These quotes need no introduction - our forefathers that wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence knew the falsies of government and the tyrants that propose we all must live under one -
Enter Barack Obama - Jefferson warned those of us that thought 'change is all we needed to solve our problems', but so many were just too smart to heed warnings from history. What could they possibily know that we don't? dah!
(author unknown)
John Kennedy once said to a assembled group of scholars in the White House, "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House - with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
The quotes below could prove his point.
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe Thomas Jefferson
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. Thomas Jefferson
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world. Thomas Jefferson
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. Thomas Jefferson
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. Thomas Jefferson
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Thomas Jefferson
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson
Very Interesting Quote:
In light of the present financial crisis, it's interesting to read what Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:Banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
Doesn't this sound eerily familiar to what is happening in America today?
Saturday, March 07, 2009
What Are You Thinking Obama : You Can't Multiply Wealth by Dividing
I think we are starting to wake up to the fact we are in real trouble - not just because of the financial mess we are in now, caused by liberal Democrats in congress over the past sixteen years, and others in the business community as a result, but, worse, that these same people also want to destroy our futures as well.
Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 - 2005
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 - 2005
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
Friday, March 06, 2009
2% To Pay For All New Spending : Middle Class to Pay 98%
Bottom line here is we will pay for this insanity for generations to come if we can't get it stopped now - if Obama isn't stupid, and I believe he isn't, then his intention is to destroy the American way of life. He wants this to happen.
He wants to rebuild this country in the image of the old Soviet Union where a few rule with an iron hand and guess who is "mister big" - and this is where his plan for his 'civil defense corp' comes in. Obama will need a strong arm to keep the population subservient.
Is it any wonder why liberals love tyrants
The 2% Illusion
Frederick A. Hayek's The Road To Serfdom
Take everything they earn, and it still won't be enough.
President Obama has laid out the most ambitious and expensive domestic agenda since LBJ, and now all he has to do is figure out how to pay for it. On Tuesday, he left the impression that we need merely end "tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans," and he promised that households earning less than $250,000 won't see their taxes increased by "one single dime." is going to be some trick. Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can't possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama's new spending ambitions.
Consider the IRS data for 2006, the most recent year that such tax data are available and a good year for the economy and "the wealthiest 2%." Roughly 3.8 million filers had adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 in 2006. (That's about 7% of all returns; the data aren't broken down at the $250,000 point.) These people paid about $522 billion in income taxes, or roughly 62% of all federal individual income receipts. The richest 1% -- about 1.65 million filers making above $388,806 -- paid some $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax revenues, while earning about 22% of all reported U.S. income.
Note that federal income taxes are already "progressive" with a 35% top marginal rate, and that Mr. Obama is (so far) proposing to raise it only to 39.6%, plus another two percentage points in hidden deduction phase-outs. He'd also raise capital gains and dividend rates, but those both yield far less revenue than the income tax. These combined increases won't come close to raising the hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue that will be needed to pay for this spending.
But let's not stop at a 42% top rate; as a thought experiment, let's go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.
Fast forward to this year (and 2010) when the Wall Street meltdown and recession are going to mean far few taxpayers earning more than $500,000. Profits are plunging, businesses are cutting or eliminating dividends, hedge funds are rolling up, and, most of all, capital nationwide is on strike. Raising taxes now will thus yield far less revenue than it would have in 2006.
Mr. Obama is of course counting on an economic recovery. And he's also assuming along with the new liberal economic consensus that taxes don't matter to growth or job creation. The truth, though, is that they do. Small- and medium-sized businesses are the nation's primary employers, and lower individual tax rates have induced thousands of them to shift from filing under the corporate tax system to the individual system, often as limited liability companies or Subchapter S corporations. The Tax Foundation calculates that merely restoring the higher, Clinton-era tax rates on the top two brackets would hit 45% to 55% of small-business income, depending on how inclusively "small business" is defined.
These owners will find a way to declare less taxable income.The bottom line is that Mr. Obama is selling the country on a 2% illusion. Unwinding the U.S. commitment in Iraq and allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire can't possibly pay for his agenda. Taxes on the not-so-rich will need to rise as well.
On that point, by the way, it's unclear why Mr. Obama thinks his climate-change scheme won't hit all Americans with higher taxes. Selling the right to emit greenhouse gases amounts to a steep new tax on most types of energy and, therefore, on all Americans who use energy. There's a reason that Charlie Rangel's Ways and Means panel, which writes tax law, is holding hearings this week on cap-and-trade regulation.
Mr. Obama is very good at portraying his agenda as nothing more than center-left pragmatism. But pragmatists don't ignore the data. And the reality is that the only way to pay for Mr. Obama's ambitions is to reach ever deeper into the pockets of the American middle class.
He wants to rebuild this country in the image of the old Soviet Union where a few rule with an iron hand and guess who is "mister big" - and this is where his plan for his 'civil defense corp' comes in. Obama will need a strong arm to keep the population subservient.
Is it any wonder why liberals love tyrants
The 2% Illusion
Frederick A. Hayek's The Road To Serfdom
Take everything they earn, and it still won't be enough.
President Obama has laid out the most ambitious and expensive domestic agenda since LBJ, and now all he has to do is figure out how to pay for it. On Tuesday, he left the impression that we need merely end "tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans," and he promised that households earning less than $250,000 won't see their taxes increased by "one single dime." is going to be some trick. Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can't possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama's new spending ambitions.
Consider the IRS data for 2006, the most recent year that such tax data are available and a good year for the economy and "the wealthiest 2%." Roughly 3.8 million filers had adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 in 2006. (That's about 7% of all returns; the data aren't broken down at the $250,000 point.) These people paid about $522 billion in income taxes, or roughly 62% of all federal individual income receipts. The richest 1% -- about 1.65 million filers making above $388,806 -- paid some $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax revenues, while earning about 22% of all reported U.S. income.
Note that federal income taxes are already "progressive" with a 35% top marginal rate, and that Mr. Obama is (so far) proposing to raise it only to 39.6%, plus another two percentage points in hidden deduction phase-outs. He'd also raise capital gains and dividend rates, but those both yield far less revenue than the income tax. These combined increases won't come close to raising the hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue that will be needed to pay for this spending.
