SO HERE AND NOW

Conservative Political Views

SENATOR TED CRUZ’S COMPILATION OF: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S ATTEMPTS TO EXPAND FEDERAL POWER


OFFICE OF SENATOR TED CRUZ

185 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C.  20510

(202) 224-5922

http://www.cruz.senate.gov

THE LEGAL LIMIT: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S ATTEMPTS TO EXPAND FEDERAL POWER

Report No. 4:
The Obama Administration’s Abuse of Power
By U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Ranking Member
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on The Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights

Of all the troubling aspects of the Obama presidency, none is more dangerous than the President’s persistent pattern of lawlessness, his willingness to disregard the written law and instead enforce his own policies via executive fiat.

The President’s taste for unilateral action to circumvent Congress should concern every citizen, regardless of party or ideology. The great 18th-century political philosopher Montesquieu observed: “There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates.” America’s Founding Fathers took this warning to heart, and we should too.

Rule of law doesn’t simply mean that society has laws; dictatorships are often characterized by an abundance of laws. Rather, rule of law means that we are a nation ruled by laws, not men. No one—and especially not the president—is above the law. For that reason, the U.S. Constitution imposes on every president the express duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Rather than honor this duty, President Obama has openly defied it by repeatedly suspending, delaying, and waiving portions of the laws that he is charged to enforce. When President Obama disagreed with federal immigration laws, he instructed the Justice Department to cease enforcing the laws. He did the same thing with federal welfare law, drug laws, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

In the more than two centuries of our nation’s history, there is simply no precedent for the White House wantonly ignoring federal law and asking others to do the same.

For all those who are silent now: What would they think of a Republican president who announced that he was going to ignore the law, or unilaterally change the law? Imagine a future president setting aside environmental laws, or tax laws, or labor laws, or tort laws with which he or she disagreed.

That would be wrong—and it is the Obama precedent that is opening the door for future lawlessness. As Montesquieu knew, an imperial presidency threatens the liberty of every citizen. Because when a president can pick and choose which laws to follow and which to ignore, he is no longer a president.

PAGE 1

_______________________________________________________________________

Governing by Executive Fiat

1.  Disregarded 1996 welfare reform law in granting broad work waivers for work requirements of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).1

2.  Implemented portions of the DREAM Act, which Congress rejected, by executive action.2

3.  Ended some terror asylum restrictions, by allowing asylum for people who provided only “insignificant” or “limited” material support of terrorists.3

4.  Allowed immigrants in the U.S. illegally, who are relatives of military troops and veterans, to stay in the country and get legal status.

5.  Extended federal marriage benefits by recognizing, under federal law, same-sex marriages created in a state that allows same-sex marriage even if the couple is living in a state that doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage.

6.  Recognized same-sex marriage in Utah, even though the Supreme Court stayed the court order recognizing same-sex marriage in Utah and Utah said it would not recognize same- sex marriages performed before the stay.

7.  Refused to prosecute violation of drug laws with certain mandatory minimums.

8.  Issued signing statements, refusing to enforce parts of congressional-enacted statutes.

9.  Illegally refused to act on Yucca Mountain’s application to become a nuclear waste repository.

——————————————————

1 Caroline May, Obama administration ‘guts’ welfare reform with new HHS rule, Daily Caller, Jul. 13, 2012.

2 Mark Krikorian, Today is A-Day, National Review Online, Aug. 15, 2012.
3 Reid J. Epstein, Obama administration ends some terror asylum restrictions, Politico, Feb. 5, 2014.
4 Julia Preston, Immigrants Closely Tied to Military Get Reprieve, N.Y. Times, Nov. 15, 2013.

5 Matt Apuzzo, More Federal Privileges to Extend to Same-Sex Couples, N.Y. Times, Feb. 8, 2014.

6 Charlie Savagejan, U.S. to Recognize Utah Gay Marriage Despite State Stance, N.Y. Times, Jan. 10, 2014.
7 Pete Williams & Michael O’Brien, Holder: ‘New Approach’ to reduce mandatory drug sentences, NBC News, Aug. 12, 2013.
8 Charlie Savage, Obama Takes New Route to Opposing Parts of Laws, N.Y. Times, Jan. 8, 2010.
9 Joel B. Pollak, Nuclear fallout: Yucca decision would affect immigration, obamacare, Breitbart, Aug. 14, 2013.

PAGE 3
_______________________________________

 National Security

  1. Falsely portrayed the Benghazi terrorist attack as a spontaneous protest against an anti- Muslim YouTube video,10 and then lied about the White House’s involvement.11

  2. Illegally revealed the existence of sealed indictments in the Benghazi investigation.12

  3. Failed to enforce the Magnitsky Act as required by law, by not adding Russian human rights abusers to a list of people not permitted to travel to or do business in the U.S.13

  4. Killed four Americans overseas in counterterrorism operations without judicial process.14

  5. Continued to give Egypt aid after the military took over its government, even though federal law prohibits aid to Egypt in the event of a coup.15

—————————————————

10 Bill Flax, Benghazi: Four Americans Died, Obama Lied, and the Press Complied, Forbes, Oct. 18, 2012.

11 Michael D. Shear, Email Suggests White House Strategy on Benghazi, N.Y. Times, Apr. 30, 2014.
12 Mike Levine, President Obama’s Surprise Revelation of Sealed Benghazi Indictment, ABC News, Aug. 9, 2013.

13 Obama’s Magnitsky Walkback, Wall St. J., Jan. 5, 2014.
14 Karen DeYoung & Peter Finn, U.S. acknowledges killing of four U.S. citizens in counterterrorism operations, Wash. Post, May 22, 2013.
15 White House says U.S. has not cut off aid to Egypt, Reuters, Aug. 20, 2013.

PAGE 4

______________________________________________________

 Obamacare

  1. Granted a “hardship” exemption from the individual mandate for people whose health plans were canceled because their plans weren’t Obamacare compliant.16

  2. Delayed the individual mandate for two years.17

  3. Allowed individuals to buy health insurance plans in 2014 that did not comply with Obamacare.18 Extended this delay until 2016—past the mid-term elections.19

  4. Extended the deadline to enroll in Obamacare.20

  5. Illegally granted businesses a waiver from Obamacare’s employer mandate.21 Twice.22

  6. Illegally continued the Obamacare employer contribution for congressional staffs.23

  7. Illegally delayed the Obamacare caps on out-of-pocket healthcare payments.24

  8. Illegally delayed Obamacare verification of eligibility for healthcare subsidies.25

  9. Illegally required people to violate their faith via the Obamacare contraception mandate.26

  10. As of May 2011, over 50% of Obamacare waiver beneficiaries were union members (who account for less than 12% of the American work force).27

——————————————————–

16 Margaret Talev & Alex Wayne, Obama Lifts Health Mandate for Those With Canceled Plans, Bloomberg.com, Dec. 20, 2013.

17 ObamaCare’s Secret Mandate Exemption, Wall St. J., Mar. 11, 2014.

18 Stephanie Condon, Obama letting people keep canceled health plans for another year, CBSNews.com, Nov. 14, 2013.

19 Louise Radnofsky, Obama Gives Health Plans Added Two-Year Reprieve, Wall St. J., Mar. 5, 2014.

20 David Martosko, Busted! After promising ‘no delay’ in final Obamacare sign-up deadline, Obama administration unveils new ‘honor system’ extension through mid-April, Daily Mail, March 25, 2014.

21 Sarah Kliff, White House delays employer mandate requirement until 2015, Wash. Post, July 2, 2013.

22 Juliet Eilperin & Amy Goldstein, White House delays health insurance mandate for medium-seized employers until 2016, Wash. Post, Feb. 10, 2014.

23 Ezra Klein, In 2014, Congress gets Obamacare. Here’s how they’ll pay for it., Wash. Post, Aug. 1, 2013.

24 Avik Roy, Yet Another White House Obamacare Delay: Out-Of-Pocket Caps Waived Until 2015, Forbes, Aug. 13, 2013.

25 Avik Roy, Not Qualified for Obamacare’s Subsidies? Just lie – Govt. To Use ‘Honor System’ Without Verifying Your Eligibility, Forbes, July 6, 2013.

26 Joel Gehrke, Little Sisters of the Poor sue over Obamacare fines, contraception requirement, Wash. Examiner, Sept. 24, 2013.

27 Milton Wolf, Obamacare waiver corruption must stop, Wash. Times, May 20, 2011.

PAGE 5

_________________________________________________________

Economy

  1. Ordered Boeing to fire 1,000 employees in South Carolina and shut down a new factory because it was non-union.28

  2. Implemented a moratorium on offshore drilling after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill without statutory authority, and continued to enact new versions after federal courts repeatedly invalidated the moratorium.29

  3. Treated secured creditors worse than unsecured creditors in the Chrysler bankruptcy.30

  4. Terminated the pensions of 20,000 non-union Delphi employees in the GM bankruptcy.31

  5. Had SWAT teams raid a Gibson guitar factory and seize property, on the purported basis that Gibson had broken India’s environmental laws—but no charges were filed.32

  6. Government agencies are engaging in “Operation Choke Point,” where the government asks banks to “choke off” access to financial services for customers engaging in conduct the Administration does not like—such as “ammunition sales.”33

————————————————

28 Steven Greenhouse, Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law, N.Y. Times, Apr. 20, 2011.
29 Frederic Frommer, Government takes third attempt at drilling moratorium, Associated Press, Jul. 13, 2010.

30 An offer you can’t refuse, The Economist, May 7, 2009.
31 Emails: Geithner, Treasury drove cutoff of nonunion Delphi workers’ pensions, Daily Caller, Aug. 7, 2012; Report: Obama administration played key role in GM Bankruptcy as pensions cut for salaried workers, not unionized ones, Associated Press, Aug 16, 2013.
32 Deborah Zabarenko, Gibson Guitar CEO slams U.S. raids as “overreach”, Reuters, Oct. 12, 2011.
33 Frank Keating, Justice Puts Banks in a Choke Hold, Wall St. J., Apr. 24, 2014.

PAGE 6

_______________________

Executive Nominees and Personnel

  1. Appointed czars to oversee federal policy specifically because czars do not require Senate confirmation, earning criticism from stalwart Democrats such as West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd35 and Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold.36
  2. As of January 2012, 36 of the President’s executive office staff owed $833,970 in back taxes.37
  3. Made illegal “recess” appointments to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board when Congress wasn’t in recess.34 Ignored the rulings of three federal courts of appeals that held those nominations unconstitutional.
  4. As of 2011, 311,566 federal employees or retirees owed $3.5 billion in taxes.38
 ———————————————————————

34 Timothy Noah, Cordray’s Recess Appointment Sure Doesn’t Look Constitutional to Me, New Republic, Jan. 4, 2012.
35 John Bresnahan, Byrd: Obama in power grab, Politico, Feb. 25, 2009.
36 Jordan Fabian, Feingold questions Obama ‘czars’, The Hill, Sept. 16, 2009.37 Andrew Malcolm, 36 Obama aides owe $833,000 in back taxes, Investors Business Daily, Jan. 26, 2012.38 Richard Rubin, Number of Tax-Delinquent Government Workers Up 11.5%, Bloomberg, Mar. 8, 2013.

 PAGE 7

____________________________________________________________

Free Speech and Privacy

  1. Circumvented the Freedom of Information Act, by requiring White House Counsel review of all documents to be released under the Freedom of Information Act that the Administration believed pertained to “White House equities”—and then delayed in producing many of these documents by FOIA’s statutory deadline, or didn’t produce them at all.40
  2. Got secret permission from the FISA Court to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency’s use of intercepted phone calls and emails, permitting the NSA to search American’s communications in its databases.41
  3. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is seeking to monitor about 80% of U.S. credit card transactions.42
  4. Targeted Fox News reporter James Rosen by falsely labeling him a possible “co- conspirator” in a criminal investigation of a new leak.43
  5. Illegally targeted conservative groups for heightened IRS scrutiny.39
  6. Secretly obtained phone records from staff at the Associated Press.44
  7. Had meetings with lobbyists in coffee shops near White House to avoid disclosure requirements.45

———————————————————-

39 Greg Sargent, Conservatives have themselves a real scandal on their hands, Wash. Post, May 10, 2013.
40 Mark Tapscott, ‘Most transparent’ White House ever rewrote the FOIA to suppress politically sensitive docs, Wash. Examiner, Mar. 18, 2014.
41 Ellen Nakashima, Obama administration had restrictions on NSA reversed in 2011, Wash. Post, Sept. 7, 2013.

42 Richard Pollock, CFPB’s data-mining on consumer credit cards challenged in heated House hearing, Sept. 13, 2013.
43 Another Chilling Leak Investigation, N.Y. Times, May 21, 2013.
44 Mark Sherman, Gov’t obtains wide AP phone records in probe, Yahoo News, May 13, 2013.
45 Eric Lichtblau, Across From White House, Coffee With Lobbyists, N.Y. Times, June 24, 2010.

PAGE 8

__________________________________

 

Other Lawless Acts

  1. Aided drug cartels instead of enforcing immigration laws—as found by a federal judge. Border Patrol agents, multiple times, knowingly helped smuggle illegal immigrant children into the U.S.; “the DHS is encouraging parents to seriously jeopardize the safety of their children.”46

  2. Illegally sold thousands of guns to criminals, in the operation known as Fast and Furious,47 and then refused to comply with congressional subpoenas about the operation.48

  3. Dismissed charges filed by Bush Administration against New Black Panther Party members who were videotaped intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling station during the 2008 election.49

  4. Argued for expansive federal powers in the Supreme Court, which has rejected the Administration’s arguments unanimously 9 times since January 2012.50

  5. Sued Louisiana to stop school vouchers and keep low-income minorities trapped in failing schools.51

  6. Threatened to arrest military priests for practicing their faith during the partial government shutdown.52

  7. Muzzled the speech of military chaplains.53

  8. Sued fire departments saying their multiple-choice, open-book written employment tests were racially discriminatory.54

  9. Gave 23,994 tax refunds worth more than $46 million to aliens here illegally using the same address in Atlanta, GA.55

——————————————————————————-

46 Stephen Dinan, Border Patrol helps smuggle illegal immigrant children into the United States, Wash. Times, Dec. 19, 2013.
47 DOJ Inspector General, A Review of ATF’s Operation Fast and Furious and Related Matters, Sept. 2012.
48 Jerry Seper & Stephen Dinan, GOP sues to force Obama, Holder compliance on Fast and Furious, Wash. Times, Aug. 13, 2012.

49 Kevin Bohn, Justice Department drops charges in voter intimidation case, CNN.com, May 28, 2009.
50 Senator Ted Cruz, The Legal Limit: The Obama Administration’s Attempts to Expand Federal Power; Senator Ted Cruz, Addendum – More Cases on Obama DOJ’s Expansive View of Federal Power; Senator Ted Cruz, Addendum 2 – More Cases on Obama DOJ’s Expansive View of Federal Power.
51 Obama, Holder Stand in Louisiana Schoolhouse Door, Investors Business Daily, Aug. 30, 2013.
52 Alex Pappas, Priests threatened with arrest if they minister to military during shutdown, Daily Caller, Oct. 4, 2013.
53 George Neumayr, Muzzling Military Chaplains, The American Spectator, Jan. 9, 2013.
54 Editorial: Firehouse flunkies, Wash. Times, Mar. 7, 2011.

PAGE 9

______________________________________________________________

Other Abuses of Power

  1. Released a mentally ill Guantanamo detainee,56 who had been a high-risk al Qaeda fighter in jihad combat since the 1980s.57

  2. Backed release of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdel Baset al-Megrahi.58

  3. President Obama told NASA administrator to “find a way to reach out to the Muslim world.”59

  4. Claimed the Fort Hood shooting was “workplace violence” rather than terrorism.60

  5. Signed a stimulus bill that spent money on bonuses for AIG executives,61 and then acted shocked and outraged at the bonuses.62

  6. Gave $535 million to Solyndra, which went bankrupt; Solyndra shareholders and officials made substantial donations to Obama’s campaign.63

  7. Reneged on a campaign promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term in office.64

  8. Increased the national debt more in one term than President Bush did in two terms.65

  9. Extended mortgage assistance to people who bought multiple homes during the housing bubble.66

  10. Proposed rules that would have decimated family farms, by prohibiting children under 18 from doing many forms of farm work.67

—————————————————————-

55 Terence Jeffrey, IRS Sent $46,378,040 in Refunds to 23,994 ‘Unauthorized’ Aliens at 1 Atlanta Address, CNSNews.com, June 21, 2013.
56 U.S. judge orders release of mentally ill Guantanamo prisoner, Yahoo News, Oct. 4, 2013.
57 The Guantanamo Docket: Ibrahim Othman Ibrahim Idris, N.Y. Times.

58 Jason Allardyce & Tony Allen-Mills, White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, The Australian, July 26, 2010.
59 Alex Pepper, White House, NASA, Defend Comments About NASA Outreach to Muslim World Criticized by Conservatives, ABCNews.com, July 6, 2010.

60 Aaron Goldstein, Obama Still Doesn’t Get 9/11, American Spectator, Sept. 11, 2012.
61 Dana Bash & Ted Barrett, Bonuses allowed by stimulus bill, CNN.com, Mar. 18, 2009.
62 Helene Cooper, Obama Orders Treasury Chief to Try to Block A.I.G. Bonuses, N.Y Times, Mar. 16, 2009.
63 Bankrupt solar company with fed backing has cozy ties to Obama admin, Daily Caller, Sept. 1, 2011.
64 Josh Gerstein, 5 unmet promises of President Obama, Politico, Oct. 16, 2012.
65 Mark Knoller, National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush, CBSNews.com, Mar. 19, 2012.

