Obama to spend $684 million to market Obamacare

21NewTaxesAlthough the law already passed Congress, the Associated Press reports that our president plans to spend (read: waste) over $680 million dollars of taxpayer money advertising Obamacare, the healthcare law that puts government first, raises costs and re-affirms the innate bureaucratic mess that accompanies virtually every government initiative.

Targeted at our nation’s uninsured, advertising agencies are tasked with finding a way to connect with lower-income people to show them how wonderful and exciting taxpayer-funded healthcare can be.  According to polls, very few of our nation’s uninsured know about Obamacare.

One thing is certain: Our nation’s pompous and reckless executive branch is out of control, spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a law that already passed Congress.  Not only are the American people forced to fund this monstrosity through the corrupt Internal Revenue Service, but now, Americans are also forced to fund a marketing campaign designed to make people believe in the law’s supposed virtues – in carefully-selected swing states I’m sure.

Once again, our nation’s taxpayers are forced to shoulder the excessive burdens of D.C.’s unwavering desire to control virtually all facets of American life.  When government controls healthcare, they control a very large segment of the voting population, solidifying their own political careers and the omni-present federal government in the lives of each one of us.

Let’s sum up all of this: Obamacare passed Congress.  Obamacare has already forced many companies (and even local governments) to cut hours to save on the law’s new costs.  Speaking of costs, Obamacare is demonstrably raising costs for many, and polls routinely find that the majority of Americans would repeal Obamacare if they could (Republicans can’t).

But yet, the government is forcing the American people to shoulder the burden of marketing this clearly unpopular monstrosity by throwing more of our money around with reckless abandon, ignoring its constitutional limitations and reinforcing the clearly-evident fact that Washington D.C. is the biggest, most irresponsible and downright corrupt government that we have ever seen.

Obama’s own gun control study destroys his entire argument

In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school massacre last December, President Obama issued an Executive Order to the CDC to study and research the effect of gun violence on American society, clearly an effort to use those findings, and the heightened emotional state of millions of Americans, to push for further controls on guns.

What a mistake that was.  The Obama-ordered study effectively destroys the president’s own gun control push.  It found:

Gun violence is on the decline

2-Pack_FDEDespite highly publicized gun-related crimes pushed by our media, numbers show that gun violence is on the decline over the past 5 years: “Overall crime rates have declined in the past decade, and violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past 5 years,” the report said.  Not only that, but gun accidents are down as well.  “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

Defensive gun use is a “common occurrence”

Guns are used more often by law-abiding citizens in defense of their lives and property rather than in the commission of a crime.  “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals,” said the report.  It also found that those who used guns to defend themselves suffered far fewer injuries than those who attempted to defend themselves with objects or fists.  “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

Hand guns are used in crimes far more than “assault weapons”

Although so-called “assault weapons” are generally the target of the typical gun control advocate (that’s you, Diane Feinstein), the report found that hand guns are used in far more crimes than assault weapons.  Among violent crimes, hand guns are used in nearly 90% of them.  Why?  Because they are easily concealable, of course.  Thus, even if you do buy into so-called gun control and weapon bans, the majority of the weapon bans in effect today do not effect the type of guns that are used in the large majority of violent crime.

Suicides account for the majority of gun-related deaths

Despite the rhetoric of politicians, guns are more likely to be used in suicides than in the commission of a crime.  Firearm-related suicides “significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearm-related violence in the United States,” the study found.  Gun control proponents rarely point out that the so-called “gun violence” statistics used in the formulation of disarmament legislation includes suicides, which is not considered offensive gun use.

More guns do not lead to more crime

Contrary to a common argument from gun control advocates, more guns on the street do not lead to an increase in crime.  FBI reports have proven this for years, and the CDC study is no exception.  Although gun sales have increased over the past 5 years, “overall crime rates have declined in the past decade, and violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past five years.”

Guns used in crimes come from family, friends and the underground

The report found that 70% of guns used in the commission of a crime came from “family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”  A very small percentage of guns were stolen before the crime.  This means guns used in crimes were very likely to have been legally obtained, reinforcing how little gun controls effect our nation’s violent crime.

What does all this mean?

The study suggests that mental health is the true problem and a significant cause of gun violence – and often inflicted on one’s self.  Similar to the arguments made by Obama’s opposition, it is not the availability of guns, the so-called “gun show loophole”, dangerous assault weapons or magazine capacities that is the problem.  These are nothing but easy-to-argue (but hard to prove) talking points designed to put together an easily-digestible gun control package for Americans to swallow.

Do not expect Obama to make light of this study.  It helps to prove that the majority of gun control laws in this nation are entirely meaningless, but does reinforce the importance of improving our mental health facilities.

American people biggest winners in gun-grabbing defeat

In the aftermath of the Senate’s rejection of the gun bill this week that would have expanded background checks (and other civilian disarmament initiatives attached as amendments) and once the smoke finally clears, the biggest winner of all will turn out to be the American people.

No law-abiding American person wants guns in the hands of criminals.  But even proponents of the bill admit that expanded background checks would not have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedies, nor the Columbine massacre, or the Virginia Tech shooting, or the Aurora, CO theater incident.  In essence, even the bill’s own support structure knows as well as anyone that the proposed bill stood as nothing more than hollow, feel-good measures meant to make the parents of Sandy Hook – who allowed themselves to be shamelessly propped up like pawns in President Obama’s gun-grabbing cries – think that something actually got done.  What a slap in the face.

