Spencer County GOP

It is agenda time for the socialists who want to disarm the country. A country where the courts, including the Supreme Court, time and again have ruled that an individual is responsible for the protection of themselves, family and property, not law enforcement, is once again hearing calls for disabling the 2nd amendment.

Regardless of the actual circumstances of this shooting at the Washington Naval Yard, the socialist agenda is trotted out again. The calls for actions that will NOT affect increased security for individuals. Just feel-good executive orders and pushing forward the socialist agenda of taking citizens rights and replacing them with social justice.

The left never rests. It is incrementalism. The socialist agenda is to keep chipping away at the rights guaranteed by the constitution. Leave the populace at the mercy of and dependent on the bureaucracies and the ever growing impersonal and impotent government.

Will we learn, as we did at Ft. Hood, that there was political correctness and quotas involved in this case? The news organizations are already reporting that Alexis was hearing voices. He claimed PDST with the VA. There are reports of mental disorders. He had at least two instances of discharging a firearm in a situation that was dangerous to others (in Texas, and in state of Washington). Acquaintances are reporting that Alexis was aggressive, felt aggrieved and smarter than others. News sources are reporting that Alexis was discharged from the Naval Reserve for conduct issues. Yet he was hired by a subcontractor to a contractor to work in an area requiring a security clearance. Where was the security review?

Will time reveal that problems and issues with Alexis were overlooked, and he was passed on to be someone else’s problem as happened with Maj. Hassan? It is time to seriously look at the exposure to ordinary citizens created by political correctness, social justice and the soft enforcement of the laws on the books and in workplace regulations.

Eric Holder and others in Congress are calling for the release of those who have been convicted and are incarcerated for federal crimes that were not ‘violent’. Holder wants soft enforcement of laws that have caused ‘hardship’ on certain groups. Focus is on drug related crimes. There are approximately 500,000 criminals incarcerated in this category according to news sources.

Were these crimes non-violent because no one was available to visit violence upon, and would they have been violent crimes if victims were available, or were the victims compliant and just allowed their property to be stolen? One can only wonder what the ‘non-crime’ crime rate will be when these people are released into the general public and the crime is redefined as non-crime.

Employers are being encouraged to ignore ‘certain’ criminal histories when hiring new employees. Some cities are already getting on the bandwagon e.g. Louisville, KY. What will be the liability for the private sector employer? Will the increased cost of liability insurance and increased workplace violence be acceptable to the liberals in the name of social justice?

What does this mean for you as an ordinary citizen? Remember only about 30% of crimes are solved. Law enforcement agencies frequently report that they are under staffed. Courts place the burden of life and property protection on the individual, not law enforcement agencies.

The solution to gun violence is not to remove tools for defense of life, family and property from ordinary citizens, but to enforce the laws at the federal and local levels. That means stop putting criminals back on the street through plea bargaining. Obama and Holder have the power to curb much of the gun violence in this country. They have to use the laws on the books. For whatever reason, be it social justice or the socialists agenda, there is no will or effort to do so.

What is ignored in the one way conversation on gun violence is the DOJ’s Special Report on Firearm Violence 1993-2011, JCJ 241730 published in May 2013. It virtually puts the lie to the majority of arguments put forward by the left on gun control. Here are the highlights as listed on page 1.

Firearm-related homicides declined 39%, from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011.
From 1993 to 2010, males, blacks, and persons ages 18 to 24 had the highest rates of firearm homicide.
Nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69%, from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 victimizations in 2011.
In 2007-11, about 23% of victims of nonfatal firearm crime were injured.
For both fatal and nonfatal firearm victimizations, the majority of the decline occurred during the 10-year period from 1993 to 2002.
About 61% of nonfatal firearm violence was reported to the police in 2007-11.
Firearm violence accounted for about 70% of all homicides and less than 10% of all nonfatal violent crime from 1993 to 2011.
In 2007-11, less than 1% of victims in all nonfatal violent crimes reported using a firearm to defend themselves during the incident.
About 70% to 80% of firearm homicides and 90% of nonfatal firearm victimizations were committed with a handgun from 1993 to 2011.
In 2004, among state prison inmates who possessed a gun at the time of offense, less than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show and 40% obtained their firearm from an illegal source.