66 Prashant Gopal, Boom-Era Property Speculators to Get Foreclosure Aid: Mortgages, Bloomberg, Mar. 5, 2012.

67 Washington Elitists Want to Take Over the Family Farm, Investors Business Daily, Apr. 26, 2012; Dave Jamieson, Child Labor Farm Rules Scrapped by White House Under Political Pressure, Huffington Post, Apr. 27, 2012.

 PAGE 10

____________________________________________________

MORE

  1. Former “safe schools czar” has written about his past drug abuse and advocated promoting homosexuality in schools.68

  2. Nominated Timothy Geithner—who had significant tax issues69—to head the Treasury Department, which enforces tax laws.

  3. Reneged on campaign promise to broadcast healthcare reform negotiations on C-SPAN.70

  4. Reneged on a campaign promise to wait five days before signing any non-emergency bill (at least 10 times during first 3 months in office).71

  5. Unilaterally, increased the minimum wage for federal contract workers from $7.25 to $10.10, via executive order.72

  6. Cancelled all White House tours after sequestration—purportedly saving $18,000 per week—even though President Obama had spent more than $1 million in tax money to golf with Tiger Woods one weekend a few weeks before.73

  7. Adopted pro-union “ambush election” rules.74

  8. Pressured Ford to pull an anti-auto-bailout TV ad.75

  9. Actively, aided in George Zimmerman protests.76

  10. Tried to seize a privately owned motel when guests used illegal drugs at the motel.77

  11. Shut down the Amber Alert website, while keeping up Let’s Move website, during the partial government shutdown.78

  12. Gave supervised release to a convicted criminal (an alien here illegally) who later killed a nun in a DUI.79

—————————————————–

68 Maxim Lott, Critics Assail Obama’s ‘Safe Schools’ Czar, Say He’s Wrong Man For the Job, FoxNews.com, Sept. 23, 2009.
69 Jonathan Weisman, Geithner’s Tax History Muddles Confirmation, Wall St. J., Jan. 14, 2009.
70 Chip Reid, Obama Reneges on Health Care Transparency, CBSNews.com, Jan. 7, 2010.

71 Jim Harper, The Promise That Keeps on Breaking, The Cato Institute, Apr. 13, 2009.
72 Ed Henry, Obama to sign executive order raising minimum wage for federal contractors, FoxNews.com, Jan. 28, 2014.
73 Tom Blumer, Our Petty, Country-Be-Damned President, PJ Media, Mar. 8, 2013.
74 Senator John Thune, NLRB’s ambush elections would hurt local businesses, The Hill, Apr. 19, 2012.
75 Daniel Howes, WH Pressures Ford to Pull Bailout Ad, FoxNews.com, Sept. 27, 2011.
76 Documents Obtained by Judicial Watch Detail Role of Justice Department in Organizing Trayvon Martin Protests, Judicial Watch, July 10, 2013.
77 George Will, When the looter is the government, Wash. Post, May 18, 2012.
78 Update: Let’s Move Website Works Fine – Obama plays Politics with Lost Children, shuts down Amber Alert website, The Right Scoop, Oct. 6, 2013.

PAGE 11
______________________________________________

MORE

  1. Shut down an Amish farm for selling fresh unpasteurized milk across state lines.80

  2. Spent $7 million per household in “stimulus funds” to connect a few Montana households to the Internet.81

  3. Spent $205,075 in “stimulus” funds to relocate a shrub that sells for $16.82

  4. Fired an inspector general after investigating an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant received by a nonprofit run by former NBA star and Obama supporter Kevin Johnson (now mayor of Sacramento).83

———————————————————–

79 JW Forces Release of DHS Report on Illegal Alien Charged with Killing Virginia Nun in August 2010 Drunk Driving Incident, Judicial Watch, Mar. 4, 2011.
80 Stephen Dinan, Feds shut down Amish farm for selling fresh milk, Wash. Times, Feb. 13, 2012.
81 Nick Schulz, How Effective Was The 2009 Stimulus Program?, Forbes, July 5, 2011.

82 Thomas Cloud, Shovel Ready in San Fran: $205,075 to ‘Translocate’ One Shrub from Path of Stimulus Project, CNSNews.com, Apr. 12, 2012.
83 Susan Crabtree, Allies of official fired by Obama mount defense, The Hill, June 24, 2009.

PAGE 12

___________________________________________________

 

OFFICE OF SENATOR TED CRUZ

185 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C.  20510

(202) 224-5922

http://www.cruz.senate.gov

September 5, 2014 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

UNITED STATES FREEDOM ARMY EMAIL: WEBSITE(http://www.usfreedomarmy.com/constitutional-freedom-march/)


UNITED STATES FREEDOM ARMY

END OF MONTH REPORT AS OF 08/31/2014

 

 CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM MARCH

“A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

“When your children and grandchildren ask you what happened to America make sure you can say ‘I tried my best to stop it’.”

“An excuse is an explanation of failure.”

“Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.”

________________________________________

MARCH ON WASHINGTON D.C.:  NO WEAPONS AT THE MUSTER POINT OR THEREAFTER. 

This is our last appeal.  Anyone and everyone who will be attending and has not informed us – we need to know now.  The March has changed.  There will no longer be a specified route for the Cross Country March.

We will hold the specified route concept in abeyance until next year when it will be reevaluated. For a variety of reasons we are cancelling the specified route for the March and each person will be responsible for getting to the Muster Point in their own way. You may construct your own March, you may fly in to D.C., take your RV or develop any scenario you so desire to reach the Muster Point to meet on September 17, 2014 (Constitution Day).

NO WEAPONS AT THE MUSTER POINT OR THEREAFTER. 

The Muster Point this year will be the Springfield Mall in Springfield, VA. We will meet from 8:30 A.M. to 9:30 A.M. at the Muster Point. We will then travel from there by METRO to the Capitol. The Springfield Mall is very close to the intersection of I-95 and I-495. The Springfield Mall is bounded on the North by Franconia Road E., on the East by Frontier Road, on the South by Spring Mall Rd., and on the West by Loisdale Road. We will meet on the South section of the mall on Spring Mall Rd. about halfway between Loisdale Road and Frontier Road. From the Southeast corner of the Springfield Mall it is only about ¼ mile to the METRO Franconia-Springfield Station from where we will take the BLUE Line getting off at the METRO L’Enfant  Station and walking four blocks to the meeting point. It is almost impossible to park in D.C. on a weekday and even if you can find a place it will cost you $50 to $60 to park whereas the METRO station parking is $4.75. The total cost to park and ride the METRO round trip will be about $15.

There are no public restrooms (except for emergencies) on the METRO trains or in the METRO stations. When we get to the meeting point there will be restrooms available. You have been warned! Take precautions as necessary. There is a restaurant near the Comfort Inn off Loisdale Road that serves breakfast and has restrooms. There is also a restaurant just off Franconia Road E. in the Springfield Mall.

The METRO ride to the Capitol takes about 30 minutes. We will meet on the lawn between the Capitol and the Washington Monument and directly across from the Air and Space Museum on that side of the lawn.

There are hotels/motels on Loisdale Road near the Northwest portion of the Springfield Mall. They are the Hilton Hotel, Hampton Inn, Comfort Inn and the Courtyard Marriott. The Marriott is slightly farther than the others and is near the intersection of Loisdale Road and Franconia Road W. Those of you who fly in to Reagan Airport and do not wish to rent a car may get on the Blue Line at Reagan Airport and go to the Franconia-Springfield Station and walk to one of the hotels/motels mentioned above. The walk is about ½ mile. Reservations suggested.

Dress and act like the fine patriotic people you are. If you wish to wear military apparel that is fine. If you are active duty military get permission from your commander before wearing any active duty military apparel.

NO WEAPONS AT THE MUSTER POINT OR THEREAFTER. 

We are planning on making this an annual event. Be thinking of how we can get some publicity, local news coverage, TV, or whatever. Anyone may participate in this march and they do not have to be enlisted with us. We will leave the Capitol at approximately 6:00 P.M. and return to the Muster Point. At approximately 7:00 P.M. we will meet for dinner at a location near the Muster Point to be announced on September 17.

We need people to be at the Muster Point so we can go to Washington D.C. and make our complaints clear.  Did you read the five quotes at the top of this report? If not, read them again. This is the time. We especially need the people from VA, MD, DE, WV, TN, NC and other nearby states to come help us on September 17. Bring any like-minded people you know with you – the more people we have the more government areas we can cover. We need to cover the Congress, Supreme Court, the IRS and as many Executive Branch offices as we can. There is no need to go to the White House since it will not do any good.

Respond to presidentialdiary@gmail.com if you are planning to attend.

We need patriots in Washington, D.C. on September 17.

If you absolutely cannot come, we need you to pass out flyers in your local area on September 17. If you cannot pass them out on September 17 pass them out as closely as you possibly can to September 17. The best place to pass them out is at your nearest military installation – we need to remind our military of their oath. If you cannot get to a military installation pass them out at your local federal government offices. IRS offices or any federal court is good. Find a federal government agency near you and pass them out. As a last resort go to your local Post Office and pass them out. Before you go to any of these federal government entities make sure you do some reconnaissance and find out what the rules are. We want to do all of this in a perfectly legal manner and we want to pass these flyers out all over the nation.

Some of you are disappointed because we are only passing out flyers. This is what we can do at this time. If it helps you to visualize this look at the flyer as your weapon, look at the words on the flyer as your ammunition, and look at the work in D.C. as maneuvers and reconnaissance.

The flyers are extremely important to what we are attempting to accomplish. The first step is to make crystal clear what your complaint consists of in the shortest possible way. Anything over one page is too long and no one will read it. It must be short and to the point. During Operation American Spring they passed out large packets with volumes of information inside. No one will read that much information unless they are being paid to do so. We want a short printed record of our position that cannot be misunderstood.

Let us know as soon as possible if you will be coming to the Muster Point and how many you will be bringing. People do not have to be enlisted to participate.

RECRUITING UPDATE AS OF 8/31/2014:

As many of you know, we are spending our first year only recruiting. We will never stop recruiting of course, but we will have other objectives in addition to recruiting after our first year.  This web site was launched on September 17 (Constitution Day), 2013 and we started recruiting about 5 days later.

TX still leads in total recruits with 10.4% of all recruits. Following TX is CA (8.0%) FL (7.2%) NC (4.2%) GA (3.8%) PA (3.4%) TN (3.3%) NY (3.3%). CA and PA both had a good month.

Based upon state population for states with over two million in population the top eight are:  TN MS AL NV SC NC OK KY. OK and KY both had a good showing in August. States with under two million in population are led by WY, NH, ME, ID and NE.

This paragraph is not statistically accurate and is an approximation since some of our enlistees do not give us complete information. Our female enlistees are staying at about 4 out of every 10. About 45% of all enlistees (including some female) have military experience. We have every military grade from E-1 to E-9, W1 to W4, and O-1 to O-7. We have military with Silver Stars, Bronze Stars and Purple Hearts. We have military with all types of training and awards. Of all enlistees about 65% are in the age category 40-60. About 20% are over 60 and about 15% are under 40. Our over 60 people increased in August. We had several people enlist in August who were born in the 40s and early 50s with military experience – these are almost all Vietnam veterans. This is why we increased our over 60 percentage from 15% to 20%. We also had some younger people enlist in August and that is encouraging.

Recruiting in Nov. 2013 exceeded Oct. 2013 by 24%. Recruiting in Dec. 2013 exceeded Nov. 2013 by 43%. Recruiting in Jan. 2014 exceeded Dec. 2013 by 97%. January enlistees reached 95% of all the previous months combined. Jan. 2014 was a huge month. In February, due to various technical problems, we were only able to recruit for 18 of the 28 days. It is therefore unfair to compare February to any other month. Still, in February and despite all the setbacks, we exceeded our recruiting totals for every other previous month except January 2014 – those results were extremely encouraging. March 2014 was our seventh largest recruiting month. April 2014 was our third largest recruiting month. May 2014 was our sixth largest recruiting month. June 2014 was our fourth largest recruiting month almost reaching April 2014. We are extremely encouraged by the May and June results since often in late May and early June people will not participate due to graduations, vacations and weddings. July 2014 was our largest recruiting month topping January 2014 by 20%. July 3, 4, 5 were our 4th, 5th, and 3rd largest recruiting days ever as the patriotic spirit was kindled by Independence Day. August, in spite of several minor technical problems that hampered us parts of the entire month, was our fifth largest recruiting month just missing June.

During the first five full months after September 2013 we had already surpassed our recruiting goal for the entire first year. Thank you to each one of you for your courage and patriotism. We do not give out strength reports but we can tell everyone that our total strength is >1,000 and <10,000.

We are now in all 50 states, and 11 other countries. We also have enlistees in Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico. Most of the people enlisted in other countries are Americans living outside the United States. We are like Washington’s Continental Army, however, in the sense that we will welcome help from anyone who is a patriot and wants to see our Constitution restored.

What is the most encouraging are the many people who have enlisted from small towns in America. This is a small town revolution – the people who have not been heard are beginning to speak up. While we have enlistees in many major cities, it is the voices in small town America that ring loudest. The Founder has been in all 50 states and has never heard of many of these cities so we have been looking them up on the Internet – impressive. Find the people in your small town who are fed up and get them enlisted and then form a unit in your town.

As a change of pace this month (and to see if you are paying attention) we have listed below the cities in each state that have the most people enlisted. Many of these are as expected but you will also find some surprises in the list.

Wasilla AK              Huntsville AL         Hot Springs AR         Phoenix AZ

San Diego CA         Denver CO             New Haven CT         Frankford DE

Jacksonville FL       Atlanta GA             Honolulu HI              Des Moines IA

Meridian ID            Chicago IL              Indianapolis IN        Wichita KS

Louisville KY           Shreveport LA       Boston MA               Baltimore MD

Portland ME           Lansing MI             St. Paul MN              St. Louis MO

Laurel MS               Butte MT                Raleigh NC               Richardton ND

Omaha NE             Concord NH           Toms River NJ          Albuquerque NM

Las Vegas NV         Rochester NY         Toledo OH                Tulsa OK

Portland OR           Philadelphia PA     Wakefield RI             Anderson SC

Rapid City SD         Nashville TN           San Antonio TX        Salt Lake City UT

Virginia Beach VA Plainfield VT           Spokane WA            Milwaukee WI

Princeton WV        Greybull WY

Notes: In the event of a tie we awarded it to the city with the smallest population. New York City, NY would have been the largest in NY except many people signed up by borough and we didn’t add all the boroughs together as one group.

————————————————————————

CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS:

The United States Freedom Army is concerned about continuous constitutional violations in the five areas listed in the attached flyer. These violations are listed in their relative order of importance and are so long running and egregious they can no longer be condoned. The flyer attached to this report delineates these grievances. You may use it to make copies and pass it out at any meetings, at the VFW Hall, post it on billboards, give it to friends, or whatever you may decide.

NOTE: On September 17 we will be passing out these flyers in Washington, D.C. We need as many people there as possible so we can reach as many people as possible in the three branches of our federal government. We need to know as soon as possible how many people will be at the Muster Point on September 17. If you cannot participate with us in Washington D.C. we will have other things for you to do in your local area on that day. See the section above “Cross Country March on Washington D.C.” for more updated information.

We realize that the information in the note above will disappoint some people but it is the best we can do at this point in time given all the circumstances. We want to do the best we can to achieve distribution of our flyer and make the feelings of everyone regarding the abuse of the United States Constitution known.

The flyer itself has a camouflage background and a gold stripe but it was designed so it can be copied in either color or black & white. When copied in black & white it loses the camouflage and gold stripe but is still effective and is very inexpensive to copy in black & white. The words are what count and the words are what we wish to communicate.

PLEASE NOTE AGAIN: THE FLYER FOR YOUR USE IS IN THE LINK BELOW

———————————————————————–

NEW POST:

The website post this month will be about the Constitutional Freedom March. We want people who log on to the website to know that an event is taking place and to encourage them to enlist and participate.

——————————————————————————-

CONSTITUTION:

We support all efforts by any organization to “resurrect” the United States Constitution. Whenever we hear about any effort to restore the Constitution we will record it here.

——————————————————————————-

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:

We are a group of people who want to see the United States Constitution followed and, by implication, this leviathan federal government dismantled. We intend to follow all laws and proceed peacefully to attempt to achieve this goal. This is the thrust of our effort at this time.

We are not at present a militia but circumstances in the future may alter that situation. What we do or become depends upon what occurs in Washington, D.C. and what occurs in D.C. may alter our goals and approach. Since we cannot see into the future it is not possible to say what may be required as time passes and events unfold.

THIS IS A REAL ARMY! WE ARE TOGETHER! THE CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN ABUSED AND IGNORED FOR TOO LONG! WE WANT ALL THREE BRANCHES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO START READING IT!

YOU MAY FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO ANYONE YOU WISH.

UNITED STATES FREEDOM ARMY

WE SIGN IN BOLD LETTERS

                                       JOHN HANCOCK

_________________________________________________________

FOR FLYER GO TO LINK BELOW:

http://www.usfreedomarmy.com/constitutional-freedom-march/

 

 

 

September 4, 2014 Posted by | Here And Now, Home, Must See, Political Corruption | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

THE BLAZE by JASON HOWERTON


(Why is there no across the board media coverage on this??  JM)

 

Why Are Truckers Threatening to ‘Shut Down Washington, D.C.’ for Three Days Straight?

