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.

NEXT SHOT!

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.

NEXT SHOT!

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?

THIRD SHOT!

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.

NEXT SHOT!

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!

NEXT SHOT!

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.

NEXT SHOT!

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.

NEXT SHOT!

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.

LAST SHOT!

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

1864 Cattle Selection Guide

Image shown below illustrates the points of cattle and they are more fully described in the article presented below. Please keep in mind that this was written in 1864.

Some of the points may carry a little different description today but most are still a part of the good judgement practiced today in any Cattle Selection Guide for the Beef Cattle Industry.




Whatever theoretical objections may be raised against over-fed cattle, and great as may be the attempts to disparage the mountains of fat, as highly-fed cattle are sometimes designated, there is no doubt of the practical fact, that the best butcher cannot sell any thing but the best fatted beef; and of whatever age, size, or shape a half-fatted ox may be, he is never selected by judges as fit for human food.

Hence, a well-fatted animal always commands a better price per pound than one imperfectly fed, and the parts selected as the primest beef are precisely the parts which contain the largest deposits of fat.

The rump, the crop, and the sirloin, the very favorite cuts, which always command from twenty to twenty-five per cent. more than any other part of the ox, are just those parts on which the largest quantities of fat are found; so that, instead of the taste and fashion of the age being against the excessive fattening of animals, the fact is, practically, exactly the reverse.

Where there is the most fat, there is the best lean; where there is the greatest amount of muscle, without its share of fat, that part is accounted inferior, and is used for a different purpose; in fact, so far from fat's being a disease, it is a condition of muscle, necessary to its utility as food, a source of luxury to the rich, and of comfort to the poor, furnishing a nourishing and healthy diet for their families.

Fattening is a secretive power which grazing animals possess, enabling them to lay by a store of the superfluous food which they take for seasons of cold or scarcity.

It collects round the angular bones of the animal, and gives the appearance of rotundity; hence the tendency to deposit fat is indicated, as has been stated, by a roundness of form, as opposed to the fatness of a milk-secreting animal.

But its greatest use is, that it is a store of heat-producing aliment, laid up for seasons of scarcity and want.

The food of animals, for the most part, may be said to consist of a saccharine, an oleaginous, and an albuminous principle.

To the first belong all the starchy, saccharine, and gummy parts of the plants, which undergo changes in the digestive organs similar to fermentation before they can be assimilated in the system; by them also animal heat is sustained.

In indolent animals, the oily parts of plants are deposited and laid up as fat; and, when vigor and strength fail, this is taken up and also used in breathing to supply the place of the consumed saccharine matter.

The albuminous, or gelatinous principle of plants is mainly useful in forming muscle; while the ashes of plants, the unconsumable parts, are for the supply, mainly, of bone, hair, and horn, but also of muscle and of blood, and to supply the waste which continually goes on.

Now, there are several qualities which are essentially characteristic of a disposition to fatten.

There have not, as yet, been any book-rules laid down, as in the case of M. Guénon's indications of milking-cows; but there are, nevertheless, marks so definite and well understood, that they are comprehended and acted upon by every grazier, although they are by no means easy to describe.

It is by skillful acumen that the grazier acquires his knowledge, and not by theoretical rules; observation, judgment, and experience, powerful perceptive faculties, and a keen and minute comparison and discrimination, are essential to his success.

The first indication upon which he relies, is the touch. It is the absolute criterion of quality, which is supposed to be the keystone of perfection in all animals, whether for the pail or the butcher.

The skin is so intimately connected with the internal organs, in all animals, that it is questionable whether even our schools of medicine might not make more use of it in a diagnosis of disease.

Of physiological tendencies in cattle, however, it is of the last and most vital importance. It must neither be thick, nor hard, nor adhere firmly to the muscles. If it is so, the animal is a hard grazer, a difficult and obstinate feeder, no skillful man will purchase it, such a creature must go to a novice, and even to him at a price so low as to tempt him to become a purchaser.

On the other hand, the skin must not be thin, like paper, nor flaccid, nor loose in the hand, nor flabby.

This is the opposite extreme, and is indicative of delicateness, bad, flabby flesh, and, possibly, of inaptitude to retain the fat. It must be elastic and velvety, soft and pliable, presenting to the touch a gentle resistance, but so delicate as to give pleasure to the sensitive hand a skin, in short, which seems at first to give an indentation from the pressure of the fingers, but which again rises to its place by a gentle elasticity.

The hair is of nearly as much importance as the skin.

A hard skin will have straight and stiff hair; it will not have a curl, but be thinly and lankly distributed equally over the surface.

A proper grazing animal will have a mossy coat, not absolutely curled, but having a disposition to a graceful curl, a semifold, which presents a waving inequality; but as different from a close and straightly-laid coat, as it is from one standing off the animal at right angles, a strong symptom of disease.

It will also, in a thriving animal, be licked here and there with its tongue, a proof that the skin is duly performing its functions.

There must be, also, the full and goggle eye, bright and pressed outward by the fatty bed below; because, as this is a part where Nature always provides fat, an animal capable of developing it to any considerable extent, will have its indications here, at least, when it exists in excess.

So much for feeding qualities in the animal, and their conformations indicative of this kindly disposition.

Next come such formations of the animal itself as are favorable to the growth of fat, other things being equal.

There must be size where large weights are expected.

Christmas beef, for instance, is expected to be large as well as fat. The symbol of festivity should be capacious, as well as prime in quality. But it is so much a matter of choice and circumstance with the grazier, that profit alone will be his guide.

