The movie For Greater Glory is a: Phyllis Schlafly goes on to say: Obama Censors the Declaration of Independence Phyllis Schlafly Jul 3, 2012 http://townhall.com/columnists/phyl...obama_censors_the_declaration_of_independence Ms. Schlafly is absolutely correct; so I asked myself why Americans think it cant happen here? My first answer came in the form of another question: Why hasnt it happened yet? The answer to that question is relatively easy: UNREGISTERED guns in the hands of tens of millions of private sector Americans. The Affordable Care Act according to John Roberts A very brief article (280 words) shows the lengths the government will go to in order to disarm private sector Americans. Heres one of the reasons I call it Hillarycare II: July 2, 2012 Can Government Now Tax Handgun Ammunition 10,000%? Michael Filozof http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/can_government_now_tax_handgun_ammunition_10000.html Before the Supreme Court opened the door to taxing guns and ammunition out of existence, everything the federal government did to abolish the Second Amendment was usually obvious and could be fought in Congress and state legislatures; not so with justification. The findings of a recent study FUNDED by the DHS is a clear attempt to justify abolishing the Second Amendment: Feds label liberty lovers 'terrorists' ... again! Warns of right-wingers 'suspicious of centralized federal authority' Published: 14 hours ago http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/feds-label-liberty-lovers-terrorists-again/ Hanging onto the Second Amendment is the best chance Americans have of holding tyranny at bay. When all of the legal and philosophical arguments have been made CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED UNREGISTERED GUNS is a matter of self-interest. So far, the SCOTUS has upheld the Second Amendment. John Roberts sneaky tax decision signals a dramatic shift in the way the Court decides Second Amendment cases in the future. As Ive said many times, the High Court is part of the government. The SCOTUS will never rule to diminish the governments authority over private Americans even when there is no opening that empowers the government. Roberts absurd behavior can be taxed ruling provides an omnipotent opening. To be more precise Roberts closed every opening in opposition to totalitarian government. You might ask yourself why Americans are being asked to die fighting tyranny in foreign lands while marching quietly down the road to tyranny in their own country? If you are squeamish about the questions implications think of unregistered guns as a deterrent. The Second Amendment aside there is a deeper question that should be asked: Why are Democrats doing it? The simple answer is because they cant mind their own business. Eric Hoffers great observation applies to Socialists much more than it applies to the followers of an organized religion: To know a person's religion we need not listen to his profession of faith but must find his brand of intolerance. Organized religions were never a threat to individual liberties in America. Before Socialists began their campaign to install their own religion as the states religion no one was forced to join a church, or support a religion not of their own choosing. Freedom of religion as it was practiced in America before Socialists infiltrated the highest levels of government basically said live and let live. Busybodies abhor the very concept of letting others live their lives as they see fit. Live and let live is their intolerance. There is a more complex answer to the question Why are Democrats doing it? They want to do exactly what Mexican President Plutarco Elias Calles did in 1926. Finally, Ive noticed that Republicans are laying a foundation for not repealing Hillarycare II: Jul 2, 6:35 PM EDT Minority leader: Odds long to undo health care law http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-07-02-18-35-36 And, to no ones surprise, media stooges are saying the Supreme Court should be respected irrespective of how one feels about a decision. That is the same crap they spread around about respecting the office of president. In truth, there is no good reason to respect any institution, or individual, that is hellbent on implementing a totalitarian government.
Preventative medicine is a pharmaceutical industry scam. Drug companies were not making enough money selling drugs to people who were actually sick; so they increased their sales a thousandfold with the preventative medicine con job. The whole thing is a perversion of “An apple a day keeps the doctor away.” It turns out that doctors are worse than drug companies. Doctors aligned themselves with dirty little moralists when they started telling EVERYONE not to smoke. Do not smoke soon became lose weight and exercise. That wasn’t enough. Doctors in Florida tell their patients to get rid of their guns: Note who doctors had as allies in their lawsuit: Question: Doctors scream bloody murder when anybody interferes in the doctor-patient relationship; so how come doctors do not mind the ACLU getting in-between doctor and patient? Doctors are supposed to do no harm. There is every possibility that preventative drugs harm some patients. The public will never know how many patients are harmed when they take medicine to prevent rather than cure. The public will never find out because drug companies, doctors, legislators, and advertisers will see that the harm done is blamed on something else. Happily, doctors cannot hide the harm they are doing with their assault on the Second Amendment. I’d like to see this scenario: A patient gets rid of his gun on his doctor’s orders. A murderer breaks into the patient’s home and kills the patient’s children because he could not defend himself. The patient sues the doctor. How would you vote if you were on the jury? In the same vain, Americans must take a long, hard, look at tort reform before those bums in Washington include it in more “healthcare reform.” I do not have much use for lawyers, but lawyers, and they alone, are all that stands between the public and medical industry butchery protected by law. Finally, when I need moral guidance I’ll go to a priest not a doctor. Own a gun? Doctors can't refuse to treat you Judge issues permanent injunction in 'Docs vs. Glocks' case Published: 12 hours ago by DREW ZAHN A U.S. district judge has issued a permanent injunction against a Florida law aimed at preventing doctors from refusing treatment for patients who admit they have guns in the home. Last year, Florida passed the “Firearm Ownership Privacy Act,” which bars doctors from asking patients about guns in the home, “unless the practitioner in good faith believes the information is relevant to the patient’s medical care or safety” and would impose sanctions if doctors “unnecessarily harass a patient about firearm ownership.” The law was passed after an Ocala, Fla., couple complained that a doctor had asked them about guns and after they declined to answer refused to see them anymore. But U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke had issued a temporary injunction after three doctors sued the state, claiming the “gag order” on talking to their patients about guns was an infringement of free speech and the doctor-patient relationship. The resulting legal battle became known as the “Docs vs. Glocks” case. The doctors were backed in the case by various physicians organizations, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Washington-based Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The National Rifle Association, however, which helped push the law through the legislation, was barred by the judge from participating in the lawsuit, as Cooke claimed the state was fully capable of defending itself. In a ruling issued late last week, Cooke decided for the doctors and made her injunction against the law permanent. “The state, through this law, inserts itself in the doctor-patient relationship,” Cooke wrote in her 25-page ruling, “prohibiting and burdening speech necessary to the proper practice of preventive medicine, thereby preventing patients from receiving truthful, non-misleading information. … This it cannot do.” Cooke asserted furthermore that the anti-harassment language of the bill is too vague and “does not provide fair notice as to what range of conduct it prohibits.” Dan Gross, president of the Brady Center, celebrated the decision. “Guns in the home are a proven deadly risk,” Gross said in a statement. “The government cannot tell us or our doctors that we are prohibited from discussing the deadly risks posed by guns.” Florida Governor Rick Scott’s spokesman, Lane Wright, told the Palm Beach Post that the governor was considering whether or not to appeal the decision, but Rep. Jason Brodeur, a Republican who sponsored the bill, and the Florida Senate’s general counsel, Craig Meyer, both said they believed Scott would appeal. http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/own-a-gun-the-doctor-cant-refuse-to-treat-you/?cat_orig=us
