Veronica Graves
vgraves@uccs.edu
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so” Adolph Hitler, April 11 1942.
The first and foremost purpose of concealed carry is to protect us from our own government.
We have seen in history time and time again when a great power was taken over by a dictator.
It is extremely proud and ignorant of any in the US to think that we are above the possibility of a dictatorship. Our vast amounts of wealth and power do not make us invincible to tyranny. In fact, they make us more susceptible.
Hitler was not the only dictator to believe that disarming the public was of utmost necessity. “The people…are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of unnecessary implements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues and tends to foment uprisings.” Toyotomi Hideyoshi, dictator of Japan, Aug. 1588.
The second purpose of concealed carry is to provide us with the ability to protect ourselves from criminals. The bad guys will always have access to guns. Our limiting ourselves only gives criminals the upper hand.
Statistics prove that there is a drastic decrease of violent crimes in every state that has legalized concealed carry. What about the parents and children who will be forever scarred over the massacre at Columbine high school? How many of those parents do you think wish those teachers had concealed carry?
The thought of disarmament of the public leading to less crime has the same ironic stupidity of no gun zones. The only people who will respect the policies of no gun zones are upstanding citizens, leaving the door wide open to criminal activity.
I digress --. To go back to the first reason for the right to keep and bear arms according to the founding fathers: protection from the government.
“Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest” from the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.
"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them” George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788.
“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to…prevent the people of the United states…from keeping their own arms... “ Samuel Adams.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Say Goodbye to Freedom, And Hello to Healthcare
Veronica Graves
vgraves@uccs.edu
Who wouldn’t want to make everybody healthy and happy? Those selfish, rotten, healthcare opposing conservatives! All the Obama administration wants is sunshine, flowers, bunnies and healthy people to enjoy this Obamatopia!
According to last weekends New York Times every part of this new bill will redistribute wealth. Proving that the progressives were lying through their teeth about the bill not being socialistic.
It never ceases to astound me the ability of the progressives to name anyone that disagrees with them so easily. Those that stand against them are racist, greedy, and evil 24/7 no questions asked.
I digress.
Under the ruse of “lets make everybody healthy” the left has snuck under the radar.
The United States is creating a healthcare system similar to that of Canada or Great Britten. Oh wonderful Britten, you are our bastion of hope; you show how wonderful government provided health care can be! Yes, Great Britten where just this last week a dying patient was refused a glass of water.
Not to astound any liberals who mustered up the courage to read my column, but Conservatives are much less concerned with the “health” part of the bill than all the other stuff that came with this bill so big that it makes War and Peace look like a comic book.
For example:
The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. Page 50/section 152 (Can anyone guess who gets to pay for this insurance?)
Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. Page 272. section 1145 (eugenics anyone?...and as this healthcare system gets deeper into the red, as every other one has, how low will that age get?)
The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be *required* to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. Page 425, line 4-12 (Death counseling.)
The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. Page 58 and 59
I ponder how a bill that was supposed to be entirely for the people had so much opposition from the people. Between 60-75% of Americans did not want the bill to pass. Speaker Pelosi swore that the bill would be passed no matter what it took.
Pelosi should just say what she really means; “The end justifies the means.”
But most infuriating of all is the fact that all congress members are exempt from the bill. Each congress person that swore this was a bill for the people gets their own private care.
Well America, say goodbye to freedom, and hello to socialism…er, um… I mean “Healthcare…oh, and bunnies”
vgraves@uccs.edu
Who wouldn’t want to make everybody healthy and happy? Those selfish, rotten, healthcare opposing conservatives! All the Obama administration wants is sunshine, flowers, bunnies and healthy people to enjoy this Obamatopia!
According to last weekends New York Times every part of this new bill will redistribute wealth. Proving that the progressives were lying through their teeth about the bill not being socialistic.
It never ceases to astound me the ability of the progressives to name anyone that disagrees with them so easily. Those that stand against them are racist, greedy, and evil 24/7 no questions asked.
I digress.
