Saturday, February 2, 2013

RANDOM SHOTS - Church Donations Refused By Wounded Warrior Project, Majority Of Americans Feel Threatened By Our Government, and More!

Wounded Warrior Project Refuses Money Donations from Florida Christian Church

This is one of those News stories that you wish you never have had to come across. It is one of those stories that make you angry and sort of sad at the same time. Believe it or not, the Wounded Warrior Project has refused to accept donations from Liberty Baptist Church and Academy in Fort Pierce, Florida. 

The Christian church and school is now feeling pretty devastated after the Wounded Warrior Project refused their fundraising efforts - all because it comes from a group that is “religious in nature.” 

“We were heartbroken,” said Wallace Cooley, pastor of Liberty Baptist Church and Academy in Fort Pierce, Florida. 

Rev. Cooley said they had already paid a $100 registration fee to raise money for the Wounded Warrior Project. Yes, the Church had to pay a FEE of $100 just to use the name Wounded Warrior Project to solicit donations from its members. He said that they were about to launch the campaign when they received an email from the organization. It was an email from the Wounded Warrior Project Community Events Team, which read:

“We must decline the opportunity to be the beneficiary of your event due to our fundraising event criteria, which doesn’t allow community events to be religious in nature. Please note your registration fee will be refunded within the next 7-10 business days.”

Wounded Warrior Project said as a non-partisan organization they cannot accept event fundraising from companies “in which the product or message is religious in nature.”

"Religious in nature"? Does that mean that they will also refuse donations from Americans who are "religious in nature" as well? And honestly, since when is being "religious in nature" being "partisan"?

It goes against everything I thought the Wounded Warrior Project was about. I really thought it was about helping veterans and not politics. I guess that I was wrong.

As a disabled Veteran, I felt good about doing what I could to help the Wounded Warrior Program.   Because money is so tight with my wife and me these days, I figured the least I could do was carry an advertisement and backlink to the Wounded Warrior Project home page just so that others could donate if they could. I feel that the organization has done a lot of good in the past. But it is apparent that it has lowered itself to do the bidding of the Political Correctness crowd. 

It appears that the Wounded Warrior Project is now under the influence of Democrats and other liberals. It seems as though they have tainted the mindset of those who run the Wounded Warrior Project. It has now gone from doing good for veterans to appeasing the partisan politics of the Left and their anti-Christian agenda.

Up until reading this story, I carried an advertisement and backlink to the Wounded Warrior Project. I have now removed it from our site. Since the biggest donations in the world come from American Christian religious organizations, this group is successfully shooting itself in the foot by refusing their donations. And more so, if their policy is to now not accept donations from them, then it is fairly justified to believe that they do not want to accept donations from an American who considers his or herself "religious in nature."

Because of their actions, it is apparently true that the Wounded Warrior Project now has a policy that states they are prohibited from accepting donations from Christian Americans. In effect, they just said they don't want any donations because that money may be "tainted" by a religious person. And yes, for those out there who are asking the same question that I am now wondering, will the Wounded Warrior Project hold back their support of those American troops who are Christians or any other religion?

Would they do such a thing as have a litmus test to see who gets their help based on whether or not that wounded warrior was in fact "religious by nature" or not? I can't help but wonder if they would.


Wyoming House Seeks to Block Proposed Federal Gun Restrictions

Wyoming’s House of Representatives has passed legislation that attempts to exempt the state from proposed federal regulations restricting assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. The law would also charge federal officials who try to enforce the ban with a misdemeanor, reports CBS.

The state could have problems enforcing its own law. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that federal laws supersede state laws. It’s uncertain whether the block would be legally enforceable.

President Obama has called for re-instituting a federal assault weapons ban following the shootings in Connecticut in December. Another gun ban is something that almost all Democrats want to see reinstated. Obama and Democrats across the nation jumped on the NRA's proposal of putting armed security in schools, yet it was a Bill Clinton proposal back during his time in office.
The Wyoming House also preliminarily approved a bill that would allow residents who hold permits to carry weapons on public school campuses, colleges, and on the grounds of the University of Wyoming.

