Archive for October, 2013

Liberty County, FL Sheriff Correctly Found Not Guilty

October 31, 2013

Jury nullifies false arrest of Nick Finch who supported Second Amendment, October 31, 2013

Nick Finch, the Florida sheriff arrested in June after he defended the Second Amendment, has been declared “not guilty” of the charges brought against him by the State of Florida, according to Richard Mack.

Sheriff Nick Finch (Facebook Photo)

The Liberty County Sheriff was charged with felony “official misconduct” and “falsifying public records” after he removed the arrest file of a suspect held on an unconstitutional gun charge but later released on his orders.

After closing arguments by prosecutors and the defense, the jury took less than 90 minutes to reach its verdict.

Finch said today on the Alex Jones Show that the judge and the prosecutors were “not surprised” over his acquittal.

“They knew that they had no case,” he said.

Finch is expected to return to his duties as sheriff.

During the trial, the sheriff testified that he released Floyd Eugene Parrish, who was arrested for unlawfully carrying a firearm, because he believed the Second Amendment trumped all state gun laws.

As we reported back in June, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement accused Finch of covering up the arrest of Floyd Eugene Parrish after releasing him from the Liberty County Jail.

On March 8, Sgt. James Joseph Hoagland of the Liberty County Sheriff’s Office arrested Parrish during a traffic stop after finding a .25 automatic pistol in Parrish’s right front pocket and a holstered revolver in his car, according to court records.

Parrish was then taken to the county jail.

After being notified of Parrish’s arrest, Finch took the arrest file and told jailers that Parrish would be released with no charges, according to investigators.

Finch also ordered both the pistol and revolver be returned.

Hoagland told the FDLE that he spoke to Finch about Parrish’s release and Finch told him he “believed in Second Amendment rights.”


Democrats Now Admit They Knew All Along that Millions Would Lose Their Existing Health Plans

October 30, 2013

Mike Adams, Natural News, October 30, 2013

The degree of betrayal found in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is finally coming to the surface… and it’s intense. As a top Democrat admitted today, the Democrats knew all along that Obamacare would cause millions to lose health care coverage. Yet they continued to promote it with premeditated lies such as, “You can keep your current health plan if you like it” and “your health insurance costs will be lower than a phone bill.”

“We knew that there would be some policies that would not qualify and therefore people would [lose their existing coverage],” said House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer in a article.

National Review goes on to report this astonishing exchange:

Asked by another reporter how repeated statements by Obama to the contrary weren’t “misleading,” Hoyer said “I don’t think the message was wrong. I think the message was accurate. It was not precise enough…[it] should have been caveated with — ‘assuming you have a policy that in fact does do what the bill is designed to do.’”

In other words, lying to the public is not “wrong.” It’s accurate but not precise!

This is how Democrats think, of course: lie to the public to gain their contrived support, and then when things go wrong, shove a gun in everyone’s face to force them to comply with their Big Government mandates. That’s the entire plan of Obamacare and most socialists: obedience at gunpoint. Mao would have been proud to call Obamacare his own.

Obama administration also knew that “millions could not keep their health insurance

The lies of the Obama administration are now so blatant and undeniable that even the mainstream media is starting to expose them. NBC News reported today that “millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.”

NBC News goes on to report:

…50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”

…the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.

Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”

Like everything else spouted by Obama, all these claims were of course outrageous lies.

Lies within lies wrapped in lies and packaged in the language of “benefits”

Obama is not merely a liar but a sociopathic liar who feels no remorse for the massive social cost of his actions. He deliberately misleads Americans into supporting a plan that was designed from the start to destroy the American economy and leave tens of millions of people medical bankrupt with no insurance whatsoever.

This isn’t simply a debate about who wins or loses, it’s an issue that impacts the lives of tens of millions of Americans. It now appears that 16 million Americans will lose their health insurance thanks to Obamacare, and employers are slashing job hours, employment positions and more. Obamacare is devastating the U.S. economy and culture like an economic apocalypse.

Here are just a few of the lies we’ve all been told by Obama and his criminal cohorts:

LIE #1) “The average family insurance plan will cost $2500 less per year.”

LIE #2) “You can keep your plan, period.” (Total lie!)

LIE #3) “You can keep your doctor.” (Vicious lie!)

LIE #4) “The ACA will only add $900 billion to the deficit over the next ten years.” (Mathematical lie.)

LIE #5) “This is all about providing affordable health insurance to nearly all Americans.” (In truth, it’s all about the utter destruction of the U.S. economy, workers and employers.)

Rate increases of 400% – 500% or more now common

As we’re all now discovering, Obamacare isn’t “affordable” health care; it’s health care mandated at price-gouging monopoly rates.

For example, as NBC News reports:

George Schwab, 62, of North Carolina, said he was “perfectly happy” with his plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield, which also insured his wife for a $228 monthly premium. But this past September, he was surprised to receive a letter saying his policy was no longer available. The “comparable” plan the insurance company offered him carried a $1,208 monthly premium and a $5,500 deductible.

Natural News reported on a case where one couple was being told they would have to pay 539% more for health care coverage, thanks to Obamacare. Their rates were going up from $212 per month to $1,356.60 per month.

For Obama to call these health care plans “affordable” is an outrageous lie, and it’s going to financially devastate millions of families across America who simply cannot afford these outlandish rate increases. Yes, even those who voted for Obamacare and optimistically supported Obamacare are going to be hit with higher rates, too.