Under the ruse of “lets make everybody healthy” the left has snuck under the radar.
The United States is creating a healthcare system similar to that of Canada or Great Britten. Oh wonderful Britten, you are our bastion of hope; you show how wonderful government provided health care can be! Yes, Great Britten where just this last week a dying patient was refused a glass of water.
Not to astound any liberals who mustered up the courage to read my column, but Conservatives are much less concerned with the “health” part of the bill than all the other stuff that came with this bill so big that it makes War and Peace look like a comic book.
For example:
The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. Page 50/section 152 (Can anyone guess who gets to pay for this insurance?)
Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. Page 272. section 1145 (eugenics anyone?...and as this healthcare system gets deeper into the red, as every other one has, how low will that age get?)
The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be *required* to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. Page 425, line 4-12 (Death counseling.)
The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. Page 58 and 59
I ponder how a bill that was supposed to be entirely for the people had so much opposition from the people. Between 60-75% of Americans did not want the bill to pass. Speaker Pelosi swore that the bill would be passed no matter what it took.
Pelosi should just say what she really means; “The end justifies the means.”
But most infuriating of all is the fact that all congress members are exempt from the bill. Each congress person that swore this was a bill for the people gets their own private care.
Well America, say goodbye to freedom, and hello to socialism…er, um… I mean “Healthcare…oh, and bunnies”
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Underwear Bombers and Guantanamo
From the beginning of this administration, people have been comparing Bush to Obama in about every way possible. One of, if not the most important issues to compare would be national security.
One of the main differences between the two would be the deadline set by Obama to shut down Guantanamo Bay.
Unfortunately for Obama, this closing of Guantanamo is yet another thing he fails to do on time, if at all.
The Obama administration is beginning to see that shutting down Guantanamo might not be as easy as…well one of Obama’s various other accomplishments such as….um….er…oh, speeches on how he is going to fix everything.
As Christopher Boucek wrote in his article “Guantanamo's Impact on U.S. National Security”, Obama is facing “ongoing problems finding countries willing to accept detainees.” This apparently came as a surprise to the Obama administration. Who wouldn’t want to welcome a bunch of trained murderers onto there soil?
The current administration is looking at transferring the detainees to a different location. The new location would be the Thompson correctional facility in Illinois.
We would not be solving any problems; we would be merely transferring Guantanamo to a different location. We would be moving these terrorists, who nobody else wants, to the heart of the US. Unless the Obama administration is looking for a real life sequel to “Escape from New York”, this seems like a really bad idea.
Another issue Obama faces with closing Guantanamo would be the most recent terrorist attack or Christmas day underwear bomber. The Obama administration seems surprised that terrorists are sill plugging away at our super secure airlines when we offered to shut down Guantanamo.
Is it possible that terrorist leaders such as Ben laden crossed their fingers and prayed to Allah that we would really shut down Guantanamo by Jan 22? Could it be that this warm fuzzy gesture from us did not illicit in them a desire to cuddle and make up? Is it possible that terrorists believe that the US is turning into a bunch of white flag waving, bowing, patsies?
With deterrents such as suffering in Guantanamo bay if you attempt to blow up a US plane gone, of course terrorist activity is encouraged. Now if terrorists are caught with there pants down they will be simply shipped of to Illinois.
Perhaps we could all give President Bush a little credit for his National Security policies. At least the leaders of the United States did not look like a bunch of little girls during Bush’s presidency. Bush went after the terrorists. The Obama administration tells terrorists that we will make their living conditions more pleasant if they are caught. Bush gave terrorists incentives to never ever get caught, to quit, and even to never start.
As Teddy Roosevelt commented, “speak softly but carry a big stick.” Unfortunately, all the Obama administration seems capable of doing is speaking softly and bending over.
One of the main differences between the two would be the deadline set by Obama to shut down Guantanamo Bay.
Unfortunately for Obama, this closing of Guantanamo is yet another thing he fails to do on time, if at all.