But let's not stop at a 42% top rate; as a thought experiment, let's go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.
Fast forward to this year (and 2010) when the Wall Street meltdown and recession are going to mean far few taxpayers earning more than $500,000. Profits are plunging, businesses are cutting or eliminating dividends, hedge funds are rolling up, and, most of all, capital nationwide is on strike. Raising taxes now will thus yield far less revenue than it would have in 2006.
Mr. Obama is of course counting on an economic recovery. And he's also assuming along with the new liberal economic consensus that taxes don't matter to growth or job creation. The truth, though, is that they do. Small- and medium-sized businesses are the nation's primary employers, and lower individual tax rates have induced thousands of them to shift from filing under the corporate tax system to the individual system, often as limited liability companies or Subchapter S corporations. The Tax Foundation calculates that merely restoring the higher, Clinton-era tax rates on the top two brackets would hit 45% to 55% of small-business income, depending on how inclusively "small business" is defined.
These owners will find a way to declare less taxable income.The bottom line is that Mr. Obama is selling the country on a 2% illusion. Unwinding the U.S. commitment in Iraq and allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire can't possibly pay for his agenda. Taxes on the not-so-rich will need to rise as well.
On that point, by the way, it's unclear why Mr. Obama thinks his climate-change scheme won't hit all Americans with higher taxes. Selling the right to emit greenhouse gases amounts to a steep new tax on most types of energy and, therefore, on all Americans who use energy. There's a reason that Charlie Rangel's Ways and Means panel, which writes tax law, is holding hearings this week on cap-and-trade regulation.
Mr. Obama is very good at portraying his agenda as nothing more than center-left pragmatism. But pragmatists don't ignore the data. And the reality is that the only way to pay for Mr. Obama's ambitions is to reach ever deeper into the pockets of the American middle class.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Urban Legend OR Not : Obama Born in Kenya?
Why won't the president release his birth certificate? What's the big deal anyway - even if he wasn't born a US citizen, it won't matter. Remember, Obama is too big to fail and what's more, the press and a majority of the voting public wont's care.
It breaks the law for being president but no matter, this is the "one", the "messiah", the giver of the cool aide for all to drink and "believe".
What is happening in our great country? What have we become? What happened to national pride? Don't we care about anything anymore? Has it all come down to self adulation, lust or greed of personal power and position?
Are we just one lottery ticket away from total destruction?
Sen. Shelby: I Haven’t Seen Obama’s Birth Certificate
Sen. Richard Shelby has revisited an earlier controversy by suggesting that Barack Obama is foreign-born and not eligible to be president.
It breaks the law for being president but no matter, this is the "one", the "messiah", the giver of the cool aide for all to drink and "believe".
What is happening in our great country? What have we become? What happened to national pride? Don't we care about anything anymore? Has it all come down to self adulation, lust or greed of personal power and position?
Are we just one lottery ticket away from total destruction?
Sen. Shelby: I Haven’t Seen Obama’s Birth Certificate
Sen. Richard Shelby has revisited an earlier controversy by suggesting that Barack Obama is foreign-born and not eligible to be president.
The Alabama Republican met with constituents in Cullman County on Saturday, mainly to discuss the economic stimulus bill, which he opposed.
But a local resident asked Shelby if there is any truth to allegations that arose during the presidential campaign concerning Obama’s place of birth, the Cullman Times reported.
“Well, his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven’t seen any birth certificate,” Shelby said.
But a local resident asked Shelby if there is any truth to allegations that arose during the presidential campaign concerning Obama’s place of birth, the Cullman Times reported.
“Well, his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven’t seen any birth certificate,” Shelby said.
“You have to be born in America to be president.”
Shelby is correct in stating that Obama has not released his birth certificate. Instead, Obama’s campaign released his certification of live birth — not his actual birth certificate. The certification acknowledges birth but does not include such details as place of birth.
State officials in Hawaii sought to stem the controversy during the campaign, claiming that they had checked health department records and determined that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii.
Also, Factcheck.org reproduced an announcement of Obama’s birth that was published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Aug. 13, 1961, nine days after his birth. It included his parents' address in Honolulu.
Also, Factcheck.org reproduced an announcement of Obama’s birth that was published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Aug. 13, 1961, nine days after his birth. It included his parents' address in Honolulu.
Arch-conservative Alan Keyes is among those who allege that Obama has failed constitutional muster to become president. Keyes, a former U.S. ambassador who ran against Obama in 2004 as the Republican Senate candidate in Illinois, said in a recent interview that Obama was born in Kenya.
Obama could put the urban legend to rest by simply releasing his actual birth certificate, but he has declined to do so. Since his place of birth in Hawaii is identified on his still undisclosed birth certificate, he is one of the few U.S. presidents whose location of birth is still not known to the public.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
A Video - Liberal Democrats Want Total Amnesty - Even For Criminals
After you watch this video you still think the liberal Democrats want what's best for you and this country, you must seek professional help! You are a danger to your self and, more importantly, to others.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Russians Sucker Punchs America : Putin On The Move
What a great article by Ralph Peters on why we shouldn't trust the Russians on anything. As usual, he is dead on - enjoy and keep the faith
THE PUTIN PLAN TO SUCKER AMERICA
By RALPH PETERS/February 25, 2009/ --
THE toughest challenge Americans face in dealing with Vladimir Putin's Russia is that we insist on complicating the obvious. Putin's schemes are plain as day, but we insist on polishing up his motives.Recently, Prime Minister Putin bribed the Kyrgyz government to shut down US access to the Manas air base, which is crucial to sustaining NATO's efforts in Afghanistan.
Simultaneously, Moscow offered us a lengthy caravan route through Russia and its Central Asian client states to make up for the loss of Manas.The strategy couldn't be more straightforward: With our main supply route through Pakistan increasingly threatened, Putin wants to addict us to an alternative under his direct control.Why?
Because Putin judges that the supply route would grow indispensable as our troop commitment rises. By his calculation, that would leave him free to gobble up Georgia, intervene forcefully in Ukraine or even return to bullying the Baltic states.Putin figures that, faced with a choice between Georgia's death as an independent state and the loss of our new main supply route for Afghanistan, we'd grumble but opt to keep the logistics flowing.And he might be right.