Americans outraged at depth of multi-layered betrayal, lies, deceit by Obama and the Democrats

Here are just a few of the user comments on the revelation that Obama and the Democrats KNEW all this would happen but lied about it anyway:

What a low life piece of garbage steny hoyer is. The dems LIED to ALL Americans and don’t give a damn that they did. If this doesn’t outrage the people who bought into obamacare then this country is finished. Socialism has won. What a sad day for this once great country, America, land of the used to be free.

They knew and still they went along with the lie. The republicans tried and tried to warn everybody and were demonized for it by the media and the rest of the libs. I bet this still doesn’t wake the drones up from their stupor.

I guess people aren’t laughing at Ted Cruz anymore.

Did they also know that their agenda would be toxic to the business community, and that in the first year of the socialist’s second term, 90 million people would be unemployed? Did they know more people would require food stamps and disability payments? Did they know that millions of young people would be without jobs or hope? How much did they know? And WHY do they hate America?

Even back in 2009 when they were hiding behind locked doors, keeping the Republicans from finding out this stuff they had already decided to screw the population. You must be an idiot to support Democrats when they do stuff like that. Now the Republicans are demonized for trying to protect the citizens from this sleazy, mean spirited BS.

So on how many other occasions such as COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM are you also lying. At this point we will assume 100% of the time.

They KNEW and they LIED. It’s time to light up the Congressional switchboard.

To a liberal a lie is completely truthful as long as it suckers you.

“…I think the message was accurate.” – Thank you Steny, I’m sure it was our fault, we must have listened wrong.

Liars. And it’s none of their damned business what coverage is appropriate for anyone. Who made Obama a health care expert? As a 59 year old woman that is not having more children, I don’t need maternity coverage. With this regime, who knows what will happen tho? King Obama for sure. He needs to go, along with all of them.

I have no insurance, before obamacare I was responsible for 100% of my health care costs. After obamacare I’m still responsible for 100% of my health care costs, but I have to pay the government a fine out of the money I was going to pay for my health care with. Is this a great plan or what?

Report: Deportations Plummet in 2013, Lowest Since 2007

October 30, 2013

From The Washington Times by Stephen Dinan, October 30, 2013

U.S. authorities deported fewer immigrants in fiscal year 2013 than at any time since President Obama took office, according to secret numbers obtained by the Center for Immigration Studies which suggest Mr. Obama’s non-deportation policies have hindered removals of illegal immigrants.

**FILE** Immigration and Customs Enforcement is deporting fewer illegal immigrants this fiscal year, but a larger percentage of them have no criminal records. The numbers suggest that the Obama administration is struggling to meet its stated goals. (ICE via Associated Press)

Just 364,700 immigrants were removed in fiscal year 2013, according to internal numbers from U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement that CIS released Wednesday — down 11 percent from the nearly 410,000 who were deported in 2012.

The administration has testified to Congress that it has enough money to deport 400,000 every year, but Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at CIS, said Mr. Obama and the Homeland Security Department have placed so many illegal immigrants off-limits for deportations that they cannot find enough people to fulfill that quota.

“The policies that they’ve implemented, especially prosecutorial discretion and the new detainer policy, are dramatically suppressing interior enforcement,” Ms. Vaughan said. “Even though they are finding out about more illegal aliens than ever before, especially more criminal aliens, the ICE agents in the field have been ordered to look the other way.”

CIS said it obtained the numbers “despite a gag order” that ICE, which is part of the Homeland Security Department, imposed on its employees to keep the figures under wraps until they are finalized.

ICE spokeswoman Gillian Christensen said the agency has not tried to hide its new priorities, which have led to changes in the demographics of deportations.

“Over the course of this administration, DHS has set clear, common sense priorities to ensure that our finite enforcement resources are focused on public safety, national security, and border security,” she said. “ICE has been vocal about the shift in our immigration enforcement strategy to focus on convicted criminals, public safety and border security and our removal numbers illustrate this.”

The CIS report is bound to shake up the immigration debate going on in Congress right now.

Immigrant-rights advocates argue that Mr. Obama is removing too many people and have called for him to halt all deportations until Congress acts. But those who want to see a crackdown say the administration is already ignoring most illegal immigrants, and said the latest numbers back that up.

Ms. Vaughan said that ICE agents and officers are encountering more immigrants than even, including those with criminal records, which makes the drop in deportations more surprising. She said there’s a “target-rich environment” but the administration has hamstrung deportations.

The 364,700 deportations are the lowest since fiscal year 2007, which was in the middle of the last time Congress debated immigration.

But the CIS report said even the 364,700 figure could be misleadingly high. Ms. Vaughan said more than half of those are immigrants caught at the border but put through ICE deportation proceedings anyway, which helps inflate total deportation figures.

Mr. Obama and his appointees at the Homeland Security Department have issued several policies designed to put illegal immigrants in the interior of the U.S. off-limits from deportations.

Probably the most famous of those is called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which applies to so-called “Dreamers,” the young illegal immigrants who were usually brought to the U.S. by their parents and are considered among the most sympathetic cases in the immigration debate.

More than 11 months into operation, DACA had granted tentative legal status to 430,236 illegal immigrants.

But Ms. Vaughan said very few of those were ever in deportation proceedings in the first place, so their exclusion cannot explain the drop in removals.