I can't help but wonder what the Wyoming State Constitution says about the people's right to protect themselves. Many states have rights provisions in their State Constitution. For example, despite numerous revisions to the Pennsylvania Constitution, the right of their citizens to keep and bear arms is an unambiguous individual guarantee as stated: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

And yes, as simple as that is, I'm sure there are liberal lawyers who hate anything so easily understood.


Poll: Young Americans overwhelmingly support our right to own "assault weapons"

It is apparently true! According to a new Reason-Rupe poll released this last Thursday, a vast majority of young adults under the age of 34 believe that Americans have a right to own an “assault weapon.”

In fact, a full 70% of 18-24 year-olds and 58% of 24-34 year-olds indicated the government “should allow the private ownership of assault weapons.”

Republicans and Democrats alike may be surprised at such results. This poll is a break with the traditionally-held notion that the majority of the youth in America support the Democratic Party.

Overall, 51% of all Americans, including seniors, support the right to own “assault weapons.”

This poll breaks down to 68% Republicans, 57% Independents, and 33% Democrats. And in a related poll, a full two-thirds of American voters with household guns state that they would "defy" gun laws if passed.

An interesting point to note: When the poll respondents were asked to provide a practical description of an “assault weapon,” a majority of those respondents - 29 percent - described assault weapons as “fully automatic machine guns.” Twenty-seven percent of the respondents described an assault weapon as a gun that “fires rapidly,” while 23 percent indicated the size of the magazine comprised an assault weapon. Seventeen percent characterized an assault weapon as having the ability to “fire multiple rounds.” And yes, 26% responded that any weapon, i.e. knife or gun (8 percent), semi-automatic weapon (7 percent), designed to kill many people (7 percent), not for hunting or traditional protection (4 percent), are so-called "assault weapons."

While the characterizations of so-called "assault weapons" varied, an overwhelming majority of respondents - 67 percent - do not believe the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban would have prevented the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, had it still been in effect. I can't help but wonder if anti-gun Democrat politicians will take a look at this poll, then ask themselves how safe they feel running for re-election in 2014 when a majority of Americans see them as screwing with their rights?


Pew Poll: 53% Feel Rights Threatened By US Government

A report today shows that for the first time, a majority of Americans feel that the US government is in fact threatening their individual rights and freedoms. That is according to a Pew survey released today.

Fifty-three percent of the 1,502 adults surveyed Jan. 9-13 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press responded that they believe that the federal government threatens their personal rights and freedoms. The Pew survey found that 43 percent disagreed.

The findings come as President Barack Obama begins his second term and differ from survey results from March 2010, when adults were divided on the issue. 

Pew found that 47 percent agreed that the government represented a threat to personal freedoms, while 50 percent disagreed. The Pew survey found that men are more likely than women to believe their rights are under assault, while Republicans — 70 percent — are far more likely than Democrats — 38 percent — to say so. But Pew found, 76 percent of conservative Republicans said they feel threatened by Washington, compared with 62 percent three years ago.

Also, survey respondents who said they do not feel that the federal government is encroaching on their rights voiced their frustration with government overreach.

Pew also reported that 73 percent said Washington rarely does the right thing or not at all, compared with 26 percent who do. No surprise to most of us watching the news and following the sentiments of the nation, especially since President Obama and Senator Feinstein are now trying to ban all guns and ammunition.

The fact is, Washington brings on skepticism because of its action - they are anti-productive, go against the will of the people, and violates our protections against the government as set forth in the Bill of Rights.


Lady With Gun Stops Home Invasion

A home invasion suspect in Magnolia, Texas, was arrested at a hospital after a mother shot him during the crime at a Montgomery County home, deputies said Wednesday.

Erin, who asked to be identified only by her first name, told Local 2 she was putting her 6-year-old son to bed when she heard a loud noise coming from her bedroom on Mink Lake Drive Friday night. Erin said she turned around and saw three masked men, pointing a gun right at her.

“Somehow the way it happened, as they were going down the hallway, I told them sometimes I keep money under the mattress, which is not true. But I needed to get to where my gun was,” she said.

The men followed her to her bedroom. 

