Political play

Gun Control History - A briefing

2009-08-14T08:54:00.000-07:00

Gun Control History
After reading the following historical facts, read the part
about Switzerland twice.

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!

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS AND ISSUES EVERY ADULT A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.

Now it's your turn. Tell us what you think about this issue.
Post a comment and please keep it relevant.

Gun Control History

Its intereting to see what the new president will bring

2009-03-01T11:40:00.000-08:00

Seems like such a night and day scenario when you compare the two most recent presidential administrations.

While President Obama comes off as a centrist, we do see some dramatic policy shifts. Perhaps those shifts are irrelevant to the goals of our newly forming one world government.

We got to ask ourselves if the play is to obvious. I mean with an election following George Bush, many would say it should have been a landslide election. Instead we got an election that brought Sarah Palin to the center of national politics. Is this for real? And now she's a reasoable contender for 2012....! Ridiculous...but it only goes to show what the national spotlight will do for you.

Obamas stance on abortion and right to life

2008-11-22T19:45:00.000-08:00

With a new president elect in waiting, it will be interesting to many to see what if any major policy shifts and changes there will be when he takes office.

Many right wing supporters would beg to differ on the subject of abortion and right to life. Barak Obama has surely made it clear that he does not support abortion, who would for that matter?

When it comes to these types of issues, how many big wigs in the republican party really care whether someone else has an abortion?

Perhaps this is one of the biggest "wedge issues" there is. Having an abortion isn't so much about political affiliation as it is about the timing and conditions of the conception.

Anyone is susceptible to these kinds of tough decisions. How we choose to deal with matters is a personal decision and to condemn someone else is to put yourself at risk for condemnation.

barak obama on abortion, obama on right to choose, obama and abortion

Bill Clinton to appear on Larry King and talk campaign 2008

2008-09-18T23:16:00.000-07:00

Bill Clintons on the economy and the election. It will surely be interesting to see what Bill Clinton has to say about how the 2008 presidential campaign is going.

Surely Bill would much rather see his wife running for office, so it may be said that you want to take Clintons responses with a slight grain of salt. It is clear that the economy is reemerging at the top of the list on voters minds.

In reality it's been said over and over, what are we going to do about the economy?

Surely we are on this topic as a nation and the candidates are aware of that. Then how is it that neither one of the candidates have been super clear.

The one thing that is clear is that our economy is losing ground and Bill Clinton is considered by many democrats to be an authority on presidential economics.

Sarah Palin arrives in Alaska - Greeted by Fairbanks residents

2008-09-10T20:40:00.000-07:00

VP candidate, Sarah Palin just arrived in Alaska and I'm watching her right now in her most anticipated spot on the republican campaign circuit...and just as I predicted, she just recapped the same things she said before....almost verbatim....talking points....never actually talks about a particular....single social issue... other than "Our case for reform..." and "shake things up" ....OMG its hard to believe people think so shallow.

I don't care what party you're with, don't you demand a little more than this from a politician...a little more consistency.

She went through the usual movements of politics....thanked the military, tried to proclaim patriotism.

But it will go without saying that she will excite a lot of Americans who just wanted Hillary because she is a she....! It's kind of like Obama vs Hillary part 2.

"Shake things up in Washington."

"Mavericks of the senate..."

"Holding down the fort...."

"Take our message of reform..." Name one specific reform...

"The states luxury jet...sold..."

She pandered to the Alaskans...talking about smaller government....

"We will drill now to make this nation energy independent..."

"We need American energy resources....and we have it right here in Alaska...."

"Alaska will be a leader in energy policy..."

Sarah Palin talks about how we buy oil from foreign enemies, which is most definitely something we need to prevent, but she falls short when she fails to address what the reasons are that some of the foreign regimes may dislike America so much.

She will surely get a lot of folks excited about the republican ticket, even if they don't agree with her on issues. A lot of women want to see another women in high office, even if she is not the same in many other aspects. She has a controversial view on many different views such as abortion and protecting our environment.

sarah palin in alaska, alaska government, female vice president, female presidential candidate, women in office, sarah palin alaska speech, update news

McCain and Palin on the campaign trail

2008-09-05T09:15:00.001-07:00

When it comes to actual issues, it seems that McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin, just don't get it. They just continue on.

A day after the RNC, Sarah Palin gives a speech early Friday to a small town audience in Cedarsburg, Wisconsin. She seems to be giving a recap of the RNC where there was very minimal mention of actual economic issues.

She seems to be reading the pre written speech for the first time. Not able to hold it together, she eventually passes the torch to John McCain himself.