The American people achieved victory this week.  Background checks or no background checks, gun crimes will not stop.  Self defense is crucial to stemming the effect that gun violence has over our society.  Every day that a law-abiding citizen walks around the streets unarmed is a day that their level of personal protection is weakened.

To celebrate, take your favorite gun out to the range and start shooting.  Enjoy your freedom to keep and bear arms…while you still have it.

American sheriffs unite to defy Obama’s gun grabbing laws

gunJoining a growing number of the nation’s law enforcement officials refusing to partake in unconstitutional actions ordered by the federal government, the sheriff of Linn County, Ore., sent a preemptive letter to Vice President Joe Biden stating he is prepared to refuse to enforce federal regulations “offending the constitutional rights of [Linn County] citizens.”

According to his letter to Biden, Sheriff Tim Mueller will also prohibit his department’s “enforcement of any unconstitutional regulations or orders by federal officers” within his jurisdiction.

Several states have passed law preventing local law enforcement officers from enforcing unconstitutional laws such as federal gun-control laws including Utah, South Dakota, Tennessee, Idaho and others. Recently Kentucky and Wyoming introduced similar legislation.

The Constitutional County Sheriff’s Association is in the process of publishing a list of the Constitutional County Sheriffs in individuals states who have taken an oath to seriously refuse to enforce laws that violate the Constitution such as gun laws being proposed by President Barack Obama and members of both houses of the U.S. Congress, according to Keith Broaders, the administrator for the CCSA, on Monday.

Every Sheriff is required by law to take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. This is not just a suggestion, it is the duty of the Sheriff to enforce just laws and refuse to enforce laws that are not, according to Broaders.

For example, Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio told a local radio host the federal government is “going to have problem” if they expect him to confiscate guns from private citizens.

“I took [multiple] oaths of office, and they all say I will defend the Constitution of the United States,” Arpaio told Mike Broomhead of KFYI Radio in Phoenix.

“Now if they’re going to tell the sheriff that he’s going to go around picking up guns from everybody, they’re going to have a problem. I may not enforce that federal law,” Arpaio said according to World Net Daily.

“How can a County Sheriff honor his oath if he needs to obtain permission from the Supreme Court? The ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution is ‘We the People’ and the duly elected County Sheriff is elected by the people to represent the will of his constituents,” Broader added.

“As a County Sheriff you can serve only one master. Are you going to keep your oath and serve the people, or are you going to be the enforcer of unjust Federal rules, regulations, codes, ordinances and statutes?” said the CCSA founder.

“I want to know if you [as a law enforcement executive] plan to be a servant of the people or an administrative lap dog for the Federal agencies and bureaucrats?”

Obama’s State of the Union proposals to cost taxpayers $84 billion

MoneyPresident Obama put forth a plethora of proposals during the State of the Union speech last week that, he said, would not raise the national debt.  According to the National Taxpayer’s Union, the total cost to taxpayers of those proposals could reach $83.4 billion, the most expensive plan yet by Obama during the State of the Union speech.

“This is a slush fund that has a lineage back to the 2009 stimulus and more recently the President’s Jobs Act from the last Congress; back then CBO scored it at $39.16 billion over five years, which breaks down to $7.832 billion on an annualized basis,” said NTU’s Executive Vice President, Pete Sepp.  The taxpayer’s watch dog group estimated the cost to implement 40 items mentioned during Obama’s speech that would cost the American taxpayer.

Speaking of the President’s vague tax proposals, Sepp said that they “contained enough buzzwords to bear a close resemblance to the tax reform blueprint he put out last year, which in turn draws from previous administration plans. The window-dressing changes, but not so much what’s behind it.”

Listen to the Podcast of the NTU analysis.

Obama: Now is the time for immigration reform

Arizona ImmigrationAfter spending nearly $2 million of taxpayer money on a trip out to Las Vegas yesterday where he delivered a 25-minute speech, President Obama told a crowd of supporters that now is the time to reform our immigration system, outlining many of the same goals uttered 4 years ago.

Why is it now, almost 1500 days into his presidency, would so-called “common sense” immigration reform suddenly become an immediate concern?  After riding into office on the backs of immigrants and accomplishing virtually nothing in his first term, “now is the time”, he said.  “This time, action must follow”.

The president will not be up for re-election again.  Now certainly is the time.

Among the more controversial portions of the Obama immigration plan includes a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants currently in the country – although the president cleverly calls it a pathway to “earned” citizenship. Although details are sketchy, Obama’s plan supposedly includes new punishments for businesses who knowingly hire illegal labor and “tighter security at the border”, whatever that means.

While the government gets bogged down with details unrelated to a true solution, actual immigration reform needs to include the elimination of laws, not the enactment of more.  Our nation has enough laws, more than most Americans know what to do with.  More rules and regulations are not the solution.

As author Daniel Griswold so aptly wrote, “When large numbers of otherwise decent people routinely violate a law, the law itself is probably the problem.”  Our government has a choice: it can either reform immigration law by observing how immigrants live in our country, or it can spend months debating the merits of politically-charged provisions of proposed new laws that do nothing to address the true problem of immigration.

It will likely choose the latter.

Communists rally behind Obama to disarm Americans

Yeah-gun-control-worksAlthough 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.