Friday, April 5, 2013
WH Lavish Parties to Continue.....but...........
White House Scraps Jewish Heritage Month Reception | The Blog on Obama: White House Dossier
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/04/05/white-house-scraps-jewish-heritage-month-reception/
O wants to raise Taxes AGAIN!
Social Programs Face Cutback in Obama Budget - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/us/social-programs-face-cutback-in-obama-budget.html?partner=MYWAY&ei=5065&_r=0
A Quote From 1944
Most of the American people do not remember the communist party of America having a candidate in the presidential elections and most Americans didn't notice when they stopped having a candidate. Shame on us!
Keep in mind that this was said 68 years ago
A quote from 1944:
If you aren't
Scared, you're NOT LISTENING.
Our Republic is burning and no one sees the fire!
Most of the American people do not remember the communist party of America having a candidate in the presidential elections and most Americans didn't notice when they stopped having a candidate. Shame on us!
Keep in mind that this was said 68 years ago
A quote from 1944:
If you aren't
Scared, you're NOT LISTENING.
Our Republic is burning and no one sees the fire!
Act of God: Lions Chase off Attackers of Ethiopian Girl and Guard Her
By Girls Just Wanna Have Guns / 4 April 2013 / 9 Comments
A 12-year-old girl who was abducted and beaten by men trying to force her into a marriage was found being guarded by three lions who apparently had chased off her captors, a policeman said Tuesday.
The girl, missing for a week, had been taken by seven men who wanted to force her to marry one of them, said Sgt. Wondimu Wedajo, speaking by telephone from the provincial capital of Bita Genet, about 350 miles southwest of Addis Ababa.
She was beaten repeatedly before she was found June 9 by police and relatives on the outskirts of Bita Genet, Wondimu said. She had been guarded by the lions for about half a day, he said.
“They stood guard until we found her and then they just left her like a gift and went back into the forest,” Wondimu said.
“If the lions had not come to her rescue, then it could have been much worse. Often these young girls are raped and severely beaten to force them to accept the marriage,” he said.
READ MORE AT NBCNEWS.COM
Tags: act of god, ethiopia, ethiopian forced marriages, girl guarded by lions
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Beware the gun tax
By: John Hayward | April 2nd, 2013 at 11:08 AM |
David Addington at the Heritage Foundation reports on a little something-something slipped into the rough beast of gun control laws slouching toward the Senate to be born, courtesy of majority leader Harry Reid:
Title I of the Reid gun control bill purports to “fix gun checks.” The proposed “fix” in section 122 of S. 649 is to take away an individual’s right to sell or give away a firearm to another individual unless, in most cases, the individual (1) uses a licensed importer, dealer, or manufacturer to make the transfer of the firearm and (2) pays a fee to that importer, dealer, or manufacturer to make the transfer.
The individual transferring the firearm is not actually receiving a service; the federal government is receiving the service. The service the government gets is a background check on the intended recipient of the firearm, because the law requires the importer, dealer, or manufacturer to run the recipient through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
Forcing the individual to pay for the government-mandated service, which is in fact a service to the government, is in essence a federal tax on the individual. And the amount the individual pays as a fee is not limited by the legislation; section 122(a)(4) of the Reid bill enacts a new section 922(t)(4)(B)(i) of title 18 of the U.S. Code togrant to Attorney General Eric Holder the power to set the maximum fee by regulation.
That sounds great! I was just thinking that what this country really needs is Eric Holder controlling more of our lives.
Besides the obvious ramifications for gun control, this is a prime example of all the little back doors installed in our liberty by Big Government. Countless taxes are disguised as “fees” and “penalties.” When ObamaCare reached the Supreme Court, we learned just how quickly the political class was willing to admit they’re all taxes, no matter what rhetorical sleight-of-hand is used to slip them past voters. Remember when President Obama literally laughed out loud at the idea his health-care plan would impose taxes on the middle class? On Day One of that bizarre Supreme Court hearing, he stopped laughing.
No doubt Reid, Holder, and their allies would respond to Addington’s criticism by insisting that it’s the American people receiving this vital universal background check “service,” not the federal bureaucracy. The government’s interests are always camouflaged as popular interest, with bureaucrats serving as the avatars of popular will.
Once Harry Reid’s background check tax is in place, it could easily become a clamp for choking off gun rights, by simply cranking the fee up high enough. At some point, this would prompt dramatically increased interest in black-market gun transfers, which would tend to defeat the entire purpose of universal background checks – which won’t be much of an impediment to criminals anyway, although supporters of the idea hope it will dissuade the “straw purchasers” who buy weapons legally and funnel them to the underworld.
Placing a stiff “fee” on a background check system for even the most casual transfer of firearms would provide a monetary incentive for people to avoid using the system, measured against the risk of getting arrested for violating the law. If the background check system is truly a universal public interest, shouldn’t it be financed out of general taxation and provided “free” to those who need it, just like every other socialized necessity? We hear a lot about how public subsidies are necessary to guarantee “access” to our “rights.” For example, it has become received wisdom on the Left that if people are obliged to pay for their own birth control, they are being denied “access” to it. Why shouldn’t that logic apply to gun rights, which really are explicitly spelled out in the Bill of Rights? If we’re not going to subsidize legal gun purchases under this principle of “access,” we should at least provide those universal background checks for “free.”
