Armed and Safe: Montana's stand for 2nd and 10th Amendments#links

Armed and Safe: Montana's stand for 2nd and 10th Amendments#links

Kurt Hoffman is up and taking nourishment again, and has a marvelous summary of what is happening with Montana's Firearms Freedom Act. Please check out the map, and find out who is supporting it in your State.

In addition to summarizing what has already happened with regard to the FFA, Kurt also points out the utter, bald faced hypocrisy of the Administrations position on these State laws:

Never mind all that--consider instead the disingenuousness of advocating a need for different gun laws in different locales, while trying to drum up support for more restrictive federal gun laws, which would apply everywhere. Then, consider the fact that when states take the one measure that would allow them to opt out of gun laws that do not "work" for them, the administration opposes them. Is it not the case that "what works in Hoboken may not work in Helena?"

Losing Civil Liberty… Mandatory Flu Shots

Once again, I have asked Joe if he would be a guest blogger today, and he has graciously agreed. The other day, I saw a protest against being forced to take flu shots by health workers on the Glenn Beck show. Hmmm. Joe's own General Practitioner also refused according to Joe. Hmmm. Folks, there seems to be something about these flu shots that has people in the know alarmed. I have asked Joe if he would stay on this issue, and he has agreed.

Regards,
PolyKahr
III


On July 13, 2009 the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended that in case of a pandemic (H1N1) its 194 members would be REQUIRED TO MAKE FLU SHOTS MANDATORY. Under the WHO 2005 International Health Regulations Act, there is little doubt that WHO laws can make it mandatory, should authorities decide to do so. The World Health Organization recommendations are binding on all its member countries and that includes the US. Does WHO even know what a pandemic is? I don’t think so, after experiencing their past pandemic scare, which was stimulated and manipulated by the Pharmaceutical Industry. It seems that, we the people have not learned the lesson about how they use scare tactics, so that they are able to use the same tactics to scare us again. However, now they are moving swiftly to make their unproven flu-shot-solution mandatory.

The US Department of Homeland Security has said that any disease outbreak is a matter of homeland security. Beyond the Federal Homeland Security some States like Massachusetts are passing pandemic legislation that will allow State Officials to enter homes and businesses without the occupants’ approval; Investigate and quarantine folks without their consent; Dictate to licensed health care providers to give the population flu shots, even against the citizens rights of refusal; To ban free assembly of citizens in the State.

So how will they know if you had a flu shot? The Patriot Act negates our rights under the first, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments. It lets the government get individuals’ medical, mental health, financial, and school records; invalidates the fourth amendment’s right to be secure “in their persons, houses, papers and effects.” It allows the government to search individuals’ homes without telling them, removing the fourth amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure. During a pandemic the flu shots are going to fall under the domain of Homeland Security. This disallows civil rights demonstrations, like demonstrating for the rights to bear arms, against the flu shot, or even refusal to take a flu shot, to be classified as “terrorism” if the government says they “appear to be intended for influencing the policy of a government by intimidation.”

On August 13Th 2009 the New York State Hospital Review and Planning Council adopted a regulation recommended by the New York State Health Department making annual influenza vaccinations mandatory for Health Care workers. They are and even firefighters across the U.S., notably in Atlanta and New York, being forced to take the swine flu vaccine as well as the seasonal flu shot or be fired.

The government of Greece has already announced a mandatory program of swine flu vaccination for all of its citizens and residents, and its health minister has stated that there will be no exceptions. Ontario Canada officials have stated that no one will be forced to take the vaccine. That may true, unless the WHO says otherwise.

What does a declaration of a public health emergency in the U.S. mean for you and your family? It means that, right now, you need to become educated about vaccination, influenza, vaccine risks, and the public health laws in your state. You need to find out what are your rights, which you may have or will lose, and what the options are under new health laws that may require you and your children to get vaccinated or be quarantined. While I think the shots can be extremely harmful, there is a larger issue at stake. It’s about protecting our inalienable rights and freedom under the constitution.


Joe JAM


"Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently." Rosa Luxemburg

The War on Guns: Gun Groups Fire Back at Feds with Firearms Freedom Act Lawsuit

The War on Guns: Gun Groups Fire Back at Feds with Firearms Freedom Act Lawsuit

Go read the post. I will be following this carefully. As David said, this was the Founders' intent, but after a century of drifting away from the Constitution, one has to wonder if it can be recovered.

Cass Sunstein Wants Bloggers to Chill

In an article at the American Thinker today, Lee Cary tells us that one of Obama's Czars seeks 'chilling effect' on the internet. Apparently the Administration has been stung by rumors, spread about by sites like the American Thinker, Townhall.com and others, such as that Goofball Wormening is a hoax, that Cap and Tax is...well...a tax, or that the elderly and the unborn will suffer most under Obamacare, and that since that seems to be by design, one might call them "Death Panels."

Well, boo hoo. It's called journalism, and is protected under the First Amendment. I remember when the Left respected the First Amendment-or was that just a head fake? Now that they are finally in power, they want to silence all opposition? Is that it? Frankly, I thought Cass Sunstein was smarter than that. The way to prevail is to persuade with facts (not made up facts, but...you know...real, actual facts.) Facts, as Mr. Madison said, are stubborn things. Opinions on the other hand, are worth what it cost you to read this, and everyone has one. Now, not all will be persuaded. Some people remain so locked into their agenda, that no amount of evidence can persuade. But the vast majority can be, if the facts are presented enough. But that presupposes that you have actual facts, and the time to present them. Quite frankly, the Left has neither.

