programs that Planned Parenthood provides and not to abortion First off, it’s common sense that funding one portion of a company helps the company as a whole and therefore helps the individual parts.  If Planned Parenthood has a budget of $100 and abortions cost them $50 and other services cost $50, making their total costs $50 and the government gives them the $50 for other services, the total they need to raise is reduced by 50%. (I’m not saying the government reduces their costs by 50%, this is just an example). The abortion department is helped by the government funding because they can reduce costs across the board.

The second ‘reason’ for continued funding of Planned Parenthood, that if Planned Parenthood closes many women will go without care, is pure fear mongering, playing on people’s emotions to continue funding this leading abortion provider.  Let’s look at this rationally, not emotionally.

If Planned Parenthood were to close, and nobody believes that they would close just because they lose federal funding, what would happen?  People would find themselves without a provider.  When ObamaCare was enacted thousands lost their providers.  These same politicians who are so ‘distraught’ that women might lose their Planned Parenthood providers are the same ones who barely bat an eye when the thousands lost their providers assuming they will get new providers.  The same is true for customers of Planned Parenthood, they will get new providers, or, in some cases, they will be able to keep their same providers.  If Planned Parenthood shut their doors all their providers would set up shop somewhere else.  These providers aren’t going to all retire just because their place of business closes, they will be working in a new location.  If Planned Parenthood closes, other providers of women’s health care will prosper.  These other providers will be the recipients of the federal funding for women’s health care. 

“But Planned Parenthood provided for those without insurance.”  ObamaCare has taken care of that, hasn’t it? ObamaCare mandates that everyone has insurance and that insurance covers preventative health care to women “without charging you a copayment or coinsurance.”  Unless these politicians who so fervently supported ObamaCare, mostly the same ones who are supporting Planned Parenthood, believe it is not doing what it is mandated to do. 

The sob stories, the stories of women who received care at Planned Parenthood, who had nowhere else to turn are a false narrative.  Trying to show what will happen if Planned Parenthood closes by using an example of what happened in one place in 2011 to ‘prove’ their point.  Their ‘facts’ are outdated and irrelevant.  Yes, 2011 wasn’t that long ago, but it was before ObamaCare was enacted.  The problems incurred in the 2011 have been eliminated by ObamaCare. Also, I’m sure all the patients have since found new providers.  The stories are told to specifically to elicit emotions in people to convince people to see things their way.  They have no other recourse than to play on people’s emotions because their ‘reasoning’ doesn’t hold water. 


There is no logical reason for Planned Parenthood to receive federal funding.  It is a criminal organization that is breaking federal law.  Are you going to allow your tax dollars to continue to be used to fund an organization that sells baby parts and knowingly violates federal law?  Morality dictates you do not. 

All the videos released so far, the edited versions and the full, unedited versions, are found on The Center For Medical Progress' Website. 

Thursday, July 2, 2015

What Would You Do? What SHOULD You Do?


You work for a large company. The company has had in place, for many years, a policy they use to make major changes that affect all employees, which enables the employees to have a say in how the company is run.  Each department choses a representative for their department.  

When a new policy is proposed each department votes on the proposal and the representatives meet to discuss the proposal, what each department voted, either for or against the new policy. Depending on the policy, it can be applied company-wide or in the individual departments that approve it.  

A new policy had been submitted.  In this company it has been the policy for Saturday work days. It appears that the majority of the people would like to have Saturday off, but there are some who like the extra pay working Saturday gives them.  Each Department will determine for themselves if the employees will work Saturdays or have Saturdays off.  This will be determined by what the workers want and if they can accomplish the work that needs to be done with one less work day. 

The departments have been discussing and voting.  Suddenly the Board of Directors, because they are tired of listening to their friends and family complain, think the process is taking too long and declare that everyone will have Saturday off.  The board’s job is not to make policy, but to ensure polices are being followed and that the company remains on track.  According to company regulations, the management can make policies, but only with input from the departments. 

The management allows the board to enact this new policy because they, themselves like the policy, it would give them Saturdays off.  

Assuming you want Saturdays off, what would you do? Do you keep quiet because you like the new policy and believe that the majority of the people like the policy so it’s ok? Do you insist creation of a new policy follow procedure, even though it may take longer but is the proper way to handle the policy, after all, the policy may not benefit everyone and everyone has the right to input and the board has no right making policy, only ensuring policy doesn’t violate company rules also knowing that this opens the door for the board to arbitrarily make other policies that you and the other employees do not like and would have no say about?

What do you do?

Make your decision then scroll down

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You live in America. America has had in place, for many years, a Constitution they use to make major changes that affect all citizens, which enables the citizens to have a say in how the company is run.  Each state elects representatives for their state.  When a new law is proposed each state votes on the law and the representatives meet to vote, what each citizen of his/her state voted, either for or against the new law. Depending on the law, it can be applied nation-wide or it could be a law which does not fall within the realm of a federal law, but a law that would be required to be an individual state law. 
The federal government is limited by the Constitution as to what laws they can and cannot make.

According to the Constitution, the federal government is responsible for laws enumerated in the Constitution under Article 1and nothing more, everything else falls to the state 
Note:  The 10th Amendment states:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” 

The Supreme Court does not make laws, they determine if laws are Constitutional, their job is described, in detail, in Article 3 of the Constitution.

