Former CBS News president Richard Salant (1961 - 64 and 1966 - 79) explained the major media's role: "Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have." ...and to this very day most Americans haven't noticed they're being brained washed! ~ N. Hooben
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Friday, April 12, 2013
Voter Fraud...Democrats cannot win without cheating
Without re-telling the entire story, let me say that voter fraud exists far more than Democrats are willing to admit. As a poll watcher back in 2006 I witnessed the Democrat Party's controlled straight ballot vote in a county that has never learned it's lesson...they've always voted Democrat and have never progressed beyond the point of 'gimme-this-gimme-that'. In fact the same politic elite get re-elected time after time while the stupid lemming-like voters repeat the same mistakes every time they enter a voting booth. To say that they are stupid should not to be thought of as a derogatory statement but rather a factual observation...else why do they keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results? Some would attribute that latter statement as the definition of insanity but as a poll watcher I didn't see any crazy people. They all appeared quite normal therefor they must be stupid to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. ~ Norman E. Hooben
ps: The county where this took place was under the control of the Democrats and even after the county went bankrupt the voters did not have a clue as to who caused their demise. Maybe they are insane.
Universal Background Check Legislation... a bad omen
From the mailbag...
-----
Original Message -----
From: Politics AlabamaTo: link removed
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 1:15 AM
Subject: Politics Alabama - Problems With "Universal Background Check" Bill
"This provision is far too draconian and punitive, and will criminalize innocent people. Needlessly!"
by Politics Alabama
So
the "Universal Background Check" bill is scheduled for a vote this morning, and
we are being bombarded with poll results showing "overwhelming support" for
universal background checks. Okay, supporters of the bill say, since a majority
of voters back the concept, it's obvious the bill should pass. If that's the
only criteria, then ObamaCare should never have been passed... after all, it has
been opposed by a majority of voters since before it was passed. But that's
another topic.
The problem with the argument, however, is that the bill does more than it's supporters admit. First, it makes felons out of homeowners who lose a gun and don't report it within 24-hours. Second, it doesn't only require background checks for sales, but for any "transfer" of a weapon.... including lending a gun to a friend. Let's look at these.
The bill includes a provision that says if a gun-owner loses a gun or has one stolen and doesn't report it within 24-hours, then the gun-owner is guilty of a FELONY crime worthy of five years in prison. Some might think this reasonable, but consider this: the bill requires more than just contacting the local sheriff and telling them about the loss, the gun-owner must also notify the United States Attorney General! Now I ask you, what reasonable person would realize this is a requirement? And knowledge that the act of not-reporting is a crime is NOT required in the bill... intent isn't needed. So if a person, in all ignorance, fails to notify the police AND the USAG of a loss within 24-hours, no matter the reason, he is guilty of a felony. What about somebody on a hunting trip way up in Alaska? No cell phones, days away from the nearest phone... if a gun tumbles down a cliff or sinks into a lake, that hunter is almost automatically a felon. I mean, he has no chance NOT to be... but the law wouldn't care.
This provision is far too draconian and punitive, and will criminalize innocent people. Needlessly!
On to the next topic. The bill doesn't simply require a background check for all sales, even private sales, but also for each "transfer" of a gun. That means just what it sounds like. Say I have a friend who is thinking of buying a gun and wants to borrow mine to try it out and see how she likes it... things like this happen all the time. Once she takes that firearm and leaves my house/presence, a transfer has occurred. And if I didn't go to a licensed firearms dealer to run an NICS background check, then I am guilty of a felony.
At firearms safety classes, the person running the class often brings several guns for students to use if they don't bring their own. That action, if not preceded by an NICS background check performed for each student by a licensed gun dealer, would also be a felony.
Or what about lending a rifle to a friend who wants to hunt and doesn't own his own rifle? Each with his own rifle, the individuals head to separate hunting blinds... and that transfer of a firearm makes both of them felons.
Some "transfers" within a family are okay without an NICS background check, but others would require one to avoid suddenly acquiring felony status.
As you can see, this bill goes FAR beyond what most people think of when they hear the term "universal background checks", and these details were not provided to poll respondents before asking them if they support the bill. I think support would be vastly reduced if such details were known.
This bill is NOT a good one, and would result in many innocent people going to jail. No matter what people think about the general idea, this particular bill is badly written and would have unfortunate consequences.
