CNN Reports that ISIS wants to attack US homes

If you don't know how to use a gun, bout time you learned how to use one. The last 15 seconds should convince you as to why:
(Click on link)


http://news.msn.com/world/video?videoid=0b9ec157-ecde-4fef-a289-5a7ac97dff80

The US Gestapo Starts with Doctors if bill passes

This is an article from the NRA posted May 30th.  Here is the link:   http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2014/5/chair-of-federal-gun-violence-prevention-task-force-introduces-wide-ranging-gun-control-bill.aspx                

 If this law were to pass doctors can ask about firearm possession; if you are  deemed mentally ill you will have them confiscated.  Seems great, but here is the biggest issue:  if "mentally ill" is expanded as to its meaning (i.e. a conspiracy theorist with no prior violence or breaking the law, is deemed mentally ill because he/she is paranoid)  .  Please read and contact your US  congressmen and women. 

Chair of Federal "Gun Violence Prevention Task Force" Introduces Wide-Ranging Gun Control Bill

Posted on May 30, 2014

U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA-5), chair of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, has introduced what he is calling "the Promoting Healthy Minds for Safer Communities Act of 2014."  In truth, the bill is largely composed of gun control measures that mirror and supplement acts being pursued in the states by the likes of Michael Bloomberg and his "Everytown" gun control cabal.

After a nod to more general mental health reform in its first two Titles, the bill gets down to gun control in Title III. There, it explicitly authorizes the Centers for Disease Control to study "gun violence," a code phrase for smearing the concept of firearm ownership generally. It also undermines protections placed in Obamacare to prevent physicians from inappropriately collecting information about lawful firearm ownership. Some opponents of these protections claimed they were unnecessary, asserting that the healthcare legislation had nothing to do with firearms. Yet Thompson's bill would authorize doctors to question "a patient about the ownership, possession, use, or storage of a firearm or ammunition in the home of such patient," whatever the patient's need for treatment.

Title IV of the bill would expand existing prohibited person categories under the federal Gun Control Act. Outpatient mental health treatment would become prohibiting in some circumstances. Misdemeanor prohibitions would also be expanded, including an entirely new prohibition related to "stalking convictions." As defined in the bill, such convictions would not require any finding of violence or even violent intent, nor would they be limited to offenses occurring between persons with preexisting relationships.  An existing misdemeanor prohibition would also be expanded to capture a much larger class of people. These prohibitions, moreover, would apply not just to future outpatient "commitments" or convictions but to those that had occurred in the past.  Thus, persons who have long been in lawful possession of firearms without problem or incident could suddenly find themselves subject to federal felony penalties for continued possession.

Another provision would limit states' eligibility for certain federal grants unless the state had certain types of gun control laws or procedures. One option would be for the state to authorize police to seize the firearms and ammunition of individuals who are deemed to pose an "elevated risk of harm," even if no other criminal or mental health proceedings are initiated. Such findings, according to the bill, could arise from a "history" of substance abuse or a determination that the person "lacks impulse control." Another option would be for the state to "temporarily" prohibit firearm possession by persons involuntarily hospitalized for at least 48 hours for mental health reasons, even if just for an evaluation that ultimately determines the person does not pose an elevated risk. Because the term "temporary" is not defined, however, it could conceivably mean anything short of permanent disarmament.

Still other provisions would undermine the relief-from-disabilities provisions of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA). For several years, states have been changing their laws to comply with the original provisions of that act.  Those changes, however, would prove meaningless if the bill were enacted. Also unclear would be the status of persons who had undergone rights restoration under the original version of the NIAA but not under the greatly expanded procedures that would be mandated under Thompson's bill.

The NRA strongly opposes this unjustified incursion on Second Amendment rights. Not only is it unjustified and expansive in its prohibitions, it exploits and stigmatizes stereotypes of the mentally ill, most of whom do not pose an elevated risk of harm.

Rancher Bundy's Blunder? Or Advantage Liberty?

Many have seen the drama unfold in Nevada as a good ole standoff ensued this past week.  The cause is a Rancher Cliven Bundy and the cattle he has allowed to graze on Federal land, managed by the Bureau of Land Management. 