Washington has developed so severe a case of the chronic stupids when it comes to Russia that we're napping on the strategic railroad tracks.The mockery aimed at our last president for claiming to have seen into Putin's soul missed the broader phenomenon. The Russians are so skilled at conning individual American leaders and diplomats that Republicans and Democrats, soldiers and statesmen, repeat the same error again and again and again: Each thinks he's the exception, that /he/ can develop a special relationship, that /his/ Russian buddy /really/ likes him.
Otherwise hard-headed US generals meet their counterparts one-on-one and routinely come away convinced that they've made a new friend who shares common values with us and genuinely wants a constructive partnership that advances our mutual interests.But we're looking for true love in a clapped-up cathouse.
The Russians whom we meet, then describe as "friends," are thoroughly coached in advance by the GRU (military intelligence) or the FSB (the eternal KGB). A Russian general or diplo-huckster sitting across the table from one of our reps has been carefully schooled on which buttons to press to win at "con the gringo."
Today, we have no strategy for dealing with Putin's Russia. None. And our lame responses to Putin's provocations increasingly seem "made in Europe."One minor example among many: At the close of last summer's war of aggression against tiny, democratic Georgia, the Russian military seized US Marine Corps equipment that was on the docks awaiting shipment home after an exercise. The Russians refused to give the gear back. And we rolled over.Now key voices inside the Beltway argue that we should entrust the Russians with the life-support supplies for US and NATO troops whose numbers may go as high as 90,000 (two-thirds American).
Would /any/ reader of this paper buy such an idiotic proposal? Of course not. But you're not "brilliant" like the Beltway crowd. Trusting the Russians with our supply lifeline is the equivalent of handing over preschool education to the Child-Molesters Union.
There's nothing wrong with cooperating with Russia where we have mutual interests and Moscow isn't running another of its scams. But we /always/ have to approach /any/ "partnership" with Putin with open eyes, healthy skepticism - and a Plan B.
Russia can be our ally in specific cases, but will never be our friend. Why? Because Russians don't /want/ to be friends. Threatened by his fiefdom's economic collapse - which worsens by the day - Putin /needs/ both internal and external enemies on whom he can blame his country's home-grown ills.
Russia is entering a stretch of severe turmoil. Let's not entrust the welfare of our troops to a viciously paranoid, aggressive and murderous state. Better to leave Afghanistan than to leave our soldiers at Moscow's mercy. Then the /Russians/ can deal with the fundamentalists next door./
Ralph Peters is a former army officer who wasted too much of his life studying the Russians./Home
THE PUTIN PLAN TO SUCKER AMERICA
By RALPH PETERS/February 25, 2009/ --
THE toughest challenge Americans face in dealing with Vladimir Putin's Russia is that we insist on complicating the obvious. Putin's schemes are plain as day, but we insist on polishing up his motives.Recently, Prime Minister Putin bribed the Kyrgyz government to shut down US access to the Manas air base, which is crucial to sustaining NATO's efforts in Afghanistan.
Simultaneously, Moscow offered us a lengthy caravan route through Russia and its Central Asian client states to make up for the loss of Manas.The strategy couldn't be more straightforward: With our main supply route through Pakistan increasingly threatened, Putin wants to addict us to an alternative under his direct control.Why?
Because Putin judges that the supply route would grow indispensable as our troop commitment rises. By his calculation, that would leave him free to gobble up Georgia, intervene forcefully in Ukraine or even return to bullying the Baltic states.Putin figures that, faced with a choice between Georgia's death as an independent state and the loss of our new main supply route for Afghanistan, we'd grumble but opt to keep the logistics flowing.And he might be right.
Washington has developed so severe a case of the chronic stupids when it comes to Russia that we're napping on the strategic railroad tracks.The mockery aimed at our last president for claiming to have seen into Putin's soul missed the broader phenomenon. The Russians are so skilled at conning individual American leaders and diplomats that Republicans and Democrats, soldiers and statesmen, repeat the same error again and again and again: Each thinks he's the exception, that /he/ can develop a special relationship, that /his/ Russian buddy /really/ likes him.
Otherwise hard-headed US generals meet their counterparts one-on-one and routinely come away convinced that they've made a new friend who shares common values with us and genuinely wants a constructive partnership that advances our mutual interests.But we're looking for true love in a clapped-up cathouse.
The Russians whom we meet, then describe as "friends," are thoroughly coached in advance by the GRU (military intelligence) or the FSB (the eternal KGB). A Russian general or diplo-huckster sitting across the table from one of our reps has been carefully schooled on which buttons to press to win at "con the gringo."
Today, we have no strategy for dealing with Putin's Russia. None. And our lame responses to Putin's provocations increasingly seem "made in Europe."One minor example among many: At the close of last summer's war of aggression against tiny, democratic Georgia, the Russian military seized US Marine Corps equipment that was on the docks awaiting shipment home after an exercise. The Russians refused to give the gear back. And we rolled over.Now key voices inside the Beltway argue that we should entrust the Russians with the life-support supplies for US and NATO troops whose numbers may go as high as 90,000 (two-thirds American).
Would /any/ reader of this paper buy such an idiotic proposal? Of course not. But you're not "brilliant" like the Beltway crowd. Trusting the Russians with our supply lifeline is the equivalent of handing over preschool education to the Child-Molesters Union.
There's nothing wrong with cooperating with Russia where we have mutual interests and Moscow isn't running another of its scams. But we /always/ have to approach /any/ "partnership" with Putin with open eyes, healthy skepticism - and a Plan B.
Russia can be our ally in specific cases, but will never be our friend. Why? Because Russians don't /want/ to be friends. Threatened by his fiefdom's economic collapse - which worsens by the day - Putin /needs/ both internal and external enemies on whom he can blame his country's home-grown ills.
Russia is entering a stretch of severe turmoil. Let's not entrust the welfare of our troops to a viciously paranoid, aggressive and murderous state. Better to leave Afghanistan than to leave our soldiers at Moscow's mercy. Then the /Russians/ can deal with the fundamentalists next door./
Ralph Peters is a former army officer who wasted too much of his life studying the Russians./Home
Why The Second Amendment : A Refresher Course
Gun control is about disarming the population and then enslave it at the whim of a tyrant. Watch what is going on in Washington right now. They are gearing up to bankrupt the country and then go house to house to remove all guns.
