TheBlaze Books Give You More!

CommentsDisplaying SoldierEconomist's 10 most recent comments.

• Proposed Bill Would Force Gun Owners in NY to Buy At Least $1 MILLION in Liability Insurance or Forfeit ‘Privilege’ to Own a Firearm

  February 20, 2013 at 12:16am

  In reply to .

  The New York legislature and governor have proven time and again that they are unfit to represent the will of the people. Should this law go through it must be immediately challenged in the courts. As soon as it is ruled to be unconstitutional impeachment recall elections and impeachment proceeding need to be underway.

  The only way these people can remain is if they remain by the consent of the governed and by the following the Constitution. There are no man-made authorities beyond those that can allow them to keep their jobs. Should they ignore those authorities things will get very messy and much less amicable to their imagined authority.

• Group of Second Amendment-Supporting Gun Makers Now Refusing to Sell Arms to Law Enforcement in New York (And Other Gun-Restricting States)

  February 16, 2013 at 1:38am

  This is brilliant. The real necessity is that the larger suppliers do the same. We need to ask Glock, Sig Sauer, Springfield Armory, Beretta, Colt, and Smith and Wesson to do the same.

  As free citizens we need to ask manufacturers to teach New York, California and Illinois a lesson through the free market. If you will not allow citizens to possess these weapons, we will not sell these weapons to you to enforce your unconstitutional edicts.

  If we can get the large manufacturers to do this it will be a lesson that they cannot ignore.

• California Police Chief: ‘A Gun Is Not a Defensive Weapon — That Is a Myth’

  February 15, 2013 at 9:12am

  After seeing his statement it has become clear that the culture of his organization is not “To Serve and Protect” it’s “Peace through fear and intimidation”.

  Knowing that I have a few questions:
  How do you expect an officer to de-escalate a situation when the public knows you work through intimidation?
  How are you going to defend your department when your officer attempts to intimidate the wrong innocent citizen and pays the price for it?
  How are you going to defend a culture within your organization that invariably leads to abuse of citizens rights?

  I can’t see a defense and frankly I see situations where officers are now put in jeopardy because citizens must assume that the officers of the Emeryville Police Depart are a threat until the individual officer proves otherwise.

  Bottom Line: Chief James, you have placed your officers in a no win scenario where citizens cannot trust them and should assume the officers of EPD are a threat.

• Obama Stumbles Through Answer When Confronted on Health Care Law’s Future

  April 3, 2012 at 6:02pm

  In reply to bernbart.

  This is an exceptional example of a red herring. The fact that the act created those things does not justify its constitutionality. The constitutionality of the law is purely determined by the exact wording of the Constitution. The federal government may regulate commerce. It is not allowed to force commerce through coercion in order to then have the power to regulate.

  To say that this allowing people more affordable access is an absolute falsehood. Premiums have already risen because the insurers cannot price risk into individual premiums so we all end up paying more regardless of how well we take care of our own health.

  Additionally this law has created shortages in lifesaving medicine to include drugs used to treat cancer or to aide in recovery after a heart attack (namely sodium bicarbonate) because the FDA is used as a Pit Bull against the drug companies if they won’t agree to sell pharmaceuticals at below market prices to the government. In order to avoid that they choose not to make those drugs that the government demands, in order to prevent be regulated.

  We have effectively given ourselves the same issues the Soviet Union faced from its early days to its final days. The fact is that free market economics work when we refuse to allow politicians to choose winner and losers, and rather let individuals choose with the dollars they spend.

  It would be best if you reference the historical failures of command driven economies before you spout off f

• Report: Obama Seeks to Circumvent Congress to Fix ‘Obamacare Glitch’

  November 16, 2011 at 12:37pm

  Going back to what Depressed American said about Congress’s failure to check presidential power, I’m in total agreement. But their is also an inheirent duty for every American to act as a check on the powers of Congress and the President.

  Make an articultate argument and use the courts to dismantle this legislation that thumbs it’s nose at the Constitution. In addition, read the parts of the tax code pertinent to you, failed as it may be, and learn how to legally avoid paying as much as possible. Ask a tax accountant about all of it and let them help you.

  Let’s cut off the financial logistics for Congress, and put up as many roadblocks to their legislation that thumbs it’s nose at the Constitution.

  Stay calm, focused, be articulate in your arguments, and maintain your resolve to correct these failures. We can restore the things that made this country great.

• Sheila Jackson Lee Tells Right Media & Blogs to Shut Up and Stop Playing Racial Politics, Then Seconds Later Says Obama’s Buy American Should Be Buy African American

  September 27, 2011 at 9:17am

  In reply to NHwinter.

  You can alaways add a petition to the White House website for just that. https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions

  They do have two on there that I signed to support the National Right to Carry Act and for the Repeal of ObamaCare.

  I realize it’s not a popular idea to give the White House some information, but maybe we can support these enough to get some more attention.

• AP Asks: Are Military Pensions Too ‘Generous’?

  August 19, 2011 at 9:42am

  In reply to LARR.

  I’m in absolute agreement with you. My wife and I just had this conversation about whether or not I would stay. It all came down to risk vs. reward. It’s really hard to accept the same level of risk for lesser reward. I love my Soldiers, they are the best people I’ve ever met, and it’s an honor to serve with them. But I won’t blame them for opting to get out if this change comes because I will be making the same considerations.

• AP Asks: Are Military Pensions Too ‘Generous’?

  August 19, 2011 at 9:24am

  The most disappointing part of this question is the lack of consideration of the facts. Approximately 1% of the total population serves. Just over 10% qualify for a pension. And now politicians are looking to balance the budget of of that small sum under the guise of pairity with the civilian sector.

  So now that the numbers fail to add up let’s look at pairity. The fighting men and women spend 6 to 12 months away from their families, risk their life regardless of their specialty, are salaried employees (therefore there is no 9 to 5), and suffer physical and bodily damage from the training they need to survive. Besides police, fire, and paramedics, there is no pairity with the civilian sector.

  Leave the pensions alone. Let’s talk the real problem with DoD spending. Politicians send the DoD on missions that are not within the stated mission sets of the DoD. It’s time to remember von Clauswitz. “War is the means by which we coerce our enemy to do our will.” If the politicians continue to add missions to the DoD’s plate that are not within the required mission set they are causing DoD funds to be spent frivoulously and are misappropriating Constitutionally mandated assets of the American people.