The Obama administration is beginning to see that shutting down Guantanamo might not be as easy as…well one of Obama’s various other accomplishments such as….um….er…oh, speeches on how he is going to fix everything.
As Christopher Boucek wrote in his article “Guantanamo's Impact on U.S. National Security”, Obama is facing “ongoing problems finding countries willing to accept detainees.” This apparently came as a surprise to the Obama administration. Who wouldn’t want to welcome a bunch of trained murderers onto there soil?
The current administration is looking at transferring the detainees to a different location. The new location would be the Thompson correctional facility in Illinois.
We would not be solving any problems; we would be merely transferring Guantanamo to a different location. We would be moving these terrorists, who nobody else wants, to the heart of the US. Unless the Obama administration is looking for a real life sequel to “Escape from New York”, this seems like a really bad idea.
Another issue Obama faces with closing Guantanamo would be the most recent terrorist attack or Christmas day underwear bomber. The Obama administration seems surprised that terrorists are sill plugging away at our super secure airlines when we offered to shut down Guantanamo.
Is it possible that terrorist leaders such as Ben laden crossed their fingers and prayed to Allah that we would really shut down Guantanamo by Jan 22? Could it be that this warm fuzzy gesture from us did not illicit in them a desire to cuddle and make up? Is it possible that terrorists believe that the US is turning into a bunch of white flag waving, bowing, patsies?
With deterrents such as suffering in Guantanamo bay if you attempt to blow up a US plane gone, of course terrorist activity is encouraged. Now if terrorists are caught with there pants down they will be simply shipped of to Illinois.
Perhaps we could all give President Bush a little credit for his National Security policies. At least the leaders of the United States did not look like a bunch of little girls during Bush’s presidency. Bush went after the terrorists. The Obama administration tells terrorists that we will make their living conditions more pleasant if they are caught. Bush gave terrorists incentives to never ever get caught, to quit, and even to never start.
As Teddy Roosevelt commented, “speak softly but carry a big stick.” Unfortunately, all the Obama administration seems capable of doing is speaking softly and bending over.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Taleban and Hitler
"British forces should buy off potential Taleban recruits with 'bags of gold', according to a new army field manual published yesterday. "
I had to write something on this, its just to moronic.
As a history major at UCCS co springs, I have studied many civilizations who have attempted to "pay off" the bad guys.
Without fail, the once weaker and disorganized enemy will want a little more money than the provider is willing to offer. Strengthened from all of the "please don't attack us! Here take our money!" The once lesser party rises up and completely takes over and destroys the other.
This is seen as far back in history as Rome.
Rome wished to pay off attacking tribes.
They gave them a certain amount of money to stay away.
Eventually the tribes got greedy and totally ransacked Rome.
This process is also seen with piracy.
A simmilar story is also told in WWII and Adolf Hitler.
The Alies were slow to get involved.
Why?
Because we thought he would stay true to his word.
Just one more piece of land.
Unfortunately we were mistaking.
"The only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history." --George Santana
I had to write something on this, its just to moronic.
As a history major at UCCS co springs, I have studied many civilizations who have attempted to "pay off" the bad guys.
Without fail, the once weaker and disorganized enemy will want a little more money than the provider is willing to offer. Strengthened from all of the "please don't attack us! Here take our money!" The once lesser party rises up and completely takes over and destroys the other.
This is seen as far back in history as Rome.
Rome wished to pay off attacking tribes.
They gave them a certain amount of money to stay away.
Eventually the tribes got greedy and totally ransacked Rome.
This process is also seen with piracy.
A simmilar story is also told in WWII and Adolf Hitler.
The Alies were slow to get involved.
Why?
Because we thought he would stay true to his word.
Just one more piece of land.
Unfortunately we were mistaking.
"The only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history." --George Santana
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Pandora’s Box
The Obama administration has decided to cut the pay of some of the firms receiving government aid, such as the car companies. Some will suffer as much as a 90% pay cut.
Who gave the government a right to enforce pay cuts onto private businesses? The answer? Private companies signed their souls away when they accepted the government bailouts.