The axiom will be, however, as a general rule, that the better the grazing soil the larger the animal may be; the poorer the soil, the smaller the animal. Small animals are, unquestionably, much more easily fed, and they are well known by experienced men to be best adapted to second-rate feeding pastures.

But, beyond this, there must be breadth of carcass. This is indicative of fattening, perhaps, beyond all other qualifications.

If rumps are favorite joints and produce the best price, it is best to have the animal which will grow the longest, the broadest, and the best rump; the same of crop, and the same of sirloin; and not only so, but breadth is essential to the consumption of that quantity of food which is necessary to the development of a large amount of fat in the animal.

Thus, a deep, wide chest, favorable for the respiratory and circulating functions, enables it to consume a large amount of food, to take up the sugary matter, and to deposit the fatty matter, as then useless for respiration, but afterwards to be prized.

A full level crop will be of the same physiological utility; while a broad and open framework at the hips will afford scope for the action of the liver and kidneys.

There are other points, also, of much importance; the head must be small and fine; its special use is indicative of the quick fattening of the animal so constructed, and it is also indicative of the bones being small and the legs short.

For constitutional powers, the beast should have his ribs extended well towards the thigh-bones or hips, so as to leave as little unprotected space as possible.

There must be no angular, or abrupt points; all must be round, and broad, and parallel. Any depression in the lean animal will give a deficient deposit of flesh and fat at that point, when sold to the butcher, and thus deteriorate its value; and hence the animal must be round and full.

But either fancy, or accident, or skill, it is unnecessary to decide which has associated symmetry with quality and conformation, as a point of great importance in animals calculated for fattening; and there is no doubt that, to a certain extent, this is so.

The beast must be a system of mathematical lines.

To the advocate of symmetry, the setting-on of a tail will be a condemning fault; indeed the ridge of the back, like a straight line, with the outline of the belly exactly parallel, viewed from the side, and a depth and squareness when viewed from behind, which remind us of a geometrical cube, rather than a vital economy, may be said to be the indications of excellence in a fat ox.

The points of excellence in such an animal are outlined under the subsequent head, as developed in the cutting up after slaughter.

Now, these qualities are inherent in some breeds; there may be cases and instances in all the superior breeds, and in most there may be failures.

Editor's Note:

The above information from an 1864 Cattle Selection Guide has not been edited in any way. For me, this 1864 Guide allows us to take a look into the past and see both some of what they knew back then and just how far we have come.

Tom Correa

RANDOM SHOTS - Great American Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr.; Eric Holder starts Gun-Ownership Data Sharing and Collection; and Much More!

Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr.  says 911 not best option, urges citizens to arm themselves



Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr., is a Great American!

Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. made waves last week after releasing a radio ad urging citizens to arm themselves, rather than relying solely on police in case of an emergency.

“With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option,” Sheriff Clarke said in the ad spot Thursday. “You could beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back.”

The sheriff urged citizens to take gun-safety courses and learn how to handle a firearm “so you can defend yourself until we get there.” 

“You have a duty to protect yourself and your family. We’re partners now. Can I count on you?” he asked.

“The police are not omnipresent; we can’t be everywhere all the time. Sometimes we can’t be there as fast as we’d like. So in those situations, once the wolf is at the door, once the intruder is in your home, once a guy sticks a gun in your face on the street and demands your wallet or wants to take your car, 911 isn’t going to help you,” Clarke said, adding that he feels it’s his “obligation” to make sure people are aware of how they can protect themselves.

Milwaukee Deputy Sheriffs’ Association President Roy Felber told The Associated Press that it sounds like "a call to vigilantism."

“I’m not telling you to ‘Hey, pick up a gun and blast away,’” the sheriff told the AP in defense of the ad. “People need to know what they are doing if they choose that method — to defend themselves.”

Last night on Fox News, Sheriff Clarke was told about Milwaukee Deputy Sheriffs’ Association President Roy Felber, who told The Associated Press that it sounds like a call to "vigilantism".

Sheriff Clarke was typical of a great man. He didn't side-step or evade answering what Felber had to say. Instead, Sheriff Clarke answered matter-of-factly, saying he's fine with that if that means getting people to stand up to criminals. And no, his message was not well received by Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (D), who said, apparently, Clarke “is auditioning for the next ‘Dirty Harry’ movie.”

Barrett called it “troubling” that Clarke sounded like he was dissuading people from calling 911, saying he wants people to call 911 in an emergency. He said Clarke succeeded in his goal of “getting a lot of attention and publicity.”

Sheriff Clarke, in an interview with Fox News, brushed off the criticism. 

"Personally, I've never seen the Dirty Harry movie -- but if that's all the mayor can come up with, that's pretty weak," he said. "I think that what's going on in the city of Milwaukee on his watch is kind of, you know -- it looks like he doesn't have much to say, he doesn't have much to offer and that's okay.

"My job is to protect the public," he said.

Clarke said that with the Milwaukee area beset by burglaries and robberies, residents need to know how to protect themselves.

"We can't be everywhere all the time. Sometimes we can't be there as fast as we'd like," he told Fox News. "Once the wolf is at the door ... 911 isn't going to help you, but there are some things that you can do."

The ad has generated sharp criticism from other area officials and anti-violence advocates. The president of the Milwaukee Deputy Sheriffs' Association, Roy Felber, said it sounds like a call to vigilantism.

"That doesn't sound too smart," Felber said. "People have the right to defend themselves, but they don't have the right to take the law into their own hands."

Under Wisconsin's "castle doctrine," someone who uses deadly force against an unlawful intruder to their home, business, or vehicle is presumed to have acted reasonably. A spokeswoman for the state Department of Justice said that as of this week, there are about 155,000 concealed carry permits in Wisconsin.

