“The president is going to act” on gun control, Vice President Joe Biden said this morning. “There are executive orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”
Under his watch, Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice oversaw Operation Fast and Furious, which allowed thousands of guns to enter into the bloodstream of the drug war in Mexico. Hundreds of Mexican citizens’ and at least two Americans’ deaths have been linked to those weapons.
Biden continued: “As the president said, if your actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking.”
One life? Under President Barack Obama’s watch, abortions have climbed to the point that in the United States that we abort about 3,500 per day.
Per day.
Obama has increased funding to Planned Parenthood to nearly half a billion dollars a year. He supported infanticide during his tenure in the Illinois Senate.
I bring up both Fast and Furious and Planned Parenthood to make a simple point: Whatever the president ends up doing, it is not really about saving lives.
Update: Drudge weighs in visually.
More:
Presumably implementation of executive orders can be challenged in court and can be defunded by Congress.
You are possessed of a truly enviable innocence. What has Congress defunded thus far? The House of Representatives holds “the power of the purse”; John Boehner has the power to shut the whole government down and refuse authorization for a cent unless there is a budget—but instead of exercising the power of the purse he slaps his purse ineffectually at Obama and caves to his demands.
Until Boehner acquires a vestigial testicle—it would be expecting far too much to hope that he would “grow a pair”—Congress will “defund” nothing. And defend nothing.
– it’s like telling the public, “Call 9-1-1. We have the authority to respond, but not the obligation.”
I have two first responders in my home – they go by the initials S&W. 911 calls from this residence will be after they ‘respond’. Kind of like a ‘clean-up in isle five’ request.
Nor the inclination, in most cases.
Our “public safety” organizations would lose most of their funding if citizens were armed, because they wouldn’t be needed any more.
They can neither deter crime nor stop crime in progress. All they can do is to clean up the mess afterward – ineptly, in most cases.
Property crimes largely go unpunished and uninvestigated.
Many of those who support gun control profit from the continued prevalence of a high rate of crime in the community.
Correct. The GOP seems to support the regime now, by action and by omission.
The GOP threw the election in both 2008 and 2012 by nominating the only candidate who could NOT be elected.
Actually, what the R’s control, the House, can’t act unilaterally – it requires the Reid controlled senate’s sign on, and Obama’s assent (unless the house overrides). Bicameralism and presentment, divided powers, look it up. Boehner’s hands are pretty much perpetually tied. There ends the civics lesson.
Faced with a Senate that deliberately refuses to take up legislation passed in the House, doubtlessly on Obama’s orders so only Reid gets the political fallout (or more accurately, American idiots just rail against the Congress, as if both chambers are equally at fault and Obama has not engineered our ongoing civil collapse), Boehner can’t do much except POINT OUT the malfeasance (where his message is deliberately distorted or suppressed by a biased media) with the hope that the morons that now comprise the American electorate will punish the Democrats for their obstruction and lack of good faith problem solving.
Occasionally, like at budget time, Boehner and crew can pass legislation to bring spend under control, or defund the latest Obama outrage. But, again, nothing happens to that legislation in the Senate, Reid lets it die on the order table (along with anything else that could lead to solving our fiscal crisis and help bring about genuine economic recovery), and it would have to get Obama’s signature to become law.
Realistically, the only time Boehner acquires any power is when the debt ceiling needs to be increased, and that’s why Obama and crew are trying to undermine the need for the House’s approval of the debt ceiling increase by this absurd and reckless 1T coin fatuousness.
All that said, I think Boehner has not been an effective negotiator in dealing with Obama and Reid, he constantly acts in good faith only to be lied to and manipulated by people who do not want to solve the problem. Worse, he opened his negotiation in November over the tax rate extensions by caving in, and Obama and crew just took that but did not even meet him with a concession of their own – he did not seem to get that they always bargain in bad faith – its the Chicago way. If anything, he only belatedly learned back-room negotiations with these fools is a losing game. It does look like the R conference in the House has finally learned the truth about Obama’s bad faith negotiating, and will show some cunning and spine in the coming debt ceiling talks, but only time will tell…
By the way, why do you think the Democrats (Obama and REId) refuse to pass a budget, but instead demand that we operate the federal government based on the 2009 Budget and continuing resolutions? Its because this way, Obama’s 1T stimulus is never withdrawn. That’s right, Obama lied when he said it was a one time item, he’s done everything he can to make it permanent and to build dependency off it, by perpetuating this budget through continuing resolutions (he also lied when he said it would help bring economic recovery, in reality it was a vile payoff to all the Democrat pressure groups).
Just imagine what good could have come from Obama applying his cunning and ruthlessness in the service of the country, instead of the service of the pressure groups in the D party. Worst president ever, by a country mile.
Not entirely. You are correct that the House cannot act entirely unilaterally—but what the hell is Obama spending, where is the money coming from that funds his czars and his expanded regulatory agencies? That money has to be allocated; it has to be voted on. And all revenue bills must originate in the House.
The debt ceiling is the most extreme example of this, but how are we reaching a ‘debt ceiling’ when there’s no authorized spending taking place?
Boehner should be standing up—should have been doing this long since—and saying, “Mr. President, you are spending money you do not have, and have no right to spend. The government has not authorized these expenditures. Your czars are fired. Your agencies are closed. There is no government—none—until a budget has been passed. Period.”
The Speaker used to be the most powerful man in the government; Sam Rayburn, John McCormick, Tip O’Neill were all figures that the President, who Constitutionally is Congress’ errand boy, would have to propitiate to get things done. That Boehner has refused to exercise this role, but instead has trotted obediently hither and yon with pathetic offerings to appease this most rogue of Presidents is—should be—a scandal. Boehner has inverted the balance of power and perverted the Constitution with his fecklessness.
There is a Constitutional crisis, but Boehner has been groveling to conceal it. He should, instead, be precipitating it and shut the whole thing down until the balance of power is somewhat redressed.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. My answer to what you raise is in CAPITALS below:
“Not entirely. You are correct that the House cannot act entirely unilaterally—but what the hell is Obama spending, where is the money coming from that funds his czars and his expanded regulatory agencies? That money has to be allocated; it has to be voted on. And all revenue bills must originate in the House. ”
I HEAR YOU. HE’S SPENDING MONEY PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED (“APPROPRIATED”) UNDER CONTINUING RESOLUTIONS (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_resolution) (THESE BILLS DID ORIGINATE IN THE HOUSE – THINK OF IT AS IF THEY WERE EXTENDED TO ANOTHER YEAR BY PELOSI, THEN ANOTHER, NOW ANOTHER). BOEHNER’S FORCED TO USE THESE ITEMS BECAUSE THE SENATE FLAT OUT WON’T PASS A BUDGET OF ITS OWN, AND WON’T PASS OR AMEND THE HOUSE’S BUDGET. THIS IS INTENTIONAL MALFEASANCE BY REID AND OBAMA, TO KEEP THE PUBLIC IN THE DARK ABOUT THE FISCAL PICTURE, TO KEEP FROM HAVING TO TAKE A POSITION ON THE HOUSE’S SPENDING PROPOSALS, AND TO KEEP THE PREVIOUS BUDGET’S AUTHORIZED SPENDING (INCLUDING THE SO CALLED STIMULUS) DUPLICATED IN FUTURE YEARS. REID AND OBAMA’S MALFEASANCE BORN OF CONTEMPT FOR THE US VOTER WAS REWARDED LAST NOVEMBER – PEOPLE WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER DID NOT VOTE.
“The debt ceiling is the most extreme example of this, but how are we reaching a ‘debt ceiling’ when there’s no authorized spending taking place? ”
SEE ABOVE – THE SPENDING IS AUTHORIZED, UNDER CONTINUING RESOLUTIONS. I HATE IT, BUT ITS NOT UNAUTHORIZED. THE DEBT CEILING IS THE LIMIT SET ON THE TOTAL DEBT THE US CAN HAVE ISSUED AND OUTSTANDING AT ANY TIME. SINCE OBAMA’S DEFICIT SPENDING IS SO OBESE, AND HE AND REID WON’T BUDGET (WE GET, AS ABOVE, CONTINUING RESOLUTIONS), WE BANG INTO THE DEBT CEILING (THINK OF IT LIKE THIS – THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION SETS THE CLOCK BACK, BUT EVENTUALLY TIME ($) RUNS OUT AND OBAMA NEEDS BOTH A CONTINUING RESOLUTION AND NEW DEBT AUTHORITY TO KEEP SPENDING). WHEN THE CEILING RUNS OUT, ITS THE ONE TIME THE HOUSE GOP CAN FORCE THINGS, SINCE IN THEORY OBAMA DOESN’T WANT TO HIT THE CEILING BECAUSE IT WON’T BE ABLE TO ISSUE MORE DEBT (ALTHOUGH ITS CLEAR THE GOVERNMENT HAS PLENTY OF RECEIPTS WITH WHICH TO PAY INTEREST EVEN IF IT CAN’T ISSUE MORE DEBT).
“Boehner should be standing up—should have been doing this long since—and saying, “Mr. President, you are spending money you do not have, and have no right to spend. The government has not authorized these expenditures. Your czars are fired. Your agencies are closed. There is no government—none—until a budget has been passed. Period.” – ”
OBAMA’S EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS SPENDING MONEY HE’S AUTHORIZED TO SPEND (THIS STUFF ABOUT NO BUDGET = NO AUTHORITY IS WRONG). SEE ABOVE. BOEHNER CANT ACT LIKE A JACKASS, THE PRESS IS OUT TO GET HIM AND WILL TORQUE HIS MESSAGE TO HURT HIM, OR IGNORE HIM WHEN HE’S EFFECTIVE. IT STINKS, BUT I HAVE SOME SYMPATHY FOR THE MAN. I DOUBT ANYONE COULD DO BETTER.
“The Speaker used to be the most powerful man in the government; Sam Rayburn, John McCormick, Tip O’Neill were all figures that the President, who Constitutionally is Congress’ errand boy, would have to propitiate to get things done. That Boehner has refused to exercise this role, but instead has trotted obediently hither and yon with pathetic offerings to appease this most rogue of Presidents is—should be—a scandal. Boehner has inverted the balance of power and perverted the Constitution with his fecklessness. ”
YOU’RE BEING UNFAIR TO BOEHNER – THE SPEAKERS YOU CITE ALL HAD AT LEAST THE SENATE CONTROLLED BY THEIR PARTY, IF NOT CONTROL OVER BOTH THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES (BOTH HOUSES). THEY COULD PUT LEGISLATION TO THE PRESIDENT AND FORCE HIS HAND ON IT (VETO, SIGN OR HOUSE OVERRIDE). BOEHNER HAS A LOT OF POWER IN THEORY, BUT ITS CHOKED BY REID – IF HE CAN’T GET LEGISLATION PASSED B/C REID IS REFUSING TO EVEN LET THE SENATE TAKE IT UP, HE CAN’T FORCE OBAMA TO VETO OR SIGN IT. HE SPINS HIS WHEELS YET THE PRESS BLAMES HIM FOR BEING OBSTRUCTIVE – ITS OBSCENE. WORSE, OBAMA DOES NOT CARE WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS ABOUT DIVIDED POWERS, HE ARROGATES THEM TO HIMSELF, AND LETS THE LITIGATION HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE – IT WILL KEEP THE DOJ /SG BUSY. I DOUBT THE FRAMERS EVER COULD CONCEIVE THAT A VIRTUOUS PEOPLE WOULD VOTE SUCH A SNAKE IN AS OBAMA…BUT HERE WE ARE.