A group of truckers is reportedly planning to shut Washington, D.C. down for three days straight starting on Oct. 11 to protest the “corruption against the Constitution.”

The “Truckers To Shut Down America” Facebook page has more than 16,000 likes, though it is unclear how many truckers actually intend on taking part in the disruptive protest.

Truckers Threatening to Shut Down Washington, D.C. for Three Days in Protest

(Facebook)

“The American people are sick and tired of the corruption that is destroying America! We therefore declare a GENERAL STRIKE on the weekend of October 11-13, 2013! Truck drivers will not haul freight! Americans can strike in solidarity with truck drivers!” the group’s description reads.

In a YouTube video uploaded by user “Kevin Allan” and linked on the “Truckers To Shut Down America” Facebook page, the event is labeled as a general “strike” by the American people against the federal government and its “bulls**t.”

The narrator in the video says he has received word from others that “truckers are organizing and are going to shut down D.C.” Watch the video below (Warning: Some strong language):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=P4hzre3rjoQ

It is too early to tell if the “strike” will be successful, but “shutting down” the nation’s capitol would certainly have a huge impact whether you agree or disagree with the tactic.

The Facebook page provides some additional information on the motive behind the action, which ranges from Obamacare to the IRS scandal to Benghazi:

My fellow patriot this effort is to support the truckers in a major shut down of America ion [sic] a 3 day strike October 11th thru 13th. Obamacare will be in effect and most people will be ready to take action. No commerce on those days stock up on items that you will need. No banking no shopping no money transactions.

It does not matter if a million or 50 roll through DC in this effort. Congress will listen to We the People. Which is remove Obama from office for crimes of treason and misdemeanors. We want Congressional hearing on Benghazi and Seal Team 6. Louis Learner [sic] put in jail. No amnesty, remove all Muslims in our government that do not uphold the Constitution. Remove Eric Holder from office for crimes against the people and the Constitution. Last but not least is Fuel prices.

September 19, 2013 Posted by | Home, Videos | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

MY TWO SENSE: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC AND A DEMOCRACY by JUST ME


WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC AND A DEMOCRACY

by JUST ME

September 5, 2013

It’s unfortunate that many Americans do not know their nation’s history, their Founding Documents, or the extent of their intrinsic rights.  Many, if not most, people believe America is a Democracy and know nothing about our Constitutional Republic form of government.  The differences may be subtle, but the consequences are major. 

The United States Constitution, given to us by the Founders, was intended to be a contract between the Founders and We, the People.  It is NOT, and never has been an agreement between that Document and the ruling elite, the federal government.  Nowhere, within the Constitution, is the word “democracy” used, yet even those who should know better continue to mistakenly refer to our form of government as a Democracy.  Is that purposeful and to some nefarious end?  Who knows, but I suspect that those who should know better, do know better!  The Founders understood that Democracy is a dangerous form of government in that it grants the balance of power to the central government and not to the People.  By design, a Democracy is open to unbridled corruption, oppression of the people, and it is always the stepping-off point to socialism, communism, or any other kind of “ism” there is.  The fact that there is so little outrage over such widespread government corruption reflects that when a people see themselves without options, they accept what they otherwise would not tolerate. 

Our Founders gave us a set of principles, guidelines, and responsibilities by which we are to live if we wish to remain free. Those principles give full authority to We, the People and none to the government to the extent it has become today.  Our US Constitution tells Americans that it is our duty to remove and replace those representatives who do not stand for the principles and guidelines the Founders provided.   Furthermore, We, the People, are held accountable for the well-being of our own freedom, and we are the watchdogs and caretakers of freedom’s future.  Not only are we responsible for the freedom of future generations, we owe a great deal to all those who have given their lives in the fight  for liberty then and now.  President Abraham Lincoln, in his Gettysburg Address, said; “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. . . (and) to the unfinished work which they who . . . gave the last full measure of devotion .  . . we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”  

Lincoln pointed out a truism that is timeless.  Americans have, and will continue to give, their lives in the name of freedom.  When Americans turn a blind eye to that truth, when they disregard the fact that freedom has a cost, and when they mock respect for US soldiers, past and present, they are, at the same time, spitting on the graves of those who gave their lives for the freedom all enjoy today!

The Founders also gave us a process by which to add, remove, or change Amendments, within the Constitution, when and if the People ever see fit.  That process was not given to the government, and the government is not legally entitled to circumvent the Constitution whenever it pleases.  They gave us three branches of government to act as checks and balances so that one branch does not become more powerful than the others.   Today, the Executive Branch operates, on its own, regardless of the principles and guidelines the Founders gave us and which were and are meant to hold the leaders accountable.  Just remember that it is the People who have the authority, as well as the responsibility to throw off tyranny and oppression.  This Administration will not stop of its own volition until it has complete control and has achieved the “fundamental transformation of America.” 

In essence, the United States Constitution, is being shredded by this Administration’s illegal Executive Orders, the removal of America’s right to due process, and the extermination of American citizens without proof of guilt.  None of these action are about national security.  It is about national control.

September 5, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

TEA PARTY NEWS NETWORK by MATTHEW BURKE (MY TWO SENSE: Not only is Joe Biden a dimwit, he is a liar, competing with Obama for first place, and a hypocrite. What’s worse is that Biden, Obama, and the gang don’t care one iota what Americans know or think. It’s like an Abbot and Costello bit; “We know they lie–they know that we know they lie–we know that they know that we know that they lie–and they know that we know that they know that we know that they lie, and they don’t care. So much for ten-fingered, Joe, and his lying-ass promises. JM)


Breaking: Joe Biden Calls for Impeachment if President Takes ‘Nation to War Without Congressional Approval’

Posted 08.29.13 by Matthew Burke, TPNN News Editor

JoeBidenHandsUp

JOE BIDEN:  Ladies and Gentlemen, I drafted an outline of what I think the Constitutional limits have on the war clause. I went to five leading scholars, constitutional scholars, and they drafted a treatise for me that’s being distributed to every senator. And I want to make it clear, and I made it clear to the president, that if he takes this nation to war…without congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him. And that’s a fact!

WATCH BELOW:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sM2kdfu1g1U

GOTCHA! Both the above video, and Biden’s quote are 100% accurate, with the exception of replacing the word “Iran” with “…,” which would be replaced with “Syria,” if Biden had a conscience.  The year was 2007, and Buffoon Biden was playing hardball with then Republican President George Bush over the invented belief that Bush would use the military to attack Iran without congressional approval, which is required by the U.S. Constitution. Biden was right!

Well, that was then, and this is now, and the U.S. Constitution doesn’t mean the same thing that it formerly did prior to the christening of dear leader. The War Powers Act has been redefined, and Biden’s been completely silent on the issue, as far as I can tell. Marxist globalist Obama seeks his approval from the corrupt, America-hating UN, while giving Congress, the Constitution, and the American people the middle finger.

 

September 2, 2013 Posted by | Home, Videos | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

MY TWO SENSE: Gun Control vs. The People by JUST ME


TYRANNY OF OUR NATION

August 22, 2013  11:35

Gun Rights vs. Victim Rights–The gun control debate has been going on since the beginning of time and all over the world.  Those countries in which gun control laws exist and keep guns out of the hands of citizens, are the same countries with oppressive governments.  Oppression can be said to be in the eye of the beholder, or the one being oppressed, however, in this case, gun removal/confiscation from citizens, necessarily requires that government oppress the Constitutional rights of gun owners, American citizens. 

While Americans are protected under the Second Amendment, government is not Constitutionally allowed to “infringe” upon gun ownership.  The word “infringe” means to create laws, or regulations, or otherwise impose restrictions upon the freedom of Americans to own gun(s).  Because we live in a civilized society, although how civilized is not clear, we must have some laws and regulations which offer guidelines and boundaries of such ownership.  Just as in the case of ownership of other personal property, we have commonsense responsibilities  and duties with which to comply so that we may have streets, utilities, and other things we’ve come to view as “necessities” of life.  Remember, that although we may determine those things necessities of life, they are not Constitutional ‘rights,’ they are not laid out within our Constitution, and the average individual must work in order to pay for the use of such things.  Those who can’t, or won’t, are generously given entitlements to those things that others pay for.  (That, in itself, is a form of redistribution of wealth, although that’s another subject!)

Please, bear with me.  The United States Constitution provides Americans with certain ‘natural rights’ which means, by virtue of being a human, by being a natural member of mankind, we are born with certain inalienable rights that are not granted by government but rather are intrinsic to human beings, the stewards of the rest of the living world.  One of the intrinsic rights we human beings have is two-fold; one, the right to defend our life and property without government infringing upon that right, and second, because our freedom is a facet of our personal property, we have a duty to protect it, not only for the present and for ourselves but also for future generations.  A people cannot protect themselves, their property, or the future of freedom without the tools to do so–guns.  No other defense weapon, for private ownership, has ever been invented that does a better job!  Imagine you are at home, you in one room of your home, and your partner in another room.  Someone breaks into your home.  Your loved one and you are separated, you in one room, your loved one in another.   The intruder has a gun held to your loved one’s head and on his knees.  Now, imagine your only defensive weapon is a baseball bat, crowbar, or other some such weapon that you could use, but it is no match for the weapon in the intruder’s hand.  What will you do?  You will wish you had a comparable fighting chance at survival for you and the person you love.  Now, imagine that an Administration, in the distant future, if you like, has designs on turning your beloved freedom into slavery, serfdom, or other indentured servitude.  This has happened before in every past and current dictator-ruled, nation.  First, the guns are always confiscated from the citizenry.  After that, everything is downhill going.  Now, you may be willing to allow such a takeover of your liberties, but there are a multitude of those who will not give up quietly.  And whether, or not, you realize it, those people in the past, who were just as unwilling to accept servitude, are the people to which we owe our  gratitude for the freedom we have today–freedom we are losing quickly today. 

When we allow some to dictate to the rest what rights they may or may not keep, we are oppressing.  The Founders provided a process for which we may make changes to our Constitution if, and when we feel the need.  That is the appropriate way to make this kind of change.  The debate we are having in this country over gun control is not about saving lives, and it is not about safety.  If it were, then as I described above, it would only be a matter of time before all other areas of our lives would be dictated to for the sake of safety.  Even our Founders knew that to exchange freedom for a degree of security is a very, very bad and dangerous thing for a free country. 

Gun control, even minimal infringement, is not, and never has been about safety or saving lives.  It is about controlling the people.  And it comes with a very big caveat!  When people willingly hand over the Constitutional liberty to own guns, they do so with the same consequences for the future—a future in which leaders/rulers with designs on ruling with an iron, dictatorial fist is easily done!  A current Administration without such designs does not secure the future.  It is the people, and the people only, who maintain, or give away their freedom. History shows us, government takeovers always begin with gun confiscation!  Armed revolution is rarely the case, and a successful usurpation of government  happens without the peoples’ notice.  A nudge here–a nudge there–and before the people know it, a free country is under the thumb of a dictator.  Why risk the only last line of resistance a people have against tyranny?  Why risk life and limb and that of loved ones when actual safety can be in one’s own hands if one chooses it?

Our Founders wrote about duty to defend the Constitution they gave us.  They wrote about our duty to place in office those that would not infringe upon any of our natural,  inalienable rights.  They placed upon us, the people, the burden to remain watchful over our natural rights, and over those we choose to represent us.  We lost sight of that job, and when we did, we lost our American history to the extent that we no longer know the difference between a natural right and an entitlement–between a Republic, which the US has always been, and a Democracy–between a negative right and a positive one.  Because we are Americans, born here, or immigrated here and taken on American citizenship, we are assigned to protect that freedom from an oppressive government. 

What will it take to stop any and all violence against life?  Although a very small percentage of gun deaths are by the mentally ill, most of the mass shootings are perpetrated by mentally ill individuals.  America has a dim view of anyone with a mental issues, and sadly, no amount of political correctness has made a dent in our preconceived notions about the “crazy!”  We do not understand the definition of mental illness.  We don’t know that one issue is different from another.  We don’t know that the vast majority, likely in the upper ninety percentile, of those suffering from mental health issues are not more dangerous than anybody else.  And when there is danger to life, it is to that of the sufferer and not another.  We all could be better informed about the myriad facets of mental health, but I don’t see that in my life time.  Again, the mentally ill are not the typical killer, and murder happens due to many, many variables leading up to a specific moment-the moment one chooses to act in such a way that it either injures or kills another human being.  There are as many reasons to kill as there are tools with which to do it.  Thus, the fact that we live and are in this current place on the evolutionary path, are the reasons that some kill, but most do not.  Killing is simply a fact of our life at present.

As Americans, we all must also think about the future consequences of our present actions, for the sake of those in the future.  We must realize that guns DO NOT kill–people kill using guns, cars, blunt objects, sharp objects, poisons, and on and on.  A killer will kill regardless of tool. Criminals will have guns regardless of the law. They always have and they always will.  They do not go through the legal process as do low-abiding citizens.  As for accidental deaths by guns, they are a matter of life’s tragedies, as are accidental deaths by drowning, crashes, falling, overdosing, poison, and on and on.  So, if the real goal is to cut down on death, then we will eventually have to remove everything that could possibly cause death.   You may think this argument ridiculous, but history and science makes it clear to us that, given the opportunity and the means, man will always go toward the darker side of a choice.  That, too, is human nature.  The saying goes, a camel’s nose under the tent, is as good as a camel inside the tent!

Why must we concern ourselves about a remote possibility that a dictator will rule America one day?  Because, as I said above, it’s human nature, and man is insatiable.  Given wealth, he strives for more wealth, and then all wealth.  Given power, he strives for more power, and then all power.  And given control, man ultimately strives for total control!  Easily done when there is no resistance.

August 22, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

MY TWO SENSE: MAKING THE CHANGE by JUST ME


MAKING THE CHANGE

LET’S GET THIS UNDER CONTROL

Passing term-limit, legislation or adding an amendment, regarding same, to the Constitution will take care of generational/family political careers and will significantly cut corruption and political wealth-gathering on the backs of taxpayers.  Also legislation/amendment to enforce a two-year hiatus between one office term and the next campaign would prevent politicians from speeding up that food chain.  The individual who grows dependent on a political career to support himself and his family, as one would if working in any other field, soon becomes fodder for bribery and intimidation.  That’s not good for any country, especially a free nation. 

Given the opportunity, as well as a misguided, but extremely popular, belief that the end justifies the means, man always empirically proves that his weakness lies strongest in self-aggrandizement which invariably flows over in one holding too much power for too long.  This inevitable politician, far removed from electorate reality, is morphed into an ignorant ass, ever hungry for more power, more wealth, and the next “big deal.”   He comes to view the public as stupid and easily led around by the nose, and therefore, in need of his egocentric expertise in the ways of our  government and what’s best for our country.  Once a good-hearted and well-meaning citizen, with the best of intentions to serve the nation, the politician turns into an unrecognizable public servant who has lost sight of service obligations, has lost sight of the original focus, and most egregiously, has  lost all desire to make America a better place.  His greed and lust for bigger and more of whatever he wants, runs the show, and to hell with everything and everyone else beneath him. 

Although, not all politicians are made this way, there are enough to destroy our nation completely, and We, the People, must rise up and support honest men and women who are fighting for us.  They need us to do that because at some point, thankless service will end, and tyranny will prevail.  Go to those heroes’ blogs, Twitter accounts, and their websites to say “thank you” everyday.

July 25, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

THETEAPARTY.NET–an email to me


Dear Patriot:

obama pointing

“Tyranny.” It’s a word that was rarely used in modern-day America, especially when describing our own government. It was a word often used by our Founding Fathers in describing the abuse of another big government tyrant, King George III.  Barack Obama and his Marxist minions have re-inserted it into the American vernacular.Help us fight against the tyrant Obama and fight to restore the greatness of America!

SIGN PETITION HERE

Obama is so drunk on power that his demanding edicts are getting not only worse, but more invasive. The news came out yesterday that our wanna be Dictator-in-Chief has ordered federal workers to spy on each other. They are to report attitudes, behaviors, any out of the ordinary working hours, habits, family life info, stress level…..you get the picture. These federal workers were told to basically tell the government every move of those who surround you at work or else face penalties and possibly even criminal charges!

 

Reminds me of the 1940s when neighbors were given a pint of vodka and a pound of sugar for turning in their friends. 

 

Is this the type of America that you want to live in? Is this what you will tolerate? Do you think this dictatorial behavior by the man who would be president is okay? The answer should be a resounding NO! We ask, can you help us in this fight for the sovereignty of America against a president who attacks it every day?

 

Tell Obama that America does not have royalty and he is not a king! Tell him that we do not elect dictators who do as they please, but rather elect presidents who are supposed to operate within the parameters of our system of government and its checks and balances system, adhering to the Constitution. Sign and share our petition to tell Obama that he is NOT a king TODAY!

