This Little Light Of Mine

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Big Brother Will Be In FULL FORCE If The CDC Has Its Way!

CDC Aims for Unprecedented Expansion of Policing Powers

by Marco Cáceres

With its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on Aug. 15, 2016,1  the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has moved to dramatically expand the power of the U.S. government over the lives of the American people. This may be the clearest example to date of an agency gone amok.
In a recent commentary on the NPRM, Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), observed:
Today, the American people are challenged, as they have never been before, to confront the expansion of government authority over our bodies and the bodies of our children, specifically the exercise of police power to take us into custody and isolate us without our consent whenever public health officials believe we are sick or could become sick.
The CDC, with its NPRM, is seeking to “restrict the freedom of a person entering the U.S. or traveling between states if they believe the person is infected or could become infected with certain kinds of communicable diseases.”
Would this new authority open the way for the U.S. government health officials to eventually restrict travel via automobile, bus and train from state to state? Could state public health authorities eventually prevent me from walking across the street or riding my bicycle from one town to the next if I were found to have a cold or the flu? Where exactly would this new authority to control communicable diseases stop?
The NPRM calls for airline and cruise ship personnel to increase surveillance of travelers into the U.S. and those traveling between states, but states have the greatest authority under the Constitution to use police powers to control infectious diseases within state borders.  The CDC also provides substantial funding to states to maintain high uptake of all federally recommended vaccines.  So, as Fisher points out, the NPRM indicates the CDC plans to enlist the “participation of federally funded state health departments” —which means that state policing authorities could eventually be doing a lot more detaining, isolating and quarantining of people in the U.S., who appear “unwell” but are otherwise simply going about minding their own business.
So, how would all of this work in real life in the event I had a rash or coughing fit while running into a federal or state public health official in the supermarket or at the gym? Were the NPRM to be implemented, it is certainly possible that we could, indeed, be “vulnerable to detention and quarantine if health officials decide you are, or could become, a transmitter of measles or other infections.”
Just how would public health officials make such a determination? Well, since our medical records are part of big electronic medical records and vaccine tracking systems accessible by government officials, they could simply take a peek at our electronic medical records and see if we have gotten every single dose of every single vaccine recommended by the CDC.
And what specifically is meant by “other infections“? How open-ended is this term?
Is the CDC trying to expand its authority to detain and quarantine people without their consent? Yes, says Fisher.
In a nutshell, the federal government is consolidating and strengthening power that was originally used to prevent persons with yellow fever and cholera from disembarking from ships entering U.S. ports in the 19th century and causing epidemics on land. For most of our country’s history, the list of contagious diseases that allowed government health officials to detain and quarantine people without their informed consent was appropriately very short, confined to a few very serious contagious diseases, including yellow fever, smallpox, cholera, diphtheria, infectious tuberculosis, and the plague.
So, now what are we talking about? Anything that has the potential to infect others? As Fisher points out, there are “many viral and bacterial infections that occur quite often in our country, like bronchitis and the stomach flu.” And nearly every infection has the potential to spread and cause harm or even death to some people. But that does not mean that health officials should be empowered to “take you into custody and isolate you if you look sick or have been around someone who is sick.”
Some symptoms that “could get you detained” under the CDC’s NPRM include vomiting, diarrhea, and a fever of more than 100 degrees—symptoms that can be caused by everything from “allergic reactions, inflammatory bowel disease, salmonella and norovirus infections to hangovers and the common cold.”
It is not difficult to imagine all kinds of people who are simply not feeling well being rounded up by public health authorities under the assumption that they might have a “communicable disease” and thus pose a danger to society.
So, what would happen were you to be taken into government custody? The NPRM language suggests that you could be held for up to 72 hours without the right to contact a lawyer to appeal your detention. You would be asked to sign a contract with the CDC agreeing to submit yourself or your minor children to such “public health measures” as “quarantine, isolation, conditional release, medical examination, hospitalization, vaccination, and treatment.”
And what if I don’t want to sign a contract with the CDC? Then what? According to Fisher:
[E]ven if you don’t voluntarily agree to sign that contract, public health officials can still do whatever they want to do to you because ‘the individual’s consent shall not be considered a prerequisite to any exercise of any authority’ by the CDC. And if government officials do release you from detention, you can be electronically tracked and monitored, including by electronic tracking devices you have to wear or by email, cell phone texts, video conferencing and voicemail.
Does any of this remotely sound like the United States of America? No. The NPRM is a blatant power grab by an agency that has seemingly lost its way, and it represents a serious threat to the American way of life as we know it.

