Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Swine Flu and Universal Health Care Agenda


It’s an enormous blessing that Obama’s health care plan has not been put into play here as of yet. In Mexico, where the majority of the Swine flu cases in the world have been located, (over 2,400 at last count) the woman who may have been one of the key first cases to contract the deadly virus was unable to obtain appropriate health care. She saw several doctors, prior to getting any treatment and being properly diagnosed.

If you aren’t aware, Mexico has what they call a “universal healthcare” program for those who are employed full time. Mexico has a shortage of doctors for their plan, and yet it was put into play in 2003 with full knowledge of such a shortage and no plans to resolve the shortage. Hmmm. The U.S. does not have a sufficient number of doctors to handle a “universal” plan either, yet Obama and his puppeteers push for it nonetheless. In fact, Obama has gone so far as to use this potential epidemic as a propelling force to move his universal health plan through Congress at lightening speed. Of course! That fits this administrations motto of “never let a good crisis go to waste.” Good grief!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/world/americas/29mexico.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Aliens Attack the U.S.

By Kellene Bishop

In view of Obama’s pick for U.S. Regulatory Czar, I have truly been converted today to the reality of aliens from outer space. I say this because I have no earthly idea where a person would come up with such alien statements and beliefs as this person does. Because the Sunstein Doctrine is so completely foreign to the substance and culture of this nation, it clearly demonstrates proof that Obama is pursuing his own agenda and not that of the American people. I am 100% certain that this guy’s beliefs are indeed foreign.

Introducing Cass Sunstein, the nominee to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. This name accompanied by his bloodcurdling doctrine should cause you to shudder. The fact that he would rape and pillage the first five Constitutional Amendments is only the tip of the iceberg. Read on to see this freak of nature at his best.

In 2007, during a speech given at Harvard, Sunstein proposed that hunting be banned throughout the United States. Ok, I can try to give him credit for wanting to save the lives of the hunting partners of Dick Cheney, but unfortunately his mutant beliefs only get more far fetched from here.

He believes that the internet is “anti-Democratic” because users can filter out any objectionable material. As such he believes that the required use of technology by all citizens is necessary to ensure that a site contains “fair and balanced” information and that such a requirement should be put into play as soon as possible. Does this mean that every site that communicates sound Christian values should also be required to communicate the thoughts and opinions of Satanic cults? Does this mean if a site displays a picture of a virtuous woman that that same site must give the viewer access to porn as well? And yes, Sunstein has gone so far as to declare that non-profit groups should be required to publish counter positions to theirs on their own websites. That’s right. If Mother Teresa had a web site, she would be required to provide information on Hitler as well.

He also believes that we should be required to use software which would prevent anyone from sending an e-mail in which the SOFTWARE determines holds “uncivil” comments. Awww. Ain’t that cute? These poor little defenseless politicians must have had their feelings hurt by all that was said during the Tea Parties. They need a software program to protect them from hearing any dissenting opinions. He proposes that this software double-ask the sender if they really want to send an “uncivil” e-mail message. And if they do, then the e-mail must be filed away for 24 hours for a mandatory cooling off period. Oh I get it. The First Amendment gives free speech, but only if it’s not offensive to anyone. Right.

In his book “Radical to Robes” Sunstein writes that he believes that all gun control legislation is constitutionally congruent. He believes that the U.S. Supreme court “got it wrong” in determining that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies to individuals.

Ok, here’s a real loony one. In his 2004 book entitled “Animal Rights” he wrote that he believed that “Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives …" Holy cow! (pun intended) I’m all about protecting animals, but providing them with a public defender at the expense of tax dollars is laughable! If you hurt my dogs, I will indeed defend them, but where will it stop? We already have an over burgeoning court system. Criminals get off for murder of a human being? What additional justice are we to expect when a person sends an uncivil e-mail to Mickey Mouse? Are the lawyers not making enough money? Do they need to start chasing Fido rather than ambulances? Where does the U.S. Constitution stand on giving animals the same rights as humans? Oh yeah. It doesn’t. And besides, how can we expect to preserve and protect the Constitutional rights of animals when we are proving ourselves incapable or unwilling to preserve and protect the rights of legal, law-abiding American citizens? If you give animals constitutional rights, then you must give them consequences as well. Will we expect law enforcement to release Shack, the vicious Pit Bull because he wasn’t read his Miranda Rights?