Barrett was beaten up several years ago by someone with a tire iron, and Clarke said he thought that would make the mayor "a lot more sensitive to people being able to defend themselves in such instances. A firearm and a plan of defense would have come in handy for him that day."

It is not every day that someone rises above the politics and gives straight talk regarding the situation at hand. God bless you, Sheriff Clarke. Thank you for taking a stand.

Just as a reminder, this is not the first time a Sheriff or Chief of Police has come out to warn the residents of his jurisdiction. Last October, the Detroit Police Officers Association warned citizens and tourist that they enter Detroit at their own risk, saying that the "grossly understaffed" and that an overworked Detroit Police Department is a force that cannot adequately protect the public in that extremely violent city.

Alongside Chicago, which has the strictest gun-control laws of any city in the US, Detroit is in the top 5 of America’s most violent cities. Its homicide rate is one of the highest in the country. Last summer, an analysis of the FBI's Uniform Crime Report data from 24/7 Wall St. indicated that Detroit actually has the second-highest violent crime rate in the country, behind Flint, Michigan.

Chicago ended up overtaking everyone else with 500 killed during 2012. You have to love that Chicago pride.

Though violent crime is actually down nationwide, in places with ultra-liberal gun policies, there has been an explosion in violent crime. In fact, while the rest of the country is pretty safe, living in big cities like Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, and New York has seen an incredible spike in the number of homicides.

According to the Defense Department, in a report last summer, they surmised that it is safer to be in Afghanistan than in Chicago.

SECOND SHOT!

Police barred from Vermont gun range over proposed semi-automatic rifle ban

The battle over the right to bear arms is flaring in Vermont, where a local gun range has moved to prohibit the Burlington Police Department from training at its facilities after the City Council voted to advance a measure banning semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines.

The leadership of the Lamoille Valley Fish and Game Club explained that it's "difficult" for the club to support the city -- even its officers -- given the actions of the council.

"We have members in Burlington as well as members of our club that are going to be passing through Burlington and this would directly affect them and we felt that a prejudicial vote like that was going to be non-supportive of our club and being non-supportive of our club makes it very difficult to support Burlington City," said Bob Boivin, chairman of the Lamoille Valley Fish and Game Club.

"It is a constitutional issue. I mean, it's not just a Second Amendment constitutional issue, but it's also a constitutional issue for Vermont. We have laws that have the state governing our gun controls in this area and they're looking to supersede those," he said.

The group's ban will affect how and when officers train in the state, where such facilities are limited.

In response, the Burlington Police Department released a statement saying: "It is unfortunate that this important and much-needed community dialogue regarding gun control currently underway in the City of Burlington and across the nation has resulted in this action."

The city government is defending the measure.

"In the absence of federal legislation or state law we feel it has come upon us as a city to take the measures we feel are necessary to protect our citizens," Burlington City Councilman Norman Blais said.

"Ultimately, I don't think that the best way to assert control over guns is at the local level," conceded Joan Shannon, president of the Burlington City Council. "But here in Burlington, I think we felt the need to act because we didn't see action coming from either the state level or the federal level."

Boivin argues that city-by-city gun rules would create a multitude of challenges.

"If you're going to a shoot, say in one end of Vermont to the other, you have to check the laws for every town in between, and you will pass through a half a dozen different towns, and that makes it almost impossible for someone to stay as a legal gun owner, and that's what we're concerned about," he said.

Shannon said the council's actions are only a first step toward better protecting the people of the city, "but this at least gets the discussion started, and oftentimes we have found in Burlington that we lead the way and others will follow, and I think that that's the intention here."

The Burlington City Council's proposal to ban certain assault weapons is far from being implemented. City voters would get a say in 2014.

Then the measure would require approval by the Vermont legislature. Finally, if it does become law, it's likely to face a constitutional challenge from gun-rights advocates.

THIRD SHOT!

Homeland Security is getting 7,000 assault weapons for ‘personal defense’

While the Obama administration calls for a ban on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, the Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 “personal defense weapons” — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians.
A report by Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com cites a General Service Administration request for a proposal on behalf of DHS seeking more than 7,000 AR-15s and matching 30-round clips “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, introduced legislation Thursday that would enact a so-called “assault weapons” ban, prohibiting more than 150 firearms and limiting magazines to 10 rounds.

Critics, such as Republican New York state Sen. Greg Ball, are already blasting the DHS request, arguing that the government deems these firearms as suitable for self-defense but want to ban civilians from owning them.

“Now the Department of Homeland Security even agrees that these modern sporting firearms, made illegal by Governor Cuomo, are suitable for self-defense,” Sen. Ball said.

“On top of that, a recent story reports that two RIT [Rochester Institute of Technology] students who were legal gun owners were protected by an AR-15. The story may have had a very tragic ending, had Governor Cuomo’s anti-self-defense bill been in full effect.”

FOURTH SHOT!

US Attorney General Eric Holder starts Gun-Ownership Data Sharing and Collection

Let's forget about the fact that it is not legal yet to do so!

Let's forget about waiting for Congress to pass legislation to act, Attorney General Eric Holder is moving on gun-control measures as you read this.

He submitted three measures on Monday to increase Gun-Ownership data collection and sharing regarding firearms and potential gun purchasers.

Yes, it is ILLEGAL to do so! But that doesn't seem to stop President Obama from thinking they simply have no limitations and can do as they please even if it means breaking the law and acting completely alone.

The first of Holder’s measures expands access to information on gun permits to Indian tribal law enforcement agencies; the second allows local law enforcement to access the FBI’s national criminal database to conduct background checks on people they’re transferring weapons to; and the third authorizes the FBI to maintain records on denied firearms transactions in a separate database for longer than 10 years.

