Carry Guns in National Parks

It is now “legal” to carry guns in national parks, providing applicable state rules are observed. And there’s no shortage of hand-wringers predicting the end of the world as we know it. So, perhaps we should spend a moment and review what the new rule won’t do:

It won’t legalize murder.

It won’t legalize poaching.

It won’t legalize armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon or brandishing.

It won’t legalize destruction of property.

It won’t legalize gun possession by “prohibited persons.”

The “reasoning” used by those who tell us we cannot allow guns in national parks actually applies everywhere, and that’s where we can demonstrate the flaw in their argument.

An otherwise peaceable armed citizen who gets by just fine with his guns outside park boundaries won’t suddenly undergo a personality transformation once he crosses a line on a map.

And a criminal, who is not predisposed to obeying rules, won’t alter his behavior one way or another.

Here’s the crux of what the antis fear, from a Los Angeles Times article:

The presence of guns, they say, could increase the chance of deadly accidents and up the ante in confrontations between park visitors or between visitors and wildlife.

I won’t argue that. It could. That same argument could be used against having guns anywhere. And is.

But that kind of disingenuous thinking only looks at one side of the equation and totally ignores the protective benefits of guns in moral hands. It’s the kind of mentality that says because some are abusive of freedom, we all must be deprived of it.

It’s the kind of mentality that’s just waiting for the first opportunity to scream “We told you so!”

And they’ll get plenty of help from their mass media allies.

As if anything gives them a claim on your right to defend your life, or the lives of your loved ones…

As usual, they’ll be looking to hold those who control themselves responsible for the actions of those who don’t.  Because, when you get right down to it, that’s all they’ve got.

Be ready for it. This isn’t over.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m2d22-What-guns-in-national-parks-rule-change-wont-do

Planned Parenthood Hides Child Sex Abuse – 10 Times!

Largest abortion provider nailed again in undercover film footage!

Planned Parenthood has been caught covering up child-sex abuse during an undercover sting – for the 10th time.

Newly released video footage reveals staff members at a Milwaukee, Wis., Planned Parenthood abortion clinic counseling a woman who posed as a 14-year-old statutory rape victim not to tell anyone about her 31-year-old boyfriend.

They also coached her on how to obtain an abortion without her parents’ knowledge or approval, according to student-led nonprofit Live Action, a group that filmed the incident.

Lila Rose, a 21-year-old UCLA student and Live Action’s president, went undercover at the Milwaukee business and told a counselor she was 14, pregnant by her “31-year-old boyfriend,” and she couldn’t let her parents know.

According to Wisconsin law, sex between an adult and a child younger than 16 years old is a felony, and health professionals are required to report cases of sexual abuse to authorities. However, counselors at the abortion clinic indicated that they would not report the abuse.

Live Action’s recording of the event can be seen below:

Rose asks a clinic counselor, “Are they gonna ask about my boyfriend?”

The Planned Parenthood counselor replies, “Um, they don’t. No. They don’t if you don’t want them to know.”

Rose tells the counselor, “He’s a lot older,” and the employee replies, “He’s a lot older, OK. … If you disclose that information, it’s up to them [inaudible] to see if they can report it. Was it consensual?”

“Yeah,” Rose replied.

“It was consensual? OK,” the counselor responded. “It depends on the person that you’re disclosing that information to.”

The counselor also confirms that the girl’s 31-year-old boyfriend will pay for the abortion.

Live Action has previously released undercover footage in its “Mona Lisa Project” showing sexual abuse cover-up at Planned Parenthood clinics in California, Indiana, Arizona, Tennessee and Alabama.

“In case after case, Planned Parenthood exempts itself from its legal and professional obligations,” Rose said in a statement. “At a time when the Obama administration, through its new health-care plan, is offering potentially billions of dollars to the abortion industry, state and federal lawmakers need to take notice of Planned Parenthood’s lawlessness and make certain they receive no more taxpayer subsidies.”

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=125970

Supreme Court Scrutinizes State, Local Gun Control

The justices will be deciding whether the right to possess guns guaranteed by the Second Amendment — like much of the rest of the Bill of Rights — applies to states as well as the federal government. It’s widely believed they will say it does.

By some estimates, about 90 million people in the U.S. own a total of some 200 million guns.

The new lawsuits were begun almost immediately after the court’s blockbuster ruling in 2008 that struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban. In that case, the court ruled for the first time that individuals have a right keep guns for self-defense and other purposes. Because the nation’s capital is a federal enclave, that ruling applied only to federal laws.

The challenges to the Chicago area laws, which are strikingly similar to the Washington law, are part of an aggressive push by gun rights proponents in the courts and state legislatures.

Courts are considering many gun laws following the justice’s 2008 decision. Massachusetts’ highest state court is examining the validity of a state law requiring gun owners to lock weapons in their homes.

Two federal appeals courts have raised questions about gun possession convictions of people who previously had been convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. A suit in Washington challenges the capital’s ban on carrying loaded guns on public streets.

Lawmakers in several states are pushing for proposals favored by the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups. The Virginia Legislature is considering repealing a law that limits handgun purchases to one a month. That law was enacted in 1993 because Virginia was the No. 1 supplier of guns used in crimes in other states. A separate proposal in Virginia would allow people with a concealed-weapon permit to take hidden guns into restaurants that sell alcohol, as long as those patrons don’t drink.