Can't happen here, right? Think again!
Remember Katrina and Ray Nagan going house to house, kicking in doors and taking every one's weapons? No warrants, just Democrats with absolute power. Think Obama as we speak.
Thank God for the NRA. They are on the attack - if not them, then who will protect our second amendment rights?
'Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.' ~
Thomas Jefferson
FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. Free men do not need to ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.
11. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16.. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
Can't happen here, right? Think again!
Remember Katrina and Ray Nagan going house to house, kicking in doors and taking every one's weapons? No warrants, just Democrats with absolute power. Think Obama as we speak.
Thank God for the NRA. They are on the attack - if not them, then who will protect our second amendment rights?
'Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.' ~
Thomas Jefferson
FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. Free men do not need to ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.
11. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16.. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
Limbaugh Attacks Steele For Lack of Principles
Rush Limbaugh tells 'truth to power' better than anyone else in the country - It seems that as soon as Michael Steele got on camera he deserted his conservatives principles and started to sound like any other main stream Republican or even some Democrats.
I think Steele has to resign as he has no intention of leading any kind of conservative movement to get back some sanity in this country.
Go Rush! - and keep the faith.
Angry Rush Limbaugh Strikes Back at RNC’s Steele
Monday, March 2, 2009
Rush Limbaugh on Monday fired back at critics of his fiery weekend speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference, and his biggest target was not on the left.
The conservative talk host saved his sharpest words for Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele. The barbs came in response to Steele's assertion that Limbaugh's challenges to the GOP are "incendiary" and "ugly."
"I hope [Steele] realizes he is not a talking-head pundit," Limbaugh said on his show Monday afternoon in a 20-minute response to Steele's criticism. "It's time for you to go behind the scenes and start doing the work you were elected to do, instead of trying to be some media star, which you're having a tough time pulling off."
"Why do you claim to lead the Republican Party when you seem obsessed with seeing to it President Obama succeeds?" Limbaugh asked.
In an interview with CNN's D.L. Hughley aired over the weekend, Steele said: ""He's an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh — his whole thing is just entertainment. Yes, it's incendiary. Yes, it's ugly."
Steele took particular issue with Hughley's assertion that Limbaugh had become "the de facto leader of the Republican Party." The RNC chairman insisted that he, not Limbaugh, was leading the GOP.
"Rush will say what Rush has to say. We'll do what we have to do," Steele said.
On Monday, Rush said Steele appears more supportive of President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi than of his own party.
Limbaugh also accused the RNC chair of disloyalty, since he'd appeared as a guest on Limbaugh's show during his failed 2006 Senate run in Maryland.
"My parents taught me when I was growing up that you always stood behind people who defended you, that you never abandon people who stood up for you and defended you against assault," Limbaugh said.
Steele, for his part, is backing down on his comments.
"My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh. I was maybe a little bit inarticulate . . . There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership….," Steele told Politico Monday
He added: "I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren't what I was thinking. It was one of those things where I thinking [sic] I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people … want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he's not."
Asked by Politico if he was apologizing to Limbaugh, "I wasn't trying to offend anybody. So, yeah, if he's offended, I'd say: Look, I'm not in the business of hurting people's feelings here . . . My job is to try to bring us all together."
Much of the dust-up between Rush and some Republicans came after his rousing CPAC speech in which he railed against the Obama administration for spreading fear in order to promote a liberal, big-government agenda. In the speech he repeated his controversial remarks from January that he hoped Obama failed.
"What is so strange about being honest and saying I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and re-form this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation?" he asked an enthusiastic crowd at CPAC.
"I frankly am stunned that the chairman of the Republican National Committee endorses such an agenda. I have to conclude that he does because he attacks me for wanting it to fail," Limbaugh said on his show Monday.
But not everyone in the GOP was on board with Rush's comments. Joining Steele in his criticism of Limbaugh was House Republican Whip Eric Cantor.
"I don't think anyone wants anything to fail right now," Cantor said during ABC News' "This Week" on Sunday. "We have such challenges. What we need to do is we need to put forth solutions to the problems that real families are facing today."
The RNC, for its part, spent Monday trying to deflect attention from the infighting among conservatives.
"Rahm Emanuel and the Democrats know they lose an argument with the Republican Party on substance so they are building straw men to attack and distract," RNC spokesman Alex Conant said in a statement.
"The feud between radio host Rush Limbaugh and Rahm Emanuel makes great political theater, but it is a sideshow to the important work going on in Washington," Conant said. "RNC Chairman Michael Steele and elected Republicans are focused on fighting for reform and winning elections. The Democrats' problem is that the American people are growing skeptical of the massive government spending being pushed by Congressional leaders like Nancy Pelosi."
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
I think Steele has to resign as he has no intention of leading any kind of conservative movement to get back some sanity in this country.
Go Rush! - and keep the faith.
Angry Rush Limbaugh Strikes Back at RNC’s Steele
Monday, March 2, 2009
Rush Limbaugh on Monday fired back at critics of his fiery weekend speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference, and his biggest target was not on the left.
The conservative talk host saved his sharpest words for Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele. The barbs came in response to Steele's assertion that Limbaugh's challenges to the GOP are "incendiary" and "ugly."
"I hope [Steele] realizes he is not a talking-head pundit," Limbaugh said on his show Monday afternoon in a 20-minute response to Steele's criticism. "It's time for you to go behind the scenes and start doing the work you were elected to do, instead of trying to be some media star, which you're having a tough time pulling off."
"Why do you claim to lead the Republican Party when you seem obsessed with seeing to it President Obama succeeds?" Limbaugh asked.
In an interview with CNN's D.L. Hughley aired over the weekend, Steele said: ""He's an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh — his whole thing is just entertainment. Yes, it's incendiary. Yes, it's ugly."
Steele took particular issue with Hughley's assertion that Limbaugh had become "the de facto leader of the Republican Party." The RNC chairman insisted that he, not Limbaugh, was leading the GOP.
"Rush will say what Rush has to say. We'll do what we have to do," Steele said.
On Monday, Rush said Steele appears more supportive of President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi than of his own party.