Is this constitutional?
No, absolutely not.
Can the private companies do anything about it?
Nope.
Unfortunately, receiving the government aid in the first place wasn’t constitutional either. These private companies can hardly bring up the constitution now just because the government involvement is not to not their best interest.
Having just escaped the tyranny of Great Britain, the founding fathers single intent was to limit the amount of power that the government could enforce on the people. The founders wanted most of the power to belong to the states. As an even greater measure, before the states would ratify the US constitution, they insisted on a bill of rights otherwise known as the first ten amendments.
As the tenth amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This simply means that any action the federal government performs that is not expressly allowed in the constitution is unconstitutional.
The power of interfering in private companies is never expressly “delegated,” to the federal government, in fact it is forbidden at every turn.
Unfortunately, the constitution does not seem to have much value to the powers that be. They feel free to interpret it to whichever way best advantages them. The congress seems to think that the constitution is a joke. Congress seems to believe that it is there sole job to weasel there unconstitutional, erroneous fallacies past the Supreme Court.
This is how the government usually gets entangled with a once private business. The government offers something to the private organization. Once the private entity accepts the governmental boon, the organization is no longer private; the government can interfere whenever they feel like it.
Unfortunately, these drastic pay cuts are just a drop in the bucket compared to the funds the economy needs. Perhaps if the Obama administration would quit interfering with private entities, we could watch capitalism work as it always does to get us out of a tough spot. Either that, or Obama could ease up on taking his wife out on fifty thousand dollar dates.
Whatever works.
Who gave the government a right to enforce pay cuts onto private businesses? The answer? Private companies signed their souls away when they accepted the government bailouts.
Is this constitutional?
No, absolutely not.
Can the private companies do anything about it?
Nope.
Unfortunately, receiving the government aid in the first place wasn’t constitutional either. These private companies can hardly bring up the constitution now just because the government involvement is not to not their best interest.
Having just escaped the tyranny of Great Britain, the founding fathers single intent was to limit the amount of power that the government could enforce on the people. The founders wanted most of the power to belong to the states. As an even greater measure, before the states would ratify the US constitution, they insisted on a bill of rights otherwise known as the first ten amendments.
As the tenth amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This simply means that any action the federal government performs that is not expressly allowed in the constitution is unconstitutional.
The power of interfering in private companies is never expressly “delegated,” to the federal government, in fact it is forbidden at every turn.
Unfortunately, the constitution does not seem to have much value to the powers that be. They feel free to interpret it to whichever way best advantages them. The congress seems to think that the constitution is a joke. Congress seems to believe that it is there sole job to weasel there unconstitutional, erroneous fallacies past the Supreme Court.
This is how the government usually gets entangled with a once private business. The government offers something to the private organization. Once the private entity accepts the governmental boon, the organization is no longer private; the government can interfere whenever they feel like it.
Unfortunately, these drastic pay cuts are just a drop in the bucket compared to the funds the economy needs. Perhaps if the Obama administration would quit interfering with private entities, we could watch capitalism work as it always does to get us out of a tough spot. Either that, or Obama could ease up on taking his wife out on fifty thousand dollar dates.
Whatever works.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Smells like Socialism
Why is increasing the federal government’s power thought to posses the ability to cure most problems within the US?
People seem to believe that the ‘godlike’ government will do a better job doing their jobs than they will, seems more like a shifting of responsibilities. We don’t want to get our hands dirty so we pass the work on to the federal government. The federal government accepts only too eagerly, creates a department with a fancy name and ups the taxes to pay for this new bureaucratic waist.
Increasing Bureaucracy is the Governments ‘cure all.’ Today, the government is hard at work increasing its power in arias such as health reform, government bailouts and taxes.
Government run organizations have such a great track record its no wander that the liberal party wants to enlarge the already obese bureaucracy! Wait a second…
Let’s look at the Department of Energy. A typical government bureaucratic pigeonhole, established during the Carter Administration. The Department of Energy was established to, “lessen our dependence on foreign oil.” Its been pretty darn efficient, huh?
