Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for January, 2013

Interpreting President Obama’s Inaugual Address


The President Obama Inaugural Address

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 by Dennis Prager

To understand leftism, the most dynamic religion of the last hundred years, you have to understand how the left thinks. The 2013 inaugural address of President Barack Obama provides one such opportunity.

–“What makes us exceptional — what makes us American — is our allegiance to an idea articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'”

What American does not resonate to a president reaffirming this magnificent statement from our Declaration of Independence?

But here’s the intellectual sleight of hand: “What makes us exceptional — what makes us American” is indeed the belief that rights come from God.

But this seminal idea is not mentioned again in the entire inaugural address. This was most unfortunate. An inaugural address that would concentrate on the decreasing significance of God in American life — one of the left’s proudest accomplishments — would address what may well be the single most important development in the last half-century of American life.

–“We learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.”

If there is one word that most excites progressives, it is “new.” (“Old” turns the left off: Judeo-Christian religions and the Constitution are two such examples.) The fact is that Americans did not make “themselves anew” after the Civil War. What they did was finally affirm what was old — the Founders’ belief that “all men are created equal.”

So why did the president say this? Because what he and the left want to do is to make America anew — by making it a left-wing country.

–“Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce, schools and colleges to train our workers.”

The president used the word “together” four times in his speech. In no instance, did it make sense. What he meant each time is government. In the mind of the left, together and government are one.

Moreover, the point is meaningless. We determined that “a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce”? Isn’t that utterly self-evident? Isn’t it as meaningless as saying that “together, we determined that jets are faster than propeller planes?

–“Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.”

Again, “together” — meaning the government.

And, again, this is an intellectual sleight of hand in order to make his case for more government. The free market “only thrives” when individuals have the freedom to take risks. Too large a government and too many rules choke the free market. Look at Europe and every other society with too many rules governing the marketplace.

–“Preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.”

This is pure leftism: Individual freedom will be preserved by an ever-expanding state.

The whole American experiment in individual freedom has been predicated on as small a government as possible.

–“No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need … or build the roads and networks and research labs …

Who, pray tell, has ever said that a single person can train all teachers, build the roads, etc.? The point he is making, once again, is that only the government can do all these things.

–“The commitments we make to each other through Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, these things do not sap our initiative, they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.”

This is either a non-sequitur or a falsehood. Huge government programs do not increase risk taking, and, yes, they often do make “a nation of takers.” Again, look at Europe. If such programs encouraged entrepreneurial risk-taking, European countries would have the most such risk-takers in the Western world. Instead, Europe has indeed become a continent of takers.

–“We will respond to the threat of climate change … Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms.”

“The overwhelming judgment of science.” Just as the left has changed global warming to “climate change,” the president has now changed scientists to “science.” To differ with the environmentalist left on the sources of whatever global warming there is, or whether to impede the economic growth of the Western democracies in the name of reducing carbon emissions is now to deny “science” itself, not merely to differ with some scientists.

Moreover, all three claims of the president are false.

As the Danish environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg, who believes that there is global warming and that that it is caused primarily by carbon emissions, wrote about the president’s claims:

On fires: “Analysis of wildfires around the world shows that since 1950 their numbers have decreased globally by 15 percent” (italics in original).

On drought: “The world has not seen a general increase in drought. A study published in Nature in November shows globally that ‘there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.'”

On storms: “Hurricane activity is at a low not encountered since the 1970s. The U.S. is currently experiencing the longest absence of severe landfall hurricanes in over a century.”

–“That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God.”

Finally God is mentioned — on behalf of solar panels and windmills! The god of the left is the god of environmentalism.

–“We the people still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war.”

The president’s favorite American — the Straw Man. Who exactly believes in “perpetual war?” Perhaps the president confuses perpetual strength with perpetual war.

Had he not been a leftist, he could have said: “We the people still believe that enduring security and lasting peace require perpetual American strength.”

–“But we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war.”

Whatever peace we have won has been won as a result of war and/or being militarily prepared for war. But acknowledging that would mean abandoning leftist doctrine.

–“We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully — not because we are na?ve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear.”

“Not because we are na?ve?” The entire sentence is an ode to the left’s naivet? regarding evil.

–“Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia, to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm.”

The president didn’t say what would create more security in children than anything else — a father in their lives. Why didn’t he? Because the left doesn’t talk about the need for fathers. Such talk is deemed sexist, anti-women, anti-single mothers and anti-same-sex marriage.

But the left does talk utopian. In what universe are children “always safe from harm?” The answer is in the utopian imagination of the left, which then passes law after law and uproots centuries of values in order to create their utopia.

–“Being true to our founding documents … does not mean we all define liberty in exactly the same way.”

That’s more left-wing ideology: Liberty means what you want it mean. As does marriage, art, family, truth and good and evil.

–“We cannot … substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate.”

No conservative could agree more with that. They are, after all, two of the most prominent features of left-wing political life.

–“Let us … carry into an uncertain future that precious light of freedom.”

The president began his address citing Creator-given rights, but never mentioned either the Creator or Creator-given rights in what followed. So, too, he ended his address with a call to freedom that had nothing to do with anything he said preceding it. The address was about climate change, same-sex marriage, equal pay for women, and mostly, expanding the power of the state – not freedom.

The speech was not inspiring. But it did have one important value: It illuminated how the left thinks.

Purposely Vague Language


by

Purposely Vague Language in New Gun Rules Could Outlaw all Guns

PistolThe best way to get what you want out of a law is to make it vague. A vague law is a law that needs to be interpreted. Since no one is devoid of presuppositions, the person or persons interpreting the law will interpret it in terms of his or her worldview.

Look what our politicians have done with the phrase “general welfare.” Even though the Constitution is specific about what constitutes general welfare (there’s a semicolon after the phrase with a list that follows defining the meaning of the phrase), lawmakers have turned it into a wax nose to be shaped by wealth confiscation and wealth redistribution policies.

Now we come to the Dianne Feinstein bill that would allow numerous firearms. The descriptions of these guns, if interpreted by judges who are anti-Second Amendment advocates, could spell disaster for gun ownership.

Consider this from WND:

“Alan Korwin is a nationally recognized expert resource on the issue of gun laws, and runs Bloomfield Press, which is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country.

“He said if the plan by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is made law, ‘any semiautomatic firearm which uses a magazine – handgun, rifle or shotgun – equipped with a “pistol grip,” would be banned.’”

What is a “semiautomatic firearm”? A semiautomatic firearm is a weapon that requires the shooter to squeeze the trigger in order to fire a bullet. One trigger pull equals one bullet fired. A full automatic weapon shoots in burst of bullets that are fired by a single squeeze of the trigger.

A rifle that shoots a single bullet with a single squeeze of the trigger is a semiautomatic weapon, and so is one that looks like an “assault weapon.” They each require the same action. One just looks more ominous than the other.

Pistols are semi-automatic weapons. A clip that holds 7 bullets requires 7 pulls of the trigger to fire all 7 bullets.

If a single shot gun is a semiautomatic weapon, then this would include pistols. Since pistols have, by definition, a “pistol grip,” then it’s possible that handguns could be banned by some court based on the planned vagaries of the law.

We know that Dianne Feinstein and other liberals would like to ban all weapons. They know they can’t do it at the present time. They are long-term strategists. They’ve been pushing for universal health care for nearly 100 years, and they finally got it. The 16th Amendment was sold as a tax only on the wealthiest among us. You’ve seen where that got us. It’s no different on gun legislation.

A Story The Main Stream Media WON’T Tell


 

An Irishman’s American Dream

Posted on January 29, 2013 in Featured, OPINION

Waiting in Line

I’m a citizen of Ireland and have been attempting to get a green card for over 9 years.

Once again, America faces the popular discussion of immigration – trying to find the best way forward for America and its 11 million illegals.

One of the greatest conservatives of modern time, Mark Levin, had two great guests on tonight’s show – Jeff Sessions arguing against the current ideas, and Marco Rubio, who is part of the group of eight who are trying to come up with legislation to deal with this problem.

Because this is an issue that affects me greatly, I had to call in and I was very lucky to be able to discuss a few points with the Great One – Mr. Levin, himself. I personally have a massive problem with granting an illegal worker a permanent visa because America has laws and those laws need to be respected. The biggest issue, to me, is the fact that 11 million people will skip the line in front of people like me who have waited 9 years to get a visa… and still waiting. To put that number in perspective, the American government awards 50,000 DV visas every year. I could wait a lifetime and still never get to achieve my dream, but someone who has broken the law gets to live the dream every day.

While Rubio insists that we will all be on the same level, the law of possession will come into play. Does anyone really believe that the US government is going to deport someone illegal just so I can come into the country? That will never work.

The other issue I addressed on Levin’s show was the message conservatives need to communicate going forward. Republicans like John McCain keep saying Republicans need this reform to win another election. THEY ARE WRONG. Three little words will lead to a win: THE AMERICAN DREAM!

