Power To The People

Latest

Dems Working To Stop Ammo Purchases

From The Blaze:

Thirty-one House Democrats have proposed legislation that would prevent people from buying ammunition online, and would instead require all purchases to be made in person — a change they admit is aimed at preventing people from buying “unlimited” ammunition over the Internet.

The Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act, from freshman Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.), would also require all ammo dealers to be licensed by the government, and require bulk ammo purchases to be reported to the government.

Coleman said in a Facebook post that the bill would “better track and regulate the unlimited market for ammunition currently available on the Internet.”

One of the bill’s cosponsors, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), said in his own Facebook post that limiting ammunition is one of the best ways to curb gun violence.

“Far too many times, we have seen the shocking images of unspeakable gun violence that could have been prevented,” he wrote. “Our bill to limit the online sale of ammunition is a long-overdue common sense reform that I am hopeful will spark Congress to put aside party difference and come together to help prevent such senseless tragedies.”

“Reforming the unregulated online ammo market could prevent next gun tragedy,” he said.

Like any other issue, Democrats see something that they haven’t regulated out of existence, and their first instinct is to regulate it out of existence.

rifleammo

Personally, I love buying ammo on the Internet – if the ammunition I’m looking for isn’t available at Wal-Mart or one of the local gun/sporting goods stores where I like to shop, I can probably find it online.  If the price jumps because the government starts buying up all of the ammo, I can go online and comparison-shop, so I can make sure I’m getting a good price.

The big question about just how “common sense” this measure is: who will a law like this effect?

Chances are that gangbangers and other criminal elements aren’t jumping online to buy bulk ammunition with a credit card (unless they’re incredibly stupid).  They’re going to be making cash purchases in brick-and-mortar stores…and if they know ammo purchases above a certain threshold will require reporting to the federal government, they’ll start purchasing just enough to get around that requirement – a criminal gang will be able to send several people to buy ammo, thereby dodging the reporting requirement.

The two groups most likely to be effected are, firstly, legal gun owners who will no longer be able to find good deals on ammo on the Internet, and secondly, lawful competition shooters who purchase large amounts of ammunition as a matter of course, for both practice and events, and under this law could very well be facing investigation by the Department of Homeland Security because the government feels they purchased too much ammunition.

What’s more, requiring businesses to register in order to sell ammunition will drive ammo prices up, placing an even greater burden on lawful gun owners.

Yet again, the Democrats are proposing a measure that is practically tailor-made to punish the law abiding, while doing nothing to stop crime.

Feminazism Avenged

UPDATE (5/13): I watched Age of Ultron last weekend, and after seeing the movie for myself, the feminists’ complaints about it seem even more ridiculous than they did before I’d seen it.


**Spoiler Alert: I haven’t watched Age of Ultron yet, so I can’t spoil much, but there are a couple of minor spoilers here & at some of the links.

In the world of science fiction, Joss Whedon is practically a god – even when one of his shows flops, it’s still a hit, as evidenced by Firefly, arguably the best short-lived show in the history of television (Browncoats unite!).

Whedon has seen huge success as director of Marvel’s Avengers movies, but the latest installment, Age of Ultron, has not been without controversy.

Whedon recently deleted his Twitter account after being relentlessly henpecked by a bunch of feminists who, apparently, are upset over the lack of female leads in the Marvel Universe, and more than that are upset because the franchise’s strong female characters aren’t treated exactly how the feminazis think they should be treated.

Anti-Marvel sentiment among the feminist crowd has been raging for a while now, but with Ultron, I guess it really started with this promotional video from Chris Evans and Jeremy Renner:

It’s blindingly obvious that they’re joking here, but what they failed to realize is that you can’t make this kind of joke with our society’s obsession with victimhood.

7f9

Frankly, targeting Joss Whedon doesn’t make sense to me.  Whedon’s career has been packed with strong female characters.  Buffy the Vampire Slayer was one of the biggest shows on TV in its day, with half of the lead characters strong females, including and especially the title character.  Firefly included Zoe Washburn, the “warrior woman,” as well as a few other strong female characters in leading roles.  But apparently, reforming the genre from the inside isn’t enough…if his strong female roles aren’t everything the feminazis think they should be, then it’s perfectly okay to make him an object of ridicule.  From what I could gather, the biggest problem with Age of Ultron is that Black Widow got upset because she can’t have kids.  Outside of the sphere of rabid feminism, that isn’t such a strange thing.  It isn’t anti-woman – to just about any woman who would like to have kids some day, it’s a natural reaction.