Limbaugh also accused the RNC chair of disloyalty, since he'd appeared as a guest on Limbaugh's show during his failed 2006 Senate run in Maryland.
"My parents taught me when I was growing up that you always stood behind people who defended you, that you never abandon people who stood up for you and defended you against assault," Limbaugh said.
Steele, for his part, is backing down on his comments.
"My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh. I was maybe a little bit inarticulate . . . There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership….," Steele told Politico Monday
He added: "I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren't what I was thinking. It was one of those things where I thinking [sic] I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people … want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he's not."
Asked by Politico if he was apologizing to Limbaugh, "I wasn't trying to offend anybody. So, yeah, if he's offended, I'd say: Look, I'm not in the business of hurting people's feelings here . . . My job is to try to bring us all together."
Much of the dust-up between Rush and some Republicans came after his rousing CPAC speech in which he railed against the Obama administration for spreading fear in order to promote a liberal, big-government agenda. In the speech he repeated his controversial remarks from January that he hoped Obama failed.
"What is so strange about being honest and saying I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and re-form this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation?" he asked an enthusiastic crowd at CPAC.
"I frankly am stunned that the chairman of the Republican National Committee endorses such an agenda. I have to conclude that he does because he attacks me for wanting it to fail," Limbaugh said on his show Monday.
But not everyone in the GOP was on board with Rush's comments. Joining Steele in his criticism of Limbaugh was House Republican Whip Eric Cantor.
"I don't think anyone wants anything to fail right now," Cantor said during ABC News' "This Week" on Sunday. "We have such challenges. What we need to do is we need to put forth solutions to the problems that real families are facing today."
The RNC, for its part, spent Monday trying to deflect attention from the infighting among conservatives.
"Rahm Emanuel and the Democrats know they lose an argument with the Republican Party on substance so they are building straw men to attack and distract," RNC spokesman Alex Conant said in a statement.
"The feud between radio host Rush Limbaugh and Rahm Emanuel makes great political theater, but it is a sideshow to the important work going on in Washington," Conant said. "RNC Chairman Michael Steele and elected Republicans are focused on fighting for reform and winning elections. The Democrats' problem is that the American people are growing skeptical of the massive government spending being pushed by Congressional leaders like Nancy Pelosi."
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Lessons For America Today : Archbishop Dolan
The very basic premise of this article is "live what you believe" and if you find that you can't or won't, then you are lost. Courage to live what you believe to be true is the foundation of our country. Our forefathers wrote the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution based on courage and principles -
Achbishop Dolan has a very important lesson for us all here - if you live outside of a belief in something greater than yourself, then your world is too small for the rest of us to live in. You have isolated yourself from your real potential and diminish the rest of us at the same time.
America is not here to change to meet the new demands of this era of "change", those outside the spectrum of reality must change to meet the responsibilities and rewards of living in America.
Our country today is divided between those that believe in things that are greater than our selves: God, Country, Liberty, Freedom and the Right to chose our own destiny, and those that don't.
Keep the faith -
KEEPING THE FAITH
By KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ
March 1, 2009 *They were "climactic times."
There was "a lot of good, creative, vibrant, promising movement . . . all prompted by the genuine call for reform." But there was also "a lot of doubt, error, hurt, confusion, and downright silliness."*That sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it? But it's not about today's economic or political scene. The writer is Archbishop Timothy Michael Dolan, the new shepherd of New York's Catholics, in his 2000 book "Priests for the Third Millennium" - taking about the tumultuous times following Vatican Council II.
Specifically, he is describing the scene in the archdiocese of St. Louis in the summer of 1967: There was a crisis of faith in the seminary, as one-fourth of the priests on faculty had left the priesthood, and - writes Dolan - "the theology being taught was anything but of the Church."George Gottwald, a bishop who was nearing retirement, walked into the chaos and was challenged by a faculty member: "I dare you to tell me what we can possibly teach our students now that has not changed, that will not change, that can be stated with any amount of conviction at all! I dare you to tell me!"The answer was: You've gotta have faith.
Dolan recounts: "In the midst of doubt, ridicule, snickering, and confusion, the bishop simply stated 'the Apostles' Creed' " - the ancient profession that begins "I believe in God" and ends with "the life everlasting." The bishop "dared to state that there are certain truths that can always be counted upon because they come from God and not from us!" In our own city, try going for a walk, to clear your mind of the woes of politics and finance. Well, good luck. Advertisements around the city, on phone booths (we still have some) and at subway stops, seem to perfectly capture the moment. On one, a poster for Fox's new series "Lie to Me" - with just that text. Another implored "Trust Me."
Signs - from Wall Street to uptown - that are signs of, or pleas against, unbelief.The troubles were not far from the minds of those who gathered for the 8 a.m. mass at Saint Patrick's Cathedral on Monday, just a few hours after news officially broke that the Vatican would be appointing Milwaukee's Archbishop Dolan to replace retiring Edward Cardinal Egan. From the pulpit, Egan couldn't help but mention the financial meltdown and the bailout culture, which - these are my words, not his - are all about trust and integrity and a lack thereof.
The Gospel Catholics read that day at St. Pat's couldn't have been more appropriate. The Evangelist Mark relayed the story of a boy wracked by evil spirits. Jesus told the boy's father, "Everything is possible to one who has faith." The father replied, "I do believe, help my unbelief."That is Dolan's task, and all evidence suggests he's up to it. His face beamed with joy Tuesday, and his is the kind of effervescent smile that compels one to want the serenity he has. He's personable - he may be seen at one or the other of the new stadiums, throwing a first ball - but he'll also guide with a firm and clear hand. He's focused on the essentials: The Mass, he said at St. Joseph's Seminary in Dunwoodie on Monday evening, is "the most important thing that I ever do."
The new archbishop arrives at a moment of what the current pope, following the lead of his predecessor has referred to as a "new evangelization." Living the lessons he's instructed countless seminarians on, he brings to New York a blunt, forthright teaching style, laced with humor and born out of love.
In his book, he relays the story of a priest who had gotten inappropriately involved with a woman. The priest was planning on going away with the woman to find God's will. "Fat chance," Dolan wrote, that God's will would be discerned with that kind of continued imprudence. He was admonishing the seminarians to be authentic, a lesson that could keep us all out of trouble.Dolan, much like the new Pope Benedict, has been described as "conservative." If that means that they resist the calls of those who say the Catholic Church needs to change, that it is out of date for the modern era, then that's true. They've dedicated their lives to protecting it.