When was the last time you heard this mentioned? The country where if you worked hard, you could become anything you wanted and could achieve anything. No one could stop you or get in the way.

The answer to tyranny is not less tyranny – its Liberty and Freedom.

Reagan summed up my feelings about America perfectly in his “Time for Choosing” speech in 1964, where he told the story of a Cuban talking to two Americans, telling them everything he ran away from. The two Americans looked at each other and realized how lucky they were. But the Cuban insisted he was the lucky one because he had somewhere to run to…..

For me, while I don’t face the same oppression or anything like it, I still long for the American Dream and I hope and pray every day that I will get the chance to achieve it.

*Hear Jonathon on The Mark Levin Show

(Start at 56 minute mark)

President Obama Wants ‘Second Bill of Rights’


Bret BART

Sunstein: President Obama Wants ‘Second Bill of Rights’

Mere hours after Breitbart News published an excerpt from an interview with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) in which he speculated that President Barack Obama would “prefer a different kind of constitution,” one with a Bill of Rights based on the South African model, former Obama administration regulatory czar Cass Sunstein published an op-ed making a similar argument: that the president wants a “second Bill of Rights” alongside the existing one.

Sunstein located the source of Obama’s inspiration in Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1944 State of the Union address, rather than the South African constitution–though the American academics whose writings inspired South Africa’s ambitious Bill of Rights could well have taken Roosevelt’s proposals as their foundation.

Roosevelt’s Second Bill of Rights–not a list of constitutional amendments, but policy goals–was as follows:

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

Sunstein points out Roosevelt was not a socialist–and yet many of the “rights” he proposed were inspired by socialist policies. The Soviet constitution of 1936, too, included the right to work, among other guarantees.

In addition, Sunstein argues that Obama has made progress on least one of these rights: the right to health care, through the highly controversial Obamacare–whose costs will begin to be felt this year in earnest.

The analogy is not perfect: one “right” on which Roosevelt would not have agreed with Obama, for example, is the “right” of public sector workers to bargain collectively and to strike, which Roosevelt opposed.

Regardless, both conservatives and liberals may agree: Obama is aiming at achieving a new set of socioeconomic rights, whether through law or through policy. It is the dream of progressives and liberals for the better part of a century–a dream that has resisted the reality that these “rights” are not justiciable; that they degrade the value of other, fundamental, rights; and they create more policy problems than they solve.

Arizona High School Graduates to Swear Oath to Constitution?


by

Arizona High School Graduates to Swear Oath to Constitution?

loyalty oathScandal is once again rocking the streets and social media pages of Arizona where a group of Republican legislators are asking for the unthinkable.  They have proposed a bill that would require all graduating seniors to take a loyalty oath to the Constitution of the United States of America.  Worse yet, the end of the oath has them, oh this is almost too scandalous to say out loud, but it says, ‘So help me God.’

Bob Thorpe (R-District 6 in northern Arizona) along with 5 other Republican state representative and one state senator, have sponsored HB 2467.  This bill would require all high school graduates in the state of Arizona to take an oath of loyalty to support and defend the US Constitution, similar to the oath taken by public officials and law enforcement personnel.  Once each student has taken the oath, the school principal or head teacher would have to issue a signed certification that the student successfully fulfilled that task.

The oath states:

“I, _________, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties; So help me God.”

To add to the horrificness of the matter, Steve Smith (R- District 23 – central Arizona) has introduced HB 2284 that would require all public school students, grades 1st through 12th, to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every day at school.

Immediately, the liberals went into an uproar claiming that Thorpe had gone too far and that his bill was unconstitutional and would not be held up by any court.  Anjali Abraham of the America Communist Lawyers Union, err, that’s the American Civil Liberties Union, told the local media:

“Both bills are clearly unconstitutional, ironically enough.  You can’t require students to attend school … and then require them to either pledge allegiance to the flag or swear this loyalty oath in order to graduate. It’s a violation of the First Amendment.”

How dare anyone ask US citizens to say the Pledge of Allegiance every day in school and then have to swear a loyalty oath to the US Constitution?

Before anyone can swear an oath to the Constitution, don’t they have to know what it says first?  So that means that every high school student should have to take a class on the US Constitution so they know what it says.  Sadly, many law schools today don’t even do that.  There are hundreds of people graduating from law schools that have never read the Constitution or have any idea what it actually says.  They only know what their liberal professors have told them.

Personally, I think it’s a great idea.  I know I had to stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance every day in school through the 8th grade.  I felt that doing that made me a part of this country and something to be proud of.  How can saying the Pledge of Allegiance or swearing an oath of loyalty to the governing document of your country be considered unconstitutional?  A violation of the First Amendment – bull pucky!

Is it unconstitutional to teach our children to be patriotic and loyal to our country?  What I don’t understand is why would any citizen object to saying the Pledge of Allegiance or swearing an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution.  If they refuse to, then perhaps they should consider finding another county that would better suit their views.

I know some people say they won’t say the Pledge of Allegiance or swear a loyalty oath because of their religious beliefs about not being able to serve two masters, but they are taking that out of context in this case.  Saying the Pledge or taking the loyalty oath is not asking anyone to give up their loyalty and obedience to Christ, rather they are intended to support and uphold the freedoms and rights that God granted to this great nation over 230 years ago.  By saying the Pledge and taking such an oath should cause one to strive uphold our Christian values, morals, and biblical laws and to fight against those like Barack Obama who are actively trying to take them away from us.

I know it’s an old cliché, but I firmly believe it’s true and represents the efforts of Reps. Smith and Thorpe: ‘America – Love It or Leave It!’

“Absolutism”


28 January 2013 / 12 Comments

images-2

A nation should be concerned when it seems its leader has tired of the grueling work of democracy.

One of the most remarkable and frightening aspects of President Barack Obama’s inaugural address was his dismissal of his opposition – presumably the House Republican caucus – as “absolutists” who are without “principle.”

They are mucking up Obama’s agenda, and he won’t have it.

“For now decisions are upon us and we cannot afford delay,” Obama said. “We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. We must act, knowing that our work will be imperfect.”

Absolutism, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is a form of despotism – “government by an absolute ruler or authority.” That the president of the United States is accusing his democratically-elected opponents of acting in a tyrannical fashion is a remarkable development with potentially profound implications.

Once the president’s opponents have been defined in the American mind as despotically inclined, unsusceptible to reason, and unwilling to play by the normal rules of politics, it is only natural that extreme measures are permitted in response.

This White House has already shown a propensity toward ruling by executive fiat – whether by executive action that effectively enacts rejected legislation, by refusing to enforce existing law, or by crafting rules for legislation to grant vast new powers to bureaucrats.

Once it has de-legitimized the opposition, the White House can claim it is left with no choice but to accelerate and expand its use of executive power. What else can they do, the president and his operatives will argue, when faced with the insanity of the Republicans?

The press, which avidly buys into the notion that much of the House Republican caucus is beyond reason, will lend a sympathetic ear to Obama as he struggles with the forces of darkness.

That reporters have been tapped to assist with Obama’s incipient GOP demonization campaign was made clear this week by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who in the handful of days since the inaugural, has already repeated the “absolutism” charge twice.

Read More:  http://www.politico.com/

‘Tyranny By Executive Order’


RED FLAG

http://redflagnews.com/

EXCLUSIVE: What the hell just happened? ‘Tyranny By Executive Order’ |

by Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly, J.D

What the hell just happened? That is the question that many Americans should be asking themselves following the news conference where Obama unveiled his plan for destroying the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. At first glance it appeared to be a case of Obama shamelessly using the deaths of innocents, and some live children as a backdrop, to push for the passage of radical gun control measures by Congress. Most of these have no chance of passing, yet, Obama’s signing of Executive orders initiating 23 so called Executive actions on gun control seemed like an afterthought.

Unfortunately, that is the real story, but it is generally being overlooked. The fact is that with a few strokes of his pen Obama set up the mechanisms he will personally use to not only destroy the Second Amendment to the Constitution, but also the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. It will not matter what Congress does, Obama can and will act on his own, using these Executive actions, and will be violating both the Constitution and his oath of office when he does it.

Here are the sections of the Executive Order that he will use:

“1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background-check system.”

What exactly is relevant data? Does it include our medical records obtained through Obamacare, our tax returns, our political affiliations, our military background, and our credit history? I suggest that all of the above, even if it violates our fourth Amendment right to privacy will now be relevant data for determining if we are allowed to purchase a firearm.

“2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background-check system.”

This should be read in conjunction with section 16 of the order that says:

“16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.”

One of the few amendments successfully placed in Obamacare by conservatives does appear to prohibit doctors from asking such questions. Yet, with these two Executive actions, Obama is illegally amending an act of Congress and setting up a procedure for him to force doctors to gain information from patients about gun ownership, and to get our medical history.

