Republicans Vote to Fund Obamacare

The US Senate just played a little parliamentary trick today. There was a Continuing Resolution bill that passed in the HoR that had funding for the Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare or AHA) stripped out of it. Nearly all of the Senate Republicans ran in the previous couple of elections on vowing to #DefundObamacare. They said they would do whatever it takes.

The bill passed to the Senate. Many of you have probably heard of Senator Ted Cruz and the 21 hour filibuster (speech) that he gave in opposition to Obamacare. Many of you won't know the reason.

It has been well known that once they vote cloture on the bill (cloture will end debate, and bring up the actual vote for the bill) that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was going to place an amendment on the bill, reestablishing funding to the AHA. He also was refusing to let any other Senators make any kind of amendments to it. So, in other words, when they voted for cloture on the bill, Harry Reid placed the amendment on the bill, and they voted for it. That vote was a straight party-line vote, allowing the "republicans" in the Senate to claim they voted against the funding of Obamacare. The problem is, there needed to be 60-vote majority to end debate on the bill, which several "republicans" voted to do, knowing what would happen.

Either the Senators that voted for cloture were too afraid of the democrats and their smear tactics, blaming Republicans for "shutting down the government" just to defund Obamacare, or they really don't have a problem with Obamacare because they've been exempt from it.

The argument stating that it would be the republicans shutting down the government is invalid. The republicans passed a bill that continued funding for EVERY OTHER THING IN THE BUDGET, including all of the pet projects and wasteful spending, EXCEPT Obamacare. It was Harry Reid, President Obama, and the rest of the progressive democrats that wouldn't budge - even though the president has (illegally, by the way) delayed many aspects of it, and given exceptions to the law because of major issues with it.

To sum it up, voting for cloture on this bill was voting to fund Obamacare. There were several Senate republicans who voted this through. For us here in Missouri,Senator Roy Blunt was one of them. This is unacceptable. We already have one terrible democratic Senator, Claire McCaskill, we don't need another.

So, since I'm not 30, and not eligible to run against Senator Blunt, I'm asking if there are any true conservatives out there that has a spine, and will stand up against Roy Blunt and fight to replace his seat in the Senate. If you do, I will back you in any way that I can. I'm sick of the politicians who say they're doing what their constituents ask of them, and use shady tricks to claim they have while doing the opposite. Enough is enough. If the AHA goes through, we're in trouble. It has already led to many job losses, and countless jobs reduced to 29 hours a week.

Please, someone stand up. Stand up like Senator Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and others. Do what the senators are there to do, and represent the people.

Please, if you're unwilling to do this yourself, pass this around and ask with me for those that might stand up against the dirty tricks played in our government.

My "tip" email to the DOJ

It's been far too long, and I apologize to the 4 people who might have actually ever read my blog. But, I've been really busy over the last year and haven't had the time to write much. Here, however is an email I sent to the DOJ to their "Zimmerman tip email address" that was set up so they can aggressively investigate the case... that's over... but they didn't like the outcome because it didn't fit the agenda of this administration. 

Here is the email:

To Whom It May Concern,

I recently discovered you had an email address set up to receive "tips" about the Geroge Zimmerman case, because you were going to aggressively investigate it. So, here are my tips (which I would strongly recommend looking into):

1. Before looking into Zimmerman, maybe you should investigate the Attorney General Eric Holder for his involvement in Fast and Furious. The fact that there have been multiple deaths with weapons that were involved, I think this is a wise tip to follow.

2. Investigate Attorney General Eric Holder and his involvement in both the AP and James Rosen tyrannical phone record grab.

3. Investigate the IRS for their targeting conservative and pro-Israel groups in an unfathomable attack on their civil liberties by an out of control bureaucratic agency.

4. Investigate the Black Panthers for their voter fraud, and THEIR attacks daily on the civil liberties of anyone who ISN'T black. If you find Zimmerman is guilty, then logically they are as well. You might add Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Jeremiah Wright to that list as well. They are by far some of the most racist and race-baiting people in this nation. Because, don't forget, racism goes both ways.

5. Investigate President Obama for his utter disregard of the law in issues such as: continuing to send money and military equipment to a country that has undergone a military coup - which is completely against the law, picking and choosing what parts of "The Affordable Health Care Act" or "Obamacare" which is out of his power to do, and his use of Executive Orders to circumvent congress which is a massive abuse of power. I could continue on this tip for days most likely, but you get the idea.

6. Investigate the tragedy in Benghazi. Our ambassador was murdered. That is pretty important.

7. Investigate the thousands of people on social networks that have made legitimate threats to the lives of George Zimmerman, his family, his attorneys, the jury, and even to any white or Hispanic they see. If you're going for civil rights, here is another opportunity.

