Jan 11, 2013 Political
Obama opposes guns for self defense even in the home:
As a state senator in Illinois, President Obama opposed legislation providing an exception to handgun restrictions if the weapon was used in the defense of one’s home. White House Dossier
Even Pravda warns against giving up our guns:
These days, there are few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bear arms and use deadly force to defend one’s self and possessions. Pravda
Do you have a responsibility to fight if they come for your guns?:
You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights. The DC Clothesline
It will likely get really ugly in the near future. People need to decide where they want to be and what they are willing to fight for. If the government can impose its will and remove God given rights like the right to keep and bear arms then it can remove the right to peaceably assemble, practice religion, speak freely, petition government for redress of grievances, the freedom of the press, right against unlawful searches, and on and on.
Once one right is deemed OK to sacrifice then all others are able to get the same designation. Without the means to fight against tyranny we become slaves to government. I don’t know where I read it but someone wrote that armed societies sometimes have mass shootings but unarmed societies have mass genocide.
How true that is. Governments have murdered more people than madmen with firearms.
The Constitution places limits on government and government’s power comes from the consent of the governed.
They need to be reminded of that from time to time.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jun 10, 2012 Political
Eric Holder and the other race hustlers on the left have convinced people that requiring ID to vote is racist and disenfranchises people. This flies in the face of reality because many of the people who would allegedly be disenfranchised have ID. None of them ever cry about needing ID to get welfare or board a plane, buy liquor or tobacco products or any of the dozens of other things that an ID is needed for.
No, they happily provide ID and no one ever cries about racism or being disenfranchised.
This is all a smoke screen to protect those who should not vote but do and the reason is simple. Those folks vote for Democrats. Democrats know that requiring an ID to vote would cost them votes. This is not racism and it is not disenfranchising. It is simply ensuring the law is followed and that the one person one vote principle is followed so long as the one person is legally allowed to vote. It is quite simple and is no more an impediment to voting than requiring an ID to buy alcohol is an impediment to those who are legally allowed to drink.
You know that it is all a sham and it is easy to see. One must present an ID to get into the building where Eric Holder works.
One must present an ID to get into the Democrat Convention.
And one must provide an ID to get a book signed by Michelle Obama.
This is all an elaborate game designed to protect those among us who break the law by voting when they are not allowed to do so. The Democrats want to protect their base and they want to ensure they get as many votes as possible whether they are legal or not.
If they really think IDs are racist and that it disenfranchises people to request an ID then perhaps they would take things further by removing ID requirements all together. No more ID to buy alcohol or tobacco, no more ID to enter government buildings, no ID to enter the Democrat Convention and no ID to get on a plane.
That will never happen but Democrats will fight tooth and nail to keep states from requiring an ID to vote.
Their hypocrisy never ends.
Never surrender, never submit
Apr 3, 2012 Political
The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case against Obamacare and the initial impressions from most thinking people are that it will not stand. The impression is that the individual mandate will not pass Constitutional muster and that the entire law might be struck down. The left realizes this and has begun its attacks. They have been chastising Justices for being unwilling to read a 2700 page law to determine which parts can be saved.
This anger comes from the same people who did not read it before they voted to pass it.
There is speculation that Obama already knows how things will shake out and I think that if he does it is because Justice Kagan leaked the results of the vote to him.
He made his first public statements on the issue yesterday and he discussed how it would be unprecedented for this law to be ruled unconstitutional. He discussed how justices are unelected and he said that the bill was passed by a “strong majority” in Congress.
This is all bluster and to me indicates he knows how the vote went and he is positioning himself to run against the Republicans who challenged this and the “activist” court that threw it out.
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, period. In that document the Supreme Court is charged with making sure the actions of the Executive and Legislative branches are within the confines of it. The Court is not activist if it rules that the Constitution was violated. An activist court is one that makes its own rules or laws. One that follows the Constitution is not activist no matter how much Obama claims it is. It would be an activist Court if it went through the legislation and decided piece by piece which parts are OK. That is for Congress to do. The Court only needs to decide Constitutionality of the mandate and then decide to scrap the entire law or not. Congress should handle the aftermath.
It also matters not one bit how many members of Congress voted to pass a bill. If every single member voted to pass a bill establishing the Catholic Church as the official church of the United States it would be unconstitutional. You can bet that Obama and every other person screaming about the majority in Congress who passed Obamacare would be lining up to oppose such a ruling because it violates the First Amendment to the Constitution. Obama would not say the Court should not overturn it because it was passed by a strong majority, he would be screaming about violating the Constitution.
We have a Supreme Court to ensure that majorities of any kind do not violate the Constitution and pass laws that affect people in violation of our law. That is their function and they are tasked with that duty.
One thing is certain; the number of members of Congress who voted on something is not a criterion the Court uses to determine if an item is Constitutional.
James Clyburn (D-SC) has suggested that Obama run against the Supreme Court. As Obama pointed out, they are unelected but his public statements leave the impression he is doing just that.
Perhaps, but it will do him no good. If Obama is concerned with majorities, a large majority of Americans (larger than the majority that passed Obamacare) oppose Obamacare and those folks will not be swayed by some argument that runs contrary to the idea that the Supremes upheld the Constitution.
Liberals will generally support Obama but are fed up with high unemployment and gas prices so they might stay home on Election Day.
Blacks, of course, will support him in overwhelming numbers no matter what he does.
The important take away is that the Constitution trumps all other items and that the Supremes are tasked with ensuring that document is upheld by the other two branches of government. This is why Obama does not like the Constitution and why he feels it is an outdated document.
It is also why he ignores it.
The true activists on the Court are the liberal justices whose work involves social engineering. They do not follow the Constitution and they work to uphold liberal ideas with little regard for the Constitution.
These justices Obama does not refer to as activists.
Obama says rejection would be unprecedented but he is wrong (hyperbole anyone). I would like to say it is unprecedented that something that is so obviously unconstitutional would go down to a 5-4 ruling.
Sadly, a 5-4 ruling is the norm as liberals ignore the Constitution in favor of social engineering.
Obama is proud of them even if he does not understand the Constitution.
Maggie’s Notebook has an interesting article.
The Daily Caller has an article about Obama’s hollow threat to the Supremes…
Never surrender, never submit.
Feb 23, 2012 Political
Another poor schmuck who follows Islam appears to be the latest patsy of the FBI. Amine El Khalifi, who is in this country ILLEGALLY, had made statements in groups of Muslims that the war on terror was a war with Islam and that they needed to be prepared. An informant told this to the FBI and they set up a sting in which they provided Khalifi with an inoperable weapon and an inert bomb vest.
I imagine this guy had leanings against America but it seems to me he did not necessarily intend to act upon them until the FBI planted the idea by making him think he was working with an al-Qaeda operative. I am not sure but to me it seems this is another person who might have been entrapped.
In any event, he was arrested when he went toward the Capital to carry out “his” plan.
A few days later we learn that the government will spend $7.8 MILLION to make the Capitol building a fortress. It will be upgraded so that it can be closed down quickly and the poor little Congress Critters can be locked safely inside.
Maybe, just maybe, the patsy was selected and enticed to do this so that the money could be appropriated for this and people would not question it. After all, it is a lot easier to sell this kind of expense when there was a “credible” threat. The people might not otherwise be on board with such a move.
But why would Congress want the Capitol to be fortified? Perhaps they are concerned about citizens getting fed up with them and doing something. Big Sis has already labeled just about everyone a terrorist and that means they might just do something bad.
But Congress could not appropriate that kind of money and make those fortifications by claiming that they need to protect themselves from the citizenry. Any improvements without explanation would draw the ire of folks and lead to speculation that the place was being secured against citizens.
So a plan was needed. Enter the patsy and the FBI and bang, you have a ready made reason to spend money to secure the Capitol and the public is none the wiser.
Why should those morons be any safer than the rest of us?
Amine El Khalifi was held without bail:
Magistrate Judge John Anderson said there are no conditions under which El Khalifi should be released at this time both because of the seriousness of the charge against him and because the defendant is in the U.S. illegally. CNN
I guess we now know what an ILLEGAL has to do to get Congress and the Judiciary to act.
If he was a drunk driver who killed a family of four on their way to vacation he would be out in a few hours.
Unless the family was that of a member of Congress.
Or a Judge.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jan 28, 2012 Political
The FLEA Baggers (those affectionately called the Occupy Protesters by Democrats and their media wing) are causing ruin everywhere they go. In all the parks they occupy they bring in filth, rats, and disease (not including the STDs they are spreading). This is what happens when progressive types are left to set things up. They have some kind of organizational structure but there are very few rules in the do what you want environment so sanitation and hygiene become issues.
The FLEA Baggers have been given extraordinary access to public spaces. They have been given plenty of space and the laws have not been strictly enforced. If any other group of people had broken the laws and occupied spaces illegally they would have been removed but the laws were ignored by those charged with enforcing them.
Baltimore is a prime example. FLEA Baggers occupied an area in that city for quite some time stealing electricity and causing problems. The city finally sent the police to break up the crowd.
In DC, the FLEA Baggers have been occupying two parks in violation of the law. They are allowed to stay there but there are laws against erecting temporary structures and camping at McPherson Square and Freedom Plaza. The National Park Service will finally enforce those laws and tell the FLEA Bag crowd they must remove their tents and they are not allowed to camp there.
Ironically, they are protesting along K Street which is lobbyist road. The FLEA Bag crowd has attracted rats to their encampments but there is no indication if the rats are the vermin that lobby in DC or the four legged rodents that carry disease. My guess is the rats are the furry kind.
This will not go over well. The FLEA Bag folks have been given a pass on the laws and now they believe they have a right to break the law. The police should have been there enforcing the laws right from the start and there would be no confusion. By allowing the FLEA Baggers to stay for so long the police have given them reason to believe that the laws do not apply to them and that they are entitled to be there.
How long are people allowed to violate the law before police respond? How many times can people drive drunk or rob a bank (with police knowledge) before they are arrested? It seems that if you are a FLEA Bagger you can go for quite sometime while the police ignore you.
This will likely get ugly and the police will be perceived as the bad guys by the progressives and their media allies. The police will be cheered by those of us who think it is about time they enforced the law.
Unfortunately, if this is not peaceful the police will share the blame because they brought this on themselves by allowing the group to get away with breaking the law.
Never surrender, never submit.