Section 3 of Obama’s order states:

“3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background- check system.”

Once again, what does this mean? What information does the Federal government want from the states? Copies of state personal and business income tax returns or court records of divorce and child custody cases are possibilities that come to mind as well as our voter registrations showing our party affiliations. How does any of this figure into our right to purchase a firearm?

One of the most dangerous and troubling sections of the Obama order in Section 4 that states:

“4. Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.”

This section directs Eric Holder, the architect of Operation Fast and Furious that illegally transferred several thousand semi automatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexican citizens and several U.S. border patrol agents, to now add people indiscriminately to the list of Americans ineligible to purchase firearms. Who might be added to the list?

Well, let’s look at the record of the Obama administration. Shortly after being appointed as the Director of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano sent a list of potential domestic terrorists to law enforcement agencies around the country. The list included individuals who were pro-life, who supported the Second Amendment, who had Ron Paul bumper stickers on their cars, and most disturbing, all members of the military returning from combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The list has recently been supplemented to include individuals who hoard more than a week’s supply of food and water, and those who support individual liberties and oppose big government. I belong on most of these lists and I suspect that Eric Holder will be adding all of us to the list of dangerous people not qualified to own guns. In other words, you will no longer have to be a convicted felon or mentally ill to make the list; you will qualify simply by being an American patriot.

This is not a conspiracy theory, at the United States Justice Foundation we are seeing increasing evidence that military veterans are being specifically targeted by the Obama administration when it comes to prohibitions against purchasing firearms. Any veteran diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is in danger of being banned from owning a firearm. Even those veterans suffering from mild depression are being added. None of these conditions constitute a mental illness that makes them a danger to themselves or others.

However, in Obamaland veterans who took an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, are definitely considered a threat to the new Fuehrer and must not be allowed to own firearms.

If we skip to Section 6 of the order we get a good idea of Obama’s real intentions when it comes to gun control. That sections states:

“6. Publish a letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.”

This is particularly interesting because one of the legislative proposals is to require universal background check requirements for any firearm transfer even between private citizens. In other words, you can’t sell your firearm or even give it to someone as a gift without Federal government approval. It is doubtful that this proposal will pass in the House of Representatives, yet Obama is already setting up the mechanism for enforcing the requirement. That is a clear signal that he doesn’t care what Congress does, he is going to violate the Constitution and bypass the Legislative branch in order to push his agenda to disarm the American people. I suspect he will ultimately use Executive orders to ban many weapons including most rifles and pistols.

There are numerous other actions dictated in the Obama order, but I think you get the idea. Our Second Amendment right is going to be taken from us for whatever reasons Obama decides. The simple act of opposing these actions can cause the Attorney General to place you on the list of “dangerous people”. Our privacy will be violated and all of this will be done without due process of law. That is what just happened.

Number Of Nation’s Sheriffs Refusing To Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Laws Snowballs


January 24, 2013

From Florida to California, a growing number of the nation’s sheriffs are standing up to gun control measures proposed by both the administration and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

Many law enforcement officials have written letters to President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden voicing their concerns over what they believe is an effort to infringe upon the Second Amendment.

In New Mexico, 30 of the state’s 33 county sheriffs have reminded state lawmakers that they are under oath to support the U.S. Constitution, and that includes the Second Amendment.

CNSNews.com previously reported that 28 of the 29 sheriff’s in Utah sent a letter to President Obama stating that they will not enforce any new gun laws they believe to be unconstitutional.

A host of Oregon sheriffs have said that they will not comply with any new unconstitutional gun regulations:

  • Sheriff Craig Zanni wrote, “I have and will continue to uphold my Oath of Office including supporting the Second Amendment,” in a letter to Coos County citizens.
  • Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin said he would refuse to enforce any new Federal gun law he believes is unconstitutional.
  • In a letter to Vice President Joe Biden, Grant County Sheriff, Glenn Palmer writes: “I will not tolerate nor will I permit any federal incursion within the exterior boundaries of Grant County, Oregon, where any type of gun control legislation aimed at disarming law -abiding citizens is the goal or objective.”
  • Sheriff Gil Gilbertson of Josephine County told Biden in a letter: “Any rule, regulation, or executive order repugnant to the constitutional rights of the citizens of this County will be ignored by this office.”
  • Sheriff Tim Mueller of Linn County, Oregon says his department will not participate in any overreaching and unconstitutional federal firearms restrictions.

In California, Sheriff Adam Christianson of Stanislaus County wrote to the vice president: “I refuse to take firearms from law abiding citizens and will not turn law-abiding citizens into criminals by enforcing useless gun control legislation.”

A letter sent to Sen. Dianne Feinstein from Sheriff Jon Lopey of Siskiyou County, California states: “Our founding fathers got it right and many politicians are getting it wrong.”

 

In Missouri, Lawrence County Sheriff Brad Delay tells the president: “I will…rise to the defense and aid of all Americans should the federal government attempt to enact any legislation, or executive order that impedes, erodes, or otherwise diminishes their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”

At a town hall meeting, Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky told citizens “you are never going to pull a gun from Jackson County.”

Smith County, Texas Sheriff, Larry Smith has said, “I will not enforce an unconstitutional law against any citizen in Smith County. It just won’t happen.”

In Florida, Martin County Sheriff, Bill Snyder said that he will not enforce federal gun laws: “Local law enforcement authorities are not empowered to enforce Federal law,” Snyder said.

For a list of more sheriffs who are standing up against new gun regulations, please click here.

Communists Cheer On Obama’s Gun Grab


Communists Cheer On Obama’s Gun Grab

William F. Jasper
New American
Jan 25, 2013

It should come as no surprise that the Communist Party USA is on board with President Obama’s plan to attack Americans’ right to keep and bear arms as a means to “end gun violence.” A cardinal feature of communist regimes, like all dictatorships, is the prohibition of private ownership of arms, creating a monopoly of force in the hands of the State.

In a January 18 article, People’s World, an official publication of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), declared that “the ability to live free from the fear or threat of gun violence is a fundamental democratic right — one that far supercedes any so-called personal gun rights allegedly contained in the Second Amendment.”

The article, entitled, “Fight to end gun violence is key to defending democracy,” written by People’s World labor and politics reporter Rick Nagin, claims that “the right-wing extremists opposing all efforts to curb gun violence are the same forces that rallied behind Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, hoping to undermine every other democratic right as well as the living standards of workers and ordinary Americans.”

“It is for that reason,” declares Nagin, “as well as the need to protect public safety, that the same coalition of labor and its allies that worked so hard and effectively to re-elect President Barack Obama must now go all-out to back his common sense proposals for gun law reform.”

The Communist Party’s “journalist” continued:

As Obama has charged, the extremists recklessly “gin up fear” that the government is coming to take away hunting rifles and personal weapons owned for legitimate self-defense. Led by the hate-mongering leadership of the National Rifle Association, they use a totally fraudulent and only very recent interpretation of the Second Amendment which they falsely claim as necessary for protecting every other freedom contained in the Bill of Rights.

However, gun rights advocates don’t need to “gin up fear” that President Obama’s “common sense” proposals will lead to even more onerous infringements than the current calls to ban or restrict so-called “assault weapons”; the gun control zealots have been quite emphatic about intending to severely restrict (and many have called for a total ban on) all privately owned firearms. A December 21 article for the Daily Kos is one of the candid admissions against interest by the Left that the real end goal is a total monopoly of gun ownership by the government. Entitled, “How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process,” the regular Daily Kos writer “Sporks” says:

The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

The writer then outlines the piecemeal plan by which the federal government can begin with registration and end up with confiscation. The Daily Kos article also cites the need to delegitimize hunting as well. “We should also segway [sic] into an anti-hunting campaign, like those in the UK,” it says. “By making hunting expensive and unpopular, we can make the transition to a gun free society much less of a headache for us.”

Nagin surely must know that it is not merely groundless paranoia exploited by “extremists” inspiring fear that President Obama’s multi-part gun control plan is but the opening wedge in a new drive for ever-expanding federal restrictions and infringements of the Second Amendment. And Nagin surely is aware that his comrades ruling China, Cuba, North Korea, Russia, and other communist countries have never stopped at partial restrictions on private ownership of weapons.

As The New American reported recently, Communist China’s ruling mandarins, sounding very much like our own media commentators, have blasted the United States for our “rampant gun ownership.” A Chinese government report last year detailing alleged human rights violations in the United States declares:

The United States prioritizes the right to keep and bear arms over the protection of citizens’ lives and personal security and exercises lax firearm possession control, causing rampant gun ownership.

More recently, on December 14, 2012, the Beijing regime’s Xinhua news agency editorialized:

Twenty-eight innocent people, including 20 primary students, have been slaughtered in a mass shooting at an elementary school in the U.S. state of Connecticut. Their blood and tears demand no delay for the U.S. gun control.

