Social Security Sent $75.8 Million in Funds to Fugitive Felons
(CNSNews.com) - Since 2005, when it first began to crack down on the problem, the Social Security Administration has paid out $75.8 million to fugitive felons receiving payments on behalf of other Social Security beneficiaries. The SSA allows a “representative payee” to accept payments for beneficiaries whose age, mental state or physical condition inhibits their ability to manage their own finances.
Three Mile Island and Chernobyl: What Went Wrong and Why Today's Reactors Are Safe
(CNSNews.com) - Since 2005, when it first began to crack down on the problem, the Social Security Administration has paid out $75.8 million to fugitive felons receiving payments on behalf of other Social Security beneficiaries. The SSA allows a “representative payee” to accept payments for beneficiaries whose age, mental state or physical condition inhibits their ability to manage their own finances.
| Ninth Circuit Holds that Second Amendment Applies to States |
| Friday, April 24, 2009 |
| This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit marked a milestone in Second Amendment history by ruling that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. NRA has been involved in, and supportive of, this case for the past ten years and has filed several amicus briefs in the case. "The historic Heller decision was a major victory for law-abiding gun owners and recognized that the federal government and the District of Columbia cannot infringe on our Right to Keep and Bear Arms," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. "This week's decision, which applies to the states in the Ninth Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington), ensures that the fundamental freedoms affirmed in Heller are not just limited to the residents of Washington, D.C." In 1999, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance that made it a misdemeanor to possess a firearm on county property, effectively banning gun shows. This ordinance affected a local business, owned by Russell and Sallie Nordyke, which promotes gun shows throughout California. In an attempt to continue holding their gun shows on the Alameda county fairgrounds property, the Nordykes filed suit to strike down the ordinance. The Ninth Circuit upheld the ordinance banning guns on county property, but found, consistent with the views of most Second Amendment scholars, that the Second Amendment protects the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for all law-abiding Americans. "The NRA shares the Nordykes' disappointment with the ruling on the county ordinance, as gun shows should not be discriminated against by local government entities. The incorporation portion of the decision, however, is a major step forward in protecting our Second Amendment freedoms," said Cox. "This decision brings us closer to seeing Heller applied throughout the land," concluded Cox. "After nearly 10 years of litigation, the hard work of the Nordykes, their attorneys, Donald Kilmer and Don Kates, and NRA's legal team has resulted in this week's historic decision |
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------ --------- ---------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated..
------------ --------- ---------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of
13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------ --------- ---------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
------------ --------- ---------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---- ------------ - ------------ -
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------ --------- ---------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. >From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------ --------- --------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------ --------- ---------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed..
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.
The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER! DON'T ALLOW GOVERNMENT TO WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN THEIR EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET!!
| Ammunition Sales Restrictions Moving Forward in California |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 |
| Please Contact the Members of the Assembly Committee on Appropriations Today! Yesterday, the Assembly Committee on Public Safety considered two bills of great concern to Assemblymember Jim Nielsen (R-2) - Vice Chair Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-13) Assemblymember Charles M. Calderon (D-58) Assemblymember Mike Davis (D-48) Assemblymember Michael D. Duvall (R-72) Assemblymember Felipe Fuentes (D-39) Assemblymember Isadore Hall, III (D-52) Assemblymember Diane L. Harkey (R-73) Assemblymember Dave Jones (D-9)
Assemblymember Jeff Miller (R-71)
Assemblymember John A. Pérez (D-46)
Assemblymember Curren D. Price, Jr. (D-51)
Assemblymember Nancy Skinner (D-14)
Assemblymember Jose Solorio (D-69)
Assemblymember Audra Strickland (R-37)
Assemblymember Tom Torlakson (D-11) |
The Climate Change Caper
Days after the Obama administration unveiled a push to combat climate change, Indian officials said it was unlikely to agree to binding emission cuts since they would harm economic growth.
President Obama and Speaker Pelosi are now championing a "Cap and Trade" scheme that will ration energy while increasing taxes. A version of this proposal was introduced last year as the Warner/Lieberman Cap and Trade bill. Here are the key details from last year's legislation that are the basis for the Obama/Pelosi plan:
- $1.2 TRILLION Tax Increase over 7 years on gasoline, home energy and really all energy in next decade. Source: Congressional Budget Office, April 10, 2008
- this tax would cost the economy 3 to 4 million jobs according to an analysis by the American Council on Capital Formation
- the average family would lose over $4,000 per year in purchasing power (and remember the Pelosi/Obama tax cut was only $800 per couple)
- Gasoline prices would increase anywhere from 77 to 145 percent--that means prices of about $2 a gallon now would go up to $3.50 or even $5 a gallon
As it becomes clearer that President Obama's proposed cap-and-trade legislation has more to do with wealth distribution and less to do with cleaning up the environment, there is a growing resistance to enacting this type of scheme in the US. William Kovacs from the US Chamber says it best with this quote, "The Obama budget did more to help us consolidate and coalesce the business community than anything we could have done. It's opened eyes to the fact that this is about a social welfare transfer system, not about climate."