All three were published on Monday in the Federal Register for comment.

“These proposed changes are intended to promote public safety, to enhance the efficiency of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) operations, and to resolve difficulties created by unforeseen processing conflicts within the system,” Mr. Holder wrote.

Under the Brady Act of 1993, background checks are required for any gun transfer from a federal firearms licensee to any unlicensed person.

But access to NICS for background checks unrelated to those outlined in the law currently is limited to providing information in connection with a firearm- or explosives-related license or responding to an inquiry from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

Obama has said he will take the steps that he will on gun-control alone, but he won’t be able to get major pieces of what he wants to do in the future - such as an assault weapons ban, limits on high-capacity magazines, expanding background checks, without action from Congress.

Obama signed three Executive Orders when he said what he planned to do earlier this month directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to conduct research on gun violence; ensuring firearms recovered from crime scenes are traced; and directing Holder’s Justice Department to outline guidance for federal agencies on submitting records to NICS.

Surprisingly, even Mr. Holder conceded that the impact of Monday’s proposals are unknown at this point, in part because of the lack of data the government has about the kind of transfers the new rules would allow.

The public has 60 days to comment on the proposals.

Broader gun-control measures will undoubtedly be discussed Wednesday morning, when the Senate Judiciary Committee holds its first hearing this year on gun violence.

Witnesses scheduled to appear include Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president and CEO of the National Rifle Association, a group that has vigorously opposed Obama’s proposals.

Also appearing will be retired astronaut Mark Kelly, the husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was gravely wounded during a mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz., in January 2011; Nicholas Johnson, a law professor at Fordham University School of Law; James Johnson, chief of police for Baltimore County, Md.; and Gayle Trotter, a lawyer and senior fellow of the Independent Women’s Forum.

Yes, it will be a political circus for the liberal news media!

FIFTH SHOT!

Boy Scouts May End Ban on Gay Youths, Leaders

Reports have it that The Boy Scouts of America, a group that has been the ire of liberals because of their no gays allowed stance, is expected to lift its longstanding ban on gay Scouts and troop leaders.

The reversal of the decades-old policy is expected to be approved by the organization’s national board next week, reported both USA Today and NBC News.

“The policy change under discussion would allow the religious, civic or educational organizations that oversee and deliver Scouting to determine how to address this issue," Deron Smith, a Boy Scouts spokesman, told USA Today.

After a two-year examination of the issue, the Boy Scouts affirmed its ban on gays just seven months ago.

The volunteer review committee was convened by national leaders of the Boy Scouts of America.

But several local chapters and some members of the national board, including pro-gay advocates CEO Randall Stephenson of AT&T and CEO James Turley of the Ernst & Young accounting firm called for a reconsideration, USA Today reports.

Under the proposed change, decisions on membership and leadership would be decided by the organization’s 290 local governing councils and 116,000 sponsoring religious and civic groups.

“Scouting has always been in an ongoing dialogue with the scouting family to determine what is in the best interest of the organization and the young people we serve,” Smith told USA Today.

“The Boy Scouts would not, under any circumstances, dictate a position to units, members or parents,” he said. “Under this proposed policy, the BSA would not require any chartered organization to act in ways inconsistent with that organization's mission, principles or religious beliefs.”

I can't help but wonder what other alternative lifestyles will the Boy Scouts now allow into their organization because of political pressure.

Who knows what sorts alternative lifestyles and strange fetishes will be forced on groups that simply don't want to participate in the liberal effort to try to make strange behaviour accepted as normal.

Unlike dealing with the pigment of a person's skin, which has no bearing on any one's character, actions do have everything to do with being accepted of not. And I'm not sorry to say, that yes, some actions are simply acceptable.

Whether it's sex acts with men or boys or animals, using heroin or sniffing glue, or shooting up a school loaded with defenseless kids, there are simply some actions that are not accepted.

I am always amazed that no one wants to say out loud what they are thinking when they see something that is just wrong.

Folks, those Catholic priests were not your normal Catholic priests. They're "Gay Catholic Priests." The Catholic priests who molest boys are all gay men.

They are gay and see nothing wrong with their gay lust for boys. They don't see it as a sickness, because they see it as acceptable. They see us as being sort of racist for not accepting what they see as an expression of love.

Their problem is that our society does not agree with them. It is a practice that will never be acceptable in America.

And those who are trying to pursue the Gay Agenda of man/boy love are sick people if they think it will be acceptable. They ultimately want their sick behavior to be accepted by the general public, by society, as being "normal." But society won't.

Groups like the Boys Scouts can be forced to accept gay boys. Through court orders and political pressure, anything is possible.

But if they do get in, then those organizations and groups will not be the same as it was before.

By having people in their group who practice sick acts, unacceptable behavior which is euphemistically called "an alternative lifestyle," like it or not, there will always be us who will not see sex acts between men, or men with children, or with animals, or doing drugs, or others contemptible acts as acceptable.

Societies have standards. You can only shove so much at folks, before they simply refuse to accept it. Many folks have nothing against gay people, me included. I know real well that this world is made up of some very strange people who get off on doing some very strange things. But I also know for fact, that they are not the norm.

Adam Lanza who shot all of those children in Newtown Connecticut was not the normal person brought up with guns in his home. The gay Catholic priests who molest a boy is not the norm of the many many great priests out there.

I could honestly care less if some fool wants to marry his goats, as I'm sure there are those who think that that sort of alternative lifestyle should be accepted as well, but I really don't think strange and unnatural acts with men, children, animals, and other sick behavior will ever be accepted as something that is normal.