Ms. Vaughan said that according to her preliminary statistics just 4 percent of deportations came from Homeland Security Investigations, which is the division responsible for worksite enforcement, anti-smuggling operations and tracking down immigrants who overstay their visas.

The administration says it is trying to focus on those with serious criminal records, but the CIS report challenges that, too.

Through the first 10 months of fiscal year 2013, ICE had removed just 128,441 criminal aliens — down 11 percent from the same period in 2012.

Government to Spend Twice as Much on Global Warming Than Border Security

October 30, 2013

From The New American by Raven Clabough, October 30, 2013

Estimates reveal that the federal government will spend more money on fighting global warming than it will on tightening border security. Global-warming spending is estimated to cost approximately $22.2 billion this year, twice as much as the $12 billion estimated for customs and border enforcement.

According to the White House, there are currently 18 federal agencies engaged in activities related to global warming. Those agencies fund programs that include scientific research, international climate assistance, renewable energy technology, and subsidies for renewable energy producers.

Republicans have criticized the administration for its global-warming efforts and have demanded more transparency. The online Daily Caller reported, “Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee have been calling on the heads of major federal agencies to testify on global warming activities.”

The efforts to acquire testimony have been mostly unsuccessful, however, with just the heads of the Energy Department and Environmental Protection Agency agreeing to testify in front of the House of Representatives.

“With billions of dollars currently being spent annually on climate change activities, Congress and the public should understand the scope of what the federal government is doing, how the billions of dollars are being spent, and what it will accomplish,” said Kentucky Republican Rep. Ed Whitfield. “Anyone who believes the committee ought to be focusing its attention on climate change related issues should be standing with us to get these answers.”

In the Senate, a hearing was held to discuss the immediate impacts of global warming, but Senate Republicans released a report rejecting many of the claims advanced by scientists and lawmakers about global warming. “Over nearly four decades, numerous predictions have had adequate time to come to fruition, providing an opportunity to analyze and compare them to today’s statistics,” reads the report from Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

In particular, Republicans have criticized efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. Still, the EPA is working toward imposing emissions caps on power plants across the country, standards that would negatively impact the coal industry.

But that may not be an unintended consequence. It has been revealed that the agenda behind environmental global-warming efforts, such as cap and trade, has more nefarious ends, which include wealth redistribution and virtually stunting economic growth.

Have you noticed that the term “global warming” has morphed into “climate change” in recent years? The simple explanation is that in the 1970s, the Progressives first attempted to convince the country that “global cooling” was the immediate threat. But by the 1980s, scientists refuted that theory, prompting the Progressives to turn their attention to “global warming.” Now that “green” scientists are in the uncomfortable position of trying to reconcile increased ice formations at the southern polar cap, long periods of cooler temperatures, etc., with global-warming theories, they have changed the environmental issue to “climate change.”

And assertions made by climate-change skeptics that there are ulterior motives behind climate-change legislation were confirmed by a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

During an interview with Germany’s NZZ Online, UN official Ottmar Edenhofer declared, “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

Edenhofer confirmed what many Americans have asserted all along: Cap and trade will penalize Americans and American industry. The American Chronicle article entitled “Cap-and-Trade Energy Tax will Cause Redistribution of Wealth Among States and Working Families” cites the Congressional Budget Office as stating that cap and trade would cost the average American household an extra $1,600 per year. It would increase the price for a gallon of gasoline between $0.61 to $2.53, and would increase electricity costs anywhere from 44 percent to 129 percent.

In 2009, the online site Our Changing Globe commented about cap and trade: “The intention is that the industrial world would pay the underdeveloped world huge sums of money for doing nothing at all, and you can easily imagine the bureaucracy and corruption that would occur if this nonsense were ever to come into being.”

It added, “The flawed idea behind Cap and Trade is that companies that were penalized would work hard to reduce their pollution, and even though the technology is presently not available and won’t be in the foreseeable future, Obama is promising that the U.S. will reduce its pollution by 80 percent, which would take it back to levels that existed before the industrial revolution.”

And assertions related to the threat posed by manmade global warming continue to collapse. According to the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), the human effect on climate is “likely to be small relative to natural variability, and whatever small warming is likely to occur will produce benefits as well as costs.”

Addressing reports produced by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the NIPCC indicates:

Global climate models produce meaningful results only if we assume we already know perfectly how the global climate works, and most climate scientists say we do not (Bray and von Storch, 2010). Moreover, it is widely recognized that climate models are not designed to produce predictions of future climate but rather what-if projections of many alternative possible futures (Trenberth, 2009). Postulates, commonly defined as “something suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief,” can stimulate relevant observations or experiments but more often are merely assertions that are difficult or impossible to test (Kahneman, 2011). Observations in science are useful primarily to falsify hypotheses and cannot prove one is correct (Popper, 1965, p. vii).

But the Obama administration contends that there is no longer a need for a debate on whether manmade global warming poses a real threat. “We have turned a corner on that issue,” said Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. “We are — including in our Congress — really past the issue of whether we need to respond.”

Senate Republicans continue to push for further evidence on the threat of global warming before throwing more money at the “problem.” “The American public should be deeply troubled to learn that EPA is actively working to increase energy prices based on predicted global temperature increases without first undertaking efforts to determine if temperatures are actually increasing to the extent predicted by the climate models they are using,” reads the Senate Republicans’ report.