Democrats destroying democracy

David Limbaugh has an scathing article up today on Townhall.com entitled The
Big D Democrats Thwart Small d Democracy which cites a number of out and out lies, prevarications, dissembling and sneaky practices being used by Democrats to get the Health Care reform bill passed. A quote to get a feel for the article:

As much as Obama pretends to be a man of the people, he is a man for himself -- a man who will get his way, the will of the people be damned. The same is true of many of his congressional lieutenants, including Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who recently said that Congress will pass Obamacare despite the public's objections, because it is so important. Important to whom? To Democrats -- that's who.

It may be important to "Democrats," but I also wonder who else stands to gain. It will certainly socialize one third of our economy, and give them a lot of power, but I have to ask who will gain in the private sector. We have seen that American citizens don't want it with the huge TEA Party crowds. Doctors certainly don't seem inclined to see more of their income slip away. You really should read the last if you want to see the potential problems Obamacare will set in motion. Insurance companies are unlikely to desire being sent to bankruptcy court by their own Government. In any case, I will be pondering the answer to that question while you go and read David Limbaugh's piece.

Meanwhile, over at the American Thinker, we learn that the bill before the Senate is even more hideous than we had imagined in Doctors: Damned If They Do, More Damned If They Don't by Gene Schwimmer. A quote:

Americans worried that Obamacare will lead to de facto rationing of health care to senior citizens can stop worrying. It's already here. Obviously, the fewer doctors willing to treat Medicare patients, the fewer the opportunities to get treated and with each passing year, the number of such doctors decreases.


Early this year, Barbara Plumb, a freelance editor and writer in New York who is on Medicare, received a disturbing letter. Her gynecologist informed her that she was opting out of Medicare. When Ms. Plumb asked her primary-care doctor to recommend another gynecologist who took Medicare, the doctor responded that she didn't know any -- and that if Ms. Plumb found one she liked, could she call and tell her the name?


Physician Medicare opt-out rates across the country tell us that there are a lot of Barbara Plumbs out there, with many more to come. For example (quoting from the above-linked article), "of the 93 internists affiliated with New York-Presbyterian Hospital,... only 37 accept Medicare." In Texas, "a 2008 survey by the Texas Medical Association found that while 58 percent of the state's doctors took new Medicare patients, only 38 percent of primary care doctors did." Nationwide, "the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent federal panel that advises Congress on Medicare, said that 29 percent of the Medicare beneficiaries it surveyed who were looking for a primary care doctor had a problem finding one to treat them, up from 24 percent the year before." Not only, then, is the number of doctors refusing new Medicare patients increasing, but the rate of refusals is increasing, too.


And now, courtesy of Max Baucus and his fellow Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee, comes a provision that portends to make an already-bad situation even worse.

It seems that the Democrats have included a provision that would cut any physicians pay by 5% if that physician's aggregate resource use is at or above the 90th percentile of national utilization. Of course, a doctor will not know if his resource utilization is at or above 90% until the year end. So there will be pressure on doctors not to recommend expensive treatments or tests. At the same time, the Democrats have voted not to limit trial lawyers from seeking compensation from doctors for pretty much anything that might go wrong. These two provisions mean that physicians are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

Frankly, I will be surprised that they can get any intelligent young person to choose medicine as a vocation, if this bill passes and becomes law

Making Fun of Goofball Wormening Alarmists

The website for C.R.O.C. is a hilarious send up of the idea of carbon offset credits. Go and check them out. Carbon offsets credits, of course, are how Gore justifies his huge mansion, and flying around in private planes to push the Global Warming agenda. How Edwards justifies his is still a mystery. In any case, a good way to look at carbon offsets is to use the analogy to medieval indulgences. The idea of an indulgence was that you can sin as much as you want if you can afford to buy an indulgence from the church to get you out of hell. A very lucrative business for the clergy, who claimed to have an exclusive lock on God's grace. If you ever wondered what the Protestants were protesting, this was a large issue for them. In a similar vein, as the website points out, carbon offsets allow you to feel good in spite of being a "sinner" because you have paid the "church" so to speak, which has an exclusive lock on such forgiveness. As you can see, though, it's all a crock....

Business as usual for Republicans

I don't often discuss party politics, because I am mainly interested in principles, and am willing to accept any idea from either party, or a third party for that matter it it advances the goals of returning our nation to a Constitutional Republic. Unfortunately, the Democrat party lost me in 1978 when the radical leftists took over. The Republicans however have shown themselves to be gutless wonders, with the result that after their tenure in the majority in Congress, our country was even further from the Founders' vision. As a result, I am a man without a party,who did not see the selection of Michael Steele to the the RNC chairman as a positive step. Ken Blackwell would have been more to my taste.

Sandy Rios has a story today in Townhall.com entitled The Elephant in Lincoln's Once-Great Room. It is the story of Republicans, once again, pulling some shenanigans to put their favored candidate on the ballot instead of listening to the people and putting a principled conservative up. Go read the whole thing.

As Rush Limbaugh is fond of saying, wherever conservative ideas are tried, they work. But the Republican party seems embarrassed by us. They want a new base, the mushy middle, and conservatives they think will have nowhere else to go. Unfortunately for them, conservatives can stay at home, as many did rather than vote for McCain. It seems conservatives will have to apply that lesson again until they get it.

Update: For more on what conservatives are thinking see Q and O here. Eric Cantor has touted himself as "conservative" but from this it seems he must be comparing himself to Dennis Kucinich.