No matter how many liberals say different, there's some behaviors that are just not acceptable.

LAST SHOT!

Tina Turner gives up US Passport to become Swiss Citizen

It was announced that singer Tina Turner is on her way to becoming a Swiss citizen. Imagine that!

Turner has lived in the Zurich suburb of Kuesnacht since the mid-1990s. The local Zuerichsee-Zeitung newspaper said on its website the local council announced its decision to grant the 73-year-old Turner citizenship in an official notice published in Friday's edition.

Though the decision still requires formal approval from cantonal (state) and federal authorities, it is apparently a sure thing. She is not the first American celebrity to do such a disgraceful thing. Among some of those well known people who have: 

John Houston did it. The Missouri-born film director, screenwriter, and actor. He emigrated to Ireland in 1952 in disgust over the activities of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, and renounced U.S. citizenship in 1964 to become an Irish citizen. Some sources claim that actress Grace Kelly was required to relinquish her U.S. citizenship when she married Monegasque Prince Rainier and subsequently became Princess Grace of Monaco. But, that might not be the case because at the time of the birth of her first son, it was reported that the U.S. State Department made a determination that she remained a U.S. citizen, which made her son one as well. 

So let's say that Houston had his reasons as some sort of dumb ass protest and Grace Kelly did in fact hold duel-citizenship because of marriage, there are others in Celebrities and other rich Americans who apparently throw away being an American to get out of paying high taxes.

Denise Rich, socialite and the former wife of a pardoned billionaire, gave up her U.S. citizenship, and will reportedly thus save millions in U.S. taxes as well. Though Denise Rich wrote songs for Aretha Franklin and Jessica Simpson, she's best known as the ex-wife of Marc Rich who fled the country in 1983 after being indicted for tax evasion, racketeering, and trading oil with Iran. Liberal Hero President Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, who was among the biggest Democrat donors, on Clinton's last day in office in 2001. A House of Representatives committee concluded that Denise Rich helped bring about her ex-husband's pardon through donations to the Clinton library and campaign.

Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin, another big Democrat donor, made headlines when gave up his U.S. passport and became a citizen of Singapore, just before the social networks's May I.P.O. Early last year, one report said that wealthy Americans renouncing U.S. citizenship rose sevenfold since UBS AG (UBSN) whistle-blower Bradley Birkenfeld triggered a crackdown on tax evasion in 2008.

Last year's report said that about 1,780 expatriates (ie: those who has taken up residence in a foreign country) gave up their nationality at U.S. embassies last year, up from 235 in 2008, according to Andy Sundberg, secretary of Geneva’s Overseas American Academy, citing figures from the government’s Federal Register. The embassy in Bern, the Swiss capital, redeployed staff to clear a backlog of Americans wanting to relinquish their citizenship.

The U.S., the only nation in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that taxes citizens wherever they reside, is searching for tax cheats in offshore centers, including Switzerland, as the government tries to curb the budget deficit. Shunned by Swiss and German banks and facing tougher asset-disclosure rules under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, more of the estimated 6 million Americans living overseas are weighing the cost of holding a U.S. passport.

“It started with the fallout from UBS and non-U.S. banks feeling it’s too risky to deal with Americans abroad,” said Matthew Ledvina, a U.S. tax lawyer at Anaford AG in Zurich. “It will increase because Fatca will require banks to track down people, some of whom will make voluntary disclosures before renouncing their citizenship.”

Renunciations are higher in Switzerland because American expatriates expect extra scrutiny of their affairs after the UBS case and as the U.S. probes 11 other Swiss financial firms for aiding offshore tax evasion, said Martin Naville, head of the Swiss-American Chamber of Commerce in Zurich.

It only takes about 10-minute! That's right, a renunciation ceremony where an embassy staff member may ask exiting Americans whether they are acting voluntarily and understand the implications of giving up their passports, only takes about 10 minutes.

They pay a fee of $450 to renounce their American citizenship and may incur an “exit tax” on unrealized capital gains if their assets exceed $2 million, or their average annual U.S. tax bill is more than $151,000 during the past five years. They receive a certificate within three months, telling them they are no longer American citizens and that they are not entitled to any of the services and protections of the U.S. government overseas.

The U.S. State Department doesn’t disclose annual figures, said Elizabeth Finan, a spokeswoman for the Washington-based department, adding that “on average” 1,100 people give up their citizenship each year. While the U.S. taxes citizens regardless of where they reside, overseas income of as much as $95,100 is exempt, and credits help compensate for foreign taxes paid. Americans living in Switzerland can’t take advantage of the absence of a capital gains tax in the Alpine country or tax deductions allowed on pension contributions.

“Every dollar you save, you lose to the U.S. tax man,” said a tax lawyer. “That’s one reason why people give up citizenship.”

Americans, who disclose their non-U.S. bank accounts to the IRS, must file the more expansive 8938 form beginning in 2012. It asks for all foreign financial assets, including insurance contracts, loans, and shareholdings in non-U.S. companies.

Obama has a long reach!

The Obama administration's new 2010 FATCA law requires banks to withhold 30 percent from “certain U.S.-connected payments” to some accounts of American clients who don’t disclose enough information to the IRS.

“There is incredible frustration at the audacity and imperial overreach of this law,” said David Kuenzi, a tax adviser at Thun Financial Advisors in Madison, Wisconsin, referring to FATCA. 

Failure to file the 8938 form can result in a fine of as much as $50,000. Clients can also be penalized half the amount in an undeclared foreign bank account under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970.

“It’s a Big Brother concept,” said Brent Lipschultz, a partner at New York-based accounting firm EisnerAmper.

