Communists rally behind Obama to disarm Americans

Although the majority of the American people are justifiably opposed to the blatant attempt by our federal government to unduly restrict the people’s right to own firearms, Obama has made friends once again with the Communist Party in his assault on American freedom.

Communists argue “no government, especially one that is new and fragile, has ever authorized citizens to arm themselves against it,” and pleads with all Americans to stand with President Obama and support a government monopoly on force. Communists are asking Americans to willingly support their own demise.

In a recent posting on the “People’s World” web site – an official publication of the Communist Party – it is argued that the second amendment “fraud” was only perpetrated by “arch-right-wing” Supreme Court appointee Antonin Scalia. The second amendment was intended to properly resource the newly standing United States Army against insurrection and was never, they argue, meant to allow personal ownership of firearms.

Perhaps the Communist Party should be reminded that at the time of the Constitution’s birth, gun ownership was about as prevalent as air itself. Guns were the American people’s way of protecting themselves. Even if the Communist Party’s interpretation of the second amendment is accurate, the 10th amendment, which forbids the federal government from placing restrictions on the American people unless constitutionally authorized to do so, covers gun ownership in the United States. Either way, Americans are constitutionally authorized to gun ownership, through and through. Our founders, who were clearly aware that any desire to remove guns from the people’s hands would be met with a swift (and armed) uprising, were smart enough not to restrict gun ownership in our new country.

The posting also rails against the NRA, “right wing extremists” and even throws the requisite Fox News into the mix for good measure, and argues that it is our “moral obligation” to stand with President Obama and his systematic efforts to disarm the American people, law by law. Americans have no right, according to Communists, to own firearms. Only the government is elite enough to bear arms against the population.

Communists argue that the United States suffers from one of the worst gun problems in the world, claiming 30,000 Americans lose their lives every year from guns, while other nations – with stricter gun controls – apparently slide under the radar of gun violence. Perhaps Communists simply are not aware of the extremely high rates of gun-related homicides in a wide array of foreign nations, like Columbia, who scores highest in the world in homicides per 100,000 citizens. Guatemala, Mexico, Costa Rica and Barbados all have higher numbers of homicides per 100,000 people than the United States. Gun ownership is not permitted in Costa Rica or Barbados.

The Communist Party also neglected to mention that of the 30,000 deaths per year from guns, more than half are suicides – hardly a valid statistic to use in a battle cry against firearms.

Perhaps if Communists truly wished to address the issue of gun violence, they would instead focus on our prescription drug culture and medical industry that loads our nation’s children up with untold amounts of stimulants, depressants and other so-called powerful pain relievers – for it is these mind altering drugs, which are perfectly legal, that drive so many of our people to do wild and crazy things, including mercilessly kill.

But for the Communist Party and the gun control movement as a whole, it’s not about guns. It’s about control.

Communists are standing proud in their assault of freedom with President Obama, and Americans would be wise to remain steadfastly opposed to the removal of firearms from the population. A disarmed society is an easy-to-control society. Government knows this. Any nation with large, powerful and controlling governments know this. Communists know this, quite well.

When it comes to the ability to own guns, these “extremists”, as communists call them, are full-blown patriots. They are literally the only force between the government and the complete removal of all firearms from the American people, leaving us helpless and sitting ducks to any force, any danger, any consequence of a distinct lack of protection for ourselves, our families and our freedoms. Obama might have a friend in the Communist Party, but we have friends in the liberty movement.

Liberty, after all, is the reason our great nation exists today.

Gov’t to spend $25m installing useless seatbelts in buses

Posted by Steve Adcock

Despite convincing evidence that seat belts provide no additional safety for passengers riding on school and commercial buses, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will push forward a plan to require all new buses to come equipped with seat belts.

The plan will cost an additional $25m annually. The NHTSA says the plan may save up to 8 lives a year.

Ironically, the government’s own safety regulators had nixed similar plans in the passed due to overwhelming evidence that seat belts provide very little benefit to passengers of buses, which are already built under strict safety standards. More ironically, the NHTSA also refuted assumptions that seat belts improve safety just a short time ago. They argued that there is no guarantee that passengers will use the seat belts, and improper use of the belts may increase the risk of injuries. Further, more children get killed around school buses than in them, according to the NHTSA, and there is concern that some kids may use belts as weapons to choke other passengers.