Meanwhile, as the federal government continues to spend taxpayer money on global-warming initiatives, American border security continues to suffer. And while increased spending does not indicate quality service, the administration’s decision to assign twice as much spending toward global-warming efforts than security seems to reveal where the administration’s priorities are.

ObamaCare Enrolling Vastly More in Medicaid Than in Private Insurance

October 30, 2013

From The New American by Michael Tennant, October 30, 2013

Those who believe that the purpose of ObamaCare is ultimately to bring about single-payer, nationalized healthcare continue to be vindicated. The latest evidence: Most of the people getting coverage under the healthcare law are doing so via Medicaid, not private insurance — a trend that could spell disaster for patients, taxpayers, and insurers.

“Though the federal government has not yet released enrollment numbers at all, some state exchanges have revealed their Obamacare data,” reported the Daily Caller. “In early [sic] every case, Medicaid enrollment has exceeded new private insurance coverage.”

According to CBS News, “In Washington, of the more than 35,000 people newly enrolled, 87 percent signed up for Medicaid. In Kentucky, out of 26,000 new enrollments, 82 percent are in Medicaid. And in New York, of 37,000 enrollments, Medicaid accounts for 64 percent.” Oregon, meanwhile, had signed up 56,000 people for Medicaid by October 17 but not a single one for private insurance, noted the Washington Post.

“Obamacare is really just a massive Medicaid expansion,” Tarren Bragdon of the Foundation for Government Accountability told the Daily Caller.

Medicaid, a joint federal-state program originally intended to help the very poor obtain medical care at no cost, was expanded by the healthcare law to cover Americans earning up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, with the federal government picking up most of the tab. After the Supreme Court made the expansion optional, about half the states chose not to proceed with it. However, even those states opting out of expansion are still likely to experience a five-percent increase in Medicaid enrollment “because of intensive outreach efforts related to the health law and because the [law] makes it easier to sign up for coverage through the new online health insurance exchanges,” stated Kaiser Health News. In addition, wrote CBS, “Medicaid experts say … it’s easier to enroll in Medicaid than private insurance.”

While those newly obtaining Medicaid coverage may be rejoicing now, they — and other patients — may find that this new coverage isn’t the solution to their woes, said the Daily Caller:

Medicaid pays providers less than the cost of the care they provide … meaning the more Medicaid patients, the bigger loss for hospitals and medical providers.

Some of those providers may stop seeing Medicaid patients at all, meaning the newly covered patients may still face a dearth of quality care options.

Obamacare supporters have touted the program as an opportunity to get the uninsured out of emergency rooms. Use of emergency rooms for everyday care by the uninsured causes crowding and puts taxpayers on the hook for expensive care. But if those signing up for Obamacare are overwhelmingly choosing Medicaid, that may not fix the problem.

“Medicaid patients use the ER four times more frequently than the uninsured or those with private insurance,” Bragdon said, “so what the legacy of this Obamacare Medicaid expansion will likely be is more wait time and more crowding of ERs, not less.”

The cost for all this new coverage, whether funneled through federal or state governments, ultimately comes out of taxpayers’ pockets. Many of those same taxpayers will also be facing higher health-insurance premiums under ObamaCare and will surely be rankled to find that they must give up even more of their dwindling earnings so that others can get free coverage.

Insurance companies are not happy about the enrollment imbalance between Medicaid and private insurance, either. One of the keys to making ObamaCare work — assuming it can be made to work at all — is getting young, healthy people to buy private insurance. The idea is that the premiums paid by these people, who will collect few benefits, will offset the cost of covering all the people with chronic conditions who will now be buying insurance since the law forbids insurers to turn them down or charge them higher rates.

“Either the private insurance enrollments come up somewhere around the expected amount or there’s going to be a problem,” former Medicaid director Gail Wilensky told CBS. “You need a volume and you need a mix of people that are healthy as well as high users in private insurance, in order to have it be sustainable.”

If private insurers fail because of ObamaCare, though, don’t expect the government to take the blame. As Sheldon Richman has observed, “No matter how much the government controls the economic system, any problem will be blamed on whatever small zone of freedom that remains.” That, in turn, will give the government an excuse to take over even more of the healthcare system, as many ObamaCare proponents have desired all along.

Maybe — to borrow a software engineering cliché — the spike in Medicaid enrollments at the expense of private insurance isn’t a bug in ObamaCare but a feature of it.

ObamaCare Killing Employer-sponsored Health Insurance — Millions Affected

October 30, 2013

From The New American by William F. Jasper, October 28, 2013

Home Depot, GE, Trader Joe’s, Walgreen, IBM, and Time Warner are just a few of the major corporations that have announced they will stop sponsoring health insurance plans, either for current employees, retired employees, or both. Those workers who were formerly covered under these plans will have to find new coverage from the tax-subsidized ObamaCare exchanges or private exchanges.

This is certain to impact millions of American workers. Millions more will feel the pain of the ObamaCare mandates, as businesses of all sizes cut the number of full-time employees and cut the hours of part-time help to avoid the costly premiums ObamaCare will impose on all Employer Sponsored Insurance (ESI) plans for businesses with 50 or more employees. Even though the Obama administration agreed to delay ObamaCare’s employer mandate until 2015, many companies are moving now to avoid facing punitive actions from the government later. Big companies, understandably, make the headlines when they announce plans to lay off workers or cut hours or benefits. But far more workers are likely to be affected by the small- and medium-sized companies that are being forced to make similar decisions for the same reasons.