So a new law has been submitted to the state.  In this case the law is that same sex marriage is legal.  Under the Constitution, each state should determine for themselves if the same sex marriage will be legal.  This will be determined by what the citizens of the state want by majority.  The states have been discussing and voting.  Suddenly the Supreme Court, because they are tired of listening to their friends and family complain, think the process is taking too long declare that same sex marriage is legal in all states.  The Supreme Court’s job is not to make law, but to ensure laws are being followed under the Constitution. Under the Constitution, same sex marriage would not fall under federal law but state law. It is unconstitutional to create a federal same sex marriage law.  

Should the Supreme Court determine that same sex marriage can be applied to taxation, the law would still not fall under Supreme Court but with the Legislative Branch.  The Senators and Representatives, having been elected by their constituents, should vote based on the wishes of his/her constituents.  

In this case the management, in other words the President/Vice President/many of the Legislative branch have allowed SCOTUS to enact this new ‘law’ because they, themselves like the ‘law.’  It bypasses the headache of having this put on a ballot and voted on in their state.  

Assuming you are for same sex marriage, what would you do? Do you keep quiet because you want same sex marriage and believe that the majority of the people also want same sex marriage and because you think it’s fair and right, so it’s ok that SCOTUS over stepped its bounds? Do you insist creation of same sex laws follow procedure, follow the Constitution even though it may take longer but is the Constitutional and legal way to handle the policy, after all, not everyone is pro-same sex marriage and everyone has the right to input, even if they disagree with me and SCOTUS has no right making law, only ensuring law doesn’t violate the Constitution, also knowing that this opens the door for SCOTUS to arbitrarily make other laws that you and the other citizens do not like and would have no say about?

What SHOULD you do?


Thursday, November 7, 2013

#ObamaCare, a Step to Change "We the People" to "We the Slaves of the Government."


The Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare, is not healthcare and does not guarantee one will receive good healthcare. It does not even guarantee people will receive good insurance and it is by no means affordable. To this date, more people have lost healthcare coverage, due to the ACA, than have enrolled in new insurance. Many are forced to pay higher premiums to keep their plans or losing their plans altogether and are force to accept one of the government’s managed plans or opt for no insurance and pay the government fine. 

Wording is important. There is a reason the preamble to the Constitution was written "provide for the common defense" and "promote [not provide] the general welfare." The government is to provide defense for the country and support the general welfare of its people, but not provide. 

The federal government was not created to care for the individual; the federal government was created to attend to foreign affairs and affairs of the country as a whole. Thomas Jefferson on general welfare clause: They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union.

Robert Yates, who wrote anti-federalist papers under the name “Brutus,” predicted the abuse of vague clauses, particularly of the "general welfare" clause, as we see happening, and by the Supreme Court. The founders assumed the Constitution would be followed as written, but Brutus correctly predicted that future leaders & the Supreme Court would abuse their powers to "interpret" the Constitution where “promote” has become conflated with “provide.” This liberal, and incorrect, “interpretation” allows for a large, tyrannical government in control of all aspects of citizen's lives, which is what neither the federalists nor the anti-federalists envisioned. It was never the intention for the federal government to “provide” for the individual. 

Creating an atmosphere of complete dependence on the government, that government has complete control over American citizens, is tyrannical. It is the antithesis of what this great country stands for. It enables people to become mindless, apathetic cattle. It is destructive. It is not what out founders wanted for our country. ObamaCare is nothing more than government control. It is not affordable and it does not guarantee accessible healthcare. It is not justice for government to force its control over your healthcare. It is despotism and it is evil. ObamaCare, is just a step in Obama's plan to change "We the people" to "we the slaves of the government."

~ Obama is "sorry."

Monday, September 30, 2013

Typical #ObamaCare Scenario

When Obamacare fully enacts, you can expect to see scenarios such as this playing out all across the United States.

A 27 year old worked 40 hours a week and made $30,000 in 2012 and is currently making the same. He is just barely paying for food, clothes & housing expenses and insurance was not offered by his company, so he hasn't been paying for insurance & he was able to pay his bills.

The company has 55 full time employees, & due to ObamaCare, the company must now offer insurance or pay a penalty.  His company has chosen to cut the hours of several full time employees.  His hours are now cut from 40 to 29 and he still has no benefits. He will now make $21,750, that's $8,250 less a year (ObamaCare won't take this into consideration until next year).


Household income in 2014: 261% of poverty level Unsubsidized annual health insurance premium in 2014: $2,535 Maximum % of income you have to pay for the non-tobacco premium, if eligible for a subsidy: 8.37% Amount you pay for the premium: $2,512 per year (which equals 8.37% of your household income and covers 99% of the overall premium) You could receive a government tax credit subsidy of up to: $24, (Wow! $24 whole dollars) (which covers 1% of the overall premium) That's $2,512 he MUST pay or pay a tax for noncompliance. (For 2014, the penalty is either $95 per adult or 1% of family income, whichever results in a larger fine. In this case, it would be $300. That's $300 for getting nothing, still a better deal).

So, he is making $8,250 less and is now required to pay $2,512 (or the $300 penalty) for health insurance.
 
He could enroll in a Bronze plan for about $2,078 per year (which is 6.93% of his household income, after taking into account $24 in subsidies). For most people, the Bronze plan represents the minimum level of coverage required under health reform. Although he would pay less in premiums by enrolling in a Bronze plan, he will face higher out-of-pocket costs than if he enrolled in a Silver plan.       
 
What should he cut? Food, housing? How will he find a second part time job now that millions of other people are in the same boat of now being part time whereas the formerly were full time? The number of full time jobs available will also be reduced because more people than ever will be seeking them. In other words, more people than ever will be looking for jobs. How can young people just starting out compete with experienced people who have been forced into the job market?