“There is a Constitutional crisis, but Boehner has been groveling to conceal it. He should, instead, be precipitating it and shut the whole thing down until the balance of power is somewhat redressed. ”
I THINK THE ‘GROVELLING’ IS A FIGMENT OF YOUR IMAGINATION, THE WORST THAT CAN BE SAID IS HE’S MAYBE NOT THE BEST NEGOTIATOR AND HE’S BEEN REALLY SOLICITOUS OF NOT LETTING THE MEDIA DESTROY HIM LIKE NEWT GINGRICH. WE DID GET THE SEQUESTER SPENDING CUTS IN 2011. ITS NOT LIKE THE GOP IS IN AN IMPROVED POSITION POST ELECTION. SURE, LETS SHUT IT DOWN. I AGREE. FORCE OBAMA AND REID TO ABIDE BY THEIR OATHS, AND ACT IN GOOD FAITH FOR ONCE TO SAVE THE COUNTRY. ALSO, LET THE SEQUESTER TAKE EFFECT – WE NEED SPENDING CUTS, AND WE SHOULD TAKE WHATEVER WE HAVE. IT WILL PROBABLY MEAN A NASTY WAR IN THE FUTURE SINCE WE WON’T BE THE WORLD’S COP ANYMORE, BUT WHO SAYS WE HAVE TO JOIN IT (ALTHOUGH MAYBE THAT’S NOT IN OUR POWER)…
PDA: Rather than caps lock, you might consider blockquotes (caret, the word “blockquote”, close caret at the beginning, and caret, slash, the word “blockquote”, close caret at the end) to section things off. Easier to read.
Now, as to your response: Boehner has had one debt ceiling negotiation, which he caved on when he should have shut the government down. That gave us the fiscal cliff, when he should have shut the government down—which will give us another debt ceiling, when he will cave and not shut the government down.
On each of these occasions, Boehner should have had Reid and Obama crawling to him naked over broken glass to authorize anything at all. In two out of three he has caved; he needs to grow some backbone before the next one.
In any negotiation all you can do is say “no” until there is something worth saying “yes” to. In Boehner’s case, that means saying “no” to anything and everything Obama and Reid want until they cave, not he. That is all he can do—and he can do it. The media will crucify him, you say? How will that be different from what they are doing to him now? Has he no telephone? Does he know nobody? Is the poor widdle man all alone in his big office, with no Republican Party operatives, no donors, no publicity people, no lobbyists, no newspaper and media people that he can call on to so that he doesn’t look like a lump of potato weeping out of his many eyes as Obama advances on him with a potato masher?
If that is truly the case—if Boehner is that alone, that incompetent, that friendless—he has no business being Speaker.
let’s see, what to Tip O’Neil, Rayburn, and McCormick have in common: I’ve got, they are liberal Democrats–and anything they did was slavishly commended by the main stream press. Boehner’s main problem is that no matter what position he takes, he can’t get fair treatment by the media, except Fox and some radio guys. Congressmen have to run every two years, and if you can’t get your story out about your brave votes, you won’t be in the majority very long.
Wrong, just wrong. The Congress must appropriate all funds spent. For going on four years most of that comes from the good ol’ continuing resolutions. Continuing resolutions do not have to be passed at current spending levels, or current levels plus growth. They could be passed with limitations, i.e., no funds authorized by this may be spent for ______ (Obamacare? The ATF?) They do not havve to be passed at all.
Say the House passed one specifying 2008 spending levels. Would the Senate pass it? Obama sign it? Probably not, at least not at first. If the House stuck to its guns? Or if they passed appropriations bills, and refused to pass any continuing resolution allowing payment for items on the appropriations bills until the Senate acted on them?
They could at make it interesting, and force some responsible floor action in the Senate. Would the MSM try to crucify them? Absolutely, but the American people will only buy so much of that.
If they buy all of the Demo/MSM demonization, well, we’re wasting our time talking about it at all, aren’t we?
LOL! The “Vestigial Testicle”, I remember that band. I think they were an off shoot of the “Dead Kennedy’s” in San Francisco back in the ’80′s.
In theory, such things can be overridden by Congress. In practice, Congress is hiding under its fainting couch at the very thought of challenging the little god-king.
It’s not an issue of challenging Obama’s executive orders in court. The purpose of an executive order is to clarify a standing law in times of dire emergency. It is not and never was intended to create legislation on its own. The founders of the republic thought long and hard about what the enumerated powers of the executive would be and they intentionally made the president one of the weakest links in the tripartite system. When a president makes an executive order which creates new law it is an unconstitutional act and the first step of a dictator. We should have seen this coming with his first executive order – revocation of E.O. 13233 which calls for the disclosure of presidential records such as those regarding education, selective service registration, etc. Thanks to a legion of lawyers and an executive order, this man doesn’t even exist on paper.
It will be up to the people to challenge any executive order.
As Buzsawmonkey says, Congress, under Bohener has the authority but not the ability to take action.
Exactly. The citizens of this country were the original military force anyway. When Paul Revere rode through the land warning “The British are coming” the British were coming for their guns and ammo – thus the need to act in haste and warn the citizenry. The only thing to do when someone comes for your gun is to remember that the second amendment exists to protect us from a tyrannical executive.
“As the president said, if your actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking.”
NO! This “If it saved only one life wouldn’t it be worth it” is so tiresome. We could lower the speed limit to 20 mph nationwide. That would “save” a lot of auto deaths. What would it do to our economy? If Obama comes up with, say, a $10 per bullet “law enforcement fee” (hope I’m not giving him ideas–ooh! He could use the proceeds to buy more guns for Mexicans! Ok, I’ll stop now) that will effectively stop me and other law abiding citizens from going to the range. It won’t stop the Lanzas though.
“a $10 per bullet “law enforcement fee” … that will effectively stop me and other law abiding citizens from going to the range.”
The “well-regulated militia” clause of the 2nd Amendment does mean that the militia must be well drilled and practiced in the necessary tactics of combat. That includes shooting practice. I cannot see any such disproportionate ammo tax ever surviving Constitutional muster.
show me where in the Constitution anything about how a militia is to be set up. You clearly don’t know your history or what the founding fathers said.
All- Do NOT confuse Stan with any thoughts more complex than ‘Obama good!’ – stan says (channeling Mongo).
It is not versed in history or educated beyond public “school”.
Stan, Stan, Stan, there are other documents in the world other than the U.S. Constitution. For example, ever read the Federalist Papers? The Anti-Federalist Papers? The Bill of Rights? What the founding fathers intended is very, very well documented and I’m pretty sure that you’re not the only person in the country who can read. Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and Tenche Coxe wrote extensively about each citizen of the new republic being part of the citizen militia.
Here is just one single quote from Patrick Henry when he learned that the British planned to confiscate their weapons and artillery: “Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own 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?” (Elliott Debate, 189).
Something else to ponder, Stan. Why is it that the gun violence is extreme only in U.S. cities with strict gun control laws? Why is it that in Switzerland, a country renowned for peaceful tranquility and the highest quality of life on the planet, that each 18 year old is required by their government to possess and train on a machine gun? Every singe 18 year old in the country has a fully automatic machine gun and their gun violence rate is one of the lowest on earth.
Really? Show ME where it says the 10th Amendment may be used to control all of the citizens of the United States activities?
It works both ways, chump.
“Regulated” means “Supplied” in the context of the Second Amendment.
The socialists are counting on you confusing the term “regulated” with the term “regulations” due to the “education” they have regulated everyone with in our public schools.
Kind of how “inflammable” does not mean fireproof.
“Regular” used to signify competence. Militias were under the control of the states. The Founders were vigilant about restricting federal power.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, (NOTE COMMA) the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall NOT be infringed.
Censoring all reporting of shooting rampages would stop copy cats and save lives. If it’s sauce for the 2nd, then it’s sauce for the 1st.
If the authorities would refer to all of the shooters as a guy named Barack Obama, the media wouldn’t cover the shootings at all.
Am I right?
WALT, All due respect if we started to refer to these folks as alleged murderers and killers instead of shooters the world would be just a little bit more informed and perhaps the insane less inclined to think of becoming a ‘shooter’, which sounds pretty macho sexy to old folks like myself.
Excellent point, Mr. Lee.
Agreed on the “if it saves just one life” nonsense. It’s one of those stupid tropes like “Better to let 100 guilty men go free than convict ONE innocent man!”
If a law or a charity or other entity only saves ONE life after huge expenditures of money, time and energy, than fraud has been committed. It is better to lock up 100 actual criminals and let the one innocent man use the appeals process.
That could lead to that one innocent man being executed for a crime he didn’t commit. Or being sent to a prison where he could be beaten or raped by other inmates.
Sorry, I don’t want the criminal justice system to consider those who are accused of crimes they didn’t commit as just collateral damage in the fight against crime.
But thank you for laying it on the line. I haven’t heard a lot of other people being honest enough to admit that they don’t mind it if a few innocents have their lives ruined.
Oh grow up! No system is perfect, especially when human beings are involved. The best we can hope for is honest people in the positions of power to determine this (i.e. police, district attorneys, judges, etc). Barring corruption and outright perjory (a crime that is never prosecuted and should be), juror’s who are presented evidence are usually honestly trying to serve to the best of their abilities. The most annoying thing to me is the games the lawyers play – pleading down, hiding evidence, etc. It doesn’t serve justice.
it’s kind of like your man Obama killing innocent people who happen to be in the car, or the family of the terrorist he kills with no due process or trial [by the way, I reluctantly agree with this]. collateral damage, as they call it. unfortunately killing an innocent person of a murder is in the same catagory: it seldom now if ever happens, but you don’t let 100 murderers out on the street to prevent it.
Now we have the Egyptian media writing about how top levels the U.S. government have been infiltrated by 6 Muslim Brotherhood members, and a retired four star military admiral has just accused Obama of creating a hostage exchange situation in Benghazi in order to free the Blind Sheikh, the man who planned the first World Trade Center bombing. Yea, I’d say the terrorists have won at this point. Seems like a great time to give up our guns.
Would not surprise me to see them go after ammo. The left has been trying to do this for years, it’s at least as high on their priority list as banning standard capacity magazines.
They know damn well that it won’t stop the mass shooters or other criminals, the goal of making ammo either really expensive or hard to get is to undermine the gun culture in this country over the long term. Gun rights, like all other rights, are never more than a generation away from extinction. If they can make ammo cost $10 per bullet then they effectively make it impossible for middle class people to teach their kids to shoot. It takes thousands of rounds to become truly proficient at shooting, and if they can slowly strangle the generational transfer of knowledge that comes from hunting and other shooting sports then they know that in a couple decades they’ll have a generation or two of voting age that doesn’t know how to shoot, or understand the value of firearms. They take the long road of slowly strangling any cultural institutions that are too strong to be taken on directly immediately.
Absolutely correct. P R E P A R E. Its all getting ready to go down
That is, in fact, how the new Swiss system works.
In Switzerland since 2007, able-bodied men can keep long guns in their homes–but unloaded. The ammo must be kept in Federal armories, which will only release that ammo to the citizenry in case of national emergency.
True, but I also believe it is also legal for a Swiss citizen to keep their personal arms and ammo at home as well.
Nothing says their personal arms can’t take the same ammo as their service weapon.
Also, if I remember correctly, it used to be that when a Swiss retired from active duty they could purchase their service weapon and keep it. That’s why so many Swiss rifles ended up in private hands – and they had their ammo at home as well.
Maintaining ammo at central government controlled locations may be nothing more than a way to make sure they always have a sufficient supply of ammo at the ready.
You are correct. The Swiss government is one of the most opaque and least corrupt. This is why it feels secure in encouraging the citizenry to keep and bear arms. Only a government that fears its citizens will rise up against it tries to take its weapons away. It makes me laugh when I hear U.S. politicians talk about how we have to become more like the western European countries of the EU. They are building a Soviet-like system there, with full governmental censorship, surveillance and control. Why would anyone want to be like them?
Larry Correia refutes all of the gun controllers’ arguments once and for all.
Gun banner’s arguments have been completely refuted for quite some time now, especially now with emerging technologies like 3d printers and fab labs.
…because Mexican criminals deserve to have guns more than law-abiding Americans.
– Uncle Joe the Stalking Horse’s Ass.
BRING. IT. ON.
I look forwards to the political fallout of that executive order.
You mean … like the political fallout from universal health care?