It's incredible how much repitition and lack of talk on the economy there was.

John McCain speaks about eilitism in Washington and the left wing of the America public, but let's look at Cindy McCains convention outfitter....

Cindy McCain
Oscar de la Renta dress: $3,000
Chanel J12 White Ceramic Watch: $4,500
Three-carat diamond earrings: $280,000
Four-strand pearl necklace: $11,000–$25,000
Shoes, Taryn Rose: $475
Total: Between $299,100 and $313,100

It may seem laughable to some that McCain will talk about the elitisism among the left, yet they think they somehow deserve to adorn themselves with as much as $300,000 in fashion gluttony.

John McCain claims we should look at the record on Obama, knowing that most of the shallow minded people supporting his campaign who will never looking at anyones record and if they did, they probably wouldn't be republican.

Obama announces VP selection Joe Biden

2008-08-22T21:46:00.000-07:00

Joe Biden has officially been announced to be Barak Obama's running mate for election 2008.

An Obama / Biden ticket does well for those democrats who are concerned with national security since it is known to be one of his strong points.

Many assumed that Barak would choose Joe Biden because of his military experience. A text message announcing the VP candidate was not expected until early Saturday morning, although a reliable source seems to have broken the news Friday evening on August 22.

Many like the fact that Biden is experienced, but with a campaign based on change, Obamas supporters have been a little wary about picking a politician who has so much of his background based in Washington DC.

For now the race for the presidency is still close and we will soon see who the next person in the oval office will be. Surely many will be relieved that Bush is no longer in office, although that won't be enough to satisfy many of his dissenters who would rather see him impeached and punished for getting the country into a situation of conflict in the mideast.

War is the reason for the economy

2008-03-23T16:39:00.000-07:00

It's been said in recent news reports that the war may have a significant effect on the economy. Of course it does. It should go without saying that when we demand significantly more oil to operate out military, we are going to notice an increase in oil and gas prices.

Petro fuels have become the basis for our semi modern economy. Now we see ourselves strangled at the gas pump. It is an obvious price to pay when no one is there to verify the supply.

It's most definitely a trade off. If you are going to have a war, you are going to have some expenditures. Not only life, but also money! With a war that has drenched on for 7 years now, we have incurred an incredible amount of debt. Some say that the economy is a part of the mortgage meltdown.

I don't think the mortgage crisis has much to do with the economy. Real estate is a commodity of our own country and so money is provided by mostly American based banks. On the other hand, with military investment, the profit is concentrated among a very few people that invest in such technologies and growth as that of a military unit.

The different branches of the military are large consumers of oil and military products such as gear, ammo and other combat equipment and personal.

Hillary vs Obama for president

2008-02-29T21:14:00.000-08:00

While it is of course understandable that people within the same party are going to agree on much, ti seems strange that the only two main democratic candidates for the presidency don't differ much on their policies and values.

It seems as though there's such a small elite inner circle who vie for the presidency amongst themselves. Is it possible that someone like Barack Obama could be a part of the establishment plans as much as any other candidate?

Many Americans are eager for change as well, but a change to what? Democratic or Republican political opinion. I think a lot of times, people get these unrealistic ideals inside their heads and they think they can materialize them while they are not feasible with the standard social platforms...such as death penalty sentencing for instance where it is easy to say we should take an eye for an eye. However, the answer is not always so easy.

CNN constantly covers the campaign and you can expect a vast amount of spin on the story as race continues. Analyst on Larry King may include a celebrity line up like Ben Stein. On Lou Dobbs, you're likely to find more pundit speak.

I don't always get a chance to watch TV, but when I do, the news is probably the most entertaining thing on. Everyone wants to know what's really going on. People want to be surprised by the events of the news. We are always waiting to see that next big headline. What could be more tantalizing?

How could there be, for so many decades, basically just white men to choose from for president, then all of a sudden in 2008, the democrats have a big ticket alternative race and alternative gender candidate. What changed? Is this inevitability?

Democratic debate goes easy

2008-02-01T22:41:00.000-08:00

Democratic debate news - After much anticipation over the first serious presidential debate to take place between Obama and Clinton, you may leave feeling just a little bit disappointed for lack of conflict.

If you expected the two democratic presidential front runners for the 2008 election to have a heated debate, think again.

Much goes agreeable for the two candidates with the exception of few marginal differences such as how universal health care should be and how difficult it should be for immigrants to get drivers licenses.

As for the war, neither candidate offers the hard line edge that the republicans put on.

