Archive for June, 2011

Mike Vanderboegh: ‘If you try to take our firearms, we will kill you’

In the continually developing scandal revolving around the Holder Justice Department and its Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (known as the ATF or BATFE), it has become clear that the government concocted a scheme to run U.S. guns into Mexico in order to prop up its false contention that ‘U.S. guns are arming the drug cartels.’ It has also become clear that the government intends to use the bogus figures resulting from the illegal gun running scheme to make a case for draconian new gun control measures.

However, even now, after ATF whistleblowers put their lives on the line to expose the plot, after a ton of evidence has surfaced that implicates persons at the very top of the ATF and even the DOJ, and after it has been shown that at least 2 cold-blooded murders were committed with the very guns the ATF placed into the hands of the cartels, some ‘journalists’ still don’t get it.

One such journalist, writing for the Miami Herald, placed the blame for Mexican gun violence squarely on ‘deadly U.S. guns’ and proceeded to call for gun bans.

Such a statement merely follows the script set by the ATF and DOJ brain trust when ‘Project Gunwalker’ or ‘Gunrunner,’ or as it is known in ATF circles, ‘Operation Fast and Furious,’ was first envisioned. Thus, the journalist is now merely nothing more than a mouthpiece and a patsy for the criminals in the Justice Department who implemented this dastardly deceptive plot.

Blogger Mike Vanderboegh, one of the 2 who first broke this story, fired off a letter in response to the Miami Herald article, in which he made it crystal clear that gun owners have no intention of allowing another round of gun bans, particularly not as a result of government treachery.

In response to a question one reporter asked him concerning gun control, Vanderboegh replied, ‘If you try to take our firearms, we will kill you.’

Vanderboegh goes further to delineate the firmly held convictions of today’s gun owners, who intend to remain firm in their resistance to government tyranny:

There are a considerable number of Americans — well armed Americans — who will not obey any further restrictions on our God-given, natural and inalienable rights when it comes to firearms. If, as I believe, that number amounts to a mere three percent of American firearm owners, that means you’ll have to kill three million of us in a bloody civil war to achieve what you want. That doesn’t count all the tyrannical, gun-grabbing sonsabitches that we’ll be forced to kill in righteous self-defense before we meet our Maker, and you should know that we intend — and have the skills and the means — to make that more than a one-to-one ratio. The pile of bodies of the next American civil war that you unthinkingly advocate would be in the millions, and we’d almost certainly win anyway, simply because our will to live free is greater than yours to oppress us.

Please, do not extrapolate from your own cowardice. You think that if you convince the federal government to carry out your policy that we’ll just meekly submit, because you cannot conceive of resisting yourself. We, on the other hand, have principles that we are willing to die for. Unfortunately for some, that means we are willing to kill in defense of those principles as well.

Lest the pinheaded minions of the ‘submit to the law no matter what’ crowd view Vanderboegh’s statement as ‘proof’ that he advocates a violent revolution, he has stated on numerous occasions that gun owners are smart enough not to instigate any such course of action. If the first shot is fired, it will have to come from government oppressors bent on forcing citizens into submission. But at that point, average Americans who are now armed to the hilt, especially since 2007, will fight back, and that will result in a bloody rampage that nobody wants.

Reprinted by permission


The Great Society’s Lie

Posted: June 21, 2011 by thesundowner in Uncategorized

Consumer Power Report #277:
The Great Society’s Lie

June 20, 2011
Welcome to the Consumer Power Report.
“The Great Society,” as Ronald Reagan once said, “is great only in power, in size and in cost.”
By now you’ve likely heard about the study conducted by Joanna Bisgaier and Karin V. Rhodes published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which has rocketed around the policy community over the past week. Essentially, it aimed at proving something that is already known by most in the field – and denied only by those ignorant of the truth or with a political motive to deny it: the level of access granted by Medicaid and CHIP is completely insufficient to meet the demands of the population it purports to serve.
As Kathryn Nix writes at The Foundry, drilling down to the essence of the study: “While specialists turned away 11 percent of privately insured children, 66 percent of children with Medicaid were unable to get an appointment. For those who did, the waiting time was 22 days longer than for other patients.” An excerpt:

We completed 546 paired calls to 273 specialty clinics and found significant disparities in provider acceptance of Medicaid–CHIP versus private insurance across all tested specialties. Overall, 66% of Medicaid–CHIP callers (179 of 273) were denied an appointment as compared with 11% of privately insured callers (29 of 273) (relative risk, 6.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3 to 8.8; P<0.001). Among 89 clinics that accepted both insurance types, the average wait time for Medicaid–CHIP enrollees was 22 days longer than that for privately insured children (95% CI, 6.8 to 37.5; P=0.005) …
We found a disparity in access to outpatient specialty care between children with public insurance and those with private insurance. Policy interventions that encourage providers to accept patients with public insurance are needed to improve access to care.