8. Speaking of civil rights, there are hundreds of thousands of babies dying each year during abortions. Where are their civil rights?

9. My final tip (for now). How about you investigate the thousands of other things that are being done by our government that are against the law? George Zimmerman was already found "not guilty" in a fair trial by a jury of his peers. There is no evidence that did anything but defend himself in an attack, no matter how much this administration wants it to be otherwise.

Get your priorities straight.

Thank you, and I'll look forward to receiving my monetary reward for my very helpful tips.

Kristofer Savage

My thoughts on the gun control debate.

Okay, so I haven’t posted on my blog here in about two-and-a-half years. For that, I apologize. I've been busier that I can explain, and when I do have the time, I normally can’t think of any one specific thing I want to write about. There’s so much going on that I’d probably just be ranting about two or three things at a time.

Today, however, I do have something specific to write about; something that I've debated lately, quite a bit.

I want to talk about guns. Yup. Guns. It’s what is all over the news; anywhere you go, you hear something about them. So, I’m going to give you as many facts as I can, and I’m going to add a bit of a bibliography at the end, so you can check for yourselves. This will not at all be extensive. Also, since this is a blog, I’m going to throw in my opinion, with what I feel is common sense. I do want to point out that I am not a “gun expert” by any means. What I have learned has been from my own research. I beg you to please leave a comment with your opinions, and while I know I will not be able to respond to everyone, I will certainly try to answer the most common questions I receive.  

So, first of all, I’m going to throw in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. It is the focal point of this whole debate… well… at least is should be…

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” – Bill of Rights

My belief of what the Second Amendment means has changed. When I was in high school, I believed that it was intended strictly for a militia, which would be the National Guard, and that was that. I believed that because my AP American Government teacher, who admitted he was pretty far left of center, taught us that. His conclusion was that it didn't include individual citizen. I actually believed that for a couple of years, until I researched it. I wish I could cite all of the places I did my research, but seeing as I never intended to write about it, I didn't keep track. Essentially, I now believe that the Second Amendment is guaranteeing us the right to have a militia, as well as the right of individuals to bear arms. Both, in fact, are “necessary to the security of a free State.” The founders had just left a tyrannical monarchy, and then had to fight them off because they had tried to stretch their power across the sea, and implement their taxes and law on people who weren't being represented. They knew that they wouldn't have won that war had their citizens not been armed. There wouldn't have been a war. They set up our government with a system of checks and balances so that none of the three branches of government would rise above the other. They also realized that if that system failed (though it would have to be severely distorted and destroyed first), the government could then use the army to essentially enslave the people. That’s a reason we have the Third Amendment, as well; to protect the people from the government forcing itself on them.  

There is a large paper written about militias and the Constitution/Bill of Rights. A link to the full article is in the footnotes. This is only a small excerpt (emphasis mine):

“Much of Madison's handiwork underwent substantial editing in both the House and the Senate, but his militia and arms proposal survived relatively unscathed. In the version finally passed by the House, the order of the provisions was reversed: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."  Although the first casualties of the House's editorial process were his preambles and explanations, the militia statement and the right to arms guarantee both were retained. The House apparently did not think that either portion of what would become the Second Amendment was redundant; nor did the Senate, which emphasized the differing natures of each provision.”[i]

Alright, I know that’s from a gun rights website, and that will be an argument against my point, but my point remains.

And we’re moving right along.

The next issue I’d like to deal with is the defense against a tyrannical government. Piers Morgan, in a recent interview/debate with Ben Shapiro[ii], asks “Which tyranny are you fearing?” after Shapiro defines the meaning behind the Second Amendment. Shapiro then states that he fears a tyranny rising in our country in “the next 50 to 100 years,” and “the fact that my grandparents and great-grandparents in Europe didn't fear that, is why they’re now ashes in Europe.” He repeats his view later on in the interview, and Morgan tells him that he sounds “absurd.” I have also watched Morgan talk down to others that have said the same thing. What Morgan, as well as many on the left, doesn't understand is that many countries have gone from democracy to dictatorship. Well, either they don’t understand it, or don’t care. Time and time again, governments have disarmed their people, and then taken control.[iii] It has happened, and all it takes is a government that cares little of the rights of the people, and a disarmed citizenry. History is the proof here, and the fact that it’s being ignored, or “covered up,” is terrifying.

One argument against the defense from a tyrannical government, is that no matter the arsenal any individual has, they won’t  be able to compete against a government military. I have two short, common sense (in my opinion) answers to this:

1.        Our founders were severely out-gunned during the Revolutionary War, yet they won.

2.        The right granted to us is not to guarantee a victory, but the right to do everything in our power to protect ourselves.