“Action speaks louder than words,” concluded the Xinhua editorial. “If Obama wants to take practical measures to control guns, he has to make preparation for a protracted war and considerable political cost.”

Communist China, of course, is no paragon of virtue when it comes to liberty, safety, and human rights. Its total ban on private ownership of guns under Mao Tse-tung (Zedong) guaranteed that the Communist Party would have unchallenged power. And, as Professor R. J. Rummel has pointed out in his several published studies on democide (mass murder by governments): Power kills and absolute power kills absolutely. In the case of Communist China, the mass murder by the communist government under Mao was somewhere in the neighborhood of 38 million souls!

And China remains a rigidly controlled police state to this day, notwithstanding the limited market reforms that the Party has allowed for pragmatic purposes to obtain the capital and technology it needs to modernize. Only Party officials and the police and military (who must be members of, and be vetted by, the Communist Party) are allowed to possess weapons.

Mao’s comrades in Russia, Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin, likewise disarmed the civilian population before initiating mass murder. As did Adolf Hitler and every other “successful” mass-murdering tyrant throughout history. Vladimir Gladkov, a radio propagandist on Vladimir Putin’s “Voice of Russia” program, expressed disappointment on December 20 that the Sandy Hook mass shooting probably would not generate the support President Obama needs to implement his desired gun controls. “Unfortunately, there are grounds for very serious doubt that even after this terrible massacre, a ban on selling weapons will be introduced in the US,” said Gladkov.

Again, considering that rigid, absolute, centralized power is the essence of all totalitarian regimes, those regimes must, therefore, automatically strike down all checks and balances that would limit their central authority. It is not surprising that spokesmen for these totalitarian governments would endorse policies that give the government a monopoly on deadly force.

The American Founding Fathers, on the other hand, recognized that the armed private citizen is the ultimate check and balance against the centralized monopoly of force which invariably turns tyrannical and deadly. Nagin and People’s World, not surprisingly, side with communist tyrants and deride American commitment to our natural rights enshrined in our Constitution.

“The Second Amendment is obsolete and now has been twisted to threaten the basic safety and security of all Americans,” says Nagin. Nagin, according to the profile provided on Keywiki by Trevor Loudon, has been a member of the CPUSA for several decades and a writer for the People’s World and other communist publications since 1970. He is a member of the Newspaper Guild and the Communications Workers of America as well as a political coordinator for the AFL-CIO in Ohio. In 2012 he was the Democratic Leader in Cleveland Ward 14 and served on the County Democratic Party Executive Committee.

We recognize the totalitarian ideology and objectives of Nagin and other communist propagandists when they advocate disarming of civilians and a total monopoly of force in government. Many of the other people advocating the same gun control policies may not have those totalitarian objectives in mind — but by their support of these policies they would lead us down the same deadly path nonetheless.

55 Million American Citizens Brutally Executed


This is a story you won’t read in any paper nor hear on any news program. A story so horrendous, so gut wrenching that you your first reaction is that it could not possibly be true. Yet it is. Our fellow Americans have been;

  • Burned to death while in their homes
  • While in the comfort  of home their limbs are ripped from them bodies, and their heads are crushed
  • Poisoned to death
  • Although convinced they are being brought into a safe and secure environment, they are stopped and a vicious, heartless butcher jams a pair of scissors in the back of their neck and their brains sucked out.

After each and every act of murder their executioners have;

  • Thrown their remains in the trash
  • Kept certain body parts for research
  • Given to other researchers under the guise of science.

I can hear you screaming, “Where is this happening? Why isn’t somebody doing something to stop it?”

You are not going to like the answer. In 1973 a group of people, descendants of people dating back to Biblical days, wanting to continue the religious practice their ancestors performed on a regular bases. They found a willing person to act as their surrogate in persuading the Supreme Court of the United States to proclaim their religious practices lawful.

Their case was presented with much emotion, but little Constitutional law. In fact, the Supreme Court Jurors had to parse words of the Constitution in order to declare their practice constitutional. They wasted no time in the executions and any who tried to stop them has been demonized, arrested and ostracized by a large portion of the public. Throughout the last 40 years they have continued to get their partners in the government to pass multiple laws protecting them.

In the last ten years it has been proved with unimpeachable evidence that entire presentation given to the Supreme Court in 1973 was based on lies, perjury and suborned perjury. Even the lady they used as a surrogate has testified that she never made any of the statements they presented before the court. How many you those people who deliberately made up their case, lied to the court and caused other people to lie, been prosecuted and found guilty? ZERO!  Why?

I wonder how many great accomplishments we do not have because of their demise.

  • How many cures to sicknesses have gone unfound because they were executed?
  • How many societal solutions to produce peace dies with them?
  • How many great musical accomplishments went to the grave with them?
  • How many great religious leaders were killed?
  • How many answers to All the major questions and problems of our day are buried in those trash piles?

Given the financial condition of the United States, and the soon demise of Social Security, how could those 55 million American citizens have helped?

To begin with, at least half of them would be generating taxable income thus paying into Social Security. Because of how Social Security is set up, the working generations pay for the retired generations over 65 beneficiaries. Each new generation pays into a system (developed by a Socialist President) to needs at least as many working people generating the taxes to pay for the immediate beneficiaries.

All those Leftist Social Engineers got it wrong. When you mess with God’s plans and structure, you always end up with disastrous results. God repeated Himself throughout history that murder is wrong, even though done for religious purposes. Of course, God has never condoned such practices, and in fact poured out His wrath on those societies that did practice such sacrifices. Making your children pass through the fire so you can have guilt free sexual freedom to do as you please with no consequences, can never be acceptable, no matter how much of the population wants it to be okay.

Murder is murder. 55 million Americans. How much is our country poorer, weaker and condemned because we’ve allowed this practice to continue?

President Obama Tailoring Military Leadership


Obama Tailoring Military Leadership to Only Those Who Will Shoot Fellow Americans

shoting americansDr. Jim Garrow is well-known for his books and for his humanitarian work to rescue Chinese girls from certain death.  The one-child policy in China leads many parents to kill girl babies, either before or after they are born.  It is far more prestigious to have a male child than a girl, so they kill the girls.

Over the last 16 years, Garrow’s efforts have rescued an estimated 40,000 girl babies from China at a cost of over $25 million.  Almost all of these girls would have been killed had they not been rescued and taken out of the country.  Today, he is the founder and executive director of the Bethune Institute’s Pink Pagoda schools.  There are 168 private schools in his program that employ 6,300 people, all with the goal of raising and teaching the Chinese girls in a English speaking environment.

Garrow’s has written about his effort to save China’s girls by authoring the book, The Pink Pagoda: One Man’s Quest to End Gendercide in China.

Dr. Garrow is not known for being a wild crackpot or part of the political fringe, so when he recently made the following post on his Facebook page, it got the attention of a number people:

“I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new ‘litmus test’ in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. ‘The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not.’ Those who will not are being removed.”

When asked who is source was, Garrow replied:

“The man who told me this is one of America’s foremost military heroes.”

One has to wonder if this had anything to do with President Obama’s dismissal of Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis from his post as commander of the Central Command.  The Washington Free Beacon commented on the dismissal, saying:

“Word on the national security street is that General James Mattis is being given the bum’s rush out of his job as commander of Central Command, and is being told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned.”

When you think about everything Obama has done to undermine the traditional integrity of the US military, it all makes sense.  He forced the military to accept homosexuals and then took action on any who opposed that measure.  Then Obama started attacking the military retirement system making a military career less attractive than before.  Then he took action against military chaplains who stood up for their faith.  Lastly, the Pentagon has issued orders for troops in the Middle East to remove all religious symbolism, however this is largely enforced against Christians and Jews, but not for Muslims.

The Obama administration was outraged when American soldiers burned a stack of Qurans.  He said nothing about the Qurans being defaced by Muslim prisoners and Obama said nothing about the stack of Bibles that were burned at the same time.

Obama condemned the soldiers that urinated on several dead Taliban and ordered their court martial, but he said nothing about the way captured American soldiers were being tortured by their Muslim captors.

Ever since taking office 4 years ago, Obama has been carefully tailoring the military to his specifications.  Once he started making his sweeping changes, many career military personnel including commanding officers began retiring or resigning their commissions, leaving the military to the liberals.

I’ve been writing for a couple years now saying that Obama has plans to purposely destroy America’s economy in order to create a national emergency.  This would give him the reason to declare martial law and assume dictatorial control.  He will disband Congress and establish his own Gestapo style national police.

When I wrote these things, I said the only two things that could prevent him from succeeding is the military because I seriously doubted that they would fire on fellow Americans and the 300 million guns in the hands of private citizens.  But it seems that Obama is actively working towards eliminating both of these last remaining obstacles and when they are gone, mark my word, all hell will break lose and America will be lost.

