Hypotheticals

 In the Republican Presidential debate Representative Ron Paul was asked a hypothetical question about whether a 30 year old man should receive intense medical treatment for six months, even though he has no health insurance?

Paul said people should not be forced to purchase healthcare insurance, however if they need treatment they need to be responsible for paying the bill. Many people did not like his response. I happen to agree with Paul; Mr. Hypothetical should receive the treatment, but also needs to pay for it.  

 Speaking of hypotheticals, lets take that same 30 year old who has now recovered. He now goes into a fancy restaurant and orders the most expensive meal with the most expensive bottle of wine. After completing the meal he tells the waiter he has no means to pay for the meal. What should the restaurant do? After all, people need to eat to sustain life. Should restaurants be responsible for feeding people for free? Of course not. The man needs to be held responsible for his actions and pay for his meal. Therefore, the man should have to pay for the medical treatment, just like he would have to pay for his meal.

Then again, people need to be reminded that Obamacare is about control not healthcare. 

The Tea Party against the Regime

The Tea Party represents people that are frustrated with the direction this country is headed and want to do their part to try and stop it. They are not Nazi's, Astro-turf, Terrorists, Barbarians, or Hobbits. They are not sons of bitches. They are true Patriots who care about this country. The rabble who protest the Tea Party Patriots have been indoctrinated by the liberal schools, so-called Mainstream Media, Union Bosses, and the Statists to look to the Government for their well being. They do not even realize they are being used.

The Statists promote an ever increasing amount of people dependent on Government so they can stay in POWER. It is akin to slavery in that the people relying on the Government need only pull the D lever for their Masters come election time, instead of working the fields.

Then there is the unholy alliance between the Government and the Public Service Employee Unions, where the Democrat/Statists gave into the demands of the Unions in return for campaign contributions, so that the Democrat/Statists can stay in power; so the Democrat/Statists can give into the demands of the Unions and so on. Some of the demands were pension and lifetime healthcare benefits, which the employees paid little to nothing into and now the States and Cities cannot afford. In other words, the Statists promised some things they could not deliver on.

 Barack Hussein Obama is supposed to be the "Leader" of the Free World, but he is NOT a leader; he is a Community Agitator. Obama is a divisive and polarizing figure who pits one group of Americans against another and is the one fomenting the tension and hostility against the Tea Party Patriots. Obama is a BULLY and a LIAR, who uses scare tactics and threats against the American people. His policies and rhetoric endangers America. Hopefully, these people will learn the errors of their ways and join the Tea Party in turning this country around from the fallacies of the Obama Regime and the other Statists.

Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood

According to an August 13, 2011 article by Gulag Bound, Barack Hussein Obama has three members of the Muslim Brotherhood working for him. Obama has also opened formal contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood and wants to support them with $3 billion. 

As a State Senator Obama said, we must have empathy for the jihadists who attacked this country on 9/11. He also invited the Muslim Brotherhood to attend his 2009 speech in Cairo, Egypt. The same Muslim Brotherhood who call for a “Civilization-Jihadist Process,” in which they would destroy the Western civilization from within. The Muslim Brotherhood says the White House will become the Muslim House. They state, we do not want to democratize Islam, we want to Islamize democracy. That is what we want. Sharia law is not compatible with the US Constitution; then again the Obama Regime does not care too much about the Constitution either and wants to change it. The Muslim Brotherhood is a mortal enemy of our civilization. Their slogan says so openly, their way is Jihad, and their method is death.

  

If Barack Hussein Obama has members of the Muslim Brotherhood working for him; and if decides to support the Muslim Brotherhood with $3 billion would he not be violating his oath of office he swore to, which is to uphold and defend the Constitution? Would this act be considered giving aid and comfort to the enemy, which would be considered an act of Treason? The President can be impeached for an act of Treason. If he decides to go through with supporting our enemy, The Muslim Brotherhood, will Congress have the COURAGE to impeach him? Obama shows weakness to the world, thus endangers Americans.