Whether or not you buy the right ring politics is a coin toss, since the party is so expectedly polarized this campaign season.

Who will be president? Well as we know this is still remaining to be determined, but no matter what happens, if the democrats win, this will be a quite historic presidential election.

Some conspiracy theorists would say that they are all involved. It is interesting to think that Hillary is of course espoused to a former U.S. president and Obama is, in fact, a distant relative of Dick Cheney....?????

Yeah, this is real! It may be hard to believe, but you can bet the presidential candidates are indeed connected.

Presidential candidates have agendas to keep. Is it true that the candidates are battling it out in a national arena of politics...? Or is it the case that we are just watching a play at the Grand Ole' Opera house?

It is said that the President can be predicted based on their connection to royalty. Now that we have players of a different ilk than ever before, are we still gonna be bound to this old wives tale of presidency?

clinton obama debate, presidential debate, democratic debate

John Mccain gets overrated

2008-01-29T21:31:00.000-08:00

War presidents - As John McCain seems to be getting strong Republican support in Florida, one might question the sanity of the voters.

After 7 long years of war and an ever slowing and artificially maintained economy, you'd figure Americans would grow brains.

It's unfortunate if we get a war sustaining president into office. The war will only continue to drain our resources for the profit of the Americans who are in position to profit from military needs like weapons and oil sales.

Military oil usage has been shown to increase by as much as 30% or more during war time.

During the war times, the demand for oil is very high for this reason and so when demand goes up, what else goes up??

That's right....PRICE!

What are the main resources a modern day military needs to operate?

ARMS and OIL

Therefore....what is the best business to be in when we are at war....?

That's right...ARMS and OIL.

It's most certainly interesting to do a little quick research into which American own the most military and oil stocks. You'd be surprised.

So it kind of makes you wonder if this capital gains thing is biting ourselves in the tail.

In other words we are only at war to allow the sales of massive amounts of arms and oil to our very own taxpaying selves. All the revenue that results will end up in the pockets of the perpetrator.

Sometimes you need to look a little beneath the surface to see who really starts war!

Republican - How the right wing has lost all credibility

2008-01-20T17:04:00.000-08:00

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a hardliner democrat or independent always, but when it comes to the political scene, it's hard to escape the fact that the George Bush policy has been the most expensive in history.

Now, I'm not for aborting babies, but it's hard to believe that the same person who could be all up in arms about abortion and claims to value life so much, but then that same person eats meat and still supports this war.

Something seems very fundamentally hypocritical about that.

I have always said that the capital gains tax should remain low since this is where all of our capital risk lies. The corporate tax is the business tax that needs to be higher.

This forces companies to scrutinize their business plans better. To provide long term business success models.

You then lower the capital gains tax in order to recapture a large investment audience so as to increase capital for new business venture.

The problem is many republicans support lower taxes for corporations. This is a mistake. Some of the corporations with the most revenue pay the least taxes. Why? Because they are always growing to capacity. Once a corporation gets to be a certain size, its marketing cost per capita is so low that they are given much higher budgets to experiment with.

The income gap is a serious contrast from rich to poor.

What is sad is when different citizens in the same country alienate each other with such deeply divided political opinion.

What Moses was really saying

2007-12-28T22:53:00.001-08:00

Moses told Israel to stop worshipping the calf and the ram...interesting!!!

So what does that really mean? To know the answer, you need to understand a couple of things about the ancients and the sciences they studied.

A great year is a full revolution of a wobble in the earths axis. It takes about 26,000 years for this precession to take place a single time.

Somehow the ancient peoples of Mesopotamia knew this. It is an astrological discovery made as much as 5000 years ago or longer. It is written about in the Books of Thoth....an ancient god of the Egyptians.

The question is...where did they get this knowledge. Was Thoth an actual supernatural entity (A god), was he just one attribute of the all encompassing single super-natural god that may or may not have created the entire universe and everything inside and outside of it?? Or was he maybe an alien from another planet with advanced knowledge?

If Thoth is perhaps an attribute of a single God...like say the God of Christianity for instance....then why would this God show us something astrological that is actually the basis of the religion most Christians would have us believe is something evil?

Mans unexplained genes

A much longer war

2007-12-28T22:32:00.001-08:00

The problem with our economy lies with the war. The fact that we are spending so much to fight...is only doing us more harm than good.

Do we really expect to believe that we can wipe out the seed of terrorism?

Surely we will only be breeding a new generation of terrorist that won't appreciate our interventions and will cause continuous war for years, perhaps decades or longer into the future.