July 10, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

FOX NEWS VIDEO (http://beforeitsnews.com/press-releases/2013/06/fox-news-obama-is-a-fraud-from-charles-krauthammer-2756274.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_term=http%3A%2F%2Fb4in.info%2Fg6dw&utm_content=awesm-publisher&utm_source=http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FzrvIEpTATv&utm_campaign=)


Fox News “Obama is a Fraud!” from Charles Krauthammer

Saturday, June 1, 2013 2:57

Charles Krauthammer: Obama Is A Fraud; Wizard Of Oz; What He Preaches Doesn’t Work

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jDwYUaOFhNM

June 1, 2013 Posted by | Home, Videos | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

THE BLAZE by MADELEINE MORGENSTERN


See Some of the Outrageous Requests the IRS Made to Tea Party Groups

U Haul Truck’s Worth of Information: Some of the Outrageous Requests the IRS Made to Tea Party Groups

AP

Conservative groups targeted by the the Internal Revenue Service were ordered to provide copies of their websites, social media postings, donor lists and much more in the still-emerging IRS scandal.

Politico reviewed documents from 11 such organizations and found they were asked deeply probing inquiries, including for one group, the “minutes of all board meetings since your creation.”

“They were asking for a U-Haul truck’s worth of information,” Toby Marie Walker, president of the Waco Tea Party, told Politico. Her group was asked for copies of all its newsletters, any stories written about them, and transcripts of radio shows where they mentioned any political candidates by name.

The American Patriots Against Government Excess was asked for summaries of all material passed out during meetings. They had been reading the U.S. Constitution; the group’s president mailed in a copy.

The inquiries were all in the name of the organizations’ applications for tax-exempt status, yet the process for many stretched out for more than a year and a half.

Other groups were asked whether they had any tie to the Koch brothers-backed anti-tax organization Americans for Prosperity. The Liberty Township Tea Party was asked whether they knew a former leader of the Cincinnati Tea Party. That former leader, Justin Binik-Thomas, said he never worked with the Liberty group and has no idea why there were lumped together — though is worried now about being on the IRS’s radar.

“Will my personal taxes get audited? Will my small-business taxes get audited? Am I a pawn to try to get at another group?” Binik-Thomas said to Politico. “There are a lot of people involved in the Tea Party. Why was I isolated from thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people? Why was I singled out?”

One conservative group, Linchpins of Liberty in Franklin, Tenn., gives talks to students. Founder and president Kevin Kookogey said the IRS wanted the names of everyone his group trained.

U Haul Truck’s Worth of Information: Some of the Outrageous Requests the IRS Made to Tea Party Groups

Image source: Daily Mail

“Can you imagine my responsibility to parents if I disclosed the names of their children to the IRS?” Kookogey told the Daily Mail. He said the very thought “should send chills through your spine that the government would ask me to identify those I teach, and to provide details of what I teach them.”

May 15, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

GODFATHER POLITICS by PHILIP HODGES (MY TWO SENSE: EMAIL TO KANSAS GOVERNOR SAM BROWNBACK–Governor Sam Brownback: Sir, please do not back down from thug, Eric Holder, and this Administration gang. We, the People of the United States, implore all officials across our nation to stand firm in the fight for this intrinsic human right. Thus far, Progressives have taken down so much infrastructure that it will take us 50 to 100 years to get this nation back on firm Constitutionally Republic ground. We are in the throws of “the ends justifies the means” and have lost the responsibility toward the individual citizen and exchanged that for Obama’s “collectivism,” which is just another name for Communism or Marxism. If you add your name to those who have already folded, under threats and intimidation tactics that Washington always flings at opposition, we will all have to live with the consequences. It takes courage to stand for right–believe me, I know, and it is often independently and alone. There are millions of Americans behind you. Sincerely, MO Patriot


Eric Holder Threatens Kansas Over Gun Control Nullification Bill

 “In purporting to override federal law and to criminalize the official acts of federal officers, SB102 directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional. … Under the Supremacy Clause…Kansas may not prevent federal employees and officials from carrying out their official responsibilities.  And a state certainly may not criminalize the exercise of federal responsibilities.  Because SB102 conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulations, federal law supercedes this new statute; all provisions of federal laws and their implementing regulations therefore continue to apply.”

First of all, where does the Constitution give the federal government the authority to regulate firearms at all? It doesn’t, and that’s why anything the feds do with respect to gun control, no matter how well-intentioned, is unconstitutional.

This is what the 10th Amendment is about:  “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” You can’t get much clearer than that. There is no power delegated to the federal government to regulate guns. Nor is any such law prohibited by the Constitution from being enacted by the states.

And then Holder has to bring up the Supremacy Clause. We’ve been through this many times before. He seems to think that whatever the feds do is authorized by the very nature of it being from the feds. But that’s not what the so-called Supremacy Clause says. It’s taken from Article VI of the Constitution:

 “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” [Emphasis mine]

We’ve already established that any federal law restricting or regulating firearms is unconstitutional, because the Constitution does not grant the feds any such authority. If the federal government is enacting laws and creating agencies in direct opposition to what the Constitution says, they’re the ones in violation. They’re the ones that are unconstitutional.

And since the Constitution doesn’t grant these authorities to the feds, and since it doesn’t prohibit states from enacting these laws, on the matter of gun control, the states are sovereign.

And on top of that, the 2nd Amendment says “shall not be infringed.” So the feds are completely wrong on all accounts.

Governor Brownback responded to Holder (in part):

 “The right to keep and bear arms is a right that Kansans hold dear. It is a right enshrined not only in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, but also protected by the Kansas Bill of Rights…The people of Kansas have repeatedly and overwhelmingly reaffirmed their commitment to protecting this fundamental right. The people of Kansas are likewise committed to defending the sovereignty of the State of Kansas as guaranteed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution…”

Right now, Governor Brownback needs encouragement not to back down from the feds. He can be reached here by e-mail. Kansans can reach him at 785-296-3232. And here’s his address:

Office of the Governor

Capitol, 300 SW 10th Ave., Ste. 241S

Topeka, KS 66612-1590


May 4, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

THE BLAZE by BECKET ADAMS (State Department chooses anti-semite and America hater, Ibarhimas, for the “Women of Courage Award!” But that was later rescinded when the public expressed outrage. Perhaps a female Constitutional conservative ought to be considered, as speaking out, in support of that Document, is extremely dangerous in many areas of this nation. JM)


March 12, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , | Leave a comment

POLITICAL VEL CRAFT VEIL OF POLITICS


English: Student pledging to the flag, 1899.

English: Student pledging to the flag, 1899. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY

 

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”
President John Adams ~ October 2, 1780

 


 

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

 

SUMMARY
In the Pledge of Allegiancewe all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. “Republic” is the proper description of our government, not “democracy.” I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

 

Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word “people” may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]

 

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]

 


 

The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to “liberty and justice for all.” Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People’s rights vs Citizens’ rights)

 

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution’s first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.

 

SOME DICTIONARY DEFINITIONSGovernment. ….the government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from its scheme and machinery of government. ….In a colloquial sense, the United States or its representatives, considered as the prosecutor in a criminal action; as in the phrase, “the government objects to the witness.” [Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 625]

 

Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]

 

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.

 

Note: Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, can be found in any law library and most law offices.

 

EXAMPLE
Democratic Form of Government: An environmental organization proposes a bill for the ballot that every individual should reduce his water household usage by 25%. To assure that this goal is met, the government, or private sector, will monitor every individual’s household water consumption rate. If an individual does not meet the goal, his first offense is $500 fine. Second offense is $750 fine and 30 days community service. Third offense is $1,500 fine and 30 days imprisonment. Fourth offense is $1,750 fine and 90 days imprisonment. Fifth offense is a felony (1-year imprisonment) and $2,000 fine.

 

The people argue this environmental issue back and forth. They argue the pros and cons of the issue. This great debate is held at town hall meetings. Strong opinions are on both sides of the matter. One side preaches, “It is for the common good!” The other side rebuttals, “This is control and not freedom, and lost of choice!” Election day occurs. The people go to the ballot box to settle the problem. The majority won by a vote of 51% whereas the minority lost with a vote of 49%. The minority is ignored. The majority celebrates while the minority jeers in disappointment. Since the majority won, the bill goes in effect. As a result of the majority winning, every individual must reduce his household water usage by 25%. For the reason that the majority has mandatory powers in a democracy. Those who wish to go against the collective (whole body politic) will be punished accordingly. The minority has neither voice nor rights to refuse to accept the dictatorial majority. Everything is mandatory in a democracy. This brings dictatorship and lividity to the realm.

 

Republican Form of Government: An environmental organization proposes a bill for the ballot that every individual should reduce his water household usage by 25%. To assure that this goal is met, the government, or private sector, will monitor every individual’s household water consumption rate. If an individual does not meet the goal, his first offense is $500 fine. Second offense is $750 fine and 30 days community service. Third offense is $1,500 fine and 30 days imprisonment. Fourth offense is $1,750 fine and 90 days imprisonment. Fifth offense is a felony (1-year imprisonment) and $2,000 fine.

 

The people argue this environmental issue back and forth. They argue the pros and cons of the issue. This great debate is held at town hall meetings. Strong opinions are on both sides of the matter. One side preaches, “It is for the common good!” The other side rebuttals, “This is control and not freedom, and lost of choice!” Election day occurs. The people go to the ballot box to settle the problem. The majority won by a vote of 51% whereas the minority lost with a vote of 49%. The minority may have lost, but not all is gone. The majority celebrates while the minority jeers in disappointment. Since the majority won, the bill goes in effect. As a result of the majority winning, it is advisory that every individual reduce his household water usage by 25%. For the reason that the majority has advisory powers in a republic. Bearing in mind that each individual is equally sovereign in a republic, he is free to reject the majority. He may choose to follow the majority and subject himself to the rule, or he may choose not to follow the majority and not subject himself to the rule. The minority has a voice and rights to refuse to accept the majority. Everything is advisory in a republic. This brings liberty and peace to the realm.

 

COMMENTSNotice that in a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government’s only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.

 

In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people.

 

The people own the government agencies. The government agencies own the citizens. In the United States we have a three-tiered cast system consisting of people —> government agencies —> and citizens.

 

The people did “ordain and establish this Constitution,” not for themselves, but “for the United States of America.” In delegating powers to the government agencies the people gave up none of their own. (See Preamble of U.S. Constitution). This adoption of this concept is why the U.S. has been called the “Great Experiment in self government.” The People govern themselves, while their agents (government agencies) perform tasks listed in the Preamble for the benefit of the People. The experiment is to answer the question, “Can self-governing people coexist and prevail over government agencies that have no authority over the People?”

 

The citizens of the United States are totally subject to the laws of the United States (See 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution). NOTE: U.S. citizenship did not exist until July 28, 1868.

 

Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).

 

There was a great political division between two major philosophers, Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes was on the side of government. He believed that sovereignty was vested in the state. Locke was on the side of the People. He believed that the fountain of sovereignty was the People of the state. Statists prefer Hobbes. Populists choose Locke. In California, the Government Code sides with Locke. Sections 11120 and 54950 both say, “The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.” The preambles of the U.S. and California Constitutions also affirm the choice of Locke by the People.

 

It is my hope that the U.S. will always remain a Republic, because I value individual freedom.

 

Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and ignorance cannot coexist.* Will you help to preserve minority rights by fulfilling the promise in the Pledge of Allegiance to support the Republic? Will you help by raising public awareness of the difference between the Republic and a democracy?

 

 

* “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization,
it expects what never was and never will be.”
Thomas Jefferson, 1816.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jAdu0N1-tvU

 

 Related articles

 

 

 

February 2, 2013 Posted by | Home, Videos | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

GODFATHER POLITICS by J. MATT BARBE


Is Another Civil War on the Horizon?

lightly edited by Just Me

civil war

A pretty, young, auburn-haired woman – mid-20s – drove down a lonely country road somewhere in Oklahoma. Appearing in her rear-view mirror, at the back windshield, were two menacing orbs of light floating amid ashen dusk. The guttural roar of a souped-up big block shook the tiny Volkswagen Rabbit as a van-load of inbred thugs lurched left and drew alongside her. A ponytailed passenger taunted inaudibly and blew foul kisses between crude hand gestures. He pointed for her to pull over as the van repeatedly swerved dangerously close.

Inside the car a man, asleep in the reclining passenger seat, was startled awake by the commotion. He rose and darted his head about, calmly assessing the situation. This only spurred the evil-bent goons.

As they ramped-up efforts to run the car off the road, the man reached in the glove box, withdrew a military-grade, semi-automatic handgun – an “assault weapon,” if you will – and, with intentionality and great theatre, leaned across his young bride, pointing the gun out the open bay and directly between dirt bag’s booze-flushed eyes.

Van vanished amid a plume of gray smoke as wheels locked, tires screeched and “assault vehicle” fishtailed – jerking to a halt with taillights aglow skyward from the ditch.

Not a shot was fired.

Back at the couple’s rural farmhouse, two boys – boys who would not be orphaned that night – played. We most likely played – my brother Pete and I – with assault rifles fashioned from sticks. I always love to hear Dad retell the story. He does it with an ornery, satisfied grin. “No one’s taking my guns,” he’ll say.

This might be a good time for me to add that no one’s taking my guns either. Period. And if Dianne Feinstein orders me from her lofty perch on the left-coast to retroactively register them with some federal autocracy, I think I might just forget I even have them. Tens of millions of law-abiding, God-fearing Americans just like me and Dad, I suspect, feel the same way.

I love guns. Grew up with ‘em. As a former police officer with 12 years in the U.S. military, I know how to use them, too – use them well. I plan to buy more – a bunch more. In fact, who’s to say I don’t already have a veritable arsenal?

Point is, tain’t Big Brother Barack’s nor any other candy-keistered-liberal-cream-puff’s bloody business whether I do or not.

See, the left’s totalitarian brand of “gun control” has nothing to do with controlling guns – or bad guys. Rather, it has everything to do with controlling – disarming – the law-abiding masses. It’s not about protecting the innocents. It’s about rendering the innocents defenseless.

Clichés become clichés for a reason, and the old cliché, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns,” rings as true today as it did whenever it was that some homespun fellow coined it.

I was disgusted – physically sickened, in fact – when Barack Obama, president of these Divided States of America, shamelessly exploited the Sandy Hook memorial service to lay the groundwork for his unconstitutional gun-confiscation scheme. It was slimy to the extreme.

I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised. That’s what liberals do. Every time some evil nut-job – pumped full of psychotropic drugs by NEA members who don’t want to deal with them – shoots-up the place, the left’s collective mouth begins to water.

“Now, finally, now!” they say, rubbing together soft hands that have never felt the surprising weight of a Sig Sauer 45. “This time we have the political momentum for sweeping gun control. This time the American people will roll over and let us trample the Second Amendment beneath jackbooted executive order or congressional fiat.”

“Let no good crisis go to waste,” right, Rahm (Emmanuel)?

Well, not so fast, cupcake. As the U.S. Constitution guarantees – and as the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed – “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It ain’t, “should not be infringed,” or “shall finally be infringed once ‘progressives’ have assumed total dominance.”

No, “shall not” means shall not.

There’s only one way to take my guns, slick, and that’s through a constitutional amendment – an amendment that will never happen – ever. Try it any other way and we have a problem.

And this whole “assault weapons ban” angle? Sensationalist propaganda. I prefer to call them “defense weapons.” Contrary to left-wing revisionist pabulum, the Second Amendment’s not about squirrel hunting.

Notice a trend here? What do Sandy Hook Elementary, Aurora Colorado’s Century 16 theatre and Columbine have in common? They’re all “gun free zones.”

Places you don’t see mass murder and mayhem? Well, there’s a reason bad guys largely avoid shooting-up gun shows, ranges, households with signs that say: “This home insured by Smith & Wesson” and Texas in general. It’s because they know – even while thick-skulled, liberals don’t – that, as recently noted by the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

Oh, that rather than “gun free zone,” Sandy Hook had a sign reading: “Staff heavily armed and trained. Any attempts to harm those herein will be met with deadly force.” Might some of those beautiful babies have still died if the P.E. coach and four MP5-bearing teachers had ended the bloodshed soon after it began? Perhaps. But how many precious lives could have been saved?

No, you won’t disarm me. You’re not going to neuter my household and tear away my ability to defend my wife and precious babies like Dad did all those years ago.

I really, really hope this president and his authoritarian cohorts in Congress will slow down, take a deep breath and realize that, right now, they’re playing a very dangerous game of chicken. If they try what I think they might, but hope they don’t, I fear this nation – already on the precipice of widespread civil unrest and economic disaster – might finally spiral into utter chaos and into a second civil war.

But then again, that may be exactly what they have in mind.

Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)  

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/8967/is-another-civil-war-on-the-horizon/#ixzz2I3XwfMT5

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

BELOW IS AN OPEN LETTER, BY BOB LIVINGSTON, OF PERSONAL LIBERTY DIGEST, WHICH ONE CAN USE AND SEND TO ONE’S ELECTED PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON.

An Open Letter To The Elected Class Regarding Gun Control

January 14, 2013 by

An Open Letter To The Elected Class Regarding Gun Control

PHOTOS.COM

Dear ______________:

I realize it is customary to begin missives to elected representatives with the words Honorable Senator ______________ or Honorable Representative ______________, but I believe that title must be earned. Frankly, you (I am referring to you individually and to Congress as a whole) have not done so and, therefore, do not deserve to be addressed that way. However, the purpose of this letter is not to criticize you, but to inform you about what is happening in the country you were elected to serve.

