" You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness."
Ronald Reagan
President Obama is trying to trumpet in a “New Era of Responsibility” with the announcement of his 2010 budget. The plan at best will raise taxes and triple the current budget, and at worst create the biggest government in the history of the world:
It will take some time before all the details of the budget are revealed, due in large part because the budget plan lacks details on such high ticket items like the healthcare initiatives (there’s transparency for you), but already people are starting to question the numbers:
Above all this budget does fulfill one of Obama’s campaign promises, tax relief for those that don’t pay taxes and higher taxes for those identified as the “rich:”
Much will be written, and many will disagree over the next few weeks and months, but in the end this budget (as it is written now) will not help hardworking Americans. More over, the trouble with this budget does not rest solely with the Democrats.
When are those in Washington, DC going to wake up?
Liberals act an awful lot like Vegas magicians. They think they can use slight of hand and shining objects to distract the American public with one hand, while using the other hand to undermine our freedoms. That trick may work on other Liberals, but it never works on those who are committed to the principals of the Constitution.
Take for instances the Blair Hold firearm’s resolution (HR45). During a time in which the country is “occupied” with dealing with the economy, along comes a little bill meant to infringe upon our 2nd Amendment rights:
(A) the safe storage of firearms, particularly in the vicinity of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;
(B) the safe handling of firearms;
(C) the use of firearms in the home and the risks associated with such use;
(D) the legal responsibilities of firearms owners, including Federal, State, and local laws relating to requirements for the possession and storage of firearms, and relating to reporting requirements with respect to firearms; and
(E) any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate
Section 102 (a) (1) a current, passport-sized photograph of the applicant that provides a clear, accurate likeness of the applicant. Question: What is wrong with a Driver’s License?
Section 102 (a) (8) an authorization by the applicant to release to the Attorney General or an authorized representative of the Attorney General any mental health records pertaining to the applicant. Comment: I am in favor of flagging gun purchases for those with mental illness, but we must proceed very careful. But this is better handled at the State level, and is an overreach by the Federal government. This current provision sounds intrusive. Do we really want a national database listing personal information of individuals and their mental disorders.
Section 103 (c) looks to be creating a federal firearms card, with your picture and information. Comment: This from the same party that objects to picture ID’s when voting, but see’s no problem with a National ID program (just as they had in Nazi Germany and the former USSR).
Section 104 All renewals will go through the Attorney General. Comment: So instead of going to my local police department (where they would be very familiar with my character), I would have to go to some “central” location and meet with a person who has NO clue of my personality beyond what is written on a firearms application. Who would know me better, local law enforcement or a Federal bureaucrat?
If this bill were to pass, I doubt very much it would stand-up to the scrutiny of the Supreme Court.......this time. But more frightening is that there are some in Congress (and throughout the United States) who feel that H.R. 45 somehow passes the muster of “shall not be infringed.”
The question is slightly misleading. The citizens of Washington DC have the right to vote right now, however that do not have a voting representative in either the House (DC has one “representative” in the House who can speak, but cannot vote) or the Senate. The reason for this is simply. The Capital of the United States should remain as neutral as possible, free of party affiliation; it was this reason that control over what is now known as Washington, D.C., was set forth in the Constitution of the United States (Article One, section Eight).
Attempts to expand “voting rights” into the Capital is nothing more than a political move on the part of the Democrats, and is the exact reason why the Capital of the United States must remain nonaligned and free from political entanglements.
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released another report that is very critical of the recently passed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The CBO analysis, dated Feb. 11, states that the $787-billion plan will increase employment in the short-term, but will run up deficit spending which will “crowd out” private investment in the economy in the long-term:
Posts