To me, here is the most horrific aspect of all of this. Read what Obama thinks of this individual, specifically in relation to his ability to uphold the Constitutional rights and freedoms of our citizens: “As one of America's leading constitutional scholars, Cass Sunstein has distinguished himself in a range of fields, including administrative law and policy, environmental law, and behavioral economics," said Obama at his nomination of his regulatory czar. "He is uniquely qualified to lead my administration's regulatory reform agenda at this crucial stage in our history. Cass is not only a valued adviser, he is a dear friend and I am proud to have him on my team." I have no doubt that he is a dear friend of Obama’s based on this information. However, it’s clear that Sunstein knows about as much about the constitution as Anderson Cooper and Janeane Garofalo know about civility.

To completely prove my case of this alien-born, anti-Christ, Sunstein states “limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.” Yup. We’re just dumb human beings incapable of making the “right” choice if we are presented with so many choices. You’re right Sunstein. Americans simply have too many choices, and as such we’re certainly making the wrong decisions. But I ask you, why stop at the internet, Sunstein? Why not reel in those villainous makers of feminine products as well? Slim, mini, super, extra super, pink, blue, white, mega, etc. How is a sane person to choose? I find the vast amount of tampons for women completely overwhelming and sending my poor husband out to retrieve the proper box could result in a 3rd World War. I’m sure limiting our choices between good, bad, evil, and truly in our best interests was exactly what the Founding Father feared in declaring ultimate freedom from an oppressed government. Too bad they didn’t declare freedom from beings from Mars as well. I’d feel a lot safer now.

I think the best science fiction writers of our time will find merit in the Sunstein Doctrine. After all, it will provide great fodder for their story lines. What’s the saying? “Truth is stranger than fiction.” We might as well prepare ourselves for the same kind of alien invasion represented in the Will Smith movie, “Independence Day”, if we are to tolerate a man in such a controlling a position as this.

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.
You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.

Friday, April 24, 2009

Baptist Pastor vs. Border Patrol



By Kellene Bishop

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc

This video of Steve Anderson is just over 8 minutes long. The contents of it are disturbing to me from a standpoint of freedom, but even more disturbing to me are the comments of ignorant fools in response to this video. Lest any more of you should grossly err in your judgment of this situation, allow me to enlighten you.

The time to stand up for your rights is ANY and EVERY time they are being violated.

One person on YouTube commented that this person should not have “taken the law into his own hands.” Sorry folks. The law is FOR the people, not issued in hopes that power-drunken agents such as these will honor it. It is for ALL of the people. It is your DUTY to know what the laws are and push back. For too long the overwhelming majority has been apathetic to their rights under the laws, and this is exactly why such atrocities of law have occurred in this situation. Do you naively believe that only the military is empowered to support and sustain our Constitutional rights? How is that fair that our soldiers have to lose their lives to defend our freedoms, but every citizen in this country doesn’t have to do their part as well? As insignificant as this act may seem to others in the nation, in my opinion there is virtue and righteousness in affirming our rights under all circumstances.

Another ignoramus commented that “from what he was able to find out, this guy isn’t a very good person.” Others accused him of being a “know-it-all” and a pompous @$$, etc. Guess what, folks? The rights of the U.S. Constitution are ensured for all people, including someone who may come across to some as a jerk. That’s why some personalities are permitted to grace your television sets and radio stations. There is no U.S. law which states you must comply nicely when your rights are or are not being violated. There is no requirement that you speak softly, etc. So whether you support the personality traits of this person is completely unimportant. As an American, his rights are his rights regardless.

As the result of his FIRST Amendment right (which is not a coincidence that such a right is in the first position of all outlined rights in our Constitution) this individual has the right to free speech. Thus anything he may have said which would make a person angry is unacceptable grounds for the actions of these so-called agents.