The Orlando Sentinel, for instance, reported on October 2 that Disney World’s health insurance plan for its 24,000 part-time workers will be illegal next year under the the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as ObamaCare. Disney is expected to drop insurance altogether for part-timers, matching moves by two other employment giants in the Orlando area, Universal Orlando and SeaWorld.

As The New American reported last week (“ObamaCare Causing Millions of Americans to Lose Their Current Health Plans”), as many as 16 million Americans who currently have purchased their own health insurance policies are likely to lose their existing health care plans due to ObamaCare mandates. Hundreds of thousands of policy holders, we noted, have already received notice from their insurers that their policies are being canceled. And, contrary to the promise of President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and other champions of the ACA, replacement policies under ObamaCare are proving to be much higher in price and to include even bigger out-of-pocket deductibles.

As we have noted previously, a U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce study entitled “The Looming Premium Rate Shock,” which was released in May, provides stunning information on the expected premium hikes that will be caused by implementation of the ACA. According to the committee’s findings, “consumers purchasing health insurance on the individual market may face premium increases of nearly 100 percent on average, with potential highs eclipsing 400 percent.” Meanwhile, “small businesses can expect average premium increases in the small group market of up to 50 percent, with potential highs over 100 percent.” These are just a few of the grim realities mentioned in the report.

However, private businesses are not the only entities that will be dropping their insurance and cutting hours, in order to meet the ACA mandates. The Washington Post reported:

The Fairfax County Water Authority said that it will likely drop insurance coverage for its nearly 400 employees if taxes on generous health-care plans take effect as planned in 2018 under the federal Affordable Care Act.

The public utility, a quasi-governmental entity that provides water to 1.7 million Northern Virginians, said that the tax would eventually cost it millions of dollars a year.

“It is irrefutable that the ACA is fatally flawed,” wrote Burton Jay Rubin, chairman of the Fairfax County Water Authority’s government relations committee. “If it is intended to make health care coverage available to those who do not have it, it does so only by jeopardizing the coverage earned by those who have it.”

Like many other executives, Rubin has concluded that it will be cheaper for the utility simply to pay the $2,000 fine it would be penalized for each employee it fails to cover, than to pay the expected $13,450 to cover each individual and $33,300 per employee family for coverage by 2018. “If we provide our workforce with no health care coverage, we merely pay the Government $2,000 for each employee,” Rubin wrote.

That is the same calculation that many other employers will be forced to make.


Related articles:

ObamaCare Causing Millions of Americans to Lose Their Current Health Plans

Home Depot Dumps 20,000 Employees Onto ObamaCare Exchanges

New K-9 Officer Joins Fayette County, PA Drug Task Force

October 29, 2013

From by Marilyn Forbes, October 26, 2013

Fulfilling a dream to become a canine handler, Perryopolis Borough Police Corporal and Fayette County Drug Task Force Member Jason Hayes has a new partner, Mako, a 18-month-old Belgium Malinois.

“Ever since I was in the police academy I wanted to be a K-9 handler, but there is so much work involved and there aren’t a lot of positions open,” Hayes said.

Hayes has been with the Fayette Drug Task Force for several years, and last year the Perryopolis Police Department thought that the addition of a K-9 dog would be a great asset to the streets of the county, but the question was how could they raise the needed funding.

“We were looking to get donations and see how we could do it,” Hayes said.

But a generous donation from Dr. Charles and Alison Tucker of Rostraver Township made the reality of the K-9 occur much quicker, as the pair decided to donate the needed funding to acquire the dog for the task force and partner with Hayes.

 According to Alison Tucker, the dog was trained by Mike Garrow who owns and operates Garrow Canine training in Charleroi.  Garrow has trained numerous canines for police departments and organizations over the years.

“He (Hayes) had spoke of his other jobs and the dog was mentioned. My husband and I believe that you should not take from the community without giving back, and this was a way we could give back. It was something that we could do that we were honored to do.”

“The timing was perfect,” Hayes said of the acquisition of the funds from the Tuckers’ in the spring. “The funding became available, and Mako was available. It worked out perfectly.”

The pair began training at the Garrow facility in March, and Hayes needed to do some juggling with his busy schedule to make the training work.

“I went part time because of my schedule, so it took longer,” Hayes said, explaining that Mako had only basic training when they were paired so a lot of work was involved to get him up and ready. “He has been fantastic so far.”

Mako was recently certified in narcotics and will now be put to work when and where he is needed, working with Hayes on his shift in Perryopolis and throughout the county.

“He will go to whoever requests him,” Hayes said. “We’ve already been out.”

Hayes said that the pair now also will be starting patrol classes at Garrow’s, which will add even more training.

Hayes said that Mako is now a part of his family, sharing the home with wife Amber and their chocolate Lab Coco.

“He is such a good dog, and he has become part of my family,” Hayes said. “He knows when he has his vest on that its time to work but when his vest comes off, he’s just like any other dog.”

Tucker said that she and her husband couldn’t be more pleased that they were able to bring Mako to the county and to the area to help with narcotics searches and raids.

“With Mako out there, we believe it will be a little safer,” Tucker said. “He will help to make the kids safer, make the community safer, and keep Jason safe. Our police officers are out there every day, putting their lives on the line and they need all the help that they can get. This was just something that we could do and we were glad to do it.”