According to a recent poll, Congress’ favorability ranks below lice, cockroaches, colonoscopies and root canals. Have you for a moment stopped to wonder why? It’s because a vast majority of Americans believe that Congress no longer represents them, but instead represents big corporations and, mostly, themselves and their cronies. The recent “fiscal cliff” deal is a perfect example. It socked a tax increase on 80 percent of American workers while doling out $76 billion in government money (which means my money) through special tax favors to large corporations, such as General Electric, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and DIAGEO, and to Hollywood and green energy companies. According to a recent column in The Washington Examiner, Senator Max Baucus’ (Fascist-Mont.) former staffers who are now lobbyists all got their clients millions of dollars in special benefits from the fiscal cliff deal. In return, Baucus received thousands of dollars in political contributions from those companies’ political action committees. Americans, myself included, believe this is standard operating procedure in Washington, D.C. And there is talk that additional tax increases on the middle class are on the way.

Upon your inauguration, you swore an oath, with your hand on a Bible, to uphold and defend the Constitution. You have repeatedly violated that oath by passing unConstitutional laws like the USA Patriot Act (and subsequent extensions) and the National Defense Authorization Act, which grants the President the authority to indefinitely detain American citizens and suspends habeas corpus. If I’m not mistaken, these unConstitutional laws contain provisions that in some way violate Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9. That’s quite a feat for two laws.

We live in a Nation that goes far beyond anything George Orwell imagined in 1984. Our emails are read, our conversations are listened to, our cars have tracking devices and there are cameras everywhere watching our every move. Law enforcement has devices that can look through our clothes and into our cars and homes, and surveillance drones are patrolling our skies. Travelers are treated as criminals who must be strip searched or patted down before being allowed to fly — and sometimes before being allowed to board trains or buses. Many of us feel this is tyranny.

Now, in the wake of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, there is a great hue and cry among the elected class and the mainstream media about guns and gun violence. To hear them tell it, every gun owner in America is a potential mass murderer, especially those who happen to own a sporting rifle. You and I know that is balderdash.

The anti-gun lobby loves to pull out figures and statistics that it claims show that America is the most violent place on the planet, saying that if guns were simply banned, America would be a crime-free utopia. Let me give you some real statistics. Yes, the recent shootings at Sandy Hook and Aurora, Colo., were tragic and senseless. Do you know what their common denominators are? Both occurred in so-called “gun-free zones.” That means the shooters who made conscious choices to disregard our laws were able to freely attack a group of adults who were restricted by their desire to obey our laws from defending themselves and the children in their charge. Both shooters, as is the case with the vast majority of recent mass shooters, were on prescription psychotropic drugs prior to the attacks.

According to FBI crime data from 2011, rifles (of which the misnamed “assault rifle” is a subset) were used in only 323 of 8,583 firearms murders. This is a continuation of a long-established trend in which the rifle is the least-used of all firearm weapons involved in murders. Rifle use as a murder weapon even ranks below knives, blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) and hands and feet.

In other words, rifles of all types kill less than one person per day. And fewer than 100 people are killed each year by rifles with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. According to MotherJones.com, from 1982 through 2012 sporting rifles have been employed in mass shootings 35 times. They were used only three times in 2012. In those three attacks, 52 people died. Since the Sandy Hook shooting on Dec. 14, 40 juveniles (statistically speaking) have died in shootings using a weapon other than a sporting rifle. THAT’S JUST ONE MONTH.

Meanwhile, according to Childhelp, more than five children each day — or more than 1,825 per year — are killed by parental abuse. I realize that thinking about the 20 children gunned down by a drug-addled, mentally unstable man is gut-wrenching. But since the Sandy Hook shooting, about 10 times as many children have died at the hands of their parents, and almost twice as many have been killed in juvenile gang crimes. Why don’t these seem to concern you? Could it be because the media are not interested in talking about it and it won’t get you the “face time” you desire? Why aren’t you addressing the topic of the widespread administration of psychotropic drugs and their common link to mass shootings? Is it because you stand to lose political contributions from the medical-industrial complex?

Gun grabbers love to hold Great Britain up as a model of what happens when guns are banned. Well, let’s compare U.S. and U.K. crime statistics. Britain is the most violent country in the European Union. Since the imposition of the country’s gun ban following the Dunblane school massacre in 1996, recorded violent attacks have soared by 77 percent. The violent crime rate there is 2,034 per 100,000 residents.

Contrast that with the United States, which has a violent crime rate of only 386.3 per 100,000. That’s about one-fifth the rate of violent crime in the U.K. And this has trended down since the ban on “assault weapons” ended in 2004.

In the U.K., the weapon of choice to use in a violent crime is the knife. In 2006, there was one knife crime committed in Britain for every 374 people. In the U.S. in 2006, there was one gun crime for every 750 people. In other words, a person was twice as likely to be a victim of a knife crime in the U.K. as he was a gun crime in the United States.

What about guns? The media frenzy that followed the Dunblane massacre led the British government to pass the Firearms Act of 1998, which instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Handgun owners were required to turn their guns over to the government, and those who sought to follow the law did so. But the Act didn’t end mass shootings. Another one occurred in 2010. However, within 10 years after the gun ban was enacted, gun crimes had almost doubled. British police are now arming themselves in response to armed gangs. Meanwhile, British citizens are helpless against attacks by criminals wielding knives, clubs, rocks, ropes, chains, axes and anything else that can be used as a weapon.

It also did not have the effect of ending gun crimes. From April 2010 through March 2011, there were 60 shooting homicides in the U.K., despite an almost complete ban on guns. And the number of annual shootings continues to increase.

What the law has done is make criminals out of law-abiding citizens, as in the case of Paul Clarke, a taxi driver who found a shotgun in his yard and turned it into the police only to be arrested for possessing it, and Iraq War veteran Danny Nightingale, who was given a Glock pistol as a gift by Iraqi forces he had trained. That gun was packed in his bags by colleagues when he left Iraq to bury two friends who were killed in action. When the gun was located, Nightingale was forced to plead guilty to possessing it in order to avoid a five-year sentence.

Since the “assault weapons” ban in the United States ended in 2004, gun crimes in the United States have decreased. Not only that, but according to statistics by the Department of Justice, as the number of guns per 1,000 U.S. citizens has increased, the number of serious violent crimes per 1 million population has dropped.

Now to the mood of the country. Americans have been pushed and pushed until they are near the brink. Much of the blame for their anger falls on a government that is out of touch with middle America and tone deaf to its pleas. Most Americans see Congresses past and present inserting fingers into every aspect of daily life: whether it’s the amount of water that can pass through a toilet or the type of light bulb can be used or how much ethanol has to be in gasoline or how one can use his own property or what type of health insurance he must pay for. Now comes the threat that law-abiding Americans will have to surrender their guns — which Senator Dianne Feinstein’s (Communist-Calif.) proposed bill will require — and be restricted from purchasing a gun simply because it looks frightening, carries a high-capacity magazine and a bunch of pointed-headed, intellectual, overeducated elitists have decided it is not “needed” for hunting. And banning large capacity magazines is attacking a problem that is statistically insigificant.

The 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights — as were all the first 10 Amendments — to restrict what government can do. It was designed to ensure that Americans could deter or, if necessary, overthrow a tyrannical government — you know, the type of government that Representative Jerrold Nadler (Communist-N.Y.) would institute because he believes, as he told a reporter recently, “that the state should have a monopoly on legitimate violence.” When the state has “a monopoly on legitimate violence,” Americans are no longer citizens; they are subjects. Americans will not become subjects.

The 2nd Amendment was not included in the Bill of Rights to ensure Americans could hunt or defend themselves against criminals, so the argument that we “don’t need” guns with “large capacity clips (sic)” — by the way, the proper word is magazines — is a non sequitur. How do I know this? Here are the words of some of our Founding Fathers:

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good — George Washington

[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, –who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them… — George Mason, The Virginia Ratifying Convention

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — Tench Coxe

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? — Patrick Henry

Despite what you and those of your ilk seem to believe, it is not the job of Congress or the President to decide what Americans “need” or for what purpose. Americans are quite capable of deciding that for themselves. Nowhere does the Constitution give you the authority to legislate weapons in any way. Nor does the President have this authority, as all laws are to come from the legislative branch, per Article 1, Section 8.

Many, if not most, Americans feel there are already ample gun laws in place. In fact, an argument can be made that many if not all current gun laws violate the Constitution — not that unConstitutional laws seem to bother you people. But I can assure you that, should a bill be passed by Congress and signed by the President that in any way approaches the one being proposed by Feinstein, there will be blood in the streets once Federal agents begin knocking on doors of gun owners to fingerprint and register them. Feinstein’s proposed bill makes many weapons non-transferable, which is the equivalent of weapons confiscation. This will be resisted, as will registration and fingerprinting of gun owners.

And you can tell the President that any executive orders that infringes on the 2nd Amendment will also be ignored and resisted. You see, your passage of laws — or executive orders or whatever you want to call them — that are unConstitutional do not make them any less unConstitutional. Nor does consent to those unConstitutional laws by the Supreme Court give them validity.

Our rights come from our Creator, not government. Therefore, government cannot take them away.

In closing, I want to urge you to consider at great length what you will be starting if, in response to a senseless criminal act, you pass additional burdensome laws on people who have no desire nor inclination to commit criminal acts with the firearms they own — laws that would not reduce gun crime or prevent future Sandy Hook-style massacres but would only add burden and expense to lawful, legitimate gun owners. Gun crimes are committed by criminals. Criminals are criminals because they choose to ignore the laws. Writing additional laws will not serve as a deterrent.

The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by gang bangers and criminals, many of whom are prohibited from possessing a gun under current laws. For the most part, they obtain their guns illegally: either on the black market or by theft. Those committing gun crimes with legitimately purchased weapons are rare outliers.

As proven in Great Britain and Australia, additional gun control laws will neither end nor deter those with criminal intent from committing criminal acts. They will serve only to put the law-abiding public in further danger. That danger will come from two places: the criminal class that will see undefended citizens as easy targets and the Federal agents who will be tasked with enforcing unConstitutional laws.

But those Federal agents tasked to register and/or confiscate weapons will be putting themselves at risk as well, and any violence that results will be on your hands. The threat of arrest or death will cause some to give up their arms peaceably. But as was the case on April 19, 1775 at Lexington and Concord when the British came to confiscate arms and weapons, there will be many patriots who rise up to resist this usurpation. I have spoken to a number of current and former members of the U.S. military who say they will be a part of that resistance group. These are people who have already shown a willingness to die in order to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

I pray to God that you enter into any gun control negotiations prayerfully and with a full understanding of the mood of the country. You have been warned.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Livingston

January 15, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

POLITICHICKS by SUZANNE SHARER & MILITARY SURVEY


Portraits & autographs of the signers of the D...

Portraits & autographs of the signers of the Declaration of Independence (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: Detail of Preamble to Constitution of...

English: Detail of Preamble to Constitution of the United States Polski: Fragment preambuły Konstytucji Stanów Zjednoczonych (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Will Our Military Fire Upon Us? Survey Says….

January 8, 2013 at 5:00 am / by

military woman

Recently a young soldier was upset enough to contact Politichicks.tv in regards to a survey he was asked to take in his official capacity. This isn’t just any survey and definitely not something you would expect to be filling out when you just signed up to defend and protect the sovereignty of your beloved country and her citizens with your very life if called upon! So just what is this survey?  This military questionnaire is not new and has been quietly lurking around since the Clinton years, waiting for the time when it can be fully played out and reap its usefulness. I believe that time is now. The timing is something of a magnitude in which I now feel deserves the full attention of the American people considering we have a sitting President who rules by executive order and has openly declared gun control as one of his top priorities of the new year. Add in the facts that Obama and his administration is cutting defense spending while giving more power to the UN and building up alternate civilian forces as he is trying to unarm the American people and we can see we are heading for a perfect storm.

This particular survey was first given in 1995 right after the “Clinton Weapons Ban” and was passed out to a few hundred Marines in 29 Palms, California. This was not done by the Pentagon but according to an article in New American Magazine in October of 1995 written by John F. McManus, this survey was supposedly part of an academic project by Navy Lt. Ernest Guy Cunningham. Not surprisingly the survey alarmed many of the marines and copies soon were circulated among gun rights supporters. Cunningham quickly told McManus that he himself is a member of the NRA and didn’t agree with the tone of the questions that the survey was only intended to confirm and then pass on to the higher authorities his fears about “the lack of knowledge among the soldiers regarding the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and their heritage as Americans.” I wonder what type of grade he earned for such a useful and overused questionnaire. Sounds like the way they cover their tracks even today! Always make the wrong sound right.

Here are two of the questions in the survey; please consider the importance:

Strongly agree/Disagree/Agree Strongly/Agree/No Opinion

45: I would swear to the following code: “I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain world peace and every nation’s way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.”

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

46: The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non‑sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire on U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Do you wonder how most of our military answered these questions? Does this chill you to your core? It should! You can read the full survey here:  http://thenewalexandrialibrary.com/armysurvey.html

Next time you hear people say it is okay to give up our guns to make a safer America, or that it is ok that the TSA treats us as lesser beings than cattle, or even that it is a good thing for the DHS to train our police forces on how to control urban situations against “home grown terrorists”, remind them that they are the reason our freedoms are dissipating before our very eyes. Thank God in Heaven we still have our Vets and brave military men and women who want us to open our eyes and see what is going on in the ranks of our “protectors”.

ARMED FORCES SURVEY

U.S. Armed Forces Survey: This is the questionnaire that was given in 1994 to select groups of U.S. armed forces personnel. Notice the references to the U.N., the firing on American civilians and the correlations of the two aforementioned. Note questions 8‑17 deal with the use of U.S. federal armed forces intervening in the civilian affairs of the U.S. public under the pretense of policemen. According to the U.S. Constitution (posse comitatus law) No federal forces are to be used in the civil control of the populace. Also note question 46 for a stunning question concerning the use of federal forces.

Note questions 18‑45 deals entirely with the United Nations, which is really the heart of this survey. Questions 1‑7 are only lead in questions for the rest of the survey.

Results to the article (paper file) is “Incredible” – The following is all taken in order: Combat Arms Survey: This questionnaire is to gather data concerning the attitudes of combat trained personnel with regards to non‑traditional missions. All of your responses are confidential. Write your answers directly on the questionnaire form. In part II, place an “X” in the space provided for your response.

Part I. Demographics:

1: What service are you in?

2: What is your pay grade? (e.g. E‑7, O‑7)

3: What is your MOS code and description?

4: What is your highest level of education in years?

5: How many months did you serve in Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield?

6: How many months did you serve in Somalia?

7: What state or country did you primarily reside in during childhood?

Part II. Attitudes: Do you feel that U.S. combat troops should be used within the United States for any of the following missions?

8: Drug enforcement?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

9: Disaster relief? (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes)

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

10: Security at national events? (e.g. Olympic Games, Super Bowl)

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

11: Environmental disaster clean‑up?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

12: Substitute teachers in public schools?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

13: Community assistance programs? (e.g. landscaping, environmental cleanup, road repair, animal control)

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

14: Federal and State prison guards?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

15: National emergency police force?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

16: Advisors to S.W.A.T. units, the F.B.I., or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (B.A.T.F.)?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

17: Border patrol? (e.g. prevention of illegal aliens into U.S. territory)

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

Do you fell that U.S. combat troops under U.S. command should be used in other countries for any of the following United Nations missions?

18: Drug enforcement?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

19: Disaster relief? (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes)

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

20: Environmental disaster clean‑up?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

21: Peace keeping?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

22: Nation building? (Reconstruct civil government, develop public school systems, develops or improve public transportation system..etc.)

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

23: Humanitarian relief? (e.g. food, and medical supplies, temporary housing, and clothing)

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

Do you feel that U.S. combat troops should be used in other countries, under the command of non‑U.S. officers appointed by the United Nations for any of the following missions?

24: Drug enforcement?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

25: Disaster relief? (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes)

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

26: Environmental disaster clean‑up?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

27: Peace keeping?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

28: Nation building? (Reconstruct civil government, develop public school systems, develops or improve public transportation system..etc.)

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

29: Humanitarian relief? (e.g. food, and medical supplies, temporary housing, and clothing)

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

30: Police Action? (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, but serving under non‑U.S. officers)

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

Consider the following statements:

31: The U.S. runs a field training exercise. U.N. combat troops should be allowed to serve in U.S. combat units during these exercises, under U.S. command and control?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

32: The United Nations runs a field training exercise. U.S. combat troops under U.S./U.N. command and control should serve in U.N. combat units during these exercises?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

33: The United Nations runs a field training exercise. U.S. combat troops should serve under U.N. command and control during these exercises?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

34: U.S. combat troops should participate in U.N. missions as long as the U.S. has full command and control?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

35: U.S. combat troops should participate in U.N. missions under United Nations command and control?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

36: U.S. combat troops should be commanded by U.N. officers and non‑commissioned officers (NCO’s) at battalion and company levels while performing U.N. missions?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

37: It would make no difference to me to have U.N. soldiers as members of my team? (e.g. fire team, squad, platoon)

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

38: It would make no difference to me to take orders from a U.N. company

commander?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

39: I feel the President of the United States has the authority to pass his responsibilities as Commander‑in‑Chief to the U.N. Secretary General?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

40: I feel there is no conflict between my oath of office and serving as a U.N. soldier?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

41: I feel my unit’s combat effectiveness would not be affected by performing humanitarian missions for the United Nations?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

42: I feel a designated unit of U.S. combat soldiers should be permanently assigned to the command and control of the United Nations?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

43: I would be willing to volunteer for assignment to a U.S. combat unit under a U.N. command?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

44: I would like U.N. member countries, including the U.S., to give the U.N. all the soldiers necessary to maintain world peace?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

45: I would swear to the following code: “I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain world peace and every nation’s way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.”