“I was pretending to move the mattress. It’s really heavy, so I was trying to move their attention to the mattress because they wouldn’t take their eyes off of me. I needed a split second for them to take their eyes off of me. I said, ‘It might be under here.’ They started talking to each other in Spanish and then a roll of duct tape came out,” said Erin. 

“They all turned around and looked. I grabbed my gun, cocked it, I turned and shot him right in the stomach,” said Erin.

The Montgomery County Sheriff's Office said Adrian Granados-Yepez, 27, of Tomball, was arrested at Memorial Hermann Hospital Monday night, where he was being treated for a gunshot wound. 

"Protecting yourself goes into our Second Amendment, the right to bear arms. And thousands of people died to give me the right that saved my life," said Erin.

Good job Erin!


ObamaCare Glitch: Some Families to be Priced out of Obama's Health Coverage

Some families could get priced out of health insurance due to what's being called a glitch in President Barack Obama's overhaul law. But then again, what should we expect from a bill that the Democrats didn't even bother reading before they passed it into law?

IRS regulations issued Wednesday failed to fix the problem as liberal backers of the president's plan had hoped. As a result, some families that can't afford the employer coverage that they are offered on the job will not be able to get financial assistance from the government to buy private health insurance on their own. How many people will be affected is unclear.

The Obama administration says its hands were tied by the way Congress wrote the law. Officials said the administration tried to mitigate the impact. Families that can't get coverage because of the glitch will not face a tax penalty for remaining uninsured, the IRS rules said.

"This is a very significant problem, and we have urged that it be fixed," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, an advocacy group that supported the overhaul from its early days. "It is clear that the only way this can be fixed is through legislation and not the regulatory process."

The affordability glitch is one of a series of ObamaCare problems coming into sharper focus as the law moves to full implementation. Starting October 1st, many middle-class uninsured will be able to sign up for government-subsidized private coverage through new healthcare "marketplaces" known as "exchanges." Coverage will be effective January 1st, 2014.

Low-income people will be steered to expanded safety-net programs. At the same time, virtually all Americans will be required to carry health insurance, either through an employer, a government program or by buying their own plan.

Though ObamaCare was another liberal program that was sold as being "for the children," Bruce Lesley, who is president of First Focus which is an advocacy group for children, cited estimates that close to 500,000 children could remain uninsured because of the glitch.

"The children's community is disappointed by the administration's decision to deny access to coverage for children based on a bogus definition of affordability," Lesley said in a statement.

The problem seems to be the way the law defined affordable. Congress said affordable coverage can't cost more than 9.5% of family income. People with coverage the law considers affordable cannot get subsidies to go into the new insurance markets. The purpose of that restriction was to prevent a stampede away from employer coverage. Congress went on to say that what counts as affordable is keyed to the cost of self-only coverage offered to an individual worker, not his or her family.

A typical workplace plan costs about $5,600 for an individual worker. But the cost of family coverage is nearly three times higher, about $15,700, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

So if the employer isn't willing to chip in for family premiums — as most big companies already do — some families will be out of luck. They may not be able to afford the full premium on their own, and they'd be locked out of the subsidies in the health care overhaul law. Employers are relieved that the Obama administration didn't try to put the cost of providing family coverage on them.

"They are bound by the law and cannot extend further than what the law provides," said Neil Trautwein, a vice president of the National Retail Federation.


IRS: Cheapest ObamaCare Plan Will Cost $20,000 per Family by 2016

Now it's the IRS who will make the rules!

The Internal Revenue Service issued a report in which it estimated that under ObamaCare, the least expensive health insurance plan available to a family in 2016 would cost $20,000 annually. Under ObamaCare, all U.S. citizens are required to have health insurance - either through their employer or by purchasing it directly from the government. Individuals who don't have it by 2016 will face a penalty amounting to either 2.5% of a person's taxable income or approximately $2,000 per family depending on their income.

The IRS's $20,000 per family assumption applies to a family of four or five accepting the bronze plan, which of the four types of ObamaCare plans offered by the government is the most affordable - but has the fewest benefits. The other three types of health insurance plans available under ObamaCare are the silver, gold, and platinum plans.