Well, Obamacare did cost them the house in the 2010 elections. For god’s sake Republican Scott Brown got elected to Ted Kennedy’s senate seat in Massachusetts on the hope that he could stop Obamacare. Despite Obama getting re-elected the Democrats still didn’t come close to re-taking the house. By foisting Obamacare on the people they basically insured that they only had 2 years out of his 8 in which to pass any major legislation. Notice how they’ve had to try to weasel their agenda in by executive order? If not for Obamacare the TEA party never would’ve become a player, the Democrats would probably still hold the house, and Biden wouldn’t have to talk about using illegal executive orders to implement Obama’s agenda because they’d still have congress and the ability to pass legislation.
Even years later the poll numbers show a pretty consistent majority favor repeal:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
Obamacare was an ideological suicide run for a lot of house Democrats and put the brakes on the rest of Obama’s agenda big time. Don’t kid yourself, Obamacare is still wildly unpopular in the US, and actual “universal healthcare” would probably be even less popular. Obama was able to get elected again because he had a political machine that did a very good job of demonizing his opponent, and there weren’t enough people who were willing to vote single issue against him on Obamacare. Make no mistake, without Obamacare his election never even would’ve been a question and his party would still hold both houses of congress, it was a major political cost to them that squandered much of the good will they had after Bush. Americans are very different from Europeans or Australians, may of us believe that socialized healthcare is the privilege of paying for some wino, then waiting in line behind him when I need it. No thanks.
Oh, si, Drew;
We may get the scumbag in chief, and his entire parasitic clan, thrown out on their asses yet.
It’ll be expensive, but worth every damned penny to evict these carpetbaggers.
Somehow there’ll be an “emergency” and a declaration of special powers before then, just have that feeling.
I really think they should start by impeaching low hanging fruit – Eric Holder and Harry Reid. So much of what goes on requires the assistance of these two Communists.
There’s never been a civil war in a country with nuclear weapons before. That fallout may be a lot more than political. I wouldn’t be looking forward to this insanity.
I doubt we would nuke our own soil. But I could see a conentional home game being played.
Ever see the movie V for Vendetta? There is a part where a woman is watching tv and they (the Brits) are reporting on the 2nd American Civil War. The report was basically showing the military blowing the crap out of the midwest – our breadbasket.
I could see that – the government blowing up farms to starve out the rebels.
It wouldn’t necessarily have to be the government side initiating use of those nukes. The nation’s nuclear arsenal is very spread out, and for good reason, why put all your eggs in one basket? The counterpoint to this is that a collection of succeeding states that managed to draw up protracted battle lines, as happened in the civil war, would almost certainly be able to capture those weapons in its territorial control. Our weapons have PAL locks that prevent them from being set off without authorization, but those could be circumvented given time and the near certainty of having some nuclear scientists on the side of the rebels. Even if the locks couldn’t be broken, the bombs could be cut open and their nuclear material used to make some new crude bombs, it’s ridiculously easy to make a little-boy style HEU gun for instance as long as you can get the HEU, which the rebels would.
At that point you have a cold-war style standoff. The succeeding states pledge to use nukes before surrendering, and it becomes inclement on the feds (Obama) to test that. Would they risk DC, New York, etc being evaporated to keep Texas in the Union? Who knows. Then consider that since the rebels are fighting for survival and the government fighting to retake territory, they’re actually destroying their own trophy when forced to nuke in retaliation. It would be a desperate gamble on the part of the rebels, but one not without merit.
But ask yourself this: if the Confederates in the civil war had access to nukes, don’t you think they would’ve used them sooner than surrender? There’s nothing civil about civil war.
Of course they would have. They hated the north THAT much. Damnyankee is one word to them (still) for a reason.
I actually believe they were right about being able to seceed. The union was never meant to be a suicide pact. They just had piss-pore timing and their reason sucked. Had they freed all the slaves, put them on trains and shipped them north with a note saying, “you want em? you deal with em!” things might have ended differently.
But it WAS about slavery and they even put it in their constitution. So even those who had sympathy for their cause found it impossible to support them because owning another human being was so anathema to their moral code.
With all that being said, I don’t think states wanting to seceed (sp) this time will face censure from the majority of the people this time around. If anything they’ll have more moral and material support than they’ll know what to do with!
TPM – Only way to reply to lolly, sorry.
lolly – Slavery was not even mentioned until the 2nd year of the War of Northern Aggression. “Civil War” to you. The reasons for the secession of the South was way beyond a question of slavery. Please do the research before making yourself look bad.
Unless you are a Lieberal, then have at it.
R Daneel:
You are incorrect.
The Missouri Compromise could have resolved the entire question peacefully–if the South hadn’t broken the spirit of the agreement and continued to push slavery into the Western territories.
The South wasn’t just interested in preserving slavery. It was trying to extend slavery into new states. That was going way too far.
And it was NOT a “war of Northern aggression.” The South fired on Fort Sumter, just like the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.
The Japanese got what they deserved.
And so did the American South.
@ sinz54,
No comparison between a surprise attack (Pearl Harbor) and deliberately escalating a confrontation with the seceded Southern states who Lincoln KNEW would rightfully see resupply of Fort Sumter as an act of war.
Lincoln had already amassed a naval armada for purposes of waging that war, and made sure the Confederates knew it was coming specifically to Charleston.
This placed the Confederates in the position of having a fort under the command of an obviously hostile foreign nation sitting in a strategic position in one of their main international naval ports with guns that could command entry into that port – AND having that same foreign hostile nation sending a naval armada of warships to reinforce that position within that very important harbor.
This was all in addition to sending the resupply ship in as well. The only reason it went in early is because Lincoln’s naval armada was delayed.
Lincoln knew what was going to happen, he knew the South would rightfully see it as an act of war, and he took every opportunity to make sure it happened.
But let’s put it another way.
Suppose the Iranian navy (yes, it is a joke, but it’s just an analogy) decides to sail a warship armed with nuclear weapons into the harbor at NYC.
Suppose the US tells the Iranians they are not allowed to enter that harbor.
Suppose the Iranians decide to do it anyway in spite of US naval ships attempting to stop them.
Suppose the Iranians won’t allow themselves to be boarded, and are heading into the harbor at full speed regardless of orders to turn away, and are clearly intent on getting into the harbor without permission.
At what point is the US allowed to sink the Iranian ship – even if the Iranian ship has not actually fired first upon the US naval vessels?
Same thing with the Confederacy and Fort Sumter.
sinz54 – You just spout re-jiggered, re-imagined history you were taught in school. The South fired on Sumter because they were forced into the confrontation.
Scottch- sinz54 needs to bone up. Thanks for the spot on commentary.
@R Daneel – Go away. I’ve forgotten more about the civil war than you could possibly dredge up. also, my mother was born in Mississippi so I actually symopathize. It WAS about slavery. Don’t kid yourself. READ the Confederate Constitution: http://www.libs.uga.edu/hargrett/selections/confed/const.html
@Scottch – Yes – I also believe Lincoln initiated hostilities with the South to force their hand. And while the South may have fired the first shot, the first casualty was an accident inside the fort when they retired their colors. But that’s NOT what the Northern papers said. Headlines splashed across the pages that (GASP!) the South had fired on a federal installation and drawn first blood!
Before that people were of the opinion that the South could leave (and don’t let the door hit you on the way out!) and they would have been glad to see them go! No love lost there. But the in conflict at Fort Sumter the media did their part to whip up public anger and thirst for revenge. They were ready to fight and that was what Lincoln was counting on.
TPM: The Confederates did not burn and pillage Maryland and Pennsylvania when they marched through. It was the dictator Lincoln who made war on civilians.
@ Lolly,
One of the things I used to be perplexed about was why so many marched off to war, ostensibly over slavery, when they themselves didn’t and never had owned slaves. This was when I was still operating under the lessons I’d been taught in school about the war being over slavery.
I finally figured out a reasonable explanation.
In viewing the official declarations of the time, you have to also keep in mind two very important facts.
Slavery was practiced by an extremely small percentage of the Southern population, something like 10% ever owned a slave for at least a short while, and I think only about 1% owned slaves as an ongoing practice.
The small percentage that owned slaves were also the wealthiest, and were more prominently counted among the political class than their actual numbers represented as a percentage of the population.
The rest were simply farmers and such and didn’t own slaves.
The fact that the slave owning class (basically wealthy politicians) saw fit to include the issue of slavery in their declarations is not that surprising – but it doesn’t follow automatically that everyone in the South agreed with that view or even that slavery was the primary reason for seceding.
There were far more economic issues at play, and everyone in the South who farmed was made aware of those economic policies every time they took a crop to market.
Basically, the federal government was operating off of taxes being paid by the agrarian South, and the importation of farming equipment purchased from abroad was made more expensive on Southerners by import tariffs.
They were getting financially penalized from both directions.
I would liken the inclusion of slavery in those declarations of secession as comparable to certain elements of the Tea Party movement including religious or moral views into any political platforms they have access to writing.
It may make the news, and it may be an element that causes controversy, and it will certainly be an element that those specific individuals feels sums up the reasons for their political activism – but it is not necessarily a view held by all who support the Tea Party movement and do so for plenty of other valid reasons.
Well, the South didn’t really try to invade the north. There were excursions, to be sure, but most of the fighting took place on Southern soil.
It was a defensive war.
So, for the South to use nukes (if they’d had them) would mean they would be using nukes on their own soil – not gonna happen.
Since the South wasn’t really trying to invade or capture northern territory, there would be no need to use nukes as offensive weapons.
The north, on the other hand, already has a historical record of conducting complete unrestricted scorched earth warfare tactics against a civilian population.
I’m not sure there is any valid argument they would not have likewise been content to nuke the South if they could not have defeated it.
Lord Obama may be bluffing. They’ve been traing soldiers at Ft. Hood to kill Americans and soldiers are quitting. They don’t yet have the number of drones they think they need. You know he has some hidh brass Benedict Arnolds advising him about how to do the takeover. But Obama is so much smarter than anybody, Let’s goad him into coming after our guns long befoe the traitor brass are ready. Hey, Big Mouth Obana, you’re too chicken to come after our guns. Etc.
@TPM
There’s one going on in Pakistan rigt now. Think about it.
Bryan, that is an excellent juxtaposition, and I hope it gets an Instalanch.
They want so badly to hide behind the “if it only saves one life” fig leaf when all they really want is control over a helpless people.
Gun control: because left/liberals don’t like interfering in the lives and possibly safety of people who own guns.
First, when you make a law that obliges a large proportion of the country to tell the government to get stuffed, chaos ensues. So, Molon Labe, y’all. Second, anything that our totalitarian rulers would deem sane and reasonable would almost immediately go before the Supreme Court, I believe. Then perhaps we will receive the definitive Second Amendment opinion we have been needing since the 30′s. Assuming the current makeup of the court, that is. So, the sooner the better, commies. Cry havoc, and let’s sniff the dogs of war.
“sniff” the dogs of war?
Let Sniff the dogs of war bwaahahahahahaha, worth a tee shirt.
Well, it’s “let slip the dogs of war”, but I like your version.
What do you think the dogs of war will do after you let them slip?
Hang traitors and restore the constitutional republic. In other words, do our duty.
Who is stopping you? Always reading a lot of tough talk around here about overthrowing this tyrannical government but sure don’t see or hear of any body finding the backbone to to back up all this tough talk. Go figger!
Zeke, you’re a piss artist, point it somewhere else. What are you going to do?
zeke pulls out his fake “old man” talk again. Maybe zeke the gaslighting “old man” will talk tough about his old military service… in the Waffen SchutzStaffel!
Don’t put it past this asshat to find some way to fix or stuff the court. FDR did it in the 30s, and Obama’s at least as power hungry as he was. Obama’s already clearly found some way to get to Roberts before the Obamacare decision, presumably whatever leverage he had then is still good. If he really goes the route of disarmament by executive order we should assume he’s abandoned all pretense of rule by law.
Yep – I recall a year before that crap decision that Roberts was talking about retiring for either health reasons or to be with his family. And then silence. And then the crap decision. hmmmmmmmm
Seems that the States might have some leverage on the issue…. I’d like to see Texas put something on the record that prevents any potential EO from restricting the rights of Texans.
Good idea! Gun records are probably kept at the state level so if states refuse to cooperate, then it sets up a showdown in courts that I predict Obama would lose.
To hell with the courts. It’s up to Texas and the other gun-friendly states to nullify any future federal law or EO. Legislatures must enact laws barring the feds from enforcing such acts, with severe penalties for violators. Governors must be ready to order all federal agents placed under house arrest, or expelled from their states. As an additional precaution, state and county LEOs should stand ready to place military bases under total lockdown — no one in or out. (Just in case Obama tries to conscript the armed forces to carry out his mad schemes.)
The ultimate act of nullification, of course, is secession.
We conservatives are supposed to stand by the Constitution.
Well, the Supremacy Clause states that U.S. law supersedes any state laws or rulings by state courts.
If Congress passes a law that a state doesn’t like, too bad.
I’m a conservative but I stand with the Constitution and the legitimate government of the country. You want to engage in sedition or revolution, that’s your business. But I wouldn’t have any compunctions against dropping bombs on seditionists.
Yes, the Constitution IS the supreme law of the land – but the laws passed by the federal government must STILL remain within the purview of the authority vested in the federal government by the Constitution.
For instance, the federal government can’t simply write a federal speeding ticket law. They can write one that applies to federal property – but not anywhere else.
So, if the federal government wrote a law stating that all cars must travel no more than 20 mph, everywhere in the country, it would be an overreach of federal authority and the states would be correct in passing a law nullifying its enforcement within their borders.
The best the federal government could do at that point is threaten to withhold federal funding to the states that did not write up the speed laws the federal government wanted.
Same thing here, if the federal government wants to write new laws that infringe on the powers retained by the states, then the federal government is overstepping its bounds and the states are correct in counteracting that overreach.
Right now you are NOT standing with the Constitution – you are defending tyranny simply because the fed is issuing edicts.
sinz54 maybe a David Frum sock.
the timeless achilles heel of the tyrant is overreach
i welcome this happening sooner rather than later
Amen.
Right.
We need no balance of powers.
We just need a king and his ukases.
And millions of abortions more, of course.
Anyway, we need to be patient: the regime WANTS to create a little fight that it can use to further restrict our Freedom. Let us not give it to them.
We need no little fight.
We need a full counter-revolution.
“From England to the USA: “The whole world is relying on the United States Citizens”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2NSKoITLIY&feature=player_embedded
Wow! Well, that’s ONE Brit! You read the comments from the DM (Daily Mail UK) and the ba-ZILLION anti-gun articles they keep running to take our guns and you’d know most of them want us disarmed – NOW!
At best this will result in massive disobedience and noncompliance, at worst …..
Right, Expat;
I’m in close communication with my Vet Center.
1. Governments have murdered 262 million of their own citizens since 1900.*
2. The overwhelming majority of those democides were perpetrated by Socialists/Communist/Marxist governments.**
3. The first step in democide is always gun control.***
4. Barack Obama is a rigid Marxist ideologue who promised he would not take our guns before he promised he would.****
Any questions?
*1. 20th Century Democide (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM)
**2. COMMUNISM KILLS (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM)
***3. DEATH BY GUN CONTROL (http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm)
****4. FLASHBACK: Obama will NOT take away your guns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JnFyFHHNHZo)
You can’t be too cynical when trying to understand the reasons for an executive action by this president. I think Obama knows that Americans won’t comply voluntarily with a gun grab. He’s looking for a reason to create an enforcement agency with the muscle to force compliance. Bet’cha anything.
That.
And he is trying to cause a riot, a little riot that would allow him to turn the full power of the federal state against every real opposition.
But “a little riot” is not likely to be the result given the numbers and sentiments involved.
It takes a lot these days to get me to haul my rear out of my retirement chair.
This would be the ‘event’.
I’m ready!
‘HE’ realy does seem to love all those FIRSTs: First Black Pres. First Non- Native Born Pres. First Pres. forcibly removed from office…
Oh sit down and shut up, you old fool. Take your ovaltine.
“He’s looking for a reason to create an enforcement agency with the muscle to force compliance.”
You mean a civilian security force as well funded and equipped as the military?
Damn, that wording sounds familiar…
I’d love to see the Governors weigh in on this – since the Republicans in DC have been emasculated, we need them to drive this fight…
One if by sea, two if by land. It begins.
It’s “One if by land two if by sea.”
No that was for the British attempt to confiscate arms. We are completely out of phase, the signal must be reversed.
Terrorism with a “Human Face”: The History of America’s Death Squads Death Squads in Iraq and Syria. The Historical Roots of US-NATO’s Covert War on Syria By Prof Michel Chossudovsky Global Research, January 04, 2013
http://www.globalresearch.ca/terrorism-with-a-human-face-the-history-of-americas-death-squads/5317564
Why wouldn’t he? He’s done it before, either executive orders or his shadow government of czars, to bypass Congress and the Supreme Court. If he can disarm Americans then he can really unleash his reign of terror upon them.
Ho-boy! I think Feckless Won is looking for a ‘Waco’ – only on a grand scale!
I’m ready for ya Mr. Feckless Won.
Aim for the head, they wear body armor.
I dunno…this administration has spent the last 4+ years going from one (often manufactured) crisis (not to be wasted)to the next…doesn’t it seem all just a little tooooo convenient? How come confiscatory gun control laws as supported by BO weren’t examined by the media PRIOR to the 2012 ‘election?’ Weren’t any guns used to commit crimes prior to the Connecticut shooting? What about Fort Hood?
From my perch, what seemed of national priority over the last year was passing homosexual marriage, and teaching school children of every age about homosexual behavior, and “gay” contributions to benefit mankind over the centuries.
And now something about ‘taking away guns?’ But…but…we’re so tolerant and diverse and inclusive and non-judgmental and chock full of compassion…in the meantime, while Americans minds are busied over the current violation of our constitutional rights and how to fend off an ever-encroaching, ever-enlarging Government tyranny, the Chinese and Russians and Arabs are gathering strength, creating allegiances, signing agreements and gunning up…hey!…maybe they didn’t get the memo about how the world must view us as bein’ “cool.”
Of course, being “cool” doesn’t count for much if we’re all sitting in boxcars, but…no worries!…at least homosexuals can marry, and that’s what’s really important.
I haven’t seen you regularly post, but I like this one. Bestest!!
And how many lives will this action COST us, with undefended people being killed by armed criminals? THAT blood will be on Obama’s hands, not that he would mind in the least. He probably thinks, “Hey, you have to break a few eggs to make an omlette, right?”
I guess it would be different if it was HIS wife or one of HIS daughters that was killed by a criminal armed with a weapon. Actually, all he would have to do to find out what that’s like is by going home to Chicago, where the murder rate is skyrocketing, even though it has tough gun control laws.
Obama really, really, doesn’t understant what he’s doing. If it’s a civil war he wants, it’s a civil war he’s going to get. Unlike Lincoln, who tried to unite a fractured nation, this nut is trying to tear apart a united nation. I tremble when I think what’s going to happen in some states if he tries this. The only thing these laws are going to do is dramatically increase the number of gun sales all over this nation. It will have the opposite effect that he intends, and that will only cost lives in the long run.
I fear, Libertyship46, that 15.~Paules is right, and that Obama and his followers *do* want an excuse to take extra-constitutional steps to grab more power.
I must respectfully disagree with your take on Lincoln: Lincoln maneuvered the Southerners into firing on Fort Sumter so he could have his little war and destroy Southern ports’ low-tariff competition with high-tariff Northern ports. If not, “How, then, will I get my tariffs” for his big-government schemes?
Is Obama looking for an excuse to wipe out the “gun nuts” and confiscate every American’s firearms? Can’t you imagine how the media would spin things if gun owners were forced that ownership with those guns?
I’ve learned from history, and I fear it may be going to repeat its damned self anyway.
I second your views on the matter.
On the other hand, I’m thinking long and hard again about a very interesting technical point I saw made last year when secession was all the talk.
That point being, that while General Lee did sign a surrender document, he made it a point to be clear that he was only signing a surrender for the specific army he was personally leading – the Army of Northern Virginia.
He was quite careful that all understood he had no authority to surrender on behalf of the duly elected government of the Confederate States of America.
President Jefferson Davis didn’t sign a surrender document either. He was imprisoned – but never tried for any crime and never signed any surrender document on behalf of the government he led.
No member of the federal government of the Confederate States of America ever signed a surrender document.
Ever.
As such, that government could be considered a government in exile, and need only be reasserted as legitimate by the states that originally joined it.
These days, I’m not sure the rest of the country would fight too hard to keep us in. In fact, a lot of states might fight us just trying to join us and get in while the getting was good!
“As such, that government could be considered a government in exile, and need only be reasserted as legitimate by the states that originally joined it.” Ha! Go ahead. Try to “reassert” your redneck selves. Give Obama a reason to use his drones on your asses. They are working pretty well in Yemen, right now and the Texas landscape is quite similar.
Look, another eliminationist comment from a leftie in love with state violence. Why do you guys reliably celebrate the military ONLY when it is hypothetically turned against US citizens?
And herewith we have a response the encapsulates the very essence of why so many would approve of secession.
When you have idjits who would take such glee in using arms against the citizens, and those types of idjits are in positions of power, you will ultimately end up with an irreconcilable conflict wherein you have two diametrically opposed viewpoints that can’t be negotiated to a happy middle ground.
There would be blood….lots and lots of blood.
Secession, on the other hand, allows for a peaceful departure and each government can then conduct its business according to the views of its people. Time would tell soon enough which side had the right of the argument as results of the two approaches can then be compared side by side over time.
Why in hell would idjits like Papermache WANT the South to stay in the union, and why in hell would the South WANT to stay a part of a union that seeks to grind them down at every turn? Think about that Boeing plant that was going to be built in the South – up until the bamster and the unions blackmailed Boeing into changing their plans. Now extrapolate that out to millions of smaller examples of that very bias every day all over the country.
I seriously don’t want a war – I have family and children to think about. But if I am put into the position of deciding if it’s better to fight while I still can rather than willingly march into slavery to the state, well……I ain’t going quietly as I figure I will be contesting not only for my own rights, but also for my children’s rights and on into posterity.
So go ahead with your attitude Papermache…..what you claim to so desperately want ain’t gonna be something you will like when you get it.
It’s a good thing the South didn’t resist any further.
Sherman would have burned the rest of it.
It’s amazing that we still have Southerners who are nostalgic for the days when they enslaved human beings
Not nostalgic for slavery at all, I rather wish my ancestors had picked their own damn cotton.
What I am nostalgic for is the original balance of power and the original restrained and limited federal government that performed only the necessary functions the states were not able to handle that my own forefathers fought the British empire to establish.
A balance that has been completely out of kilter ever since Lincoln.
Slavery ain’t got nothin’ to do with it, or anything else for that matter, in the modern era.
@Scottch – completely agree with you regarding then ending of the Union with Lincoln – even though I firmly believe (with 20/20 hindsight, of course) that we NEEDED to be a united country with all the travails of the 20th century.
That being said, when I go to visit my relatives in Mississippi I am absolutely APPALLED at the poverty there. I firmly believe it is intentional – a way of continuing to punish the South for their “audacity” in the 19th Century.
The South is a wonderful, VIBRANT area of the country and there is no reason for it not to thrive. PLUS – I just LIKE Southern people better than a lot of folks around the country.
And while I am not a Southerner by birth, I take great offense at the rest of the country’s persistant mocking of the people of the South. Just irritates me no end to read comments by backwards idgits (like the moron above) who would, without a seconds thought, wipe out an entire geographical area of the United States without ever having met a single person from that area.
LOL….
@ lolly,
Let me know when you need a sponsor to get your immigration application to the reconstituted Confederate States of America stamped!
I’ll be happy to oblige!
@Scottch – I hope the “Reconstituted Confederate States of America,” include Virginia, because that’s where I live now and I’d rather not move (plus, it snows here!). However, it also means we’d have to blow up a few bridges to keep the rif-raf on their side of the Potomac. We’d also need to deport most of Arlington and Alexandria.
Methinks Papermache is nostaligic for the days of Yankees pocketing money from compensated emancipation in the Northern states then acting all self-righteous from behind the safety of their apartheid laws. “Free Soil for Free White Working Men.” And Daniel Webster calling the South inferior because it was full of Negroes.
Dude, the Southern nostaligia is for constitutional government. Real constitutional government, then kind we used to have when our ancestors set it up for us. “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”
Like Lincoln, Obama does want a big crisis to grab more power. Some gun owner shooting cops when they come for him would be just the ticket to can posse comitatus and send in the troops. I think far more of them would go along than people would like to think, particularly after all the indoctrination they’ve been getting these last few years. If not, I can see Obama deputizing some of the millions of gang members around the country to handle the work with predictable results.
Back to the point: Lincoln wanted tariffs and the Southern “colony” the North wanted for dirt cheap supplies for its factories. Obama could well be after land. Land is the only thing left with real value in the US. Already the super rich like Soros and Buffet are buying up farm land on the sly. What better way to put more of it up for grabs than the punitive inheritance tax combined with unarmed rural folk beyond fast police response being prey to roving gangs? It is already happening in places where criminals come and steal metals from farms and strip machinery for parts as well as home invasions. This also plays into the green dream of forcing everyone into a few big, heavily crowded cities so nature will be “Saved.” Of course all of those city sites are all in natural disaster locations…
Anyway, Obama has also been putting minerals off limits under a lot of this land as well. That will be good for China, enabling them to get some of their part of our debt back. China is already buying oil land in the US that is off limits to domestic production. I expect that will increase now that Obama is insulated from another election.
Seriously, if China is on US Federal land drilling for oil or other minerals or natural gas this should be screamed about at the highest rooftops, all over the blogosphere, talk radio, (etc) EVERYWHERE until the American people understand they have been SOLD OUT!
If that is true we don’t owe China a damned dime! We should be LEASING that land to them if true. But the PUBLIC NEEDS TO KNOW!!!!!!
It’s a bit late to re-litigate secession from 1860-1865, folks. There is no legitimate successor government to the Confederate states and all of the constituent states re-joined the federal government. Make of that what you will, that’s the history.
I continue to believe Lincoln’s own statements: that he would have “let our erring sisters go in peace” if he had seen a lawful way to do so. Even now, secession would only be viable if the states ratified an amendment to provide a secession process. I could support such an amendment, incidentally, but it doesn’t exist now.
Federalism puts a lot of stuff theoretically outside Washington’s control and we have enough Republican governors to help make that stick. That should apply to gun control laws; the federal government has some authority in this sphere but it isn’t universal by any stretch. Not under the current SCOTUS.
One can win a fight and yet still be wrong.
Regarding secession, the SCOTUS did actually rule on the legitimacy of that act. Now, if the case had been brought forward a generatio or so earlier it likely would have had a different conclusion. As it was, the Chief Justice had actually been in Lincoln’s cabinet, so the verdict was a foregone conclusion.
Yet, even in that ruling there is an interesting wrinkle. The Chief Justice noted that a state could only secede by revolution or the consent of the states.
Right there he acknowledged there WAS a path by which to secede.
Now, in the Constitution, the congress is given authority as to how a state may join the union, but the document is silent as to how the federal government would handle a state leaving the union.
Closer reading shows that Congress can allow a state to join and gets to determine the manner in which that act is carried out – which turned out to be a simple majority vote.
It’s not unreasonable that the Constitution would be silent on a state leaving the union, as that would be a state right issue and as such congress would have no role.
Please reference the relevant amendment noting that ALL powers not delegated to the federal government are retained by the states or the people respectively.
Voting to secede is simply a state exercising that specific right which was retained and over which it was recognized the federal government had no authority – at least up until Lincoln got his war.
Still, to get back to the Texas secession case, by that ruling’s logic a plausible argument can be made that a state may leave the union if it gets a simple majority vote of support from the other states.
No amendment necessary.
If push came to shove, a constitutional convention could be called by the states to address the issue.
What’s the federal government going to do then, lock up a majority of state legislatures in order to continue to hold captive a state which wants to leave?
When you look at the logic post 1865, you find the winners arguing a lot out of both sides of their mouths.
For instance, they claimed the states never legitimately left the union……yet they freely referenced the states rejoining the union – after their legislatures were disbanded and replaced by handpicked politicians of an occupying federal army and they rewrote their state constitutions according to that occupying army’s direction.
How could they rejoin if they had never left???
Still, in today’s climate, secession really could be the most peaceful resolution available. Everything else runs the risk of substantial bloodshed.
Correct me if I’m wrong (and I don’t think I am) but I believe that Texas, specifically, made it a conditional part of their joining the Union that they have the RIGHT to leave, should they choose to do so. Regardless of the feds forcing them to stay after the CW, this is still part and parcel of their entrance into the union.
As to a session? I really DO hope that this is the end results. I’m with you in regards to the other half of the country that we simply have nothing in common anymore. Just draw up the lines and I’ll move if I have to. I prefer to spend my remaining years with like-minded people instead of watching and worrying that the evil people are destroying my country before my eyes.
The only problem I see is that those that want a peaceful split (us) are the producers of the country and those that want to loot and destroy it are the takers. The takers are never going to let their slaves (us) go.
I’ve heard it both ways and have no idea.
I do know they reserved the right to split into I think 5 separate states – but they won’t do that now as a matter of pride.
Still, were secession to be considered a legitimate action, they would not have had to include that in their agreement upon entering the union as it would have been considered an accepted fact at the time – hence no need to elaborate on it.
“Lincoln maneuvered the Southerners into firing on Fort Sumter”
What a load of horse manure. Secession (and assassination attempts against Lincoln) started before he took office.
Why do so many people want to excuse the Democrats for their first attempt to destroy the Republic?
Truly secession DID start before Lincoln assumed office.
I believe the first secessionist movements were in New England states years and years before the election of 1860.
Probably Rhode Island. They always were the “cranky” state.
One thing I know we don’t need is Confederate propaganda being re-hashed.
1. Federal tariffs were the same throughout the US, even in 1860. Try reading the Constitution, that’s specifically a Federal power.
The South objected to the high tariffs, especially in its own ports.
2. Lincoln did not conspire to start the Civil war, though the South did revolt in part because of his election. Slandering President Lincoln does not help the current situation.
Where did you get your information, copies of Jefferson Davis’ speeches, or old Southern newspapers dated 1862-64 or so?
You might want to check up on the difference between slander and libel….
Other than that, you are free to continue to believe the false image of Lincoln you were spoon fed as a child.
Just don’t expect everyone to agree with you.
I don’t expect the Weather Underground to agree with me either.
What I do expect, is that they will refrain from sedition and violence.
Otherwise they’re going to jail.
Anyone can advocate secession if they choose. But if they act on it, they’re going to jail for sedition.
I’d suggest there is a difference between sedition and secession – neither one of which I believe anyone in this conversation has acted upon.
Interestingly enough, President Davis was never tried for sedition…
Maybe sinz54 thinks the fed govt will somehow pay for the enforcement of gun confiscation with a magical $1T platinum coin…
Where’s that Continental Congress when we need it?
After recovering from my admittedly knee-jerk reaction I’m betting either O’Biden has tripped over his own mouth (gay marriage trip comes to mind) or this is a well orchestrated effort between O’Biden and Feckless Won to get congress to do something they wouldn’t normally do – consider banning of all semi-automatic guns etc. You never know with these devious asshats.
Maybe that marxist idiot can hold his executive order signing ceremony on the banks of the Old North Bridge, Concorde Mass.
Like I give a damn where he signs it. All I care about is where he shoves it.
Ho Hum. An executive order?
Aren’t these the same clowns that were going to “focus like a laser” on the economy and jobs?
Look, they can’t even get their own supporters in places like California and Colorado to give up pot, but they are going to get red-state Southerners to give up guns?
Mr. “O”, sir, you may have won the election, but you have greatly diminished the office of President. A small man with small ideas.
In all fairness I suppose you could say that they’ve “focused like a laser” on the economy and jobs, between their tsunami of regulations and Obamacare they’ve been doing their absolute best to burn it to a crisp.
I’ve seen what high-power lasers do to most materials they hit, and there’s an analogy to be drawn to the smoking hole they’ve burned in the economy.
Have a feeling this wont end well……
Obama will do it by Executive Oda?
/obscure reference to Japanese history, Oda Nobunaga’s 16th century Sword Hunt.
What kind of deep and profound mental illness would a man have to be possessed with to furnish Murderous Mexican Drug Gangs with thousands of assault weapons, used to murder hundreds of people, including children, and then pretend that he didn’t know anything about it? Should such a highly disturbed and heartless killer, who belongs in a Mexican prison serving a life sentence, be allowed to have any control of guns whatsoever? I think not, at least in a sane world. But then are we living in a sane world anymore?
Sandy Hook is the slaughter the fascist killer was trying to achieve with his Operation Fast and Furious, which rightfully should be call Operation Murder and mendacity. He needed people murdered with guns he could tie to America. His problem is that although he achieved the slaughter he wanted, hundreds of dead Mexicans, including scores of children, he lost control of the narrative and had to slither back into the dark for a while when Jaime Zapata’s murder threw a monkey wench in his cold blooded scheme. Now with the bodies of the children of Sandy Hook, he thinks his dream has come true and his “strangulation by regulation” can be jammed down our throats, at least he figures so anyway. In Herr Hussein Obama we have our First American Tyrant.
marco 73—-A top-notch leader will surround himself with top-notch staff; a second-stringer will surround himself with third or less-stringers–doesn’t want to be exposed.
Well, we can certainly depend on John Roberts to do his sworn duty and uphold the Constitution.
unless, of course, Obama scowls at him.
IMHO, in recent decades, hopes that the Supremes would keep the federal government on its constitutional leash have been fanciful. If we ever get to write another constitution, thought needs to be given to what kind of institutional framework could achieve a self-regulating federal government.
There can be no such thing as “a self-regulating Federal Government”. Regulation of any thing in the whole Universe requires at least one feedback loop, meaning in practice some form of external input into that which is being regulated. In our system of a Constitutional Republic that is the voter. Specifically, in our case, an educated, well-informed, and self-reliantly responsible and honest adult voter is the minimum required for effective regulation. Apparently, this is also what we have ever less of since the late 1800′s. Need we expound further upon our more likely future?
An executive order cannot overrule the Constitution or an existing law. In addition, there are ways for Congress to invalidate an executive order. We can expect child obama to keep pushing and testing (as all children do) until he is told NO.
If the President acts in violation of his oath of office and orders actions contrary to the Constitution, someone will resist. Would you obay if Obama declared, in violation of the 13th and 14th amendmants, that people with disaproved racial characteristics should be rounded up and sold as slaves? Would anyone argue that the President had the authority to do so? He might have the power, depending on how many people decided to violate their oaths to uphold the Consitution and defend it against “all enemies, foriegn and domestic”, but that would not make it a lawfull command. Our President, or some memebers of his party, seem to think he is our soverign King. At least half the population still disagrees with that. As I said, someone will resist, and not just in the courts.
The main problem here is not obama. Our forefathers gave us Constitutional remedies to correct a mistake such as obama. The problem is that we do not have enough elected officials willing to perform their Constitutional duties.
Good point. Unfortunately, the lack of such officers is primarily caused by our failure to elect them.
Such a gross violation of his oath of office would be worthy of Articles of Impeachment.
In a way, I almost hope he tries it. I’m so freaking sick of being on tenterhooks here, wondering what’s going to happen and which tactic the gun-grabbers will try next.
The Second Amendment provides us with the right to be armed in case something threatens the security of a free state. Closer to home, it gives people an equalizer in case someone attempts to hurt them. Like hell is America going to give that up without a serious fight.
There are a lot of vets of WWII and Viet Nam who are in their reclining years and who are still skilled in weapons. They love liberty more than life.
I quote Solzhenitsyn: “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
We’re about to see just how many of you say what you mean and mean what you say.
Inspect your snivel gear and clean your weapons.
It’s almost time to dance.
They will go after registered gun owners first – and the death of the owner will be reported that police met armed resistance when serving a warrant. They (the propaganda-pushers in our media) will smear the character of the gun owner and you will start hearing stories like this all over the country.
People will resist and be killed for it and their names will be blackened by the media. Perhaps their families can get the word out that this is a lie, but how many years passed before the FBI was finally forced to pay restitution to Randy Weaver of Ruby Ridge infamy.
How many people know that the fed committed cold blooded murder at both Ruby Ridge and the Branch Dividian Compound in Waco?
I have long been a advocate against presidential executive orders that overreach in authority, to the legislative branch. This is nothing new as several presidents from both parties have exercised such abuse through executive orders. In the most recent of times, President GWB was probably the most prolific, though he did consult secretly, with party ‘leadership’ prior too or shortly after.
That said, I think this president, threatening to use presidential executive orders to regulate or do anything with the Second Amendment is constitutionally wrong and thus, it would/will not stand. However, it could be a possible strategy to maybe, force an issue or two over to the congress or supreme court to deal with outright.
Should be interesting!
I appreciate your stance on executive orders, even if you can’t resist a slap at GWB while you articulate it. But I do have a question for you:
In light of the rhetoric coming from this administration and its history of acting contrary to the will of the people (cf. Obamacare) and outside the bounds of the Constitution (cf. GM bond holders) do you still maintain that it’s just paranoid delusion when gun owners fear that we’re close to confronting the exact sort of tyranny the Second Amendment is designed to protect against? I mean, Obama hasn’t even been sworn in to his second term yet and they’re talking like this. What will they be trying in a year?
There is nothing wrong with criticizing GWB or any other President when they deserve to be criticized. Bush severely damaged the Republican party, and bears a great deal of the responsibility for obama’s being elected.
Good question!
First. I will be critical of any president and congress who, in my opinion steps outside their constitution authorities. I have consistantly done so since 1954.
As to your tyrannical government question. There is a large number of people who have developed a radical extremist self serving view that is quite simply delusional when it pertains to a tyrannical government. They have their own self serving definition of tyranical government completely contrary to the universal political defintion. They have their own self serving definition of the U.S. Constitution with regards to ‘states’ malitia’s. They ignore the fact constitutional points in these areas have long been settled constitutional and statutory law thus, USC 18 Chapter 115. They ignore the constitutional separation of powers and checks an balances that eliminates any possibility of a tyranical leader. They ignore in addition, the electorial process that in and of itself gives the people the power of what kind of government there shall be to ‘represent’ the people; all intended checks and balances included into the constution by the founders addressing specifically, the impossibility of a tyrannical government leader.
Fear, rising out of self serving delusion is a horrible thing!
Would you please learn how to spell militia? Two weeks of reading your dribble with this particular misspelling has finally taken its toll.
Ps., as King, I could say, “Off with your head”, but I’ll settle for “just give me your guns”, as King Obammy would, and let your fate rest in the hands of those who may want whatever you’ve got. It’s a Chicago thang.
“all intended checks and balances included into the constution by the founders addressing specifically, the impossibility of a tyrannical government leader.”
If it is an “impossibility” then why did the Founding Fathers include an insurance policy against just such a possibility?
Your logic is flawed as usual.
Your and so many other radical extremists constitutional interpretations are simply flawed! Thats the short anwer! Heres an idea for you and yours. Why don’t you load up some beer and a few millions rounds of ammo for all your guns and head for D.C. and get on with overthrowing this tryannical government you all espouse? Why are you and yours wasting so much time on the internet instead of going to free the oppressed people and restoring the constitution?
Afterall, you and yours have the constitution on your side — right?
@ Zeke,
“Your and so many other radical extremists constitutional interpretations are simply flawed! Thats the short anwer!”
Show me the flaw Zeke, using quotes from the Founding Fathers as to where our error is. You whine that I am wrong – then prove it using historical documentation!
On OUR side of the argument, we have plenty of documentation regarding what the Founding Fathers thought regarding “radical” interpretations of the Constitution and that ultimate insurance policy as set out in the 2nd Amendment.
Here, let me clue you in with a few examples:
“… God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty…. And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
Thomas Jefferson
—-
“Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin
—-
“If we wish to be free, if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending, if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained _ we must fight!”
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.”
Patrick Henry
—-
“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.”
Thomas Jefferson
—-
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
George Washington
—-
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves.”
William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
—-
One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796.
—-
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.
Thomas Jefferson
—-
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Thomas Jefferson
—-
“The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world not destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them … the weak will become prey to the strong.”
Thomas Paine
—-
“Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms.”
James Madison
—-
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms . . .”
Samuel Adams
—-
“When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually…I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…”
George Mason
—-
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
Noah Webster
—-
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
Tenche Coxe
—-
“They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamen Franklin
—-
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves … and include all men capable of bearing arms.”
Richard Henry Lee
—-
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms…”
Richard Henry Lee
—-
“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.”
Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts
—-
“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.”
“A free people ought not only to be armed…”
George Washington
—-
“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
“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
—
Sounds like, Zeke, that the Founding Fathers interpretation of why the people would possess arms is fundamentally different from your interpretation….
Quoting you again here:
“Heres an idea for you and yours. Why don’t you load up some beer and a few millions rounds of ammo for all your guns and head for D.C. and get on with overthrowing this tryannical government you all espouse?”
Again, read through what the Founding Fathers wrote
My impression is that the insurance policy of the people having weapons is always noted in the context of either forcing the government to abide by the constitution, or to resist an all powerful federal government that usurps the constitution and seeks to rule outside of the constitutional restraints they placed upon it.
Nowhere did I – or they – note a desire to “overthrow” the government, only to force it (if absolutely necessary) to remain within its assigned boundaries. If you have a government given over to tyranny, what other options would you suggest?
Nice try at attempting to mischaracterize though. Better luck next time…
And quoting you again:
“Why are you and yours wasting so much time on the internet instead of going to free the oppressed people and restoring the constitution?”
Seems to me that the general population is communicating a great general displeasure at measures the government is contemplating by purchasing as many guns and magazines and as much ammo as they can right now.
That’s quite a vote of no confidence.
Regarding speech in general, shutting off debate is what you leftists are want to do. On the more Libertarian/Conservative side, we feel open debate and discussion is of greater value and don’t seek to stifle it simply because we disagree with the viewpoint being given.
The internet is the great marketplace of ideas right now, and as such it’s natural that we express our views in that marketplace. If you don’t like the views being expressed, by all means feel free to run back to more liberal websites who share your views.
And quoting you one more time…
“Afterall, you and yours have the constitution on your side — right?”
Right. You finally have gotten something right. Glad to help ya out with that.
Bravo Scottch !
But the root of my question is this: do you not think it’s reasonable (or at the very least not insane) to be very worried about how our current government is ignoring the checks and balances that are supposed to reassure us?
If the government was functioning properly and constitutionally I’d agree with your analysis completely, but the problem is that it isn’t doing so. We have a President who has stated plenty of times in the past that he’s frustrated at the constraints of his power. He’s now asserting that the black and white text of the Constitution can be nullified by executive order and neither the legislature nor the courts seem inclined to shut him down and put him in his place.
For eight years I listened to people say that Clinton was going to sell North Dakota to the UN for use as a black helicoptor base and I said they were insane. For eight years after that I listened to people say Bush was going to impose martial law any day now, and I dismissed them as insane. These complaints about Obama aren’t at all insane.
Your concerns are reasonable.
Zeke, you’re not ready to rebel. Lord Obama may change your mind.
So we will impeach the satanic vessels. And the cry will be loud and long in the ears of every pol in existence. It will become a job requirement to impeach the violater of the United States constitution. And it won’t end there.
This is what they do, the wicked, they slap slap slap until you either submit or react, but our reaction is not violent it is removal. Removal of them and all their little helpers.
Our Founding Fathers risked life, limb, liberty and property to establish this Republic.
What is the personal risk to those who’s apparent aim it is to dismantle this Republic? I suggest, they perceive it to be very little at this time.
The Tea Party movement, like it or not, has answered the question of where power resides in the USA.
Clearly, to anyone paying attention, our gravest real threats exist outside of our borders.
Why then are we devoting so much effort to locking down the domestic side? If this can be justified, why not begin by locking our southern border for it’s entire length.
These questions answer themselves, leaving a new set of very difficult ones. We know that a percentage of us are willing to sell out for a free cell phone, food subsidy and support checks.
What is your price?
The secret to preventing future mass shootings has NOTHING to do with guns! The cure is in preventing young men raised by a single parent from being subjected to “excessive” violent video games or movies.
Where are the studies of the killers we know about? How much time they spent every day “killing” evil zombies, vampires or muslims? How many times the saw some of the very violent films that can be rented from the local kiosk?
These are the causes, not guns.
Don’t do that. Don’t stand up for our rights by looking to trample on someone else’s. That’s the other side’s game, not ours.
Do you know how many copies the last “Call of Duty” game sold? Almost a million copies in the first 24 hours alone. In it’s first week of release “Grand Theft Auto IV” sold around six million copies. Six million copies of what is commonly considered one of the most violent and depraved video games available. And how many mass shootings have there been since then? Five? Fifty? Even if it was a hundred that would mean that one gamer in SIXTY-THOUSAND turned into a criminal lunatic.
One in sixty-thousand doesn’t make a really good case for causation, to put it very mildly.
The problem isn’t video games or movies any more than the problem is guns. The problem is that in a nation of 320 million people there are going to be a couple of hundred really sick, really evil bastards. And sometimes those people are going to do really sick, really evil things. The idea that passing ANY law banning ANY thing will stop that is the very definition of magical thinking.
“Six million copies of what is commonly considered one of the most violent and depraved video games available.”
And keep in mind that the GTA series draws heavily from movies and TV. Go after it and the appropriate follow-up is to go after “Godfather”, “Untouchables”, “Goodfellas”, “Scarface”, etc.
And sometimes they get elected to high office.
Howdy TexEd
There are too few consistent characteristics of the rampage shooters to identify them ahead of time. They have nearly all been white men under 30. In recent years they’ve usually been fans of violent video games and probably movies. They have usually been fatherless for at least some of their youth. But that profile generates waaay too many false positives to be any use.
As much as I don’t want to set out to defend violent games or movies, I’m going to have to at least partially. I think it’s more likely that they’re symptoms rather than the cause. I’ll be completely honest. I play the occasional violent game myself, but I admit that it disturbs me to play those games in competitive mode where you’re targeting other players although I do enjoy playing cooperatively where you work with other people.
However, I think people are discounting the connection to psychoactive drugs too quickly. So many people are on them and I know that they are lifesavers for a lot of people, literally in many cases, but I also know that they can can have profound negative side effects. I know it from personal experience. I got prescribed a basic anti-depressant in low doses as a migraine preventative by one doctor and it completely destabilized my moods. I didn’t realize how badly until a barely stopped myself from screaming at a customer just for walking into the door of the store I worked for. Needless to say, my doctor took me off that medication.
Years later, when I told my neurologist about that reaction, he completely ruled out ever using any of the anti-depressant class drugs for migraine control, ever. I asked him why, and he said that if I was sensitive to one, I would likely be sensitive to others because they usually work in similar ways on the brain. I know use anti-seizure medications.
I have since had a distant relative turn out to be sensitive in a bad way to these medications, too.
So, to get back to my point, how many of our shooters had a similar issue with their medications and didn’t know it before it was too late?
I hate all those drugs. There HAS to be a better way. We went centuries without them and people seemed to do just fine, thrive even, without them. Even without all our fine “advancement,” noteworthy as they all are.
I strongly feel that we’ve made our own environment toxic. If we didn’t have the drugs would we note that a particular shade of light is giving a significant number of the population migraines? A tone of light is what triggers my mothers migrains. She can’t go into certain department stores because of it. She shops in stores that don’t have that tone of light.
How many other maladies are caused by something in our environment? Because of the pesticides we use? The preservatives? Things that worked in the past and have now been banned (for no good reason) have been resplaced with things that do what?
How many boys are on drugs because female teachers don’t know how to handle little boys. They ARE different than little girls. They seem to not know this.
Sorry, but we had mass shootings before video games were ever invented.
As the Texas Towers shooting took place in 1966 and was loooong before video games were even a concept, plus plenty of other shootings since then but before video games, there is plenty of evidence to disprove your assertion.
Not saying the availability of such games doesn’t aggravate the depraved minds amongst us, just that IMO it’s not the root cause of them going on these murderous shooting sprees.
What is common among practically every single mass shooter is the fact they were either on – or had recently stopped taking – psychiatric medications.
Again, with the Texas Towers shooting as an example, the guy had been on Ritalin I believe.
Don’t know about anyone else hereabouts, but IMHO, this is THE Moment we are and have been waiting for.
For Barry to finally, and with no doubts F–k Up and show his colors, up front and personal.
To Show All The Sychophants and Navel-Gazers that voted for HimSelf just what they voted for, and why he and his ilk will always find another “Dragon To Slay”.
Today, it’s 80 some-odd Million gunowners and their Creator-Given right, to keep and bear.
To-Morrow, who or what group or cluster of groups is ‘next up’?
What was the name of the German pastor who went on so, about no one left to get, and he and his being the last?
Well, we have a few minutes yet, & the sands of time run slow, so now is the time for inventorying and prac-tizin’. See YOU at the range……….
They are blackmailing us. There is no way Obama can apply his executive orders to 2nd Amendment.
This is not blackmail. They would not be doing this if they did not think/know they can win. Think about Roberts decision when it came to Obamacare. I’m sure he will come up with something as equally creative with the executive order and the Democrats know it.
Given the Obamacare precedent they can tax weapons and then through the tax determine regulations. Roberts will simply affirm the tax itself is not punitive, therefore it is a tax and the law is fine.
The executive order will simply prepare for a future implementation of the laws which the Dems will shove done everyone’s throats after special midnight sessions of Congress and will slow up gun sales. The idea is to throttle the gun industry so that future lawfare will not be easily fought back against.
Looking on from the distance has the benefit of seeing the trend rather than minor aspects.
The key is the outrage the lefties expressed about the TEA Party. In their minds, the very concept of disagreement with their narative was violence.
The obamabots are not a majority even of the donkeys…and they are well aware of that.
Curiously the element who declare only the Police and Military be armed….are the same elements who trust the Police and Military the least. Democrats do not volunteer for the infantry.
Biden’s remarks may be a mere testing of the waters….a trial balloon so to speak.
The agenda may be to create a crisis to invoke martial law….that’s playin’ with fire….A word of advice….there ain’t nothin’ civil about civil war.
Besides Obama’s reserves of gang bangers from the hood, with their sideways guns would potentialy futile against the lads with the John Deere hats….or the vast mass of veterans…
Urban areas would be under seige….no transport no food….fearful to advance into open country….generations removed from the land….
Biden was nominated for this because he is expendable….gun control is the political 3rd rail….
“Curiously the element who declare only the Police and Military be armed….are the same elements who trust the Police and Military the least.” It is curious; those who used to rail against “the machine”, and many who still do, are the loudest in demanding more for “the machine”.
No reasonable person wants a confrontation that resembles civil war and I don’t believe one is likely but I do like your point here.
You don’t want civil war. I don’t want civil war. I’m not so sure about the left; I fear they believe they could win one. And have you heard any outrage from the left over the “drag the NRA members behind a truck” editorial? Or about the statements calling for confiscation of arms?
Have you heard any lefties reciting the lines they used twelve years ago, when they said the premeditated murder of thousands was “the price we pay for freedom”? Or any criticism from the left to their fellows who use rhetoric about gun owners that would have gotten you banned from Little Green Footballs in 2003?
I guess the msm is correct when they demean the NRA by claiming that they are fear mongerers. The NRA said that if reelected obama would take you guns away.
Well, no one would ever accuse the msm as being dishonest and in the bag for “our first black president.”
“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
– Mao Tse Tung
“When we got organized as a country, [and] wrote a fairly radical Constitution, with a radical Bill of Rights, giving radical amounts of freedom to Americans, it was assumed that Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly …. When personal freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it.”
– Bill Clinton
“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”
– Ronald Reagan
It looks like our Strassefuhrer and his oberlieutenant are fitting in their new imperial jackboots.
Man Shoots Robbery Suspect, Protects 2-Month-Old Son Tuesday January 8, 2013
http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2013/01/08/columbus-man-fights-back-armed-robber.html
FWIW?
Obama is planning an additional drastic reduction in US nuclear arsenals by means of executive order. No Senate, no treaty. Just a bunch of lawyers at DoD and DOE deciding — without even getting judicial review — that they have a “legal right” to do so.
This is the same tactic that HHS used to force Catholic entities to dispense abortifacents, and that DHS used to justify “amnesty” for young illegals.
My guess here is that Biden just let slip something he only meant to say to members of congress. I often wondered how Obama got Roberts to agree to uphold Obamacare. The majority opinion was written against Obamacare and Roberts changed his mind at the last minute. How did this happen? Was it some kind of bribe? Was it blackmail? Threats to him or his family? Or was it perhaps a threat to do something so blatantly unconstitutional and batshit insane as to tear the country apart? If Obama went to Roberts a few days before the ruling and said “If you rule against Obamacare, I’ll dissolve congress and the supreme court and declare martial law” (for example) would Roberts have the balls to call him out and risk tens of millions dead?
Obama may be attempting a similar game here. Get congress in a closed door meeting and say “either reinstate the assault weapons ban, or I’ll order a total confiscation by the military” The hope being that congress would be so cowed by the blatant insanity as to go along for fear of a civil war. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it’s a lot easier to get to one man then to several hundred. All it would take is a handful calling him out and the game would be up. Maybe that’s what he wants, who knows.
I suspect that if he does issue an executive order it will be carefully calculated to do the maximum damage to the 2nd amendment and gun owners without being quite enough to spark a full scale insurrection. His ideal scenario is something that gets only a small number to rebel so he can use that as a further excuse to go after our rights.
I understand that there is a provision in the ObamaCare Act, that the congress passed and Obama signed that says that the government will not collect data on Americans buying guns and ammo. As Nitwit Nancy said, you have to pass it to find out what’s in it. Also you would think that Biden, having been a Senator would know that executive orders do not supersede the Constitution.
That last point assumes the rule of law.
“As the president said, if your actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking.”
Well, just WRT gun control: you not only must consider the lives saved by bad-guys who couldn’t obtain guns for evil deeds (which will actually be fairly few) vs the lives that would be saved by encouraging more citizens to be armed and able to defend themselves if attacked (which would be quite a few, given publically available numbers on crimes stopped by armed citizens).
This gets down to a belief among many liberals that doesn’t get much air time in this country, which is that they believe the life of the criminal is at least as valuable as that of the victim. Europeans are much more honest about this belief, but many in America hold it too, although they generally aren’t dumb enough to say it, or if they do the media covers for them.
These people believe that if a woman shoots and kills an attempted rapist before he rapes her, that’s worse than if he rapes her and gets away. They believe that if a homeowner kills two armed intruders then that’s worse than if the two of them had killed him and gotten away. Note how their “gun homicide” statistics also include the numbers killed in lawful self defense. They want to reduce those numbers too. To them killing someone, even in self defense, is murder and all murders are morally equivalent. Ever notice how many people are in jail in Europe who would be dead if they hadn’t killed in self defense? Remember the people who believe in this moral equivalency tend to be the same people who think that if a baby survives an abortion it should be left in the closet or thrown in the trash to die, is it really any surprise that their views on self defense are perverted as well?
For a fine recent example, see here:
http://thoughtsonliberty.com/alleged-brady-campaign-ad-stirs-controversy-about-rape-and-gun-self-defense
I believe that we are being manipulated into starting a civil war. Think about it. The misfits in Washington continue to frighten the public with their babble about gun control, causing more and more people to arm themselves. Sales of guns & ammo have skyrocketed to record-breaking levels. And pistols aren’t good enough anymore. The citizens are buying up the heavy stuff, even if they have to sell the flatscreens or take out payday loans to afford them. That’s how frightened the American public has become of our government.
And then there are the dimwitted twits in Hollywood. They love to babble about how wonderful it would be if the Government could disarm the peasants. But not them and their bodyguards, of course. And then they turn around and release bloody, gun-glorifying movies, and promote them heavily. Could it be that they are deliberately trying to influence young, not-too-bright fools who might take “DJango Unchained” to heart and try to act out on it?
It’s a diabolical notion, but I wouldn’t put any kind of skullduggery past THEM.
Is it just me, or does anybody else out there see those dark storm clouds forming on the horizon? Interesting times ahead.
Horizon? Where you living? Haven’t had a “horizon” here for about 4 years. Something appears like the Washington monument occasionally, but I think it;s only a phallic symbol.
Come on, man! “Horizon” was a metaphor. Get with the program already!
Wow, man; Too deep for me, dude.
Manipulated, yes. The rebellion begins when Lord Obama’s goons begin grabbing guns. That’s when our soldiers can legally refuse unlawful orders. That’s when we begin to restore the constitutional republic.
New sons of liberty
Shall we all stand idly by as our country erodes
watching day to day as our freedom wanes
and our precious republic fades to nothing?
Have none the courage or foresight to care or fight?
Shall we sit back in idle content
as shackles are slowly forged around our ankles?
I say not! I say that this thing that we have,
this unique experiment called freedom,
is too great a thing to perish.
We are a nation of kings;
Every man born to rule what he can.
We, America, took the sovereignty of the monarchs
and then set their crowns upon the head of every citizen.
Shall we now give that crown back?
Shall we cede the freedom paid for in the blood of our ancestors?
I say not!
I say let the battle be enjoined!
Let the forces that work against us,
against freedom and liberty,
meet us on those bloodstained fields of freedom;
For we will fight and in this fight prevail.
Let us march towards those fields now,
with honor
for the many who have fallen there before us.
Let us take this sacred duty,
the protection of the freedom of all men,
and march toward our destiny.
We are all the new sons of liberty.
James Timothy Jarrett
Warren,
Patience. Our Sacred Duty includes attempting to resolve things peaceably.
Consider the voluminous writings and speeches of the Founding Fathers, and no doubt the many more speeches and articles and sermons and editorials which were made/printed/delivered that have not survived to our day. There were years and years of talk, publication, and verbal protest, which preceded the Declaration.
Had they not done so, we would not have their wisdom to draw upon. Since that time, our world has passed from the Agrarian Age to the Industrial Age and now to the Information Age. There are new lessons being learned and debated before we proceed to the next chapter, whatever that may be.
Vigilance, yes. Undisciplined Recklessness, no. There are many who are still asleep, who if awakened would rally to the cause.
Is Biden the offspring of an anal pregnancy?
Biden should quit his job and go straight to “stand up” comedy. He’ll make a lot more money, have more fun, and “stimulate the economy” in more ways than one!
Sir, you should warn a girl before you post something like this. Thank God I had swallowed my drink before I read the first line.
Stands to reason, since he’s the butt of so many jokes and seems to like it that way.
And please eat and drink responsibly; Eating & drinking while reading todays news about your country, and what they’re doing to it can be a fatal choking hazard.
They are going to go after the fireams and ammo manufacturers and importers. Mark my words.
US manufacturers would be wise to move operations to the American South and West.
There is a reckoning coming.
Here is what most should be watching out for!
Op-ed piece on swimming pools vs. guns as the most dangerous weapon Posted by Tim Lambert on July 27, 2001
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/27/levittpoolsvsguns/
so, we let the guys, who sold thousands of assault rifles (using stimulus funds) to mass murderers and drug dealers, thereby getting hundreds/thousands of innocents killed, be the ones that decide our gun rights and needs to protect our country and our families. yeah, no halfwit stupidity involved there.
that’s like letting hannibal lecter decide the school lunch program for the nation.
Obama is too frickin dumb to have ever had an original idea of his own.
“But he was a constitutional law professor I can hear some dolt saying”. No, puke, he never was one. He just played one in the main stream media.
Every idea Obama ever had came out of the show “24″. Anybody who doesn’t believe it just has to rent the cassettes and watch.
But that’s not really what Peepers is here to yap about.
It’s about gun-phobics, like BamaBits, a new cereal from Quaker Oats for dogs and pigs like Hillary who equate a bump on the head with being under sniper fire in Iraq. Which came first? The chicken or the lies about the billing records?
But back to the north end of this south bound horse.
I believe there needs to be an intervention. His relatives and friends should take Barack to a comfortable place like Camp David where they are no leftist pukes, no communist fanatics, no Muslim terrorists and no traitors. Like Sands Point, former home of Perry Como, NY as a for instance.
There, Obama needs to go through a lengthy re-education process where he learns the values of gun ownership. He needs to arrive at a point where every morning he wakes up, and, like a Franz Kafka wind up doll, kisses the butt end of an M-1 Garand. He needs to be taught the values of honesty, of a clean rifle, of ethical behavior, of decency and truth telling; last but not least, the values in the words, “freedom and liberty”.
You see, at this point, the poor little fella with the mighty big ears lacks integrity, moral fiber and forthrightness. He uses the word fairness to steal from hard working people and give the money to lazy slackers. He loves whipping libtards up into a frenzy like Adolph’s speech drove Nazi townspeople so berserk they couldn’t distinguish the smell of freshly cut grass from the smell of freshly burned flesh.
But I stray from my point.
Every time he endangers the nation, what Barack needs is Michelle, or some boney brawny male, with a similar dark faced frown or scowl to give him a spanking. If Hitler got enough spankings growing up, maybe 6 million Jews wouldn’t haven’t been barbecued and slaughtered like Janet ordered from her Waco menu.
Unfortunately, until now, Obama is more a terrorist than law-abdiing citizen, he’s more fraud than genuine. He hates America more than he loves Muslim extremists. Loves the Koran as much as he hates the Constitution.
He worships at the alter of political correctness whereas he should search till he finds a tree tall enough to lynch political correctness by its ears.
Arguably, Obama is the worst varmint mutate that’s ever happened upon United States soil.
The best thing Americans can do now is to take a shot at righting the USS Constitution by applying the 25 amendment to this sociopath; the anointed one. President crybaby.
Enough is enough. Make war on the first amendment’s freedom of religion. Make war on the second amendment and you’re more badly directioned than Wrong Way Corrigan. You got more to worry about than the fiscal cliff.
I smell gunpower. (no, not gun powder) The fuse of dissent has been lit. Try to take away America’s guns with an executive order and the rank and file just may order you to make a quick about face. And ask you if you still smoke Marlboro.
“His relatives and friends should take Barack to a comfortable place like Camp David where they are no leftist pukes, no communist fanatics, no Muslim terrorists and no traitors.”
That’s kind of an oxymoron given that virtually all of Obama’s relatives and friends fall into the categories you described, and that any place they take or send Obama by definition now has at least one person who falls into the above categories.
Just speculating here, but maybe what Rachel meant to convey, as it were “sub rosa”, is that O’Fearsome -Irish roots and all- should be inducted into the U.S. Marine Corps, there to be subjected to the complete basic training under the most “dedicated” DI imaginable, until he “straightens up and flies right”?
“Basic training” is what he’s lacked all of his life, the substitutes he obtained from Saul Alinsky and his pervessers at Columbia and Haaarvaaard (like Derek Bell?) not really being adequate preparation for the Presidency, let alone for the scholarship and instruction of Constitutional law. No wonder he gets those things mixed up and wrong all of the time. A “reset” to bootcamp, subsequent to impeachment, might help! Alas, we shall never know.
We have to network and commuicate outside the net and cell phone. Cars, bicyclrs, boats, UPS? Drill for the day the nets are down.
You all realize, of course, that the present Congress and Administration has strayed so far from the Constitution that they have lost all legitimacy, and no person of patriotic character need obey the tyrannical dictates they have or might soon intend to impose upon us. Each must decide according to prudence and his and her own calculations of safety to what degree to comply; but just because a new law might be scribbled, if it should abridge the Bill of Rights, none is morally obliged to obey it.
In fact, no law can abridge the traditional customs of the people. A government that attempts only courts chaos, as the relatively trivial example of Prohibition demonstrated.
Now, it may be said that the chaos and demise of the American republic and its ethos is just what Obama and his ideologues intend; but the question remains, if demise must await, What is better, do dissolve passively into the socialists’ amoeba or to resist even unto dissolution? Here, oddly enough (and perhaps even with the kind of irony our present multi-culti Leftists might appreciate), those older people of this continent–the Mohawks, Shawnee, and Cherokee, for example–did ponder.
Elena Kagan:
“The settled law.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE3Kxz_ilKM
Obama will break his teeth if he decides to do something extraordinary or radical.
Fascism.
I don’t know what else you’d call it, I thought we had legislative due process of law in the country.
We had — yesteryear — numerous decades ago!
Of note:
The number of rifles like the AR-15 in private hands has probably tripled since the assault weapons ban expired. The NRA’s David Keene estimates the number now at above 3 million. Who owns these weapons?
Half are owned by veterans and cops. Writes Keene: “Nearly 90 percent of those who own an AR-15 use it for recreational target shooting; 51 percent of AR owners are members of shooting clubs and visit the range regularly; the typical AR owner is not a crazed teenage psychopath, but a 35-plus-year-old, married and has some college education.”
Hmmm…interesting.
Some 3 million AR pattern rifles in civilian hands. This doesn’t even touch the numbers of M1′s, M1A’s, M1 Carbines, FN FAL’s, G3′s, and AK pattern rifles.
Compare this number to the total US military, which in 2010 was somewhere just above 2 million total in all branches of service – and even all of them would not be issued an M16/M4.
Seems like there are more semi-automatic AR pattern rifles in civilian hands than there are select fire M16/M4 pattern rifles in the US military!
If and when the NCOs refue unlawful orders, the officers are S O L.
That’s what the Framers intended to protect against tyranny… and why Democrats want to ban ‘em (how come left/liberals feel tyranny is the solution to humanity’s problems, I don’t know).
Feinstein on her 1995 “Assault Weapons Ban”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uMMG17HhF0&feature=player_embedded
“As the president said, if your actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking.”
Gosh, Obama could “save” more than a half million lives each and every year if he used executive orders to curtail abortion.
Such irony. He doesn’t care diddly about children until they exit the womb. Until then they are masses of cells or a “fetus.” Six years later, the children are “worth” enough to nullify the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens.
This is a case of “moral inversion.”
“Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum”, or, as I put it: “Remember, always aim just below the blue helmet, no matter what color it is”.
We cannot, must not, stand for this.
If the President of the United States attempts, by some extra-constitutional trickery, to nullify one of the 10 ammendments called the Bill of Rights, we as citizens have the inescapable and absolute duty to resist by any means necessary.
If first we must, “in congress assembled”, state our grievance formally to the current, over-reaching government entities that foster this attack on the liberty we earned by the shedding of blood, then a Declaration should be made.
The Virginians were wiser than we give them credit. Only by their insistance on a Bill of Rights before they would ratify the Constitution were the 10 ever formally considered. They had the foresight to recognize that the self evident truth associated with God given rights to all men and women would, in time, be assailed and declared old fashioned by the State.
We have allowed creatures who act and think in manners totally un-American to rise to leadership of the best hope for Man on this planet. Shame on us, for that. But shame will come to them who follow the program that the Biden creature espouses.
For myself, I say, “Come and take them.”
Biden is so entertaining. According to a report in the Daily Rash, during an appearance on CBS This Morning the vice president said the Department of Homeland Security is crawling with lesbians. http://www.thedailyrash.com/biden-says-department-of-homeland-security-crawling-with-lesbians
TPM.(57) You’re right as it was written. But I always thought Obama hated Camp David and that it was pretty much clear of the trash that surrounds Barack every waking hour of his pitiable effort to transform this nation into a Kafkaesque totalitarian organism. But maybe it was the wrong term.
Roger (57) If Camp David was too subtle and missed the target through subtleness of meaning, I should have followed your line of thought and replaced the Camp with Parris Island where Obama could receive the kind of discipline and training he so sorely needs. There he would realize that his rifle is his best friend. There he would be imbued with the kinds of values that the American ideal revolves around. West Point calls it, “duty, honor, country”.
A past President of Columbia University, Dwight David, died with those words on his lips. He commanded many of the 450 thousand brave Americans, from 1941-1945, who made the ultimate sacrifice on the alter of freedom, yanking out the chains of oppression one by one, chopping off the tentacles of miscreant war mongers; tyrants from Japan to Germany.
And on cloudy days, I wonder if the beneficiaries of their sacrifices are too timid to stand up to another tyrant, this one on our home soil.
The core objective of these modern day tyrants isn’t to transform, but to foment anarchy, to enslave, to lock freedom in the dark, dank dungeons usually reserved for the earth’s cruelest scum:
Those who use words of hate and fear to stomp on, blaspheme and muddy the memories of steely brave Americans who gave up their tomorrows so we could live out our todays in freedom…those depraved souls deserve to live our their sorrowful days in hell.
What to do about leaders that lead us to hell, a sordid place where the chains chains of oppression wait to lock on?
Stand up to them.
In Congress, my call to arms is directed at Democrats and Republicans alike, at lovers of freedom. My marching orders: to spit back words that demonstrate a hate for America, our Constitution and its Bill of Rights. To spit back every filthy word right into their ugly hearts and pompous faces.
To you,I say: Respond with venom to anyone in your surrounds who’s an enabler of puke Obama. Don’t fail to grasp the truth. The killer at Sandy Hook was of the same ilk that tries to kill our way of life. Yes. That’s what I’m saying. The gun phobic crowd have basically the same DNA as the killer at Newtown. Wiry, skinny, deadly feelings of hate of liberty and destruction of freedom.
One wanted to kill six year olds. Your governmental chronies, Hollywood crowd, Saturday Night Live pukes, NBC, CBS, ABC, New York Corrupt Times libtard miscreats want to kill the hopes and dreams of 300 million Americans, most of which don’t even realize they’re in extremist Obamunist cross hairs.
The 29th ID storming Obama Beach had real machine gunned lead to impede their mission.
Today, in 2013, we have nothing that approaches real fear to make us back down an inch.
We, the people of America, are under no duty or obligation to follow patently unlawful orders. We are under a huge duty to defend this country from tyrants. To embrace the language of the Constitution. In the past, defending the country and the constitution involved utilizing steely hearts and free fire zones.
Why do you think 30 million citizens are arming themselves with weapons of a vastness of kind that’s broader than the wild west of the 1800′s? They are in the process of seizing the moment? Hitler? Tojo? Totally weak units when without thugs to do their bidding.
Like Yamamoto, Obamunists know they have woken the same sleeping giant. Quickly the United States is arming itself to the teeth.
I don’t doubt for one minute that more and more of the anointed one’s hours are lived in horrible daydreams of what’s to come. Dictators the world over age; hair grays, illness comes to those who sit and wait for their personal doomsday.
I’m telling you America. You have nothing to be afraid of.
Ah those pesky EO (Emperor’s Orders). Shouldn’t they be outlawed, since they’re technically outside the law anyway?!
just look for Commerce City, CO where police showed up 6 hr after initial call – woman alive when call made wase found dead by the time police responded. also look up Castle Rock v Gonzales (2005)- 3 girls murdered by father after repeated calls to police by mother – SCOTUS ruled police have no duty to protect individuals!