76-year-old Otis McDonald said he joined the suit in Chicago because he wants a handgun at home to protect himself from gangs.

The thrust of the legal arguments in the case is over how the Supreme Court might apply the Second Amendment to states and cities.

In earlier cases applying parts of the Bill of Rights to the states, the court has done so by using the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, passed in the wake of the Civil War to ensure the rights of newly freed slaves.

The court also has relied on that same clause — “no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law” — in cases that established a woman’s right to an abortion and knocked down state laws against interracial marriage and gay sex.

This is the approach the NRA favors.

But many conservative and legal scholars — as well as the Chicago challengers — want the court to employ another part of the 14th amendment, forbidding a state to make or enforce any law “which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

They argue this clause was intended as a broad guarantee of the civil rights of the former slaves, but that a Supreme Court decision in 1873 effectively blocked its use.

Breathing new life into the “privileges or immunities” clause might allow for new arguments to shore up other rights, including abortion and property rights, these scholars say.

This approach might enable challenges to arcane state laws that limit economic competition, said Clark M. Neily III of the public interest law firm Institute for Justice. He pointed to a Louisiana law that protects existing florists by requiring a license before someone can arrange or sell flowers. The licensing exam is graded by florists, he noted.

“No reasonable person thinks that law has a legitimate purpose,” Neily said. But he said, “Right now, once you get a law like this on the books, it’s almost impossible to get rid of.”

The case is McDonald v. Chicago, 08-1521

Paul Ryan Slams the Democratic Health Care Bill

Happy 1st Birthday Tea-Party Movement

It’s still difficult to believe that last week President Obama actually celebrated Feb. 17 as the first anniversary of his stimulus plan (a.k.a. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act), in which Washington borrowed $862 billion on American taxpayers’ credit. Celebrate the piling of $1 trillion on the backs of our posterity? Call me clueless, but I’ve never considered easing present circumstances by going into massive amounts of debt as an answer to anyone’s economic recovery and longevity.

But I bet there’s one date the president definitely won’t be celebrating: this Saturday, Feb. 27, which marks the first anniversary (or first birthday) of the tea-party movement.

To think, last year at this time, the mainstream media and Washington politicians were either completely overlooking them or labeling those patriot gatherings as extreme and wacky fringe resistances. WorldNetDaily was virtually alone in reporting the tea parties as a legitimate patriotic movement, like the original 1773 protest in Boston Harbor.

Today, just one year later, tea-party patriots have proven themselves as a collective and formidable force and foe against big government power and corruption. Even according to the latest CBS News/New York Times poll, roughly one in five adult Americans identifies with the tea-party movement.

To read the rest of this article go to http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=125773

Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) Propose A Freeze In Congressional Office Funding During Economic Downturn

Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) is leading the charge to eliminate any increase in member representational allowance (MRA). The measure would prohibit an MRA increase in any year that the national unemployment rate is above 6 percent or in any previous fiscal year that the Treasury Department has declared the nation’s debt more than $5.5 trillion.

“Until this Congress addresses the fundamental challenges facing our economy, I believe we need to start feeling the same pain as the American people,” Heller said at a Legislative Branch Subcommittee on Appropriations hearing Wednesday.

“When it comes to our own office budgets, Congress has spent without regard for our constituents’ hardships.”

The measure has been referred to the House Administration Committee. Chairman Robert Brady (D-Pa.) said that while he wasn’t certain whether the bill was scheduled to be taken up, he could see where Heller was coming from.

“I can certainly understand what he’s talking about, when the country’s hurting and we’re spending money ourselves, so I’ll look into it,” he said in an interview.

Obama says he is not a Socialist and he favors the Free Market System. Do you believe him?

I think the record speaks for itself.  The best example of the President being an “ardent” supporter of socialism, not the free market system, has to be his plan for health care. The driving force behind Obamacare has been a government take over of the health care system.  Despite scaling back his plan, the President believes that government can do a better job in providing health insurance than the private sector.  That’s not the philosophy of a free market supporter.

Now I know some of you are going to praise his latest plan saying that he compromised.  However, this version of Obamacare is just a means to an end.  Obama still wants the same result — a government take over. Yes, he is for capping insurance premiums, but that will not resolve the problems of costs!  Capping premiums may force many insurance companies to quit the business.  The long term outlook is that premiums will have to rise if we don’t tackle issues such as medical liability lawsuits and defensive medicine.   Just look at Romneycare in Massachusetts.  During the first two years, Massachusetts insurance costs skyrocketed 50% with no end in sight.  Yesterday, I just got a notice that my premiums are increasing another 33% just this year.  Why?  Because state leaders did nothing to address actual health costs while mandating more coverage.

Once again do you believe the President is a free market supporter or a socialist?

Stay tuned today for comments on the health care show down between President Obama and Republican Leaders.

For those who believe that the Republicans have stalled health care reform, get a clue or a calculator.  Until the election of Scott Brown, the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate and a big majority in the House.

http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/news/lone_republican/index.php/2010/02/25/is-obama-a-socialist/