Monday, September 26, 2016

No National Outrage For This Teen's Fatal Shooting By Police...

...why not? Because he's WHITE! Seems ONLY Black Lives Matter with the news media and other racial communities when it comes to fatal police shootings!

Eric Bland (family attorney) told The Washington Post this week. “The hypocrisy that has been shown toward this is really disconcerting.”

“It’s sad, but I think the reason is, unfortunately, the media and our government officials have treated the death of an unarmed white teenager differently than they would have if this were a death of an unarmed black teen."

The response to Hammond’s death has been disappointingly muted in Seneca, in South Carolina and nationally, said Bland, the family lawyer. He insists there would be more focus on the case if Hammond had been black.

“They’re called the civil rights organizations, they’re not called the black rights organizations,” Bland said. “The color of his skin should not matter. White-on-white crime does not get the same impact as white-on-black crime.”

Black activists are similarly asking why more people who countered the Black Lives Matter movement by saying “All Lives Matter” have been so silent on Hammond’s death.

Thursday, September 15, 2016

ALARM: CDC Moves To Forcibly Vaccinate U.S. Citizens

On August 15th, 2016, in an unbelievably draconian attempt to claim control over YOUR body, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued “Control of Communicable Diseases – Notice of Proposed Rulemaking”(published in Federal Register Number: 2016-18103).
If you have the patience to wade through the linguistic gibberish, legal mumbo jumbo, and medical doublespeak, you’ll see that this proposed rule would give the CDC the power to apprehend, detain, and vaccinate YOU against your will and without your consent!
I’m sorry, did we stumble into Mao’s China? Or Hitler’s Germany? Is this a decree from Kim Jong-un? Although this sounds like something we would expect from Communist China, Nazi Germany, or current day North Korea, the proposed rule is intended for “the land of the free and the home of the brave.”
If you read between the lines, you’ll see that if this goes into effect, anyone in the USA who is “suspected” of carrying a communicable disease can be detained, quarantined, and “medically treated” (i.e. forcibly vaccinated). All under the guise of “protecting” us from some new strain of virus (like Zika) or some phony pandemic (like Ebola or West Nile or Swine Flu).
CDCAs Robert Scott Bell often mentions – vaccines are the sacred cow of the“Church of Pharmaceutical Mysticism.” Despite the fact that most of the recent “outbreaks” have been in almost fully vaccinated areas, like the current mumps outbreak in Arkansas where 100% of the cases are in vaccinated individuals, the CDC still propagates the lie that these neurotoxic injections (which have been linked to cancer) are “safe and effective.”
By the way, this directly contradicts the findings of the kangaroo court system set up by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program which has paid out $3.4 BILLION to vaccine injured families, so I guess they aren’t all that “safe.”
But that’s not even the focus of this article. I’m trying to sound the alarm that this is an attempted authoritarian power grab of unprecedented proportions! Regardless of your opinion about vaccines, the real issue is whether the U.S. government has the right to force any medical intervention upon its citizens.
The real question at hand is “who owns your body?” This proposed rule is a blatant declaration that the U.S. government (and CDC) own your body. I guess they don’t believe that each individual has certain inalienable rights that cannot be disregarded or abandoned.
vaccines-cdc-proposed-rule
Has the CDC ever heard of informed consent? You know, our right to decide whether or not we agree to a medical procedure based upon being given all the facts? A frightening portion of this proposed rule states “the individual’s consentshall not be considered as a prerequisite to any exercise of any authority under this part.” In other words, the CDC can force any medical treatment that they deem to be appropriate, and it doesn’t matter one iota whether you consent or not.
In my opinion, the CDC is attempting to create a “medical fascist police state” which trashes the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights and where citizens are no safer than the Jews in Nazi Germany’s concentration camps. You see, the Nazis claimed ownership over Jewish people’s bodies and eventually rounded them up and took them to the death camps, where many of them were forcibly vaccinated and eventually murdered.
Nazi-Jews
If this totalitarian, tyrannical proposed rule becomes law, you can literally kiss your freedom goodbye. If you value your life, your freedom, and your health, and if you are concerned about the future of your children and grandchildren,please make your voice heard.
Don’t be a sheep. In 1787, Thomas Jefferson, writing from Paris in a letter to Edward Carrington, said that a nation of sheep would result in a government of wolves.
Let’s join together and let the wolves of the CDC know, in no uncertain terms, that we won’t take this any longer and that this nefarious proposed power grab is not acceptable.
Please file your comments at this website before October 14, 2016. At this link, click the green button near the top right that says “Submit a Formal Comment” and express your concern / disapproval / outrage over this proposal.
cdc-detention
God Bless America! This is the land that I love. Stay tuned for updates at "The Truth About Cancer".