It’s hard to resolve a tax on the purchase or transfer of all firearms with the concept of a “right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.” Taxing the exercise of a right is a clear infringement upon it, as any discussion of poll taxes would swiftly make clear. In fact, Eric Holder’s Justice Department has a habit of arguing that even minor incidental expenses incurred in the course of obtaining voter identification, such as the cost of traveling to an election office to pick up a free ID card, are unacceptable infringements upon voting rights. Attorney General Holder himself has not been shy about denouncing these expenses as a racist conspiracy to suppress the minority vote. Wouldn’t Harry Reid’s gun tax be a comparable conspiracy to suppress the exercise of Second Amendment rights by law-abiding minority gun buyers?
Or should we stop asking such impertinent questions, and accept the judgment of politicians and government officials about just how alienable our inalienable rights must become, on a case-by-case basis?
By: John Hayward | April 2nd, 2013 at 11:08 AM |
David Addington at the Heritage Foundation reports on a little something-something slipped into the rough beast of gun control laws slouching toward the Senate to be born, courtesy of majority leader Harry Reid:
Title I of the Reid gun control bill purports to “fix gun checks.” The proposed “fix” in section 122 of S. 649 is to take away an individual’s right to sell or give away a firearm to another individual unless, in most cases, the individual (1) uses a licensed importer, dealer, or manufacturer to make the transfer of the firearm and (2) pays a fee to that importer, dealer, or manufacturer to make the transfer.
The individual transferring the firearm is not actually receiving a service; the federal government is receiving the service. The service the government gets is a background check on the intended recipient of the firearm, because the law requires the importer, dealer, or manufacturer to run the recipient through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
Forcing the individual to pay for the government-mandated service, which is in fact a service to the government, is in essence a federal tax on the individual. And the amount the individual pays as a fee is not limited by the legislation; section 122(a)(4) of the Reid bill enacts a new section 922(t)(4)(B)(i) of title 18 of the U.S. Code togrant to Attorney General Eric Holder the power to set the maximum fee by regulation.
That sounds great! I was just thinking that what this country really needs is Eric Holder controlling more of our lives.
Besides the obvious ramifications for gun control, this is a prime example of all the little back doors installed in our liberty by Big Government. Countless taxes are disguised as “fees” and “penalties.” When ObamaCare reached the Supreme Court, we learned just how quickly the political class was willing to admit they’re all taxes, no matter what rhetorical sleight-of-hand is used to slip them past voters. Remember when President Obama literally laughed out loud at the idea his health-care plan would impose taxes on the middle class? On Day One of that bizarre Supreme Court hearing, he stopped laughing.
No doubt Reid, Holder, and their allies would respond to Addington’s criticism by insisting that it’s the American people receiving this vital universal background check “service,” not the federal bureaucracy. The government’s interests are always camouflaged as popular interest, with bureaucrats serving as the avatars of popular will.
Once Harry Reid’s background check tax is in place, it could easily become a clamp for choking off gun rights, by simply cranking the fee up high enough. At some point, this would prompt dramatically increased interest in black-market gun transfers, which would tend to defeat the entire purpose of universal background checks – which won’t be much of an impediment to criminals anyway, although supporters of the idea hope it will dissuade the “straw purchasers” who buy weapons legally and funnel them to the underworld.
Placing a stiff “fee” on a background check system for even the most casual transfer of firearms would provide a monetary incentive for people to avoid using the system, measured against the risk of getting arrested for violating the law. If the background check system is truly a universal public interest, shouldn’t it be financed out of general taxation and provided “free” to those who need it, just like every other socialized necessity? We hear a lot about how public subsidies are necessary to guarantee “access” to our “rights.” For example, it has become received wisdom on the Left that if people are obliged to pay for their own birth control, they are being denied “access” to it. Why shouldn’t that logic apply to gun rights, which really are explicitly spelled out in the Bill of Rights? If we’re not going to subsidize legal gun purchases under this principle of “access,” we should at least provide those universal background checks for “free.”
It’s hard to resolve a tax on the purchase or transfer of all firearms with the concept of a “right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.” Taxing the exercise of a right is a clear infringement upon it, as any discussion of poll taxes would swiftly make clear. In fact, Eric Holder’s Justice Department has a habit of arguing that even minor incidental expenses incurred in the course of obtaining voter identification, such as the cost of traveling to an election office to pick up a free ID card, are unacceptable infringements upon voting rights. Attorney General Holder himself has not been shy about denouncing these expenses as a racist conspiracy to suppress the minority vote. Wouldn’t Harry Reid’s gun tax be a comparable conspiracy to suppress the exercise of Second Amendment rights by law-abiding minority gun buyers?
Or should we stop asking such impertinent questions, and accept the judgment of politicians and government officials about just how alienable our inalienable rights must become, on a case-by-case basis?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Share it Tweet it Donate Ad Feedback Four Charged with Hate Crime, Kidnapping, Assault After Facebook Live Video...
-
Sandra Ávila Deported from the U.S.-But Legal Troubles Follow her... Eduardo Arellano Félix, El Doctor, Sentenced to 15 years in Prison 7 di...
-
THESE CARTOONS ARE ALL FROM OVERSEAS... None of these are from U.S. newspapers > NONE OF THESE ARE FROM USA PAPERS. HOW IS IT T...