Now let us back up a bit; according to the article : Armed Right-Wing Militia Members Descend On Nevada To Help Rancher Defy Court Order by Ian Millhiser of ThinkProgess.com: "This conflict arises out of rancher Cliven Bundy’s many years of illegally grazing his cattle on federal lands. In 1998, a federal court ordered Bundy to cease grazing his livestock on an area of federal land known as the Bunkerville Allotment, and required him to pay the federal government $200 per day per head of cattle remaining on federal lands. Around the time it issued this order, the court also commented that “[t]he government has shown commendable restraint in allowing this trespass to continue for so long without impounding Bundy’s livestock.” Fifteen years later, Bundy continued to defy this court order."

Now I want to put this into some perspective.  Mr. Bundy has about 300 head of cattle.  If we simply do the math from 1998 to 2013, Mr. Bundy owes the feds $60,000 a day x 15 years (5,475 days) = $328,500,000!  What is even more fascinating is the Feds waited Fifteen years to collect on the court order.  Notice I said collect, not enforce. 

You see, you must understand how the federal government work.  They are nit-picky and they are bullies; nit-picky in who they go after and a bully for their harassing nature.  For example IF the Federal government in 1999 slapped Mr. Bundy with a fine and enforced the ruling, I doubt most people would have been  bothered by it.  Mr. Bundy broke a law, continued breaking it and was punished in a reasonable amount of time.  However, the Federal Government did not do that.  They wait nearly 16 years to choose to make Mr. Bundy pay up and as leverage, threaten to confiscate his cattle.  Now some might still wonder: Well Travis he was breaking the law, it was only right, he deserved this.  To that I wish to enlighten you.  Since the days of monarchs, a government is viewed to have a parental role, which is partially correct.  A Government can be a good parent or a bad parent and can drive it's children to wrath, Biblically speaking.   Anyone who has children knows that making threats is no way to have your children take you seriously.  Those that later understand that and then try to punish their children usually have kids that despise them.  I know this is overly simplistic, but here is my point: if our Federal government  wishes for us to respect them, then they should not do things to spite us or anger us, the people.

It has also been raised that the militia members and Mr. Bundy's claim of the unconstitutionality of the BLM's approach is unfounded, citing Article 4, Section 3, clause 2 of the US Constitution which reads in part:  “[t]he Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." Great point, and certainly no one is questioning whether this is federal land or not.  The question is whether Federal land is to be treated as public or private property, concerning land rights.  Now you might be thinking: "Whoa! What about Yellowstone! Yosemite! etc" Those are national parks, that are preserved under the National Historic Preservation Act. However the Bunkerville Allotment is not a National park, a prehistoric site, grounds of a landmark, claimed by native Americans as a ancestral site, or a "site of Antiquity" (think Williamsburg, VA).  So who's land is it anyway?

This brings me to my second and final point.  This land is our land, not the government's land; We are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  The Allotment is NOT private property, nor will you and I go see the acres of brush, it is the people's property.  The oxymoron that the federal Government wants to fine Mr. Bundy is amazing; he has paid taxes to the IRS, allegedly this goes to maintaining this land in the BLM's budget.  Not to mention the amount of this fine borders breaking the 8th Amendment by imposing excessive fines.  Also the notion that this is our land is not socialism, as we are using land all ready belonging too the people.  Socialism is taking private land and giving it to everyone.   In short, Mr. Bundy was using land that belonged to him by proxy and if the Feds do not want it used, they can put a fence on it.

In conclusion, when the Federal government refuses to enforce it's own rules and when it does confiscates property and chooses when it will enforce it becomes a matter of liberty.  When the Federal government uses land  that serves no distinct purpose and denies access to the very people who pay for it, it becomes tyranny.  That is why the Feds backed down, because in the weights of justice, it did not have a case.  Long live liberty!

Supreme Court: Consequences on deciding Prop 8 and DOMA.

In the recent media blitz concerning the two cases regarding Proposition 8 in California and DOMA (which we still await a decision), much is talked about regarding the right for people who love each other to marry vs Traditional Marriage.   This is fine and dandy for a political pundit show and I am all for traditional marriage, but there are two respective points that are being missed in the consequences of each case. 

What I am putting forth are the scenarios of different decisions and argue that a vote that is not yes to both cases ("yes" being they are constitutional) will dramatically change our country forever.  That the supreme court should not only look at what is morally right but also what is the best decision for the country; either progressively liberal or constitutionally stringent. 

Proposition 8:  The court is taking this case after the California supreme court voted that voting on whether Traditional marriage was the only legal marriage or not was not constitutional. Moreover, I am sure that would not be the case if the majority of Californians voted yes on it.   The reason according the the California Supreme court is that Homosexuals are their own people and it is a civil rights issue; that barring marriage goes against the 14th Amendment.

Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA):  An act to say marriage is between a man and a woman (a law but not an amendment) is being branded unconstitutional not only for the reasons of Prop 8 but also for stating this goes against the first amendment because this is a Federal act based on religious grounds. Again the decision for this case has sweeping complications as well, to the effect to more than marriage.

Ramifications of Prop 8 Decisions:   First of all, this going to the supreme court is a liberal's dream come true.  Why might you ask?  because either a vote of "no" or simply not hearing the case would be a huge victory for the left.   Here are the scenarios:

A vote of yes:  This means that a true republic with voting to majority rule is able to vote upon their consciousness what is good for them.  It also means that the homosexual agenda has truly been defeated in the state that houses a Sodom and Gomorrah.

Not hearing the case: It would be an utter cop out by the Supreme Court not to hear the case, one because it would affect the DOMA ruling and it would send back to the California supreme court which said Prop 8 was on unconstitutional.

A vote of no: MAJOR consequences, as this does three things: 1) This would mean that the majority does not have say in voting or that voting has no point.   If I am a voter then my purpose for voting on an issue is worthless.  Meaning now anyone who may want to vote for a cause will not based on this decision.  The people not the state should make a decision and a vote of no means their vote carries no weight. 2)  This would also mean states cannot vote for something that the Federal government deems unconstitutional. This would truly eradicate state's rights and state the the citizens of said state have no binding power in a vote. It would mean state sovereignty was suspect as states would be nothing more than satellites of a National government.  3)  Future cases: What about gun rights? What about tax laws? etc if the Federal government thought these were "unconstitutional" they could override to what they deemed fit. 

Ramifications of DOMA Decisions:  This is pretty straightforward:

A vote of yes:  Not much to say here except a vote of yes means that, as has been the case for years and years, that a marriage of one man and one woman is what is correct and what has been marriage defined for thousands of years.

A vote of no:  This would mean marriage between a man and a woman are unconstitutional, past the point that it is protected by the federal government.   It would mean that now that if marriage is not between a man and a woman, then what is it?   Is it man and man? Woman and woman?  Human and animal?  One man and 20 wives?  Adultery is OK?   These are things that are not thought about.  In countries such as The Netherlands bigamy is already legal.   For some people, marrying Fido is appropriate.  The slippery slope this creates does not end until all degenerate things have come to pass for marriage.

Conclusion: Clearly a vote for yes on one is a vote of yes on the other and vice verse.   Branding both of these as unconstitutional in which we do not have laws to refrain the onslaught of an opened Pandora's box will ruin us.   Our country will no longer a democracy but truly that of a Socialist union.   That in both cases, the tenth amendment which reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."    would be no longer effective.   California states these rights are not to the people and the Supreme court by voting no to both would say these rights are not to the states.   We have to understand that (even those who are for gay marriage) that the effects of these decisions reach farther than the votes themselves and if they vote no on each, the path will not end until we are all in a totalitarian state.

Letter to the Editor Daily Reflector 3-2-2012

There are so many things going on right now that I could only choose one topic and one that has been on my mind a lot lately is the recent issue with President Barack Obama mandating that religiously affiliated employers must provide coverage for contraceptives and abortions.

This flies right in the face of our constitutional First Amendment rights, that the government should not make a law to interfere with religion. Moreover, this is not just a Catholic issue as the media is taking it (recently many Protestant-affiliated colleges said they would drop health care coverage for students once Obama’s mandate was enacted), this is and issue for all Americans.

Remember how Obama promised that his health care reform would not include the funding of abortion? Well that seems to have been a lie and the compromise in which Obama said he would make insurance providers write contraceptive coverage into the plans is a violation of free enterprise. What we should all be concerned with is what is it the president we have in office wants to achieve. It would appear through his actions and his administration’s concerted efforts that he wants to make bigger government, which encroaches on civil liberties and forces the agenda of an elite few. That is why I am asking anyone who reads this, anyone who enjoys the freedoms we still have left in America, to support the Respect for Rights Conscience Act (H.R. 1179 and S.B. 1467) that will override such offenses to our liberties. Please contact your federal congressman or woman as soon as possible.

TRAVIS TYSON

Bethel

Hello!

I am back for real and ready to do some writing!

OK I am still here

I am slowwly working on this....lot of things (good things) going on in my life. Not much time to write lately. Stuff coming soon.