The Herd Immunity Myth


If Only Half of America is Properly Vaccinated, Where are the Epidemics?

While herd immunity may not exist, herd mentality most definitely does. Health authorities, media commentators, and schools and their parent–teacher associations waste no opportunity in perpetuating this myth.
In 2014, an outbreak of whooping cough (pertussis) broke out in the San Diego area. Of the 621 individuals who were infected, nearly all of them were completely up to date on all preventive vaccinations. If vaccines are given to protect from disease, how could this happen?
San Diego public health official Dr. Wilma Wooten argued that the cause was related to a decrease in the protection offered by vaccines after the first year. This answer is most revealing, in that it speaks to the actual efficacy of vaccines. It also shows that the concept of herd immunity is largely myth—and completely misunderstood.
The theory of herd immunity states that when a critical mass of the population (usually stipulated at 95%) is vaccinated against a disease, the possibility of outbreaks is eliminated. This is the main argument that is used to shame parents who wish to refuse certain vaccinations for their children: by not vaccinating, they put the health of the “herd” at risk.
However, if vaccines start losing effectiveness after the first year, as Dr. Wooten says, then constant revaccination would be required, since the immunity offered is only temporary for most vaccines. Achieving the required rate of protection is virtually impossible under this paradigm.
Of course, if we look back over the decades and note the lack of rampant epidemics in our nation, while remembering that vaccine protection is in perpetual decline, the myth of herd immunity quickly unravels. Our society has never achieved this level of herd immunity, yet not a single major outbreak of disease has occurred.
Noted author and neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, MD offers this analysis:
It was not until relatively recently that it was discovered that most of these vaccines lost their effectiveness 2 to 10 years after being given. What this means is that at least half the population, that is the baby boomers, have had no vaccine-induced immunity against any of these diseases for which they had been vaccinated very early in life. In essence, at least 50% or more of the population was unprotected for decades.
After a recent outbreak of measles at Disneyland, the state legislature in California took the extraordinary measure of rescinding religious and philosophical exemptions for vaccinations, even for children at higher risk of vaccine injury. State Sen. Richard Pan, who led the fight, argued that it was imperative to public health to maintain herd immunity among the general population, and that to ensure 95% compliance, vaccination had to be mandatory. The law he authored, which risks the health of many vulnerable children, accomplishes nothing—because herd immunity is a myth.
The argument for herd immunity was actually developed out of observations of natural immunity, not vaccination. Statisticians observed that populations were protected when sufficient members contracted the wild form of a disease, and subsequently acquired lifelong immunity. With vaccines, however, evidence shows that unvaccinated children may catch infectious diseases from vaccinated children. What is true of natural immunity is not true of vaccination.
The herd immunity argument has always been inconsistent. On the one hand, the theory goes, people who cannot receive vaccines for whatever reason are protected from the disease through a high level of vaccination in the rest of society. On the other hand, the theory continues, parents who don’t vaccinate their children put the health of wider society at risk. How can a handful of people not getting vaccinated be protected from getting sick, while at the same time being so disease-ridden that they make others sick? This doesn’t make sense.
While herd immunity may not exist, herd mentality most definitely does. Health authorities, media commentators, and schools and their parent–teacher associations waste no opportunity in perpetuating this myth. Proponents have done such a thorough job of convincing the public that a parent who questions it is treated like someone who thinks the earth is flat or believes climate change is a conspiracy. On the contrary: an unprejudiced view of the science about vaccines, and an examination of history, clearly show that the herd immunity theory is—and always has been—flawed.
Vaccines may have a place in our medical arsenal, but they are not the silver bullet they’re portrayed to be. Year after year the pharmaceutical industry, looking for lucrative new profit centers, churns out new vaccines. They use pseudo-science to convince the public that these products are safe and effective, and they use public shaming to convince the citizenry that non-compliance is a public health threat. This entire racket completely falls apart with a close examination of the herd immunity myth. Until we are honest in our assessment of both the safety and efficacy of vaccines, kids will continue to be hurt, rights will continue to be trampled, and mythology will continue to trump science.