Several foolish posters commented that “all this guy had to do was answer the questions.” Again. They are wrong. If a police officer comes to your door and begins asking you questions, you are under NO obligation to answer such questions. Answering questions by law enforcement is not a requirement. In fact, in accordance to the Fifth Amendment, we have the right to not say ANYTHING which may incriminate us. Even the Miranda Rights reaffirm such. Not answering questions does not negate any of your other rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Another fool posted a supposition that Congress has granted the Border Patrol broad authority of search and seizures. Guess what. I don’t care if the President himself gave the Border Patrol agents permission to behave this way, it’s illegal! Pure and simple. No law can be passed in this country which is at odds with the U.S. Constitution. The only way that this act could be made “legal” is if there was a Constitutional Amendment fully ratified. Congress also recently passed an enormous bill without even reading it. Does that make it right or legal? No. It’s malpractice. And such a foolish comment flies in the face of all of those who have died so that we may now possess those rights. Until I see a Congressman who will pay the “uttermost farthing” to protect my rights as did our Founding Fathers, then such a Congressman does not receive any honorable attentions from me. Too many of our Americans today are sheep. They feel that simply because the President declares something, or the Congressmen say it and then sign it, that it’s law. Sorry folks. All laws MUST be in alignment with the U.S. Constitution. New laws can specify, clarify, and even give consequences for violating the laws and rights of the U.S. Constitution, but they cannot circumvent or violate them.

Then there are the masses of individuals who would judge this person because he’s a Baptist Pastor. He’s accused of being difficult by being non-compliant. Boy howdy am I ever GRATEFUL for my non-compliant Founding Fathers, as well as my non-compliant Savior who did NOT “save” the Jews based on their short-sighted expectations and demands. Too many individuals wrongly presume that as a Baptist pastor, he should be a mouse and comply. Sorry, you’d be wrong again to presume such. This guy did not spew foul language at these agents. He did not “get in the way” of their tazers and metal batons. These “agents” made a choice to act in the manner in which they did. As such, Jesus would condemn them, not the person upon whom they acted. It’s alarming to me just how many folks believe that standing up for your Constitutional rights is an act of deviance in the Christian world—especially in light of the fact that God inspired the men who served as our Founding Fathers of this nation. God is fully invested in our rights being upheld in this nation.

The fact that the dog was brought into this as grounds for the search is laughable as well, since the Fourth Amendment requires that probable cause be established by “oath or affirmation.” Clearly Fido didn’t say anything. He was merely used as a pawn for their designs. Isn’t it ironic that law ENFORCEMENT officials don’t care much for a person who actually helps them understand the laws of which they are to enforce? Case in point, if a 31-year-old man has sex with a 14-year-old girl, even if it’s consensual, it’s illegal. Coinciding with that, even if the American people are willing to have their rights raped and pillaged “consensually” it’s still illegal and in direct violation of our Bill of Rights. Even honest citizens with nothing to hide are violated whenever we consent to the erosion of our rights and liberty.

Another aspect of this incident is the excessive force. Hmmm… how many drug traffickers have made it across the border without their windows bashed in, or having been cut, tazed, and battered? Even if this guy WAS a drug dealer, they are NOT permitted to treat him as such. That’s right. Even if he was verbally belligerent, had a couple of kids and some drugs in the back of the car, the Border Patrol are not permitted to handle the situation the way they did. This constitutes “unreasonable search.” But hey, it’s not unreasonable seizure because they found NOTHING. (Although, due to the damage they inflicted on the vehicle, they did in fact illegally “seize” this man’s car.)

This person is rumored to have had a “run-in” with Border Patrol previously in which he also refused to answer their questions. However, posting a video on YouTube complaining about your previous treatment with Border Patrol does not give an “agent” free reign to violate your Constitutional rights. Plain and simple, Folks.

While it may take a while to get this all sorted out, anytime a person legally defends their rights of this nation, they have my wholehearted support. I may not agree with their personality traits, their religion, or their other beliefs, but they are indeed correct in asserting those rights.

Bottom line, if you will not stand up for the Constitution, who will?

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.
You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

NY Times Reports More Consequences of Illegal Immigrants

If the threat of being deported or incarcerated does not stem the tide of illegal immigration, perhaps the threat of completely losing one’s children will do the trick. While this may sound harsh, it is the consequences of illegal acts perpetrated by the illegal immigrant parents. The enormous problem I have with this article is that it is titled “After Losing Freedom Some Immigrants Face Loss of Custody of Their Children” These parents never had freedom. Freedom is only given to the just and the law-abiding citizens in this country. It is not, and should never, be granted to individuals who were merely able to prolong the consequences of their illegal acts long enough to give birth to children in this nation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/us/23children.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.
You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

The Heartstrings That Will Bankrupt “U.S.”