The problem with the argument, however, is that the bill does more than it's supporters admit. First, it makes felons out of homeowners who lose a gun and don't report it within 24-hours. Second, it doesn't only require background checks for sales, but for any "transfer" of a weapon.... including lending a gun to a friend. Let's look at these.
The bill includes a provision that says if a gun-owner loses a gun or has one stolen and doesn't report it within 24-hours, then the gun-owner is guilty of a FELONY crime worthy of five years in prison. Some might think this reasonable, but consider this: the bill requires more than just contacting the local sheriff and telling them about the loss, the gun-owner must also notify the United States Attorney General! Now I ask you, what reasonable person would realize this is a requirement? And knowledge that the act of not-reporting is a crime is NOT required in the bill... intent isn't needed. So if a person, in all ignorance, fails to notify the police AND the USAG of a loss within 24-hours, no matter the reason, he is guilty of a felony. What about somebody on a hunting trip way up in Alaska? No cell phones, days away from the nearest phone... if a gun tumbles down a cliff or sinks into a lake, that hunter is almost automatically a felon. I mean, he has no chance NOT to be... but the law wouldn't care.
This provision is far too draconian and punitive, and will criminalize innocent people. Needlessly!
On to the next topic. The bill doesn't simply require a background check for all sales, even private sales, but also for each "transfer" of a gun. That means just what it sounds like. Say I have a friend who is thinking of buying a gun and wants to borrow mine to try it out and see how she likes it... things like this happen all the time. Once she takes that firearm and leaves my house/presence, a transfer has occurred. And if I didn't go to a licensed firearms dealer to run an NICS background check, then I am guilty of a felony.
At firearms safety classes, the person running the class often brings several guns for students to use if they don't bring their own. That action, if not preceded by an NICS background check performed for each student by a licensed gun dealer, would also be a felony.
Or what about lending a rifle to a friend who wants to hunt and doesn't own his own rifle? Each with his own rifle, the individuals head to separate hunting blinds... and that transfer of a firearm makes both of them felons.
Some "transfers" within a family are okay without an NICS background check, but others would require one to avoid suddenly acquiring felony status.
As you can see, this bill goes FAR beyond what most people think of when they hear the term "universal background checks", and these details were not provided to poll respondents before asking them if they support the bill. I think support would be vastly reduced if such details were known.
This bill is NOT a good one, and would result in many innocent people going to jail. No matter what people think about the general idea, this particular bill is badly written and would have unfortunate consequences.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Obama Endorses Deadly Lifestyle
Source: ClashDaily.comPresident Obama Promotes the Cult of Sodomy
by Pete Parker
With the average life span of a homosexual being a paltry 42 years of age — due to highly aberrant
and deviant sexual practices — President Obama’s endorsement of this lifestyle is not only feckless — but also downright deadly.
The manifestations of such practices as male sodomy and “fisting” (insertion of a hand into the rectum) are well beyond the realms of debauchery. These habits, first and foremost — not only contravene “The laws of nature and of nature’s God” — but they also cause myriad debilitating and fatal medical conditions.
According to a study published at the Catholic Education Resource Center — male sodomy causes the following maladies: Anal cancer; Gonorrhea; Syphilis; hepatitis types B & C; Microsporidia; anorectal trauma; anal fissures; Herpes simplex virus and parasitic infections.
The study goes on to say that due to the plethora of infections caused by male sodomy — the term “Gay Bowel” has now become the new term among medical professionals in order to more easily categorize those who suffer from the aforementioned illnesses due to their sexual behavior.
So, given the high risk of male sodomy — it becomes strikingly obvious as to just why homosexuals, on average, have such short life spans (some 35 years below the US national average for males). Even a total neophyte — once presented with the facts — would be hard-pressed to draw any contrary conclusions.
Yet despite this study (and many others which present analogous findings) — President Obama continues to convey the following message to the young and highly impressionable boys of America: Homosexuality is cool.
I firmly believe this message isn’t something that just appears on his teleprompter — but rather it’s a profound manifestation of his repugnant and condescending narcissism which inclines him to believe that he knows better than G-d.
A narcissism that will doom many a young man to an early grave as President Obama continues to promote the Cult of Sodomy.
Image: Grim Reaper, Greenwich Village; uploaded by russavia; author: InSapphoWeTrust from Los Angeles, California, USA; Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license
Read more: http://clashdaily.com/2013/04/president-obama-promotes-the-cult-of-sodomy/#ixzz2Q0gVTx9X
Get more Clash on ClashDaily.com, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.