But conservative does not mean unwelcoming. It means someone who knows that a church that succumbs to the wills of the day, that surrenders to a pernicious moral relativism, is very far from what Christ founded.
You cannot say - as so many American politicians do - that you're an "ardent, practicing Catholic" and not speak out against the human-rights violation that is abortion. This is not a question of conservative or liberal Catholicism, it's a case of being Catholic or not.
Those who say the church will lose more members if it doesn't change miss the point - whatever compromise is made will only beg another discussion. If you call yourself Catholic and boldly live as if that means nothing, you have already left.
Dolan will tell you what you can do to get back, will accept you with open arms, but he'll be blunt about the situation - the Church does not change for you; it is you who is changed by faith.
The Gospel of John tells us that as Christ was being crucified, he said, "I am thirsty." In March 2009, who isn't? We're thirsty to actually trust the guy on the sign - of the bank, of the parish, of the political party. We're thirsty for someone who believes something real and true and time-tested and coming from a source greater than David Axelrod.
The new archbishop knows and has faith in such a Presence. George Weigel, the papal biographer, wrote at the beginning of this decade that all of the woes of the Church can be traced back to a lack of "courage to be Catholic." Dolan embodies that courage and will likely inspire New Yorkers to their knees and all of us to live - at work, at play, and yes, at Church - what we believe.
/Kathryn Jean Lopez (klopez@nationalreview.com) is the editor of National Review Online./Home http://www.nypost.com/
Achbishop Dolan has a very important lesson for us all here - if you live outside of a belief in something greater than yourself, then your world is too small for the rest of us to live in. You have isolated yourself from your real potential and diminish the rest of us at the same time.
America is not here to change to meet the new demands of this era of "change", those outside the spectrum of reality must change to meet the responsibilities and rewards of living in America.
Our country today is divided between those that believe in things that are greater than our selves: God, Country, Liberty, Freedom and the Right to chose our own destiny, and those that don't.
Keep the faith -
KEEPING THE FAITH
By KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ
March 1, 2009 *They were "climactic times."
There was "a lot of good, creative, vibrant, promising movement . . . all prompted by the genuine call for reform." But there was also "a lot of doubt, error, hurt, confusion, and downright silliness."*That sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it? But it's not about today's economic or political scene. The writer is Archbishop Timothy Michael Dolan, the new shepherd of New York's Catholics, in his 2000 book "Priests for the Third Millennium" - taking about the tumultuous times following Vatican Council II.
Specifically, he is describing the scene in the archdiocese of St. Louis in the summer of 1967: There was a crisis of faith in the seminary, as one-fourth of the priests on faculty had left the priesthood, and - writes Dolan - "the theology being taught was anything but of the Church."George Gottwald, a bishop who was nearing retirement, walked into the chaos and was challenged by a faculty member: "I dare you to tell me what we can possibly teach our students now that has not changed, that will not change, that can be stated with any amount of conviction at all! I dare you to tell me!"The answer was: You've gotta have faith.
Dolan recounts: "In the midst of doubt, ridicule, snickering, and confusion, the bishop simply stated 'the Apostles' Creed' " - the ancient profession that begins "I believe in God" and ends with "the life everlasting." The bishop "dared to state that there are certain truths that can always be counted upon because they come from God and not from us!" In our own city, try going for a walk, to clear your mind of the woes of politics and finance. Well, good luck. Advertisements around the city, on phone booths (we still have some) and at subway stops, seem to perfectly capture the moment. On one, a poster for Fox's new series "Lie to Me" - with just that text. Another implored "Trust Me."
Signs - from Wall Street to uptown - that are signs of, or pleas against, unbelief.The troubles were not far from the minds of those who gathered for the 8 a.m. mass at Saint Patrick's Cathedral on Monday, just a few hours after news officially broke that the Vatican would be appointing Milwaukee's Archbishop Dolan to replace retiring Edward Cardinal Egan. From the pulpit, Egan couldn't help but mention the financial meltdown and the bailout culture, which - these are my words, not his - are all about trust and integrity and a lack thereof.
The Gospel Catholics read that day at St. Pat's couldn't have been more appropriate. The Evangelist Mark relayed the story of a boy wracked by evil spirits. Jesus told the boy's father, "Everything is possible to one who has faith." The father replied, "I do believe, help my unbelief."That is Dolan's task, and all evidence suggests he's up to it. His face beamed with joy Tuesday, and his is the kind of effervescent smile that compels one to want the serenity he has. He's personable - he may be seen at one or the other of the new stadiums, throwing a first ball - but he'll also guide with a firm and clear hand. He's focused on the essentials: The Mass, he said at St. Joseph's Seminary in Dunwoodie on Monday evening, is "the most important thing that I ever do."
The new archbishop arrives at a moment of what the current pope, following the lead of his predecessor has referred to as a "new evangelization." Living the lessons he's instructed countless seminarians on, he brings to New York a blunt, forthright teaching style, laced with humor and born out of love.
In his book, he relays the story of a priest who had gotten inappropriately involved with a woman. The priest was planning on going away with the woman to find God's will. "Fat chance," Dolan wrote, that God's will would be discerned with that kind of continued imprudence. He was admonishing the seminarians to be authentic, a lesson that could keep us all out of trouble.Dolan, much like the new Pope Benedict, has been described as "conservative." If that means that they resist the calls of those who say the Catholic Church needs to change, that it is out of date for the modern era, then that's true. They've dedicated their lives to protecting it.
But conservative does not mean unwelcoming. It means someone who knows that a church that succumbs to the wills of the day, that surrenders to a pernicious moral relativism, is very far from what Christ founded.
You cannot say - as so many American politicians do - that you're an "ardent, practicing Catholic" and not speak out against the human-rights violation that is abortion. This is not a question of conservative or liberal Catholicism, it's a case of being Catholic or not.
Those who say the church will lose more members if it doesn't change miss the point - whatever compromise is made will only beg another discussion. If you call yourself Catholic and boldly live as if that means nothing, you have already left.