Mako also soon will receive his official badge and start his extended training in a few weeks.

To see a picture of Corporal Hayes and Macko, click the link below:

Watch Your Guns Around Obamacare

October 29, 2013

From by Rachel Alexander, October 21, 2013

What does gun control have to do with health care? As odd as it seems, Obamacare contains provisions that jeopardize gun ownership, especially for veterans. Anti-gun provisions were added to initial drafts of Obamacare legislation under the pretext of prohibiting people with mental illness – which can include PTSD – from owning guns. Fortunately, the NRA stepped in and got some of the worst language revised last December. Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c. prohibits the creation of a firearms database and stops doctors from disclosing or collecting information relating to a patient’s firearms. Ironically, this provision was probably the only positive result of most members of Congress not bothering to read the bill before voting on it.

However, the provision does not go as far as prohibiting doctors from asking their patients if there are any firearms in their home. In January, Obama issued 23 executive actions and orders regarding firearms. Order 16 stressed that Obamacare does not prohibit doctors from asking patients about their firearms, and the fact sheet includes, “Clarify that no federal law prevents health care providers from warning law enforcement authorities about threats of violence.” What constitutes a “threat of violence” could be very arbitrary. This puts doctors in a difficult position by suggesting they act as pseudo-law enforcement agents. It is damaging to doctor-patient privilege. If doctors have a patient with PTSD or mental illness, and they fail to ask the patient about their firearms, or report them to law enforcement, they could be on the hook later. It encourages them to err on the side of snooping into their patients’ guns. This is especially troubling considered the definition of mental illness keeps expanding.

The state of Florida implemented legislation that would have severely restricted a doctor’s ability to ask a patient about guns at home, but a federal court struck it down as unconstitutional. After the NRA got that provision added, the organization backed off on pressing for further changes, no doubt because trying to get more changes done at that time would have been impossible with the Democratic-controlled Senate and presidency. But there are still areas within our healthcare laws that could prohibit Americans from owning firearms – specifically our veterans.

In the 1990s, the Clinton administration ordered the Department of Veteran Affairs to share information about 90,000 veterans considered “mentally defective” by the VA to the FBI, so they could be added to the national instant check system (NICS) as prohibited possessors. To be declared “mentally defective” by the VA does not require an adjudication; it could be a doctor merely finding that a veteran has a mental illness and “lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.” That could easily be held to apply to a veteran with PTSD who is simply in a wheelchair. The definition of “mental defective” by Veteran Affairs expanded under Clinton in 1999. The number of Americans now in the prohibited possessors database has increased to over 550,000 and 11 percent of them are veterans. Nearly 40 percent of veterans are believed to have PTSD.

Under Obamacare, federal agencies like the ATF can still pore over health records and determine who has mental issues or PTSD. There is nothing in Obamacare that prohibits another federal agency from compiling a database of gun owners.

Gun Owners of America warns that the next step will be linking insurance with gun ownership. Some private insurers, including State Farm and Prudential, drop homeowners from their policies for owning certain types of guns or not using trigger locks. It’s not difficult to see how this could be adopted as a requirement of Obamacare in the vague name of “health.”

The problem with linking gun control with health care is that everyone knows gun crimes are almost always caused by criminals who illegally obtained the weapons, not law-abiding gun owners. Painting all veterans who have PTSD as potential criminals isn’t going to stop the real criminals. There are hundreds of shooting and hunting excursions available for veterans today to specifically help them cope with PTSD. To arbitrarily exclude all of these patriots from rehabilitation with proven results is political manipulation at its worst. Taya Kyle, the widow of the American Sniper who was shot by a mentally ill veteran while helping him shoot for rehabilitation, now speaks out against restricting Second Amendment rights. It wasn’t the killer’s PTSD that caused the murder, he had a much more troubled history than just PTSD.

Organizations like the NRA and Gun Owners of America continue to expose these sneaky backdoor attempts at gun control. There are plenty of health-care groups clamoring to have Obamacare limit gun ownership, like the American Academy of Pediatrics. They’re not going to stop, as revisions can still be added to Obamacare to tweak it. David Satcher, a surgeon general under President Bill Clinton, who headed the Centers for Disease Control in the 1990s, is blatantly open that the goal is to create a national database of gun owners through Obamacare. “Privacy needs to be protected, but it’s important that this kind of data be gathered,” he said. These feel-good measures actually endanger safety, not promote it. As the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre says, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

U.S. History Textbook Continues Tradition of Misinterpreting Second Amendment

October 29, 2013

From The Buckeye Firearms Association, October 24, 2013

Recent news out of Texas has pro-rights parents reaching for their children’s backpacks after it was revealed that a popular textbook used to teach high school advanced placement U.S. history courses includes a shocking misinterpretation of the Second Amendment. Published by AMSCO School Publications, Inc., and titled, United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Exam, the 2010 edition of the textbook incorrectly summarizes the Second Amendment as meaning, “The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia.” The Canejo Valley School District of Thousand Oaks, Calif., has made a copy of the entire text of the widely-used volume available on its website.

The view offered by the textbook’s authors is sometimes referred to as the “sophisticated collective right” interpretation of the Second Amendment. This interpretation posits that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms only in connection with their service in a state militia. This reading of the amendment gained favor with anti-gun activists when the rejection of their previously held interpretation, that the Second Amendment was a “collective right” of states to arm militias, became unavoidably apparent.