Note: This article was reprinted with the author’s permission. It was originally published in The Hill. Gretchen DuBeau is the executive director of Alliance for Natural Health USA.

Sunday, September 4, 2016

Cannabis Coconut Oil...Two Of Nature's Best Healers Combined!


Why Cannabis Coconut Oil Is So Great

by David Wolfe
img_0834
Cannabis is no medical slouch. Strains heavy in THC have been proven to effectively treat pain, PTSD, nausea, eating disorders, asthma and insomnia. Strains high in CBD, on the other hand, are effective at fighting psychosis, anxiety, tumors and seizures.
But smoking anything isn’t exactly good for your lungs – even smoke from the healthiest of herbs like cannabis will deposit a good amount of carcinogenic tar in your lungs.
That’s where coconut oil comes in. The fatty acids in it bind very easily to cannabis, creating a smooth oil that can be consumed absolutely smoke-free. 
You can also use the oil as a topical cream to treat everything from joint pain to sunburns and dry skin.
But don’t be mistaken; coconut oil is much more than a mere binding ingredient. Its health benefits such as memory enhancement, anti-inflammation and increased energy combine with the benefits of cannabis to produce an absolutely epic list of goodness.

How To Make Cannabis Coconut Oil

shutterstock_446462419
First, as I alluded to before, you need to pick a strain of cannabis that will provide help in the area you need it. I recommend taking a look at SOMA Colorado’s ‘strain selector’ tool.
Next, assuming you’ve bought fresh cannabis, you’ll need to decarb it. This is the process that releases the medically potent compounds.

How to Decarb Cannabis

Preheat your oven to 240ºF. Then, break up roughly an ounce of cannabis into smaller pieces with your hands. Prepare a pan with a baking sheet and place the cannabis on it. Make sure there are no empty spaces on the pan.
Next, bake the cannabis for roughly 40 minutes. Stir it occasionally to ensure it bakes evenly. When you notice that the cannabis has lightly browned, remove the baking sheet and let it cool.

Making the Oil

Toss your decarb cannabis into a food processor and grind it until it’s a coarse powder. Next, get your virgin coconut oil and dish out one gram of cannabis for every ounce of oil you plan to use.
Place both ingredients in a glass jar and then cover it. Place the jar in a pan filled with water just below boiling level. Leave it there for 60 minutes. Then, strain the mixture with a cheesecloth.
And there you have it – cannabis coconut oil! You can now toss a spoon or two of this into smoothies, brownies, you name it. You can also cook with the oil but be sure to only use it in recipes that call for temperatures below 315ºF; otherwise, the active benefits of the cannabis will be lost.

Sunday, August 28, 2016

6 ways not to reset the clock on old debt and clear up your credit report

ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE:   Follow: @Bankrate on Twitter | Bankrate on Facebook


What do debt and milk have in common? An expiration date.

Even if you've cried over spilled milk, chances are you haven't shed too many tears over expired debt. Yet unlike the milk in your fridge, you can accidentally revive old debt.