The shootings on September 16 at the Washington Naval Yard are not a failure of gun laws and regulations anymore than 9/11 was a failure of building codes. It is NOT the failure of rule of law. It is a failure of socialist reengineering of society by co-opting the rule of law and substituting in its place social justice. Social justice will put an ever increasing segment of the population at risk of victimization be it at the hands of an element that is coddled and tolerated or the government through diminishing the Bill of Rights

William J. Rutherford
www.foundingkey.com

0 Comments

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Medical Effectiveness Commitee

3/2/2013

1 Comment

How can society reconcile this?

This week in Louisville,KY James Seay has been charged with murder. When he was apprended the blood of the victim was on his clothes. Some of the victims personal property was in Mr. Seay's possession. The victim was his roomate. He pleaded not guilty during his first court appearance.

An interesting fact is that Mr. Seay has been convicted of murder twice before. He spent about 14 years in prison for the first conviction and about the same for the second, being most recently released in 2011. During the news broadcast on WLKY Sat 23 Feb it was reported that murderers spend approximately 8 years in prison, and rapist approximately 10 years.

We live in a society that is reluctant to invoke the death penalty for fear of an error in conviction, but will release murderers because of the cost of housing them. Yet the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) incorporates a committee for medical effectiveness. Their charge is to determine what medical care should be provided, not what you want to be provided (this is the 'death panel'). President Obama famously answered a question about whether a person's mother would be provided a pace maker under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by responding 'perhaps it would be better to give her a pill'.

We will not execute murderers, yet will allow patients to die by withholding medical procedures, and require companies and institutions to provide for medical procedures to kill the unborn.

William J. Rutherford
www.foundingkey.com

1 Comment

2nd Amendment

2/3/2013

2 Comments

I have not commented on the Sandy Hook event. I confess that I did not look at the ‘news’ reports for about 10 days. It seemed that each hour another ‘revelation’ was in the news which turned out to be as erroneous as the one it replaced. Unfortunately the news media appears to be in the business of making news instead of reporting news which only adds to the confusion. But I digress.

Sandy Hook was certainly a national attention grabbing tragedy. As with most tragedies of any size, be it a hurricane, snow storm, or mass murder, the ‘experts’ trot out their solution based not on the facts but on a predetermined agenda. Certainly the Obama administration has followed this path to solution through executive orders and the Feinstein bill in the Senate. Even the administration is not unified and/or knowledgeable of either the content of the bill in the Senate or the content of the executive orders, e.g. Biden suggesting that a shotgun would be a good home defense weapon when they are specifically mentioned for control in the Feinstein bill.

Published analysis of the Bill and executive orders suggests that if implemented Sandy Hook would not have been prevented. So what is being ‘controlled’ by these executive orders and the Feinstein Bill? Suspicion is that the motive of these government actions is to limit the second amendment either directly or by circumventing Congress. It suggests the goal is to disarm the population.

Certainly there are numerous examples in the ‘free world’ today where the gun control advocates have over a period of time increasingly diminished the gun rights of the population until confiscation was legislated, e.g. Australia, South Africa, and the UK to name three. The results were pretty dramatic in the case of Australia where a significant increase in crime has been experienced much to the surprise of the gun control advocates. Those who can afford the expense build walls around their homes with metal spikes on top to discourage would be home invaders.

When asked in the past why I was not interested in limiting the second amendment I would rhetorically answer that a side arm was lighter than carrying a policeman on my shoulders. Humor aside there are a significant number of court decisions which have set precedents as to the responsibilities of law enforcement agencies. For your further review of this situation I offer the following, I am sure there are more:

            SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO

          Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).

            Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)

          DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)

          Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998)

            Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958)

Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

            Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981)

Here is the link to Warren v. District of Columbia: http://gunrightsalert.com/documents/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia_444_A_2d_1.pdf

This is a particularly troubling decision that should give anyone pause to stop and think. Just read the first few pages to get the idea and feeling for the victims. One can only wonder how they felt with the final court decision.

Basically the police have no legal duty to protect an individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection. Their job is to catch criminals, which is after the fact!

Then to whom falls the job of protecting you, your family and your property? It is your responsibility! Hopefully this is NOT a surprise to you.

Someone kicking in your door or in your house uninvited is NOT there to do you good. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a victim.

At Sandy Hook it took law enforcement 20 minutes to arrive. It is difficult to say what would have happened if there had been an armed staff member at Sandy Hook. But since Sandy Hook there have been at least 3 incidents at schools with guns at which there was an armed staff member or law officer. In these 3 specific cases violence was very limited. These cases received minor reporting in the media. It does not fit their agenda!

It is said that gun control advocates may not believe in God or guns, but when someone is in their house in the middle of the night, the betting is that they will call someone with a gun, and pray they arrive in time.

William J. Rutherford.

2 Comments

Floodwall and Drainage District

11/29/2012

0 Comments

The Taxman cometh...

11/24/2012

0 Comments

Good morning.

In January the reality of actions and consequences will be brought home in spades. Taxes will increase for everyone in the middle class (in theory protected by Obama) and above.

The reality of the situation is this: Even Ryan's tax plan was would not have cut spending. It would have reduced the rate of increase.

Obama's plan is to cover the increased rate of spending through tax increases. In actuality there is not enough money available to cover the current expenditures. We all know that no government program ever lives within the budget established, and whatever the budget finally is (remember that the govt uses a budgeting process that builds on last years, and it now includes the simulus that was to be an one time expense) will cause the printing presses to roll. This does not even consider that no tax increase has ever yielded the expected outcome. Money will flow out of the country in record amounts reducing the amount on which the new rates will apply. Remember it is not illegal to avoid taxes (yet) or to move money offshore (yet).

Currently the US borrows $0.40 of every dollar spent. It will only go up.

Other and taxes how will this be repaid? Inflation friends. I know the rates are low now. They are being held artifically low by the central bank taking action to do so. How does this work? For us it is the equivalent of using one credit card to payoff another. For the central bank the last was named QE3 (quantitive easing 3rd attempt). That is where the central bank issues bonds which are used to purchase the national debt. Slick right?

The was a Fox report a couple of months ago that showed a family of 4 making $24k a year & using all govt programs available to them actually had more disposable income than a family of 4 making $60k a year. $60k by the way is in the top 10% of wage earners. It does not take a real leap in cognitve thinking to understand why it is difficult to get people off the dole. Why would someone go to work at their level of ability if they are going to have less money? Just vote in those who will give money to you.

This discussion does not consider the tax burden that will be realized from Obamacare i.e. a federal tax on real property transactions, medical devices and others.

I fear we are past the tipping point. Take the famous 47% add the SEIU, UAW, and various teachers unions and it will be some where at or above 50%. Greece can only be around the corner.

Options are limited. Australia will not take those of us over 55. New Zealand is probably similar to Australia. Canada will not take us at all unless one is willing to stash a significant amount of $ in a Canadian bank & provide your own health care. Mexico will not allow us to own property (dangerous anyway) or immigrate (strange wouldn't you say).

I have never worked for a company that was successful which did not have a strong CEO and/or CFO. Neither exists in the Executive Branch. Remember the head of the IRS claimed he could not figure out how to use TurboTax.

I hope I have not spoiled your weekend.

William J. Rutherford

The following PowerPoint file has some interesting facts about the amount you pay in taxes.