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

46: The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non‑sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire on U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

End of questionnaire

Now ask yourself these questions:

1: Are we to turn over our armed forces to the U.N.?

2: Can we be the U.N.’s world policeman?

3: Or the world’s policeman on our own?

4: Should we give oath of allegiance to a foreign power?

5: Should we compromise our U.S. Constitution in the name of world government?

6: Who is first, the United States or the rest of the world, specifically the United Nations?

7: Would you rather answer to a world court (United Nations court) or to the courts of the United States?

8: Do you believe you will have any say in a world government or world court (United Nations)?

9: Are you willing to sacrifice national sovereignty for world laws and courts?

10: Is the United Nations better able to dictate our lives to us than we as a country are?

11: DO YOU BELIEVE IN A NEW WORLD ORDER RUN BY THE UNITED NATIONS?

Think about it, that is what this survey was meant to convey, A New World Order Run By the United Nations!

Here are the results of the survey:

Shoot Americans (New World Order Survey of Last Year) Survey Results One In Four Marines would fire! Results are in from the U.S. military “shoot Americans” survey ‑ and they are disquieting By Mike Blair. About one in four U.S. Marines would be willing to fire upon American citizens in a government gun confiscation program, according to the results of a survey undertaken nearly a year ago at a Marine Corps Base in Southern California. In addition, more than four out of five of the Marines surveyed indicated they would be willing to “participate in missions under a U.S. National Emergency Police Force.”

The SPOTLIGHT has been provided the results of the survey contained in a master degree thesis, reportedly undertaken by a student at the Naval Postgraduate School at Monterey California, to determine “unit cohesion” when soldiers are assigned to “non‑traditional missions.” Few stories published in the SPOTLIGHT have created such a stir when it was revealed in this newspaper’s July 25,1994 issue that the survey had been taken at the Marine base. On May 10,1994, the survey was undertaken by Navy Lt. Cmdr. Ernest G. Cunningham, purportedly as research for his thesis: “Peacekeeping and U.N. Operational control; A Study of their effect on Unit Cohesion,” at the Marine base, located on the South‑east corner of the Mojave Desert, about 70 miles due east of San Bernadino, California, just east of Los Angeles

Received Degree: Cunningham turned in the thesis for printing on March 20 and was graduated from the post Graduate school on March 23, receiving his Master of Science in Manpower, Personnel and Training Analysis degree. According to U.S. Navy and Marine Corps officials, Cunningham administrated the survey to 300 Marine veterans of the Persian Gulf War and the earlier invasion of Panama in the base auditorium.

He had the cooperation and permission of the base’s public affairs officer, but Cunningham did not have consent of the base commander, Brig. Gen. Russell H. Sutton. In fact, Sutton did not know about the survey until afterwards. The results of the survey have until now been “classified,” according to a Marine Corps spokesman. The survey contained 46 questions dealing with the Marines’ willingness to perform “non‑traditional” missions. Question 46, dealing with a gun confiscation scenario, jolted both the Marines and Navy, as well as The Department of Defense, numerous members of the House and Senate and virtually every American concerned with the second amendment to the U.S. constitution, which grantees the people’s right to “keep and bear arms.”

Very Disturbing: This is how the question was posed to the Marines: “The U.S. Government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non‑sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. “Consider the following statement:’I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government’.” The question was then posed as to what degree the individual Marine agreed with the statement. According to results given in Cunningham’s thesis, a total of 88 percent, or 264 Marines, responded to the question. Of the 264 who responded, 26.34 percent, or 79 Marines indicated they would be willing to fire upon U.S. citizens.”

Of that total, 18.67 percent or 56 Marines, indicated they “agree” with the statement, and 7.67 percent or 23 Marines, indicated that “strongly agree.” A total of 61.66 percent, or 185, indicated that they were opposed to firing on citizens.

Of that total, 42.33 percent, or 127 indicated they “strongly disagree” and 19.33 percent or 58, indicated they “disagree.” In is thesis, Cunningham noted: “This particular question, unlike the others, elicited from 15.97 percent of the respondents with an opinion, either heavier pen or pencil marks on the response or written comments in the margin space. The responses to this scenario suggest that a complete unit breakdown could occur in a unit tasked to execute this mission.”

In other words, if a commander asked the men of his unit to raise their hands in a simple poll, he could determine the position of such servicemen and those who responded in the affirmative could be tasked for such a mission. This is just one of the reasons the question, not to mention the fact that it was allowed to be asked, is obviously potentially dangerous. In fact, several months before the survey was taken at Twenty‑Nine Palms, the SPOTLIGHT, MODERN GUN and other publications revealed the question posed by Cunningham in his survey had ben asked of members of a U.S. Seal (Sea‑Air‑land) team. In addition, despite Navy and Marine Corps denials, there have been dozens of reports, unconfirmed, that the survey has been given to other servicemen, as well as various law enforcement agents.

Further Surveys? In fact, Cunningham notes: “If the results of this survey elicit concerns in the areas queried, then further studies are warranted. Perhaps a random sample survey should be conducted to determine whether the results of this survey is valid for the entire Marine Corps and/or Army. Also, a survey could provide an indication of the volunteer pool that would seek service in units dedicated to, and specialized in, peacekeeping operations…Also of concern is the fact, as reported by Cunningham in his thesis that 97.67 percent of the Marines responded to a question‑‑an overwhelming 85.33 percent in the affirmative‑‑that they would be willing to participate in missions under a U.S. National Emergency Police Force…” “Furthermore,” Cunningham notes “43.0 percent of the soldiers strongly agreed…”Federal Troops have been restricted from participation with local police authorities to quell domestic violence since the passage of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. That being the case, it was surprising that these soldiers seemed not to know the legal restrictions placed on them by this act.” He also noted, however, that “In May 1992, 4,000 U.S. Army and Marine Soldiers were ordered by President George Bush to augment city and county law enforcement and state National Guard during the riot in Los Angeles, California following the Rodney King trial. “Since, 1981,” Cunningham states, “the majority of today’s All Volunteer Force has been exposed to and participated in an environment of expanding non‑traditional missions when Congress passed the Military

Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act of 1981. This act enabled the Military to participate in the drug war. This cooperative alliance of military and civilian police efforts in the name of national security may have eroded the demarcation between civilian law enforcement and our military institution first established by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.”

The results of another question, No. 45, posed by the survey indicates American soldiers are not eager to swear allegiance to the United Nations, although nearly one in four would do so. Question 45 states: “I would swear to the following code:’I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain world peace and every nation’s way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense’.” A total of 69.33 percent, or 208 Marines surveyed, indicated they disagreed, with 117, or 39 percent, indicating they strongly disagreed.

On the other hand, 71 Marines, or 23.66 percent, indicated they would be willing to swear such allegiance to the UN, with 19, or 6.33 percent, indicating they were strongly in favor of doing so. “For thousands of years.” Cunningham notes in his thesis, “military organizations have required their soldiers to swear to some kind of code or allegiance. A code provides a standard for the soldiers to live up to and, in many cases, to die for. A code can be a powerful tool for establishing and sustaining unit cohesion. But what if the mission a solider is assigned to perform counters or confuses the code he has sworn to uphold? Question 45 was presented to determine if the solders would swear to such a code.” No one knows if the American personnel traveling in the helicopter shot down over Iraq [by “friendly fire”] in April 1994 would have sworn allegiance to such a code.

Yet, Vice President Albert Gore stated that these Americans “died in the service of The United Nations.” “It is patently clear,” a retired high ranking Army Officer told The SPOTLIGHT,”that this survey raises some very serious issues, not the least of which is that U.S. servicemen are not being properly educated as to the limits of their service in the civilian sector. This is most dangerous, and, I should think the Congress has an obligation to the people to take a careful look at this, not to mention the people at the Pentagon.”

January 8, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

BEFORE IT’S NEWS by LC VINCENT


Sandy Hook Murders crafted to gut 2nd Amendment

Monday, December 17, 2012 13:21

(Before It’s News)

Chocolate Jesus Walks Upon Children and Cries Crocodile Tears!

As he reached far back into his Animatronic memory to produce a single. liquid crocodile tear to display before his servile audience of press corps sycophants, Barack Hussein Obama did his very best to convince his electronic world-wide viewers that he really and truly did care for the innocent children and adults who were murdered in cold blood at a gun free zone at The Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut this past Friday.   Undoubtedly, he relied on Americans’ noted non-ability to recall any details beyond the latest “Dancing with the Stars” winner, or the finalists names on “America’s Got Talent.”  Otherwise, those with longer memories might reconsider the incongruities of this theatrical display by our acting President, a man who appears to care so deeply about the tragic, senseless deaths of children and adults while his Communist core is already salivating over the ways this tragedy can be — pardon the expression — ‘capitalized’ and exploited to push the last yet most essential element in his quest for his consolidation of power and control over America — complete civilian disarmament and the nullification of the 2nd Amendment to The Constitution of The United States.

There are those who will read the words above and recoil in shock and horror as to my apparent callousness and cynicism.   They will remind you that Mr. Soetoro, aka, Obama, has two young school age daughters whom he clearly loves, and use this as proof that his grief is genuine.  To this I replay that this same Barack Obama is the man who voted to allow the killing of children who accidentally survived abortion outside the womb; who has allowed and expanded the remote drone strike killings of ‘suspected’ Al Qaeda terrorists throughout the Middle East, drone strikes which routinely kill 80% of non-intended victims who are then described as  “collateral damage” — a euphemism which a more civilized person might more accurately describe as women and children.  Yes, this is the same bronzed demigod who walked thru a corridor of Greek columns to accept the laurel wreath of victory during his first Democratic Party nomination –  only to silently collude in a treasonous conspiracy with his racist Attorney General, Eric Holder, to violate both international and constitutional law to allow thousands of “high powered assault rifles” to be ‘walked’ directly into Mexico, an act which produced hundreds of murders of Mexican men, women and children, and finally resulted in the killing of U.S. Citizen and border agent, Brian Terry, which is the only reason the American main stream media even bothered to report it.

Of course, many liberal/progressives will object and state that no linkage between The White House and this “rogue” gun walking operation out of Arizona was ever established.  True, the American Public was harassed and cajoled by the Establishment Press and The White House to view this ‘gun walking’ operation as something that was developed totally independent of the knowledge of Eric Holder or Barack Obama.  Yet think of the absurdity of low level bureaucrats of the ATF deciding, on their own, with no knowledge, communication or involvement of anyone higher than their local Phoenix office, instigating a program of ‘walking’ thousands of ‘high powered assault weapons’ over the Mexican border to known drug dealers and drug gangs, without the knowledge of either Washington or Mexico, in order to supposedly ‘track’ these weapons to see where they would end up — although they had no way to ‘track’ them once they left their straw purchasers, as they did not bother to imbed the rifles with any remote tracking devices!  What a truly amazing oversight!

Yes, it’s almost as if someone wanted to have all these weapons smuggled into Mexico so that all the killing they produced might be considered as proof to a supine American media that lax U.S. gun laws had resulted in the death of hundreds of Mexicans, and that something had to be done to stop such carnage.

For those of you who think this scenario is too cynical, consider that the mainstream media never even told you that similar operations were happening spontaneously out of other ATF offices in Texas and Florida and even Indiana!  Yes, you see, all of these ATF offices and the people in them had the same idea — at the very same time — without ever communicating among themselves or with their superiors in Washington, DC, to allow illegal straw purchases (felony) to be made multiple times by known felons (felony) and for their purchases to be given to known criminal drug gang members (felony) and have these weapons brought across international borders (felony and violation of international law) to be ‘tracked’ and ‘traced.‘   Their desire to ‘track and trace’ these weapons may have been thru psychic means, as all of these ATF field offices never bothered to insert any remote tracking devices into their firearms to allow this ‘tracking’, which was the alleged media inspired ‘reason’ for this operation, to occur.

Yet the biggest miraculous coincidence of them all is that neither President Obama nor his 2nd in command and head of The Justice Department, nor the head of the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms knew a thing about it!  Which explains why, when the feces hit the fan, St. Obama invoked Executive Privilege…. because, of course, he knew nothing about it, and by invoking Executive Privilege, he made sure WE would learn nothing more about his non-involvement in this treasonous conspiracy with Mr. Holder.

I say all this just to illustrate the fact that the only lives that are meaningful to the people who currently run our government are the lives of people that they can use to push their agenda; and nothing is of more paramount importance than the evisceration of the 2nd Amendment and the disarming of the American Public so that the ‘progressive’ Utopian vision of a ‘Unitary’ Executive, a vision which appeals equally to ‘Neo-Cons’ as well, will be established.   Another word for this flowery title might more properly be termed ‘Dictator’, and both Neo-Cons and Progressives, being at their hearts twin heads of the same Socialist serpent, see an American Dictatorship as something for which they both yearn.

What makes the killings of innocent men, women and children at Sandy Hook, Connecticut even more reprehensible, is that their is already substantial evidence to point to a staged government spy-op!   That is, the official story of yet another ‘lone’ gunman going berserk may really have been another staged event to push naive, low-information Americans, led by a primed American media, to demand “gun control” as a panacea and a preventative so that such horrific violence would never happen again.

We are told by the lemming lame stream media that the lone gunman, Adam Lanza, 20, came to school with weapons and went on a shooting spree, killing 20 children, and 6 adults, including his mother, before killing himself.  No motivation is offered, other than he was a loner who had problems relating to people, despite the fact that he was quite intelligent.  No one event seemed to precipitate this outburst of violence.  Yet already there are major discrepancies in this very pat story which seems tailor made to push the Obama/Progressive disarmament gun-control agenda to fruition.

One major discrepancy is that the Medical Examiner has declared that every child and adult was shot with a .223 round at least 3 times, and some as many as eleven times.  Yet the .223 Bushmaster ‘assault’ rifle used to do the killing was not found near the alleged assailant’s body, but locked in the trunk of his car.  Two handguns, a Glock and a Sig Sauer, were found near his body, but apparently these were not the firearms used to kill the children.   Police reported finding numerous casings of spent .223 ammunition, yet both handguns shoot 9mm shells.

A further anomaly is the simple math involved.  If every person murdered suffered at least 3 shots from the .223 Bushmaster, that would mean that at least 90 shots were fired (including the person shot 11 times).  However, the Glock pistol holds no more than 17 rounds; the Sig no more than 15.  Even the .223 Bushmaster holds no more than 20.  This sort of massive killing would then require multiple magazines of ammunition to be used, but none of these magazines have been found at the scene.  However, police did announce that a Henry repeating (lever action) rifle and a shotgun were also found.  Curious, isn’t it, that one person would be able to carry 3 long guns and two hand guns onto the crime scene with no apparent help from anyone else.

But perhaps there was someone else committing this crime.  Eye witnesses describe two men running into the woods at the time of the shooting, and YouTube video shows the police actually catching one of these men, who is wearing a dark jacket and camouflage pants!  Yet he protested his innocence (innocence of what?  How did he know anything had happened, and if he were innocent, then why did he run away from the police?)  There is also a YouTube audio of police calls (lasting 37 minutes) where this man is apprehended by the police and made to lay on the ground in a ‘prone position.’

Unfortunately, young Adam Lanza, the alleged lone gunman, supposedly shot and killed himself, so we will never be able to ask him why he supposedly did it.  Nor will we be able to ascertain that he was as much of a ‘patsy’ as Lee Harvey Oswald.  It will be interesting to see if Adam used one of the 9mm handguns found near his dead body.  Or whether he shot himself with the .223 Bushmaster rifle found in the trunk of his locked car….

Now the incredulous among us must become even more so, because there is also a strange ‘link’ with this shooting and the recent Aurora, Colorado theater massacre alleged to have been committed by one Jason Holmes.  Please consider the remote mathematical probabilities of these ‘co-incidences’ actually occurring.

It turns out that there is an interesting connection between the father of Adam Lanza, alleged shooter and killer at Sandy Hook Elementary school, and the father of James Holmes, the ‘Joker’ shooter in the Aurora, Colorado ‘Batman’ movie massacre.  Both of these fathers, Peter Lanza and Robert Holmes, were scheduled to testify before a U.S. Senate committee to discuss the LIBOR rate fixing scandal that has cost investors billions of extra dollars around the world.  Robert Holmes is the lead statistical scientist for FICO, which most of us know does our credit scores.  Peter Lanza is a Vice President and Tax Director of GE Financial.  Really, just what are the ‘odds’ that these two would have sons who would be involved as the perpetrators of mass murder within months of each other?

In fact, this strange relationship also brings to mind the recent case of the two children who were murdered in their New York City high rise condo by their ‘nanny’ of many years.  It turns out that father of the children and husband of the wife whose children were murdered, Kevin Krim, is the same Senior Vice President and television executive who decided to post the story of the $43 Trillion dollar law suit involving all the major figures of the Obama administration and the New York banking and finance community on the CNBC website, and then 3 hours later, after an anonymous phone call, had it hastily removed.  A day later, two of his children were dead.  Coincidence, especially when dealing with the corruption of the international banking elite, is a curious thing.  But I digress.

A common theme of mass shootings is that they happen where guns are banned (gun free zones) and no one is armed.  Think on this.  How many ‘mass murders’ can you recall ever happening at a police station?  Why do mass murderers always choose places where the odds are that no one will be armed?  Simple — because they want no resistance to their homicidal urges and even in their demented state realize that a person with a weapon willing to use it is sufficient to thwart their plans.