Dolan will tell you what you can do to get back, will accept you with open arms, but he'll be blunt about the situation - the Church does not change for you; it is you who is changed by faith.
The Gospel of John tells us that as Christ was being crucified, he said, "I am thirsty." In March 2009, who isn't? We're thirsty to actually trust the guy on the sign - of the bank, of the parish, of the political party. We're thirsty for someone who believes something real and true and time-tested and coming from a source greater than David Axelrod.
The new archbishop knows and has faith in such a Presence. George Weigel, the papal biographer, wrote at the beginning of this decade that all of the woes of the Church can be traced back to a lack of "courage to be Catholic." Dolan embodies that courage and will likely inspire New Yorkers to their knees and all of us to live - at work, at play, and yes, at Church - what we believe.
/Kathryn Jean Lopez (klopez@nationalreview.com) is the editor of National Review Online./Home http://www.nypost.com/
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Causes For Shortage of Ammunition in US : Marxist Liberal Politics
The main stream media is reporting, what else could they do, the shortage of ammunition for police forces in the United States is due to the war in Iraq, aka, George Bush - remember the Titanic? That went down because of George Bush - how about Mad Cow Disease? Yep - you guessed it , that damn George Bush.
The Associated Press and nearly every other news agency in this country will blame everything that befalls this country on good 'ol Bush and the majority of the population will agree. Rush Limbaugh said it best " ignorance is the most expensive commodity we have in this country".
There is another good saying that fits these people as well, " When ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise".
The article below lays out the facts like you won't see in the general media that is controlled by the liberal socialist left politics.
Keep the faith.
*Nationwide Ammunition Shortage Hits U.S.*
Posted By Bob Owens and Pajamas Media
On February 28, 2009
In _. Column2 01_, _. Positioning_, _Gun Control_, _Politics_, _US News_ _66 Comments http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/nationwide-ammunition-shortage-hits-us/?print=1#comments_controls_
If you, like thousands of other Americans, have Googled to find out why we are in the middle of a nationwide ammunition shortage, you would have stumbled across this [1] 2007 blog entry http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/237760.php.
In it, I corrected a poorly researched Associated Press story by Estes Thompson that claimed the military’s consumption of ammunition was responsible for police ammunition shortages here in the United States. Few things could have been further from the truth, but it seems rather apparent, in retrospect, that the goal of that AP article wasn’t to find the truth as much as it was to (falsely) lay blame for the police ammunition shortages at the feet of George W. Bush.
The real fact of the matter is that the military got the bulk of its small arms (pistol, rifle, machine gun) ammunition from one contracted ammunition plant, and that plant wasn’t even running near capacity. The military’s consumption clearly wasn’t to blame, and anecdotal evidence and statements from ammunition manufacturers strongly suggested that police departments themselves caused the 2007 ammunition shortage by purchasing far more ammunition than they had in the past. But what is causing our current ammunition shortages here in 2009?
Much of the demand comes from continued high law enforcement demand, the same demand that led to shortages two years ago. Police agencies around the nation have become more militarized in recent years and two trends within this militarization have led to greater police ammunition demand.*An increase in the size and number of paramilitary police units*Once upon a time, highly trained, heavily armed police units with alphabet-soup acronyms such as SWAT, SRT, SRU, or ERT were generally found as part of large, metropolitan police departments.
Today, law enforcement agencies of every size — including some [2] university police forces — have SWAT-type units armed with some combination of submachine guns, assault rifles, and sniper rifles to add to the traditional compliment of pistols and shotguns. To become proficient to the level expected of these units, each officer must fire thousands of rounds in training every year.*An increase in the use of “patrol carbines” in law enforcement*Some agencies prefer to call them “patrol carbines”; others refer to them as “tactical rifles.”
But whatever you call them, rifles based upon the AR-15 are becoming increasingly common as a weapon deployed to police officers outside of SWAT units, for some very logical reasons. AR-type rifles extend the range at which patrol officers can engage armed criminals, and because rifles have more practical accuracy than pistols, they can potentially reduce the number of shots fired to neutralize a suspect.
Paired with the right kind of ammunition, the .223 Remington/5.56mm caliber rifle also has surprisingly less over-penetration, theoretically reducing threats to civilians who might be downrange. Each of these weapons will also require officers carrying them to fire hundreds of rounds in training each year, and in a city that rotates rifles from one shift to another among their patrol units, this can necessitate tens of thousands of rounds of training ammunition.**
Fears of draconian gun and ammunition restrictions**
The 2008 elections that saw the Democratic Party extend their power in both houses of Congress and saw Barack Obama elected president made gun owners very nervous, and [3] with good reason http://pajamasmedia.com../blog/second-amendment-under-fire-gun-ownership-in-the-obama-era/.
We have a president that has favored gun bans and who desires to reinstate the horribly flawed 1994 assault weapons ban authored by our rather dim vice president. We also have radically anti-gun majority leaders in both the House of Representatives and Senate, and a Congress quite willing to pass massive, bloated laws without even bothering to read the contents. Fears of encroachment are certainly warranted.
*Economic instability*
As economies become unstable and people lose jobs, crime rates go up. It is an economic fact of life. Many people who are worried about an increase in crime arm themselves during economic downturns, leading to an increased demand for firearms and ammunition.As a result of all of these factors, manufacturers of firearms and ammunition saw demand increase to unprecedented levels as civilians have made a run on the kind of firearms they suspect that gun control advocates presently in charge will try to outlaw.This includes all handguns, all semi-automatic rifles (especially those targeted by the 1994 assault weapons bill that expired in 2004), and most semi-automatic shotguns.
Matt Reams of [4] Sierra Bullets is the largest ammunition manufacturer in the world, running the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant for the U.S. military under contract; it also is a major supplier of law enforcement and civilians.
In a statement, the company noted “unprecedented demand” for law enforcement ammunition. While other corporations are presently laying off workers and shutting down operations, ATK is in the middle of capital improvements to further increase production capability. Rick Shoupe of [7] PMC Ammunition
PMC has expanded production to try and handle as much of the demand as it can before the demand starts to drop. Even so, the first scent of legislation being introduced to Congress will light another candle in the demand for these products. It will not end until the legislation is passed.