The implementation of FATCA from 2013 comes after UBS, Switzerland’s largest bank, paid a $780 million penalty in 2009 and handed over data on about 4,700 accounts to settle a tax-evasion dispute with the U.S.

Whistle-blower Birkenfeld was sentenced to 40 months in a U.S. prison in 2009 after informing the government and Senate about his American clients at the Geneva branch of Zurich-based UBS.

The UBS settlement led to about 33,000 voluntary disclosures to the IRS in the three years through 2011 and the repatriation of billions of dollars to the U.S.

Swiss banks saw their offshore North American assets shrink by about 60% to 60 billion Swiss francs ($66 billion) in 2010 from three years earlier, according to Boston Consulting Group.

American Citizens Abroad, a Geneva-based organization that campaigns for taxation based on residency, said the government doesn’t always distinguish between U.S.-based tax dodgers with offshore accounts and expatriates that need foreign banking services.

“The perception is that any American living overseas is there for a nefarious reason,” said Marylouise Serrato, executive director of the organization that has members in 90 countries. “There isn’t a deep understanding in the U.S. of why American citizens would move overseas.”

So, can someone please explain what the attraction is? Why would an American dump the land that gave you so much and possibly made you rich for some country that Americans probably helped to keep free?

Well, according to Jackie Bugnion of American Citizens Abroad, taxing Americans resident overseas is a “hangover from the American Civil War” and the introduction of federal income tax in 1861.

"The rules make it harder for Americans to hold foreign bank accounts and gain access to mortgages," she said.

German lenders Deutsche Bank AG and HVB Group terminated the securities accounts of some U.S. citizens following the announcement of stricter reporting requirements.

Swiss Raiffeisen Group, Switzerland’s third-biggest banking network, decided at the end of last year to sever ties with U.S.-domiciled clients and refuse new applications from any American, said Philippe Thevoz, a spokesman for the St.Gallen, Switzerland-based firm.

The additional compliance costs for companies to ensure that Americans they hire are filing the correct U.S. tax returns and asset-declaration forms are at least $5,000 per person, said Ledvina.

Where individuals are getting their returns prepared, the expense may amount to $1,500 to $2,000, which is pushing expatriates to consider giving up citizenship.

“The compliance costs are high and they’re getting worse,” tax attorney Ledvina said. “It’s hard to serve two authorities and the problem for Americans abroad is that the IRS doesn’t care.”

Do I feel sorry for folks who move overseas in an effort to try to evade paying taxes in the US? Especially those who relinquish their American citizenship? No, I don't. The fact is that most made their money here. Their companies were here. The technology was here. Their customer base started here and most likely still is. America gave them the opportunity to achieve, to aspire to their greatest potential, to reach heights unimaginable in many other countries.

If Tina Turner were born in Kenya, could she have reached the point of stardom she has in life? No, she would be just another among the herd. If a boy were born in Kenya and lived out his life there, instead of say being shipped to the US, could he have gotten more than just a hut and horrible poverty in his future? No, he would not have.

In America, a boy can grow up to be President of the United States - and then attack the very country that gave him so much opportunity.

Americans who live abroad are great people if they are there for all of the right reasons, such as a job, family, or just wanting to live out a dream. But if they are indeed rich and only there to skip out on paying their taxes after they have made their millions here?

Well then, when you consider how hard it is for folks with a lot less to pay their taxes, I think those rich folks are lacking a lot of what it takes to be good and decent people. It is nice to know that, along with losing the services and protections of the US government, they also have forfeited the right to voice their concerns about the good or bad policies of the American government.

Just as with Tina Turner, she gave up her rights to complain about anything taking place here. This is no longer her nation.


Story by Tom Correa

Demented Senator Wants To Kill The Bill of Rights

So OK, after publishing this, I've recieved a lot of e-mail asking me if I really think Senator Diane Feinstein is demented?

In my opinion, she is not thinking striaght.

Her cognitive functions are impaired. Yes, she is suffering from dementia, a loss of cognitive function. 

I really believe, it's just my opinion, that dementia is progressive condition (as Alzheimer's disease) marked by deteriorated cognitive functioning often with emotional apathy.

And yes, I see her being emotionally obsessed with banning guns while not thinking or caring about the lives, liberties, and the rights of other Americans. Yes, especially the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The Bill of Rights is a list of limitations to government power. That's what the Bill of Rights is all about. It was set up to keep the government in line and not become abusive of its position or powers.

That's correct! They were put in place to protect our natural rights of liberty and property from the government.

They guarantee a number of personal freedoms. They put limits on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public.

While originally the amendments applied only to the federal government, most of their provisions have since been held to apply to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The amendments were introduced by James Madison to the 1st United States Congress as a series of legislative articles. They were adopted by the House of Representatives on August 21, 1789, formally proposed by joint resolution of Congress on September 25, 1789, and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments on December 15, 1791, through the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States.

The Bill of Rights plays a key role in American law and government, and remains a vital symbol of the freedoms and culture of the nation.

The idea of adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was originally controversial. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 84, argued against a "Bill of Rights," asserting that ratification of the Constitution did not mean the American people were surrendering their rights, and, therefore, that protections were unnecessary.

Hamilton's critics pointed out that earlier political documents had protected specific rights, but Hamilton argued that the Constitution was inherently different.

Essentially, Hamilton and other Federalists believed in the British system of common law which did not define or quantify natural rights.

They believed that adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution would limit their rights to those listed in the Constitution. But this is the primary reason the Ninth Amendment was included.

Thomas Jefferson was a supporter of the Bill of Rights.

George Mason "wished the plan [the Constitution] had been prefaced with a Bill of Rights."