In its report, the IRS provided several hypothetical examples illustrating the "penalties" Americans would face if they did not have insurance. The report continues to use the term "penalty" as opposed to "tax" despite the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling last year that found those in violation of the ObamaCare mandate were required to pay a "tax."

According to the IRS, a family earning $120,000 annually would receive a "penalty" of $2,400 in 2016. In addition to imposing penalties or additional taxes on individuals who do not acquire health care for themselves or their families, ObamaCare also penalizes businesses that do not conform to the law.

Under the ObamaCare laws, businesses with 50 or more "full-time" employees must offer health benefits to their staffers working between 32 and 38 hours a week. Employers that don't provide coverage must pay a $2,000-per-worker penalty, excluding the first 30 employees.

Consequently, many small businesses trying to skirt ObamaCare rules have resorted to cutting the hours of their employees in order to give them part-time status, or have decided to stop hiring until they realize the impact the new healthcare law will have on their business.

In a late December piece in USA Today, chief economist of Moody's Analytics, Mark Zandi, warned that ObamaCare "will have a negative impact on job creation."

But honestly, I don't think Obama or all of the Democrats who support ObamaCare give a damn if it hurts Americans and small businesses. They are going with their agenda, and it seems it doesn't matter to them what effects it has on the nation.


Hollywood's Sylvester Stallone Comes Out In Favor Of Assault Weapon Ban

Actor Sylvester Stallone, best known for some of the most violent movies ever made, says that despite his "Rambo" image and his new extremely violent film "Bullet to the Head" he's in favor of new national gun control legislation.

Believe it or not, Stallone supported the 1994 "Brady Bill" that included a now-expired ban on assault weapons. And now, yes, the man who has made millions of dollars in some of the most violent movies in film history now wants that a 1994 Brady Bill-style gun ban can be reinstated.

"I know people get (upset) and go, 'They're going to take away the assault weapon.' Who ... needs an assault weapon? Like really, unless you're carrying out an assault. ... You can't hunt with it. ... Who's going to attack your house, a (expletive) army?"

The 66-year-old actor said he also hopes for an additional focus on mental health to prevent future mass shootings. "It's unbelievably horrible, what's happened. I think the biggest problem, seriously, is not so much guns. It's that every one of these people that have done these things in the past 30 years are friggin' crazy. Really crazy! And that's where we've dropped the ball: mental health," he said. "That to me is our biggest problem in the future, is insanity coupled with isolation."

What the actor didn't address was how extreme violence in his movies may have influenced people to act out what they've seen in his movies. If he thinks "mental health" really is the bigger problem, then how does he justify a mentally ill person being inspired to commit mass murder because of what he has seen in a movie?

Case and point: the Aurora Colorado massacre was inspired by a horrific scene in the film Dark Knight Rises where a character in the movie murders innocent moviegoers in a theater.

So instead of a gun ban, why don't we talk about a ban on films like his new extremely violent film "Bullet to the Head"?  Why not address what inspires these terrible acts?  What not look at the root cause instead of the tool that is used?

If a crazy is inspired to drive his or her car into a crowd to kill as many people as possible, should we ban cars or find out what made that person do such a thing? Shouldn't we find out where he or she got the idea to do such a thing? If a person kills with a blunt object, which in reality is more common than the use of guns, shouldn't someone ask why? And yes, more importantly, where did they learn to do such a thing?

Hollywood is responsible for much of the violence in our society, yet they always get away with diverting the spotlight away from their own responsibility for these acts of violence. Hollywood is an expert at pointing the finger at other things, but never ever wants to look into the mirror and see who is really responsible for the ultra-violent society that we live in.

Yes, Stallone is a good example of a second-rate actor who is in deep denial. He wants to ban guns, yet he doesn't think his bloody movies aren't the real reason for what has taken place in Newtown Connecticut, and Aurora Colorado.


Is Stallone A Genuine Hypocrite?

The word "hypocrisy" is defined as "The claim, pretense, or false representation of holding beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not actually possess." A "hypocrite" is defined as "Someone that practices hypocrisy."

It is not surprising really that Stallone feels the way he does about wanting a gun ban, after all, hypocrites are all too abundant in Hollywood.