From The Independent womens Forum
Man’s Contribution to Global Warming
THE MYTH OF GREEN JOBS
Late last year we called into question the credibility of a Center for American Progress “study” purporting to show how how many “green collar jobs” $100 billion in government spending on “green investments” would create. CAP did not take kindly to our criticism.
Now four academics have taken a closer look at that CAP study as well as reports from three other organizations including the American Solar Energy Society, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the United Nations Environmental Programme. York College of Pennsylvania Dean Dr. William Bogart describes their findings:
Economic analysis is not a matter of justifying policy goals by making optimistic assumptions and ignoring those realities that fail to support your objectives. Our work here clearly shows that the foundations of these “green” jobs claims do not measure up to the kind of research standards we should demand when evaluating change in direction for our economy.
Their report goes on to identify Seven Myths of Green Jobs, including:
- Myth: Everyone understands what a green job is.
Reality: No standard definition of a green job exists. - Myth: Creating green jobs will boost productive employment.
Reality: Green jobs estimates include huge numbers of clerical, bureaucratic, and administrative positions that do not produce goods and services for consumption. - Myth: Green jobs forecasts are reliable.
Reality: The green jobs studies made estimates using poor economic models based on dubious assumptions. - Myth: Green jobs promote employment growth.
Reality: By promoting more jobs instead of more productivity, the green jobs described in the literature encourage low-paying jobs in less desirable conditions. Economic growth cannot be ordered by Congress or by the United Nations. Government interference - such as restricting successful technologies in favor of speculative technologies favored by special interests - will generate stagnation. - Myth: The world economy can be remade by reducing trade and relying on local production and reduced consumption without dramatically decreasing our standard of living.
Reality: History shows that nations cannot produce everything their citizens need or desire. People and firms have talents that allow specialization that make goods and services ever more efficient and lower-cost, thereby enriching society. - Myth: Government mandates are a substitute for free markets.
Reality: Companies react more swiftly and efficiently to the demands of their customers and markets, than to cumbersome government mandates. - Myth: Imposing technological progress by regulation is desirable.
Reality: Some technologies preferred by the green jobs studies are not capable of efficiently reaching the scale necessary to meet today’s demands and could be counterproductive to environmental quality.
The Obama Budget
March 18, 2009 By Nathaniel Ward The tax-and-spend Obama budget President Obama's 2010 budget proposal includes a massive 25 percent spending increase. Heritage Foundation budget expert Brian Riedl explains that this "spending increase represents the largest non-war government expansion since the New Deal." http://members.myheritage.org/site/R?i=FvHF0AqRUQ2O9vsSc5t0lw.. Riedl breaks down what the Obama budget plan would do:
* Increase spending by $1 trillion over the next decade;
* Include an additional $250 billion placeholder for another financial bailout; * Likely lead to a 12 percent increase in discretionary spending;
* Permanently expand the federal government by nearly 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over pre-recession levels;
* Raise taxes on all Americans by $1.4 trillion over the next decade; * Raise taxes for 3.2 million taxpayers by an average of $300,000 over the next decade;
* Call for a pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) law despite offering a budget that would violate it by $3.4 trillion;
* Assume a rosy economic scenario that few economists anticipate;
* Leave permanent deficits averaging $600 billion even after the economy recovers; and
* Double the publicly held national debt to over $15 trillion ($12.5 trillion after inflation). This simply isn't a workable budget. Instead, Riedl warns, it threatens to undo 25 years of economic policy that have created a freer, more prosperous America. There's a better way If massive spending isn't the right way to fix the economy, what should lawmakers do? Heritage experts have given members of Congress a number of suggestions. Reducing tax rates and holding down spending would "reduce impediments to starting new businesses, hiring, working, and investing," Heritage's J.D. Foster explains. President Obama's budget goes the other way, he says. "The economy today faces massive tax hikes beginning in 2011, especially on small businesses, investors, and savers." This policy discourages job creation and economic recovery.
Copyright © 2009 Anthony Dolpies. All Rights Reserved.