Now as to the discrepancies mentioned previously, it would be a simple matter just to examine the video recordings of external and internal cameras at the school to determine if there were truly more than one shooter.  However, I will hazard to guess that for some inexplicable reason, those cameras were not operational that day, or the recordings were somehow lost or destroyed.  It will just be another co-incidence.

The bottom line in this tragedy is that the progressive liberal agenda, headed by Barack Obama, will use this mass murder for further political fodder to try to ban all semi-automatic handguns and rifles; after that, their next goal will be to completely ban the civilian possession of firearms  of any type.  This feeding frenzy to further gut our Bill of Rights seems curiously tailor made for their agenda, for in their world, ‘gun violence’ can only be stopped by the elimination of guns.  Let us totally forget that it is not the gun that commits the crime (which is what the non-sequitur, ‘gun violence’, actually implies); it is the individual who uses that lethal tool in a criminal manner.  For if we, as a society, were truly interested in eliminating ‘things’ which cause children’s deaths, we would also eliminate swimming pools and bicycles, both of which cause more childrens’ deaths annually than firearms.  But don’t expect a federal/media campaign to outlaw either within your lifetime.

What truly leads to the use of violence and mass murder committed with a firearm?  Is it the ‘easy availability’ of these weapons to the general public?  Consider that semi-automatic handguns and rifles have been a part of American culture for over 100 years; it’s only been since the killing of Robert F. Kennedy in 1967 that ‘gun control’ took root in the psyche of the American ‘progressive’ Left.   It was even easier for teenagers to buy howitzers and bazookas as well as semi-automatic ‘assault’ rifles thru firearms dealers before 1967, yet where were the mass school murders and shootings before that time?  Essentially, mass school shootings were nearly non-existent.

So what has changed in our lives, our society and in our culture since the late 1970’s, when mass school shootings started to occur in our society?  While it is true that our media culture has become more violent, and violent video games have become extraordinarily popular, while single family parents are nearly the norm, where child abuse and teen-age pregnancies soar against a backdrop of over a million abortions a year, while all of these things are a factor in the psychic background of these murderers is true, the one almost universal commonality found in nearly 100% of all the mass school shooters is that the perpetrators were on prescription psychiatric, psychotropic drugs.

If you go back thru all the school shootings of the last 30 years, you will notice a constant litany of these shooters on ‘approved’ psychiatric drugs, such as Ritalin, Luvox, Effexor, Valium, Prozac, and a whole host of anti-depressants and serotonin uptake inhibitors, which are known to produce violent mood swings, psychotic breaks, suicidal impulses and murderous rages.  Since Adam Lanza was described as nearly autistic and also suffering from Asperger’s syndrome, it is more than likely that he was being ‘medicated’ to deal with his mental ‘issues.’  Yet have we ever heard even one politician or media personality call for an end to this massive psycho-therapeutic assault on the mental health of our nation?  Even tho such prescription drugs can be found in use by nearly 100% of every school shooter since this phenomenon began?

This hypocrisy is even more incongruous when seen against the backdrop of our current societal fixation with drugs.  On the one hand, we have ‘zero tolerance’ for drugs, campaigns to ‘Just Say No’ to drugs, and countless television police reality shows which show the devastation of drugs; yet we think nothing of allowing psychiatrists, psychologists and others to prescribe drugs for our children, drugs which have a trailing history of death, suicides and murder, yet we allow their use in the hopes of modifying the behavior of a loved one in a positive direction.  This is the true insanity.

The mental illness, precipitated by psychiatrically prescribed psychotropic drugs IS the issue which Obama should have addressed and highlighted.   But the donations of Big Pharma to the coffers of both Democrat and Republican campaign machines will certainly preclude the media spotlight from ever being shone on this one indisputable commonality among nearly 100% of every school mass murder.  All we can look forward to is a constant barrage harping upon the evils of firearms in private hands, especially those deadly semi-automatic ‘assault’ weapons.  Almost as if on cue, media personalities sing in unison to ‘get serious’ about ‘gun control’ and always without addressing the underlying issue of the latent mental illness which is the fomenter of these atrocities, the driver which causes an unstable person to plan these murders and pull the trigger.

Yet while the media refuses, as usual, to investigate the story surrounding this event and prefers their normal prone posture of simply acting as a government conduit for ‘official’ news while relegating uncomfortable, non-conforming facts to the memory hole of obscurity and oblivion, the bottom line is that there also appears to be more than co-incidence at work here.

The idea that such murderous situations being conceived, scripted and carried out by a small, secret faction of our government may seem preposterous to many.  Yet there are simply too many ‘co-incidences’ and unanswered questions in both this particular atrocity, as well as many others in the past, which cries out for full investigation.   But whatever you do, please do not expect any member of the so-called ‘main stream media’ from following leads into uncomfortable areas or unchartered waters.  They had their grand opportunity to do that with a thorough investigation of the ‘Fast and Furious’ scandal, and did nothing more than regurgitate the repeated lies and obfuscations of the Obama Administration, rather than following the trail of leads back to their source in The Oval Office.  Now that The Anointed One has captured another second term, the media mouthpieces will be even less inclined to pursue The Truth, no matter where it may lead.

The problem, of course, is that it may lead directly back to the current puppet in the White House, and his puppet master, George Soros, also a perpetual proponent of ‘gun control’ and complete civilian disarmament.  After all, it will be so much easier to corral the great mass of Americans and herd them into FEMA camps when the economy totally collapses under the weight of massive derivatives fraud, stock and bond price manipulations, and endless TARP ‘stimulus’ programs, with the resultant hyper inflation of prices combined to coincide with the planned deflation of our currency.

What a heady brew!  And since most American’s will have been disarmed to ‘save the children’ they will no longer be able to save themselves from the intended consequences of this manufactured calamity.

LCVincent
copyright 2012, LCVincent, all rights reserved
lcvincent.blogspot.com

January 4, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

THE AMERICAN THINKER by JOHN GRIFFING & WND by JOHN GRIFFING


Reblogged from October 5, 2011

Obama, the Hitman: Killing Due Process

By John Griffing

One of the many unfulfilled aims of the Obama administration has been the criminalization of political opponents via the machinery of U.S. anti-terror statutes and other devices.  So far, President Obama and his cronies have stopped at saber-rattling, confronted by an extremely heightened public awareness and growing anger amongst average Americans at the Obama agenda.  Many will recall the innumerable statements of regulatory czar Cass Sunstein and his call for banning “falsehoods,” as well as the infamous DHS reports attempting to tar conservatives as potential terrorists.  More recently, the TSA has sought to make all Americans traveling for the holidays into terror suspects, attracting significant public outrage.  The direct approach has arguably failed.

But where the direct approach has failed, a more silent approach is poised to succeed.  No constitution has an unconditional right to life — except the U.S. Constitution.  In the United States, no man can be deprived of life without due process — i.e., a trial by a jury of his peers.  However, using shady CIA “hit lists” designed to thwart American-born terrorists, President Obama claims the power to capriciously do away with this most fundamental of American freedoms.  Through a new clandestine assassination program targeting selected citizens, Obama will void due process.  The list of targeted Americans is currently not available to the public.  The New York Times and the Washington Post both report that Obama has approved the assassination of U.S. citizens engaged in terrorist acts overseas.  U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki was killed pursuant to this new program.

Yes, Awlaki was evil, and his behavior was criminal and treasonous.  But before the dust settles and his assassination becomes precedent, a few questions come to mind: Islamic terrorists may be the object, but what happens if this power is selectively turned against political opponents?  Is there any accountability?  Who decides who is and isn’t a terrorist?  America cannot allow the precious right to life to fade without a fight.  No compromise can be tolerated on a freedom this basic.

Ironically, this highly unconstitutional protocol has been lauded by Republican Americans ever-concerned with the spread of Islamic terrorism.  The sentiment among many is one of relief, that finally President Obama takes the threat of Islamic terror seriously.  Could this magical change be the salvation of America in the War on Terror?

Obama’s habitual actions until the present point speak to the contrary.  President Obama gives Miranda rights to foreign terrorists without first attempting to garner information that could save American lives.  President Obama delays an investigation of the atrocities at Fort Hood.  President Obama posts the TSA playbook online for the all the world to see.  President Obama makes strategically damning declarations like “America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam.”  President Obama appoints officials who publicly advocate Islamic sharia law.  President Obama says that the aims of Hamas are fine as long as they are achieved “peacefully.”  And finally, President Obama has sought to grant foreign enemy combatants not even protected by the Geneva Convention the privileges of U.S. citizens.

And now we are supposed to believe that because President Obama is willing to trash the fundamental right of Americans to due process without so much as an amendment, he is somehow turning up the heat in the War on Terror?  This is typical liberal-style “warfare.”  War becomes a means to gain power at home instead of protecting freedom abroad.  As the sage Abraham Lincoln would remark in a letter to law partner William Herndon:

The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.

Lincoln viewed unlimited war as the “most oppressive of all kingly oppressions,” and yet in the present state of affairs, we have given to the presidency the awesome power of fighting a protracted and ill-defined war, by any means necessary.  Obama is now the equivalent of an elected king.

Consequently, the present move of the Obama administration towards KGB-style assassination of U.S. citizens should be regarded with close scrutiny.

Many warned that one day very soon, the PATRIOT Act and its sister legislation would be used against American citizens.  The broad and ambiguous language found in the PATRIOT Act gives the president, whoever that may be, the power to determine what is and is not “terror.”  Section 411, G, vi, II of the PARIOT Act defines a terrorist as anyone “designated, upon publication in the Federal Register, by the Secretary of State in consultation with or upon the request of the Attorney General”[1].

Everything that follows is contingent on this loose definition — i.e. warrantless wiretapping, warrantless entry, human tracking, access to bank statements and phone records, access to internet records, “enhanced” interrogation, and now assassination.  Predictably, as a result of this accountability vacuum, the definition of terrorism is subject to frequent and conspicuous change — e.g., the DHS report labeling pro-lifers “terrorists”[2].  President Obama’s preferred definition of terrorism generally involves Christian bigots and White Supremacists [3].  In fact, Obama’s counterterrorism advisor wants to delist “jihadists” as security threats.

Even the philosophical basis of the PATRIOT Act is flawed.  If citizens are found conspiring against the United States, a provision already exists in the Constitution to address it.  It’s called “treason.”  As long as due process is afforded, treason is punishable by death.  Recall the trial and execution of the Rosenbergs in the last century.

By ordering the CIA to shoot and kill American citizens if classified as “terrorist,” a power the White House now wields [4], both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are violated, since the Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,” and the Fifth Amendment guarantees that “[n]o person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[.]”  The “person” and “life” of American citizens are clearly breached by such an order.  The exceptions to the Fourth Amendment are arguably infringed by the entering of homes without warrant — a practice sanctioned by the PATRIOT Act — since “hot pursuit” is not always a factor, and because the home has traditionally been a place where individuals possessed a “reasonable expectation of privacy.”  The courts have held that warrantless wiretapping, also a power found in the PATRIOT Act, is illegal and usurps constitutionally guaranteed liberty [5].

These breathtaking powers all fall under the vague and limitless definition of terrorism now in the hands of one of the least trustworthy men ever to sit in the White House.

It was Benjamin Franklin who once said, “They that surrender essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither freedom nor safety.”  America may be “safer” looking up little girls’ skirts, but at what cost?  If freedom vanishes to guarantee peace of mind at airports, can al-Qaeda not claim de facto victory in the War on Terror?  Put simply, if constitutional rights can be removed by mere statute, then they are not rights.

Nothing is more certain than that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  The power by which we are “safer” today will be our ruin tomorrow.

Trust in a powerful leader is not the American way.  “Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism,” Thomas Jefferson once said.  Americans must not trust that President Obama will use this new power responsibly.  We must “bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.”  Only then will all Americans, and not merely those who embrace Obama’s radical agenda, be secure in their liberty.


[1] USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56, 107th Congress, 1st sess., (26 Oct. 2001).

[2] “Homeland Security Warns of Rise in Right-Wing Extremism,” FoxNews, 14 April 2009, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/14/homeland-security-warns-rise-right-wing-extremism/, (Accessed 4 Mar. 2010).

[3] “Errol Southers Ranting about Christian Identity Terrorist Groups,” YouTube, 11 Jan. 2010, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8MaUSu4isk, (Accessed 18 April 2010).

[4] Glenn Greenwald, “Presidential Assassinations of U.S. Citizens,” Salon, 27 Jan. 2010, http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/27/yemen, (Accessed 18 April 2010).

[5] Charlie Savage and James Risen, “Federal Judge Finds NSA Wiretaps Illegal,” NYT, 31 Mar. 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/us/01nsa.html,  (Accessed 18 April 2010).

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/obama_the_hitman_killing_due_process.html#ixzz2GNtcI76j
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/obama_the_hitman_killing_due_process.html#ixzz2GNtH9o43
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

_____________________________________________________________________________________

WND EXCLUSIVE

Congressman blasts Obama’s decision to ‘arm’ extremists

Calls decision to give Muslim Brotherhood F-16s ‘unwise’

Published: 19 hours ago

author-image by John Griffing

John Griffing is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and is published across an array of conservative media, both in the realm of commentary and research.F-16s

Congressman Ted Poe, R-Texas, says it is irresponsible for Barack Obama to be “arming” a country that may be aiming for the destruction of Israel with a shipment of 20 F-16 fighter jets.

“It is reckless and unwise for the U.S. to give F-16s to Egypt and its new president/dictator, controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood,” he told WND. “This extremist group is notoriously anti-American and anti-Israel. The United States should not be arming a country ruled by a group that has the destruction of Israel in its charter.”

Poe’s comments fall in line with other critics of the move, confirmed recently by federal officials.

Florida Rep. Vern Buchanan said, “American tax dollars must not be used to aid and abet any dictatorial regime that stands with terrorists,” and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, said, “We should also be cautious about the arms we provide.”

Obama is proceeding with his plan to gift Egypt with 20 brand new F-16 fighter jets as part of a $450 million aid package promised to Egypt in 2010 when it was led by the U.S.-friendly Hosni Mubarak regime.

Now Egypt is governed by the openly hostile Muslim Brotherhood, which has called for the destruction of America and Israel. The new President Mohammed Morsi, head of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, recently joined in a public prayer to the effect of “Oh Allah, destroy the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, disperse them, rend them asunder.”

Poe, a member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, wasn’t pleased. Nor was Gen. Jim Cash, the former director of NORAD, who believes Obama’s actions just plain wrong.

“In my opinion, continuing to support them financially through foreign aid is criminal. I say that to emphasize how I feel about providing any type of weapon system to them. We have an out-of-control government right now, and this will cost this nation greatly in the long run,” he told WND.

Find out what Obama really is planning, in “Obama’s America: 2016.”

America in the past frequently has withdrawn promises of arms shipments when instability seems evident.

But the promised delivery is going ahead for Morsi, whose regime recently began talks with Iran and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is known for his virulent calls for the overthrow of the West and his pursuit of nuclear weapons.

He has said he wants to “wipe Israel off the face of the map” and that “We don’t shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world.”

Critics believe that by doing business with Ahmadinejad, Morsi has forfeited his right to military help from the U.S., most certainly Obama’s gift of 20 F-16s.

But Obama’s pursuit of his own plan falls on the heels of other situations where critics contend he has given aid to those who are not America’s friends.

Among those incidents:

  • Obama proposed granting civilian protections to Islamic terrorists.

  • Obama indirectly funneled $20 million to terrorist organization Hamas. Obama has publicly stated that the aims of Hamas are fine, so long as they are achieved “peacefully.”

  • Obama reneged on missile defense pledges to Eastern European allies in a leaked deal with the Russian Federation, and used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip in the face of British.

  • Obama delayed investigation of the Fort Hood massacre for months, warning of “political theater,” and yet wasted no time classifying any domestic violence as the result of conservative opposition to his policies as “terrorist,” even having the DHS release reports to that effect.

  • Obama has sought cuts to the U.S. nuclear deterrent that would reduce deliverable warheads to 300, which could leave America critically exposed to possible nuclear attack.

  • Obama has begun announcing once secret U.S. missile tests and satellite launches.

  • Obama unilaterally ended a strategic practice called “calculated ambiguity,” considered crucial by defense insiders, publicizing the exact number of warheads in America’s arsenal.

  • Obama has pledged to “de-MIRV” all American ICBMs – dramatically reducing options if an exchange ever took place between the United States and Russia – as there were some 3,000 strategic targets listed in the former Soviet Union at the close of the last decade.

  • Obama has allowed Iran to acquire top secret U.S. drone technology. Drones have self-destruct capability and, as Dick Cheney pointed out, can alternatively be destroyed by U.S. fighter-jets from the air – preventing acquisition by U.S. enemies. Former NORAD Director Jim Cash, when contacted by WND, said he did not believe the drone acquisition to be accidental.

  • Obama has publicly stated that Iran has the right to attain “nuclear energy.”

  • Obama has sent guns to Mexican drug cartels, not for tracking purposes, but in an apparent move to transfer weapons across international borders.

  • Obama has proposed awarding medals to soldiers in Afghanistan for “restraint,” saying he wants to avoid words like “victory,” and announced his intent to give the Taliban (the organization that trained and equipped al-Qaida prior to 9/11), a formal role in Afghanistan.

  • Obama removed “jihadi” from the national security lexicon.

  • Obama is vocally critical of America’s “superpower” status.