Though Stallone has proven himself to be a hypocrite on this and other things in the past, he is not the only hypocrite that has come out of Hollywood in the last 40 years. Stallone has a problem with the 2nd Amendment and is for door-to-door gun confiscation.

Don't believe me? Well, here are some of his quotes regarding gun control:

[While talking about guns in the U.S., following the murder of Phil Hartman in 1998, who was shot to death by his wife] "Until America, door to door, takes every handgun, this is what you're gonna have. It's pathetic. It really is pathetic. It's sad. We're living in the Dark Ages over there. It has to be stopped, and someone really has to go on the line, a certain dauntless political figure, and say, "It's ending, it's over, all bets are off." It's not 200 years ago, we don't need this anymore, and the rest of the world doesn't have it. Why should we? -- Sylvester Stallone on Access Hollywood, June 8, 1998

There is another part of this story. Besides being very anti-gun but using them extensively in his films, while Stallone was championing the Brady Bill gun ban -- he put in for a CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) permit in Culver City California where he lived. No kidding, it's true. 

In the late 1990s, Sylvester Stallone was calling for all private gun ownership to be abolished but he applied for a CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) permit for himself in 2004. Then in 2006, Stallone openly supports an organization that wants to abolish CCW permits in this country - but has his CCW renewed.

It is a typical Hollywood elitist attitude of guns for me but not for thee! But then again, in Stallone's case, he may have been that way even before making it big in Hollywood. After all, since he is the right age, why didn't he serve in Vietnam? Stallone was born on June 6, 1946, making him eligible for the draft from December 6, 1964, through June 6, 1971, under the rules in effect at the time (age 18-1/2 through 25).

Being a US citizen, Stallone was required to report to his draft board on his 18th birthday to determine his classification for draft eligibility. The lottery system for the draft was instituted with the drawing held on December 1, 1969, determining the order of induction for men born between 1 January 1944 and 31 December 1950. The point of the lottery system was to make each age group draft-eligible for only one year, instead of the old "can't plan my life for six-and-a-half-years system."

The draft number for June 6th was 110, and numbers up to 195 were called. If Stallone was classified as 1A by his draft board, he should have been drafted. But, knowing this, instead of enlisting and going into the military, the man who would become RAMBO in extremely violent films, killing hundreds on the big screen as a supposed Vietnam Vet suffering from PTSD, Stallone left the U.S. and instead studied acting and writing at the American College of Switzerland where he taught sports to girls.

I read where to keep her son from being drafted and going into the military, his mother, who was a very wealthy wrestling promoter of Women's Professional Wrestling, sent him to Europe to college to avoid going to Vietnam. So yes, that's how Stallone attended and worked as a girls' athletic coach at the American College of Switzerland in Leysin from 1965 to 1967. 

After that Stallone received draft deferments while at the University of Miami in the late '60s. He dropped out of school in 1969. The next year, 1970, Stallone, the "Italian Stallion," is said to have failed a basic Army induction physical. Imagine that, someone actually failing a basic Army induction physical. Friends, that's almost impossible! 

You have to be pretty sickly not to pass that physical, because as anyone who had any experience with the military those days knows - even a one-legged chimp with a glass eye could pass the basic Army induction physical back in those days. The Army was taking anyone at the time.

And for you that have the image of muscle-bound Stallone in your head? Well think about this the next time something silly comes over you and you have a strange need to go see one of his pathetic RAMBO films, poor steroid-hyped RAMBO failed a basic Army physical. And while you're thinking about that, ask yourself if some fool on steroids who couldn't pass the basic induction physical would ever be allowed in the Special Forces which of course was Stallone's whole schtick? 

I guess that is the nice thing about Hollywood, there have been those actors who in their past were in fact the real deal - but more often today they are just pathetic individuals play acting like children - knowing that they would never cut it as the real deal. Sadly, unlike the stars who sacrificed a lot, including their careers, to serve in World War II, today's actors like Sylvester Stallone can all be anything they want in films without ever having to pay the price of ever having lived it for real.

So no, Stallone's hypocrisy regarding his anti-gun stance doesn't surprise me.

Tom Correa

1 comment:

  1. I feel sorry for those poor kids whose donations got rejected. That's not fair. Not fair at all.


Thank you for your comment.