It’s 2009 – 32 years later – and the budget for this “necessary” (cough, cough)
department is at $24.2 BILLION a year. They have 16,000 federal employees and
approximately 100,000 contract employees. And look at the job they have done!
Why? We hardly use any foreign oil at all right ? uh...NOT
Good ole bureaucracy - just made everything way, way worse
The more power relinquished to the federal government, the less power the average citizen has and the more we must trust our mommy the federal government. If President Obama really wants to make us “even” he will enlarge the reach of government, something he is already hard at work doing.
Unfortunately, once the government interferes one time they feel free to do it again, and again, and again…
A great example would be the government bailouts issued by Obama. Now that the economy is still suffering, Obama’s regime is forcing these businesses to take large pay cuts. What’s going to keep the federal government from deciding that they would do a better job and taking over the car companies completely?
We all know that once the Federal government takes something over its way better off than a free market business, right?
Like the Post office compared to UPS.
Or the DMV compared to an independent driving company.
Seeing how wonderful these function, let’s go ahead and give over the banking system, healthcare, and the auto industry to the all wise government.
Sounds like a plan!
People seem to believe that the ‘godlike’ government will do a better job doing their jobs than they will, seems more like a shifting of responsibilities. We don’t want to get our hands dirty so we pass the work on to the federal government. The federal government accepts only too eagerly, creates a department with a fancy name and ups the taxes to pay for this new bureaucratic waist.
Increasing Bureaucracy is the Governments ‘cure all.’ Today, the government is hard at work increasing its power in arias such as health reform, government bailouts and taxes.
Government run organizations have such a great track record its no wander that the liberal party wants to enlarge the already obese bureaucracy! Wait a second…
Let’s look at the Department of Energy. A typical government bureaucratic pigeonhole, established during the Carter Administration. The Department of Energy was established to, “lessen our dependence on foreign oil.” Its been pretty darn efficient, huh?
It’s 2009 – 32 years later – and the budget for this “necessary” (cough, cough)
department is at $24.2 BILLION a year. They have 16,000 federal employees and
approximately 100,000 contract employees. And look at the job they have done!
Why? We hardly use any foreign oil at all right ? uh...NOT
Good ole bureaucracy - just made everything way, way worse
The more power relinquished to the federal government, the less power the average citizen has and the more we must trust our mommy the federal government. If President Obama really wants to make us “even” he will enlarge the reach of government, something he is already hard at work doing.
Unfortunately, once the government interferes one time they feel free to do it again, and again, and again…
A great example would be the government bailouts issued by Obama. Now that the economy is still suffering, Obama’s regime is forcing these businesses to take large pay cuts. What’s going to keep the federal government from deciding that they would do a better job and taking over the car companies completely?
We all know that once the Federal government takes something over its way better off than a free market business, right?
Like the Post office compared to UPS.
Or the DMV compared to an independent driving company.
Seeing how wonderful these function, let’s go ahead and give over the banking system, healthcare, and the auto industry to the all wise government.
Sounds like a plan!
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Die quickly
Representative Alan Grayson announced in congress last week that, “The republican health care plan is for the sick to die quickly.”
So what?
Sure Alan Grayson addressed congress with inflammatory words, but this is nothing new to congress. Congress members have been screaming at each other since the beginning.
Instead, let’s ask ourselves the following questions. Is there any truth to Grayson’s words? And what is Grayson’s agenda?
Grayson is clearly attempting to bolster Obama’s healthcare plan while tearing at the Republican’s views. Grayson attempts to present the “Republican heath care plan” by using the classical liberal game plan of no facts and plenty of emotion. He presents three points on a large sheet of paper. They are as follows: “The republican health care plan is 1)Don’t get sick 2)If you get sick 3)Die quickly.”
Grayson is extremely correct with his first point. Republicans would appreciate if American’s could just not get sick. That’s why these darn Republicans keep pushing free market capitalism, and an environment where whoever develops the best cures gets the most recognition. The people with the best technology and surgical equipment get paid the most and get to keep coming up with stuff that will accomplish not “getting sick.”