These two misinterpretations, however, were conclusively put to rest by the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. Justice Scalia’s majority opinion holds that the amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” and that its use of the phrase bear arms, “in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.”

With this decision, the popular understanding of the Second Amendment as an individual right unrelated to service in an organized militia was indisputably stamped with the authority of the nation’s highest court.

The error in the AMSCO textbook was spotted by sharp-eyed Brie Getts, a junior at John H. Guyer High School in Denton, Texas, who alerted her father to the passage. Brie’s father, Sean Getts, subsequently publicized the excerpt on Facebook, believing that the authors “interpreted the amendment in favor of gun control.” Sean’s post went viral, prompting a response from the Denton Independent School District in which a spokesperson assured parents that “Denton ISD history teachers are disseminating the correct information on the Second Amendment.”

Soon after the John H. Guyer High School incident, the internet was abuzz with another example of textbook malfeasance. This book, titled, The Americans, and published by McDougal Littell (now Holt McDougal), contains a passage in a section on the Bill of Rights that asserts, “The Second and Third Amendments – grant citizens the right to bear arms as members of a militia of citizen-soldiers and prevent the government from housing troops in private homes in peacetime.”

Having published the book in 2007, and without the benefit of the Heller decision, the McDougal Littell text’s authors are guilty of a somewhat lesser error than those of the AMSCO title. However, the individual rights interpretation was still well-known in 2007. Indeed, in March of that year, it was validated in Parker v. District of Columbia, the federal appellate case that would become Heller in the Supreme Court. Another federal appellate case, United States v. Emerson, endorsed the individual rights view in 2001. Thus, the text’s lopsided presentation of the right is still worthy of criticism.

To AMSCO book co-author John J. Newman’s credit, he admitted when questioned about the controversy by Fox News that the summary of the Second Amendment in the 2010 edition was outdated –having been written prior to the Heller decision–and that it will be corrected in a new edition of the textbook for 2014. Curiously, despite their failure to update important developments regarding the Bill of Rights for the 2010 edition, the pair managed to find the time to include updated sections on the 2008 presidential election and Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office.

Regarding the AMSCO book, Second Amendment attorney and scholar Richard Halbrook told Fox News, “I don’t think the definition was put in the book in good faith.” History shows that Halbrook’s skepticism is warranted, as the problem of misinterpretations and one-sided descriptions of the Second Amendment in materials distributed through our nation’s schools is longstanding and oftentimes deliberate.

Previously, the NRA has solicited the public for examples of how the Second Amendment is being portrayed in textbooks. To sample just a few: In 1985, the NRA received numerous complaints from concerned parents regarding the popular 1984 edition of Magruder’s American Government textbook, prompting NRA to contact the authors. In the book’s discussion of the Second Amendment, the authors took the indefensible position that “[i]ts words were added to the Constitution solely to protect the right of each State to keep a militia…. It does not guarantee any person ‘the right to keep and bear arms’ free from any restriction by government; nor was it written to do so.” The 1993 edition of Prentice Hall’s textbook American Government features a section which states, “The 2nd Amendment is widely misunderstood. It was added to the Constitution to protect the right of each state to keep a militia.” And the authors of a 1992 textbook published by Houghton Mifflin titled, A History of the United States, win the blue ribbon for most bizarre interpretation of a constitutional right, as the book claims, “Amendment 2 guarantees that the federal government cannot deny states the right to enlist citizens in the militia and to provide them with training in the use of weapons.”

In 1987, Handgun Control, Inc. (now Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence) produced a propaganda packet for teachers aimed at schoolchildren in grades 7-12. Ironically, its release coincided with the bicentennial of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Titled Guns & the Constitution, the anti-rights package was replete with misleading pamphlets, a classroom video and poster, and activity sheets that encouraged students to view the amendment as a collective right or simply as an outdated relic.

Four years later, to coincide with the bicentennial of the Bill of Rights, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence produced a document titled, Teaching the Bill of Rights: The Case of the Second Amendment. Its authors described it as, “A Critique of Existing Educational Materials and Suggestions for Change.” The report was aimed at ensuring textbooks portrayed the collective rights view as authoritative and dismissed the correct individual right interpretation. “This Second Amendment myth must be debunked,” it stated, “we think the time has come to call upon textbook publishers.” Brady touted the success of the campaign, stating, “Several major publishers have committed themselves to substantial revisions of their texts.”

That these incorrect interpretations of the Second Amendment continue to plague our schools following the Heller decision is deplorable and inexcusable. The best way to counter such falsehoods is simply by bringing them to light. That’s why we encourage anyone who discovers an obvious misinterpretation of the Second Amendment in their child’s, or their own, school materials to alert the NRA-ILA by sending us a copy of the offending materials at, or by mail at NRA-ILA Research and Information Division, 11250 Waples Mill Rd., Fairfax, VA 22030. Just as engaged and informed voters are what make gun owners a force at the ballot box, engaged and informed pro-rights parents and students, like Sean and Brie Getts, can effect positive change and promote accuracy of instruction in our schools.

U.S. Senator: UN Arms Trade Treaty Violates Second Amendment

October 29, 2013

From The New American by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D., October 25, 2013

There are few acts of government that contribute more to the rapid subjugation of its citizens than disarmament. Fortunately, resistance to the United Nations’ plan to do just that is growing.