Despite the NHTSA’s own findings, the government is moving forward with additional seat belt regulations. The new law will not require current commercial buses to install seat belts, only new buses. Buses equipped with seat belts typically run an additional $13,000 a piece. Many fear poorer school districts will avoid buying newer buses and instead stick with older models, which may be more dangerous due to their age and mechanical wear.

The government seems steadfastly focused on spending money and implementing piles of legislation, each year, that amount to very little benefit, if any. Useless seat belt regulations are another example of the government practically falling over itself, even after its own transportation safety board recommended otherwise, to waste taxpayer money.

Arizona voters reject bill that would solidify two-party system

Posted by Steve Adcock

Arizona residents gave third parties some good news last November as state residents rejected Proposition 121 that would have excluded any third party from the general election in the state of Arizona, a result that the Libertarian party says is proof that informed voters are generally supportive of challengers to the status quo.

From the Chairman of the Arizona Libertarian party, Warren Severin:

“It started as an uphill fight and it stayed that way, all the way. And, we won!” Severin said.

“Mid-summer of 2011, an ex-mayor of Phoenix decided that what was good for California surely must be good for Arizona. So, he began a ballot initiative to amend the Arizona Constitution to replace much of Arizona’s election code (‘Title 16’) with a top-two system. Unlike a legislative change, a constitutional amendment is the way to get something implemented so that it isn’t easily reversed a few years down the road, when folks figure out it was a bad idea. And, a ballot initiative is a sneaky way to implement a Constitutional amendment. Instead of requiring a two-thirds majority to pass in the legislature, it takes a mere 50 percent of voters at the polls.

“There was serious money, by Arizona standards, behind the duplicitously named ‘Open Government Committee’ and their Proposition 121. Overall the committee spent over $1.3 million to get the measure on the ballot and publicize it.

“Arizona’s major media outlets, including the Arizona Republic, lined up behind Prop 121, running favorable editorials and letters to the editor throughout the campaign.

“The pro publicity was extremely effective. In November 2011, one year before the election, Arizona State University Morrison Institute for Public Policy conducted a poll to gauge the support for such an initiative. The poll showed that voters who had an opinion were 2:1 in favor of the initiative.

“Opposition to Prop 121 started with a heads-up email from then-LNC chair Mark Hinkle to me, the Arizona state chair, noting that a top-two ballot proposition had been filed with the Arizona secretary of state the day before. Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News, quickly made contact with the Arizona LP (AZLP) to offer his help. A joint meeting of the AZLP and Arizona Green Party (AZGP) boards was quickly convened in my living room. Richard Winger flew in for the meeting. At that meeting, it was agreed that AZLP and AZGP would join forces in opposition to the proposition. While we would not speak for each other, we would at every opportunity reinforce our joint opposition, and we would collaborate on opportunities to do so. We very quickly found another ally, the League of Women Voters of Arizona.

“There was tight communication between these groups for the duration of the fight. All opportunities for speaking and written opposition were quickly communicated among us. We all took every opportunity, whether online or in the printed press or public speaking. Winger provided documentation and historical context. Before long, the press took note that there was tightly knit opposition. In Arizona, the secretary of state publishes a booklet of pro and con statements about the various resolutions, mailed to every voter. The AZLP alone was responsible for three separate statements in that booklet.

“Reinforcements began to arrive. Meetings with local Tea Parties were fruitful. Mark Rogalski, a local activist lawyer, joined the team. Mark successfully petitioned the secretary of state to have the wording of Prop 121 on the ballot and in the voter guide changed to something fair to both the proponents and opponents.

“This was critical to informing voters of what they were voting for. Wording that favored proponents in the California and Washington ballot initiatives may be the biggest reason they passed in those states.

“Americans for Responsible Leadership, a group of conservative Arizona business leaders, formed a group called Save Our Vote Arizona. This group and Michael Liburdi provided legal counsel during the summer. Court challenges were launched on two fronts — the constitutionality of the proposition in regard to Arizona’s ‘single subject’ rule for ballot propositions as well as the legitimacy of the signatures on the petitions. Although both actions failed, they raised public awareness.