Cowardly Don Imus Attacks Sarah Palin

August 4, 2011 Don Imus was talking to Alan Colmes on his Show and called Sarah Palin ‘stupid’ for her remarks that if the Tea Party were real terrorists Obama would hang out with them. And of course Colmes agreed. Imus called her remarks nonsense. Just because Imus wants to bury his head about Obama, possibly for fear of being called a racist again, does not make it so.  Her remarks were not nonsense, they are the TRUTH. Barack Hussein Obama’s mentor is the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. She had the courage to stand up to the attacks on the Tea Party, unlike the gutless Don Imus, who cow-towed to Al (Not So Sharp) Sharpton when he made his remarks about the girl’s basketball team. Don Imus is a COWARD and the STUPID one, because he is apparently blind to the fact of what the Obama Regime and the Statists are doing to this country.  

The New Crystal Meth Law is Bad Medicine

Unincorporated Jefferson County and other Missouri cities have enacted new laws requiring citizens to obtain a prescription for cold remedies that contain pseudo-ephedrine. There is also a push for a statewide law to do the same thing. The pharmacies, drug stores, retail outlets and convenience stores that sell cold remedies that contain pseudo-ephedrine will have to keep them behind the counter, as well as needing the prescription for them.

            Requiring law abiding citizens to obtain a prescription to receive what used to be over-the-counter cold and allergy medications is not a Conservative, limited government approach to address the problem of “Crystal Meth.” A similar argument is made by “gun control advocates,” who want more and more restrictions regarding guns placed on law-abiding citizens and businesses.

Once again law abiding citizens will be punished because some government bureaucrat passes a law without thinking about the unintended consequences. Some of the unintended consequences are: People will need a prescription to obtain these drugs, which will cost time and money by having to make an appointment, go to the doctor, pay for the visit and then pick up the item. People may not want to go through the hassle of getting the medicine and may end up getting sicker because of it; necessitating a trip to the hospital.  There will be an extra burden on the businesses by having to place the products behind the counter and check the prescriptions. Then there is the loss of revenue to the businesses and the municipalities that enact the law because people will shop elsewhere.

            What is the reasoning for passing these laws?  Could it be these politicians/ lawmakers are looking for the easy fix? Are they possibly thinking let’s make it difficult for these illegal drug makers to obtain the chemicals needed to make crystal meth? They claim pseudo-ephedrine is the one essential ingredient in making methamphetamine and this will stop the meth problem. Nevertheless, what will prevent the illegal drug makers from breaking into homes or robbing pharmacies to get that ingredient? Could the illegal drug makers possibly change the formula where pseudo-ephedrine is no longer needed by replacing it with another ingredient?  What about the other ingredients and household chemicals such as: acetone, alcohol, anhydrous ammonia, battery acid, benzene, camera batteries, diet aids, drain cleaner, ether (starting fluid), gasoline additives/rubbing alcohol, iodine, iodine crystals, muriatic acid, paint thinner, phenyl acetone, red phosphorous, rock, table, or Epsom salt, Red Devil Lye, stained coffee filters, toluene (found in brake cleaner), white gasoline and wooden matches. that makes up crystal meth; should there then be a law to ban or restrict those items?

There has been an increase in the use of heroin in this county and this law does nothing to stop that. Some people try to make a correlation between the increases in the use of heroin with the selling of pseudoephedrine to illegal drug makers, because they use the money to purchase heroin. I do not see the correlation. Although some heroin users sell drugs to obtain other drugs, they also get their money from robberies, burglaries, prostitution and shoplifting. In fact, many stores do not prosecute shoplifters and these companies become enablers for the drug addicts to get their money.  

The Jefferson County Sheriff's Office reported making 226 meth lab busts in 2010; 217 in 2009 and 93 meth lab busts as of April 30, 2011. They should be commended for that, however, speaking as a former police officer, who made numerous arrests including drug violations, that’s their job. There are laws on the books to deal with illegal drug making and those laws should be strenuously enforced. The way to combat the drug problem is to go after the drug dealers and producers.  Law-abiding citizens and businesses should not be punished or penalized to correct the illegal drug trade and therefore, laws requiring a prescription to obtain pseudoephedrine products should not be enacted. Let’s go after the “BAD GUYS.”  