Women. Suppose you’re single and met a man who just pulled at your heart strings. He was tall, dark, handsome, well off and said everything you had ever hoped to hear. Remember, he’s pulling on your heart strings big time. If after you start dating, he informs you that he has every intention of never being faithful to you. Would you continue dating him? Come on. The guy actually told you upfront what he was apt to do. He was honest with you, right?

Ok, let’s try another angle.

“If I can just successfully commit this crime, then my kids will have a better life.” Do you think that such an illogical statement has ever come to the mind of a bank robber, or an extortionist, or a blackmailer? What about another kind of criminal: One that doesn’t have children yet, but knows that if they can bear children within the border of the United States of America, they not only have a better chance of getting away with their crime by preying on the hearts of American citizens, and also survive on the welfare programs of our nation. Meet this nation’s most expensive criminal—the illegal immigrant. In fact, bearing children in the U.S. is such a better life for “profitable” illegal immigrants than where they came from, that the majority of illegal immigrant parents live in circumstances of poverty and thus reap extensive benefits of our welfare programs.

Heartstrings will bankrupt us all, folks.

Let’s be perfectly blunt here. Do you really think it’s fair for law-abiding citizens to wait, dot their “I’s”, cross their “T’s” and pay the proper price to become citizens of the U.S. while others simply circumvent “the system,” sneaking in like a thief in the night, only to be rewarded? Yes, REWARDED. And we reward them in a big way here in the U.S. due to the faulty interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside (bold and italics added). Our government officials have interpreted this Amendment to mean that if a child is born in the U.S. then he/she is automatically adopted as a citizen of the U.S. But are they truly subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. under such circumstances? Now, let’s look at this for a moment. The consequences of this politically motivated interpretation are dire for our nation.

More bluntness here. Please don’t feel sorry for the illegal immigrants who live in poverty. They do so because their illegal status makes it difficult to obtain jobs in which they can be gainfully employed. Statistically speaking, many are very gainfully employed--with a house that’s fully paid for, a car that’s paid for, and tens of thousands of dollars in cash on hand at any given moment. It’s called drug trafficking work, and apparently it pays very well. Unfortunately, such “workers” regularly show that they have no income. (Come on, really. Would you report your illegal income when you see political leaders who don’t even have to report their legal income?) As such, these individuals still qualify for much federal and state assistance including medical benefits.

I spoke at length with a senior DEA agent this past weekend. He gave me a very interesting view on the consequences of this situation.

As a DEA agent he is repeatedly arresting illegal immigrants for drug trafficking (and who are usually guilty of many other crimes as a part of this trafficking). Unfortunately, he stated that the majority of these traffickers have their wives and their U.S. citizen children as a part of the game. When the parents get arrested, the children inevitably get placed in our foster care system. Note that since the income of these drug traffickers is illegal, although quite abundant, many of them make use of our welfare programs such as W.I.C, food stamps and other programs in addition to their ill-gotten gains. Needless to say, the I.R.S. has no record of a drug trafficker paying taxes on their income either.

When a U.S. child is disabled in our nation, they are given disability and social security benefits, but such benefits are paid to their legal guardians, legal or not.

In addition, a study released Tuesday, April 14, 2009 by Pew Hispanic Center reported that children of immigrants are twice as likely to live in poverty, which means that they are also living off of our nation’s welfare programs, education and healthcare. While many illegal immigrants were not permitted to receive welfare previously, many states have passed laws allowing them to receive benefits which were originally intended for our nation’s citizens. Nearly one-third of their children live in poverty which is double the rate of legal U.S. citizen children.

Seven percent of the children enrolling in your child’s school are children of an illegal immigrant according to this same study. And yet illegal immigrants are typically not property owners (due to lending regulations), thus they do not pay taxes to support their children in school.

There are approximately 5.5 million children of illegal immigrants living in the U.S. presently who are recognized as legal citizens. As such, the parents of such children are able to literally live on your dime without contributing to society in the form of taxes, community activism, or contributing to the law-abiding culture of our society.