Individual shooters are stockpiling thousands of rounds of ammunition because of fears of future punitive taxation or outright bans of certain kinds of ammunition. Law enforcement agencies are also stockpiling ammunition to make sure they have enough on hand to meet training requirements. The shortage we are seeing is the result of both agencies and private citizens hoarding the most sought-after ammunition.
Thus, this shortage is the result of an accordion effect that has developed over the past few years. Law enforcement agencies have been rapidly increasing their ammunition consumption because of how they are rearming, causing a permanent increase in demand. Just as ammunition manufacturers began to cope with that increase, a second run, based upon a downward-turning economy and rising fears of laws targeting gun and ammunition, dramatically expanded demand yet again.
Shortages of ammunition and firearms can be expected to continue for as long as it appears our overreaching federal government is a threat to our individual liberties, our economy continues to falter, and our police agencies keep militarizing.It’s going to be a long ride.
Stock up while you can.
The Associated Press and nearly every other news agency in this country will blame everything that befalls this country on good 'ol Bush and the majority of the population will agree. Rush Limbaugh said it best " ignorance is the most expensive commodity we have in this country".
There is another good saying that fits these people as well, " When ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise".
The article below lays out the facts like you won't see in the general media that is controlled by the liberal socialist left politics.
Keep the faith.
*Nationwide Ammunition Shortage Hits U.S.*
Posted By Bob Owens and Pajamas Media
On February 28, 2009
In _. Column2 01_, _. Positioning_, _Gun Control_, _Politics_, _US News_ _66 Comments http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/nationwide-ammunition-shortage-hits-us/?print=1#comments_controls_
If you, like thousands of other Americans, have Googled to find out why we are in the middle of a nationwide ammunition shortage, you would have stumbled across this [1] 2007 blog entry http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/237760.php.
In it, I corrected a poorly researched Associated Press story by Estes Thompson that claimed the military’s consumption of ammunition was responsible for police ammunition shortages here in the United States. Few things could have been further from the truth, but it seems rather apparent, in retrospect, that the goal of that AP article wasn’t to find the truth as much as it was to (falsely) lay blame for the police ammunition shortages at the feet of George W. Bush.
The real fact of the matter is that the military got the bulk of its small arms (pistol, rifle, machine gun) ammunition from one contracted ammunition plant, and that plant wasn’t even running near capacity. The military’s consumption clearly wasn’t to blame, and anecdotal evidence and statements from ammunition manufacturers strongly suggested that police departments themselves caused the 2007 ammunition shortage by purchasing far more ammunition than they had in the past. But what is causing our current ammunition shortages here in 2009?
Much of the demand comes from continued high law enforcement demand, the same demand that led to shortages two years ago. Police agencies around the nation have become more militarized in recent years and two trends within this militarization have led to greater police ammunition demand.*An increase in the size and number of paramilitary police units*Once upon a time, highly trained, heavily armed police units with alphabet-soup acronyms such as SWAT, SRT, SRU, or ERT were generally found as part of large, metropolitan police departments.
Today, law enforcement agencies of every size — including some [2] university police forces
But whatever you call them, rifles based upon the AR-15 are becoming increasingly common as a weapon deployed to police officers outside of SWAT units, for some very logical reasons. AR-type rifles extend the range at which patrol officers can engage armed criminals, and because rifles have more practical accuracy than pistols, they can potentially reduce the number of shots fired to neutralize a suspect.
Paired with the right kind of ammunition, the .223 Remington/5.56mm caliber rifle also has surprisingly less over-penetration, theoretically reducing threats to civilians who might be downrange. Each of these weapons will also require officers carrying them to fire hundreds of rounds in training each year, and in a city that rotates rifles from one shift to another among their patrol units, this can necessitate tens of thousands of rounds of training ammunition.**
Fears of draconian gun and ammunition restrictions**
The 2008 elections that saw the Democratic Party extend their power in both houses of Congress and saw Barack Obama elected president made gun owners very nervous, and [3] with good reason http://pajamasmedia.com../blog/second-amendment-under-fire-gun-ownership-in-the-obama-era/.
We have a president that has favored gun bans and who desires to reinstate the horribly flawed 1994 assault weapons ban authored by our rather dim vice president. We also have radically anti-gun majority leaders in both the House of Representatives and Senate, and a Congress quite willing to pass massive, bloated laws without even bothering to read the contents. Fears of encroachment are certainly warranted.
*Economic instability*
As economies become unstable and people lose jobs, crime rates go up. It is an economic fact of life. Many people who are worried about an increase in crime arm themselves during economic downturns, leading to an increased demand for firearms and ammunition.As a result of all of these factors, manufacturers of firearms and ammunition saw demand increase to unprecedented levels as civilians have made a run on the kind of firearms they suspect that gun control advocates presently in charge will try to outlaw.This includes all handguns, all semi-automatic rifles (especially those targeted by the 1994 assault weapons bill that expired in 2004), and most semi-automatic shotguns.
Matt Reams of [4] Sierra Bullets
In a statement, the company noted “unprecedented demand” for law enforcement ammunition. While other corporations are presently laying off workers and shutting down operations, ATK is in the middle of capital improvements to further increase production capability. Rick Shoupe of [7] PMC Ammunition
PMC has expanded production to try and handle as much of the demand as it can before the demand starts to drop. Even so, the first scent of legislation being introduced to Congress will light another candle in the demand for these products. It will not end until the legislation is passed.
Individual shooters are stockpiling thousands of rounds of ammunition because of fears of future punitive taxation or outright bans of certain kinds of ammunition. Law enforcement agencies are also stockpiling ammunition to make sure they have enough on hand to meet training requirements. The shortage we are seeing is the result of both agencies and private citizens hoarding the most sought-after ammunition.
Thus, this shortage is the result of an accordion effect that has developed over the past few years. Law enforcement agencies have been rapidly increasing their ammunition consumption because of how they are rearming, causing a permanent increase in demand. Just as ammunition manufacturers began to cope with that increase, a second run, based upon a downward-turning economy and rising fears of laws targeting gun and ammunition, dramatically expanded demand yet again.
Shortages of ammunition and firearms can be expected to continue for as long as it appears our overreaching federal government is a threat to our individual liberties, our economy continues to falter, and our police agencies keep militarizing.It’s going to be a long ride.
Stock up while you can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