(Does point one imply that the liberal party wants people to get sick?)
Grayson is also correct in his second point. Yes, Republicans do realize that people will get sick. (Although we wouldn’t mind if Grayson would give a demonstration... say permanent laryngitis?)
Point three, however, is completely incorrect.*
(There may be few potential exceptions)
It can be safely assumed that Grayson is referring to the Republican’s no governmental aid stance for his bright conclusion of “republicans want sick people to die quickly.”
In short Grayson is implying that republicans are Scrooges who sneer at the little boy on crutches.
The leftist stance on the matter (im assuming) would be considered, “wanting the sick to throw down their crutches and leap around in the field of daisies while What a Wonderful World plays in the back ground.
Unfortunately its not this simple.
I don’t know who convinced the American people that government is this wonderful fairy godmother here to take care of our ills and woes. Whoever it is he deserves treatment three. What makes us think that government health insurance will be anymore “honest” that private health care insurance? Obama says that government insurance is going to keep the private health care insurance in check. Who is going to keep government in check? Oh, wait I forgot it’s the health care of the people…never mind, we’re good.
Government run health insurance is sure to have the compassion of the IRS, the efficiency of the post office, and the heavenly atmosphere of the DMV.
As Ronald Regan stated, “Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.” Government is not going to solve the heath care issues of the poor. The government is not even going to help. It is incapable.
This is an inverse relationship.
The more power we give the US government the less power we have.
The less power the American people have the less free we are.
So what?
Sure Alan Grayson addressed congress with inflammatory words, but this is nothing new to congress. Congress members have been screaming at each other since the beginning.
Instead, let’s ask ourselves the following questions. Is there any truth to Grayson’s words? And what is Grayson’s agenda?
Grayson is clearly attempting to bolster Obama’s healthcare plan while tearing at the Republican’s views. Grayson attempts to present the “Republican heath care plan” by using the classical liberal game plan of no facts and plenty of emotion. He presents three points on a large sheet of paper. They are as follows: “The republican health care plan is 1)Don’t get sick 2)If you get sick 3)Die quickly.”
Grayson is extremely correct with his first point. Republicans would appreciate if American’s could just not get sick. That’s why these darn Republicans keep pushing free market capitalism, and an environment where whoever develops the best cures gets the most recognition. The people with the best technology and surgical equipment get paid the most and get to keep coming up with stuff that will accomplish not “getting sick.”
(Does point one imply that the liberal party wants people to get sick?)
Grayson is also correct in his second point. Yes, Republicans do realize that people will get sick. (Although we wouldn’t mind if Grayson would give a demonstration... say permanent laryngitis?)
Point three, however, is completely incorrect.*
(There may be few potential exceptions)
It can be safely assumed that Grayson is referring to the Republican’s no governmental aid stance for his bright conclusion of “republicans want sick people to die quickly.”
In short Grayson is implying that republicans are Scrooges who sneer at the little boy on crutches.
The leftist stance on the matter (im assuming) would be considered, “wanting the sick to throw down their crutches and leap around in the field of daisies while What a Wonderful World plays in the back ground.
Unfortunately its not this simple.
I don’t know who convinced the American people that government is this wonderful fairy godmother here to take care of our ills and woes. Whoever it is he deserves treatment three. What makes us think that government health insurance will be anymore “honest” that private health care insurance? Obama says that government insurance is going to keep the private health care insurance in check. Who is going to keep government in check? Oh, wait I forgot it’s the health care of the people…never mind, we’re good.
Government run health insurance is sure to have the compassion of the IRS, the efficiency of the post office, and the heavenly atmosphere of the DMV.
As Ronald Regan stated, “Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.” Government is not going to solve the heath care issues of the poor. The government is not even going to help. It is incapable.
This is an inverse relationship.
The more power we give the US government the less power we have.
The less power the American people have the less free we are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