This study is completely consistent with the findings of a half-dozen other studies over the past several years, stretching as far back as the breast cancer studies of the mid-nineties and more recent research that showed Medicaid to be only marginally better than if you’re uninsured and offer to pay just $20 at the time of the appointment.
Avik Roy notes, the truly depressing part of this New York Times report on the study is that such a thing even needed to be detailed, and that some people seemed surprised by it:

There’s a New York Times article on the NEJM study. The money quote, from a medical director at a Chicago-area hospital: “It’s interesting to think you even need a study to prove that. It’s pretty much common knowledge.” (In the medical community it is, yes, but not in economics departments.)

What the study shows is that the current system, even without the addition of millions of new participants under Obama’s nationalized health care system, is already failing to serve those it promised to provide with care. And the pre-PPACA estimates regarding how many new participants will be standing in line is likely to be on the low side of reality: this NEJM piece is the first major one I’ve seen that notes the same “woodwork” effect Cato’s Jagadeesh Gokhale has studied. They describe it as one of “two potential budget-busting provisions for states” within Obama’s law:

As of 2014, it expands Medicaid eligibility to people with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level. A “Maintenance of Effort” rule in the legislation prohibits states from tightening their eligibility criteria before that time. Thus, states must manage difficult budget shortfalls at a time when the enhanced matching rate for federal funding is expiring, but the easiest way to save money – cutting people from the rolls – is simply not allowed. (The enrollment cut in Arizona is a unique case, because the state is simply choosing not to renew a special waiver program that will expire later this year.)
The other large wrinkle in the ACA relates to what happens to people who are already eligible for Medicaid under current law but are not enrolled. Whereas federal funds cover 100% of costs for newly eligible individuals starting in 2014, states receive the traditional federal contribution rate (currently 50 to 75%, depending on the state) for any additional enrollment of people who were already eligible. Millions of low-income Americans are currently eligible for Medicaid but do not participate because of enrollment barriers, poor retention, or lack of information. States anticipate that many such uninsured individuals will come out of the woodwork and sign up for Medicaid under the ACA, thanks to heavy media coverage, streamlined enrollment procedures required by the law, and the individual mandate to obtain insurance.

We launched out of recognition that Medicaid’s failure is going to become an issue everyone cares about soon enough. But even I didn’t expect it would be this soon.

I got this in an email today from a lady friend of mine. So, guys, enjoy the read. Ladies, if you have any comments, just plug them in below in the comments section. (By the way, not all posts on The Sundowner are political: some are just downright whacky!) Either way, you can subscribe to this blog over on the top right hand side ========>>>>>

Why Women Are Crabby All The Time

We started to bud at 9 or 10 years old only to find that ridiculously uncomfortable training bra contraption that the boys in school would snap until we had calluses on our backs.

Next, we get our periods in our early to mid-teens (or sooner).. Along with those budding boobs, we bloated, we cramped, we got the hormone crankies, had to wear little mattresses between our legs or insert tubular, packed cotton rods in places we didn’t even know we had.

Our next little rite of passage was having sex for the first time which was about as much fun as having a ramrod push your uterus through your nostrils (IF he did it right and didn’t end up with his little cart before his horse), leaving us to wonder what all the fuss was about.

Then it was off to Motherhood where we learned to live on dry crackers and water for a few months so we didn’t spend the entire day leaning over Brother John. Of course, amazing creatures that we are (and we are), we learned to live with the growing little angels inside us steadily kicking our innards night and day making us wonder if we were preparing to have Rosemary’s Baby.

Our once flat bellies looked like we swallowed a whole watermelon and we pee’d our pants every time we sneezed. When the big moment arrived, the dam in our blessed Nether Regions invariably burst right in the middle of the mall and we had to waddle, with our big cartoon feet, moaning in pain all the way to the ER.

Then it was huff and puff and beg to die while the OB says, ‘Please stop screaming, Mrs. Hearmeroar. Calm down and push. ‘Just one more good push’ (more like 10), warranting a strong, well-deserved impulse to punch the %$#*@*#!* hubby and doctor square in the nose for making us cram a wiggling, mushroom-headed 10 pound bowling ball through a keyhole.

After that, it was time to raise those angels only to find that when all that ‘cute’ wears off, the beautiful little darlings morphed into walking, jabbering, wet, gooey, snot-blowing, life-sucking little poop machines.

Then come their ‘Teen Years.’ Need I say more?

When the kids are almost grown, we women hit our voracious sexual prime in our early 40’s – while hubby had his somewhere around his 18th birthday.

So we progress into the grand finale: ‘The Menopause,’ the Grandmother of all womanhood. It’s either take HRT and chance cancer in those now seasoned ‘buds’ or the aforementioned Nether Regions, or, sweat like a hog in July, wash your sheets and pillowcases daily and bite the head off anything that moves.

Now, you ask WHY women seem to be more spiteful than men, when men get off so easy, INCLUDING the icing on life’s cake: Being able to pee in the woods without soaking their socks…

So, while I love being a woman, ‘Womanhood’ would make the Great Gandhi a tad crabby.

You think women are the ‘weaker sex?’ Yeah right. Bite me!