Now I’ll move the guns themselves.

The definition of “assault weapon” is broad. Technically, anything that is used to assault would then be an “assault weapon.” Those on the left are basically defining anything that looks scary as an assault weapon. Most people are in the dark when it comes to the truth about most of these weapons that are being considered “assault weapons” or “assault rifles.” Both of the definitions of these terms refer to weapons specifically made for the military. The weapons they are trying to ban, however, are not made for the military. Some of them are designed like those that the military uses, but they are the civilian versions of such weapons. The automatic style weapons that the military uses are already illegal for civilians to own.[iv] [I know that the footnote is from “The Blaze” and that many will not give them credit, but this story uses facts, and explains things much better than I can with the little amount of time I have to type this blog entry. I trust that anyone reading this is able to read with an open mind.] Also, many of the “scary parts” of the AR or AK weapons, are simply cosmetic, or used to assist the sports shooters (i.e. pistol grips for control; attachment rails for flashlights, scopes, etc.)[v] I know I didn't cover that entirely, and there are MANY more things to say about this part, but I am quickly running out of time. So, I apologize.

Image from www.nrastore.com

There is one last thing I want to mention, and I wish I had more time to go through it, but I want to talk about the difference between automatic and semiautomatic. Automatic weapons generally use belt-fed ammunition, and fire rapidly while holding down the trigger. Semiautomatic weapons are quite different. There is only one bullet fired per trigger pull. They fire the same as many revolvers. The difference between “manual” guns and semiautomatic ones is you don’t have to cock the weapon between each shot. The problem comes when people advocating for gun control use the term “semiautomatic” in conjunction with “spraying bullets.” They paint a picture that if it’s a semiautomatic, it’s more dangerous. The problem with this argument is that a lot of revolvers are semiautomatic, but they’re not included in this ban.

My fear is this: things will start being taken away a little bit at a time, until we realize that we have none of the rights this country was founded on. New York is a prime example of this. They already had strong gun control. Magazines were limited to 10 rounds, very much like the proposal by our President (among other things, this example just fits well with my point). Recently, however, they've tightened down on the ban. Now, it’s a ban of more than seven rounds. A little bit at a time, step-by-step until they’re gone. The ban of more than seven rounds also makes a lot of handguns illegal, including those that many have for personal protection.

I wish I could have been more exhaustive on this subject. There are so many things I didn't touch on, such as the fact that the AR-15 takes the same caliber ammunition as many hunting rifles, and is used quite often for hunting. My hope is that those that have made it through this will also take the time to check out the links in the footnotes with an open mind.

---

[i] http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/fieldsandhardy.html

[ii] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHIQtxLCgrM

[iii] http://home.comcast.net/~shooter2_indy/essays/paulharvey.html *note: The essay at the linked address has facts in the beginning, and the opinion of the writer follows.

[iv] http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/11/so-what-is-an-assault-rifle-really-we-look-at-the-definitions-and-how-the-term-is-demonized/

[v] http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6956

It's been quite some time.

It's been several months since I've taken the time to sit down and write here. There's just been so much going on, I almost don't know where to begin. Every time I've tried to update, I can't decide on what to talk about because there's so much going on that you never thought would happen in this wonderful country, and it just blows my mind. Politicians talking down to those that don't agree with them like they're stupid, or being so arrogant in thinking that they can do whatever they want, because they know better than us uneducated people. Or how about the latest about a mosque being built so close to Ground Zero by a rather shady Imam. One whose wife recently has stated that the people who oppose it are basically anti-Semitic (which I'm pretty sure is hatred toward Jews, not Muslims... but maybe she was just comparing it?) The Imam himself has, in the past, supported groups like Hammas, and said virtually that al-Qaeda is no worse than America: "We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on it's hands than al-Qaeda has on it's hands of innocent non-Muslims."

I can't seem to understand why we're letting our country go in the direction we're going. I can't understand why people can't see what's happening and say, "Wait a minute!!! I don't recall this being the purpose of America!!!" Those that have fought hard for our liberties in the past would literally slap us across the face for what we've let ourselves become. Our founders came to this country to get away from a government that was too big, and too intrusive, but take a look around now!!!! Try to think of an aspect of your life that the government isn't trying to get, or doesn't have already, a grip on. Name one! You can't decide anything for yourself anymore.

Something else that has bothered me a lot lately is what the wonderful Nancy Pelosi said recently. Every time I see it, it makes me want to vomit. So I apologize that I'm about to post the video.



First of all, I really can't stand that woman. You can't believe a word she says.