In America, education is the largest public cost of caring for these children due in part to the language barriers necessitating special teachers, paid lunch programs, and larger class sizes. This price tag is estimated today to be above 13 billion dollars, not counting any special education programs according to Donald Huddle of Rice University. An additional $2 billion goes towards special care programs in our schools. This number is expected to actually be quite conservative given that the cost for education of these children in California alone was posted at $3 billion in 1993. The illegal immigration population has nearly doubled since then. Health care is at least triple that cost for the nation both public and private costs combined. (For more information, click here)

Think of the impression that such parents may have on their children. They begin their relationship with our nation by defying our laws and are financially rewarded for it. Hmmmm. I wonder what message this sends to their children? Go ahead. You take a guess. Are they naturally inclined to obey the laws of our nation or defy them?

Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security reported that over 100,000 parents of “legal” U.S. children were deported in 2007, thus prompting them to make alternative considerations prior to deportments. In other words, the fact that they got away with a crime, but were able to procreate may be reason enough to reward them with amnesty in our nation. I truly believe that by our government even entertaining the proposal to allow such parents to stay here, they are simply reinforcing criminal acts. Once you get away with one crime, why not another, and another?

How do these children grow up and vote? Do they vote for the best candidate who promotes honor and virtue? Or do they vote for the person who’s most likely to keep their parents in the country?

Did you know you’ll now have to work until May 29 of each year JUST to pay your taxes? You presently pay more in taxes than you spend in housing, food and clothing for your family! While I’m not one to believe in scarcity, the fact of the matter is our nation is in serious peril. Contrary to what the Federal Reserve and Congress believe, there is a FINITE amount of money that this nation has at present and that finite amount is in the largest negative balance than ever before. Millions of legitimate Americans are suffering financially with no “bail out” in the form of food stamps, health benefits, W.I.C. in-state tuition prices, preferential and even mandatory admittance into colleges or FREE education. Heart strings or not, the crimes of these parents must not be rewarded socially, emotionally, or financially.

Even if we accept the current interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, let’s ask ourselves this question. Was such a law intended to affect the U.S.-born children of a few thousand, or even tens or hundreds of thousands of immigrants who made the difficult journey and entered our country through Ellis Island or other authorized ports of entry? If our forefathers had known that 1 million to 3 million illegal immigrants (solely from one country) would attempt to illegally enter our country every year, would they have desired to generously grant birthright citizenship to the children of these same immigrants who flagrantly violate our laws? Will you be as generous at the cost of the well being of your own family? It becomes even more painful when we realize that countless illegal immigrants intentionally give birth to “anchor babies” for the specific intent of later legalizing their immigration status.

Not that I give merit to the legal actions of other countries as a basis for our behavior, but it’s interesting to note that in November 2004, Denmark rescinded automatic citizenship due to the unforeseen financial crisis it placed upon their country. Ireland did so a year prior to that. Most of Europe was being overrun with immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East and thus are considering the same measures at present.

Bottom line, we literally cannot afford to grant legality in the midst of illegality. It makes for a horrible relationship.

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Delta Insults Humanity Again

Common Courtesy is No Longer Common

I’ll admit it. When I fly, I usually fly first-class due to the fact that I’m a bit claustrophobic. Sitting in the small seats towards the back gives me a great deal of anxiety, to the point that when I fly, I’m willing to choke up the first class fare. First class round trip with Delta Airlines is usually around $1500. I have come to enjoy the perks of actually getting smiles from the flight attendants, complimentary entertainment, padding in the roomy seat from top to bottom, a little beverage prior to leaving, a hot towel to clean my hands with, and access to a restroom close by. Having endometriosis and problems arising from such a case, sometimes makes that restroom a lifesaver.

By contrast, regular fare is about $500 nowadays. The seats are crowded both side to side and front to back which is even further emphasized when you are 20 to 30 pounds overweight. I can feel the metal through the seat “cushions” grating on my back and buttocks for the entire flight. The flight attendants are noticeably less attentive—sorry, but I’ve found that to be the case on countless occasions. There are almost always loud and rowdy children in the regular fare seats (Yes, I DO love children, just not ornery ones who are seemingly ignored by their parents throughout an entire 4 hour flight). And there are 2 bathrooms being shared by hundreds rather than a small handful in first class.

So today when I read on the news that a man on a Delta flight was arrested, put into handcuffs and spent 2 days in jail for his anxious response to a bathroom emergency on an international flight, I was absolutely disgusted.