Earlier this week, The New American reported on a letter to President Obama penned by a bipartisan coalition of 50 senators informing the president that the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty was dead on arrival in the Senate.

On Thursday, one of the signatories of that letter, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), shown below, said that the international gun grab “violates the Second Amendment rights of Tennesseans and all Americans.”

Lamar Alexander: UN Arms Trade Treaty Violates Second Amendment

“I am opposed to any United Nations action that undermines our Second Amendment and threatens our country’s sovereignty, and the Arms Trade Treaty that the Obama administration is considering does both,” Alexander said in a statement published on his website. 

“The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty violates the Second Amendment rights of Tennesseans and all Americans by failing to protect the lawful ownership and use of firearms. Agreeing to the treaty would also threaten our nation’s sovereignty, as well as the U.S. Senate’s constitutional role of advice and consent by allowing the U.N. to amend the treaty in the future.”

Alexander’s appraisal of the agreement is accurate. The treaty, signed in September on behalf of President Obama and the United States by Secretary of State John Kerry, contains provisions that would subject U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations and would substantially infringe on the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment.

First, the Arms Trade Treaty grants a monopoly over all weaponry in the hands of the very entity (approved regimes) responsible for over 300 million murders in the 20th century. 

Furthermore, the treaty leaves private citizens powerless to oppose future slaughters. 

An irrefutable fact of armed violence unaddressed by the UN in its gun grab is that all the murders committed by all the serial killers in history don’t amount to a fraction of the brutal killings committed by “authorized state parties” using the very weapons over which they will exercise absolute control under the terms of the Arms Trade Treaty.

Article 2 of the treaty defines the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions. The right to own, buy, sell, trade, or transfer all means of armed resistance, including handguns, is denied to civilians by this section of the Arms Trade Treaty.

Article 3 places the “ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms covered under Article 2” within the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions, as well.

Article 4 rounds out the regulations, also placing all “parts and components” of weapons within the scheme.

Perhaps the most immediate threat to the rights of gun owners in the Arms Trade Treaty is found in Article 5. Under the title of “General Implementation,” Article 5 mandates that all countries participating in the treaty “shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list.”

This list should “apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms.”

Mark it down: If the treaty is ratified by the United States or if its provisions are enforced by executive order, within months the federal government (likely under the management of the Department of Homeland Security) would begin compiling a list of who owns, buys, sells, trades, or transfers any firearm, as well as the ammunition, parts, and components of those weapons. 

After creating this database, the federal government would be required under the provisions of Article 5(4) of the Arms Trade Treaty to “provide its national control list to the Secretariat, which shall make it available to other States Parties.”

That’s right. The UN treaty demands that the list of gun and ammunition owners not only be in the hands of our own government, but be sent to foreign regimes, as well. This provision would guarantee that should an American owner of a legally purchased firearm decide to emigrate, he will be on the radar of the ruling regime in his new home.

Americans are right to recognize this registry as the first step toward confiscation. 

Without such a registry, it would be impossible to monitor weapons transfers effectively because governments can’t track weapons exchanges and transfers unless they know who has them to begin with.

Article 12 adds to the record-keeping requirement, mandating that the list include “the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms,” as well as the identity of the “end users” of these items.

In very clear terms, ratification of the Arms Trade Treaty by the United States would require that the U.S. government force gun owners to add their names to the national registry. Citizens would be required to report the amount and type of all firearms and ammunition they possess.

Section 4 of Article 12 of the treaty requires that the list be kept for at least 10 years.

Finally, the agreement demands that national governments take “appropriate measures” to enforce the terms of the treaty, including civilian disarmament. If these countries can’t get this done on their own, however, Article 16 provides for UN assistance, specifically including help with the enforcement of “stockpile management, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes.”

In fact, a “voluntary trust fund” will be established to assist those countries that need help from UN peacekeepers or other regional forces to disarm their citizens.

Despite these open and hostile threats to the right to keep and bear arms, there are many who believe that the Arms Trade Treaty would become the law of the United States if the Senate were to ratify the treaty.

While that is the process that the Constitution establishes for the implementation of treaties, fundamental principles of construction and constitutional law dictate that no treaty that violates the Constitution can become the supreme law of the land.

In the case of the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty, there is no doubt that regardless of presidential signatures or congressional consent, this treaty cannot pass constitutional muster and therefore will never be the valid law of the land. 

Unless, of course, Americans once again acquiesce to Obama’s assumption of illegal authority and relinquish their rights and weapons regardless of the reasons they should not do so.

Finally, citizens must understand a very important nuance of Secretary Kerry’s assurance in his speech that the Arms Trade Treaty isn’t about taking away freedom, “it is about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors.”

Americans must remember that Kerry, Obama, and the UN consider gun owners to be “terrorists” and “rogue actors,” thus subject to seizure of their firearms in the name of “international peace and global security.”

For John Kerry and Barack Obama, the confiscation of weapons from civilians is an act of, as Kerry said when he signed the agreement at a press event at UN headquarters in New York, “advancing important humanitarian goals.” 

Senator Alexander and 49 of his colleagues recognize it as is a giant leap toward enslavement, however.

Lawmakers and their constituents determined to thwart the president’s plan to disarm them would be wise to remember the words of George Washington, who said:

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.