Statists and Gun Rights

 Representative Carolyn McCarthy Democrat/Statist of New York, a staunch supporter of restricting gun rights said the lax gun laws in America led to the mass shooting in Norway. What the more restrictive gun laws in Norway did not stop it? In Norway a license is required to own a gun, and the owner must provide a written statement saying why he or she wants one. What, a criminal is not going to LIE? 

Some people believe it is up to the police to protect us. As a former police officer, I say this is a false premise. Policemen usually respond after the crime and do follow-up work to catch the perpetrator.

 Others believe in more restrictive gun laws and still others believe in an outright ban on them. You’ve seen the signs in America. It’s a picture of a gun encircled with a line slashed through it. They are everywhere. These signs are in schools, churches, hospitals, government buildings, and businesses. They’re supposed to represent a universal message stating that No Guns Are Allowed i.e. a ‘Gun Free’ zone on the premises. Yet in the criminal mind it represents a place where there will be little or no resistance, in other words a Shooting Gallery, because criminals do not care about laws.

In Norway the police were unable to get to the shooting site while it was occurring, because they did not have a boat or helicopter. In the Virginia Tech shooting the Media and a number of heavily armed police officers were on campus as seen in the video when the shootings were occurring, because you could hear the gunshots coming from inside the school at that time. Nevertheless, having more policemen on the scene as seen in the News video did not prevent Cho from murdering those innocent people.

The restrictive gun laws in Norway did not prevent the massacre from happening. Being a gun free zone did not stop the massacre as in Virginia Tech. There are EVIL people in the world who mean us harm. People need to be able to defend themselves from these evildoers. If the people in Norway or the students at Virginia Tech were armed the carnage may have been limited or at least they would have had a chance to protect themselves and possibly take out the shooter. 

 People have a God given right to be able to protect themselves and their family. I say they have a duty to do so. This means people should be able to arm themselves anywhere. These rights are protected under the Second Amendment of the Constitution in America, however several countries in the UN, as well as FOOLS like Representative Carolyn McCarthy do NOT think so. That is why Patriotic Americans need to stand up and fight for the right to protect themselves and their family. 

Who are the ADULTS

On July 29, 2011 Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer (the Three Stooges) held a Press conference after the US House passed the Boehner Debt Ceiling Bill. They said the Boehner Bill was tabled by a bi-partisan vote 59-41, because it is a catastrophe and would roil the markets. The six Republicans were: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).

 They touted they were the adults in the room and this was a serious matter. They claimed Reid’s bill was the adult bill and must be passed for the sake of the country; all the while they were grinning and snickering during the Press conference. So, who are the ADULTS? And what was so FUNNY? The majority of the American people do not think this is a laughing matter.

 They talked about the need to ‘compromise,’ however a Statists’ definition of ‘compromise’ is doing it their way.  They said there should be an up or down vote on raising the Debt Ceiling. Ironically, Harry Reid and the Statists did not do an up or down vote on Boehners Bill. They also emphasized that Boehner’s Bill was voted to be tabled on a bi-partisan vote and that is why the Republicans should go along with the Reid Bill. Yet, when Obamacare was rammed through there was bi-partisan opposition to it in the House. So why did Reid then proceed to do parliamentary procedures (trickery) to get Obamacare passed?

They said the Republican’s were playing politics and the Debt Ceiling has to be raised. They justified it by saying it has been raised in the past. Yet, in 2006 Barack Hussein Obama and all the other Democrat/Statists voted against raising the debt ceiling. They were right then for the wrong reason, because I guess it’s alright for them to play politics. The debt debate should have been handled then but wasn't.


Why have debt ceilings?  A debt ceiling is supposed to force Congress to spend within their means; yet what good is it if every time it is reached the Statists vote to increase it?  This country has a spending problem, which has been exacerbated since the Democrat Statist’s and Obama had the power.


The Tea Party caucus was sent to Washington to change the way things are done in Washington. Nevertheless, the Tea Party caucus is being vilified by Obama, the Democrat/Statist’s, RINO’s and the so- called Mainstream Media as being intransigent and unwilling to compromise. The Tea Party caucus is trying to do the responsible thing and get control of the National debt. Therefore, it is the Tea Party caucus who ARE the ADULTS in the room.