Roger Sherman argued against a Bill of Rights stating that the "State Declarations of Rights are not repealed by this Constitution."

But George Mason then stated "The Laws of the U.S. are to be paramount to State Bills of Rights."

A fact that had to be spelled out in the 14th Amendment almost a hundred years later.

The Amendments

First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment – Militia, Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Those are our basic rights as citizens, and they should not be tampered with. But now, right now, the Bill of Rights is under attack.

It is an attack not seen since the Democrat Party's filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Leading the pack of liberals and other anti-American liberals is a Democrat Senator from California, who in an act sure to divide the nation further now wants to eliminate the 2nd Amendment from the Bill of Rights by rendering it powerless against a totalitarian federal government.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., released a summary of what she terms an "Assault Weapons Ban" but in reality is a ban of all weapons.

Her bill which calls for a ban of “sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing” of specific models of “120 specifically-named firearms.”

A list of 120 specifically naming rifles, shotguns, and handguns, which no one can find to see what is on the list. All too reminiscent of the ObamaCare bill where the Democrats wanted to pass it before Americans could find out what's in it - and now are paying the price as a result of such a hoax and folly.

As if demented, she is driven to behave irrationally due to anger and an inflated sense of distress over the horrible incident at Newtown Connecticut where 1 citizen out of 314,000,000 went on a killing spree and murdered 26 others.

As horrible as the crime is, the actions of one should not have repercussions on the other who are sane and not in some sort of delusional state. Because most believe this to be true, why allow the crazed state of one murder to dictate a change in the rules that would affect over 300 Million others?

It is insanity to meet dementia, originally meaning madness, the serious loss of cognitive ability, with more madness. And yes, in my opinion, that is what I see Dianne Feinstein doing.

She is meeting Adam Lanza's madness with her own different style of madness. Yes, it is a madness that goes to the heart of some megalomaniac - a person with delusional fantasies of power and omnipotence.

If not so, then why does she approach banning guns with a sort of psychopathological disorder characterized by delusional fantasies of power and relevance.

Yes, she is obsessed with banning all guns. An obsession that comes from her belief that guns are at the root of all society's ills - while ignoring superior evidence to the contrary. And yes, while having her own gun for protection.

As for ignoring superior evidence, she dismissed many facts. But among the most blatant are these:

• Violent crime with down at a 40 year low.
• Guns crimes are at a 40 year low.
• The previous gun ban did not accomplish anything toward bringing down crime.
• Cities and States with the strictest gun control regulation in the US, those places making ownership and carry of personal protection firearms almost impossible, have the highest crime rates using guns. Chicago has the strictest gun control regulations of any city in America and it has the highest murder rate, California has the strictest gun control regulations in the entire United States and it has the highest murder rate of all the States.
• Cities and States with gun regulation enacted toward allowing citizens the responsibility of their actions, and subsequently the right to protect and defend themselves and their families have the lowest gun related crime statistics in the Nation.   

So yes, in my opinion, I really believe Diane Feinstein has some sort of obsessive dementia that drives her bent on destroying the Bill of Rights. Yes, the freedoms and liberties of others starting with the 2nd Amendment. 

While crazies such as Adam Lanza deprive others of life and liberty and happiness by using with guns to attack them, obsessed liberals try their damnedest to do it using legislation.

To disarm those who are legally allowed to protect themselves from either the criminal or the government is criminal in itself.

And no, there is no telling how many lives will be lost in the future if a citizen does not have the legal right to keep and use the guns they have. But honestly, I don't think liberals like Dianne Feinstein care.

You see, contrary to media claims that Feinstein wants to "reinstate" the 1994 ban for purposes of bringing down crime - her present bill will go much further toward her stated long-term desire of gun confiscation and imposing a host of absurdly broad definitions and burdensome restrictions.

According to the NRA, Feinstein wants to:

• Ban the sale, transfer, manufacture or importation of 157 named firearms. Presumably, these were chosen by looking at pictures, as Sen. Feinstein has said she did before introducing her first legislation on the issue in 1993.

• Ban all semi-automatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine. This is because the bill would ban any semi-automatic detachable-magazine rifle that has even one "feature," particularly a pistol grip—which is defined to include any "characteristic that can function as a grip." Other features that would cause a rifle to be banned include a forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or (as an absurd propaganda move) rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or a threaded barrel.

• Ban all detachable-magazine semi-auto pistols that have any of the following: a threaded barrel, second pistol grip, or magazine that mounts anywhere other than the grip. The bill would also ban any handgun that is a semi-automatic version of a fully automatic handgun.

• Ban all semi-automatic rifles and handguns that have fixed magazines that accept more then 10 rounds.

• Ban all semi-automatic shotguns that have just one of the following: a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; a pistol grip; a fixed magazine that can accept more than five rounds, a detachable magazine; a forward grip; a revolving cylinder; or a grenade or rocket launcher. As with the rifle provision, this could potentially ban any semi-auto shotgun, because all of them have "characteristics that can function as a grip." And of course, countless Americans have pistol-grip shotguns for home defense.

• Ban all belt-fed semi-automatic firearms, such as semi-auto replicas of historic machine guns - which right now take a Federal License to own.

• Ban all frames or receivers of banned guns, even though in many cases they are identical to the frames and receivers of guns that would not be banned.

• Ban "combinations of parts" from which "assault weapons" can be assembled. Read broadly, this could ban the acquisition of a single spare part that could be combined with parts you already own.

• Ban any "part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle"--a vague definition that could ban items such as competition trigger parts.

•Ban the sale or transfer of all ammunition feeding devices that hold more than ten rounds. Even those lawfully possessed before passage of the bill could never be transferred, even to your heirs through a will.