While state laws limit the amount of time debt collectors can chase you to pay debts or force collections through judgments and garnishments, some consumer mistakes can restart that clock.

Among them: acknowledging a debt, making a partial payment or ignoring a notice that a creditor is about to sue on an old debt.

Don't want to feel the bite of zombie debt? Here are six tips you need to know.

There are two debt clocks, and each is important.

First is the clock for forcing collections on a debt, which is often called the "statute of limitations on collections." It varies from state to state. Typically, it's three to six years. In some states, it can be up to 15 years.

This is the clock you have to consider if you're worried about reviving the possibility of forced collections on an old debt.

The second clock is the length of time a debt can stay on your credit report and, as a result, affect your credit score. That clock runs for seven years.

The credit-report clock on a delinquent debt starts six months after you stop paying, says Chi Chi Wu, staff attorney with the National Consumer Law Center. No matter when the bad debt popped up on your credit report, it has to come off seven years after the clock started ticking.

Nothing you or anyone says or does can restart this clock, says Wu.

Worried an old debt might be on your credit report? Get yours free at myBankate.

Seven years after the original default date, all mentions of a debt -- no matter who has bought the debt or when -- have to come off your credit report, says Maxine Sweet, vice president of public education for credit bureau Experian.

According to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, debt collectors can't change the account number and consider it a "new obligation," and they aren't allowed to "re-age" that debt, says Tracy S. Thorleifson, attorney with the Federal Trade Commission. Seven years from the original default date -- that's it, she says.

One exception is judgments. If a creditor sues and gets a court judgment against you, they can keep the judgment on your credit report for seven years or until the judgment expires, says John Ulzheimer, consumer credit expert. However, as a matter of practice, credit bureaus keep judgments on a credit report for seven years from the judgment filing date, he says.

In other words, while the original obligation and any listings by subsequent collectors will come off within the original seven-year period, the judgment can have its own independent seven-year life span.

When it comes to discussing old debt with a collector, it pays to be careful.

"I think the primary thing -- the surprising thing -- is that (consumers) can restart the statute of limitations so easily," says Robert Hobbs, senior fellow at the National Consumer Law Center and author of "Fair Debt Collection." If they're not careful, they can restart the clock on a debt they didn't even know about, he says.

All it takes is acknowledging the debt is yours, and you can restart your state's time clock on forced collections, he says.

So what do you do if you want to discuss the debt because you need more information to determine whether it is yours, or if you want to investigate payment options without restarting the collections clock? Adopt the hypothetical approach, says Hobbs.

For example:


  • "I don't believe this is my debt. Can you tell me more about it?"
  • "I'm not saying this is mine, but I'd certainly not like to talk to you anymore. What would it take to settle it?"


You are sick of debt collection calls. However, you're afraid telling the creditor not to contact you is an admission the debt is yours.

It's not.

You have the right to ask debt collectors in writing to stop contacting you, whether a debt is yours or not, and they have to comply. Simply send a letter identifying the debt, and tell them to stop contacting you about it.

"You're not affirming the debt -- you're exercising your rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act," says Thorleifson.

Debt collectors are still required to notify you in writing if they are actually suing you, even if you send a cease-and-desist letter. You don't lose the right to defend yourself in court.

But avoid those letters with multiple-choice boxes some collectors send, says Thorleifson. Often, you check one box to pay in full, one for a partial payment, and there's another to say it's your debt, but you can't afford to pay now.

"If you check a box and send it, it could be enough to serve as a written affirmation of the debt in some states," she says.

If you get an offer to pay "a little something" on an old debt, be wary.

"Under many state statutes, a partial payment puts you back on the hook," for the entire debt and restarts the clock on forced collections, says Hobbs.

It pays to do a little research before you agree to anything.

"For people who have a lot of debt and are trying to decide which debt to pay and which to pay first, it makes sense for them to understand the statute of limitations issues so that they can make a rational decision on which debt they pay first," says Thorleifson.

If you have questions on the statutes in your state for various types of debt, the state attorney general's office or department of consumer affairs is often a good resource.

"The educated consumer is going to understand the issues and pay debts accordingly," says Thorleifson.