Apparently, Mr. Correa of Concord, OH really had to go. But when his pathway was blocked by a beverage cart, he requested to use the business class restroom. He was refused. I find this completely ridiculous on so many counts.

1) I have seen regular fare customers frequently use the first-class restrooms without so much as a cross look from a flight attendant. Delta does not practice any semblance of consistency in enforcing this ludicrous FAA regulation.

2) It seems apparent that the flight attendant would rather the man degrade himself and put passengers at risk by having a urination accident in his pants, than move the blasted beverage cart or allow him to use the business class restroom. I mean really, just how clean and safe would YOU feel knowing that a man just peed uncontrollably (or worse) on the floor near you on the airplane? Talk about a bio-hazard! The man was clearly desperate to use the bathroom for Pete’s sake! Do they teach these flight attendants to be inhumane before allowing them to work an international flight?

3) With so many individuals out of work at present, you would think that any company would have the pick of the litter in selecting conscientious and courteous individuals. This flight attendant represents Delta and the business culture perpetuated by Delta.

4) Apparently the man’s request to use the business class restroom on an international flight was against FAA regulations. For one, I firmly believe that most flight attendants are just as ignorant of real FAA regulations as most of the local police departments are of U.S. Constitution law. So having a flight attendant taking a stand based on a supposed FAA regulation is hard to swallow. (See http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94191 and http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56544 for more evidence that police just don’t know the law.) And besides, are you kidding me? The government now gets to tell people where they can pee??? And hey, we even get to pay for such ridiculous rules! I suppose they’re going to try and tell us it’s for our safety. That’s right. Keeping bad guys from the business class section of the plane will certainly save lives. Or perhaps they were trying to provide some in-flight entertainment for the rest of the passengers as they watched a 43 year-old man be degraded by having to ask to use the potty like a 1st grader.

Personally, when I spend so much money to ride in a more expensive class, I’d like to presume that such a premium price gives me access to a bathroom when I need one. Then again, I’d like to think that the toilet seat would actually be bigger than a Frisbee as well (One can dream, can’t they?). However, I would NEVER deny someone else from using that same bathroom in an emergency simply because I spent more for my ticket than he did. After all, while I may be a “first class passenger” that doesn’t negate me from being a human being.

To see the complete article go to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30108454/


Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved. You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.

Monday, April 6, 2009

The Truth About Guns in Mexico

After hearing enough of the inflated and downright false statistics of the guns in Mexico being provided by the U.S., I’ve decided to get right down to the facts. First of all, when you hear these statistics, consider the source. I personally believe that anything that comes out of the mouth of Hilary Clinton or Dianne Fienstein—especially when it has to do with guns or self-defense--to be dramatically skewed.

Of all the guns in Mexico, simply because there are some U.S. guns, does not mean they have all come from legal channels in the U.S. Gun smuggling goes both ways. In the event that the U.S. government issues guns to the Mexican Military in an effort to fight whatever wars rage in their land, it’s important to note that such guns would come with a caveat to be used for such purpose. The fact that they are still ending up in the hands of drug-runners and immigrant criminals is not a reflection on the U.S. government, rather an expose on the corruption of government officials in the U.S. In addition, according to Mexican Congressman, Robert Badilla, over 150,000 Mexican military members have abandoned their military duty and have taken their guns with them.

The saying has been spread about by truly ignorant politicians and their loyal subjects (a.k.a. the mainstream media) that 90% of the guns in Mexico came from the U.S. This is yet one more example of a lazy, knee-jerk media we have reporting our news to us today. In fact, 83% of the guns in Mexico do not even have serial numbers or can even be traced via U.S. technology as they come from Asia, Israel, South Korea, China, Spain and Columbia. However, of the guns that have been found WITH serial numbers, 90% OF THOSE GUNS have come from the U.S. This fact means that only 17% of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico have come from the U.S.! And that my friends, is how such a ridiculous rumor has been perpetuated.

For more information on this topic go to http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved. You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.

Kellene's Playlist


A Worth-While Cause...

A Worth-While Cause...
Kellene with Marie Osmond, Co-Founder of The Children’s Miracle Network and Creator of the beautiful Marie Osmond Dolls. (Be sure to catch Donny and Marie’s Show in Vegas beginning Sept. 9, 2008!)