It is speculated that Feinstein will not require registration of currently. But make no mistake about it, what Feinstein wants will go far beyond the failed 1994 semi-auto ban by requiring background checks on the private transfer of any "grandfathered" firearm.

She, like Obama, now wants a National Gun Registration Database that would list every name of every registered law abiding citizen who is a gun owner.

And yes, this is really the sort of thing that should make Americans ask "Why? What for? What is the reason for this other than an infringement on our privacy?"

The problem is, no Democrat, not one, can give us an answer as to why the Federal Government needs to know who has guns - other than helping their confiscation efforts in the future.

There is not a National Database for Child Molesters or Rapists or Convicted Murders, so why should there be a National Database for law abiding citizen who own guns? 

No, neither Obama, Biden, nor Feinstein can answer why it is needed. 

In announcing the bill, Feinstein lied about the effectiveness of past semi-auto bans. For example, she claimed that Maryland's "assault pistol" ban had reduced crime. But facts prove her wrong!

Fact is that in Maryland, the murder trend after the state passed its ban on so-called "assault pistols" was far worse than in the rest of the country.

Similarly, in California, during the first five years after passage of the state's 1989 "assault weapon" ban, the state's murder rate increased 26 percent, compared to an 11 percent increase in the rest of the country.

During the first five years after California expanded the ban starting in 2000, the state's murder rate increased 10 percent, compared to a six percent decrease in the rest of country.

Banning guns to the law abiding doesn't stop gun crime. It only makes Americans defenseless!

Feinstein's new bill bans semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns, plus any firearm with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

She wants to bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:

• 120 specifically-named firearms (but no one seems to know what they are!)
• Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic such as a pistol grip.
• Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds are also on her list.

And you might ask, who came up with this in the first place?

The answer is, Democrats and Liberals, all anti-gun, all anti-2nd Amendment rights. And yes, all who see their desires as being more important than our Bill of Rights, then the freedoms and liberties of others.

Feinstein wants to bring back and strengthen the expired 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:

• Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
• Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
• Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
• Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

And while doing this, she is trying to placate Americans by telling us that her bill actually protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:

• Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
• Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
• Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons

But why doesn't she understand that the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting?

Why do liberals like Diane Feinstein refuse to understand that it is about the last resort of protecting ourselves against the threat of government tyranny?

The answer is probably that she, like most liberals, don't see a problem government as a "supreme ruler."

Not governing, but ruling. No different than slave owner and master ruling over slaves, or dictators ruling over their subjects.

She knows full well, that she is attempting to render the American citizen helpless to defend any and all of the Bill of Rights and ourselves against an abusive government that may want to take away those rights.

She sees no need to protect yourself or your neighbor from an over-reaching government because she is that over-reaching government.

Besides, like other liberals, Feinstein refuses to believe the basic concept, the basic fear that was present when our founders wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights, that it is only the government that can take away our liberties and freedoms. 

Only the Government can take abolish the Bill of Rights!

By relegating Americans to only hunting rifles, muskets, antiques, and clubs, we would almost be completely defenseless to fight any sort of tyrannical government if the need arises.  

And friends, that is the Genesis of the Bill of Rights. It is the very reason for the existence of the 2nd Amendment. It's all about protection against threats from those who want to do us harm, either from people or an abusive government.

It was stated plainly so that the government would understand that the people, whether it be American civilian or an American soldier, can and will have the ability to resist being enslaved by the government. 

Feinstein want to require that even so-call "grandfathered" guns be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

• Background check of owner and any transferee;
• Type and serial number of the firearm;
• Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint just like criminals - but unlike what it takes to vote;
• Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law meaning that every gun owner has to check in with the Police Department in the same way that a child molester has to check in to advise them that they are "a potential danger"; and
• She was dedicated funding for ATF to implement a National Registration. Yes, she even wants us to fund our own tyranny.

This is not something that Americans should calmly let slid by. This goes to the heart of our freedoms as Americans.

We cannot submit to this for reasons that we plague our nation in ways that many will not accept or understand.

If the government, by way of one insane Senator, can effectively eliminate our ability to stand up to government tyranny -  then what makes any of us imagine that the rest of the Bill of Rights is safe and can be protected?

If one insane power mad Senator can get away with killing just one Amendment, then the others are gone as if they meant nothing to us at all.

God forgive us if this happens. This will be the start of the end of the Bill of Rights and our Constitution will have nothing holding it together.

In the end, the federal government will be all powerful; the people will have little to no rights; and it will be because we didn't stand up to just one crazed Democrat who was willing to take away our rights that so many have fought to preserve.

Friends, I've seen horrors in the world. I've seen those starving and those in dire straits. I've seen totalitarianism first hand, and the fear in the eyes of those under such a state. I've see the deaths and the killing of those who refused to kneel. All are horrors.

I know full well that there are horrors committed every day in this world. And yes, the massacre in Newtown Connecticut was one.

But without sounding callous, as tragic as it was, it pales in comparison to the horrors that one insane Senator like Feinstein can bring down upon us all by effectively disarming all Americans.

If successful, Feinstein's recklessness of effectively killing the enforcement clause of the Bill of Rights, it can be of a magnitude that shakes America's foundation to its core. Yes, much more than the left truly realizes.

When describing the Bill of Rights, President George W. Bush said it best, "The true [American] revolution was not to defy one earthly power, but to declare principles that stand above every earthly power - the equality of each person before God, and the responsibility of government to secure the rights of all."

It is "the responsibility of government to secure the rights of all" and not allow one crazed Senator from California the ability to render Americans helpless by castrating the Bill of Rights.

Story by Tom Correa