If you decide to pay it in full or negotiate a settlement for a lesser amount, get a written agreement beforehand "acknowledging payment in full," she says.

That way, if the debt is later sold to a debt buyer, you'll have proof that it's been paid, she says.

Is a creditor suing after the collections clock on old debt has expired? Take action.

Show the court the debt is too old, and you win automatically. However, that only works if someone tells the court the statute of limitations has expired. If creditors win a judgment on expired debt, they can force collection for as long as your state law allows, says Thorleifson.

"It's up to you to go to court and raise the defense that the debt is beyond the statute of limitations," she says. "Don't trust the court system to figure it out on your behalf."

What you need to know: You must be legally served with notice of a lawsuit. Otherwise, "you could move to set aside the judgment," Thorleifson says.

If a creditor gets a judgment on expired debt, you could have a countersuit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, says Hobbs. "(Federal) courts have found that it's against the law to sue a consumer (over) a time-barred debt."

Sunday, August 14, 2016

I WON My Foreclosure Case!

The Maine Supreme Court has finalized my foreclosure case....in MY favor...citing " that the administration of justice outweighs the important interest in finality of litigation"! 

Imagine that...a court putting JUSTICE ahead of policy & practice (of a court not normally [and sparingly and only in a clear instance of previous error] reopening issues of law already decided ) because they wanted to prevent a manifest injustice! Manifest injustice means something which is 'obviously unfair' or 'shocking to the conscience.' It refers to an unfairness that is direct, obvious, and observable: an outcome in a case that is plainly and obviously unjust. 

And in THIS case, because I didn't just "sit on my rights" but kept fighting and going on throughout the court system stating the samething over & over again that the bank didn't own my mortgage deed due to a MERS assignment that only gave the bank the right to record which did NOT give them ownership to provide standing to sue and because under Maine law in Saunders (decided 28 months BEFORE my case) this argument was correct at the time I argued it in court and this was overlooked by the Supreme Court (thus a clear previous error which is plainly and obviously unjust and unfair), they chose to reopen my case and correct their error and serve justice! 


WOWZERS!! See their decision HERE or below:


Thanks go out to my lawyer (at the end of my trials of doing this as a pro se litigant, I hired a lawyer to do the final leg of this saga & enter the 60(b) motion) Matthew Williams and to my friends who stood by me & supported me and kept me basically sane and committed in staying the course and all the prayers sent out by many of you! I believe that God heard them and watched over the Maine Supreme Court Justices to do the right thing!

Independent Polls Give Trump Massive Lead

(Independent Polls starts at the 4:38 mark)

Proof That Mainstream Media Is A Puppet Of The Liberal/Socialist/Marxist Agenda

Tuesday, August 9, 2016

Mainers - The TRUTH of Question 3 & Universal Background Checks

Universal Background Check

A Failed New York Solution...
to a Problem Maine Doesn't Have

Moms Demand Action, the New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun astroturf organization, is pushing a referendum to outlaw private transfers of firearms. They’re shipping out-of-state money and people into Maine to put their measure on our ballot, and buy themselves a law on our books.
This confusingly-written and ambiguous law would criminalize ordinary and traditional behavior, like selling a gun to a friend, or loaning a gun to a neighbor to go hunting. In order to comply with the law, you and your friend or neighbor would have to go to a licensed dealer, fill out Federal paperwork, undergo an FBI background check, and pay a fee before you could turn over your firearm. But, wait! That’s not all. You’ll have to do it all over again before your gun can be returned to you. And if the FBI background check makes a mistake and denies or delays you, as it does over 60,000 times a year to law-abiding citizens, you may not get your gun back.
"Hang on", you say, "I heard the law has exceptions for hunting and for family members. This won't affect me."
Those exceptions aren't what they appear to be; you won't be able to loan a gun to a friend or neighbor to go hunting. The loan can only occur while you are hunting, in the field. Anything else is a crime.  
Family exception? Maybe not, depending on your family.  Great-grandparents/great-grandchildren aren't included. Neither are unmarried people living together, even though the law purports to have an exception for "intimate partners" -- but the definition of intimate partner is flawed, and includes no one.
And, incidentally, without even saying so, this law completely outlaws adults over 18 years of age and under 21 from purchasing a handgun, by requiring all transfers to go through licensed dealers -- who are forbidden by Federal law from selling handguns to those under 21. Young adults will have their rights ripped from them. Don't for a moment think that this is an unintended consequence; it's a stealth ban, maliciously included.
And those are just a few examples of the glaring flaws in this horrible legislation.  As a Citizen Initiated bill, it must be passed exactly as written -- there is no mechanism to make corrections before passing it into law.
While the anti-gunners say this law is needed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the Federal government’s own data shows that few criminals obtain guns through private sales; far more acquire them through background-checked dealer sales, by sending a person with a clean record to buy the gun. The real reason Bloomberg wants this law is that it is the key step toward mandatory gun registration. In fact, there’s no way this law can be enforced without gun registration.
Don’t be fooled into thinking that Universal Background Checks are a good idea -- it is a law designed to fail, in order to justify the next step on the anti-gunner’s agenda: universal registration.
It’s a failed New York solution to a problem Maine doesn’t have.