Anyway, there are so many parts of her little speech that is so ridiculous. First, she rambles like crazy. Second, she can't say Jesus once. She goes through great lengths to not say Jesus, God, or anything but "Word." Oh, and guess what Rep. Pelosi, the Word you're referring to isn't a word, it's God. The verse you reference is John 1:14 "The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us...." (NIV) However, the Word talked about in this verse goes back to verse 1 of this same chapter. Which says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." When you say "The Word became flesh," guess who that's a reference to? Oh yeah, Jesus.

And while we're at it, the Word doesn't cover everything. It's not all-encompassing like you think it is. The bible says there are two paths. One is wide and leads to destruction. The other is narrow, and few find it. (The verse for that is Matthew 7:13-14.) Jesus (or the Word, if that helps) is very clear that He is the ONLY Way, Truth, and Life, and that no one comes to the Father except through Him. (John 14:6)

I'm sick of these progressives trying to take my Lord and Savior and make Him into someone He's not.

We need to stand up, there are people intentionally trying to destroy our faith and our country, and as of right now, it looks as if they're succeeding pretty well.

Let me just ask you this: if their path is the one you want to take, where does it lead?

That's where my tax dollars go to....

Another wonderful way to blow our tax dollars. I'm wondering if you know what it is.....

Well, most of the few of you who read this have probably already seen the commercials for the 2010 Census. You know, like the one they played during the Super Bowl.... Which probably cost over a million dollars, or close to it. Now however, they're sponsoring a NASCAR stock car for three races starting today.
I'm not completely sure just how much it costs to me a primary sponsor on a Sprint Cup car, but I'm am very sure it's more than it's worth.

The reasoning I've read about is this: for every one percent increase in mail response, they say it will save taxpayers $85 million. Apparently having to send out people to go door to door for those that don't mail it back in costs $85 million per one percent.

I'll tell you what. Seeing all the advertisements for the census does nothing to make me want to send the census back. Most of the commercials don't make any sense anyway. They're just telling people what the census is going to do. The whole "portrait of America" thing. It doesn't press the importance of sending it back it. Those that aren't going to send it back are mostly those who have such a paranoia of the government that they believe that it'll let the government watch their every move, or whatever.

All I can say is it's just stupid. Just a waste of money.

**picture from jayski.com.

Austin Plane Crash

I'm at work, so I don't have a lot of time to talk about this on my lunch break, but here's my main point. According to this article, the person suspected of flying the plane into the office building had it in for the IRS. All I am going to say on this at this point is this: watch him be labeld as a Tea-Party nut-job of some sort.

Mark my words, someone will try to make the connection. They want the movement squashed.

Alright, well, it's been awhile....

Sorry that I haven't lived up to the promise of putting a new post on here as soon as I had wished. I'm sad to say that unlike a lot of those liberal bloggers, I have a life outside of the world wide web.

I just wanted to say a couple of things about the State of the Union address. The first thing is this: does President Obama move you to tears with his words? I don't mean make you want to cry because he is trying to completely transform the country, I mean when he speaks do his words move you? Apparently the beginning of his speech (which to me was far from memorable) was so emotionally moving, that Nancy Pelosi couldn't hold back her tears. Here's the speech in it's entirety. You don't have to watch it all, just the first couple of minutes.



After only about 30 seconds of his speech, you can start to notice her eyes watering up. Then at about 1:55 she wipes her nose and tries to maintain composure. Honestly, I didn't hear anything that could remotely bring me to tears. It's kind of sad how this guy is just worshiped.

Now that I got that out of the way, I want to get to the more important parts of the speech that I noticed. Mainly the fact that I couldn't believe someone could be so full of crap. I literally think it would hurt after awhile, being that absolutely full of crap. Starting with him talking about the letters he reads every night. "The toughest to read are those written by children. Asking why they have to move from their home; asking when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work." Now, I honestly don't believe for a minute that he cares an ounce about anyone but himself and his agenda. He doesn't listen to a word that any of the thousands upon thousands of people that have attended tea-parties have said, but yet he reads people's letters every night. Please. He doesn't have the time, he's having parties all the time. Most of he country have let him know very clearly that they don't like the spending, or any of his fiscal policies, or health care anywhere near what he wants. Yet, he keeps pushing for it. Why would I for a second actually believe that he is concerned enough to actually read letters written to him. Okay, I guess he might have someone screen the letters, and then only give him the ones from Pelosi, Chris Matthews, etc., that tell him how great he is.

Also, how arrogant is this guy? Calling out the Supreme Court? Telling Congress that he'll just sign an executive order for things if he doesn't get his way. Aren't we supposed to have a system of checks-and-balances? Three equal branches of government? Argh, how long until we can vote this guy out?

I'd say more, but I'm listening to the speech as I'm typing, and I'm annoyed. So maybe I'll add more to this later. Probably not.