“Local Ron Paul supporters began to see the detrimental effects that Prop 121 would have on the broader Freedom Movement and took up the fight against top-two.

“Christina Tobin and her Free and Equal Elections Foundation were valuable. Christina herself made a tour through Arizona in opposition to Prop 121, speaking at the Goldwater Institute and a host of other venues all across the state.

“By late summer unofficial polls rumored that Prop 121 might be in trouble. Then, the icing on the cake — in October, Save Our Vote Arizona put $400,000 into a final anti–Prop 121 mail advertising campaign.

“On election day, the results were profound. The proposition that had started a year earlier with 2:1 voter approval lost by a 2:1 margin, despite the fact that the proponents outspent the opposition by 3:1. We all pulled together with good communication and cooperation, and the electoral process performed as it should. Sometimes I think the system might just work.”

No need to apologize, Phil; taxes plague us all

Posted by Steve Adcock

Professional PGA golfer Phil Michelson released a statement apologizing to his fans and those who felt insulted after the left-handed golfer said that due to extremely high state taxes in California, some “drastic changes” are looming in the near future, including a possible move out of the state.

“Finances and taxes are a personal matter, and I should not have made my opinions on them public,” Mickelson said in a statement. “I apologize to those I have upset or insulted, and assure you I intend not to let it happen again.”

A couple weeks ago, Mickelson had broached the subject of politics during a Pebble Beach Pro-Am conference call. After his final round last Sunday, Mickelson was asked to elaborate on what he meant by his comments. ”There are going to be some drastic changes for me because I happen to be in that zone that has been targeted both federally and by the state, and it doesn’t work for me right now,” he said. “So I’m going to have to make some changes.”

Is there anyone out there who would honestly feel insulted by another person expressing discontentment with having to pay more than 60% of his or her income to the state? Our tax system is a disgraceful mess and incomprehensible by the majority of Americans. As a taxpayer, I would be more insulted if nobody found fault with our clearly lopsided progressive system of taxation.

The public was both supportive and critical of Mickelson’s comments. Some mocked the golfer, who pulled in close to $45 million last year, for complaining about taxes while making so much money. But Mickelson has no reason to apologize for “insulting” anybody. While talk of politics is probably not the best course of action for any public sports figure, milking the rich out of their money has no place in a free society and it is perfectly natural for people to protect their earnings. If Mickelson does end up moving, it once again proves a point that we’ve made plenty throughout SmallGovTimes.com – that if you milk the rich, you lose the rich. And what state doesn’t want their tax revenue, or in the case of business owners, their jobs?

Rich Perry has already invited Mickelson to move to Texas, which has no state income taxes. Many golfers live in Texas or Florida because neither state collects income tax. Tiger Woods admitted to moving to Florida for precisely that reason back in the middle 90s. Mickelson, a native of San Diego, lived in Scottsdale, AZ for several years before moving back to California. California residents are the highest taxed in the nation.

Actress wants to ban all “semi-automatic” guns

Posted by Steve Adcock

After another school shooting in the Lone Star State that left three people injured and both suspected shooters in custody, actress and so-called human rights activist Mia Farrow called on Congress to take decisive action and ban all semi-automatic guns.

“That gun-shooting is ‘fun’ doesn’t cut it anymore. And delusional paranoia is not a justifiable reason to keep weapons. Ban semi-auto guns,” wrote Farrow in a series of Twitter posts. American’s second amendment rights, she also believes, must be adjusted.

Little does Farrow probably know, but semi-automatic guns cover just about every gun short of hunting rifles. A simple revolver, for instance, is semi-automatic.

As shootings continue to get play in the media, some in Hollywood apparently hold the belief that Americans should only be allowed to own guns that were available in their very own western movies. To them, no American needs a gun that reloads by itself. If only killers had to cock their weapon manually between each shot, the mentality of today’s psychopathic killers would suddenly change.

At least Farrow acknowledges the fact that the second amendment exists.

But to believe banning a large majority of the weapons available today to be a solution is mind-numbingly silly. Even if we were to pretend that the second amendment did not exist, such a wide ranging, sweeping ban of firearms would be met with a sophisticated underground network of gun distribution. Then, tracking and controlling guns becomes infinitely more difficult. Our problems only get worse.