Help us defeat this flawed bill and leave governing Maine to Mainers, by making a donation to UBC Bad For ME
Contributions may also be sent by mail to:

UBC Bad For ME
205 Church Hill Road
Augusta, ME 04330 
_________________________________________

Resources

BDN Editorial: 
"Studies have indicated that most of guns used in crime are acquired illegally. Forcing lawful gun owners to register their firearms will have no effect on this problem.
This referendum is not about safety, it is about power and control."
-- Stephen C. Smith
_________________________________________

"I ran the UBC proposal by an Assistant District Attorney. His response: 'Such a mess!"  He agrees that simply loaning a friend a rifle for deer season without getting a background check would be illegal for both parties involved. That's coming from one of the guys that would prosecute under the proposed law."
-- Central Maine Police Officer

Saturday, August 6, 2016

Letter to Donald J Trump

Dear Mr. Trump,
I'm a service connected disabled Vietnam Era veteran (USMC) and served my country with honor and pride. I'm mostly a conservative but am very independent and vote my conscience and for what is best for my country.


I just turned 60, am divorced and I'm raising two of my grand children. I am very limited in my funds and am fighting a foreclosure attempt by a bank who didn't care that my original mortgage lender Countrywide tricked me into being behind in my payments by saying that I needed to be 90 days in arrears to qualify for HAMP so that I would either have to accept THEIR remodification plan or face foreclosure! I've fought for SEVEN years and it looks like I have won ...for now. But I know the bank will try again. 


The point here is, all this has drained my finances and I barely get by and live from payday to payday with hopes that nothing major happens in-between. I even have a hard time to come up with money to fix my only car (needs a new head which will cost about $1500.00 to fix), so I've been without my Jeep for about a year now. But, with all this, I just cannot bear the thought of losing any more of the freedoms that I served in the Marines to help preserve for my country by having Hillary Clinton become president. So, I can only spare $25.00...I really hope that it'll be of some help in aiding you to beat her and get elected because you are our country's ONLY hope right now of staying a true republic and keep the freedoms that our Constitution provides us.


PLEASE...don't disappoint us. Get elected, stay true to your words of hope and to our Constitution and do the job that you are promising us that you'll do....and don't disappoint us like the past 4 presidents have done!
I will be voting for you come election day.


Best regards, 

Debby Reagan

Friday, July 29, 2016

Obama’s brother voting for Donald Trump!

Despite the fact this his half-brother is president of the United States, Malik Obama says he’ll be voting for Donald Trump this November.

Another Black Man Who Supports Trump Disavowing BLM!

Notice that the CNN reporter brings up the question "Does it matter that the KKK supports Trump?" (thus insinuating that Trump is racist) but refuses to answer another by-stander's question of "Does the Black Panthers support Obama?" Now tell me once again that the mainstream media isn't biased against conservatives and that they aren't trying to make us..."We the People"... into having racial divide and be fighting each other! WAKE UP America and listen to this man!