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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
