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