A Day of Resistance


Pitbull Attitude Alert: 2/23/2013 A Day of Resistance.

By / 24 January 2013 / 73 Comments

Screen Shot 2013-01-24 at 9.34.47 AM

“The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to.” — Thomas Jefferson

John Hawkins-  Yes, Barack Obama did beat Mitt Romney in 2012. But, he was reelected as President– not king. Unfortunately, no one seems to have told the Republicans in Congress that because they’re looking for any excuse they can find to roll over for him like whipped dogs.

Meanwhile, many conservatives are moping around because they seem to have concluded that if Barack Obama could win in 2012, then it’s all over.

But, what if it’s not?

What if our problem wasn’t our principles, but our candidate, our get-out-the-vote operation, our refusal to do minority outreach and the same passive, wimpy, apprehensive attitude that the Republican Party seems poised to adopt today in the face of an aggressive President who is determined to slam a liberal agenda down the throats of the American people?

Instead, what if the same grassroots conservatives who propelled the Republican Party to its best election cycle in 50 years back in 2010 are still there? In fact, what if there are more conservatives and even Democrats, who aren’t willing to give up their Second Amendment Rights just because Barack Obama has decided it’s fine to exploit the tragic deaths of children at Sandy Hook to further his liberal agenda?

While Barack Obama is calling for Americans to give up their freedom, their rights, and their guns, we’re calling for Americans to resist. We’re calling on Tea Partiers, moderate Republicans, Libertarians and even moderate Democrats to stand up one month from today, on the 23rd of February and say, “No more!” Right Wing News is joining Dustin Stockton, Western Representation PAC and The Tea Party.net in calling for rallies all across the nation next month on the 23rd. It’ll be a Day of Resistance where gun owners and patriots can peacefully gather and show Barack Obama, the media, and the knockkneed Republicans in Congress that we may have lost a battle last November, but we haven’t lost the war. Don’t meekly give up your 2nd Amendment rights when you can stand with us and RESIST!

PS: Over the next few weeks, look for rallies to be announced, big name conservatives to help spread this idea and Tea Partiers all across the country to step up to the challenge. If you need help getting a rally set up in your local area or would like some help getting speakers, reach out to Dustin Stockton at wrpac@westernpac.org.

John Hawkins is the hawk behind http://www.rightwingnews.com/.  Subscribe!

Bill Whittle Gives Us a History Lesson On Why We Need the 2nd Amendment


Bill Whittle Gives Us a History Lesson On Why We Need the 2nd Amendment

Bill Whittle Gives Us a History Lesson On Why We Need the 2nd Amendment

What you might have missed…

Guns don’t kill people, mentally ill do


Ann Coulter Letter

Coulter: Guns don’t kill people, mentally ill do

Coulter: Guns don't kill people, mentally ill do

James Holmes

By: Ann Coulter
1/16/2013 04:59 PM

Seung-Hui Cho, who committed the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, had been diagnosed with severe anxiety disorder as a child and placed under treatment.

But Virginia Tech was prohibited from being told about Cho’s mental health problems because of federal privacy laws.

At college, Cho engaged in behavior even more bizarre than the average college student. He stalked three women and, at one point, went totally silent, refusing to speak even to his roommates. He was involuntarily committed to a mental institution for one night and then unaccountably unleashed on the public, whereupon he proceeded to engage in the deadliest mass shooting by an individual in U.S. history.

The 2011 Tucson, Ariz., shopping mall shooter, Jared Loughner, was so obviously disturbed that if he’d stayed in Pima Community College long enough to make the yearbook, he would have been named “Most Likely to Commit Mass Murder.”

RELATED: Rand Paul fights for our gun rights, introduces legislation to counter Obama’s executive orders

After Loughner got a tattoo, the artist, Carl Grace, remarked: “That’s a weird dude. That’s a Columbine candidate.”

One of Loughner’s teachers, Ben McGahee, filed numerous complaints against him, hoping to have him removed from class. “When I turned my back to write on the board,” McGahee said, “I would always turn back quickly — to see if he had a gun.”

On her first day at school, student Lynda Sorensen emailed her friends about Loughner: “We do have one student in the class who was disruptive today, I’m not certain yet if he was on drugs (as one person surmised) or disturbed. He scares me a bit. The teacher tried to throw him out and he refused to go, so I talked to the teacher afterward. Hopefully he will be out of class very soon, and not come back with an automatic weapon.”

The last of several emails Sorensen sent about Loughner said: “We have a mentally unstable person in the class that scares the living cr** out of me. He is one of those whose picture you see on the news, after he has come into class with an automatic weapon. Everyone interviewed would say, Yeah, he was in my math class and he was really weird.”

That was the summer before Loughner killed six people at the Tucson shopping mall, including a federal judge and a 9 year-old girl, and critically wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, among others.

Loughner also had run-ins with the law, including one charge for possessing drug paraphernalia — a lethal combination with mental illness. He was eventually asked to leave college on mental health grounds, released on the public without warning.

RELATED: GOP leaders respond to Obama’s gun rights restrictions

Perhaps if Carl Grace, Ben McGahee or Lynda Sorensen worked in the mental health field, six people wouldn’t have had to die that January morning in Tucson. But committing Loughner to a mental institution in Arizona would have required a court order stating that he was a danger to himself and others.

Innumerable studies have found a correlation between severe mental illness and violent behavior. Thirty-one to 61 percent of all homicides committed by disturbed individuals occur during their first psychotic episode — which is why mass murderers often have no criminal record. There’s no time to wait with the mentally ill.

James Holmes, the accused Aurora, Colo., shooter, was under psychiatric care at the University of Colorado long before he shot up a movie theater. According to news reports and court filings, Holmes told his psychiatrist, Dr. Lynne Fenton, that he fantasized about killing “a lot of people,” but she refused law enforcement’s offer to place Holmes under confinement for 72 hours.

However, Fenton did drop Holmes as a patient after he made threats against another school psychiatrist. And after Holmes made threats against a professor, he was asked to leave campus. But he wasn’t committed. People who knew he was deeply troubled just pushed him onto society to cause havoc elsewhere.

Little is known so far about Adam Lanza, the alleged Newtown, Conn., elementary school shooter, but anyone who could shoot a terrified child and say to himself, “That was fun — I think I’ll do it 20 more times!” is not all there.

It has been reported that Lanza’s mother, his first victim, was trying to have him involuntarily committed to a mental institution, triggering his rage. If true — and the media seem remarkably uninterested in finding out if it is true — Mrs. Lanza would have had to undergo a long and grueling process, unlikely to succeed.

As The New York Times’ Joe Nocera recently wrote: “Connecticut’s laws are so restrictive in terms of the proof required to get someone committed that Adam Lanza’s mother would probably not have been able to get him help even if she had tried.”

Taking guns away from single women who live alone and other law-abiding citizens without mental illnesses will do nothing about the Chos, Loughners, Holmeses or Lanzas. Such people have to be separated from civil society, for the public’s sake as well as their own. But this is nearly impossible because the ACLU has decided that being psychotic is a civil right.

Consequently, whenever a psychopath with a million gigantic warning signs commits a shocking murder, the knee-jerk reaction is to place yet more controls on guns. By now, guns are the most heavily regulated product in America.

It hasn’t worked.

Even if it could work — and it can’t — there are still subway tracks, machetes, fists and bombs. The most deadly massacre at a school in U.S. history was at an elementary school in Michigan in 1927. It was committed with a bomb. By a mentally disturbed man.

How about trying something new for once?

47 states revolt against Obama gun control


WND Weekly

 

WND EXCLUSIVE

47 states revolt against Obama gun control

Fed-up Americans: ‘We’re not going to accept this. We’re against it’

Published: 23 hours ago

author-image by Chelsea Schilling Email | Archive

Chelsea Schilling is a commentary editor and staff writer for WND, an editor of Jerome Corsi’s Red Alert and a proud U.S. Army veteran. She has also worked as a news producer at USA Radio Network and as a news reporter for the Sacramento Union.More ↓
  • Printer Friendly
  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
3675
usa

Thousands of gun owners across America have had enough of the Obama administration’s attack on the Second Amendment – and they’re preparing to take their concerns to the capitols in at least 47 states this Saturday, Jan. 19, at 12 p.m.

Texan Eric Reed, founder and national  coordinator of the “Guns Across America” rallies, told WND he’s irritated about all the talk of new gun-control regulations and overreach by the federal government in violation of our Second Amendment rights.

“I was trying to figure out why people weren’t being more proactive about this, Reed said. “Then I realized I’m part of the problem. It takes somebody to stand up and say, ‘Hey, we’re not going to accept this. We’re against it.’

“We want Americans who feel the same way to come out. We want to stand up, be united and get our point across.”

As WND reported today, President Obama announce a sweeping set of directives he intends will cut down on Americans’ access to guns, setting the stage for a constitutional battle with states where lawmakers already are openly defying the latest power grab by the White House.