  • Obama ordered the creation of a “citizen assassination” program, attends “kill committee” meetings for the same, all while advocating Miranda rights for foreign terrorists.

In addition to the list, which is not exhaustive, there are structural issues, like intelligence leaks earlier this year or the leak of the TSA playbook, which could conceivably enable American enemies to exploit weaknesses in current transportation infrastructure.

There are also the more philosophical issues that are thought by some to represent an inherent anti-American default position on the part of the president. The Muslim Prayer Day in 2009 is one such example.

Imams were permitted by Obama to hold a Muslim Prayer Day near White House premises in 2009, the same year Obama prohibited a similar Christian “Day of Prayer” despite the longstanding precedent for such gatherings. One of the speakers at the event is on record saying, “We are going to the White House, so that Islam will be victorious, Allah willing, and the White House will become … Muslim house.”

Similarly, Siraj Wihhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 WTC bombings, was invited to deliver the “Juma,” an Islamic prayer, at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. Wihhaj once remarked, “It is my duty and our duty as Muslims to replace the U.S. Constitution with the Quran.”

The invitation later was withdrawn after media coverage made the issue the focus of controversy.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/congressman-blasts-obamas-decision-to-arm-extremists/#TViZelK7jDHJdAiq.99

December 28, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now, Home, Must See | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

THE BLAZE by MYTHEOS HOLT


Crime

Does the Second Amendment Only Apply to State Militias? Liberals Are Making the Case — But We Look at the Evidence

Liberals Say Second Amendment, Right to Keep and Bear Arms Only Applies to Militias, Supreme Court Disagrees

Whenever the subject of gun control comes up, supporters of the practice (generally of the liberal persuasion) inevitably run up against one major roadblock to pushing sweeping laws — specifically, the United States constitution, and its second amendment, which protects a sweeping right to keep and bear arms.

Thus, experts have read the amendment in a way that hasn’t banned the ownership of weapons altogether. This reading has only been strengthened by recent Supreme Court cases such as District of Columbia vs. Heller, and McDonald vs. Chicago, which have codified the right to keep and bear arms as being as important as other rights such as the right to free speech.

Undoubtedly, this is frustrating to many opponents of gun rights, since even in moments of widely felt national tragedy like the present moment, their agenda requires a constitutional justification as well as a political one – a fact that puts them at a permanent disadvantage relative to gun rights supporters.

Which is why opponents of gun rights have seized on a well-worn constitutional argument in the wake of the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary. That argument – an old chestnut of the anti-gun community – is that the second amendment doesn’t actually grant every American a right to keep and bear arms, and is in fact obsolete because it only applies to members of state militias. This argument focuses on what legal scholars call the prefatory clause of the second amendment, bolded below for emphasis:

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.

So since the amendment itself mentions the maintenance of “well regulated” militias as the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms, the argument goes, gun control is perfectly permissible so long as it only targets private citizens and not state militias. In fact, the liberal Daily Beast published an article on Tuesday making this exact argument.

The Argument for “Militia-Only” Gun Ownership

So well-worn is this argument that Justice John Paul Stevens used it in his dissent in District of Columbia vs. Heller ​(emphasis added):

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

As did Justice Stephen Breyer in the same case (emphasis added):

 The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.

Of these two Justices, Breyer remains on the court, and would presumably be all too happy to resurrect this argument to limit the scope of the Second Amendment. So at the level of legal strategy, it is easy to see where this argument – that the Second Amendment is much narrower in scope than a generalized right to bear arms – might be appealing.

Liberals Say Second Amendment, Right to Keep and Bear Arms Only Applies to Militias, Supreme Court Disagrees

Illinois gun owners and supporters file out NRA applications while participating in an Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day convention before marching to the Illinois State Capitol Wednesday, March 7, 2012 in Springfield, Ill. Credit: AP

The Argument Against the Liberal Interpretation

But does this interpretation actually follow from the text? Certainly, the majority opinion in District of Columbia vs. Heller, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, does not find this reasoning persuasive (emphasis added):

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.

Scalia’s reasoning is fairly easy to understand. That is, simply saying why a right is necessary to protect before claiming that it is a right does not obviate the existence of the right once that reason ceases to be in effect.

For instance, one can imagine the founders drafting the First Amendment’s protection of “freedom of the press” in order to protect the distribution of anonymously authored pamphlets, or to allow people to use privately purchased printing presses. Yet if the first amendment were phrased, “A robust distribution of political pamphlets being necessary to the maintenance of a free society, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech,” would anyone seriously argue that such a right would not cover laser printing or online news organizations? Certainly, Justice Scalia (who has found that the first amendment covers things the founders never could have imagined, such as video games) would not accept such an interpretation.

Yet still, legal scholars argue over the meaning of the text. Christiane Amanpour’s show on CNN featured a segment recently on this very topic:

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/international/2012/12/18/amanpour-school-shootings-us-gun-laws.cnn

The Context

So what’s the reality of the argument?

The answer  varies depending on whether one is talking about historical or legal reality. Historically, the question of what the Second Amendment is supposed to mean is almost certainly never going to be solved, because conflicting sources exist on both sides of the issue, and conflicting interpretations of those sources have already proliferated. The reason for this is partially that the gulf between militias and ordinary people was not nearly so large in 1790 as it is now, and partially because arguably the most obvious original purpose of the Second Amendment (giving citizens the means to resist the government by force) would be impossible to fulfill without extending gun rights far beyond what even their most friendly supporters would allow. In short, like the homemade printing press example above, the reasons the amendment was originally ratified are difficult to translate to a modern context.

However, in terms of the present legal regime, the answer to how the Second Amendment is likely to be interpreted for the foreseeable future is fairly easy to answer.

Legal Reality

For now, at least, the legal reality regarding the Second Amendment is that it does guarantee a right to keep and bear arms of some kind to individual citizens. Barring a massive shift in power on the court, this is unlikely to change, as five of the sitting justices voted to hold that the right exists and protects citizens against both state and federal law in the two cases cited above.

Moreover, even cases that the majority of justice disagree with are not always changed after the fact, given the varying attitudes of various jurists towards the importance of upholding precedent. For the foreseeable future, therefore, the right to keep and bear arms is a fixed reality of the American legal and constitutional landscape.

However, in practice, this tells us very little about how far that right extends, which is where the current (and future) legal debate is likely to focus. A right to own a handgun is one thing, after all, but what about the right to own rocket launchers? Miniguns? Anti-tank ordinance? An actual, physical tank? Are all of these things protected by the right to keep and bear arms? They are, after all, arms.

Fortunately for those worrying about their neighbors acquiring weapons grade helicopters, even the most stringent supporters of gun rights admit that the law allows for limits on what sort of weapons are protected, or on how those weapons might be obtained. For his part, Scalia would limit the amendment solely to weapons that can be carried by an individual human being, knocking such armaments as tanks and missiles out of contention, and admitted in the majority decision in Heller that regulations such as background checks and concealed carry permits almost certainly pass constitutional muster (emphasis added):

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

This leaves gun control advocates with some degree of leeway legally in terms of what they can do to control access to weapons. For instance, it is possible to interpret that the Constitution permits bans on certain types of magazines, and given that the court has declined to invalidate a previous assault weapons ban, this too would be possible.

Is There a Bigger Issue Than Guns?

What is less clear is whether these policies would have the desire effect of stopping incidents like Sandy Hook from happening. The Daily Beast’s Megan McArdle has already written a lengthy post explaining why this is almost certainly not the case (emphasis added):

You can, to be sure, name one or two things that might make a marginal difference: ban extended-capacity magazines, and require background checks for private sales.  As a proponent of reasonable gun control that in some ways goes farther than current rules (I’d like to require that people pass a shooting and gun safety test before they can own a gun), these rules don’t strike me as crazy.

But we are back to generic solutions. These “reasonable controls” would not, in fact, have done much to stop the horror at Newtown; Lanza’s problem was not that he didn’t know the four rules of gun safety, or that his aim was bad. And Lanza didn’t buy the guns, so a background check would not have stopped him.

Could we go bigger?  Should we ban the relatives of anxious sad sacks from buying guns?  How about family friends? (Michael Carneal broke into a friend’s house while they were away for Thanksgiving and stole the guns he used to shoot up his Kentucky school.)  The question answers itself; the kind of all-knowing surveillance regime that this would require would be both impossible, and intolerable.

Reducing the magazine sizes seems modesly more promising, but only modestly. It takes a few minutes of practicing to learn how to change a magzine in a few seconds.  Even if you banned magazines, forcing people to load the gun itself, people could just carry more guns; spree shooters seem to show up, as Lanza did, with more guns and ammunition than they actually need.  In this specific case, it might well not have helped at all. Would Lanza really have been gang-rushed by fast-thinking primary school students if he stopped to reload?

Indeed, McArdle concludes, the only policy that would absolutely stop this sort of thing would be to ban all guns, categorically. And that is both politically and constitutionally impossible, and in all likelihood will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Moreover, it is not clear that guns are the issue so much as mental health is. In writing this article, we reached out to the National Rifle Association for comment, and while they declined, they did suggest David Kopel of the University of Denver as a source to talk over the constitutional niceties of this question. Dr. Kopel did not respond to a request for comment, but as it happens, he did publish a Wall Street Journal op ed on this topic recently, which we excerpt below (emphasis added):

 Finally, it must be acknowledged that many of these attacks today unfortunately take place in pretend “gun-free zones,” such as schools, movie theaters and shopping malls. According to Ron Borsch’s study for the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato, active shooters are different from the gangsters and other street toughs whom a police officer might engage in a gunfight. They are predominantly weaklings and cowards who crumble easily as soon as an armed person shows up.[…]

Real gun-free zones are a wonderful idea, but they are only real if they are created by metal detectors backed up by armed guards. Pretend gun-free zones, where law-abiding adults (who pass a fingerprint-based background check and a safety training class) are still disarmed, are magnets for evildoers who know they will be able to murder at will with little threat of being fired upon.

People who are serious about preventing the next Newtown should embrace much greater funding for mental health, strong laws for civil commitment of the violently mentally ill—and stop kidding themselves that pretend gun-free zones will stop killers.

So while the law may permit many different remedies that involve the restriction of access to guns (while staying well shy of the “Second Amendment is inoperable because of militias” theory), these remedies may not be the correct ones, according to some critics. As to what remedies would be correct, that is a topic more thorny than even the question of the original meaning of the Second Amendment, and therefore possibly beyond the powers of even the most brilliant court to solve.

December 19, 2012 Posted by | Home, Must See, The United States of America Constitution, Videos | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

WND by JOSEPH FARAH (Let me just say that when my First Amendment rights are yanked away, I want to act out, like speaking the very thing I’m told I cannot say. So, with that in mind I say, “Mohamad was a wife-beating, pedophile, and he focused on a sort of necrophilia! When a belief system claims a number of virgins await Muslim males in heaven, isn’t that what the subject is all about–one dead man doing it with 800 dead virgins? I mean, why else would a man care, one way or another, if the women awaiting his worship were virgins or not? Afterall, doing it to virgins is supposed to bring on some kind of bliss for a man, and apparently, for Muslim males making virgins into ex-virgins is the best heaven has to offer for them. So, see what I mean? One cannot erase the implied image of necrophilia! JM)


HAVING PRETTY MUCH TAKEN EUROPE...........THE ...

HAVING PRETTY MUCH TAKEN EUROPE………..THE GOAL IS NOW THE UNITED STATES (Photo credit: SS&SS)

BETWEEN THE LINES

What Muslim-Americans really believe

Exclusive: Joseph Farah sounds alarm over results of scientific poll on Constitution

Published: 20 hours ago

author-image by Joseph Farah Email | Archive

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. He is the author or co-author of 13 books, including his latest, “The Tea Party

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/what-muslim-americans-really-believe/#99dWD7zlUIQA2kqZ.99

Before the presidential election, I got the idea to commission a scientific poll to find out what Muslim-Americans really think – and how it might affect their votes.

The results were eye-opening and alarming. They should be to every American who believes in the U.S. Constitution and Judeo-Christian morality.

Here’s the overview from 30,000 feet:

  • Nearly half of those polled, a scientific sampling of 600, said parodies of Muhammad should be criminally prosecuted with offenders given punishments as severe as the death penalty;

  • 40 percent of Muslims believe they should not be judged by U.S. law and the Constitution, but by Shariah standards and Islamic judges;

  • Only 30 percent believe Christians have a right to evangelize Muslims;

  • 20 percent say Muslim men should be allowed to have more than one wife;

  • 58 percent said any criticism of their religion should not be allowed under the Constitution – even while nine of 10 said they support the First Amendment;

  • One in three said Israel has no right to exist or were uncertain about it;

  • 72 percent said they would definitely be voting for Barack Obama, while another 8.5 percent were leaning in that direction;

  • Only 11 percent were supporting Mitt Romney at the time – just days before the November vote;

  • About 55 percent said the U.S. is generally on the right track.

Now, maybe you question the authenticity or reliability of this survey. Maybe you think it was biased. Maybe you think the sampling of Muslims, 98 percent of whom have U.S. citizenship, wasn’t large enough.

Well, shortly after WND commissioned this survey by respected pollster Fritz Wenzel, another similar survey was commissioned by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which bills itself as a Muslim civil-rights organization but which in fact is a Muslim Brotherhood front group.

The results were strikingly similar – at least on the questions asked in both surveys. This CAIR survey, conducted on a smaller sampling of 500, received extensive coverage by the media.

The CAIR survey found:

  • 68 percent of Muslim-Americans planned to vote for vote for Obama with 7 percent going for Romney;

  • 66 percent said they identify with the Democratic Party, while only 9 percent affiliated as Republicans.

In other words, the CAIR survey validates the Wenzel poll – even though it didn’t seek answers on some of the more troubling issues of the law and constitutional liberties.

So what are the takeaways from this first survey of Muslim-Americans about Islamism and Shariah?

The Pew Research Center estimates America is home to 2.6 million Muslims. Groups like CAIR put the numbers much higher – by a factor of two or three times.

Whatever the real numbers are, Americans have reason to be concerned about continued immigration of Muslims into the U.S. when so many already here, including those who have established citizenship, have values and beliefs that stand in stark contrast to the Constitution sand the values and beliefs that shaped it.

Already, massive immigration of Muslims has changed the very character of much of Europe, where special Shariah courts have been established, creating societies with entirely different legal standards.

Do we really want that for America?

In fact, we need to ask ourselves how many people who took oaths to uphold the Constitution to obtain their citizenship really meant it. Is that standard sufficient for Muslims, who are encouraged by their faith to deceive if it furthers the cause of Islam?

“Multiculturalism” is much in vogue in the U.S. But if blind allegiance to a nice-sounding phrase of inclusiveness spells the eventual doom of our national heritage, is it really the right path to follow?

Quite simply, we need to collectively and individually ask ourselves a simple question: Is continued immigration into the U.S. by Muslims in the best interest of preserving our liberties?

Note: Joseph Farah discusses the Wenzel study on Erick Stakelbeck’s program Tuesday on CBN.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/what-muslim-americans-really-believe/#99dWD7zlUIQA2kqZ.99

MY TWO SENSE

Any culture that believes America should cater to their specific beliefs, goals, and agendas ought not be allowed to come here.  The fact that we even allow foreigners to go to school here,and then, we accommodate their lack of English-speaking skills is appalling to me!  Many infiltrate my nation with intentions to change it into what they left behind.  If Muslims want Sharia law in the U.S., why don’t those people go back where it reigns?  What is the attraction of America other than to rule the entire world?

Think what you like of me.  I am far beyond the point of caring what others think.  The thoughts of those people are twisted beyond recognition by too much political correctness and endless tolerance!  It is time for a pendulum swing in the opposite direction, and unfortunately when it does, we will go too far in that direction before our common sense comes to a middle to guide us in the correct direction again.

I just had another thought about Muslim heaven–what if the Muslim male had his heavenly bliss tool shot off in Afghanistan, would he, too, get virgins or would he get a box of chocolates?

  bahahaha!!!!! Allah akbar my arse 🙂   By Sherri Cruz @maxicat

Just Me

December 8, 2012 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CONSERVATIVE VIDEOS (Wasn’t this the guy who believed sending a number of troops to an island would make it “tip over?” Yep, he’s the one they call “Capsize” Johnson. More dangerous than ignorant voters is Congressmen like this one! JM)


November 29, 2012 at 2:16 pm

Dem. Congressman Hank Johnson: Amend Constitution To Restrict Freedom Of Speech

http://conservativevideos.com/2012/11/dem-congressman-hank-johnson-amend-constitution-to-restrict-freedom-of-speech/

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) says, “corporations control the patterns of thinking” in the United States and that the Bill of Rights to the Constitution should be amended so that the government is given the power to restrict freedom of speech.

“We need a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations,” said Johnson.

Read more: http://conservativevideos.com/2012/11/dem-congressman-hank-johnson-amend-constitution-to-restrict-freedom-of-speech/#ixzz2DecjDkUH

 

November 29, 2012 Posted by | Home, Videos | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Political Vel Craft

Veil Of Politics

Political Film Blog

money, power, injustice, sex, violence, propaganda, anti-fascism...

Constitutional Clayton

Politics surrounding the Constitution

mike884

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

John Groves Art Stuff

Art from johngrovesart

swissdefenceleague

Swiss Defence League

the seaton post

A little bit of this and a little bit of that

Jericho777's Blog

Correcting Misinformation!

The Firewall

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it

%d bloggers like this: