Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Obama Opens Fire

January 1, 2013 by  

Obama Opens Fire
OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE PHOTO BY PETE SOUZA
David Gregory and Barack Obama send their children to the excellent (and well-defended) Sidwell Friends School.

So I went ahead and watched the rotting corpse of Meet the Press this past Sunday morning. While I harbored no delusions about David Gregory suddenly demonstrating the journalistic integrity which apparently joined Tim Russert in the great beyond, I was curious to see how that pale imitation of Russert would guide President Barack Obama through his latest public salvo in the Democrats’ war on the Bill of Rights. What ensued was less an interview and more the sort of thing that airs on Cinemax after midnight. Hollywood freaks don’t fawn over each other the way NBC’s Sunday morning poodle bowed and scraped before Obama.

Obama, who sends his children to the excellent — and well-defended — Sidwell Friends School (as does Gregory), repeated his opposition to the National Rifle Association’s suggestion to place armed security at the schools Obama’s and Gregory’s children pass on their way to the mall. While the NRA owed neither an explanation of recent tragedies with which it had nothing to do nor suggestions as to how to correct the problem of ill-supervised insane people, Obama was quick to denounce their plan: “I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools. And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem.”

The idea of scattering firearms randomly throughout the halls of our National cradles of government-dictated “learning” does sound fairly sketchy; after all, one of those union thugs posing as teachers might get ahold of one. And we’ve certainly seen what armed union thugs are liable to do; witness their knife attacks in Michigan last month. But no one has suggested anything of the sort. The NRA merely suggested offering to the students trapped in government schools the same protection that the children of the Democratic elite enjoy at their private schools. Obama twisted the NRA’s idea in order to lead up to his showstopper: “We can’t have a situation in which somebody with severe psychological problems is able to get the kind of high-capacity weapons that this individual in Newtown obtained and gun down our kids.”

As we know, his solution to that problem has nothing to do with “somebody with severe psychological problems” (nor protecting children) and everything to do with so-called “high-capacity weapons.” For further proof, take a gander at the summary of the bill Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), herself a former concealed-carry permit holder, squeezed out last Thursday. The bill stops just short of leaving us to defend ourselves with our kids’ BB guns. The bill promises all manner of pointlessly symbolic gestures involving pistol grips and “military characteristics” without addressing the inadequate supervision of mentally disturbed citizens.

Liberal logic dictates that we ban firearms that frighten liberals in order to protect ourselves from the kind of people who ignore such bans. But Adam Lanza himself was living proof of the lack of such restrictions’ effect — as was Tim McVeigh, who needed no firearm at all. Indeed, Newtown, Conn., occurred despite precisely the sort of gun laws that liberals claim will prevent tragedies like Newtown.

Places that force such draconian measures upon their citizens — Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. come to mind — also share well-deserved reputations for being slightly better-landscaped versions of the Thunderdome. Actually, they also share long histories of Democratic political hegemony; but I’m sure that’s purely coincidental. Obama and his accomplices now want us to believe that we should all aspire to live in such lofty circumstances. And he actually thinks he has credibility on the issue.

This is the President who willingly and willfully condemned the “Benghazi Four” to a brutal death while he partied in Las Vegas. This is the President who willingly and willfully backed Attorney General Eric Holder when Holder lied his way into criminal and civil contempt of Congress. This is the President whose minions in the Administration and the corporate media brazenly lied about the tragic consequences of Operation Fast and Furious, an over-funded but under-conceived (or not, depending on just how sinister Obama and his minions really are) program ostensibly designed to… cull the herds of wild Mexican beauty queens threatening the safety and stability of Mexican narcoterrorists.

And we’re supposed to give up our best means of defending ourselves because Obama thinks that’s the best plan? If we do, who will protect us from violence? For that matter, who will protect us from Obama?

–Ben Crystal

Ben Crystal

is a 1993 graduate of Davidson College and has burned the better part of the last two decades getting over the damage done by modern-day higher education. He now lives in Savannah, Ga., where he has hosted an award-winning radio talk show and been featured as a political analyst for television. Currently a principal at Saltymoss Productions—a media company specializing in concept television and campaign production, speechwriting and media strategy—Ben has written numerous articles on the subjects of municipal authoritarianism, the economic fallacy of sin taxes and analyses of congressional abuses of power.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Obama Opens Fire”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Dennis48e

    ROFLMFAO excellent Ben.

    obama is showing his true colors and showing just what a lier he is. After all he promised “I am not after your guns” or words to that effect.

    • Don

      We all know that gun control is not about guns, it’s about control, and that is what the Obama government wants to do.

      • Vicki

        Thus in his mind he did not actually lie cause he doesn’t want your guns. He wants YOU.

      • FreedomFighter

        Think about this:

        Reasons for the mass murders by the psycho’s:

        Liberals progressives created the gun free zones

        Liberals dont want armed guards in schools

        Liberal ACLU stoped the mother of the most recent psycho from commiting her son to an institution.

        Liberals preach tolerance of obviously destructive religions/cults — Little known to the public almost 100 percent of all mass murders in America were commited by:

        Satanists
        Radical Islamics

        Liberal media so eager to report tragidy bombard the public with hour after hour of each events details creating copy-cats that want 15 min of infamy.

        Liberal psychiatrist over prescibe harmful drugs actually creating the killers.

        In fact, one could if using liberal logic, say:

        Liberal Progressives created the killing gounds, created the psycho killers with drugs, protected the killers with the ACLU — making progressive liberals and progressive laws directly responsible for every mass murder death.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • eddie47d

        Since most of what you said FF isn’t true I would think you have become the Psycho!

      • http://comcast the fisherman

        Belive what you want to belive for there is no changing your mind. But and i do mean that— if some one goes to the school of your love one with a rifle or the show and starts fo shoot up the place. Then it will be a different story.

      • DaveH

        Fisherman,
        If somebody shoots up the school where my grandchildren are, I will put the blame squarely where it belongs — on those Liberal Progressives who made the teachers and administrators into helpless victims who had no way to help the children.

      • eddie47d

        I’d put it squarely on the store that sold him the weapon and our lax laws!

      • JC

        eddie47d says:
        January 1, 2013 at 4:02 pm
        Since most of what you said FF isn’t true I would think you have become the Psycho!
        ____________________________________________________________________

        No one cares what you think…the fact is, you don’t.

      • eddie47d

        JC; Your lies aren’t any more “honest” than FF’s!

    • Mary

      Taking assault weapons off the streets and out of circulation is not taking your guns away. You still have plenty of “guns” available. Arming teachers is also not the answer. Where does it stop? We would need armed guards in every place people go, movie theaters, shopping malls, churches and etc. Then we will look like other countries who live under that kind of rule, Really, what is so terrible about taking assault weapons out of the mix? There are a lot of things that people cannot buy unless they have special licenses for due to their job such as dynamite. I am sure we are all safer for it. At least with regular guns that can only shoot out a few bullets before reloading, maybe it will give more people a chance to escape or subdue the idiot shooter.
      The right uses fear tactics for everything they disagree with- ” they take these guns away then they will take them ALL away”. Just stop with all that crap. Don’t even think all Democrats want their guns taken away and would not stand up against that kind of legislation The truth is, military and police need assault weapons, not ordinary citizens. They need to be banned.

      • Honestly

        Mary…That sounds really good, but it does not work that way. They will still get the guns and we will have no way to defend ourselves.

      • Tim

        Mary, you are WRONG! You need to review the REAL research on the control of weapons and the effect on crime. You could ban EVERY firearm in America, what would happen, we would be at the mercy of CRIMINALS and the government. Face the FACT, criminals do NOT obey laws, so banning weapons would not only not affect them having them, but it would make them MORE dangerous, because they would KNOW that noone could defend themselves. Now, on to the government. Read about Europe, particularly Austria and Germany prior to World War II. . Then you might understand why banning private ownership of firearms is a BAD idea, . .it means you can’t control the government! OH, and Mary, . .Obama did NOT win re-election by the majority of Americans. He STOLE the election through FRAUD, and it has been proven that there is NO way he could have won it legitimately. SO, you need to quit drinking the LAMEstream Media’s kool-aid and listen to some NEWS instead of PROPAGANDA from CBS. MSNBC, etc.!And while we are on that subject, ROB, . .the vast majority of Americans watch the LAMESTREAM media, . CBS, NBC, MSNBC, etc. and take their “reporting” as fact, because, UNLIKE Fox, when they state their opinion, they pass it of as fact. They ARE beholding to Obama, and have admitted as such when Obama dictates what they can release, and what questions they are allowed to ask at press conferences. So, while there ARE other sources of news, they are DRAMATICALLY in the minority as far as viewership!

      • pahrumper

        Mary, how about having armed air martial guards on Air Planes,,,just think of it guns on air planes,,,,wake up Mary it worked. And what about having 10 of the 11 armed guards at the school that Obamas kids go to distributed to other schools in the area?

      • Cliffystones

        “Taking assault weapons off the streets and out of circulation is not taking your guns away.”

        Please define “assault weapons” for all of us, will you Mary? You can’t. There is no definition. it’s a made-up bull $hit term used by Liberals. Just like “access to women’s health care” is a code phrase for free BCPs and abortions. Do yourself a favor and get an education on the subject you’re commenting on (firearms).

      • ibcamn

        Mary you just gave the big O an erection with that talk,he loves that idea,why not control everything we do?oh,wait he is trying to do that and is trying very hard,are you blind?this is what he wants,us bickering amungst ourselves to get his way in the confusion!divide us with all this so he can slither in an get something past us!he does this all the time and we fall for it.we need to sit and chill for a bit and an answer will come to us.a reasonable one,the correct one.his kids are in a protected school with other rich kids(progressive and liberal)while the poor(us)will never get protection,were not on his side,it will never happen on his watch or any other liberal’s watch.he is selectivly thinning the heard and trying to make us dependant on the gov’t!he’s using our children to get what he want’s!now if a mad man with a weapon got into his children’s school and killed one of his kids or kids classmates,we would not be having this conversation what soever!and armed gaurds on every corner is socialist enviroment,didn’t a leader somewhere in history do that?or was it leader’s?

      • The Big Easy

        @-mary———IS YOU CRAZY ???????? First of all the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION has the SECOND AMENDMENT for the reason of DEFENDING ‘WE THE PEOPLE’ from the tyrannical gubermint,our forefathers had just fought against the tyrannical english ‘elitist’ gubermint.Just look at what the half-white house is doing,going around,over,under,the Constitution,by executive order to render IRRELEVANT the Congress and the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. And now,you want to go back to that way of life ? I think you should put more concern into the ‘mentally challenged’ that have been left to their own devices because of the flea-infested flea-bag left wing progressive liberal bleeding heart feel good pukes that have allowed these people to NOT get the help they truly NEED,it is more important to give out FREE condoms to pre-teens and to give FREE abortions on demand. So now you have the likes of the Columbine school,V.T. school,Aurora theater,Sandy Hill school,Rep. Gifford and all those there that day,etc.,etc..You will notice that the occupier in the half-white house sends his kids to a school WITH ARMED GUARDS,plus the SECRET SERVICE.——Why is it that these whack jobs only go to places where it is a ‘gun free zone’,why don’t they go shoot-up a police station or federal building—duh,they WIIL meet someone with a weapon and WILL be PUT-DOWN and they know it.————Give it some thought——————–GOD BLESS AMERICA————–

      • eddie47d

        Tim: Why do you keep arming those criminals with loose laws and easy access to weapons? Where is Your responsibility on this topic? I doubt if you will lose your right to protect yourself so why do you insist in saying so? I have seen few rational gun owners who comment here and its always the same old hype that all guns are going to be taken away. I heard it 50 years ago and am still hearing it. 50 years ago we didn’t have these mass killings and few had any semi-automatics. That is part of the debate in why that is so? Since there are far more “assault” type weapons now and far more mass killings there is a logical conclusion. Ignoring it cheapens any rational thinking. Your equally cheap attacks about this last election rather proves your lack of self control and you have a dubious agenda of your own.

        • Patriot

          AND! Here we go again
          WRONG.
          The HEIGHT of public mass killings in the US was in 1929 and those numbers carried through the 1950′s where they fell off a bit until the 1970′s. They fell off yet again in the 80′s and peaked in the 90′s where we saw more than in the first decade of this century.
          If you are going to attempt to argue your position, be sure you are indeed in possession of facts, as you clearly are not.

        • Patriot

          Also, you should know that ‘assault weapons’ are rarely used in any killings in this nation at all, which was pointed out earlier with accurate statistics in this thread. Rifles were used less in less than 400 of more than 9 thousand killings.

          I think you should do yourself a favor, and drop the emotion based ideology to do some research into the actuality of the subjects you are so passionate about. Otherwise, you sound like an uninformed boob. Just a thought.

      • http://www.sweetsalesgirl.com/Kuurus/ Charles Johnson

        The Liberal mind is twisted thing. It finds danger where there is none, and sees no danger where there is danger , gun grabbers see danger in honest citizens having guns while ignoring the danger of militarized police department. Busy taking money from honest hard-working people they do not see the danger of the government growing ever larger and stronger at the expense of the people. The presidency was not intended as a type of King ship or dictatorship. The powers given to the president and the powers given to Congress to offset each other in such a way the government could not grow out of control. In our Constitution the Second Amendment was intended as a brake on the powers of the government. By attacking the second by limiting our ability to keep and bear arms the government has given itself a greater and greater ability to control the people. At one time the saying was government of the people by the people for the people now seems to be government controls the people and the people are stuck. It is my hope that someone somewhere will wake up and realize how badly the people have been treated and correct it. May God save America.

      • eddie47d

        Pahrumper: There have been air Marshall’s on board some planes for decades. Few planes have them now just enhanced ground security and some armed pilots. There may be incidents of armed Marshall’s stopping someone from taking over a plane but at this moment I haven’t heard of any. I want facts not feel good hype. Besides since the TSA was enacted in the USA there have been no take over of any plane. (knock on wood). There again some of you hate that “security” which is working but advocate for more gun security which may or may not work. Just as an example for you they had two armed security guards at Columbine and they did not stop the carnage. Now truly think about that instead of demanding more of the same. I have nothing against armed school administrators because that would lessen the cost or a full time policeman and they are near the point of entry anyway.

      • eddie47d

        Ibcamn; You may be very right about “armed guards on every corner” and that would be a “socialist environment” .Yet that is exactly what so many on the right have been advocating for. Armed guards on planes,movie theaters,schools,malls,plus demanding that every American arm themselves. Apparently they (Conservatives) are now welcoming those “socialist” policies in every institution!

      • JeffH

        Mary, to even have this conversation you first must know what you’re talking about…LMAO at your call to take “assault weapons”off the streets?…you are clueless. I’m quite sure your definition of an assault weapon is similar to the rhetoric you’ve gathered from the MSM and the likes of Feinstein and Obama. As I said, you don’t have a clue!

        I’ll ask this one simple question: Obama’s kids are attending a school with armed security personnel but he doesn’t believe that other schools should have armed security?(you can’t use his presidency as an excuse)

        Don’t you find that the least bit hypocritical?

      • eddie47d

        Charles thinks the “Liberal” mind is twisted but has he checked some of the posters here with their scatter shot thinking! Bring out the straight jackets and lets have a party!! Lets get one thing straight we have the Second Amendment and you will always have the right to defend yourself and your family so enough of this crap that you can’t protect your children. That is smoke and mirrors from the extremes and gets repeated ad nauseum! Those on the left aren’t advocating for school massacres and no one on the right is either. If we need more school security so be it. Few want armed teachers which I think is ridiculous too but armed policemen or armed school administrators may be needed. If we need more weapons control then so be it too. I never look at these incidents as an either or scenario for we can have both increased school security and fewer guns on the street. (ability for anyone to purchase whatever or whenever they want). The freedom to kill is NOT a freedom!

      • Vicki

        Mary says:
        “Taking assault weapons off the streets and out of circulation is not taking your guns away. You still have plenty of “guns” available.”

        Since the definition of “assault weapon” varies a LOT and is changeable at the whim of the bureaucrats that write the actual laws (You did know that Congress stopped writing laws years ago?) your claim that we would still have plenty of guns is patently false.
        https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/write-the-laws/

        Mary: “Arming teachers is also not the answer. Where does it stop? We would need armed guards in every place people go, movie theaters, shopping malls, churches and etc.”

        Congratulations for thinking ahead. Now follow it thru to the place it stops. Hint. Our forefathers knew that answer too and even put the answer into the Supreme Law of this land.

        We await your answer.

      • eddie47d

        Jeff H; That isn’t “hypocritical” of Mary. No one needs these weapons of mass carnage for the simple reason we have a standing army. So many of you dislike Hollywood yet are always trying to mimic all the war movies and trying to be the local hero trying to save the nation from attack. As I said the other day if you want to protect this nation like the Swiss do then disband the army and then you may have a point! As far as business people sending their kids to school under armed guards or Republicans or Democrats sending their kids to school with lots of security I’m all for that. That doesn’t mean public schools shouldn’t have security but whether they can pay for that service. That’s up to the taxpayer. Some of you always forget about how assassination attempts and kidnappings change world events. Remember the Charles Lindbergh kidnapping and other high official ransom cases. Remember how WWI was started by the assassination of one public official. That is why they need more protection for the world doesn’t needs that kind of chaos where one person can create so must upheaval. How many million of ordinary folks died in WWI because of that one death. The issue about public official security isn’t about Obama,

      • eddie47d

        (continued)…or Reagan or any other business person or their kids but how it will effect the survivability of a nation or a company. I don’t want any one to lose a child and personal loses are painful but it certainly is more devastating to many more people if a high officials child or the official himself is harmed.

      • Jeremy

        Mary, your comments bring a good common sense apporach to the subject matter which is desperately needed, but I disagree with banning assault weapons as you call them or high capacity magazines for primarily this one reason. Do you remember the L.A. Riots following the Rodney King incident? If so, do you remember the Asian Gun shop owners protecting their store from the rooftop with “Assault Weapons”? Imagine if the looters knew they only had 3 bullets to discharge before reloading… I don’t think they would have been able to hold off the looting mob.

      • JeffH

        Annnnnndddddd here comes eddie, like a piece of toilet paper, wiping up the rear!

        Seek spme help you troll!

      • JC

        Mary says:
        January 1, 2013 at 10:18 am
        Taking assault weapons off the streets and out of circulation is not taking your guns away. You still have plenty of “guns” available.
        ___________________________________________________________________

        What “Assault Weapons”?
        Assault Weapons are illegal and have been for a very long time.

        And how would we effectively defend our nation with nothing but hunting rifles?
        Or do you not know the purpose of the Second Amendment?

        • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

          Actually if you were more informed about our government you would realize that any weapons ban is illegal, unconstitutional unless it is items like “brass knuckles”, etc that are not normal military used.

          Actually all able-bodied citizens are the militia – with the ones aged 18 – 45 able to be called uponn by the states to be used in its defense – be it against criminals, foreign invaders, or invasion from those in the US federal government. They are all supposed to own their own “arms” for battle, except for the national guard and the army by law. They are supposed to get trained (once or twice a year since they have to pay for it themselves) so that they already have an idea of military tactics to defend their home, neighbors, cities, states and the nation when needed.

          Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654: Breaks the militia down in three groups. The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are;

          · The organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia,
          · The unorganized militia and
          · The regular army.

          It further states: The militia encompasses every able-bodied *male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
          (*Since females are now in fighting units it encompasses every able-bodied “person”)

          Hope this helps to clarify the laws here in the USA better for you. :)

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Jeff H; That isn’t “hypocritical” of Mary. No one needs these weapons of mass carnage for the simple reason we have a standing army.”

        Ignoring for the moment what the founders thought of a standing army let me direct your attention to the L.A. Riots after the Rodney King trial.

        When seconds count the police are only minutes away. That standing army of Eddie’s is only hours behind.

      • http://www.facebook.com/thomas.sherman.589 tgsherman

        Will the cops, the secret service & the National Guard need guns if they take all ours?

      • John

        Mary…
        What color is the sky in your world ?? Unlike “barry the liar” I was not brought up to believe welfare was an honorable career chioce. He is living proof. Now, I have served in the military for many years. The first step to complete subjugation of the populace is to take away the means to defend themselves. Unlike “barry the liar” I do not have around the vacation clock taxpayer paid protection. The second ammendment was put in place so the American people could protect themselves from the government. “Tyranny thrives where gov’t need not fear the wrath of an armed populace” Thomas Jefferson

      • Joy Thompson

        Mary: I wish we lived in the world you describe. However, we don’t. If you want a snapshot of what society will be like with more gun-control just take a look at Australia and Great Britain where crime escalated after more gun control was implemented. Also, the 2nd Amendment was implemented by our founder’s who were escaping government tyranny. You know, the government…like that in Germany and Russia before the government slaughtered millions of it’s own people. The first step dictators take is confiscating weapons from the population. There is much truth in the phrase that those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it. People like you remind me of the frog who was very comfortable in the pot of warm water…until he was cooked.

    • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

      Needs a firecracker stuck up his butt, opps, he would like that to much, the idiot-in-chief is Hitler come again.

      • Chetan Lutah

        Good obsertvation, Benjamin. But I think the Hitler analogy falls a little short, though. Obama has a MUCH more massive military (he IS Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military in history!) and a MUCH larger propaganda machine than Hitler even imagined! The only reason the Nazi Third Reich failed is because we beat them in the development of nuclear arms. THAT is NOT the case with this madman.He already has ALL that and more. And there are those who want to take away ANY guns proitected by the Constitution? God help us!

    • Nadzieja Batki

      O is using semantics, he himself actually will not go after the guns Americans own but there is nothing stopping his underlings from doing the dirty deed for O.

      • JC

        Think: Arms Trade Treaty and the UN….

    • http://yahoo ROHBAR

      obama ben lieing has been showing his colors even in the beginning, it was only hidden.
      Knowing his background of a mentor named frank marshal davis (card carrying communist), and his buddy bill ayers, and also his following saul alinsky which most are marxists and commies.

    • http://midcontent i41

      Also this maddrass educated SOB marxist said he and his socialist puke buddies would never harm the middle class. The 2 years before the election of the jug eared smuck, the socialist democrats who were in control, raised taxes in the normal corrupt way socialists alway do. Regulations, increasing more government degreed dumb azzes that do nothing productive and are way over paid by the normal rate for secretaries in the real world It all because of the stupid brain dead and illegal voters that keep putting these socialist/snafuing idoits in to power. All go back to public schooling and college professors adding to the mush brained book trasined morons!

    • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

      Hitler and obozo are one in the same, obozo has followed his plan from the start and people are too blind to see or have never read real history. God sets up leaders and He takes them down, I believe this is a judgement against this nation. The nation has kicked God out of the public eye, out of the schools and even out of many churches, so hang on as this nation goes down big time. The demo-rats booed Him at their convention, so we know where they stand and sad to say many on the right are following them off the cliff. Turn to Him and live or follow satans people and go to a real hot place forever?

  • Harold Olsen

    He sends his brats to a school that has armed protection but doesn’t want the rest of us to have schools with armed protection. As I’ve said before he cares nothing about the American people. He hates everything about America: the country, the people and, especially, the Constitution.

    • Flashy

      Just for a td bit of honesty…any school a president sends his children to would have armed security hanging about…it’s called the Secret Service.

      • Joy Thompson

        That’s the point. ALL of our children deserve to be protected from any perceived threat. If people with “severe psychological problems” are targeting our children then our children deserve to be protected from them. I read recently that there were 12 openings at a free handgun course where people start the process of acquiring a gun permit. Over 400 teachers applied for the openings. No one should be forced to carry a gun but I would feel blessed if my child’s teacher had access to a firearm if I had children attending school now. Unfortunately, this is the world we live in and the president stating that removing guns is going to keep us safer is naive and/or diabolical.

      • Flashy

        joy…one of the reasons we have gotten to this point is that guns are so available. it is time to stop the insanity. Reasonable, sane regulation is one answer…though not the sole answer.

        Arming teachers? That is close to receiving the Lunatic Idea of the Year award. Have we digressed as a society where instead of holding gun manufacturers, sellers and owners to responsible behavior for what they reap…that we have to have weapons in every aspect of our lives?

      • Joy Thompson

        What you are saying about the availability of guns isn’t true. When I was growing up nearly EVERYONE I knew had access to guns. It was inconceivable that anyone would use them like they are using them now. What has changed is the deterioration of society. I wish we lived in a society that you imagine where “regulations” would solve the problem. However, the reality is that “if guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns”. To think otherwise is naive. A Secret Service agent isn’t going to be able to “reason” with some maniac, and neither are we.

      • Flashy

        joy..when you were growing up, how many people owned assault rifles and semi’s and high capacity magazines capable of 30 or more rounds?

      • Texas Ride

        I liked the last sentence in the article! That spoke to our problem more than anything.

        Attacks on schools are diabolical plots to accomplish a goal. There is nothing these people won’t do to win. They don’t play by any rules.

      • DaveH

        Honesty — Something that Flashshill rarely bothers with.

      • DaveH

        Flashshill says — “joy…one of the reasons we have gotten to this point is that guns are so available”.
        What point is that, Flashshill?
        Murders — Down 52% since 1991?
        Rapes — Down 37% since 1992?
        Robberies — Down 58% since 1991?
        Aggravated Assaults — Down 45% since 1992?
        Burglaries — Down 58% since 1980?
        Larceny — Down 39% since 1991?
        Vehicle Theft — Down 65% since 1991?

        http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

        You make no sense, Flashshill.

      • DaveH

        Flashshill says — “joy..when you were growing up, how many people owned assault rifles and semi’s and high capacity magazines capable of 30 or more rounds?”.

        Well when I was growing up Government spending was 24% of the GDP.
        Now they are spending 41% of the peoples’ money.

      • Chester

        Flashy, for a good number of us, growing up we had in our homes weapons that were very close to what the military was carrying, outside of the few fully automatic true machine guns. An M-1 carbine with a ten round clip was not unusual, and was as close to what you call an assault weapon as most military ever saw. Even the true M-1, or even better, the BAR, were not guns to be lightly tossed around. The M-1 held 8 rounds, and someone skilled in using it could put forty eight rounds downrange in less than a minute. Mostly, though, those guns were used to put food on the table, either by hunting or by winning shooting contests. As best I can remember now, there were four rifles and three shotguns in the house I grew up in, and I took one rifle to school, on the school bus, so I could refinish all the woodwork. Now, just carrying the stock and forearm to school would get me arrested for having a gun, or parts of a gun, on school property. Too many people don’t have the faintest idea of what a gun looks like up close and personal, and it sounds like you might be one of those. May I suggest you go to one of those firing ranges you squawk so much against and spend some time learning not only what a gun can do, but what it can’t, such as kill someone without some idiot playing with it, or someone deliberately aiming it and intentionally pulling the trigger. A gun left laying on a hard, flat surface will not go off by itself, nor will it fire itself if unloaded and properly stored, even on an open gun rack in the back of your truck.

      • http://www.facebook.com/steveharpersr Steve Harper

        that school where he sends his children has eleven armed gaurds before obama sent his there

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Flashy: any school a president sends his children to would have armed security hanging about…it’s called the Secret Service.

        Nice attitude on the President; only his children are important and worthy of protection. As for anyone else’s children; naw, who cares… [expletive deleted] THEM!

      • Warkhan

        Actually you are wrong. The Secret Service detail is in addition to the armed officers employed by the school. If you are going to talk about it at least be correct and not repeat the liberal spin of lies. According to a scan of the school’s online faculty-staff directory, Sidwell has a security department made up of at least 11 people. Many of those are police officers, who are presumably armed. Here is the job opening from the schools website to hire another one and they are not Secret Service but school employees.
        Special Police Officer (Midnight Shift)
        Posted: November 16, 2012

        Sidwell Friends School, a coeducational Quaker day school located in the Tenleytown area of Washington, DC, is seeking a full-time Special Police Officer. This position is assigned the overnight/midnight shift at the Wisconsin Avenue campus.

        Applicants must have a current SPO license; have the ability to pass criminal background checks & drug/alcohol testing. The ideal candidate will have the ability to write clear concise reports, prepare preliminary investigative reports, as well as interview witnesses, suspects & victims.

        This is a full-time hourly position which include free parking, and an attractive benefits package, with retirement plan inclusive of employer match.

        Mail, fax, or email resume, information for three references and a copy of your current driver’s & Special Police Officer licenses to: HR@sidwell.edu

        Human Resources
        Sidwell Friends School
        3825 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.
        Washington, DC 20016
        Fax: (202) 537-2418

      • Warkhan

        The last comment was for Flashy not anyone else. Please do your research prior to pretending to state facts.

      • Robert Smith

        Flashy asks: “Have we digressed as a society where instead of holding gun manufacturers, sellers and owners to responsible behavior for what they reap…”

        NO, the manufacturers etc. are no more responsible than Ford, Chevy, or Toyota are responsible for the carnage on our highways.

        We may as well try to regulate against spoons for fat people.

        The VA Tech guy, the Movie guy, and now the School guy were all engaged in the mental health system and fell through the cracks.

        The key component is that we need better mental health care, not more gun laws, and certainly not gun confiscation.

        Guns are like abortion. Nobody is going to force you to have one, but it you want one it sure should be avilable. I think both sides can understand that.

        Rob

      • Bill

        The insanity that we have to stop are Flashy’s socialist policies that promote class warfare and poverty over prosperity.

        These policies are creating more criminals who have no morals about stealing from those who have more than them. We need more guns and gun training to protect ourselves from the criminals created by these policies.

        We need gun training to be standard courses in all of the schools

      • Bill

        Hi Chester,
        I also grew up with several m1 girands in the house. They are a 500 yard gun ith a 30-06 caliber. Many of my dads friends coverted them into hunting rifles.

        In high school, we had ROTC, where each student was issued a M1 and we were taught safety, maintenance and proper use.

        We need more gun classes in our local schools to teach gun safety and marksmanship

      • Joe13

        Flashy, you might as well ban cars too. They kill people, right? In 2011, 32,000 people were killed by these awful things. Shoot… they should ban them, take them away from people, etc….

        Oh no… I got an idea.

        Let’s create educational programs on how to you use them – Driver’s education courses and learning permits.

        Let’s create incentives for people who use them properly by incorporating safe driving techniques – Lower insurance rates, limited fines, and not dying.

        Let’s work together to make cars safer to have less deaths – Better car design and more safety features.

        Nevermind…. those are terrible ideas. We still might have a lunatic or two that will drive a car straight into oncoming traffic or onto a populated sidewalk.

        Let’s ban cars too. People die from these things.

      • Flashy

        I see…if every one else’s fault and responsibility and there should be no responsibility to gun owners. Human life be dam**d, society be dam**d, the majority of Americvans and the excrcise of their Rights be dam**d. As long as you have unfettered use of guns, aren’t held to any level of responsibility…and turn this nation into an armed camp and moving closer to the police state you’re saying {I believe in jest] you are “protecting” it [while doing everything to destroy the fabric of civilized society]…

        Yesterday, there were posts which stated the SCOTUS was not the final arbiter of the Constitution and their decisions were invalid. We had people say the SCOTUS didn’t know what the Constitution said or allowed. Mind…not just on one case, but overall in toto.

        You don’t want to be hassled with any responsibility owning a dangerous weapon. Therefore, everyone else takes a back seat and doesn’t matter…you don’t want to be hassled. Mind…nothing about ownership is involved…you don’t want any hassle with the responsibility and you seek nothing less than the destruction of our civilized society.

        And folks…when you wonder why people don’t listen to you? Don’t wonder…

      • Flashy

        Warkhan…you are correct. Sidwell had security in place prior to President Obama sending his daughters there. Check this out…

        “Both of President Barack Obama’s daughters, Sasha and Malia, attend Sidwell, which has been described as “the Harvard of Washington’s private schools”.[1] Vice President Joe Biden’s grandchildren also attend the school.[2] Previously, President Theodore Roosevelt’s son Archibald, Richard Nixon’s daughter Tricia, Bill Clinton’s daughter Chelsea Clinton, and Vice President Al Gore’s son, Albert Gore III, all graduated from Sidwell Friends.”

        Now..with a cast like the above…seems there isn’t a time when there isn’t a high target person attending the school. Diplomat families included.

        Givgen the state of affairs where guns are easy to obtain, and the number of high profile children at the school….it would make sense to have security. Assassination and kidnapping by terrorists being rare and not foreseeable y’know….

      • Honestly

        Flashy…You need to clean up you language. It is not necessary and even your attempt to conceal it by removing a letter is offensive.

        Can Personal Liberty please do a better job here!!!!!

      • ibcamn

        yes sec serv., but this school had gaurds before Obama got there!!

      • The Big Easy

        @-the flasher——-COMRADE———IS YOU CRAZY ????????Have you ever read the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ???? I think NOT. Why don’t you put as much effort into getting these ‘mentally challenged’ people that ARE the ones doing these MURDERS upon the Citizens in these ‘GUN FREE ZONES’ MENTAL HELP ,as you do upon the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS that are or should be FREE to have as much FIRE POWER as the gubermint in case of the gubermint going ‘rouge’ and tyrannical AGAINST the AMERICAN CITIZENS ????????????? Go read the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.————-What a puke—————

      • Buster the Anatolian

        “joy..when you were growing up, how many people owned assault rifles and semi’s and high capacity magazines capable of 30 or more rounds?”

        I cannot speak for Joy but when I was growing up military surplus M-1 carbines were very inexpensive, quite popular,and 30 round “bananna clips” were the magazine of choice. So flashy your agrument is useless for there were no mass shootings with them.

      • CZ52

        Here is another inconvient truth for you Flashy. Rifles of ALL kinds were used to commit 323 homicides in 2011. Knives and other edged weapons were used 5 times more often at 1697 homocides. Blunt objects such as hammers, monkey wrenches, etc. were used 549 times almost twice as often as rifles. Hands, fists, and feet committed over twice as many homicides as rifles of ALL kinds. Source FBI homocide data for 2011.

      • eddie47d

        You’re a hoot Dave H ! No matter what the subject you change it to mean “spending other peoples money” . Is that retroactive programming!.

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        “I see…if every one else’s fault and responsibility and there should be no responsibility to gun owners.”

        Silly us. How dare we blame the criminal when there are all those innocent people out there to blame. Never let a good crisis go to waste.

      • Flashy

        Vicki says:
        January 1, 2013 at 2:42 pm

        Flashy says:
        “I see…if every one else’s fault and responsibility and there should be no responsibility to gun owners.”

        Silly us. How dare we blame the criminal when there are all those innocent people out there to blame. Never let a good crisis go to waste.
        ===========

        Vicki…how’d the bad guy get the gun?

        Bought or stolen. If stolen, then how’d it be available to steal? Was it locked up? etc. If they bought it, then should we not be able to go to the supplier of guns to the bad guys?

      • Vicki

        Flashy writes:
        “Vicki…how’d the bad guy get the gun?”

        Not relevant but lets play

        Bought – If they bought it, then should we not be able to go to the supplier of cars to the bad guys?

        Stolen – If stolen, then how’d it be available to steal? Was it locked up? etc.
        Blame all those car owners who leave their keys in the car and then someone steals the car and robs a bank.

        But wait. Liberal insanity doesn’t stop there.

        Liberals blame ALL car owners regardless of how the legal owner treats the car. It doesn’t matter if the car is bought and sold legally. It doesn’t matter that the car was locked and inside a locked structure. It doesn’t matter that the car was NEVER in it’s entire existence used in any way to facilitate any crime. Liberals want cars taken away from law abiding citizens. (For those able to, just replace the letters car (when they appear together) with the letters gun in the paragraph above)

        It’s time to stop the insanity.

      • Vicki

        My keyboard wrote:
        “…… in the paragraph above)”

        remove the word “above”). Silly keyboard. Gotta watch it all the time :)

      • DaveH

        Flashshill,
        I shot down your main premise here:
        http://personalliberty.com/2013/01/01/obama-opens-fire/#comment-797130

        So, why are you going on as if you are anything but a guy who has no credibility?

      • http://www.facebook.com/thomas.sherman.589 tgsherman

        Why should they have secret service protection? Are there children more important than yours?

    • wandamurline

      Hypocrits…both of them and yes, Meet the Press gave the BO 30 minutes of propoganda. What I don’t understand is why the NRA wasn’t prepared to meet with Gregory the Sunday before this one….the leader of the NRA should have embarrassed Gregory with the information that his kids’ school doesn’t just have one armed guard…they have eleven. When is someone going to appear on that show and make a @zz out of Gregory. Before I appeared, I would come armed and have no problem telling America what a hypocrit that Gregory and Obama are…do like we say, not what we do.

      • Flashy

        Wanda…it’s called the Secret Service. Why not check to see if the school had armed security before the President’s daughters attended.

      • Texas Ride

        Why are omaumau’s daughters more important than our American daughters? I thought this president was all about his socialist ideology that everyone should be equal. I guess he really means that the masses must be equally vulnerable to shooters, but the elites’ daughters should be protected.

        (And, another observation. Why have all the shooters targeted the schools they have. I don’t recall any school in dangerous, drug-infested neighborhoods being attacked and the teachers and students killed.)

        That is the way with socialism, the masses are equally enslaved, but the elites continue their lavish lifestyles. Where is all this “shared sacrafice” we keep hearing about when omaumau takes a Four Million Dollar Christmas vacation and gives congress and fed employees new pay increases! That is “shared sacrafice” omaumau-style.

      • STOPTHEMADNESS

        Flashy, the school WAS armed before the Obama children arrived. The arming of this school has nothing to do with the Obama’s it armed because it is an elitist school.
        Look it up

      • hipshotpercusion

        wanda, arguing with flashshill is like trying to teach a pig to sing. All you do is waste your time and annoy the pig. As for guns and police in schools, we have police in most of our local schools down here where I live in Florida, and, they are armed. Hence, we don’t have any school shootings. As for arming teachers…my younger brother lives in Salt Lake city, UT. they allow teachers there with CCW permits to carry in schools. No recent mass school shootings there, either. Lastly, I carry a gun every time I leave the house. It gives me a sense of security just like the fire extinguishers I keep around the house.i hope i don’t have to use either, but I’m glad they are there.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Wanda, Brzezinski’s pet-rat, Obama, only cares about his own nest and brood. As for the rest of American-families, as his track-record shows, can fend for themselves, and the “hell” with then! Nice guy…!

      • Robert Smith

        Texas asks: “Why are omaumau’s daughters more important than our American daughters?”

        They are no more important than any other daughter but the circumstances they are in are different than what one of my kids may face at school.

        My kids don’t have a parent who is in a position of high national or international profile or visibility. The presidents kids aren’t random targets who coincidently might get caught up in a rampage. They, and their classmates, are high profile targets of everything like nut cases to international organizations seeking to reach these kids to influence politics.

        Sheesh, even Tom Clancy wrote about how the kids of VIPs can be attacked. BTW, he also had a 747 going into the Capitol thus elevating Ryan to President. So, it ain’t far fetched to understand that some kids are treated differently because of who their parents are.

        It isn’t the Obama, it’s common sense. I’m saddened that there are those who will try to use common sense against our President.

        Rob

      • DaveH

        Their lives would be a lot safer, Robert, if they weren’t meddling with the lives of so many others.
        If we had Free Markets, and kept out of other countries’ business, there wouldn’t be much reason for anybody to want to assassinate them.

        For Free Markets, Individual Freedom, Personal Responsibility, Limited Government, and the PEACE that follows those — Vote Libertarian!
        http://www.lp.org/

      • Bill

        AMEN, DaveH

      • eddie47d

        We know it did Flashy but Wanda and others continually make it an Obama issue. I really think Wanda and others are wishing for either a kidnapping or a killing of one of Obama’s children to satisfy their very open hatred!

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        “Wanda…it’s called the Secret Service. Why not check to see if the school had armed security before the President’s daughters attended.”

        Unlike you, she apparently did.

      • Vicki

        hipshotpercusion says:
        “wanda, arguing with flashshill is like trying to teach a pig to sing. All you do is waste your time and annoy the pig. ”

        The time is not wasted. We are not trying to teach the pig. We are showing other readers the nature of the pigs song.

      • Vicki

        Robert Smith writes:
        “Sheesh, even Tom Clancy wrote about how the kids of VIPs can be attacked. BTW, he also had a 747 going into the Capitol thus elevating Ryan to President.”

        Elevating the character Jack Ryan to President. And only because Jack had just been appoited Vice President to replace President Durling’s running mate Ed Kealty.

        Jack Ryan survives the attack because he is the protagonist in the novel.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_of_Honor

    • Joe

      NO TRUER WORDS WERE EVER SPOKEN. This presindent, does hate America, and is out to destroy it. He has many followers who believe the same as he does. He controls the media, therefore, not many true Americans know what the hell he is doing. God help us, and God bless America.
      SEMPER FI
      Joe

      • Robert Smith

        Hey Joe you say about Obama: “He controls the media, therefore, not many true Americans know what the hell he is doing. ”

        Really. Does he control Murdock of Fox?

        Does he control Paxon of the Ion network, Worship Channel, and a bundle of other stations?

        Does Obama control Clear Channel Radio? Nope, that’s got Bain Capital (Romney) behind it.

        So, although there are some left leaning spuds (common taters) in the Media the fact is that the Media in America is BIG BUSINESS and not beholding to Obama.

        Please get the facts right rather than bleating on a forum like this.

        Rob

      • DaveH

        Robert asks — “Really. Does he control Murdock of Fox?”.
        Apparently so.
        Witness the cancelling of three Fox Business Network shows that dared to criticize Big Government and expose their machinations.
        http://reason.com/blog/2012/02/09/fox-business-networks-cancels-judge-andr

      • DaveH

        Alex Jones talks about Judge Napolitano’s firing:
        http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-why-judge-andrew-napolitano-was-fired/

      • Vicki

        Robert Smith says:
        “Hey Joe you say about Obama: “He controls the media, therefore, not many true Americans know what the hell he is doing. ”

        Really. Does he control Murdock of Fox?”

        Either that or he is a puppet of the same masters as hinted at in the links DaveH provided.

    • Mary

      Such hate for the President and his family just shows your ignorance. Bet you didn’t call Bush’s kids brats or personally attack him like you do Pres. Obama. Too bad Americans listen to the likes of Rush Limbaugh for their political news. Limbaugh, a degenerate who wants to watch college girls make a sex video for his entertainment, has no political back ground, never worked in the government, did not finish college and laughs at people like you behind your back as he deposits his millions in the bank, probably out of the country. This is the hero of the right who spreads his lies and rhetoric and hate pitting Americans against each other, and YOU have the nerve to disrespect the President of the US duly elected by the majority of Americans.

      • Bill

        You are an idiot, Mary
        Your socialist Buddy, Obama, perpetuates class warfare, violence and poverty. And he uses ignorant people like you

      • don

        Liberal Mary, for your information, President Bush was an American, obama hasn’t proved that yet, until he does he has gained no respect as far as us Americans are concerned, if he acts like a communist, an leads like a communist he must ba comm–

      • http://gravatar.com/cbgard Carlucci

        Mary, Mary, Mary………you’ve got to be kidding. Hasn’t it dawned on you yet that most of the people with a thinking brain on this blog aren’t Bush or Limbaugh fans? That is most definitely NOT what this newsletter is all about. Most of the posters here are freedom loving Libertarians/Conservatives who abhor the status quo politicos. Please wake up and pay attention, or go somewhere else to post your clueless comments.

        • Patriot

          Geez, Mary. This isn’t about Republicrat Vs. Demolican! Bush was a criminal as well. And your beloved Obmaninable Showman has simply taken policies from the Bush Criminal Playbook, and rewritten them to be more brazen, and more effectively diabolical. I think it is obvious you are on the wrong forum if you believe that anyone here is advocating for one or the other. This place is about liberty and neither of those tyrants has any fans here.

      • Flashy

        Don…Bush was a womanizer, an alky, a cocaine addict, went AWOL during time of war, and filed in several business ventures…one r two in which his friends got burned on while he was extracting his interests. His daughters were party animals whose “virtue’ ws unquestioned…they didn’t have any. Laura Bush killed someone in her younger days …involving cars and alcohol.

        Now why weren’t you questioning any of these claims when he was running for office? Claims which, BTW, are true.

        insted, you beat a dead horse and show yourself to be walking the fine line of sanity as a “Birther”…

      • Donald

        Not HATE Mary, The Truth with some small cras words, LIBTURDS used far worse referring to Bush. Flashy pointed out that because this school has certain people’s kids attending, that’s the reason for ARMED Gaurds. To BAD, Adam Lanza wasn’t around those GUN FREE ZONE schools, Obama attended before he got into politics. The problem ISN’T GUNS, the problem was Newtown folks weren’t ALLOWED to protect themselves because of Gun Controll. Remember STUPID LIBTURDS, Tim McVeigh didn’t need a gun and neither did the 9/11 hijackers. But the Victims were just that because of Gun Controll

      • eddie47d

        Don: Obama was born in Hawaii get over it! Don: if you talk like a fool you must be a fool!

      • eddie47d

        Yes Donald you do hate: Right Wing militia member Timothy McVeigh did have a weapon with him as a back up in case his bomb plot didn’t work. You know how these Conservative anti-American killers are. They’ll slaughter anyone just to make a point of their hatred for the government!

      • Vicki

        Mary says:
        “Such hate for the President and his family just shows your ignorance. Bet you didn’t call Bush’s kids brats or personally attack him like you do Pres. Obama.”

        Which group came up with and constantly used the word shrub when referring to President Bush?.

        “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. ” – Matthew 7:5

        Mary: “Limbaugh, a degenerate who wants to watch college girls make a sex video for his entertainment…”

        Are you familiar with the word “libel”?

        The quote you are likely using to create your “fact” is
        “So Miss Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.” -Rush Limbaugh, March 1, 2012 ”

        So the evidence that Limbaugh is a degenerate is not there and thus your assertion is false. Thus you are not protected from libel by the truth.

        Unless, you have some other evidence to show that your “proof by bald assertion” is true?

      • eddie47d

        Many are offended by Limbaugh’s words and he is libelous. Considering that he is an Elite with buckets of money I highly doubt if anyone is either brave enough or financially strong enough to take him to court! Thus it will continue with impunity.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        I believe O is married and he is not going to become your lover, you are getting yourself frustrated like a dog in heat.

      • Vicki

        Flashy writes:
        “Claims which, BTW, are true. ”

        Proof by bald assertion.

      • JC

        Mary says:
        January 1, 2013 at 10:34 am
        Such hate for the President and his family just shows your ignorance.
        _______________________________________________________________________
        I don’t hate the Kenyan. He is not my President and I resent his being ensconced in our White House, and I have absolutely no respect for him…but I don’t hate him.
        No, I detest him. Sort of the same way I would detest a rat in my child’s bedroom.
        You don’t have to be emotionally involved to “detest” something.

        • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

          Obama is not now, nor was he ever, “our” president. He was put into power by those outside of the USA, not by citizens – though the corporate media tried to portray it as such.

          The 2008 Democratic Nominating Committee (DNC) document did not include language stating that Obama was qualified to be a candidate. The 2008 Republican Nominating Committee (RNC) document did, as is normal. This shows that the DNC knew that Obama was not qualified, or why change the form?

          The Republican candidate was also “put into place” as a presidential candidate by election fraud – as was Obama.

          There was no election – there was only election fraud in 2012.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Many are offended by Limbaugh’s words….”

        And they have the power to NOT be offended so there is nothing you or I nor government need do about it. In fact there is NOTHING we can do about it because the total power to be offended or not be offended is in their hands.

        eddie47d: “and he is libelous.”

        Proof by bald assertion and, absent proof, places you in jeopardy of committing libel.

        eddie47d: “Considering that he is an Elite with buckets of money”

        Proof by bald assertion.
        Argument to ridicule
        Argument to greed
        Argument to (class) envy.

        Funny that you never mention that obama is an elite with buckets of money.

        eddie47d: “I highly doubt if anyone is either brave enough or financially strong enough to take him to court!”

        Why? If your case is just you could easily find a lawyer willing to take on buckets of money for a (big) piece of the action.

        eddie47d: “Thus it will continue with impunity.”

        Not if you bring forth facts. Alas you do not have any.

      • S.C.Murf

        flashnot, you can say the same tings about Ted Kennedy, Bill & Hillery Clinton and many many others. So my question to you is WHY don’t you include the left into your rants? You still follow that left right thing don’t you. flashfool

        up the hill
        airborne

      • eddie47d

        Listen to all YOUR “bald assertions” Vickie! What quackery!

    • TIME

      Dear Flash,

      First off lets explore you for a moment, Mr. livingston has pointed out, you are oddly at the same ” IP ” address CODE number as countless others who post on this sight with the same warped as well twisted views. Yet you claim thats not true, really?

      So lets see your the only person who has how many names that you post under that has the same “Routing Code Protocols.”
      The liklyhood of that ever happeneing is about the same as being eaten by a Great White shark in death valley.

      Numbers don’t lie, thus all your words within your post daily are as hollow and worthless as Foul Flatus. Pointless as a dull knife, let alone as transparent as clear glass.

      In fact your more like a bad case of direah.

      • Flashy

        Time…such was the claim. Note it involved ideologies of all spectrums. All were going “what??” And even though asked for, nothing was supplied so we could track down what the deal was. Several of us used AOL, others another server. Nothing was suplied as far as any information, and no one pushed it since it would have been a waste of time to demand anything.

        Doesn’t bother me. Everyone involved knows there was an error and misunderstanding. Only Davey boy brings it up, and he hasn’t had a solid grasp of reality since at least the time I’ve been posting on PLD.

      • JeffH

        Falsy who has no credibility and has posted comments under several names and been linked to the same IP address as over a half dozen other names says “Several of us used AOL, others another server.”

        Amazing how FALSY knows that “several of us” used AOL and others used another server. How did Falsy know that or is Falsy falsifying again?

        Me thinks Falsy is a liar!

      • Opal the Gem

        Flushy has slipped up in the past and admitted his job involves him coming on PLD making comments and reporting back to his superiors. Therefore, Flushy is paid to come on PLD. As a result we know he is a shill being paid to make useless, disruptive, false, inane comments here.

      • Vicki

        Where is Jeremy today? Did he get a day off for good behavior?

      • Flashy

        Opal..I said no such thing. I did mention I use an amount of data, information, etc in writing up some reports and papers…such being in the nature of my position with the company. At the very least, I have a better track record on calls than Wayne “Mitt’s Gonna Win It” Root

        Y’all are about the most paranoid, fearful, hate filled, ignorance willing, self inflated with some sort of fantasy importance people I have ever thought possible to exist as a group. It is fun to read some of the wild wacked out stuff that appear in various threads.

        But as to what you claim…I never said anything of the sort.

      • eddie47d

        Me’s thinks that Flashy will have to put up will Jeff H and Opals continual slander (bald assertions) because this is a Conservative site and they rule.

      • Vicki

        Flashy writes:
        “Y’all are about the most paranoid, fearful, hate filled, ignorance willing, self inflated with some sort of fantasy importance people I have ever thought possible to exist as a group.”

        And yet you keep coming back for more.

      • Karolyn

        Flashy – I remember what you said. Unfortunately, Opal and many others twisted your words to suit their own agenda, as people are want to do.

      • JeffH

        eddie says, “Me’s thinks that Flashy will have to put up will Jeff H and Opals continual slander (bald assertions) because this is a Conservative site and they rule.”

        Isn’t eddie the repeating parrot’s moderayed comments wonderful…a day late and a dollar short.

        POLLY WANT ANOTHER CRACKER? baaarrraaaccckkkkk!

      • Vicki

        Karolyn says:
        “Flashy – I remember what you said. Unfortunately, Opal and many others twisted your words to suit their own agenda, as people are want to do.”

        Do untwist them for us Karolyn. Exact quote with cite would be nice too.

      • Opal the Gem

        “Opal..I said no such thing. I did mention I use an amount of data, information, etc in writing up some reports and papers…such being in the nature of my position with the company. ”

        Exactly what i saidFlushy. You come on PLD as part of your job therefore you are paid to come here. Since you make comments here you are a paid shill.

  • http://gillysrooms.blogspot.com Gillysrooms from Australia

    The Russians must be laughting that the USA is looking more like Russia every day with security guards everywhere.

    And who was the turkey who introduced death taxes on the American people with assets of $5 Million when they die?

    ARE PROFITS REALLY BORROWED PROFITS UNTIL DEATH DO US PART? I CALL IT DOUBLE TAXATION.

    I bet the Russians dont charge those types of taxes, but any of your readers can correct me if i’, wrong.

    • Flashy

      Gilly…the TPers and American Taliban have called the inheritance/estate tax a “death tax” since they launched the war on the Middle Class and began to steal..errr..redistribute the wealth from the Middle Class to a wealthy elite.

      In our system of taxation, every time a dollar passes hands it is taxable. Once taxed, it is no longer subject to taxation. In the situation when someone dies and does not require probate, the inheritance, benefits pass untaxed until the individual receiving them files taxes. Then after debt, liabilities, depreciation, exemptions, etc are taken…what is left is taxable at personal rates.

      In larger wealthier more complicated estates…after yesterday a net valuation of $5 million for one, $10 mil for two, the estate is taxed as an entity. .Which it is. It has liabilities not passed to the beneficiaries, it makes investment decisions, it acts and is, something of a hybrid corporation. It’s not a :”death tax” upon anyone. It is an estate tax…on an entity which is separate from any other identity. Even in name.

      Hope that helps

      • Stuart Shepherd

        Flashy-
        Since you don’t sound totally delusional I’m assuming you’re just another liberal evil liar and a discussion board such as this has just drawn you in because you sense it to be a battleground of good vs evil, truth vs lies and you just have to be sure that lies, evil, and confusion wins. I’m dubious of people that don’t use their real names, anyway, but “Flashy”? What sex are you, anyway? Is are you some kind of “PC” androgynous LGPT hermaphroditic trans-something or other or (more likely) just another liberal, “PC,” TRUE American Taliban neutered weak-willed, weak-minded, and cowardly male?

        I’m expecting thoroughly vicious attacks from this nameless, faceless, sexless lying coward.

      • Flashy

        Stu…instead of fixating on delusions of paranoia..why not address the issue written about? Or is denigration your stock in trade when you haven’t anything of value to write?

      • momo

        Stuart, flashy is just a liberal BS artist. He should come back with some long winded, and I mean LOOONG, explanation of why his position is superior to yours. Just remember this guy, and he is a guy, was mouthing off about AR15′s and he didn’t even know it was a .223 caliber. Long on BS, short on facts, that’s flashy.

      • Flashy

        Momo…not superior..just connecting the dots to tear a simplistic superficial bordering on lunacy argument apart…such as arming teachers will make schools safer. As far as an AK ..you would be correct. Don’t own one, don’t have a need for one, and the reasons (other than fun to shoot) for having one are…well….way out there.

        As I have stated time and again, you want to own a gun and have it in your home…and endanger all within? Be my guest. Take it outside the home, then you begin to affect my life, my safety, my Rights. Having a weapon which sole purpose is killing another human…and don’t trash talk about it being a hunting rifle, unless humans are the hunted game…. and there just isn’t any good reason to have one unregulated and assured of not getting into the hands of bad guys.

        And sale of any weapon should b recorded, reg number of gun and who bought it 9with background check). A bad guy uses a gun…the suppliers of guns to bad guys can be nailed (note…”suppliers” meaning folks who frequently end up selling guns to bad guys).

      • Texas Ride

        Sounds like the F and U plans are well used by government when it comes to taxation and the Death Tax. Flashy is just so upset by people that have wealthy estates that he can hardly contain himself as he writes with glee how these estates will be government owned through taxation! The truth be known, government owns everything. They just let you think you have profited by your labor. If you don’t believe this, try not paying your taxes on the same things, every year! The government lets you “rent” your home, your property, your business; or any kind of assets. It doesn’t matter that you bought those things with money that was already taxed. How much money do you think the government makes on every dollar circulating, in one year. That dollar is taxed over and over, everytime it changes hands and it is taxed at different rates.. But, we must remember that these F and U tax plans are for only the 50% of people that are productive and work for what they have…

      • DaveH

        Flashshill says — “Gilly…the TPers and American Taliban have called the inheritance/estate tax a “death tax” since they launched the war on the Middle Class and began to steal..errr..redistribute the wealth from the Middle Class to a wealthy elite”.

        Keeping their own property is “redistributing” the wealth, now?
        From Merriam-Webster:
        redistribute — to spread to other areas.

        Get the “other” part, Flashshill?

        That’s one of many reasons that you are known to have no credibility on this board, Flashshill.

      • Peter Wieckhorst

        Flashy:
        I am tired of your BS. You don’t want to own a gun fine, DON’T. You want someone else to protect your sorry self fine there are a lot of people just like you living off the protection and guts provided by others. If you really believe that laws will protect better than guns in the hands of trained people then by all means pass your laws and as soon as the President and the rest who travel with ARMED PROTECTION, get rid of their protection so will I, but not until then.
        OH and one last point the 2nd Amend. to the US Constitution says…”Shall not be infringed.” In my opinion ANY regulation or attempt to restrict/control access or possession of any gun is a violation and therefore: unconstitutional and therefore illegal. Pure and simple.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Gilly…the socialist-progressive-fascist democrats, lead by the Fascist Obama, aka Mussolini, have called the inheritance/estate tax a “death tax” since they launched the war on the Middle Class and began to steal..errr..redistribute the wealth from the Middle Class to a wealthy elite.

        Barack Obama, aka Mussolini, is a deeply troubled personality, the megalomaniac front man for a postmodern coup by the intelligence agencies, using fake polls, mobs of swarming adolescents, super-rich contributors, and orchestrated media hysteria to short-circuit normal politics and seize power.

        Obama comes from the orbit of the Ford Foundation, and has never won public office in a contested election.

        His guru and controller is Zbigniew Brzezinski, the deranged revanchist and Russia-hater who dominated the catastrophic Carter presidency 30 years ago. All indications are that Brzezinski recruited Obama at Columbia University a quarter century ago.

        Trilateral Commission co-founder Brzezinski wants a global showdown with Russia and China far more dangerous for the United States than the Bush-Cheney Iraq adventure.

        Obama’s economics are pure Skull & Bones/Chicago school austerity and sacrifice for American working families, all designed to bail out the bankrupt Wall Street elitist financiers who own Obama.

        Obama’s lemming legions and Kool-Aid cult candidacy hearken back to Italy in 1919-1922, and raise the question of postmodern fascism in the United States today.

        Obama is a recipe for a world tragedy!

      • Nobody’s Fool

        And the tax is levied upon your DEATH, hence the nickname DEATH TAX. What you have worked for your entire life and saved to be passed on to your children will instead be passed on to your everlovin’ nanny govmint, NOT your children. And anything left to them will be taxed as well.

      • Warrior

        Isn’t “sidwell” the place where all “middle class” people send their childens? Hey flashman, keep you hands in your own pocket for a change.

        What, weren’t there any “props” available to stand behind the messiah during the interview? Like, oh, some “middle class” types! LMAO.

      • Patriot

        Flashy -
        I work hard all my life, and pay taxes on my income and the property I buy. Then I want to leave it to my family, my kids, or whomever else I deem to do so because it is MY private property, but the government should be allowed to tax it AGAIN? Not to mention get involved in my family affairs by determining that they should have to PAY to receive what I leave them?
        Double taxation and an invasion of privacy combined with confiscation of private property is something you support?
        Do you consider yourself an American? Because these ideas are not in line with what I consider America to be like.

      • The Big Easy

        @-the flasher————COMRADE———–you sound like one of those ADULT DIAPER BOYS/GIRLS/OTHER that has a very heavily soiled ADULT DIAPER that is oooooooozzzzzzzing out all over your ADULT DIAPER BOY/GIRL/OTHER BED and your self.You should get your ADULT MOMMIE to give you a CHANGE and be sure that your ADULT DIAPER BOY/GIRL/OTHER MOMMIE wipes all that ADULT DIAPER dribble from your mouth !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!——–What a puke—————Why are you on a site like this ??????You should be on one of those anti-american sites like air america,or pubic radio and tv.

      • Opal the Gem

        “… every time a dollar passes hands it is taxable. Once taxed, it is no longer subject to taxation. ”

        Oxymoron

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        “In our system of taxation, every time a dollar passes hands it is taxable. Once taxed, it is no longer subject to taxation. ”

        First half of his statement is true. The 2nd half is patently false.

        I get $10 income. 100% is taxed and the tax rate is 50% Leaving me with $5
        I go to the store and buy a gallon of milk for $5 (current price near that already :)
        100% is taxed (It was already taxed when it came to me as income.)
        I get to pay a 10% tax rate (California :) ). I am now -$0.50.

        This is just one of the many reasons that Flashy has no credibility on this board.

      • Vicki

        Flashy writes:
        “As I have stated time and again, you want to own a gun and have it in your home…and endanger all within? Be my guest. Take it outside the home, then you begin to affect my life, my safety, my Rights. ”

        Just for the edification of the masses what Rights of yours are affected by her having a gun in her possession outside her home? For the purpose of this question we will ignore the obvious fact that she is not within range of you.

      • Flashy

        Vicki says:
        January 1, 2013 at 3:24 pm

        Flashy says:
        “In our system of taxation, every time a dollar passes hands it is taxable. Once taxed, it is no longer subject to taxation. ”

        First half of his statement is true. The 2nd half is patently false.

        I get $10 income. 100% is taxed and the tax rate is 50% Leaving me with $5
        I go to the store and buy a gallon of milk for $5 (current price near that already :)
        100% is taxed (It was already taxed when it came to me as income.)
        I get to pay a 10% tax rate (California :) ). I am now -$0.50.

        This is just one of the many reasons that Flashy has no credibility on this board.

        ===============

        Vicki….you know I was referring to the Federal income tax. Not sales tax.

        Credibility? You ?

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        Vicki….you know I was referring to the Federal income tax. Not sales tax.

        Which is why you said
        “In our system of taxation, every time a dollar passes hands it is taxable.”

        System of taxation. Hmmm… Credibility much?

        Now for the amusement of the audience lets play the “federal income tax” game.
        I get $10 income. 100% is taxed and the tax rate is 50% Leaving me with $5
        I go to dairy farmer and buy a gallon of milk for $5
        40% ($2) is profit (income after business deductions) and taxed at 50%
        The farmer has to pay $1 in tax on the $2 I was already taxed on.

        This is just another of the many reasons that Flashy has no credibility on this board.

      • DaveH

        Flashman says — “In larger wealthier more complicated estates…after yesterday a net valuation of $5 million for one, $10 mil for two, the estate is taxed as an entity. .Which it is. It has liabilities not passed to the beneficiaries, it makes investment decisions, it acts and is, something of a hybrid corporation. It’s not a :”death tax” upon anyone. It is an estate tax…on an entity which is separate from any other identity. Even in name”.

        Once again Flashman tries to impress the ignorant with his grandiloquence.
        For those who are wondering, he is just speaking his usual meaningless gibberish for those of you who might be ignorant enough to think he knows what he’s talking about.

      • DaveH

        As usual, the Liberal Progressive Flashshill wants to do what’s best for his masters and worst for the rest of us.
        Death taxes are not only morbid and immoral, they are counter-productive to a good economy.
        Many (probably most) parents are driven to extra productivity with their children’s welfare in mind. Every bit of extra productivity enhances our economy. And who better deserves to have that money — the people the owners wanted to have it, or somebody who did little more for the owners than to throw up obstacles to make it more difficult for them to build their wealth?
        So Flashshill and his thieving cohorts come along and take the fruits of those parents’ labors for themselves and for buying votes from ignorant citizens who aren’t aware that the help offered to them has very long strings attached. While Flashshill and his Cronies party hardy on our money, the vote-buying targets become dependent and helpless. And the Productive people have one less reason to be productive, so our economy suffers and the rest of us have trouble finding jobs.
        Oh, but don’t despair because Flashshill and his fellow parasites are happy. Isn’t that heartwarming?

      • Vicki

        Still waiting for your answer to this question flashy.

        “Flashy. Just for the edification of the masses what Rights of yours are affected by Momo having a gun in her possession outside her home?”

      • DaveH

        Give the team a little time, Vicki. They can’t just make up their equivocation in one day.

      • Vicki

        Oh, Ok. I guess I could give Flashy et all till Jan 2nd. Oh thats now. Ok Flashy time to explain which Rights of yours she is affecting. Extra bonus points if you say what the effect is. :)

      • Vicki

        Flashy? Hmmm. Must be his day off.

    • Stuart Shepherd

      Russia IS laughing- THEY’RE not stupid:

      Pravda: Obama re-elected by ‘illiterate society’
      ‘Ready to continue his lies of less taxes while he raises them’
      Published: 11/26/2012

      (PRAVDA) Putin in 2009 outlined his strategy for economic success. Alas, poor Obama did the opposite but nevertheless was re-elected. Bye, bye Miss American Pie. The Communists have won in America with Obama but failed miserably in Russia with Zyuganov who only received 17% of the vote. Vladimir Putin was re-elected as President keeping the NWO order out of Russia while America continues to repeat the Soviet mistake.
      Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/pravda-obama-re-elected-by-illiterate-society/#DLBEFeb2HjvxglmQ.99

      • Chester

        Do need to look at Putin’s actual plans for success, not the ones that are published. He has succeeded in bypassing Russian term limits by having his stooge serve one term as president, and now he is essentially one of the oldstyle Communist dictators. Here I am talking Russian style communism, where everything is controlled by the Kremlin, and Putin controls the Kremlin. There is a congress, but he has worked it so he can pretty much ignore anything they do that he doesn’t like, kind of like a supercharged executive order, so to speak. In his case, he doesn’t even have to worry about a supreme court telling him he can’t do something, he does as he pleases, when he pleases, and it appears the only way he is going to give up office again is the day he dies.

      • Bill

        Hi Stuart,
        You are right about Russia. They learned the hard way that communism does not work. They now promote captalism the old school way. Promote business and pay off your debts.

        Their debt is running 6% to gdp and their gdp is above 4% and growing. They are moving on a fast track to be one of the largest oil producers in the world. No matter what the global warming progressives say, we are still about 30 years away from making alternative energy efficient. In the mean time, High tech diesel is the answer and will be with us for many years

        China, is also an interesting study. They have no debt, their gdp’s are running 9-10% and their government promotes business. California has been dabbling with a high speed rail for the last 10 years. They have pissed away all of the money with their new entitlement cottage industry. They just passed another bill to raise more money and they will probably be another 10 years trying to complete the entitlements. China said “we need high speed rail”. In two years, they built and completed 1800 miles and it is operational.

        We need to go back to our capitaist roots and learn from the former communists. Maybe then we can have another Reagan economy where everyone is working and people do not have the time or inclination to “redistribute wealth”.

        Our current Obama circus and it’s poor econmic growth is creating criminals and more need to have firearms to protect ourselves

      • eddie47d

        Yes Putin controls Russia aka communist style and the right wingers fawn all over him when he spreads anti-Obama propaganda. Conservatives are such sneaking little dogs.

    • Robert Smith

      “And who was the turkey who introduced death taxes on the American people with assets of $5 Million when they die? ”

      What did the people getting that mone do to earn it?

      Seems to me like it’s another welfare for the top 2%.

      Really… Explain to me why anyone is entitled to get moeny without earning it?

      Rob

      • Bill

        Robert,
        You mean like the illegal aliens who are a protected class, receive free welfare, medical and school, pay no taxes, work for cash that they send to Mexico and cannot be deported?

        • Joe13

          Bill,

          That sounds quite fair and logical.

          So come up with another plan… you’re dealing with the US government.

  • http://none Claire

    I look back and remember when I was in school. Life was simple and good back then. We didn’t have to think about the crazies shooting kids at school or anywhere else. As American society started to erode, I sent my kids to Lutheran schools even though I paid taxes towards public schools. The hate, bullying, and bigotry grew at a steady pace and now look at the mess America is in. The government can pass all the legislation they want, but there is no cure for this problem. The nutjobs and criminals will always be able to get a gun therefore it becomes a mute point. It is a shame that organizations, corporations, pharma, and the like have become so powerful that in essence they are running this nation. It did little good to elect the politicians. Politicians do exactly what these organizarions, etc want them to do.

    • http://none Claire

      Sorry, it should be “moot point” not what I typed. I guess I am tired this morning.

      • frank marks

        barack obama is full of it he is what we kids used to call a b s artist.. we easily knew them for what they were and did not heisitate to name them for what they were b s artists.. now take a look at the school his girls go to they carry guns… to protect his children but he tells you it would be rediculous for you to protect your children the same way time to call a b s er a b s er

      • Robert Smith

        “now take a look at the school his girls go to they carry guns…”

        I did. That is a very special school that deals with kids who are high profile targets because of who their parents are.

        I find it sad that knowing that protecting that bunch of kids is of national importance because they are targets is important and comparing that to the notion that prodecting from a shoting rampage is the same thing.

        They are DIFFERENT because of who their parents are. I expect them to be protected to the max because harm to them would mean an incident that could have an international impact.

        Rob

      • http://gravatar.com/cbgard Carlucci

        Hey Claire – how are you and your precious pups doing? Have they won any more dog shows lately? I was thinking about you on Thanksgiving when I was watching the dog show after the Macy’s parade.

        Happy New Year to all of the fabulous (and not-so-fabulous) people on this blog – ! : )

      • http://none Claire

        Carlucci—Sure wish I could send photos of my dogs to you and some of the “regulars.” I showed my son’s dog this past October. Took Reserve Winners Dog with him the first day and then won with him the next day. Good win. “Miss Abbey” took a 4 point major in females at the Illinois GSP Specialty this summer, and then my male took the 4 point major in males the next day! Awesome. They dedicated the shows to my husband. Made me cry. I will probably start again in February or March. Depends on the weather. Thank you for your comments. I wish you a Happy New Year.

    • Karolyn

      Happy New Year, Claire!

      • http://none Claire

        Karolyn:

        Happy New Year to you too!!!

      • Karolyn

        Claire, What is your book about? I just published a small “How to” book on Amazon Kindle. I have always wanted to write a novel but have just never known how to start. I’ve probably started five times on five different ideas.

      • http://none Claire

        Karolyn: My book is about my life, and how I grew up—from the 40s until the present time. Of course, the names have been changed to protect the innocent! LOL My second book is about my very first German Shorthaired Pointer. It is about my precious “Katie.” It will not be a children’s book, it will also be a “real life” story. Hopefully I can find a publisher. The publisher I work for only publishes textbooks for colleges and universities.

    • Old Man

      Eisenhower called this influential organization “The Military Industrial Complex”. They encompass a whole lot more than the “Military”. They have influence over every aspect of YOUR LIFE.

    • Bill

      Good comments, Claire
      I remeber when I was in school, they taught respect and consideration for others. Now, they teach class warfare, envy of others with more than you and you can be supported by the government.

      Kind of sounds like Nazi Germany

    • JeffH

      Claire, Happy New Year and hope all is well!

      Great comment too!

      • http://none Claire

        JeffH– God love ya! Happy New Year to you! I am doing okay. The holidays were a bit difficult. So many memories of years past. It is so strange without Bob. It almost doesn’t seem real. Tim is doing good. It worries me that he gets tired so easily. I hope and pray everything is okay and stays okay with him. I am still working, the dogs keep me busy. Thank God I have them. I went nuts this holiday season, decorated the outside of the house and the inside, even the rooms the dogs are in. I kept thinking my light bill would be horrendous but it was only $10 more so I lucked out there. They read the meter Dec 27th and I got the bill this past Monday. I am still writing my book. My manuscript is only about half finished. Then I have to find a publisher. Wish me luck! Happy New Year to you!!

      • JeffH

        Claire, bless your little heart! I understand the emptiness of losing someone close but thank the Lord for memories and the ability to reflect. I actually think of you, Tim and the “kids” quite often…probably a German Shorthaired thing :) :). Keep working on you book and when it’s published I’d sure like to buy a 1st. Edition, signed by the author.

        Best wishes,
        JeffH

  • John W. Howard

    This is the differrence today between the royality and peasents in this country. What we the people have been asleep to for decades, double standards. Gun control has nothing to do with kids. It has to do with CONTROL of the sheeple (asleep people). The last government to do this was in 1930′s Germany.

    Pardon me for changing the subject but I’m looking for help on getting signatures for a petition I posted at the White House site.

    URL: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/charges-any-official-or-politician-who-brings-gun-control-congress-or-senate-grounds-treason/gsQyfMCW

    Thank You for any help.

    John W. Howard

    • Dwight Mann

      I signed and am trying to spread it in a viral fashion. It is Treason, as the constitution says “Shall Not Be infringed. . .”

      • Flashy

        So Dwight…are you against prohibition of felons owning guns? Against mentally ill owning guns? Perhaps we should be able to own sawed off shotguns? Have no laws against loaded guns in cars..or having one in the chamber while walking around in public? Against restrictions on armor piercing bullets?

        The 2nd, when you look at it whenever it clashes with another Right, is one of the weakest of the Rights. it alone is a Right which is accompanied by a stated reason for the Right. It is not a Right inherent in Man existing just because Man exists.

        Get a grip. Y’all really have to do something about that insecurity issue and need to display your manhood.

      • Texas Ride

        Dwight, the F and Uers haven’t a clue about “Manhood!” They are usually homely, kick sand in my face weaklings that are scared of “Real Men!” They are P and Ses, that are scared of men with guns, and we should be very happy about that. Buy more guns and ammo.

        The F and U planners are scared of the Tea Party, Palin, and anyone else that tells the truth about them and their agenda. They never tell anything but lies because no one wants what they are really offering…. If it were not for the illiterates that have been raised on the communist plantation, supported by money extorted from conservatives, would they have a modicum of support. Looks to me like there is an effort to make the judicial system part of the plantation population, along with congress. People sell their souls cheaply these days.

      • DaveH

        Flashshill says — “So Dwight…are you against prohibition of felons owning guns? Against mentally ill owning guns? Perhaps we should be able to own sawed off shotguns? Have no laws against loaded guns in cars..or having one in the chamber while walking around in public? Against restrictions on armor piercing bullets?”.

        If they weren’t convicted of unprovoked murder, why shouldn’t they be allowed to protect themselves? And if they were, they shouldn’t be left alive for us to worry about the latter.

        Mentally ill owning guns? Who decides that they’re mentally ill, Flashman? A lying Progressive like yourself?

        Sawed-off Shotguns? Why not? What does the length of their barrel have to do with the 2nd Amendment?

        No laws against loaded guns in the car? They’re not much good for protection if we have to load them are they? Where was that banned in the 2nd Amendment?

        Having one in the chamber while walking around in public? Do you think our Founders who had only single-shot muzzle-loaders didn’t have one in the chamber when they wrote the 2nd Amendment?

        Armor-piercing bullets? Why not? Doesn’t our Government have armor-piercing bullets? Isn’t protection from Government what the 2nd Amendment was all about?

        If you disagree with the 2nd Amendment, Flashshill, then change it the legal way. But then being lawful and honest isn’t your strong suit, is it Flashshill?

      • Bill

        Flashy,
        Those are already laws on the books and they will not stop the crazies. You have to fight fire with fire

      • The Big Easy

        @-the flasher————–COMRADE————Someone in the flea-infested flea-bag occupied half-white house called and said your payola check for all your anti-american propaganda is ready,if you can get out of your grand-ma’s basement long enough to claim it.————What a puke—————-

      • eddie47d

        Your right Bill we have to shut down the “crazies”. Those darn gun runners and rouge dealers are wrecking to much havoc on our nation!

      • Vicki

        Flashy writes:
        “Get a grip. Y’all really have to do something about that insecurity issue and need to display your manhood.”

        This from a person who has a fear of inanimate objects?

      • JC

        eddie47d says:
        January 1, 2013 at 3:13 pm
        Your right Bill we have to shut down the “crazies”. Those darn gun runners and rouge dealers are wrecking to much havoc on our nation!
        _________________________________________________________________

        You keep harping out that same crap eddiot…the only gun runners I know of work for Obama and Holder. And when challenged you haven’t been able to post one shred of evidence about any so called “rouge dealers”…nothing.

        You’re a liar and a low life.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Your right Bill we have to shut down the “crazies”. Those darn gun runners and rouge dealers are wrecking to much havoc on our nation!”

        Agreed. Disband the ATF now.
        http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/

      • Buster the Anatolian

        “And when challenged you haven’t been able to post one shred of evidence about any so called “rouge dealers”…nothing.”

        You got that right JC

      • eddie47d

        Because JC you can’t think beyond that nose on your face! There have been articles about them in Phoenix,Milwaukee and the Carolina’s to menttion 3.

      • eddie47d

        I didn’t mean to leave you out Buster. Should I mention the one in Aurora Colorado where a whole truckload of weapons from a dealer was heading to Mexico but crashed. That’s your nothing Buster!

    • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

      John, it is not treason. It IS a criminal act, plus it also makes them NO LONGER MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF POSITION THEY ARE CURRENTLY OCCUPYING.

      This will be long, but you need to know what laws apply.

      The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government. That means that in THIS country there is NO law, bill, amendment, etc that is legal unless they are “constitutional” because of Article. VI and the “in Pursuance thereof” clause which means that they must meet or exceed what the US Constitution says:

      “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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
      The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”

      The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

      The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.

      Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
      The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

      They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure.

      Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

      Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”
      .
      Bound – “Being under legal or moral obligation; to constitute the boundary or limit of; to set a limit to; confine”

      Legally Binding: Common legal phrase. Lawful action, such as an agreement consciously agreed to by two or more entities, establishing lawful accountability. An illegal action, such as forcing, tricking, or coercing a person into an agreement, is not legally binding. Both parties knowingly understand what they are agreeing to is the other requirement to legally establish an agreement or contract.

      Consideration: According to “Black’s Law Dictionary,” consideration in a contract is a bargained for exchange of acts or forbearance of an act.

      Require, Requirement, Required: “to claim or ask for by right and authority; Mandated under a law or by an authoritative entity. That which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory; something demanded or imposed as an obligation.”

      “Blacks Law Dictionary” states that a contract is
      1. An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law.

      The Framers placed the Oath of Office Clause BETWEEN preceding clauses that set forth the organization of the executive department and succeeding clauses that specify the contours of the President’s executive power. The President takes the oath after he assumes the office but before he executes it. The location and phrasing of the Oath of Office Clause strongly suggest that it is not empowering, but that it is limiting – the clause limits how the President’s “executive power” is to be exercised.
      The Framers placed “Oaths of Office” in the Constitution. These Oaths are to function as “checks” on the powers of the federal government and protect us from usurpations.

      Each Branch of the federal government has “the check of the Oath” on the other two branches. The States, whose officials also take the Oath of Office, have the same check on all three branches of the federal government. And “We the People”, the “original fountain of all legitimate authority” (Federalist No. 22), have the Right to overrule violations of the Constitution by elected and appointed officials.

      Article VI, clause 2, says the Constitution, and the Laws & Treaties authorized by the Constitution, are the “supreme Law of the Land”.

      Webster’s 1828 Dictionary says for “Constitution”: “…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.”

      If any Branch fails to obey the “supreme Law”, then, in order to preserve the Rule of Law, the other Branches, or failing that, the States or THE PEOPLE, must overrule them”.

      Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order that further defines the law for purposes of enforcement.

      5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office.

      5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law,

      5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.

      The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

      The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311.
      One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”

      Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States.
      Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

      President Truman relieved MacArthur because MacArthur did not support the requirements of the Constitution and did not faithfully discharge his duties. Precedent.

      Washington court-martialed Thomas Dewees, finding him guilty of two offenses: (1) not taking the oath of office… Another precedent.

      Remember the legal meaning of “Requirement, Require, etc?

      That means that if they do NOT keep that Oath they no longer meet the requirements of the office/position as REQUIRED by the highest law of this land. That means that you do NOT have to wait to fire them by “voting them out”. That means that the moment that they no longer meet the REQUIREMENTS they can be replaced temporarily while held for prosecution of a criminal act. If found guilty they can no longer even serve as a dog catcher when they get out of prison. The voting in a replacement will take time enough to get what forms are needed – and hand write the vote with a big fill-in-the-box by choices, hand count INSIDE the USA with watchers and multiple videos to see that the vote is honest.

  • T. Jefferson

    Remove the security from Sidwell Friends School until security is provided for all schools. The “King” should have no better security than any other American.

    • Flashy

      OK…so you call for the elimination of Secret Service protection for the President and his family? Were you that adamant when Bush II/Cheney were in office and the SS attended the drunken orgies of the Bush daughters?

      you guys are something else…jeesh …

      • chuck

        Bush wasn’t trying to disarm the honest people, being as the communists now have complete control of government, media, schools, and vote counting, the last thing on the agenda is disarming the populace, Hussein Obama (Barry Soetero) is already arming the leftist radicals. The next step is the gulags. Then elimination of 80% of the common people, as in Agenda 21.

      • Texas Ride

        American Presidents should have security, but not foreign frauds, that are only “a face” for a shadow government of international gazillionaires.

      • eddie47d

        Dang it Chuck is the moonshine kicking in! How in the world is Obama “arming the left”? Now if Conservatives brag about being the gun owners and have the 280 million weapons then who is fooling whom?

      • JC

        Flashy says:
        January 1, 2013 at 8:22 am
        OK…so you call for the elimination of Secret Service protection for the President and his family? Were you that adamant when Bush II/Cheney were in office and the SS attended the drunken orgies of the Bush daughters?
        ___________________________________________________________________

        Was Bush trying to disarm Americans?

    • Karolyn

      Now that’s a really stupid remark that the real jefferson would never make. Sidwell is a private school. Also, the children of high ranking people are more of a target than regular kids, which is certainly common knowledge.

      • DaveH

        No person has any more right to life than any other person.
        Everybody should be able to defend themselves rigorously.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Karolyn: Also, the children of regular people are less of a target than the kids of high-ramkng people. Therefore, those regular kids don’t need no protection, even though there’s been a whole bunch of them slaughtered! On the other hand, not one child of the really important people, has been killed…thank God!

      • Karolyn

        I never said that Jay. The rich and famous have a lot more reason to worry about their kids, since there are those who would get to them through their kids. Simple logic.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Karolyn: I never said that Jay. The rich and famous have a lot more reason to worry about their kids, since there are those who would get to them through their kids. Simple logic. Yet, for some strange reason, it’s always the kids of, you know, regular-folk, who are always gunned-down and slaughtered, instead of the kids of really important people who send their kids to the schools that are allowed to have proper security/protection. Still, i don’t think that the schools where, you know, regukar-folk, send their kids should be allowed to have someone armed, security or protection, because, you know, and God forbid, one of them may accidentally shoot a child. Simple logic.

      • Karolyn

        Jay – Why is it conservative sites are complaining about armed police on subways, etc. but are pro armed police at schools? Which way is it?
        http://sandrarose.com/2010/12/police-state/spl231310_001/

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Karolyn: Jay – Why is it conservative sites are complaining about armed police on subways, etc. but are pro armed police at schools? Which way is it?

        At the moment we are talking about protecting the children of them there, you know, regular folk, who are getting slaughtered left right and centre, as opposed the children of them there, you know, IMPORTANT folk, who have adequate, armed-protection and they have yet to loose one child. I guess “gun free zones” are only for them there, you know, regular folk, whose children are not all that important!

      • DaveH

        Karolyn says — “Why is it conservative sites are complaining about armed police on subways, etc. but are pro armed police at schools?”.

        If they are advocating Government Laws to Force schools to have or supply those police, Karolyn, then they aren’t Conservatives, they are NeoConservatives.
        What the True Conservatives are asking for is for the Government to get out of the way so people and schools can protect themselves, either by arming themselves or by voluntarily hiring guards.

      • eddie47d

        Dave H: If the school hires armed guards then that is the taxpayer paying for those armed guards thus the government! So how can the “government get out of the way” or if the taxpayer votes down any increases in the school budget. Parents are not in school and no matter how many weapons they may have at home not a one of them will help their kid in school if needed. If budget increases are not voted on for more security then the government isn’t even in the picture and the ball is in the hands of the voter. Maybe this time Dave H will be willing to spend other peoples money even if they don’t approve it. Maybe he’ll blame it all on neo-Conservatives this time!

      • Vicki

        Karolyn says:
        “ay – Why is it conservative sites are complaining about armed police on subways, etc. but are pro armed police at schools? Which way is it?”

        Neither. Conservatives are demanding an end to gun free zones. Conservatives are demanding that government agents honor their oath of office. Conservatives are demanding that everyone who chooses to be armed be able to without fear of persecution.

        With everyone who wants to be armed and dangerous we will not need “special” people on subways, “special” people at school., “special” people at the mall, “special” people at the theater…. I.E. we will not need a police state.

        Many years of increased concealed carry by everyone who wants to be armed has proven beyond doubt that the claim of increased violence is completely false.

        It’s time to end the insanity.

      • eddie47d

        You are a felons dream Vickie. You are a gang bangers best friend in saying that anyone should be armed that chooses to. Yes we should stop this insanity!

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Eddie: If the school hires armed guards then that is the taxpayer paying for those armed guards thus the government!

        There is no need for armed guards, Eddie. However, now is the time to abandon the ridiculous-notion/idea of “gun free zones” as they facilitate the opposite of their stated intention(s), that being, “massacres”! Another words, “gun-free-zones” = massacres!

      • JC

        eddie47d says:
        January 1, 2013 at 4:27 pm
        You are a felons dream Vickie. You are a gang bangers best friend in saying that anyone should be armed that chooses to. Yes we should stop this insanity!
        ____________________________________________________________________

        What insanity…oh! You mean…YOU!
        because you are without a doubt crazier than a S&!% House Rat!

        • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

          Let me help you to relieve your ingorance about gun control.

          Newtonian incident – Gun Control state and in a Gun Control Area – should have saved everyone if you were correct.

          12 months since gun owners in Australia disarmed (law abiding citizens were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by the government, a program that costing the taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

          The first year results sicne the confiscation of law abiding citizens guns:

          Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
          Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
          Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

          In the state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent (Because ONLY the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals still possess are armed).

          Gun Control states have way more problems then CC states, and more problems then the minimumilized gun control states here in the USA.

          This is not about Gun Control, it is about disarming Americans for easier “takeover”. Go watch “Innocents Betrayed” to see what “gun control” really is about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUmKT43j4Tc

          Just like gun registration – illegal here in the USA but has been implemented only lets those who are willing to destroy our lives know where to find the civilized and law abiding citizens to take their weapons and lives.

          George Washington, Farewell Address: “If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

          Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States: “On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

          Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States: “The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution.”

          Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

          “… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms” Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, Article on the Bill of Rights

          Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress: “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

          Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves … and include all men capable of bearing arms.”

          Thomas Jefferson, letter to Justice John Cartwright: “The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … ”

          Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States: “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.”

          John Adams, 2nd US President: “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe”

          Abraham Lincoln: “We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.”

          Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers: “The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”

          Patrick Henry, American Patriot: “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, American Patriot: “The great object is that every man be armed.” and “Everyone who is able may have a gun.”

          Thomas Paine: “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”

          Samuel Adams, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, “Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State”:
          “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”.

          Zachariah Johnson, ‘The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.’: “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them.”

          Richard Henry Lee, ‘ Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic’: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”

          George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788″ “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

          “Because ‘great weight has always been attached, and very rightly attached, to contemporaneous exposition,’ the Supreme Court has cited St. George Tucker, a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge, in over forty cases. Tucker is found in the major cases of virtually every Supreme Court era. In his “Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1803), Tucker, wrote of the Second Amendment:

          “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.”

          In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborated further: “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty… The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction…”

          Saint George Tucker, “Blackstone’s Commentaries”, Volume 1: “The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people;…”

          William Rawle, author of “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America” which was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions. Rawle was not only a respected constitutional authority; he was the only early commentator who actually voted to ratify the Bill of Rights. He describes the scope of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms:

          “The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both”.

          It is obvious that “the people” refers to individuals since Rawle writes neither the states nor the national government has legitimate authority to disarm its citizens. This passage also makes it clear (“the prohibition is general”) that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the scope of the right.

          Justice Story, Supreme Court Associate Justice wrote a constitutional commentary in 1833, “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States”. Regarding the Second Amendment, he wrote:

          “The next amendment is: ‘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.’

          The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

          Tennessee Supreme Court in Andrews v. State (1871) explains, this “passage from Story, shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights.”

          Cockrum v. State: “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.”

          Elbridge Gerry: “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. …Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”

          The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, Tench Coxe wrote: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it 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 birth-right of an American…The 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 – After James Madison’s Bill of Rights was submitted to Congress –
          published his “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 where he asserted that it’s the people (as individuals) with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government:

          “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

          Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29: “What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen…The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution… Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.”

          James Madison, Federalist 46 wrote: “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of…”

          Alexander Hamilton: “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”
          He clearly states there exists a right of self-defense against a tyrannical government, and it includes the people with their own arms, adding:

          “The people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized”!

          Thus the militia is the ultimate check against a state or the national government. That is why the founders guaranteed the right to the people as opposed to only active militia members or a state’s militia. But the Second Amendment acknowledges, via the militia clause, the right of a state to maintain a militia.

          Hamilton concludes: “When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations? The apprehension may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning”.

          Daniel Webster: “Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly and wickedness of the government may engage itself? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest right of personal liberty? Who will show me any Constitutional injunction which makes it the duty of the American people to surrender everything valuable in life, and even life, itself, whenever the purposes of an ambitious and mischievous government may require it? … A free government with an uncontrolled power of military conscription is the most ridiculous and abominable contradiction and nonsense that ever entered into the heads of men.”

          Patrick Henry: “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”

          William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783: “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves.”

          Notice that it is the recurring theme of the people’s right to keep and bear arms as individuals, enhanced by a militia system, which (in part) provides for the “security of a free state.”

          John F. Kennedy: “… By calling attention to a well-regulated militia for the security of the Nation, and the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fear of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the 2nd amendment, will ever be a major danger to our Nation, the amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic military-civilian relationship, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the 2nd Amendment will always be important.”

          Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States, Nuremberg Trials
          “It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error”.

          Ronald Reagan: “The NRA believes America’s laws were made to be obeyed and that our Constitutional liberties are just as important today as 200 years ago. And by the way, the Constitution does not say Government shall decree the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution says ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

          Senator Hubert H. Humphrey: “Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms…. The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.”

          Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address: “But you must remember, my fellow citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government.”

          Glenn Harlan Reynolds: “The purpose of the right to bear arms is twofold; to allow individuals to protect themselves and their families, and to ensure a body of armed citizenry from which a militia could be drawn, whether that militia’s role was to protect the nation, or to protect the people from a tyrannical government.”

          Malcolm Wallop, former U.S. Sen. (R-WY): “The ruling class doesn’t care about public safety. Having made it very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame us and our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an honest mistake.”

          The U.S. Supreme Court, Cohens v. Virginia, 1821: “Although the Federalist Papers were written prior to the drafting of the Bill of Rights (but after the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification), the passages quoted, above, help explain the relationships that were understood between a well-regulated militia, the people, their governments, and the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment did not declare or establish any new rights or novel principles”.

          U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598, N.D.Tex. 1999: “Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people’s right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized.”

          Nunn vs. State: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.

          An armed populace, organized into a well regulated militia, was a good way to defend the country without a large professional army and that it would give the people the ability to defend their liberties if the government ever became tyrannical. Not for self-protection, not for hunting, not even to protect from foreign invaders. Simply that the people, the militia, be able to wrest power from a government, overtly or insidiously, removing power from the people. Every political figure knows that to impose the governments will on the people you must disarm them.

          The Second Amendment allowed for state militias on the cheap, by using citizens arms. It also was a counter balance to the power of the federal government.

          Noah Webster wrote: “before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe” and that the proposed Constitution was no peril to liberty since “the whole body of the people are armed.”‘

          St. George Tucker – law professor at the College of William and Mary, later appointed to the Virginia Supreme Court by Thomas Jefferson and then to its federal district bench by James Madison. In 1803, his first American edition of “Blackstone’s Commentaries” remained for a quarter of a century the treatise most frequently cited by the United States Supreme Court. In his appendix on American law, Tucker elaborates:

          “The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction…

          Judge Cooley; … there is an individual right, meant to buttress the militia, but not limited to its enrolled members… If one takes this definition, the civic right concept in practice would resemble the “hybrid” individual right, recognized in Aymette v. State… that a legislature can outlaw weapons that have no militia/military function. It can proscribe brass knuckles and billy clubs because militia functions do not contemplate bludgeoning tyrants, insurrectionaries, or criminals.
          Conversely, outlawing machine guns, assault rifles, .50 caliber rifles, and the like would involve infringement of the right’s very core because the people are the militia.
          A government could likely restrict concealed carry because concealment has no particular link to political resistance, but it could not restrict open carry or use.
          One of the traditional purposes of the militia is law enforcement -”to execute the Laws of the Union.” Law enforcement was most likely the most frequent use of the militia, its wartime use being limited to the War of 1812 and campaigns of the Civil War… That individual’s have the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of: Aymette v. State – “to keep in awe those who are in power.”

          Firearm permit systems: How does the concept of making a check upon governmental abuses contingent upon obtaining a governmental permit make sense? It is unlikely to have been within the contemplation of the Framers since the main purpose of the Second Amendment was to make sure that the people were armed enough to protect themselves from government tyranny.
          The same goes for registering firearms. There is little to be said for registration as a crime fighting tool, but it does hand the government a convenient list of which citizen owns which firearms would certainly undermine any purpose of deterring tyranny.

          “A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership….” Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “You are a gang bangers best friend in saying that anyone should be armed that chooses to.”

        I hardly think that gang bangers would agree with you since I am advocating that their intended victims be armed and able to shoot the gang bangers. Here are 2 that would really hate my idea.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTct7OB_n78

      • Vicki

        These four certainly didn’t look happy about my idea.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuhKCiY-lu0&NR=1

        Note the gang bangers already chose to be armed and dangerous

      • Vicki

        Judging from his rapid exit the guy in the red cap would be furious at my idea.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi7_uiAUEa4

      • Vicki

        Here are another pair. They can’t be happy about my idea.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fV4Xqt62pf8 The guy in white couldn’t even find the door.

      • Vicki
      • Vicki

        Yet another.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGomz09gMxc

        And these are just the ones caught on video.

      • DaveH

        Eddie says — “Dave H: If the school hires armed guards then that is the taxpayer paying for those armed guards thus the government!”.

        Then vote against public schools, Eddie, if you don’t want to pay for them. Who’s forcing you to support public schools? Not me.

      • eddie47d

        Dave H : Chuckle Chuckle! Picking and choosing again? That is the Conservatives who vote down bond issues… so sorry no money for school protection.[comment has been edited]

  • Paul Wells

    To rectify the problem identified in Ben’s excellent article, we should flush…not once, not twice…but as many times as it takes for Congress and the idiot sycophants in the press to swirl the drain into oblivion. That ought to be a good start!

  • Dwight Mann

    I always turn the Øbamanation off, whenever I see or hear him. I stopped watching TV years ago. It is so unproductive. . . as is this administration!

    • Honestly

      Dwight Mann…TV is just another way to control the minds of the people, especially the Mainstream News Media.

  • http://Yahoo.com Cessna

    The treasonist hypocrit that occupies the White House has desecrated his oath of office and the constitution that he took an oath to defend, tramping on the bill of rights.
    Whose who voted for him an support him will have to answer for it one day, just like the germans did who supported Hitler!

    • NativeBlood

      Speaking of the Oath of Office, I will be very interested to see if he dodges or screws up this time. I am going to watch closely this time. He claimed that he corrected the oath in a private setting after the inauguration address.

      • Randy W

        It has been reported B. Hussein Obama will be swearing the oath in private ceremonies this time around on Sunday, then having his coronation the following day.

      • Karolyn

        That was not his fault; it was the justice who recited the wrong words that Obama stumbled over because he knew they were wrong.

      • http://www.facebook.com/steveharpersr Steve Harper

        I thought the swearing in of a American president was supposed to be done in the public eye with Gods Book,not in private with a muslim hand book of evil

      • Nobody’s Fool

        Word is out that he plans a secret inauguration the night before the public one. One wonders if he plans to use the “holy kuran” that he loves so much for his swearing in.

      • Karolyn

        “Word is….” God I hate unsubstantiated claims.

      • The Big Easy

        @-karoyln——-COMRADE——————You say you hate ‘unsubstantiated claims’,why is it that he will NOT provide his school transcripts—–could it be because he was an ‘exchange student’ from Indonesia or some other place ?????????? You must really hate that one !!!!!!!!!! ——————–What a puke————-

      • JC

        Karolyn says:
        January 1, 2013 at 11:28 am
        “Word is….” God I hate unsubstantiated claims.
        _______________________________________________________________________

        I hate unsubstantiated Presidents.

    • eddie47d

      There’s a whole train load of Republican/right wing liars on here today spreading their load of manure! Obama will be sworn in within the public realm and it will be on a Bible just like last time. Can’t trust a lick of you to tell the truth!

  • Michael Adams

    Yes Sidwell Friends had armed security before the Obama girls went there. But, so, what? The President and his family have armed security everywhere, and want to deny it to the peasants.

    The idea of individual liberty got started in England when peasants started using longbowas. The term “yeoman” is derived from “yewman”. Bows were made from yew wood. The anonymous poster called “Flashy” makes no logical connection between armed, law-abiding citizens and the crazy who shot the kids. Twenty two children were murdered in a school in China on the same day, with a knife. “Flashy” is safer in her daily life because there are armed people around her. Has she seen the stats for home-invasion burglary in Britain, compared to the US?

    • Vicki

      Michael Adams writes:
      ” Has she seen the stats for home-invasion burglary in Britain, compared to the US?”

      Probably not. Would you share them with us here with a link to your cite?

      • Patriot

        I would be happy to:

        UK USA
        Assault victims 2.8% 1.2%
        DEFINITION: People victimized by assault (as a % of the total population). Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevelence.
        SOURCE: UNICRI (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute). 2002. Correspondence on data on crime victims. March. Turin
        Ranked 2nd. 133% more than United States Ranked 11th.

        Rape victims 0.9% 0.4%
        DEFINITION: People victimized by sexual assault (as a % of the total population). Data refer to female population only. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence.
        SOURCE: UNICRI (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute). 2002. Correspondence on data on crime victims. March. Turin
        Ranked 6th. 125% more than United States

        Total crime victims 26.4% 21.1%
        DEFINITION: People victimized by crime (as a % of the total population). Data refer to people victimized by one or more of 11 crimes recorded in the survey: robbery, burglary, attempted burglary, car theft, car vandalism, bicycle theft, sexual assault, theft from car, theft of personal property, assault and threats. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence.
        SOURCE: UNICRI (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute). 2002. Correspondence on data on crime victims. March. Turin
        Ranked 3rd. 25% more than United States Ranked 15th.

        Any questions?

      • Vicki

        Thanks Patriot. A nice detailed list. Complete with unambiguous cites. Flashy and eddie47d (and others) could learn a lot from you. If they wanted to.

        • Patriot

          My pleasure. Unfortunately, facts are usually ignored by those that do not wish to aknowledge them.

      • Vicki

        Don’t worry. The people to whom we speak will take wise note of the facts.

  • Linda Steaveson

    Every time Obama opens his mouth he shows what a liar he is. And his supporters lap it up like pigs at a trough, smacking their lips and wanting more. Maybe it time they were put on a diet of truth and justice. Then again, where would get find that?

    • Paul Wells

      Linda, we are in unusual times, indeed, and the curious thing is, even when confronted by truth right in front of their faces, the left just rejects it out of hand, and goes right back to swallowing up the slop @ the trough! The first several times I witnessed it, I just couldn’t believe it, but now it’s evident…the truth simply doesn’t matter any more, the socialists have redefined what is truth & what is a lie! Sad times for our Republic!

    • eddie47d

      Linda: Take a peek just above your comment; Check out Cessna,Nobody’s Fool,Randy W,Native Blood and Steve and then see who the real liars are. There’s a whole pig pen full of it and all right wingers.

      • JC

        If you keep saying it, it must be true, right NAZI boy?

  • EHeassler USN-Ret.

    This is just another example of the so called wealthy “elite” discussing what they think is good for us as opposed as to what we think is good for us. As far as they are concerned, their children should be well protected but we can suck eggs when it comes to protecting ours. It doesn’t fit their template of a disarmed and defenseless populace. Bad guys will continue killing with knives, clubs, or any means available while the rest of us remain defenseless. My response is, “not in my lifetime.”

    • The Big Easy

      Amen,brother———-And there are 53% of us out here that feel the same way !

    • JC

      Well, what is good for us is up to us. And the politico Globalists can suck rocks.
      America is for American values and these communists will just have to find another place to party. Soon!

  • Bill

    Obamas gun policies will only increase crime. All it will do is make it harder for the honest people to protect themselves and easier for the criminals to prey on the public.

    Seniors will have no way to protect themselves and will be the prey of choice for the criminals. Just look at the crime numbers in the areas with the most gun control.

    Obama and his socialist buddies are just using smoke and mirrors to mask their true intentions, and a lot of stupid people are falling for it.

  • Warkhan

    The last comment was for Flashy not anyone else. Please do your research prior to pretending to state facts.

  • http://orcosportsmans.com/Pages/GunControl.htm LIghtEngineer

    1995 Gun Free School Zone Act
    Date Killed Location
    12/1/97 3 Heath High School Paducah KY
    3/24/98 5 Middle School Jonesboro, AR
    5/21/98 2 Thurston Springfield. OR
    4/20/99 13 Columbine Littleton, CO
    3/21/05 6 Red Lake Minnesota
    10/2/06 3 Amish Lancaster, PA
    4/16/07 32 Virginia Tech
    2/27/12 3 Chardon High Chardon, OH
    12/14/12 26 Sandy Hook Elementary Newton, CT

    We have only 680,000 non-federal police to protect us from the violent thugs, deviants, and narcos in this country of 316 million. That equates to one on-duty peace officer for every 2000 of us. When it comes to personal security, we are obviously responsible for our own. Right now with more than eight million concealed carry licensees, we have about one in thirty adults licensed to carry a concealed handgun. Instant response concealed carry is a far greater deterrent to violent crime than is first response law enforcement and twenty years of historical crime statistics prove this. I have had a personal experience with this on the streets of Cleveland.

    The only way to stop mass shootings and not leave our citizenry defenseless is to eliminate all “gun free zones” that do not have a police presence. And have several volunteer teachers in every school trained and certified by tactical police to use small totally concealable handguns with laser grips that project a bright dot at the point of impact. If body armor is a factor then the dot goes on the head. The alternative is to continue to blame everything except our failed gun control policies that prevent self-defense and then experience more carnage despite ineffective gun control laws.

    The emotional people, who hate guns, fear guns, and want to abolish guns for everyone, claim that “commonsense” dictates that more guns will make us less safe. Well, common sense is a dangerous fictional concept that is invoked primarily to insult, denigrate, and demean anyone with a different opinion. Common sense is dangerous because it is invoked when people believe, without putting their effort into due diligence, that they understand the problem and know the solution better than other people. Consequently the resulting simplistic solutions can often make the problem worse. This has always been the weakness of democracy when ignorant people choose to be stupid. Gun control is a perfect example.

    • DaveH

      Good post Engineer.

  • Jonathan

    I would like to inform everyone that FLASHY is payed to monitor this site. Just thought I would let you know.

    • Honestly

      Jonathan…He must be paid by the word…

    • Bill

      Jonathan,
      That makes sense. He just quotes sound bites from the propaganda media and has no mind of his own

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

      Flashy isn’t the only one, Jonathan. To know who the others are, just look for those who come to Flashy’s defence…ta da!

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    A recent poll showed that 55% of Americans believe that Barack Obama is a “socialist,” and many Americans believe that the nation is on the “road to socialism.”

    The road to socialism? Where have these people been for the last 75 years? America has been a socialist – as well as fascist – nation for many decades, especially since FDR’s New Deal. Socialism primarily is public ownership of wealth, property and the means of production. So, of course Obama is a socialist. He has expressed that.

    For some reason, many people mistakenly believe that Social Security, an important outcome of the New Deal, is a program in which some of Americans’ earnings are taken and put into some kind of “savings account,” to be available to them when they retire.

    In actuality, Social Security is a real-time redistribution of wealth scheme administered by the State, in which income is taken from producers and redistributed to non-producers, mainly retired persons and the elderly. LBJ’s Medicare program is an extension of this.

    Further examples to show that Obama is a socialist include his vote as a U.S. Senator IN FAVOR OF THE WALL STREET BAILOUT, often mistakenly seen as an example of “capitalism,” but which was actually an example of socialism: redistribution of wealth from the middle-class workers and producers to the already rich Wall Street bankers and financial executives.

    Obama also clearly supports the ongoing military socialism through the wars he has been continuing and strengthening abroad: REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH FROM AMERICAN WORKERS AND PRODUCERS TO DEFENSE CONTRACTORS, CONSULTANTS AND LOBBYISTS, OIL EXECUTIVES AND WALL STREET BANKERS, which really has been a main objective for American wars throughout the last century.

    Woodrow Wilson’s decision to enter the war may have been the single most fateful action of the 20th century, causing untold and unending misery and destruction. But Morgan profits were expanded and assured.

    Things have not changed in 100 years.

    Obama’s stated intention has been for redistribution of wealth as a means to help the poor, the underprivileged and so on. But his unstated intention is the same as all politicians of his ilk: TO REACH INTO AS MUCH PRIVATE WEALTH AS POSSIBLE AS A MEANS TOWARDS EXPANDING STATE POWER AND CONTROL.

    Many people also mistakenly believe that Obama’s medical takeover is “socialized medicine,” BUT WE ALREADY HAVE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE IN MEDICARE and other similar programs. ObamaCare is actually a fascist program.

    Fascism is another major aspect of FDR’s New Deal, which gave us an untold number of regulations, mandates and enmeshments between business and government.

    Fascism primarily is State control over privately owned property, wealth and industry.

    All government mandates and regulation of private economies are examples of fascism. ObamaCare consists of one mandate and regulation after another of private doctor-patient relationships, patient/doctor-insurance company relationships, and a laundry list of medical related industries.

    In addition to Obama-Care fascism and Obama’s strengthening of his own executive dictatorial powers as president, some other examples of Obama’s fascism include his new financial regulations, and the environmental regulations that he used as a means of interfering with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s duty to protect the people of Louisiana from the oil spill that threatens their livelihoods.

    While allowing doctors’ practices, HMOs, and insurance companies to continue to be privately owned, the federal government will nevertheless dictate to them how their contracts and associations will be run.

    However, given a variety of factors, this dictatorial control over the medical industry will most likely lead these still privately owned interests into bankruptcy, much like what the federal government has done to the financial and mortgage lending industries, and the federal government will most probably take upon ownership, as well as control, of much of these industries.

    That is where Obama’s communism comes in. The “road to socialism”? No, already
    there. Fascism? Already there. But are we on the road to communism? You betchya!

    • Vicki

      WTS/JAY writes:
      “The road to socialism? Where have these people been for the last 75 years? America has been a socialist – as well as fascist – nation for many decades, especially since FDR’s New Deal.”

      Be patient with them. They are new to the party (that includes me). Just keep up the good work showing the brainwashing and indoctrination we got from public education. It’s a long and sometimes painful process but each one you wake up will be able to wake up 2 others. This is why the socialists hate the internet so much and do everything they can to discredit any valid source.

      The pen (knowledge) is mightier than the scary looking tool (sword).

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    Communism is, by and large, complete State ownership and control of all industry, wealth and property, and the means of production. So far, we have seen this from Obama in his leading the charge of confiscation of much of the automobile industry, as well as the federal government’s ownership of much of the mortgage and finance industries. And eventually, most likely, the entire medical industry.

    Whether Obama is intentionally implementing a communist America by way of long-planned “stealth,” as some people have suggested he is doing, or whether he has a communist agenda by way of his long-time partnership with admitted terrorist bomber and “small-c communist” Bill Ayers, or whether Obama follows the teachings of “radical community organizer” (or “communizer”) Saul Alinsky, is actually not as important as Obama’s actual actions as president.

    So far, we have noted that Barack Obama is:

    A Socialist. He supports public ownership of the means of production, redistribution of wealth from some segments of society to others.

    A Fascist. He supports State control over private industries and the means of production, and just about every aspect of citizens’ daily lives.

    A Communist. He supports State ownership as well as control of industry and the means of production.

    But what isn’t Obama?

    A Capitalist.

    Barack Obama is not a capitalist because he opposes voluntary exchange, private property rights, voluntary contracts, associations and markets free of State intrusions, and under the Rule of Law.

    The true capitalist, voluntary exchange-private property system that coexists with individual liberty is exactly what the American Founders believed in, for which they fought a Revolution to have and preserve for their posterity.

    This capitalist system is the only system that exists under the Rule of Law that protects all individuals in such a society from the theft and trespass of others including agents of the State.

    In contrast, socialism, fascism and communism all institutionalize the violation of the Rule of Law as they institutionalize the violation of all individuals’ inherent rights to life, liberty and justly acquired property.

    In those totalitarian systems, the individual is a sacrificial animal for the collective, and a serf for the State.

    Alas, America has not actually experienced true capitalism, at least not since the U.S. Constitution was written and ratified, and especially not since the presidency of hardcore banking and monetary fascist and warmonger-business protectionist Abraham Lincoln.

    The choice for America is whether to continue on the road to communism, or to turn back, dismantle all of it, and restore our freedom and prosperity.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/lazarowitz8.1.1.html

    • Bill

      You are so right, Jay
      A line has been drawn in the sand. Either we go back to our roots of free market capitalism or we move to poverty and despair with Obamas policies

  • DaveH

    Top 10 Events that Prove Obama Planned Gun Control Long Before Newtown Tragedy:
    http://www.infowars.com/top-ten-events-that-prove-obama-planned-gun-control-long-before-newtown-tragedy/

    • JeffH

      Good link.

      What the Administration, the MSM and the anti-gun lobby don’t want you to know or link together.

      From DaveH’s linked article:

      In countless cases across the country, home invaders are shot or stopped by gun owners, including numerous children who’ve used “assault rifles” to stop criminals in their tracks. Robberies at small businesses are routinely stopped by armed employees, owners or even customers, but the cases rarely make big news.

      A CATO Institute study released earlier this year found that “tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns,” with this number just based on a round up of local news reports of incidents. A multitude of other crimes are likely deterred each year just by display or declaration of arms by potential or would-be victims and/or bystanders, though most of these incidents are never officially reported

      The NRA has estimated that firearms are implemented for protection at least two million times a year, stating that “the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances.”

      Gun Owners of America estimate that number at 2.5 million times per year, while the generally anti-gun Clinton Justice Department, who presided over the first Assault Weapons Ban, admitted that at least 1.5 million crimes are stopped per year due to armed citizens.

  • James

    Is obama’s gun control to make it easier for the president and his islamic hordes can take over the country? When are the democrats going to see what his total plan really is?

    • eddie47d

      Did Fox News tell you to say that? LOL!

    • Vicki

      When the blade is at their throat and the demand is for them to submit to the will of Allah.

      • eddie47d

        I thought you were a little smarter Vickie than to repeat James’s nonsense.

      • Vicki

        It won’t be the last time that your thinking has failed you.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      But the Dems/Progs/Leftists are all united behind O. What plans he has he doesn’t have to lift a finger to implement, they will work the plans for him.

    • JC

      Doesn’t matter who or what comes after Americans…we’re armed, ready and staying that way, Kenyan or no Kenyan.

  • tr

    Remember why we are able to have a free country, ” the shot heard ’round the world”

  • Joz

    ””Obama, who sends his children to the excellent — and well-defended — Sidwell Friends School (as does Gregory), repeated his opposition to the National Rifle Association’s suggestion to place armed security at the school”” Obama has 11 gunned body guards for his ‘children’ and he’s ” fake ” tear for our children dried up? so now he’s opposing just one gunned person for our children? ha?

    *Video* Obama sheds a tear as he reacts to Connecticut … – YouTube

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDQIiJA5M60

  • Patriot

    England outlawed firearms ownership. And now that little island has 133% the violent crime rate as the U.S.
    So tell me how banning ‘assault rifles’ is going to change anything?

    http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

  • John

    When I see “barry the liar”, “queen nancy”, “jelly beans biden”, and the rest of the 112th court of royal buffoons and clowns start living within their means and also start living without multiple bodyguards. Then I might consider going without. Until then the kenyan muslim liar can take a flying leap. Want proof ?? Just look at barry’s alleged hometown of Chicago. Some of the strictest gun laws in the country, that he fully supported, voted for, calls landmark legislation, and the murder rate (Yearly) has surpassed Afghanistan, Iraq, and is second behind only the cartel run border states of Mexico. barry stood by while Border Agent Brian Terry and Ambassador Christopher Stevens with three other American Citizens were murdered. And sadly barry the liar who has never been in harms way or stood for anything but himself has people believing him.

  • http://www.facebook.com/elton.robb Elton Robb

    I think President Obama should send his kids to public school in downtown Los Angeles.

  • ibcamn

    how can the tv station even call these guy’s reporter’s when clearly they just let the liberal’s and progressive’s and of coarse Obama,just talk freely!ive seen this so much but when they have(if ever)a conservative or republican or pres runner,there all over them and interrupting and just telling lies!don’t they see themselves later and feel like sheet for being a bottom feeder and a total a$$ kisser brown nose!?!why doesnt one of the interveiwee’s ever turn the tables on these assanine jerkoffs??are they scared of them?i mean come on,it’s just cnn or msnbc or nbc blah blah stations!the one guy(repo-gag-rter)he actually looks like a serial killer!big eyes and weird hair and sounds pschycopathic!and that guy just sat and let the liberal duoch bag say anything,but i guess they needed a token ethnic(liberal thinking,and a total stain) guy on their station….just changing the tone of the conversation guys!!didn’t one other token’s turn out to be an illegal immigrant?..sorry guys i’m in a weird mood today….

  • http://google David

    Great article Ben. It is one of those “bite me” times. Hope your New Years is over the top.

  • ONTIME

    Russert…….Gregory…How do you put those two names in the same sentence?

    Let’s stick to the gun control issue, now somes got security, somes not, somes got tax paid, corporate paid security, some snot…..

    Those with prepaid security in the tax paid categorey especially, like our duly elected and appointed officials have our money to look after their butts, but they want to keep their tax paid security and being the elites and incumbents they are, take away your right to self defense and your security…follow me so far?

    Now if the incumbent elites were to have to stop getting that tax paid security and furnish their own, parity would occur….they too would have to depend upon the very same 2nd amendment you and I have a right to. WTP would make the elites get in the same boat. I say let’s take that route, not only for the 2nd amendment but for removing the progressive tax, for using term limits and a national sales tax. This takes away hate and greed tools used by the elite left, we could end tax discrimination and class warfare, we could have a accountable yearly budget and a tax that could be put on the national ballot every ten years…by the use of parity we could become stewarts of our employees again and regain our own representation…..How the hell would you like that folks, is that not a turn on?

    Imagine that 47% of no tax payers joining with americans to become equals and share the responsibility of America’s yearly budget..no more parasite status for anyone…

    Happy New Year!

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    The Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) program “Operation Fast and Furious” allowed gun stores near the Mexican border to sell thousands of semiautomatic weapons in bulk to “straw purchasers” and then track their journey. Many of the guns were linked to crimes, including the murder of a Border Patrol agent.

    Tax evader and terrorist friend, Marc Rich, with his lawyer, Eric Holder
    Attorney General Eric Holder reached notoriety when he secured a presidential pardon for his client, Israeli fugitive Marc Rich who had evaded $100 million in US income taxes.

    Mexico’s drug cartels make an estimated $50 billion bringing narcotics into the U.S.

    With all that money, they can bribe just about anybody. Certainly, Eric Holder’s fees to Marc Rich were substantial, but nothing like the Mexican drug cartels could afford to pay him.

    No one seems to know just how many thousands of guns Eric Holder has sent to the Mexican drug cartels, but according to James Lankford (R-OK) the ATF stopped tracking the weapons once they traveled too far from the border. Apparently, the ATF lost track of 1500 – 1800 weapons.

    The idea (Eric Holder’s pretext) was to trace the guns to the cartels—without going too far south of the border. Of course, the plan netted nothing, which is no surprise.

    Rep. Darrell Issa has released emails that show ATF Director Kenneth Melson, who is overseen by Attorney General Eric Holder, not only knew about “Operation Fast and Furious,” but was being briefed on a weekly basis about the progress and was watching
    cartels suppliers purchase weapons used to kill innocent people on closed circuit television from his cozy office in Washington D.C.

    Full article:http://johnharding.com/2011/06/15/u-s-attorney-general-eric-holder-sends-arms-to-mexican-drug-cartels/

  • JeffH

    NOTE: NBC is no more believable than Falsy. Both have done so much to destroy their own credibility. NBC by mis-reporting and selective “editing” of various video’s to suit the administrations and their own progressive extremist agenda.

    • eddie47d

      Your credibility is only a dip away from the toilet Jeff H. Then lets bring up the FOX network and their “selective editing”!During the election they actually made and released a anti-Obama video during prime time. Authorized and paid for by FOX network. It was so full of errors (lies) that it was only shown a few times. Then it was taken off and retooled but was still full of lies and because of complaints it was entirely removed. Fair and Balanced? Not a chance! Yet during one of their news cycles they promoted a 4 minute pro Romney video! That was like catching the Watergate burglars in the act! LOL!

      • DaveH

        They could use you, Eddie, to give some Unbalanced to their Fair and Balanced.
        Troll.

    • eddie47d

      In case Jeff H thinks there is only one little incident how about when FOX newscaster Liz Trotta said “if a woman works on the front lines in the military they should expect to be assaulted “(raped). Then said “if they report a rape then they are no more than whiners” . That is not reporting the news but a personal opinion. Kind of goes along with several other Conservative “fair and balanced reporting” like rape is legitimate or that woman are sluts. I reckon they all have this nice neat little propaganda package they have to follow!

      • DaveH

        Given your record of regularly putting words in posters’ mouths, Eddie, why do you think anybody would believe a word of your story without references?

      • eddie47d

        I did provide proof fool! Just because your too lazy to fact check makes you the unbelievable one!

    • eddie47d

      This one ought to please Jeff H and his Conservative agenda. Surprise! Surprise! FOX News again! One of their newscasters was bringing up the Hispanic voter and while speaking they showed illegals crossing the border. Once again since most Hispanics are not illegals that goes to the FOX networks credibility. Selling fear instead of facts.

    • eddie47d

      Here’s another one Jeff H: FOX has refused (at least as of last week) to report on any gun control or gun safety issues unless favorable to the pro gun crowd. “Fair and Balanced”? Once again selective reporting!

      • JeffH

        Hey dummy, this one for you.

        In 2009 MSNBC was caught deceptively editing videotape of a man legally carrying a rifle at an Arizona Tea Party rally. The man was black, but Contessa Brewer and friends wanted to chat about…….white Tea Party racists with guns.

        In August 2011 Ed Shultz deceptively edited a speech by Texas Governor Rick Perry to make it appear that he was making a racist comment about President Barack Obama. Perry’s actual comment was that the national debt was a big black cloud hanging over the country.

        Earlier this year both on NBC’s Today show and on MSNBC they were caught deceptively editing the audio of George Zimmerman’s 911 call to make it as racially inflammatory as possible. MSNBC put up a transcript on it’s website that had been edited to leave out the fact it was the 911 operator that brought up Trayvon Martin’s race, not George Zimmerman.

        Durig the presidential campaign-while reporting for NBC News about Mitt Romney on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania, Andrea Mitchell deceptively edited his speech to make it look like he was freaking AMAZED by the touch-screen ordering system of sandwiches at a local WaWa. Then Mitchell immediately tied this to the totally debunked myth of George H.W. Bush being astounded by a simple grocery store scanner.

        Then it comes out that NBC News deceptively edited an interview with now-convicted child sex predator Jerry Sandusky, and that edited interview could play a key role in Sandusky’s appeal.

        Should be obvious by now all of this is not an ‘error’, this is deliberate policy at NBC News.
        http://drawandstrike.blogspot.com/2012/06/nbc-news-brand-continues-to-plummet.html

    • JC

      EDDIE YOU IDIOT!
      Post some evidence…or just keep barking away at the moon…LOL

      • JeffH

        JC, eddie’s credibility is a couple nothches lower than Falsy’s, wallowing somewhere between the center of the earth and the devil’s playground…they’re both proven liars and eddie is a lying slanderous troll to boot.

        He’s so damned stupid he thinks dissing FOX, with or without any evidence, is akin to NBC’s intentional portrayal of Zimmerman making racist statements about Martin to the police or Andrea Mitchell (who works for both NBC News and MSNBC) deciding to doctor some videotape to build a phony political attack against presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

        Shortly after Andrea Mitchell’s attempted hoagie hit on Romney, NBC got in trouble for another deceptive edit, this time concerning the Jerry Sandusky trial. The prosecution showed jurors an NBC News interview that had been doctored to make it appear Sandusky was disturbingly reluctant to answer the question, “Are you sexually attracted to young boys, to underage boys?” In this case, the edit was performed for sensationalism, rather than political bias.

        The liberal media collectively retains influence far beyond anything Fox News is capable of, and it doesn’t take them long to convert a manufactured narrative into water-cooler conventional wisdom. How many low-information mainstream media consumers still think Sarah Palin said “I can see Russia from my house?” How many of them still think the elder George Bush had never seen a supermarket barcode scanner before the 1992 presidential campaign?

        Andrea Mitchell knew exactly what she was doing. Media bias has been a longstanding complaint, but it’s sobering to reach a moment when one of the Big Three television networks can no longer be considered a credible news source by any reasonable person.
        http://www.humanevents.com/2012/06/25/the-wawa-edit-finishes-nbcs-credibility/

      • JeffH

        JC, on another note, I thought you might be amused by HORTON”S latest tirade/response in the “Should We Arm Our Teachers?” thread. Turn’s out that this guy’s a real piece of work!
        http://personalliberty.com/2012/12/28/should-we-arm-our-teachers/#comment-795240

  • Rod

    Finstein wants to ban all guns that have a lug for attaching a bayonet because of all the drive by bayonetting we have been having lately…

    • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

      Legally Feinstein, or Obama, or any other who thinks the USA is a Dictatorship has the authority.

      What most will be surprised to find out is that everything in the Bill of Rights is a list of our natural rights (plus 9th amendment) that ‘not all of our natural rights are listed’, that those in government positions can NOT touch legally.

      Everyone worried over Patriot Act, NDAA, all the illegal spying, etc – why are you not pushing for the arrest for treason of Bush and Obama, plus their administrations, the heads of your states and state legislatures who allowed this treason to go on – thus also committing treason.

      You do understand that taking and KEEPING the Oath is a legal REQUIREMENT for the office or position they occupy? (Oh the treason is giving “authority to the UN over the USA and our US Military – plus NO ONE in OUR country had that power.)

      NDAA, gun control of ANY type is not legal here, and has NEVER been legal here. Just because a do-it-yourself-dictator says it is so – and stupid or disloyal treasonous scum enforce them (Think Germany’s SS, etc) does not make it legal, it makes it an attack by domestic enemies from within upon the USA and her people. That is all thsoe actions are.

      Both the Bush’s, BOTH the Clinton’s, Obama, Holder, Pelosi, J. Napolitano, all of Obama’s adminstration and his bureacracies, all of both Bush’s adminstrartions, all of Clinotn’s adminstrations committed Treason, war crimes, murder, mass murder – which all have NO time limit on them and they need to be arrested. There were also various other criminal and civil offfenses committed, but sorting out each and the time limit (if any) of each is going to create many job positions. Hmm, in a way I guess one could say that Obama created jobs.

      The Constitution of the United States is the Federal government. The people elected to positions within it are there to carry out the duties assigned them – good pay, prestige, travel – but they are still temp workers. To get into and to hold those offices/positions they are REQUIRED to take a legally binding oath that is a criminal offense to not take and KEEP it, plus they cannot LEGALLY be in it if they do not take the REQUIRED oath (that is why it is “required”).

      That is their “accountability” to us – a criminal offense that “We the people” can have them arrested, prosecuted for.

      The difficult part is finding a law enforcement who took the Oath and will keep it by arresting them, and a judge that is also not corrupt and treasonous and will keep their oath (and their position).

      Oh, nothing the UN or any foreign nation/entity tells us to do here in the USA is legally binding – we here in the USA ONLY recognize US Constitutional law as the UN knows from our treaties with it. when they came here to “oversee” our elections – it wa actually an invasion of the USA and OUR US Military should have kicked them out. Thsoe who are higher up in the Military have now proven themselves to be committing TREASON and need arrest for also breaking THEIR legally binding oath. Look at all the new promotions we will get to celebrate!!!

      Most seem to have forgotten that Obama, Panetta, and Dempsey “gave” authority over the USA to the UN, and authority over the US Military to the UN – in front of a Senate panal, and in a letter to Boehner.

      Then there is Fast & Furious with ‘our’ gov selling arms to KNOWN gun runners for foreign country which murdered 100′s of innocents in Mexico, and was found at at least 47 crime scenes in the USA since 2009 with at least one American murdered on US soil.

      Benghazi – Once again selling arms (military grade) to terrorists, even the ones blamed for 9/11. Murder of US Seals and an Ambassador which they watched via drone streaming live to them in the WH.

      These crimes all fall under Murder, Mass Murder, War Crimes, and Treason by those involved in those crimes and those who knew about them, hear what they said and did not push for their immediate arrest for Treason.

      Let’s start with Treaties, like those we have with the UN.

      Article 43 Paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that all resolutions or agreements of the United Nations Security Counsel “shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.”

      All treaties are subservient to the exclusive congressional power to commence war.

      Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 18, the United States Supreme Court held: There is nothing in [the Constitution’s text] which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.

      November 19, 1919, in Section II of his Reservations with Regard to Ratification of the Versailles Treaty, TO PRESERVE THE BALANCE OF POWER ESTABLISHED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION FROM EXECUTIVE USURPATION, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge resolved as follows:

      The United States assumes no obligation to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country or to interfere in controversies between nations – whether members of the League or not – under the provisions of Article 10, or to employ the military or naval forces of the United States under any article of the treaty for any purpose, unless in any particular case the Congress, which, under the Constitution, has the sole power to declare war or authorize the employment of the military or naval forces of the United States, shall by act or joint resolution so provide. (caps are mine)

      Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, the Supreme Court of the United States held: The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.

      Unconstitutional usurpations by one branch of government of powers entrusted to a coequal branch are not rendered constitutional by repetition.

      The United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional hundreds of laws enacted by Congress over the course of five decades that included a legislative veto of executive actions in INS v. Chada, 462 U.S. 919.

      Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 clarifies Presidential authority to undertake military action as follows: The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

      United States v. Smith, 27 F. Cas. 1192, Supreme Court Justice William Paterson, a delegate to the Federal Convention from New Jersey, wrote on behalf of a federal circuit court: There is a manifest distinction between our going to war with a nation at peace, and a war being made against us by an actual invasion, or a formal declaration. In the former case it is the exclusive province of Congress to change a state of peace into a state of war.

      In his concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 642-643 (1952), which rebuked President Harry Truman’s claim of unilateral war powers in the Korean War, Justice Robert Jackson elaborated: Nothing in our Constitution is plainer than that declaration of a war is entrusted only to Congress. Of course, a state of war may in fact exist without a formal declaration. But no doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation’s armed forces to some foreign venture.

      In their dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia recognized the “Founders’ general distrust of military power lodged with the President, including the authority to commence war:
      “No fewer than 10 issues of the Federalist were devoted in whole or part to allaying fears of oppression from the proposed Constitution’s authorization of standing armies in peacetime. Many safeguards in the Constitution reflect these concerns. Congress’s authority “to raise and support Armies” was hedged with the proviso that “no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.”

      U.S. Const., Art. 1, §8, cl. 12. Except for the actual command of military forces, all authorization for their maintenance and all explicit authorization for their use is placed in the control of Congress under Article I, rather than the President under Article II. As Hamilton explained, the President’s military authority would be “much inferior” to that of the British King…” (Federalist 69)

      On to Treason and other crimes:

      Clause 2 of Article VI of the ORIGINAL 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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

      The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government.

      Title 18 US code section 2381 – Treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

      18 USC § 2382 – Misprision of treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

      {That would be the Senate, congress, and Boehner, Holder, Pelosi, H. Clinton, and the rest of that adminstration. Don’t forget that both Bush’s, and Clinton and thier adminstrations also committed these crimes and need arrest and prosecution.}

      18 USC § 2383 – Rebellion or insurrection: Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

      {That would be “change” and using propaganda, lies, misinformation, and a *corporate media cartel.

      *Almost 100% of the mainstream media is owned by seven companies: Disney, NewsCorp, TimeWarner, CBS, Viacom, NBCUniversal, and Sony. They control everything: movies, television, all the major newspapers and news, and even music record labels.
      When one company dominates an industry, it is a monopoly. When a handful of companies cooperatively dominate an industry, it is a “Cartel.” This is what we have with our mainstream media – an elite group that is cooperatively and covertly controlling everything that comes through our television, radio, newspaper, and theater.

      “It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.” Supreme Court, Red Lion v. FCC, 1969}

      {Manipulating public opinion to destroy the US Constitution, our legitimate gov is treason.}

      18 USC § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy: If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

      {Fast and Furious – Press Releases about it in EARLY 2009, David Ogden the talking head for Obama; Benghazi, Giving the UN ‘authority’ over the USA – using UN laws, UN here to ‘monitor’ OUR USA elections, UN taxing us, UN Military on USA soil}

      Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof… assassination of any officer of any such government; or
      Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

      Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof…

      {Giving the UN ‘authority’ over the USA, over the US Military – Obama, Panetta, Dempsey. UN & NATO with the assistance of this administration, the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, the Bush 1 administration…}

      {The UN does NOT have any authority over the USA, nor does anyone serving in any branch of our legitimate government have the power to give them any authority over the USA – Not to decide OUR gun laws, tax us, watch our elections, use our natural resources, put Agenda 21 here in the USA, use our military and any of “our” Generals, etc or representatives who allow it are committing treason – that would be Panetta, Dempsey, and Obama, Holder, (plus H. Clinton, J.Napolitano, David Ogden, N. Pelosi, etc) who said they do NOT represent the USA, they represent the UN. Obama said in a letter to Boehner, Panetta and Dempsey in front of the senate – on video. Foreign laws and Shariah laws used in US courts}

      Breaking their Oath means they no longer meet the legal REQUIREMENTS of the office or position they are occupying. Here are the laws applying:

      Clause 2 of Article VI of the ORIGINAL 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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

      The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT the federal government.

      The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

      The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.

      Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

      The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

      They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure.

      Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

      Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”
      .
      Bound – “Being under legal or moral obligation; to constitute the boundary or limit of; to set a limit to; confine”

      Legally Binding: Common legal phrase. Lawful action, such as an agreement consciously agreed to by two or more entities, establishing lawful accountability. An illegal action, such as forcing, tricking, or coercing a person into an agreement, is not legally binding. Both parties knowingly understand what they are agreeing to is the other requirement to legally establish an agreement or contract.

      Consideration: According to “Black’s Law Dictionary,” consideration in a contract is a bargained for exchange of acts or forbearance of an act.

      Require, Requirement, Required: “to claim or ask for by right and authority; Mandated under a law or by an authoritative entity. That which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory; something demanded or imposed as an obligation.”

      “Blacks Law Dictionary” states that a contract is
      1. An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law.

      The Framers placed the Oath of Office Clause BETWEEN preceding clauses that set forth the organization of the executive department and succeeding clauses that specify the contours of the President’s executive power. The President takes the oath after he assumes the office but before he executes it. The location and phrasing of the Oath of Office Clause strongly suggest that it is not empowering, but that it is limiting – the clause limits how the President’s “executive power” is to be exercised.

      The Framers placed “Oaths of Office” in the Constitution. These Oaths are to function as “checks” on the powers of the federal government and protect us from usurpations.

      Each Branch of the federal government has “the check of the Oath” on the other two branches. The States, whose officials also take the Oath of Office, have the same check on all three branches of the federal government. And “We the People”, the “original fountain of all legitimate authority” (Federalist No. 22), have the Right to overrule violations of the Constitution by elected and appointed officials.

      Article VI, clause 2, says the Constitution, and the Laws & Treaties authorized by the Constitution, are the “supreme Law of the Land”.

      Webster’s 1828 Dictionary says for “Constitution”: “…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.”

      If any Branch fails to obey the “supreme Law”, then, in order to preserve the Rule of Law, the other Branches, or failing that, the States or THE PEOPLE, must overrule them”.

      Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order that further defines the law for purposes of enforcement.

      5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office.

      5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law,

      5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.

      The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

      The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311.

      One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”

      Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States.
      Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

      President Truman relieved MacArthur because MacArthur did not support the requirements of the Constitution and did not faithfully discharge his duties. Precedent.

      Washington court-martialed Thomas Dewees, finding him guilty of two offenses: (1) not taking the oath of office… Another precedent – there are more.

      This shows that the oath is a LEGALLY BINDING REQUIREMENT FOR THE OFFICE, OR POSITION (military or civilian) – taking it and KEEPING it.

      It is past time to arrest these domestic enemies of the USA, these treasonous slimesuckers and hold them for prosecution. WE need to promote the jduges that have kept the Oaths as required (as the ultimate sovereigns of the USA we can do that, and demote the ones who did not keep their office in “good behaviour” as REQUIRED. Thsoe in our states that have been quietly promoting Agenda 21 – arrest for TREASON and replace them immediately.

      Look at all the job creation!! Plus it will stop a lot of this illegal nonesense going on. Oath Keepers who are in the LEO’s, Military, State Governments, Federal Governments, Federal and State Oath required beuracracies and love your nation – where do you stand? Are you going to continue to assist them in treason and destruction of the USA by remaining silent?

      • Vicki

        Kansas Bright writes:
        “Everyone worried over Patriot Act, NDAA, all the illegal spying, etc – why are you not pushing for the arrest for treason of Bush and Obama, plus their administrations, the heads of your states and state legislatures who allowed this treason to go on – thus also committing treason.”

        Cause they have assault weapons and or bodyguards with assault weapons. Oh wait……. :)

      • Nadzieja Batki

        O and the Dems/Progs/Leftists never work openly to create mischief, this bunch always works behind America’s back. In one day how much can you pay attention to and this inattention is what O counts on.

      • http://LIBERTY Vern Rice

        First of all, I am not claiming I know it all. Next, someone with balls needs to find a public venue, like maybe Fox, to devote time to allow this person to stand in front of the world and repeat everything written in this article and make a comprehensive list of everything Obama has been involved in, deaths, goon squads, trashing the Constitution and the lies and sort out the felonies and the misdeamors, the cover ups, the blame game, the lack of being a vetted President, and the list could go on and on. Don’t think you could find anyone willing to risk their life, knowing how the Obama machine works, to stand up in front of God, Country and all of his fellow men and women to do this ? I will tell you all, I have the balls and I would do it today. My opening line, When I die in the very near furure from some unknown mystery, it won’t be a mystery at all. Obama ordered me to be taken out. I am a decorated Viet Nam veteran, an ex cop, automobile racer, and saying that with my poor health, I have been in some life threatening situations. WHAT IS ONE MORE ?

        • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

          Thank you for your service to our country! I am sorry that your skills will be needed again in its defense.

          Have you checked with oathkeepers.org and constitutional sheriffs – http://cspoa.org/ – to find like minded people who are keeping the Oath taken by them?

          I too, will never wstop pushing for the arrest and prosecution of these traitors.

          Treasonous and Criminal Acts (besides Fast and Furious and Benghazi)

          Obama, Panetta, and Dempsey “gave” authority over the USA to the UN, and authority over the US Military to the UN – in front of a Senate panal, and in a letter to Boehner.

          I hear the excuse of “treaties” is brought up:

          wArticle 43 Paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that all resolutions or agreements of the United Nations Security Counsel “shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.”

          All treaties are subservient to the exclusive congressional power to commence war.

          Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 18, the United States Supreme Court held: There is nothing in [the Constitution’s text] which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.

          November 19, 1919, in Section II of his Reservations with Regard to Ratification of the Versailles Treaty, TO PRESERVE THE BALANCE OF POWER ESTABLISHED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION FROM EXECUTIVE USURPATION, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge resolved as follows:
          The United States assumes no obligation to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country or to interfere in controversies between nations – whether members of the League or not – under the provisions of Article 10, or to employ the military or naval forces of the United States under any article of the treaty for any purpose, unless in any particular case the Congress, which, under the Constitution, has the sole power to declare war or authorize the employment of the military or naval forces of the United States, shall by act or joint resolution so provide. (caps are mine)

          Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, the Supreme Court of the United States held: The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.

          Unconstitutional usurpations by one branch of government of powers entrusted to a coequal branch are not rendered constitutional by repetition.

          The United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional hundreds of laws enacted by Congress over the course of five decades that included a legislative veto of executive actions in INS v. Chada, 462 U.S. 919.

          Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 clarifies Presidential authority to undertake military action as follows: The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

          United States v. Smith, 27 F. Cas. 1192, Supreme Court Justice William Paterson, a delegate to the Federal Convention from New Jersey, wrote on behalf of a federal circuit court: There is a manifest distinction between our going to war with a nation at peace, and a war being made against us by an actual invasion, or a formal declaration. In the former case it is the exclusive province of Congress to change a state of peace into a state of war.

          In his concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 642-643 (1952), which rebuked President Harry Truman’s claim of unilateral war powers in the Korean War, Justice Robert Jackson elaborated: Nothing in our Constitution is plainer than that declaration of a war is entrusted only to Congress. Of course, a state of war may in fact exist without a formal declaration. But no doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation’s armed forces to some foreign venture.

          In their dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia recognized the “Founders’ general distrust of military power lodged with the President, including the authority to commence war:

          “No fewer than 10 issues of the Federalist were devoted in whole or part to allaying fears of oppression from the proposed Constitution’s authorization of standing armies in peacetime. Many safeguards in the Constitution reflect these concerns. Congress’s authority “to raise and support Armies” was hedged with the proviso that “no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.”

          U.S. Const., Art. 1, §8, cl. 12. Except for the actual command of military forces, all authorization for their maintenance and all explicit authorization for their use is placed in the control of Congress under Article I, rather than the President under Article II. As Hamilton explained, the President’s military authority would be “much inferior” to that of the British King…” (Federalist 69, Supra.)

          On to Treason and other crimes:

          Clause 2 of 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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

          The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government.

          Title 18 US code section 2381 – Treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

          18 USC § 2382 – Misprision of treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

          {That would be the Senate, congress, and Boehner, Holder, Pelosi, H. Clinton, and the rest of that adminstration. Don’t forget that both Bush’s, and Clinton and thier adminstrations also committed these crimes and need arrest and prosecution.}

          18 USC § 2383 – Rebellion or insurrection: Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
          {That would be “change” and using propaganda, lies, misinformation, and a *corporate media cartel}.

          *Almost 100% of the mainstream media is owned by seven companies: Disney, NewsCorp, TimeWarner, CBS, Viacom, NBCUniversal, and Sony. They control everything: movies, television, all the major newspapers and news, and even music record labels.
          When one company dominates an industry, it is a monopoly. When a handful of companies cooperatively dominate an industry, it is a “Cartel.” This is what we have with our mainstream media – an elite group that is cooperatively and covertly controlling everything that comes through our television, radio, newspaper, and theater.

          “It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.” Supreme Court, Red Lion v. FCC, 1969}

          {Manipulating public opinion to destroy the US Constitution, our legitimate gov is treason.}

          18 USC § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy: If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

          {Fast and Furious – Press Releases about it in EARLY 2009, David Ogden the talking head for Obama; Benghazi, Giving the UN ‘authority’ over the USA – using UN laws, UN here to ‘monitor’ OUR USA elections, UN taxing us, UN Military on USA soil}

          Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof… assassination of any officer of any such government; or
          Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
          Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof…

          {Giving the UN ‘authority’ over the USA, over the US Military – Obama, Panetta, Dempsey. UN & NATO with the assistance of this administration, the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, the Bush 1 administration…}
          {The UN does NOT have any authority over the USA, nor does anyone serving in any branch of our legitimate government have the power to give them any authority over the USA – Not to decide OUR gun laws, tax us, watch our elections, use our natural resources, put Agenda 21 here in the USA, use our military and any of “our” Generals, etc or representatives who allow it are committing treason – that would be Panetta, Dempsey, and Obama, Holder, (plus H. Clinton, J.Napolitano, David Ogden, N. Pelosi, etc) who said they do NOT represent the USA, they represent the UN. Obama said in a letter to Boehner, Panetta and Dempsey in front of the senate – on video. Foreign laws and Shariah laws used in US courts}

          Breaking their Oath means they no longer meet the legal REQUIREMENTS of the office or position they are occupying. Here are the laws applying:

          Clause 2 of Article VI of the ORIGINAL 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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

          The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT the federal government.

          The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

          The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.

          Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
          The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

          They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure.

          Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

          Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”
          .
          Bound – “Being under legal or moral obligation; to constitute the boundary or limit of; to set a limit to; confine”

          Legally Binding: Common legal phrase. Lawful action, such as an agreement consciously agreed to by two or more entities, establishing lawful accountability. An illegal action, such as forcing, tricking, or coercing a person into an agreement, is not legally binding. Both parties knowingly understand what they are agreeing to is the other requirement to legally establish an agreement or contract.

          Consideration: According to “Black’s Law Dictionary,” consideration in a contract is a bargained for exchange of acts or forbearance of an act.

          Require, Requirement, Required: “to claim or ask for by right and authority; Mandated under a law or by an authoritative entity. That which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory; something demanded or imposed as an obligation.”

          “Blacks Law Dictionary” states that a contract is
          1. An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law.

          The Framers placed the Oath of Office Clause BETWEEN preceding clauses that set forth the organization of the executive department and succeeding clauses that specify the contours of the President’s executive power. The President takes the oath after he assumes the office but before he executes it. The location and phrasing of the Oath of Office Clause strongly suggest that it is not empowering, but that it is limiting – the clause limits how the President’s “executive power” is to be exercised.
          The Framers placed “Oaths of Office” in the Constitution. These Oaths are to function as “checks” on the powers of the federal government and protect us from usurpations.

          Each Branch of the federal government has “the check of the Oath” on the other two branches. The States, whose officials also take the Oath of Office, have the same check on all three branches of the federal government. And “We the People”, the “original fountain of all legitimate authority” (Federalist No. 22), have the Right to overrule violations of the Constitution by elected and appointed officials.

          Article VI, clause 2, says the Constitution, and the Laws & Treaties authorized by the Constitution, are the “supreme Law of the Land”.

          Webster’s 1828 Dictionary says for “Constitution”: “…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.”

          If any Branch fails to obey the “supreme Law”, then, in order to preserve the Rule of Law, the other Branches, or failing that, the States or THE PEOPLE, must overrule them”.

          Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order that further defines the law for purposes of enforcement.

          5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office.

          5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law,

          5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.

          The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

          The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311.
          One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”

          Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States.
          Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

          President Truman relieved MacArthur because MacArthur did not support the requirements of the Constitution and did not faithfully discharge his duties. Precedent.

          Washington court-martialed Thomas Dewees, finding him guilty of two offenses: (1) not taking the oath of office…

          They are TRAITORS and criminals in every sese of those words. Write and call your representatives;
          read your state constitution first find out what the exact Oath is required of them besides the US Constitutonal one.
          Find out what UN Agenda 21 “projects” are being implemented in your state (here is a good place to start) because it is an attempt by a foreign entity to takeover our nation from within assisted by many of “our” elected representatives which is Treason: according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.
          Then get a hold of your governor and state AG and find out why they are not investigating and arresting these people for treason against the state you live in and the USA.
          Get it out to the Media – Good luck with that one! :(

          An example of Californias lawful and REQUIRED Oath is:
          “I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

          “And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence
          or other unlawful means except as follows:
          ________________________________________________________________

          (If no affiliations, write in the words “No Exceptions”) and that during such time as I hold the office of ______________________________________________ I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means.”

          And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a qualification for any public office or employment.
          “Public officer and employee” includes every officer and employee of the State, including the University of California, every county, city, city and county, district, and authority, including any department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or instrumentality of any of the foregoing.

          For such a corrupt state it has a very inclusive and specific oath – not keeping it is grounds for criminal prosecution.

          Notice that included is all who are required to take the oath – so ANY agency that is pushing Agenda 21 measures, etc are committing treason – like SMART Meters, etc.

  • Richard Babin

    You are right. It seems they always do the opposite of what they say they are going to do.

    And, the government’s “control of guns” will be as successful as the government’s control of the illegal drug market and they know that — this is not an attempt to keep schools safe but to control the people by taking away the one thing that can keep our government from becoming a tyrannical controlling monster – our weapons.

    By the way, Obama signed an executive order last week giving the U.S. government (through the President’s office) control over the Internet.

    And, A Minnesota retailer recently had an unwelcome visit from a Department of Safety and Inspection official who threatened the owner with a $500 fine for selling candy that looks like cigarettes (something that has been sold since the 1940′s.

    I believe we will see 2013 as being the year we lose most of our Constitutional rights by the convergence of the federal government’s different arms of power being pressed down on its people.

    Welcome to the “new” America! How’s that for change?

    • Vicki

      Richard Babin writes:
      “I believe we will see 2013 as being the year we lose most of our Constitutional rights..”

      We do not have Constitutional rights. We have natural rights given us by our Creator. Our Constitution is a contract between ourselves and the agents requiring them to PROTECT our rights. Their failure to do so is why they should be removed from office. Where they willfully failed to protect our rights they should be arrested and tried in a court of competent jurisdiction.

      • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

        Exactly!

        Know the Preamble to the Bill of Rights? Most do not.

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

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

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

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

        These amendments were ratified by the states on December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.” It clarifies that this was to define what was out of bounds for those in the fed gov “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added” to the US Constitution. I spaced between the clauses because most people are used to texting and can read it easier.

  • Rod

    Most people have never read the Federalist papers and only know what the Supreme Court has inter-prated the Second Amendment to mean. Just as in Switzerland where every household is required to own a military full auto weapon the second amendment was to protect the people’s right to own military type weapons to protect the states from invasion (IE Red Dawn ) or a out of Control Federal Government (War of Northern Aggression) or Feinstein wishing to abolish all simi-auto firearms. Australia finally has banned all firearms and it like Chicago are now utopias. Australia’s violent crimes have increased 51%. Since the Civil War the Government has nibbled away at the Second Amendment so now it has almost no teeth. Jefferson and Adams both believed the bill of rights were redundant as the Constitution was quite clear on what the federal government could or could not regulate, but most of the states refused to ratify the constitution until the rights were spelled out in black and white. Jefferson also believed that these rights were granted by God and the Government had no authority to limit them.

  • Chuck S

    A long time ago I heard that one path to dictatorship is to promote widespread crime and disorder. The people then will want, or at least accept, a dictatorship as the lesser of evil. Being soft on criminals and gun control that helps criminals may be intended by some for this purpose, while many others believe the surface excuses.

    Sick joke. A mayor candidate wanted to force everyone to cut and weed their lawns once week. He was the “lawn order” candidate.

  • http://Yahoo Robert h

    Union thugs?I thought that the unions backed him to get him elected,now he is stabbing them in the BACK just like he is firearm owners!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 57girl

    Not all teachers are ‘union thugs’ for beginners. I wish the principal and a few teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School had been armed. If so, those murdered that day (especially the children) might still be alive today. With proper screening and training, I think guns in the hands of a few select teachers makes a lot more sense than having armed guards policing the halls and intimidating our children. We are being groomed to live in a Gestapo Nation.

  • JocasseeJo

    My son graduated last year (2012) from a relatively large public school. There were 8 armed policemen in that school everyday. They stood by the doors at lunchtime with loaded pistols in their hip holsters. I just thought that at least all High Schools had armed police on duty! I guess that’s just how we roll in the South!! By the way, it’s a great school – well managed, no student problems of note. If there were any problems near the school it was immediately locked down. My son applied to a well known college on the very last day possible to apply & was quickly accepted. His Senior counselor said that our school had a great reputation.

  • James Brooks

    Obama is such an idiot on this issue and many others. I, along with many others, believe this past election was predetermined. We have lost faith in our government. We no longer respect thoes people who hold higher polotical offices. Democrats and Republicans alike are all snakes out for the almighty dollar and dont care about “We the people.” This once great Country is in the hands of criminals. We have no way to take it back. We are not under the “liberty and justice for all” ideology. We are having our freedoms taken away by idiots. The whole idea of the president doing something for the country is quite the joke. He is but a puppet on a string and a pitiful one at that. We are on a downward slope and there will be no return. The NRA is not strong enough nor is any other group to upset the current joke that has been set in motion. A greedy few are responsible for the poverty that will hit this Nation in the near future. Those few hold the switch that can change elections, change banks, change the economy alltogether. I am a common educated family man who has an opinion that is on the fence relative to Republican and Democrats alike. They are all worthless and crooked talking out both sides of their mouths. Its all smoke and mirrors. Inflation will kill us as a country. We havent seen nothing yet.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

      I understand your fear, but you are incorrect that we can do nothing. That is a cooncept that Obama, and his treasonous team fosters.

      First, recognize that the US Constitution, and the Constitution of each state are our governments – with the federal government created and defined by it. Then understand that each state can, and are required to hold those in the state and federal government accountable.

      If those in your state are also committing treason (UN’s Agenda 21 is treason because it is implementing foreign entities/nations objectives, not our constitutional ones here in the USA), are oath breakers (criminal offense) then the law enforcement agency to handle that is your elected one – Sheriff’s.

      Anyone who is REQUIRED to take an oath and is supporting those who are committing treason are also committing treason – be it by being their secretary, clerk, cook, etc; plus breaking THEIR legally required oath – criminal offense.

      Start holding those in your state accountable for their actions. Remember any laws they are putting out and having “enforced” that are not consitutional (“in Pursuance of”) are only making criminals of the enforcers – who should know that because they took legally binding and REQUIRED oaths. If not, point them to the Constitutional Sheriff’s for education.

      It is your state, and mine, all of our states – that are REQUIRED by Oath and law to hold those who are committing TREASON and Oath breaking (criminal act) accountable. If they fall down, then it is up to us, as “We the People”, the “original fountain of all legitimate authority” (Federalist 22), have the Right to overrule violations of the Constitution by elected and appointed officials.

      Article VI, clause 2, says the Constitution, and the Laws & Treaties authorized by the Constitution, are the “supreme Law of the Land”.

      Webster’s 1828 Dictionary says for “Constitution”: “…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.”

      If any Branch fails to obey the “supreme Law”, then, in order to preserve the Rule of Law, the other Branches, or failing that, the States or THE PEOPLE, must overrule them”.

      Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order that further defines the law for purposes of enforcement.

      5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office.

      5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law,

      5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.

      The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

      The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311.

      One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”

      Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States.
      Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

      President Truman relieved MacArthur because MacArthur did not support the requirements of the Constitution and did not faithfully discharge his duties. Precedent.

      Washington court-martialed Thomas Dewees, finding him guilty of two offenses: (1) not taking the oath of office…

      This is our country, WE have a legitimate government that is under attack by treasonous domestic enemies. Yes, the same domestic enemies spoken of in each oath that the US Constitution was to be supported and protected from.

      If there were never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each Oath require it of those who take the Oaths?

  • http://yahoo ROHBAR

    For those who are drinking the Obama Kool-Aid on gun control !
    Australian Gun Law Update
    From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia
    Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under.
    It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to
    surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own
    government, a program costing Australia taxpayers
    more than $500 million dollars.
    The first year results are now in:
    Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
    Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
    Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
    In the state of Victoria
    alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.(Note that
    while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not
    and criminals still possess their guns!)
    While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady
    decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically
    upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed
    that their prey is unarmed.
    There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and
    assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.
    Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public
    safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was
    expended in ‘successfully ridding Australian society of guns….’ You
    won’t see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or
    members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.
    The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the
    hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control
    laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
    Take note Americans, before it’s too late!
    Will you be one of the sheep to turn yours in?
    WHY? You will need it.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    Raging Against Self Defense: The Anti-Gun Mentality
    By Sarah Thompson, M.D. From Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.

    “You don’t need to have a gun; the police will protect you.”

    “If people carry guns, there will be murders over parking spaces and neighborhood basketball games.”

    “I’m a pacifist. Enlightened, spiritually aware people shouldn’t own guns.”

    “I’d rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me.”

    How often have you heard these statements from misguided advocates of victim disarmament, or even woefully uninformed relatives and neighbors? Why do people cling so tightly to these beliefs, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that they are wrong? Why do they get so furiously angry when gun owners point out that their arguments are factually and logically incorrect?

    How can you communicate with these people who seem to be out of touch with reality and rational thought?

    One approach to help you deal with anti-gun people is to understand their psychological processes. Once you understand why these people behave so irrationally, you can communicate more effectively with them.

    Defense Mechanisms

    Projection

    About a year ago I received an e-mail from a member of a local Jewish organization. The author, who chose to remain anonymous, insisted that people have no right to carry firearms because he didn’t want to be murdered if one of his neighbors had a “bad day”. (I don’t know that this person is a “he”, but I’m assuming so for the sake of simplicity.) I responded by asking him why he thought his neighbors wanted to murder him, and, of course, got no response. The truth is that he’s statistically more likely to be murdered by a neighbor who doesn’t legally carry a firearm and more likely to be shot accidentally by a law enforcement officer.

    How does my correspondent “know” that his neighbors would murder him if they had guns? He doesn’t. What he was really saying was that if he had a gun, he might murder his neighbors if he had a bad day, or if they took his parking space, or played their stereos too loud. This is an example of what mental health professionals call projection – unconsciously projecting one’s own unacceptable feelings onto other people, so that one doesn’t have to own them. In some cases, the intolerable feelings are projected not onto a person, but onto an inanimate object, such as a gun, so that the projector believes the gun itself will murder him.

    Projection is a defense mechanism. Defense mechanisms are unconscious psychological mechanisms that protect us from feelings that we cannot consciously accept. They operate without our awareness, so that we don’t have to deal consciously with “forbidden” feelings and impulses. Thus, if you asked my e-mail correspondent if he really wanted to murder his neighbors, he would vehemently deny it, and insist that other people want to kill him.

    Projection is a particularly insidious defense mechanism, because it not only prevents a person from dealing with his own feelings, it also creates a world where he perceives everyone else as directing his own hostile feelings back at him.

    All people have violent, and even homicidal, impulses. For example, it’s common to hear people say “I’d like to kill my boss”, or “If you do that one more time I’m going to kill you.” They don’t actually mean that they’re going to, or even would, kill anyone; they’re simply acknowledging anger and frustration. All of us suffer from fear and feelings of helplessness and vulnerability. Most people can acknowledge feelings of rage, fear, frustration, jealousy, etc. without having to act on them in inappropriate and destructive ways.

    Some people, however, are unable consciously to admit that they have such “unacceptable” emotions. They may have higher than average levels of rage, frustration, or fear. Perhaps they fear that if they acknowledge the hostile feelings, they will lose control and really will hurt someone. They may believe that “good people” never have such feelings, when in fact all people have them.

    This is especially true now that education “experts” commonly prohibit children from expressing negative emotions or aggression. Instead of learning that such emotions are normal, but that destructive behavior needs to be controlled, children now learn that feelings of anger are evil, dangerous and subject to severe punishment.To protect themselves from “being bad”, they are forced to use defense mechanisms to avoid owning their own normal emotions. Unfortunately, using such defense mechanisms inappropriately can endanger their mental health; children need to learn how to deal appropriately with reality, not how to avoid it.

    (This discussion of psychological mechanisms applies to the average person who is uninformed, or misinformed, about firearms and self-defense. It does not apply to the anti- gun ideologue. Fanatics like Charles Schumer know the facts about firearms, and advocate victim disarmament consciously and willfully in order to gain political power. This psychological analysis does not apply to them.)

    Denial

    Another defense mechanism commonly utilized by supporters of gun control is denial.

    Denial is simply refusing to accept the reality of a given situation. For example, consider a woman whose husband starts coming home late, has strange perfume on his clothes, and starts charging flowers and jewelry on his credit card. She may get extremely angry at a well-meaning friend who suggests that her husband is having an affair. The reality is obvious, but the wronged wife is so threatened by her husband’s infidelity that she is unable to accept it, and so denies its existence.

    Anti-gun people do the same thing. It’s obvious that we live in a dangerous society, where criminals attack innocent people. Just about everyone has been, or knows someone who has been, victimized. It’s equally obvious that law enforcement can’t protect everyone everywhere 24 hours a day. Extensive scholarly research demonstrates that the police have no legal duty to protect you and that firearm ownership is the most effective way to protect yourself and your family. There is irrefutable evidence that victim disarmament nearly always precedes genocide. Nonetheless, the anti-gun folks insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that “the police will protect you”, “this is a safe neighborhood” and “it can’t happen here”, where “it” is everything from mugging to mass murder.

    Anti-gun people who refuse to accept the reality of the proven and very serious dangers of civilian disarmament are using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of feeling helpless and vulnerable. Likewise, gun owners who insist that “the government will never confiscate my guns” are also using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of contemplating being forcibly disarmed and rendered helpless and vulnerable.

    Reaction Formation

    Reaction formation is yet another defense mechanism common among the anti-gun folks. Reaction formation occurs when a person’s mind turns an unacceptable feeling or desire into its complete opposite. For example, a child who is jealous of a sibling may exhibit excessive love and devotion for the hated brother or sister.

    Likewise, a person who harbors murderous rage toward his fellow humans may claim to be a devoted pacifist and refuse to eat meat or even kill a cockroach. Often such people take refuge in various spiritual disciplines and believe that they are “superior” to “less civilized” folks who engage in “violent behavior” such as hunting, or even target shooting. They may devote themselves to “animal welfare” organizations that proclaim that the rights of animals take precedence over the rights of people. This not only allows the angry person to avoid dealing with his rage, it allows him actually to harm the people he hates without having to know he hates them.

    This is not meant to disparage the many wonderful people who are pacifists, spiritually inclined, vegetarian, or who support animal welfare.

    The key issue is not the belief itself, but rather the way in which the person experiences and lives his beliefs. Sincere practitioners seek to improve themselves, or to be helpful in a gentle, respectful fashion. They work to persuade others peacefully by setting an example of what they believe to be correct behavior. Sincere pacifists generally exhibit good will towards others, even towards persons with whom they might disagree on various issues.

    Contrast the sincere pacifist or animal lover with the strident, angry person who wants to ban meat and who believes murdering hunters is justified in order to “save the animals” – or the person who wants to outlaw self- defense and believes innocent people have the obligation to be raped and murdered for the good of society. For example, noted feminist Betty Friedan said “that lethal violence even in self defense only engenders more violence.” The truly spiritual, pacifist person refrains from forcing others to do what he believes, and is generally driven by positive emotions, while the angry person finds “socially acceptable” ways to harm, abuse, or even kill, his fellow man.

    In the case of anti-gun people, reaction formation keeps any knowledge of their hatred for their fellow humans out of consciousness, while allowing them to feel superior to “violent gun owners”. At the same time, it also allows them to cause serious harm, and even loss of life, to others by denying them the tools necessary to defend themselves.

    This makes reaction formation very attractive from a psychological point of view, and therefore very difficult to counteract.

    Continued: http://rense.com/general33/antigun.htm

    • http://midcontent i41

      The easist way to stop the not ready for idoits or nut cases to operate in society, A couple of shots from a a armed citizen, solves 2 problems, the need to waste money on trials and pay worthless book trained over paid morons, who theorize and spout BS.

  • Judi

    Do you suppose our dictator’s SS carry guns for HIS protection?

  • http://realsustainability.wordpress.com realsustainability

    Good obsertvation, Benjamin. But I think the Hitler analogy falls a little short, though. Obama has a MUCH more massive military (he IS Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military in history!) and a MUCH larger propaganda machine than Hitler even imagined! The only reason the Nazi Third Reich failed is because we beat them in the development of nuclear arms. THAT is NOT the case with this madman.He already has ALL that and more. And there are those who want to take away ANY guns proitected by the Constitution? God help us!

    • Charlie Tall

      realsustainability says:
      “The only reason the Nazi Third Reich failed is because we beat them in the development of nuclear arms.”

      The United States detonated the first atomic weapon on July 16, 1945. By that time, the Third Reich had been totally defeated, Hitler had been dead for two-and-one-half months, and the Germans never had a credible nuclear weapons program, anyhow.

      But your version sounds a little more exciting than the truth, so stick with it… ;>)

  • Charlie Tall

    1911 – New York City passes the Sullivan Act aimed at reducing crime in NYC: crime continued to increase in NYC.
    1934 – Congress passes the National Firearms Act strictly regulating machine guns and “gangster weapons”: crime continues to increase in the USA.
    1968 – Congress passes the 1968 Gun Control Act which regulates all gun commerce: crime continues to rise in the United States.
    1985 to 1995 – The Clinton Assault Weapons Ban limits sales of certain types of weapons and high-capacity (>10 rounds) magazines: crime does not change one bit due to this law.

    Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result each time.

    Sanity: Since the mid-1980s, more and more states have adopted must-issue concealed carry license laws: violent crime in those states and nation-wide has decreased.

    The majority of politicians continue to favor increased gun control. Thus, the only reasonable conclusion is that most politicians are criminally insane.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

      Exactly – nice post!

  • http://midcontent i41

    Just look at how much more social/communist dictatorship the USA has slide in the last 10 years. It goes with the mind set of nut jobs and goofy idoits are just misunderstood dangerous organisms. Only group of degreed morons that get the honors, is the socialist/democrap party.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    POSTED by: Jackson1999 Sun Apr-26-09 01:46 PM

    Original message: What are anti-gun liberals afraid of?

    I usually just ignore the flames and stereotypes tossed at gun owners by supposed “liberal” Dems in this forum, but I am tired of it and need to respond.

    Why do you so willingly embrace policies that have their roots in racism, sexism and classism?

    Why is it you (rightfully) rail against Bush administration violations of the Bill of Rights but are so willing to dismiss the second amendment? Don’t you see the hypocrisy?

    Why do you take such a scary, conservative option that the masses cannot be trusted to defend themselves.

    Why do you turn your backs on the the rich history of liberal leaders from John Kennedy, to Eleanor Roosevelt who understood that gun ownership was a fundamental, and important right?

    Why do you claim to fight so much for civil rights when control laws mostly impact the rights of poor and minorities?

    Why do you insist on painting gun owners as right wing rednecks when half of all gun owners are Democrat or Independent? You are just playing into Republicans’ hands.

    What don’t you understand about legal precedence, where limitations placed on the Second Amendment can be used in court to put limits on other rights?

    Don’t you realize that modern gun control laws in places like California and Chicago started as tool to railroad black activists?

    Why haven’t you read about how African American’s in the south, who had no protection from the law, successfully armed themselves in defense of Klan attacks? Would you deny them that right today?

    Why do you shy away from logical discussions based on facts and, instead only resort to unsupported attacks and stereotypes?

    Why do so quickly jump to the defense of people with unpopular opinions to exercise their right of free speech but reject the right of the poor and disenfranchised to defend themselves?

    Why have you NOT read A Liberal Democrat’s Lament by Robert Cottrol http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/104ali.htm

    I am a liberal Democrat and gun owner. I don’t love my gun. I love my rights.

    I don’t know about you folks, but i’m in love with this Liberal-Democrat!

    AMEN, BROTHER!!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

      Same here. This man would make a good Democratic president, unlike the communistic/nazi one in office now.

      Yes, I can back those comments up with EVIDENCE. But those of you who are not paid shills and are defending his (Obama’s) undefensible actions – go read the ‘Opening statement’ by Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States http://www.roberthjackson.org/the-man/nuremberg-trial/

      You may have to manuver thru here a bit to find just the opening statement which is a long read since it summerizes everything. But it will give you a great idea and (if you have any critical thinking skills at all – ex: “profit-sharing in the great industries” = Take from the 1% and share with all) you will be able to see the parallels easily enough.

      “Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government. Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart.” Justice Robert Jackson, Chief U.S. Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials (familiar?)

      ‘Those decree’s were restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion – including freedom of the press, on the right of peaceful assembly, the right of association, and violations of the privacy: postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications; and no need for warrants for house-searches, orders for, confiscations as well as restrictions on property, etc all taken away under the guise of “keeping the people safe”.
      {much like what is happening within the USA today, as all of the “restrictions” on our freedoms are “for our own safety”. Yes, Bush started it, but is that surprising since the Bush family supported and funded the Nazi ‘movement”? Even worse is that Obama extended and added to it, plus added more Nazi control features}
      Many were arrested as “belligerents” – no real crime committed, just disagreeing with the destruction of their legitimate government.

      Secret arrest and indefinite detention; without charges, without evidence, without hearing, without counsel, and no court could issue an injunction, or writ of habeas corpus, or certiorari. The German people were in the hands of the police, the police were in the hands of the Nazi Party, and the Party was in the hands of a ring of evil men who wanted TO RULE THE WORLD. (One World Government – What is the difference except words? The actions are the same)
      {TSA, DHS = SS; NDAA, Patriot Act, various executive orders, warrantless arrests, New World Order, etc}

      If interest is perked – do some research – plus for what is planned here (UN & World Government plan’s Agenda 21 “DEPOPULATION” OF HUMAN BEINGS – go watch “Innocents Betrayed” ( to get an idea of what “depopulation” of human beings means.)

      http://12160.info/video/video/show?id=2649739%3AVideo%3A1084162&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_video

      I’d advise that you don’t eat anything while you watch it.

  • http://Obamaopensfire Bob Alderfer

    The bottom line is that we all are responsible for our own security; no government,police force, green beret etc is going to be there when you need them and if they are there is no guarantee they sacrifice themselves for you. We all have the God given right to life,no government required. The decision to kill or be killed is the choice we all have, due to our government and its laws the teachers at Newtown were led to slaughter. What do you think the 6 adults killed trying to protect the little ones would say about arming teachers?This is about who has guns not guns,blame his mother who had these weapons unsecured with an obviously mentally challenged son.Remember these fearful words” I am from the government and I am here to help you” run like a scalded dog as fast as you can. The best arguement for auto or semi auto weapons is defense against our own government, as Hitler proved in Germany, unarmed citizens are no threat and he did as he pleased-we know how that turned out, ask any jew.

  • http://yahoo D.Darlow

    Strange the Hildibeast and the little o have already made a deal with the United Nothing for our guns .The news media is following suit with all the left wingers .Little o ,pelosi preaching clss warfare ,black panthers go on media preaching “kill whites” . Could we possibly have a currupt Government ,with an african natioal as president…………….

    • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

      “Strange the Hildibeast and the little o have already made a deal with the United Nothing for our guns ”

      First; the UN has NO POWER HERE IN THE USA. If they try to enforce any foreign law here, then they are attacking us – understand?

      Second; Hilary and Obama are committing treason under our laws. Until we start demanding that they be held accountable for their treasonous actions they will accelerate and add to what we will allow.

      Once again – it is not now or ever will be legal for the UN to do anything like enforce their laws, etc on the USA. We are a nation under the US Constitution and any treason committed by those will be prosecuted. Of course we also need to arrest both Bush’s, and both Clintons, and all of each of those ex and current adminstrations for TREASON against the USA and her people.

      Of course there are other heinious crimes they have committed: Murder, Mass Murder, War Crimes, and other criminal and civil offenses.

  • ibcamn

    the only reason the NRA went on to to say anything,was to throw Obama and his henchmen off there trail!Obama never thought they would say a thing,because they didn’t have to,so when they can on right after this tragety,they made their point known and Obama had to take a step back,and trow out the speech against the NRA and come up with a new one,and meet the press was happy to help,they give Obama and his crownies a soap box all the time!so when morons who watch that show,they will be able to see their great and fearless leader tell America how it is going to be,and that’s what Obama does,he tells the people what HE wants to do about it,not what WE want to do!!

  • ibcamn

    and to Eddie,as you are,it’s how it’s run that makes it a socialistic envirment !and it’s because of violence that we have to have armed guards at malls and such!so where does most of the violence we see come from?back to other comments on states econemy and where people live and so forth,on and on and on,one big circle jerk again!it comes down to the gov’t!

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.