Obama’s plan would demand federal access to the details every time an uncle sells a .22 to a nephew, would ban some weapons outright through a limit on ammunition capacity, would waive medical privacy laws in some cases so individuals can be reported, and others.

The president also listed 23 executive orders he is preparing to implement.

“He’s essentially restricting and punishing all law-abiding American citizens,” Reed said. “He’s taking people who have never committed a crime in their lives and he’s trying to tell them that these guns are ‘assault weapons.’ Well, I’ve got guns in my home. If they’re ‘assault weapons,’ then mine must be defective because they haven’t assaulted anybody.”

Frustrated by the narrative coming out of Washington, Reed noted that “assault weapons” have been banned since 1934.

“The aesthetics of a rifle do not determine what an assault rifle is,” he said. “That’s what our elected officials in Washington, D.C., are trying to sell to the American people. I mean, if you take a body of a Ferrari and stick it on a Chevrolet, it’s still a Chevrolet. It’s going to perform like a Chevrolet; it’s just a cool-looking Chevrolet.”

Reed added that the media contribute to misinformation and confuse the public about so-called “assault weapons.”

“Part of it is ignorance of the media because a lot of them may not necessarily have a good idea of what an assault rifle is,” he said. “Another part of it is, most of the media do push a liberal spin. They’re helping to push through the political agenda that the Obama administration wants to pass right now.”

Thousands of Americans have taken to Facebook to support the pro-gun rallies this weekend.

“The people are pulling themselves away from their families and their personal obligations for one day because the Second Amendment is very important to them,” he said. “If these people are willing to take that kind of time out of their personal lives to try to tell Washington, D.C., something, those guys work for us. It’s their job to listen.”

While they may be tempted to sit the protest out, Reed warns citizens that time is running out.

“This is the most crucial time,” he said. “This is when all the laws and executive orders are coming down the pike. This is the time that we have to act, not next week, not next month. It’s now.

“If our Second Amendment rights are as important as we say they are, we need to come out and show it to the rest of America and Washington, D.C.”

Citizens are encouraged to bring pro-gun signs and their families to the rallies. A petition supporting Second Amendment rights will be circulated at each event.

Event organizers encourage attendees to follow all state gun laws.

So far, gun-rights advocates from at least 47 states are participating. All rallies begin at 12 p.m. local time:

Alabama
Alaska – organizer still needed
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida (This event is located in Hernando County to accommodate more people.)
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey – organizer still needed
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont (This event will take place at the Burlington Expo Center.)
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming – organizer still needed

Three Gun Control Arguments


ARGUMENT ONE: NIKITA KHRUSHCHEV QUOTE:
Some of you aren’t old enough to remember this – but those of you do may have forgotten about it. I remember it vividly. At the time it was laughed off as impossible. Looks like he knew what he was talking about.
DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN HE APPEARED AT THE U.N. AND BANGED HIS SHOE ON THE TABLE? THIS WAS HIS ENTIRE QUOTE AT THAT TIME.

Nikita Krushive

SECOND

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ARGUMENT TWO: THE SHOTGUN

You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.

You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it…
In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.
As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you’re in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed yearsbefore, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless.. Yours was never registered..
Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tellsyou not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. “What kind of sentence will I get?” you ask. “Only ten-to-twelve years,” he replies, as if that’s nothing. “Behave yourself, and you’ll be out in seven.”
The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you’re portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can’t findan unkind word to say about them..
Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both “victims” have been arrested numerous times. But the next day’s headline says it all: “Lovable Rogue Son Didn’t Deserve to Die.” The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters..
As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. the surviving burglarhas become a folk hero.
Your attorney says the thief is preparingto sue you, and he’ll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you’ve been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven’t been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you.. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.
It doesn’t take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened. On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he wasconvictedand is now serving a life term..
How did it become a crime to defend one’s own life in the once great British Empire ? It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..
Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns. Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the street shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of “gun control”, demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school. For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.

The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearm’s still owned by private citizens. During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, The notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.
Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, “We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.” All of TonyMartin’s neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn’t were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn’t comply.

Police later bragged that they’d taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA;THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION. “…It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds..” –Samuel Adams

ARGUMENT THREE: A BLACK LADY SPEAKS OUT ON THE 2ND AMENDMENT.

This is a good video clip on guns by a Black woman. Also this is what you get when you research the 2nd AMENDMENT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn7bkncf1_E&feature=youtu.be

Image

President Obama Vision of Owning the Debt Limit


Obama-the-Enthusiast

My Bank Laughed When I ask It to Raise My Debt Ceiling


Image converted using ifftoanyIf I went to my bank and asked for a loan without the equity to back it up and the ability to pay it back, I would not get the loan. If I told them that I could print some money to help with the pay down of the loan, they would most likely have called the police on me.

When you’re a politician, you’re almost legally untouchable. When you get elected to office at the federal level, there’s almost nothing you can’t do if you can get enough people to agree with you. It’s a matter of taking a vote. It’s that simple.

We’re seeing President Obama sidestepping the Constitution by threatening to issue 19 executive orders that would further restrict law-abiding Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

If you don’t like what the Constitution that you took an oath to uphold, ignore it and legislate like a dictator. If you don’t have enough money; just print some more. If you want to take control of the healthcare of every person in America, pass a law based on 2700 pages that few congressmen or the president ever read. It doesn’t matter what it says since bureaucrats will eventually write the rules. It’s all for our good, don’t you know.

If you want to make sure every person in America gets to participate in the American dream, force banks to loan money to people who don’t have the means to pay it back. No problem. Create agencies for people who can’t repay them. When these government agencies go belly up, print more money.

This video by Tim Hawkins says it better than anyone else. You’ll laugh and cry at the same time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LO2eh6f5Go0

This can all be done because there are few boundaries when it comes to government.

There’s a particular scene in the 1946 film The Best Years of Our Lives[1] that stars Frederick March, Myrna Loy, Dana Andrews, and Teresa Wright that demonstrates the problem of feel-good economics.

March’s character, Al Stephenson, is a loan officer at a bank. Stephenson gets his job back at the back. He greets a customer who turns out be a returning solider like him. The would-be farmer wants a loan:

“[March’s character] asked him what kind of collateral he can provide. The young veteran looks back with a blank stare; he has no collateral. Al explains the bank needs to have some kind of security, a guarantee of sorts so they know they can get their money back. Dejected, the vet still could not understand why he was being refused. Al is painfully uncomfortable telling the young vet all this.

The bank officials are made to look like money grubbers for not loaning money to this genuinely sincere ex-G.I. The bank was right. Al, as much as he believed in the would-be farmer, was wrong. If he really believed in the man’s abilities and the soundness of the business venture, then he should have loaned him some of his own money. It was easy for Al to loan money that wasn’t his. There was no risk to him.

Congress and the President don’t care about debts and deficit spending. It’s not their debts and deficits. All they have to do is raise the debt ceiling. Some in the liberal brain trust are saying that there is no need for a debt ceiling. The sky’s the limit.

Try that at your bank and let me know how far you get. I bet you either get laughed out of the building or men with white coats are called to drag you out.
Notes:

  1. The film won seven Academy Awards including Best Picture, Best Director (William Wyler), Best Actor (Fredric March), Best Supporting Actor (Harold Russell), Best Film Editing (Daniel Mandell), Best Adapted Screenplay (Robert Sherwood), and Best Original Score (Hugo Friedhofer). []

Going Back to the Basics of the Second Amendment


The rhetoric of the Right and Left has clouded the basics of the Second Amendment. The emotional hysteria by the Left has further enhanced their determination to disarm citizens so they can begin more of their socialist controls. Those on the Right are making assertions that cannot be supported with fact and all sides have misrepresented various details of crime and guns.

Let us see if we can clear the fog and look at this issue without the emotions, accusations and mischaracterizations of the political and media establishments. I will use the actual Constitution and Bill of Rights, along with the actual historical facts of the formation of the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html)

The call for a bill of rights had been the anti-Federalists’ most powerful weapon. Attacking the proposed Constitution for its vagueness and lack of specific protection against tyranny, Patrick Henry asked the Virginia convention, “What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances.” The anti-Federalists, demanding a more concise, unequivocal Constitution, one that laid out for all to see the right of the people and limitations of the power of government, claimed that the brevity of the document only revealed its inferior nature. Richard Henry Lee despaired at the lack of provisions to protect “those essential rights of mankind without which liberty cannot exist.” Trading the old government for the new without such a bill of rights, Lee argued, would be trading Scylla for Charybdis.

A bill of rights had been barely mentioned in the Philadelphia convention, most delegates holding that the fundamental rights of individuals had been secured in the state constitutions. James Wilson maintained that a bill of rights was superfluous because all power not expressly delegated to thenew government was reserved to the people. It was clear, however, that in this argument the anti-Federalists held the upper hand. Even Thomas Jefferson, generally in favor of the new government, wrote to Madison that a bill of rights was “what the people are entitled to against every government on earth.”