Personally, I applaud Joss Whedon for deleting his Twitter account and thereby getting away from the hopeless negativity that is the modern feminist movement.  There has been a push for strong female characters in science fiction and comics for a while now, and Joss Whedon has done a lot for that cause.  It’s too bad that for the feminists, it will never be enough.

The True Value Of Consensus

It seems that every day, politicians, pundits, and activists find a dozen or so new phenomena to blame on “climate change.”  Everyone from MSNBC commentators to the President of the United States has gotten in on the climate change act, and climate change non-believers are deemed Neanderthalic simpletons, incapable of understanding a basic truth.

“Scientific consensus” is the line that is routinely thrown out to justify any manner of policies based on climate change, and this begs the question: just how valuable is “consensus” when it comes to science?

  • For decades, there was a “scientific consensus” that Pluto was a planet.  For decades, children were taught in school that Pluto was the tenth planet in our solar system…and yet, in 2006 it was decided that Pluto didn’t meet the definition of a “planet” after all.
  • For decades, there was a “scientific consensus” that our universe was born out of a “Big Bang.”  It was taught in our schools, and even spawned a major TV sitcom.  And yet, just earlier this year, physicists were able to prove that the Big Bang never happened.
  • The longstanding “scientific consensus” about vitamins used to be “more is better,” yet recent studies have shown that taking too many vitamin supplements can increase the risk of cancer.

That’s the thing about science: even the truest of scientific truths are open to tests and questioning.  Science is evaluated by evidence, not assumptions.

And the problem for Climate Change alarmists is that the evidence increasingly doesn’t fit their narrative.

obama-climate-change-chart

In fact, not only does the evidence not fit the narrative, but proponents of the man-caused climate change hypothesis have been caught multiple times committing scientific fraud – changing the data to fit their presuppositions.  There was the East Anglia scandal, where hacked emails revealed that researchers were changing data when it didn’t fit with their models.  Recently, several reports were found to have included revisions of past data, basically re-writing history to support a global warming narrative.  Recently, headlines proclaimed that “2014 was the hottest year on record,” yet it only took a quick look at the evidence to see how this had been spun – they only took data from terrestrial sensors, which had largely been replaced by more reliable data collected by satellites.

This is the crowd that calls those who disagree “deniers.”  “Climate change denier” is meant to invoke thoughts of Holocaust deniers – though if you look at how the Left tends to treat the leadership of Iran, who truly are Holocaust deniers, you will see that they favor Holocaust deniers over those who don’t believe in man-made climate change.

They also call us “anti-science,” even as they take a stance that is itself anti-science.  Science involves forming conclusions based on evidence, yet no matter how much evidence you show them, they will refuse to budge from their dogma.  Point out that multiple weather events directly contradict their position, and you’ll hear all about how “weather is not climate.”  But the minute there’s a freak storm, or any other extraordinary weather event, and it’s the fault of “climate change.”

But perhaps the most notable indicator of just how much Climate Change’s scientific consensus is really worth is this: whether they’re arguing that we’ll all die from Global Cooling, Global Warming, or some nebulous definition of “Climate Change,” there is one thing that never changes: the big-government socialist agenda, wherein the masses are subjugated to a life without electricity, or cars, or any other modern convenience, while the elite get to live it up because their hearts are in the right place.

Planet Earth

Because in the end, that’s what Climate Change is all about. It isn’t about science, it isn’t about health, it isn’t even about climate.  It is all about control.

Ready For Hillary

My latest column is up at AND Magazine.

Here is an excerpt:

Over the weekend, Hillary Clinton officially announced her presidential campaign in one of the lamest campaign commercials of all time.

Personally, I can understand why millions of Americans are ready for Hillary?to go away. But I’m confused as to why anyone would want Hillary Rodham Clinton to be President of the United States. Heck, the only real reason anyone has thrown out for why Hillary should run for President is because after her stinging defeat in 2012, “it’s her turn.”

As a conservative, I find it comforting that the only legitimate reason anyone can seem to find for supporting Hillary is the same reason they had for Romney in 2012.
hillary-clinton
Although, to be fair, Hillary does have a long and storied history Washington politics. Prior to her marriage to Bill Clinton, she had no great claim to fame other than doing some work on the Watergate investigation?and rumor has it that she may have been fired for unethical behavior. She rode Bill’s coattails all the way to the White House. Along the way, she became embroiled in a few scandals…Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, the “suicide” of Vince Foster,missing Rose Law Firm documents, and so on. In fact, her most notable accomplishment as First Lady was her talent for reciting the words “I don’t recall” when questioned about her various scandals.

Continue reading here.

Anti-Indiana Insanity

The debate over Indiana’s RFRA law amounts to little more than a headache-inducing cacophony of meaningless noise.  As soon as the law was passed, the liberal media exploded with speculation over how this law would lead to widespread discrimination against homosexuals…even though there is no evidence to support that assertion.

Consider this:

  • There is no substantive difference between Indiana’s RFRA law and the federal RFRA law, which was signed by Bill Clinton back in 1993.
  • In the 22 years that the federal RFRA law has been on the books, there has not been a single example of that law being used to discriminate against homosexuals.  Ever.
  • 19 other states have existing RFRA laws.  None of them have been used to discriminate against homosexuals.

Because of all of the rumors and speculation surrounding the law, it’s getting to be difficult to understand just which end is up.

Why is the law necessary?

In reality, we shouldn’t need anything like the RFRA in America – we have the First Amendment, after all, which is supposed to prevent the government from trampling all over Americans’ religious rights.  But as government got bigger and bigger, it increasingly began to interfere in religious matters, which is why RFRA laws were created.  There is nothing in these laws that legally allows discrimination; all they do is provide definition around what the government can and cannot do when they come up against a citizen’s religious beliefs.

With the recent spate of cases involving state governments forcing Christian business owners to provide services for gay weddings, RFRA laws have become relevant again.

All the law does is provide criteria for the courts to use in discrimination cases – so that if someone is sued for discriminating against anyone, the courts have a legal framework to refer to.

Why all the shouting?

The debate has reached insane proportions, with a pizzeria in Indiana being forced to close its doors – perhaps even permanently – due to threats over an out-of-context quote.  When asked, the owner of the pizzeria stated that they wouldn’t provide pizzas (if they were ever asked) for a gay wedding.  They never actually refused to provide service to anyone – all that happened was that a reporter asked for an opinion.  This was blown into the pizzeria refusing to serve homosexuals, and now the family that owns the pizzeria is afraid to go out in public due to the threats of violence unleashed on them by the forces of “tolerance.”

Truth be told, if this Indiana pizzeria were systematically refusing service to all homosexuals, they would be on the wrong side of the law, with or without the RFRA.  Throughout this debate, no one has been talking about giving anyone the right to discriminate against homosexuals.  The only thing at issue is whether the government can force people to violate their own religious beliefs by facilitating gay weddings.

Where is this headed?

We’ve already seen, in several states, law suits brought against Christian small business owners who refused to provide services for same-sex weddings have resulted in the courts forcing business owners to either provide services in violation of their religious beliefs, or face fines that would put them out of business.  So far, it’s happened to a family-owned bakery in Oregon, a photographer in Colorado, a family-owned farm in New York (that served as a wedding/reception venue), and a few others.  In these cases, the businesses were sued for violating the state’s anti-discrimination laws, and the courts basically said “provide services, or go out of business.”  In response to these rulings, the businesses that were sued no longer provide any services for any weddings, lest the government continue to force them to violate their religious beliefs.

Indiana’s proposed “fix” would pretty much render the law meaningless, and while it still has to pass through Indiana’s legislature to be “on the books,” with the amount of national attention focused on Indiana, that could go either way.

But one thing is clear: the focus of the ‘gay agenda’ is not on equal rights.  Gay marriage was a starting point, not the endgame.  Now that gay marriage is legal in several states, the focus has turned to forcing Christian business owners and churches to facilitate those weddings.  The generally-accepted assumption seems to be that if you disagree with homosexuality in any way, you hate all homosexuals, and any amount of shunning, threatening, and shaming is permissible.  Frankly, it wouldn’t surprise me to find out that the businesses that have been sued thus far were targeted by activists, rather than just some random gay couples looking for services for their weddings.

And these days, you don’t even have to disagree with the agenda to be a target!

With the NCAA basketball championship game scheduled to be held in Indianapolis in just a few days, a CNN reporter asked the coach from Duke University for his opinion on the Indiana law.  He chose not to respond, stating that he was there to talk about the Duke basketball team and the Final Four, not about social issues – which is completely reasonable for a basketball coach…and to hear the responses to his silence, you would think that he had called for the lynching of all homosexuals, rather than refusing to offer an opinion.

This is where it’s headed: it’s not enough to try and stay un-involved.  The people pushing the agenda won’t let you.  This fight isn’t about equal rights – this fight is about forcing people to accept and endorse homosexuality.

For anyone still confused about just what the RFRA laws actually do, this should help:

RFRA-Infographic

Threatened Freedoms

My latest column is live at AND Magazine.

Here is an excerpt:

Here’s a question for all of the faithful AND Magazine readers out there: What, in your opinion, is the greatest threat to our freedoms?
and_coverimage_1405603562
There are many, and they seem to be increasing almost daily, but I believe that if President Obama has taught our nation anything throughout his six years in office, it is this: an unchecked Executive Branch is the greatest threat to freedom that our nation has seen in its short existence.

Over the course of the last several years, we have seen the unprecedented expansion of the power of the federal government, and while some of it came to us through legislation such as the Affordable Care Act, much of it has come from a single branch of government. Over the course of decades, Congress has ceded power to various Executive departments, in violation of the Constitution’s definitions of the responsibility of our government’s various branches. This self-emasculation by the Legislative Branch has been affirmed by a misguided Judiciary, so that the combined efforts of our tricameral government have led to the creation of a massive unconstitutional administrative state.

Consider what has taken place only very recently. After the passage of the Affordable Care Act, a 2,000+ page monstrosity of a law that was written in such a way that no single human being could possibly understand it in its entirety, the Department of Health and Human Services created another 20,000 pages of regulations. Due to the broad authority given to HHS by the ACA, the federal bureaucracy was able to draft its own laws regulating our nation’s health care and insurance industries, many times more massive than what had been voted on by Congress, so that by now, Obamacare has morphed into an entirely different law than what Congress actually voted on…and all of this in spite of the fact that the Constitution gives no authority to any Executive Branch department to create new laws.

Continue reading here.

What’s The Deal?

Despite the fact that the Obama administration has been working on a deal with Iran for some time now, all anyone outside of the administration seems to know about the deal is that it isn’t shaping up to end well for the U.S. or the rest of the Western World.

About all we have to go by are rumors, speculation, and the administration’s word that the negotiations are going well.  And the really sad thing is that they all lead to the same conclusion, when you think it through.

It’s really quite confusing why the administration would demand such secrecy, until you look at their extreme penchant for secrecy in all things, big or small.

They wrote Obamacare to be intentionally confusing in an effort to hoodwink as many people as possible into thinking it was a good idea.  Since they started implementing the law, each and every promise made about the Affordable Care Act has proven untrue.

They used the IRS to discriminate against conservative groups, then attempted to destroy evidence.  To date, there has been no serious investigation into the possibility of criminal behavior at the IRS.

They have changed how they count they numbers of illegal alien apprehensions to make it seem like they’re doing more to secure the border than they actually are.

They kept the FCC’s “Net Neutrality” rules secret until after they had been voted on, while giving a constant stream of propaganda about how great the new regulations would be.

They continue to hide the facts about what really went on the night of the 9/11 Benghazi attack.

Chamberlain-Peace-in-our-Time-1938

So when the Obama administration tells us we can trust them to do the right thing, it’s pretty much guaranteed that they aren’t doing the right thing.

The administration – including both President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry – came down hard on Congress for inviting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to make a speech before a joint session earlier this month.  The White House voiced their concern that Republicans were trying to influence Israel’s elections (even as Obama campaign operatives were working behind the scenes in Israel in an attempt to sway the election the other way).  And even after the Prime Minister delivered a speech urging President Obama to take a tougher stance with Iran, not only for the future of Israel, but for the entire West, they insisted that it was all about the election.

They have been extremely critical of a group of 47 U.S. Senators who published an open letter to Iran stating that any agreement would have to be approved by the Senate in order to be legally binding in the U.S.  This was in reaction to President Obama’s earlier statements about how he would be pursuing an agreement without Senate approval – a move that a little thing called the Constitution would basically render meaningless as soon as President Obama leaves office.

According to the President, the Secretary of State, and various other Democrats, these 47 Republican Senators were seeking “common cause” with Iran’s hard-liners…though the only way that makes any sense is if the president was planning on making a non-legally binding agreement with Iran, but was planning to pull the rug out from under them later.

But by all appearances, the Democrats are going for more of a “peace in our time” strategy.  It looks like they are already making some big concessions – Iran and Hezbollah (one of many terrorist groups Iran supports) have been removed from the 2015 report on national security threats, despite the fact that Iran remains one of the world’s leading sponsors of terrorism.

This deal with Iran is shaping up to be all too similar to our previous deals with North Korea, which ultimately resulted in an insane, tyrannical regime getting nuclear weapons.  The last thing we need is for another Democrat president to allow yet another crazy tyrannical regime to get nuclear weapons – this one with ties to all sorts of terror groups.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,436 other followers