By the fall of 1788 Madison had been convinced that not only was a bill of rights necessary to ensure acceptance of the Constitution but that it would have positive effects. He wrote, on October 17, that such “fundamental maxims of free Government” would be “a good ground for an appeal to the sense of community” against potential oppression and would “counteract the impulses of interest and passion.”

Madison’s support of the bill of rights was of critical significance. One of the new representatives from Virginia to the First Federal Congress, as established by the new Constitution, he worked tirelessly to persuade the House to enact amendments. Defusing the anti-Federalists’ objections to the Constitution, Madison was able to shepherd through 17 amendments in the early months of the Congress, a list that was later trimmed to 12 in the Senate. On October 2, 1789, President Washington sent to each of the states a copy of the 12 amendments adopted by the Congress in September. By December 15, 1791, three-fourths of the states had ratified the 10 amendments now so familiar to Americans as the “Bill of Rights.”

Benjamin Franklin told a French correspondent in 1788 that the formation of the new government had been like a game of dice, with many players of diverse prejudices and interests unable to make any uncontested moves. Madison wrote to Jefferson that the welding of these clashing interests was “a task more difficult than can be well conceived by those who were not concerned in the execution of it.” When the delegates left Philadelphia after the convention, few, if any, were convinced that the Constitution they had approved outlined the ideal form of government for the country. But late in his life James Madison scrawled out another letter, one never addressed. In it he declared that no government can be perfect, and “that which is the least imperfect is therefore the best government.”

During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a “bill of rights” that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.

 

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Amendment II

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

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

A lot of reading, however, your advantage is having no one telling you what it says. You are an intelligent person and understand it for yourself.

The creation of the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, or the formation of a militia. It does not address the right of an individual to defend themselves, although it covers that in part. The real foundation is protecting the citizens of the United States of America against a tyrannical government controlling every aspect of their lives. It removes the ability to restrict the munitions needed for such a resistance (how much a clip can hold – in order to protect yourself you need the same capacity of your ammo clip to hold the same of those attacking you; federal, criminal, and now terrorist). It simply says, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This was the concern of those (Federalist)  that wanted assurance that they would be able to protect themselves against a government taking over their lives.

Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt (FDR) introduced Socialism into our country. The political Left has seized upon that and throughout the last 100 years has made every effort to more us into a complete European style Socialist country. The primary step to seize control is to disarm the citizenry. Once disarmed, they cannot resist the domination of the government because they have no ability to resist. Disarming tax paying citizens puts them at the mercy of those that have no regard for life and property, or the pride of working for a living. 100% of the time when you disarm citizens’ crime increases dramatically.

All you have to do is look at our present Federal Government conduct. We have a President who studied Marxist/Socialist/Collectivist governments in all his schooling, and argued for the same. He has surrounded himself with people who have confessed being Socialist in their ideology. His misuse of Presidential Executive Orders further proves his conviction of being a KING, not a LIMITED PRESIDENT as outlined in our Constitution.

He and the Entire political Left are determined to disarm America although they know they will never be able to disarm the criminal element in our society. I have shared with you the experiences of Australia and England. They want their firearms back. They are warning America against what they are experiencing. When you hear the rhetoric of the Left in coming days remember the warnings of the citizens of Australia and England.

Whenever you meet force with force, you have a better percentage of survival. Education and training is critical and must be enforced with regard to owning any form of firearms. We must also have laws that deal with helping, and securing, those that are mentally challenged. The entertainment industry must take responsibility for what they glorify in film and video entertainment. We need to revive respect for life and liberty and the moral fiber that built this great nation.

Anger and shrill debate is never the answer. Restoring the peace and the original intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be our only resolve. Anyone want to join me?

Is An Executive Order a Law that Must be Obeyed?


Is An Executive Order a Law that Must be Obeyed?

King-Obama_croppedThere’s talk that President Obama will ignore Congress and issue Executive Orders to implement new gun regulations over against the clear reading of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Is an Executive Order a law? Will we be obligated to obey it?

Executive Orders have a long history. Republicans and Democrats have issued them. Only a few of them have been overturned by the courts.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats do much about Executive Orders they don’t like since both parties issue them. This is how the Washington game is played.

Republicans and Democrats like Executive Orders on difficult issues because it stops the legislative process that they’ll have to participate in and eventually vote yes or no. They can always tell the voters back home, “Well, I would have voted against that if the President hadn’t issued an Executive Order. Golly gee willikers, now my hands are tied.” Right.

An Executive Order is only valid if it’s done within the jurisdictional authority of the President’s constitutional authority. To rule against the Second Amendment is not a presidential prerogative. If it is, then the President could turn his attention to the First Amendment and issue an order that newspapers can no longer criticize him. Conservative talk radio would die a quick death if the President issued an Executive Order saying that the freedom of speech had to be limited in several ways, one of which was negative political speech, especially about him.

Don’t get me wrong. I do believe that President Obama would like to do all these things. He’s mad with power. He has a vendetta against America.

Chris Matthews of MSNBC made a statement about how President Obama should have been treated by presidential challenger Mitt Romney in their second debate. It was the fact that Gov. Romney actually challenged the President that led Matthews to go Gestapo on Romney:

“I don’t think [Mitt Romney] understands the Constitution of the United States… He’s the president of the United States. You don’t say, ‘you’ll get your chance.’”

Yes you do. President Obama is an elected official. He’s not a king. The king battle was fought a long time ago at Runnymede in 1215.

If the President and other anti-Second Amendment advocates want to limit our freedoms, then they can go through the amendment process. An Executive Order is the chicken’s way out. It’s also unconstitutional.

The Democrats know this. That’s why they’re sending out Vice President Biden to soften the rhetoric:

“The president is going to act. There are executive orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”

Did you see it? “Legislative action that we believe is required.” In terms of the Separation of Powers, the President does not have the constitutional authority to legislate. Of course, that hasn’t stopped him or any other president.

Biden went on to say that “this is a moral issue and that ‘it’s critically important that we act.’” Morally, the President can’t ignore an Amendment to the Constitution. How is banning guns for everyone the moral thing to do when only a tiny fraction use guns illegally? How will banning guns to stop immoral people from using whatever they can find to do harm?

Timothy McVeigh used kerosene and fertilizer to kill 169 people. Abortion doctors use medical instruments to kill pre-born babies? A man was poisoned with cyanide before he could cash in his $1 million dollar lottery ticket.

Gun Control in Australia – Watch and Weep


I was not aware this happened in Australia. Take a look, unbelievable!

Gun Confiscation in Ten Easy Steps


clash_logo

By /

1 January 2013 / 94 Comments

1398864_merino__sheepAll the time fellow gun owners say things to me like, “Seriously, Steve, how would they possibly gather up all the hundreds of millions of guns that are out there?”

Well my naïve friend, let me tell you how it works.

Step 1: Create an anti-gun culture and make guns and gun owners the bad guys at every turn:

On the evening news, every time a crime is reported, make sure there is a picture of a mean looking gun next to the chalk outline of a body. Portray hunters and sportsmen as backwoods unsophisticated hillbillies and rednecks. Feminize the society, especially the males. Create a culture where the police* are revered as heroes whose intentions can never be questioned. Demonize war and warriors. Label gun organizations “crazed lunatics” and “unreasonable extremists.” Make shooting restrictive by forcing participants to private ranges, then close the ranges by legal means citing reasons of safety, nuisance, environmental, or whatever possible.

Create terms like “assault weapon”, “high-powered sniper rifle”, “guns off the streets”, “weapons of war” when engaging in the gun debate making ordinary guns out to have extraordinary functions. Build on this disinformation by using movies, gaming, and entertainment that creates the falsehood that guns are capable of doing impossible things like firing hundreds of times without reloading or overheating or blowing up a car’s gas tank with the strike of a bullet.

Step 2: Build “security” systems that make the sheeple feel safe, giving them a false sense of security and overdependence on police and government authority while at the same time disarming them.

Establish gun free zones. Install security cameras everywhere. Place roving security cars with strobes in mall parking lots. Create neighborhood watch programs under the careful supervision of law enforcement insisting that no one be armed and that all incidents are to be reported to the police. Install and maintain elaborate computer entry systems in buildings. Establish pat downs at sporting events, etc. Put “no gun” signs in all public places.

Step 3: Play soothing music prior to the execution:

Tell the sheeple that the taking away of their protection is for their own good. Confuse them with emotional arguments. Convince them that you’re doing it for the children. Couch it as a safety issue. Use turncoats to make illogical but emotionally appealing arguments. Tell them you’re not coming for all the guns, just some of the more evil looking ones even though they function in exactly in the same manner.

Step 4: Wait until some horrible tragedy or series of events that make the sheeple susceptible to emotional arguments and knee-jerk reactions:

Step 5: Create a system that makes registration and confiscation simple and gun ownership very difficult and expensive:

Close private sales between individuals. Create a national registration or database that can easily be turned to for confiscation. Create bureaucracies that are unaccountable to the people and can serve the purpose of registration, confiscation, and collection. Create processes so cumbersome that no one would possibly want to purchase and register a firearm.

Step 6: Begin the process of making certain kinds of guns illegal:

Take incremental steps by isolating one group of firearm and pitting its owners against the “more reasonable” owner. Then continue to redefine “reasonable” insisting that if this class of firearm or that class of firearm were “off the streets” then society could be a better place and our children protected.

Step 7: Create “buyback” and “amnesty” programs that have the effect of identifying and confiscating guns that have slipped under the registration radar.

Step 8: Use some kind of national emergency to begin final implementation once the population has been sufficiently disarmed. This can be done through economic chaos or used as an excuse to quell civil uprising as a result of a variety of circumstances.

Step 9: Throughout the process, implement draconian fines and prison sentences for those who refuse to capitulate. Encourage neighbor to turn on neighbor and gun owner to turn on gun owner. Reward turncoats with positions of power or financial gain.

THIS STEP IS KEY: To those that think, “They’re not going to take my guns away,” you are a fool. Most people will capitulate when they are faced with huge fines and prison sentences. Look no further than the holocaust less than sixty years ago. These were not guns that were rounded up and destroyed, but human beings! Does any reasonable person think that this could not possibly happen again?

And for those of you who think democracy is the answer, Hitler was put in power through the democratic process and then gained absolute power though various political moves eventually taking full control of the government.

Step 10: Welcome to disarmament!
My gun owning friends, do not fall for these steps. Resist them at every turn. Today it’s thirty round magazines, “military looking” guns, online ammunition sales and registration, tomorrow, it’s full confiscation.

One final thought: If safety, security, and protection of our children are really the issues, then why first go after something that is rarely used in violent crime? Why not start with something that kills far more innocents every year like abortion, prescription drugs, or automobiles?

Don’t be lulled into false thinking. It’s not about safety or protecting children; there are better ways to protect against random acts of mass murderers than to disarm law abiding citizens. To quote one of my favorite bumper stickers, “It’s not about the guns, it’s about the control.”

*This is not an indictment against police, as I have family members and very close friends who are members of the law enforcement community who believe as I do and are very necessary members of an ordered society.

Image: Merino Sheep; courtesy of ptogel; http://www.keux.com

FBI and Andrew Breitbart Vindicated by New ‘Occupy’ Explosives Arrests


Bret BART

Two prominent Occupy Wall Street movement activists have been arrested by the New York Police Department for allegedly possessing a cache of weapons and explosive material in New York City’s Greenwich Village.

The Occupiers, Morgan Gliedman, 27, and Aaron Greene, 31, were visited by New York City police due to a warrant for Gliedman’s arrest relating to alleged credit card theft. Once in the couple’s apartment, police claim they found the explosive materials and how-to manuals on terrorism.

According to the New York Post:

A detective discovered a plastic container with seven grams of a white chemical powder called HMTD, which is so powerful, cops evacuated several nearby buildings.

Police also found a flare launcher, which is a commercial replica of a grenade launcher; a modified 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun; ammo; and nine high-capacity rifle magazines, the sources said.

Cops also allegedly uncovered papers about creating homemade booby traps, improvised submachine guns, and various handwritten notebooks containing chemical formulas.

The arrests come at a critical time due to recent allegations by the left against the FBI for having apparently infiltrated the revolutionary Occupy movement. A recent document release from the FBI revealed multiple large scale investigations into the movement had occurred, prompting a revival of the left’s decades-long attack on the FBI for having investigated radical movements.

Supporters of the FBI’s efforts have pointed out that the Occupy movement, though many participants may be well-intentioned, involved some individuals and groups with checkered histories and revolutionary aims.

The Occupy movement was heralded by mainstream media outlets as heroic and altruistic, but right-of-center critics, such as Andrew Breitbart, began to point out the movement was little more than a rebranded gathering of extremist far-left groups.

Breitbart released a series of internal Occupy emails that revealed the “new movement” was months in the making, with professional organizers such as Lisa Fithian behind the coordination. Breitbart also pointed out the similarities between Communist doctrine of the “bourgeoisie vs the proletariat” and the Occupy movement’s “1% vs the 99%” argument. Breitbart’s efforts eventually culminated in one of his final projects before his passing, the Citizens United documentary Occupy Unmasked.

One major thesis of the film was that the Occupy movement was created to move the national discussion off of deficits and debt, and onto the false dichotomy of the “rich vs the poor,” so that the Democratic Party could win in the coming 2012 presidential election and other left-of-center groups could retain power in the US political process.

As a result of Breitbart’s efforts, right-of-center grassroots media began investigating and infiltrating the Occupy movement’s camps and researching their organizers and backers. As rapes, other crimes, terrorist ties, and involvement with hostile foreign nations were discovered by independent grassroots efforts, law enforcement began to take justifiable interest in the self-proclaimed “revolutionary movement.”

Recent document releases from the FBI reveal they did indeed take interest and infiltrate the Occupy movement. Left-of-center media outlets and activists have begun to complain and claim the FBI either violated civil rights by infiltrating them or otherwise wasted resources by having done so. Some, such as the UK Guardian, have gone as far as claiming “the FBI dismantled a political movement.”

Clearly, the FBI acted on its responsibility to protect the constitutionally guaranteed rights of Americans by monitoring the Occupy movement, as evidenced by the recent arrests and previous thwarted bomb plots.

The Occupy movement was not dismantled by the FBI or other law enforcement agencies. Rather, the Occupy movement was exposed by right-of-center grassroots citizen journalists exposing the dark secrets US mainstream media refused to share with the public.

Media outlets like Andrew Breitbart’s magnified the voices of the grassroots, and law enforcement appropriately acted on the data that had been presented to the public.

“Oh Lord, Give us Men with a Mandate Higher than the Ballot Box”


Written on Sunday, December 30, 2012

by

box

The title of this column is a quote from Ezra Benson, a member of President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s first cabinet.  It is an apt quote at a time when politicians on both sides of the aisle are running America into the ground for the sake of maintaining their seats in Congress and the perquisites that go with those seats.  If America ever needed good stewards instead of self-serving politicians, the time is now.  Unfortunately, strong leaders who stand on principle and are willing to do what is best for America regardless of how it might affect their next election are hard to find in Washington, D.C. these days.

I fully understand that elected officials who love their jobs more than their country have always been with us, but it seems to me we have more of them now than ever.  This is unfortunate because there has never been a time when America needed strong and principled leaders in government more than now. Instead, too many of those “serving” in Congress seem to be serving only themselves.  Too many members of Congress are self-serving opportunists more concerned about the perquisites of their positions than the good of the country—men and women who base their beliefs on the results of opinion polls rather than enduring principles.  This, more than any other factor, is why America’s standing in the world is declining, the economy is sputtering along on three cylinders, behaviors that were considered immoral to our grandparents are now considered normal and acceptable, and Barack Obama has been able to get away with adopting policies that are destructive to America’s best interests and future.

Unfortunately, we cannot vaccinate newly-elected members of Congress against Potomac Fever. Experience has shown over and over that self-interest eventually trumps stewardship in even the most idealistic members of Congress.  Therefore, since we cannot change human nature, the best solution that suggests itself is term limits for Congressmen and Senators.  Eighteen states and hundreds of counties have already established term limits for elected officials at those levels. In fact, men, women, blacks, whites, Republicans, and Democrats favor terms limits by majorities of 60 percent or higher.

Writing for The Heritage Foundation, Dan Greenberg had this to say about term limits for Congress: “Term limits are a vital political reform that would bring new perspectives to Congress, mandate frequent legislative turnover, and diminish the incentives for wasteful election-related-federal spending that currently flourish in a careerist congressional culture.”  Greenberg goes on to list the following potential benefits of congressional term limits:

  • Counterbalance the many advantages of incumbents.
  • Secure independent judgment on the part of members of Congress.
  • Provide a much-needed reality check.
  • Minimize the incentives to members of Congress to engage in “pork-barrel” legislation.
  • Restore respect for Congress.

Conservatives might want to consider how the current fiscal-cliff drama being acted out in Congress would be different if term limits were in place: 1) There would be no long-serving incumbents in Congress who could use coercion to pressure the newer members to vote against their principles, 2) Members of Congress would be more inclined to do what is best for the country than what is best for their next election, and 3) Members of Congress would be less dependent on the President, their political party, and senior members of Congress for their political futures.  Hence they would be under less pressure to act or vote in ways that violate their principles.  In other words, they would be more free to do what is good for America, which, after all, is what we elect them to do.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: